Going Over the Top in Trump-Bashing

Democratic Party fury toward President-elect Trump has led some progressives to suggest a rash scheme for invoking an archaic law to punish his deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy, warns Norman Solomon.

By Norman Solomon

Heading into the last week of the Obama administration, 35 Democrats in the House sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging her to appoint an independent Special Counsel because Donald Trump “has repeatedly engaged in actions constituting unauthorized foreign policy in violation of the Logan Act.”

President-elect Donald Trump. (Photo credit: donaldjtrump.com)

Dating back to 1799, the law has resulted in a grand total of one indictment (during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency) and no conviction. But the Logan Act remains a convenient statute to brandish against disruptors of foreign-policy orthodoxies.

The Jan. 12 letter — relying on an arcane and wobbly relic of a law — is an example of opportunism that isn’t even opportune. Worse, it’s an effort to spur Justice Department action that would establish a dangerous precedent.

When the letter charges that “in several cases Mr. Trump’s actions directly contravene and undermine official positions of the United States government,” the complaint rings hollow. In our lifetimes, countless private citizens — and quite a few members of Congress — have sought to contravene and undermine official U.S. positions. Often that has been for the better.

The members of Congress who signed the letter should know that. Many are ostensibly aligned with the kind of dissent that has been — and will be — essential to pull this country away from disastrous wars overseas. More than half of the letter’s signers — 19 of the 35 — are in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

It should be obvious that the Logan Act is antithetical to free speech and other vital liberties. The law provides for up to three years in prison for “any citizen of the United States” who — without authorization from the U.S. government — “directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government,” with intent to influence that government “in relation to disputes or controversies with the United States.”

Freedom of Speech

Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas, points out that the First and Fifth Amendments “do not look too kindly on either content-based restrictions on speech (which the Logan Act clearly is), or criminal laws that do not clearly articulate the line between lawful and unlawful conduct (which the Logan Act may well not do).”

In recent decades, the specter of the Logan Act has been used to threaten legislators who went outside an administration’s policy boundaries. In 1975, Sens. George McGovern and John Sparkman faced accusations that they’d violated the Act by going to Havana and talking with Cuban officials. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan said that Jesse Jackson’s efforts in Cuba and Nicaragua may have violated the Logan Act.

Later in the 1980s, Reagan’s National Security Council considered invoking the Logan Act to stop House Speaker Jim Wright’s involvement in negotiations between the Sandinista government and the Contra forces that the CIA made possible in Nicaragua. Twenty years later, in 2007, another House speaker — Nancy Pelosi — faced accusations that she’d run afoul of the Logan Act by going to Damascus and negotiating with Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

Now, it’s sad to see dozens of Democrats trying to throw the Logan Act at Trump when there are so many crucial matters to address — healthcare, civil rights, environmental protection, social programs and much more. While a multitude of legitimate and profound issues are at hand — with an urgent need to concentrate on blocking the GOP’s legislative agenda — the letter clamoring for a Logan Act investigation of Trump is an instance of counterproductive partisan zeal run amuck.

The idea that a U.S. citizen — whether Donald Trump, Jesse Jackson or anyone else — does not have a right to dialogue with officials of foreign governments is pernicious and undemocratic. We should assert that right, no matter who is in the Oval Office.

While some members of Congress are indignant that Trump’s actions “directly contravene and undermine official positions of the United States government,” the history of U.S. foreign policy warns against automatic deference to official U.S. positions. Citizens have often been wise when they sought to contravene and undermine the U.S. government’s positions.

Today, entrenched forces in Washington remain committed to foreign policies more in line with what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism” than the statecraft of real diplomacy. Citizens should push back against officials at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue who cite the Logan Act as an argument for conformity or use it as a tool for intimidation.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of the online activist group RootsAction.org, which has 750,000 members. He is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. [This article first appeared as an opinion article at The Hill at http://www.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/314917-democrats-need-to-stop-throwing-everything-they-can-at.]

image_pdfimage_print

38 comments for “Going Over the Top in Trump-Bashing

  1. Abe
    January 19, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    The viability of the Logan Act may involve issues such as freedom of speech and right to travel, since these constitutional issues appear not to have been litigated with respect to the Logan Act.

    Questions regarding the constitutionality of the Logan Act, its application to Members of Congress, and its current viability were recently raised in association with a 2015 letter signed by 47 U.S. Senators to Iran. The Senators suggested that negotiations about a nuclear deal between the President and the Iranian leadership would be an executive agreement that another President or Congress could abrogate.

    Despite its having been law for more than 200 years, no one has been prosecuted for violating the Logan Act.

    • Abe
      January 20, 2017 at 1:56 pm

      Like all the other “Trump bashing” political theater that has so enthralled the media this past year, the purpose of the mostly irrelevant Logan Act brouhaha is to provide a political terrain for the upcoming US Executive and Congressional assaults on a number of agreements with Russia and Iran.

      Here’s a discussion about the latest Israel Lobby-driven antics regarding the nuclear agreement with Iran:

      “With the new US president assuming his post in the White House, the controversy over the US-Iran nuke deal has taken a dramatic turn. The first episode that clearly showed this turn came in the month of November, soon after Trump’s victory, when the State Department put, responding to a clarification request from Congressman Mike Pompeo, a sworn enemy of the agreement and Trump’s pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency, that the JCPOA ‘is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document … reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. As you know the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems that culminate in political commitments.’

      “Of course Iran has a different interpretation with regard to the matter at hand. Iranian mainstream media has been arguing, ever since it became clear that the deal is not a signed agreement, that although the JCPOA is not a treaty and has been termed as a ‘political agreement’ among the parties, this does not mean that that the JCPOA is ‘legally non-binding.’ According to this mode of interpretation, the JCPOA cannot be interpreted in isolation from its UN dimension that, in effect, deepens its significance and content as a binding international agreement. It happens to be a viewpoint that the US, as the above cited clarification shows, doesn’t seem to be in agreement with. Hence, the controversy and conflicting statements from both the US and Iranian officials.

      “What has added fuel to the fire of controversy is the fact that were the US president to shred the deal, the US Congress would have nothing at its disposal to reverse the action. As a matter of fact, the US Congress has, from the beginning, opposing the ‘commitments’ made in the deal.

      “What the US Congress has at its disposal is Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA). This act, which was passed even before the negotiators had signed the JCPOA, has potentially barred the Obama administration from lifting or easing the nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. To this has been added more controversy since the extension of the sanctions act for 10 more years.

      “The Trump administration, therefore, has a ready-made scenario, courtesy of the Obama administration, to take the US-Iran relations back to the 1990s and early 2000s. Not only Trump, but the team he has chosen for running presidency has also been unequivocal in its opposition to the deal.”

      The US and Iran All Ready to Lock Horns Over the Nuke-deal
      By Salman Rafi Sheikh
      http://journal-neo.org/2017/01/20/the-us-iran-all-ready-to-lock-horns-over-the-nuke-deal/

    • Abe
      January 20, 2017 at 2:46 pm

      Trump’s purported “deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy” was a propaganda scam engineered by the Israel Lobby from the very beginning.

      Trump received the “Liberty Award” for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.

      “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent.”
      VIDEO minutes 2:15-8:06
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBwBw7R-U

      After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015.

      Trump’s purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel’s commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel’s undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.

      Israel Lobby stage management of the Trump administration continues apace.

      • Brad Benson
        January 21, 2017 at 8:02 am

        Adelson’s last minute money sealed the deal for Trump and there was an addition $100M over and above what was reported at the time of his meeting with Adelson in Vegas, roughly a month or so prior to the election.

        I’ll take peace with Russia. If Trump is allowed to defuse this unnecessary New Cold War with Russia, all else will be gravy. If he allows Israel to continue to act as a Criminal State, he will be a one term President. The PEOPLE are sick of Israel.

  2. AnthraxSleuth
    January 19, 2017 at 11:40 pm

    Hmmm, correct me if I’m wrong.
    But, these same congress cretins are ALL in violation of the Symington Amendment with their votes to supply Israel with $38 Billion dollars. We now have confirmation of Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons thanks to Dumb ass Hillary Clinton’s emails where she, as SoS, mentions Israel’s nuclear monopoly.

  3. Akech
    January 20, 2017 at 12:17 am

    Who are the faces behind the entity called ” the US Government” up till the time President-Elect is sworn in on January 20,2017? Who are the forces breathing fire on the necks of the outgoing President Obama, John Lewis, Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus pressuring them to stack the decks against Donald Trump? Why are they hiding behind these powerless groups?

    Something is very, very wrong!

  4. Joe Tedesky
    January 20, 2017 at 1:00 am

    If America is going to go after politicians who cohort with foreign entities, then let’s start with Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Global Initiative, then move on to prosecute John McCain for whatever it was he was up to in Libya, Syria and Ukraine for starters, and then let’s go after every congressperson who ever took a campaign contribution from AIPAC (Harry Truman can you hear me?). There’s more and I could go on, but hey this is a comment section and I’m only one guy. The truth is no State in this Republic gets at least half the attention that Israel gets, so what’s with that? If Trump ends up helping a down on their luck American wage earner, then who cares if he likes Vladimir Putin?

    • Roberto
      January 20, 2017 at 10:12 am

      Well sad!

    • F. G. Sanford
      January 20, 2017 at 11:32 am

      I wonder if John Lewis realizes the irony here. He’s standing shoulder to shoulder with two old white crackers -Lindsey Graham and John McCain – who are helping Bibi Netanyahu steal land from Israel’s “colored people”.

      • J'hon Doe II
        January 20, 2017 at 12:25 pm

        If not shoulder to shoulder it’s least/worst under their umbrella of protection.
        Didn’t he need some level of “approval” or ‘entitlement’ in order to mount this stand?

      • Joe Tedesky
        January 20, 2017 at 4:20 pm

        F.G. I love how you interject more though into a already complex issue. Ever since Trump beat out Hillary I have found the alliances of people to be strange, to say the least. I will expect to see Graham and McCain although both Republican to become Trump’s biggest headaches. Already Democrate Joe Manchin is sounding like a true blue Trump supporter. These next four years are going to be full of surprises I’m sure. Seriously, who would have ever thought that America’s left wing (which isn’t really left) would not want to have détente with the Russians. Our political theater is got a cast who have certainly gone off script, and all the while at the same time our director is directing a whole different play…there is no sense in blocking off the stage, because it appears that all of our actors are standing on their own marks. The only good thing is Hillary didn’t win.

        BTW, how soon do you think it will be until the impeachment proceedings will begin?

        • F. G. Sanford
          January 20, 2017 at 7:54 pm

          Well, I’m thinking that the Russians were in Afghanistan in about 1979 when the CIA and “Team B” cooked up the plan to give them “their own Vietnam” under the direction of Zbiggy Brzezinski and George H.W. Bush. They recruited Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen to do the job. Osama was known to have been seen in a Kandahar nightclub frequented by KGB operatives, one of whom must have been Vladimir Putin. That’s when the KGB “flipped” bin Laden with mind control and sent him to Yemen, right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed. There was that hotel named Al Qaida where the CIA had all the rooms bugged and the phones tapped, but they didn’t share the information with the FBI or the State Department. Osama continued as a mind-controlled double-agent, laying low until he heard the secret code programmed into his subconscious: “Your fired”. That’s when he put the 9/11 plan into action. Two of his favorite cable TV shows were Oprah and The Apprentice. The CIA knew Putin had a plan, like Richard Clarke said, “Their hair was on fire”. They just didn’t know where he would strike. Well, did you ever notice that Clarke’s hair and Trump’s hair are the same color? Soon, Mike Morrell will piece all this together, realize that Clarke and Trump collaborated with Putin, and that’s how 9/11 happened. Then, they’ll plant some email on Anthony Weiner’s laptop connecting it all to Trump.

          So…to answer your question, about six months.

          Of course you realize, this is a joke, but it’s more believable than the stories going around now. Putin retired from the KGB – as far as I know – as a Lieutenant Colonel. He was a mid-level manager at least five ranks below what it would take to run the KGB…contrary to GHW Bush, who actually did run the CIA. I thought about mentioning it under Ray McGovern’s article, but I may as well mention it here. Have you heard that latest? The 300 recently released Clinton emails had been hacked – according to the experts – by two “unfriendly” and one “friendly” government. Russia, China and Israel were named, but I can’t figure out how they decided that a “friendly” government hacks us. I wonder which one it was? Must have been China, because that’s who makes all our stuff.

          This comment is awaiting moderation – I hope you get to read it.

          • Joe Tedesky
            January 21, 2017 at 1:01 am

            I did get to read it, and as funny as this was I hope John McCain doesn’t get his hands on it, because then Comey will be busy looking to see which DA will prosecute someone with it. Honestly F.G. sometimes you give me the impression you are a comedy writer, or you are hidden away in some dark room in the basement at Langley dreaming up what’s going to happen next. Maybe I shouldn’t have said it that way, but now I’m joking…sort of. Always good to read what you present here, and please keep your comments coming. Joe

    • Joe Tedesky
      January 23, 2017 at 12:54 am
  5. Zachary Smith
    January 20, 2017 at 1:59 am

    That “Logan Act” is a fascinating and pointless law useful only for intimidation. If an actual prosecution was attempted, I’d give long odds it would be declared unconstitutional. But it was fun to google the topic for a few moments.

    Quote: “First a little note here. The Logan Act itself has never been the reason for anybody’s prosecution, in its entire 216 year history. So, there’s that. The reason of course is that it’s a political nightmare. Even when there is a clear violation, any prosecution will be immediately decried as partisan hackery, no matter how egregious the violation.”

    Richard Nixon was unprosecuted for both his treason and his violation of Logan. Ditto for Ronald Reagan and his arrangements with Iran to defeat Jimmy Carter in 1980. Ditto for the 47 Republican Senators who wrote to Iran requesting they not deal with Obama. Even Herbert Hoover was briefly threatened in February of 1941 for contacting overrun European nations about feeding starving people there.

    Considering the long list of Democrats who have also been accused of “Logan Act” violations the current bunch of idiots look mighty foolish.

  6. January 20, 2017 at 2:13 am

    Although Trump may be downright awful, the Democrats are showing themselves to be even worse. Watching this makes me glad Hillary lost.

    • Sam F
      January 21, 2017 at 10:46 am

      Yes, the Dem leaders and puppetmasters have certainly revealed that they had no good intentions, but were warmongers controlled by MIC/WallSt/zionists/KSA. Instead of diverting attention from their corruption, they have revealed that it included warmongering with Russia.

      That will be good only if they can be prevented from catching the backlash by fielding another fake liberal identity candidate, when Trump betrays his constituents. Beware Dems like Sen Warren and Rep Gabbard on a short leash from the Dem puppetmasters, speaking privately to WallSt and AIPAC, with “improved” email servers to conceal their big money sponsors.

      We need a true progressive party accepting only individual contributions.

  7. Realist
    January 20, 2017 at 4:19 am

    In which case I must ask, why has John (“We are all Georgians now!”) McCain not been in a jail cell for years already?

  8. January 20, 2017 at 4:35 am
  9. Peter Loeb
    January 20, 2017 at 7:25 am

    DEMOCRATS WILL DISINTEGRATE

    Democrats and self-proclaimed “liberal/progressives”(?) are headed
    for failure. This is not a time for “protest”or for “resistance”. Today,
    Donald J. Trump will indeed be the “legitimate” President of the
    United States, Number 45.

    Those in elective office should instead use their powers to follow
    up the arcane language of legislation and so to protect the vulnerable,
    disadvantaged, and so-called “minority” groups. They can do that
    in statements on the floor of Congress,in articles, talk shows,
    in congressional committees.

    As a minister in a southern state recently said:

    “We have known adversity before. We will not go away.”

    Among other things, I hope that everyone supports President
    Trump when he is right. NATO is indeed “obsolete”. The
    US should look to working cooperatively with the USSR in
    particular as well as with other powers small and large
    in the near and far east. Without those preconditions that
    guarantee others’ non-cooperation. An example of such
    is that Russia cease its “aggression”. It is in fact the
    US and its NATO allies which have been the aggressors.
    (Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and on and on).

    Perhaps the US, Russia, China and the non-alligned nations
    can co-sponsor a resolution in the UN Security Council
    calling for the disarming of Israel under the UN with
    random monitoring and required “benchmarks” to
    be met. Such resolutions have been met many times
    in the UN General Assembly only to be vetoed by
    the US. Such a resolution must be referred to Chapter VII
    where action can be taken as appropriate to enforce
    the resolution (embargo, sanctions etc.).

    Note that Israel has never met the conditions of its
    membership as originally granted.

    Defiance of UN decisions via terror and aggression
    should not be tolerated by the UN.

    (See: Thomas Suarez, STATE OF TERROR, 2017)

    —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • Joe Tedesky
      January 21, 2017 at 1:34 am

      Peter I hope you are right, and developments go in the direction you mention. Although, first the Democrate’s need a leadership willing to take us to the promise land. Second as much as I will agree with you, that if the U.S. Russia, and China were to throw down on Israel that would be a wonderful thing, but why is it I see Israel being the one nation who could turn Trump against Russia? Yes, I’m being a devils advocate, but I also don’t want to get my hopes up to high. I agree where Trump is right, we should support him, like we would any politician with a platform we could agree with. Let’s you and all the rest of us be patient, yet vigilant of these politicos, and if we can let’s steer them in the right direction….always good to read your comments, stay well Joe

  10. Oz
    January 20, 2017 at 10:59 am

    I miss the days when the Democrats were the liberal peaceniks instead of being the rabid right-wingers.

    • Kiza
      January 21, 2017 at 12:39 am

      Yes, not only the Democrats, it is now the House of the Representatives of Israel and the Military Industrial Complex (only).

  11. exiled off mainstreet
    January 20, 2017 at 11:32 am

    These orthodox democrats have crossed the line from “progressives” to fascists.

  12. January 20, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    L­­i­­m­­i­­t­­e­­d O­­p­­por­­t­­u­­n­­i­­t­­i­­e­­s fo­­r You­­n­­g­­s­­t­­e­­r­­s wh­­o a­­r­­e el­­d­­e­­r th­­a­­n 1­­5 ye­­a­­r­­s t­­o ea­­r­­n Ca­­s­­h 1­­5­­0­­$ p­­e­­r h­­o­­u­­r gu­­r­­a­­n­­t­­e­­e­­d­­. N­­o Fr­­a­­udu­­l­­e­­nt­­. W­­e­­b se­­c­­u­­r­­e­­d s­­it­­e­­. Pa­­i­­d t­­h­­e­­i­­r Cu­­s­­t­­o­­m­­e­­r­­s e­­v­­e­­r­­y d­­a­­y­­. F­­o­­r Mo­­r­­e d­­e­­t­­a­­i­­l­­s p­­l­­s c­­l­­i­­c­­k t­­h­­e be­­l­­o­­w l­­i­­n­­k a­­n­­d v­­i­­s­­i­­t s­­i­­t­­e n­­o­­w­­.
    ONLY ¦¦H­­E­­R­­E …………… http://www.makemoney10.comlllll

  13. Wobblie
    January 20, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Boy things are so discombobulated today.

    The Dems are certainly pushing the anti-democratic envelope here. They’ve exposed themselves as no better than Republicans. Too bad.

    https://therulingclassobserver.com/2017/01/19/the-anti-democratic-origins-of-capitalism-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-ii/

  14. Mike Lamb
    January 20, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    I don’t think candidate Trump did anything anywhere close to the interference of the Nixon campaign termed “treason” by President Lyndon Baines Johnson in a phone call to Republican Senate leader Evertt Dirksen

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbEPI_9Ju0k

    “LYNDA BIRD JOHNSON ROBB: No question about it.

    He hated the war. He hated having anybody put in harm away. But he believed that what we were doing is what we had to do for our commitments with SEATO, for many reasons. And he was carrying forth a policy that he had inherited. And he tried and got us to the peace table in 1968.

    And then, as you know, the South Vietnamese were told that they could get a better deal under Richard Nixon, and they left the peace table.

    GWEN IFILL: So much drama involving Vietnam, so much drama involving the Civil Rights Act.

    Robert Kimball, you were 24 years old…

    ROBERT KIMBALL, Former House Republican Aide: Yes.”

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/civil-rights-discussion/

    PBS reporter Gwen Ifill dismissed Lynda Byrd Johnson Robb’s remark, likely unknown to most Americans with “So much drama …,” her equivalent of the line from the movie “Star Wars” “move on, nothing to see here.”

    Then in 1980 we have the Reagan campaign / its associates telling the Iranians (the Clerics in power) to keep the hostages till after the election, which they did.

    Robert Parry at this site has done much investigative reporting on this including comments from the then President of Iran saying he was trying to get the hostages released but got overruled by the Clerics.

    We have a long long history in this country that liars win elections while truth tellers lose them.

    Please excuse the length, but I don’t want anyone to think I am 17 US Intelligence agencies essentially saying “evidence, we don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.”

  15. J'hon Doe II
    January 20, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    It’s Not About Trump, But Us…
    ::
    question; How will Trump build a wall and make Mexico pay?
    answer; emoluments

    What Is an Emolument?
    Donald Trump Has People Talking About This Part of the Constitution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWvG04OcdSc

    Trump and Emoluments

    Emolument has been in use in English since the late 15th century, and is defined as “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.” There is an additional sense of the word, now obsolete, which is “advantage, benefit.”

    The word comes from the Latin word emolumentum, which means “profit” or “gain”; the literal meaning of the word is “sum paid to have grain ground up,” as it comes from the word emolere (“to grind up”).

    The emoluments clause of the United States Constitution (Article 1, section 9) reads as follows: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

    ::

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/with-trump-victory-mexicos-worst-fears-are-realized/2016/11/09/f36a9ac0-a680-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351_story.html

  16. Bart in Virginia
    January 20, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    According to Richard Painter and Norm Eisen, the gov’t ethics guys, the first thing to happen could be lawsuits from anyone who has been hurt by any of trump’s many businesses, for example, other hotel owners. These, IIRC, will be based on the emoluments clause.

  17. Bill Bodden
    January 20, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    This bears repeating: Now, it’s sad to see dozens of Democrats trying to throw the Logan Act at Trump when there are so many crucial matters to address — healthcare, civil rights, environmental protection, social programs and much more. While a multitude of legitimate and profound issues are at hand — with an urgent need to concentrate on blocking the GOP’s legislative agenda — the letter clamoring for a Logan Act investigation of Trump is an instance of counterproductive partisan zeal run amuck.

    And John Lewis would do well to quit shooting so quickly from the lip. About the time he was involved in the civil rights movement older and wiser heads had to constrain him from being too aggressive. He followed that good advice but now seems to have forgotten it and is putting his reputation at risk. He didn’t help his image joining the Black Congressional Club in supporting Hillary Clinton who was co-president when she and Bill were so aggressive about “welfare reform” and going after “predators” that hurt many citizens who were constituents of the members of the Congressional Black Club who were supposed to represent them.

    • Joe Tedesky
      January 21, 2017 at 1:23 am

      When John Lewis endorsed Hillary over Bernie, only because I look up to Lewis, and giving Lewis the benefit of the doubt due to his possible political cajoling he may had to do in order to bring the bacon home to his congressional district, I let it go. Although seeing Lewis along with almost every other Democrate between DC and my County Assembly endorse HIllary, was a startling collection of disappointing events to watch unfold. That’s why when youthful Tulsi Gabbard quit the DNC Campaign, and she came out endorsing Bernie, I thought to myself…..self now this girl would make a terrific First Woman President. Getting back to John Lewis I’m going to give him a pass once more, mostly due to his age, and more so for his historical heroic civil rights endeavors. But yeah, sometimes things aren’t as clear as I wish they would be.

  18. Bill Bodden
    January 20, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    Perhaps, if Trump does drain the swamp he might consider getting rid of the Logan Act and the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Unfortunately, he might prefer to keep them around for use against dissenters.

  19. J'hon Doe II
    January 20, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    Land Grab +1848 War on Mexico =

    Displaced/Dispossessed persons
    Refugees in Their Own Lands
    Degraded to Illegal Alien Status.

    Equals, Make America Great. Again.

  20. January 21, 2017 at 11:47 am

    if i had known T-rump Derangement Syndrome was going to be so widespread and over-the-top, i would have voted for t-rump simply for the amusement value…
    kind of a litmus test for whether i should take a person seriously or not…
    (insert obligatory t-rump apologia here)
    *snort*

  21. January 21, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    After eight years of watching over-the-top actions of the Republican Congress, just a little over-the-top activity on the other side is understandable and probably justified as an object lesson.

  22. Joe_the_Socialist
    January 22, 2017 at 6:03 am

    ***

    There will be plenty more opportunities.

    ***

    FREE AMERICA

    DIRECT DEMOCRACY

    ***

  23. delia ruhe
    January 23, 2017 at 8:45 pm

    I guess even progressives can’t resist the urge to treat a Republican president the way Republicans treated Obama. The behaviour of Congressional Republicans vis-a-vis Obama was clownish and pathetic — and above all destructive. Such foolishness pretty much convinced the world that the prophets are right, and that American hegemony is definitely circling the drain. Another four or (heaven forefend!) eight years of such obvious congressional dysfunction will speed up the end by another 20 years.

Comments are closed.