When "Murder" Is Legal

In another example of the confluence of bad conservative policy and cowardice, on Monday the Senate voted 46-51 against invoking cloture on debating a bill which would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.  With sixty votes needed to cut off debate, the move fell nine votes short after Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania voted in favor and Republicans Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted with the majority of Democrats.

The Spirit-filled, committed Christian Donald Trump strongly backed the legislation, which appears to run afoul of Roe v. Wade, and thus is unconstitutional.

Unsurprisingly, that was no obstacle to the measure commanding support of 48 (49, if Senator McCain had returned) of 51 (52 with McCain) Repub senators. The "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act" is rationalized by the largely-unsupported notion that the fetus can feel pain before the third trimester and, as Rewire explains

Though the legislation made exceptions for cases of life endangerment, it excluded “psychological or emotional conditions.” Rape survivors who needed an abortion would be required to obtain counseling or medical treatment for related injuries at least 48 hours prior, and the care could not occur at an abortion clinic. And the bill ordered cases of rape and incest against a minor to have been documented with “a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse” or “a law enforcement agency.” The bill text was unclear about who would be responsible for reporting in those cases.

Even if those exceptions are met, a woman in any one of a number of states might in the future be unable to exercise her constitutional right because

the proposed law would require the abortion doctor to perform the procedure “only in the manner which … provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive” — meaning by avoiding the most common and safest form of later-term abortion. Lawmakers in a number of states have tried to ban that procedure, known as dilation and evacuation, but have been blocked from doing so by the courts.

Though the bill would provide for a prison term of up to five years for the doctor, it makes no mention of any penalty or punishment for the woman soliciting what sponsors proscribe as murder. Under terms of the proposal, if she solicits, or conspires, to commit a criminal offense, it is waived off, as appears to be the case in all 17 states which ban abortion roughly 20 weeks post-fertilization. (If there is an exception, please send link to mainstliberal@gmail.com). Nor is there a penalty for women who violate the federal government's prohibition of "partial-birth" abortion. (Self-induced abortions, much rarer, are a different matter.)

I'm not suggesting that there should be punishment for a woman who runs afoul of such a regulation, which in either circumstance is bad policy. However, with a few exceptions (such as William Saletan and Chris Matthews), the media ignores this stunning imbalance. In an analogous situation, a distraught woman would pay a hit man to kill her husband and, when the plot is uncovered after the murder is committed, she would be let off with a good, stern warning (or less).

 

After all the rationalizations are considered- as Saletan bravely does- there is only one reason the woman is given a pass but the doctor is prosecuted. Even many "pro-life" voters would be highly incomfortable if a would-be mother paid a penalty. If a woman is held liable for seeking and paying a murderer, the forced-birth movement withers away.  It's not hard to see, then, why she is held blameless. But it is unjustified, unjustifiable, and cowardly.



Share |

Russian And American Whine Fest

Question for a Monday morning: What does the Kremlin have in common with Nikki Haley and Donald Trump Jr.

Given that Governor Haley supported the bid of Marco Rubio for the GOP nomination for President, the answer is not obvious.  However, last June, Bloomberg recognized

Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

Not quite four weeks later, The New York Times reported a meeting held the previous month at Trump Tower among three Trump campaign officials, two Russian lobbyists, and three other individuals to pass along "dirt" on the Clinton campaign. Thousands of emails had been stolen from the DNC computer system, which now we know the Dutch intelligence service had discovered in 2015. Since last summer, we've learned also of the pioneering use of social media platforms to distort the American electoral process.





Yet, with Monday the deadline set by Congress for the Treasury Department to start imposing enhanced sanctions against Russia

“We do think this is a direct and obvious attempt timed to coincide with the elections in order to influence them,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday, according to a Reuters report. “We do not agree with this and are convinced that there will be no influence.”

Sensitive lads, they, as if publication of verifiable information rises to with light years of the espionage activity conducted by the Kremlin in the run-up to national elections in the USA in 2016.

But snowflakes abound in the Trump era.  After Hillary Clinton read from "Fire and Fury" the short excerpt "One reason why he liked to eat at McDonald's: Nobody knew he was coming and the food was safely pre-made," we got these from one of Washington's (or Manhattan's) best-known spoiled brat:

Getting to read a #fakenews book excerpt at the Grammys seems like a great consolation prize for losing the presidency. #GrammyAwards

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 29, 2018

The more Hillary goes on television the more the American people realize how awesome it is to have @realDonaldTrump in office #GrammyAwards2018

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 29, 2018

And we got this from an apparently underworked ambassador to the United Nations:

I have always loved the Grammys but to have artists read the Fire and Fury book killed it. Don’t ruin great music with trash. Some of us love music without the politics thrown in it.

— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) January 29, 2018

Steve M. notes that at the 47th Annual Country Music Awards in Nashville in 2013, Brad Paisley mocked "ObamaCare" and performed a skit ridiculing it. The Obama Administration did not respond.  On Sunday Joy Villa appeared at the 60th annual Grammy Awards in a dress "in a dress meant to make a statement. The singer wore a white wedding dress that she hand-painted with the image of a fetus surrounded by a rainbow paired with a purse that read "choose life." No Democratic politician yet has criticized that. We look forward to Nikki Haley's condemnation.

This is a very, very sensitive group we're dealing with now, whether the Kremlin or the crowd in the White House working for the president who supports the regime in Moscow.   As the investigations proceed and facts accumulate, the cries of anguish from this crowd will only increase.









Share |

Same Trump, Different Venue

During the presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump claimed on Facebook "Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays."  In one of the general election debates, he argued Saudis are "people that push gays off buildings" and "kill women and treat women horribly."

Later but merely four months into his presidency, he presented a gift worth $109.7 billion when, as The Independent reported, he “signed the largest arms deal in history with Saudi Arabia despite warnings he could be accused of being complicit in war crimes and after blaming Saudi Arabia himself for producing the terrorists behind 9/11."





While Trump was campaigning, China was "ripping us off, folks" in "the greatest theft in the history of the world."   As President, he visits Chiese President Xi Jinping and suddenly it's "I don't blame China. After all, who can blame a country for being able  to take advantage of another country to the benefit of its citizens?"





There is more going on here than always blaming America first.  When the President fired FBI Director James Comey in May, he didn't do the deed himself. Instead, he boldly gave his bodyguard a letter to deliver the bad news to Comey.

It's more comfortable doing things that way rather than in-person, man to man, man to woman, or by some direct means. That's why it was disconcerting to read that CNN's usually rational and even occasionally insightful Fareed Zakaria was surprised when

On Friday at the World Economic Forum, Trump gave a good speech that was forthright, intelligent and conciliatory, embracing the world rather than condemning it. The address was extremely well received here at the World Economic Forum by both American business leaders and even non-American attendees, who are overwhelmingly skeptical of Trump overall.

By most accounts, the speech was not quite the huge hit Zakaria believed it was. Still, his point is valid: the President of the United States of America (formerly the leader of the free world) was positively civilized. He did not drool at the mouth, suggest racist motives, or slur his words. He was at his best.





But that's not surprising. Zakaria argues "if the speech represents a new approach for the president, it will be a huge step forward." Yet, it is not a new approach. It is the same old Trump, dressed up and cooled off in front of an audience which did not want to see Twitter Trump.

Twitter is the perfect stage for Donald Trump. It allows him to spout off at all his enemies, real and imagined, while not directly facing them. At Davos, he merely had to be Salesman Trump, asking the world to join him in entering the age of utopia he is ushering in as alpha president.

Back in Washington, D.C. in the land he hates, Trump will not be a different Trump. He will be the same Trump, lobbing insults and invective every which way as the mood, and his interests, suit him. It's easy to do when you're communicating at long distance, your spine is jello, and your leadership is no leadership at all.

Share |

No Red Line There

Mark Warner, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, means well.  He has tweeted "any attempt to remove the Special Counsel, pardon key witnesses, or otherwise interfere in the investigation, would be a gross abuse of power" and "all members of Congress, from both parties, have a responsibility to our Constitution and to our country to make that clear immediately."

Nonetheless, the Virginia senator also tweeted "I've said it before, and I am saying it again: firing the Special Counsel is a red line that the President cannot cross." 

Saying it repeatedly, unfortunately, won't make it magically happen, though perhaps Warner meant that this President cannot cross a red line with Mueller any more than the previous one did with Syria, which meant nothing, notwithstanding helping defeat Hillary Clinton.

As Natasha Bertrand has noted, "Trump asked Comey for loyalty; asked him to drop the Flynn probe; fired Comey; pressured Sessions not to recuse; pressured Sessions to fire McCabe; pressured Coats, Rogers, Pompeo & multiple congresmen to say he wasn't under FBI investigation; and tried to fire Mueller."(He also fired Sally Yates.)

Trump calls the investigation a "witch hunt" and has such members of Congress  as Senators Cornyn and Johnson criticizing the FBI and Representative Trey Gowdy undermining the FBI. Devin Nunes has beeen such a toady for Dear Leader that if he isn't being paid a salary as a member of the President's communications team, he should sue. (Meanwhile, Martin Luther King's birthday came and went without a hint of criticism from them over FBI surveillance of the Reverend Dr.; can't imagine why.)






But the best evidence that firing Mueller is no "red line" that cannot be crossed ironically comes from the Senator who at one time seemed exorcised by the possibility. The Daily Beast's Betsy Woodruff reports

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican in his first term, made headlines over the summer when he signed on to legislation with Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) that would have shielded Mueller from being fired. But Tillis has largely abandoned the push to move that legislation forward while conceding that the bill doesn’t have the support to get through Congress. His office says he still supports the bill, but that the matter isn’t urgent since Trump says he doesn’t plan to fire Mueller....

On Thursday night, The New York Times reported that Trump tried to fire the special counsel last summer. (Tillis spokesperson Daniel) Keylin told The Daily Beast that despite the revelation, Tillis continues to trust that the president isn’t planning to fire Mueller, who is leading an investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election.

The Senator is blowing smoke up our posterior or, as the commercial puts it, our kiester (Wisconsin).  Woodruff further explains

the dialing back of the Senator's support is significant. Unlike Graham, who veers between bashing Trump and golfing with him, and Coons and Booker—both Democrats—Tillis could bring the legislation to shield Mueller serious bipartisan bona fides. When he introduced his bill, Tillis similarly didn’t believe that a firing of Mueller was near, but he pitched the legislation as a precautionary measure.

“I don’t have any evidence to suggest the White House had any intention of doing it [firing Mueller], but it’s a helpful way for us to take it off the table,” he explained.

Now the proposal has been all but taken off the table- not because firing Mueller is a longshot but because it would put congressional Republicans into a bind.  They would have to choose between giving to Trump a pass on an act which would instantly incite massive demonstrations nationally or angering the President's base, much of which is unyielding. Republicans who would vote in favor of Tillis-Coons also would be subject to Trump's angry and derisive tweets, and Republicans don't like to get their feelings hurt.

And then there is the matter of taxes for the wealthy, which Sarah Ellison described in August as it pertained to Paul Ryan, who had condemned Donald Trump for his 7/15 charge that Mexico was sending "their rapists" to the USA; allegation that Judge Curiel was biased because his descendants were from Mexico;  travel ban; and comments on the Access Hollywood tape. Nevertheless the House Speaker has made a

bargain (which) is clear—it’s the one spelled out by Grover Norquist back in 2012, when Norquist defended the choice of Mitt Romney by saying he’d also have endorsed a monkey, a plate of lasagna, or a potted plant. All Norquist wanted was “a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen” to sign legislation. Ryan wants to gut the safety net for the poor and cut taxes for the wealthy, and believes that with Trump he can do that. He said recently that he had dreamed of cutting Medicaid since his keg-drinking days. Having Trump’s digits on the Resolute Desk—whatever the existential risk to the principles of the country as a whole—is a small price to pay.

Of legislation protecting Robert Mueller, Maine Republican senator Susan Collins in December remarked "I haven't seen the need for that because I really don't think the President is going to fire Mr. Mueller.  But certainly the introduction of the bill sends a strong signal." It certainly did. And its virtual withdrawal has sent an even stronger one.




Share |

Next, Ask Him What Communion Is

Among the many far-right, fact-averse Republicans in the United States House of Representatives is one from a district in the Florida Panhandle. You cannot feel sorry for Matt Gaetz when, pummeled Wednesday evening by Chris Cuomo, he stated

That’s why it’s so important that the current Uranium One investigation is happening at the Little Rock field office and not at the head shed in Washington, D.C.

But like the notion that a secret society is just an off the cuff comment is laughable. I can’t even believe you would make that with a straight face. A secret society is a group of people that get together in secret to plan.

It took less than 24 hours for Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson to start to walk that one back. Still,  Charlie Pierce early Friday would announce "Good morning. The meeting of the Secret society scheduled for 11 am has been moved to 1 pm for astrological reasons."

The Secret Society stuff is too good to overlook. But so is the Immaculate Conception (or the concept of the Immaculate Conception), and another reason to put Matt Gaetz near the top of the list of value-free Republicans. And so it was that this exchange took place:

CUOMO: The president, who is not shy, never said anything about it.

One other thing and then I’ve got to let you go. You say that this is the biggest coincidence since the Immaculate Conception. What are you talking about?

GAETZ: Well, look, the notion — and, again, this will really be illuminated by the memo. But the notion that this five months, not any five months, but this particular five months is where the black hole is, I mean that is one hell of a coincidence because it’s precisely the time that someone would be hatching a conspiracy, meeting with their secret society, building out their insurance policy to deprive the American people —

CUOMO: Now, you have the meeting of the secret society, you don’t even know that one exists, but what do you mean by the Immaculate Conception?-

(CROSSTALK)

GAETZ: No, that was Lisa Page’s text. She said — she said that we need to be able to get together and have our secret society meeting.

CUOMO: What do you mean by the Immaculate Conception?

GAETZ: That was the substance — look, I was making a point that this is an absurd coincidence.

CUOMO: By what? Like what do you think happened with the Immaculate Conception?

GAETZ: The Immaculate Conception, it’s obviously a religious doctrine that deals with the Christian faith.

CUOMO: I know. But I’m saying like, where is the analogy? That’s what I don’t understand. What do you think happened with the Immaculate Conception?

GAETZ: Look, did you really bring me on to discuss my religious views, Chris? I mean, I’m a Christian. I believe that (INAUDIBLE) Jesus was born.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I’m saying you made the analogy, and I don’t understand. The Immaculate Conception is not how Jesus was born.

GAETZ: It was the conception. That’s the nature of the —

CUOMO: No, it wasn’t. It was Mary’s conception. It was the mother’s conception without original sin. It was not the conception of Jesus.

Facts matter, Congressman. If you’re going to make an analogy, at least know what you’re talking about because you’ve got to have a basis for these things. You only know what you show. You’ve got to release that memo. It’s got to have the facts and you better figure out what this secret society is before you say there’s a shadow organization within the FBI.





If your answer to any question about the Immaculate Conception is that it "deals with the Christian faith," you should know you're on thin ice.  You also acknowledge what you don't know, because the theory deals with a theory of one branch (albeit the largest) of Christianity.  Matt Gaetz,  reportedly a Baptist, is not a Roman Catholic.

One website, run by "dedicated and trained theologians" under a CEO with a Master's degree in Christian Theology from a Protestant seminary, is less objective than accurate. Concluding "the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is neither biblical nor necessary," it explains

Many people mistakenly believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ conception was most assuredly immaculate—that is, without the stain of sin—but the Immaculate Conception does not refer to Jesus at all. The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to Mary, Jesus’ mother. The official statement of the doctrine reads, “The blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin” (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 1854). Essentially, the Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature and was, in fact, sinless.

Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary on December 8. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, December 9 is the date of the Feast of the Conception by St. Anne of the Most Holy Theotokos. (Anne is Mary’s mother, according to tradition.) The Eastern Church does not hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, although they do consider Mary “all-holy,” that is, she never committed a sin.

The Immaculate Conception is not a virgin birth. Catholics believe Mary was conceived the normal way, but God made her immune from imputed or inherited sin. For as long as she’s been in existence, Mary has been free of sin. This allowed her to be the “second Eve” to give birth to the “second Adam” (see 1 Corinthians 15:45). Overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), Mary was a pure and holy “ark,” fit to carry the Son of God. As the ark of the Lord in Moses’ day carried the elements of the Old Covenant within it, so Mary carried the Author of the New Covenant within her...

Matt Gaetz performed quite a feat when interviewed by Chris Cuomo, as he was exposed as shooting off his mouth ignorantly on both politics and religions.  He showed little if any embarassment, however, because it was all in a day's work for a congressional Republican.


.
Share |

Obvious Strategy

Teacher and Oakland, California resident Shannon Carey tweets

Some of my students are carrying around their documents "just in case" they get detained by ICE.

Their parents are making contingency plans for child care and finances in case of detainment.

I am not overreacting when I say the parallels to 1937 Germany are stunning.

— Shannon Carey (@scmaestra) January 24, 2018

We go to the Holocaust Encyclopedia of the Holocaust Memorial Museum to learn that on July 15, 1937

The Inspectorate of Concentration Camps opens the Buchenwald concentration camp near the city of Weimar, Germany. Camp authorities will murder at least 56,000 prisoners in the Buchenwald camp system, some 11,000 of them Jews.

In December, SS chief Heinrich Himmler issued a decree which

authorizes the German Criminal Police to round up persons suspected of engaging in asocial or criminal behavior without evidence of a specific criminal act, to hold them for an indefinite period of time, and to incarcerate them in concentration camps.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions isn't that bad. Neither "Dreamers" nor illegal immigrants (yes, there are immigrants whose status is illegal)- who have committed a civil violation- will be placed into a concentration camp.

Still,  President Trump will not come before the general electorate for 3-4 years, and so the situation in Nazi Germany three years earlier in 1934 may be a little more relevant. At that time

The German government bans Jews from membership in the German Labor Front. Because membership in the German Labor Front is mandatory for wage laborers and salaried employees, this decree effectively deprives Jews of the opportunity to find positions in the private sector and denies to those already employed the benefits available to non-Jews.

Though megalomanical, bigoted, and authoritarian, Donald Trump is not quite a Nazi and that, combined with ineptness, civil institutions, interest groups, and the good intentions of others, will prevent the USA government from suffering the same fate as the Weimar Republic.

Nonetheless, it should be greatly disconcerting to most normal people that some individual (in Carey's example, students) are so insecure as to believe they need to carry their documents. However, Donald Trump is not normal and therefore it was curious to hear him remark on Wednesday of citizenship for the Dreamers

We're going to morph into it It's going to happen at some point in the future over a period of 10 to 12 years. Somebody does a great job. They worked hard. It gives incentive to do a great job. They've worked hard. They've done terrifically. Whether they have a little company or whether they work or whatever they're doing -- if they do a great job, I think it's a nice thing to have incentive of, after a period of years being able to become a citizen.

Inevitably, Trump will contradict himself and in the snowball's chance in hell he does not, the remark is irrelevant because he may not be President much longer and 10-12 years is a long time out, during which anything can happen.

Advocacy of a path to citizenship invariably contemplates an extended period of time in which a myriad of conditions may have to be met.  For the left, that itself ought to be considered a compromise position.  A path to citizenship ideally is uncomplicated and brief.

Nonetheless, some path to citizenship, rather than mere continuation of legalization for Dreamers, should be the opening bid for the left, just as The Wall is for President Trump.

Even were Trump's remarks on Wednesday sincere, he would retract them. Nonetheless, he has uttered them and must be held accountable for having done so.

A path to citizenship is unlikely to be accepted in the near- or mid-term future because it is something which unites the GOP donor base- fond of a pliable labor force- and its popular base, fond of denying benefits to the needy.

That is why the Democratic Party in ongoing Dreamer negotiations should propose actual, red-blooded American citizenship.  It will have to settle for less, of course, because the corporate wing of the Republican Party feasts on the insecurity of workers.  However, the insecurity of a substantial number of residents of the country not only undermines the interests of the individuals, but of the nation as a whole.

What applies to Dreamers applies to the larger group of illegal immigrants.  Having within a country's borders a contingent of individuals without citizenship or a chance to obtain it is perilous to national security. Obviously, it is perilous also the individual's security and will only increase the concerns of people such as Shannon Carey, legitimately uneasy over the jeopardy always faced by such immigrants.



Update: The White House on Thursday announced a proposal which would include a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals, in addition extensive restrictions on immigration.  Not going to happen (despite what is said today).








Share |

The Simplistic Jeff Sessions

With a straight face, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is attibuting the drop in crime in the first half of 2017 to President Donald J. Trump. It's amazing how rapidly crime can decline in the first few months of a presidency.  (Spoiler alert: it can't.) Politico reports

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is embracing newly-released FBI statistics as evidence that America has turned the tide in its battle against violent crime — a shift he credits in large part to the policies of President Donald Trump.

The FBI numbers, covering the first six months of 2017, show overall violent crime declined by 0.8 percent, with rape and robbery each declining by more than 2 percent compared with the same period in 2016.

However, murder increased by 1.5 percent during in the first half of 2017, according to the report released Tuesday.

A statement posted on the FBI's website referred to the reduction in crime as "slight."

However, Sessions said in an op-ed piece published Tuesday in USA Today that the report is evidence that Trump is delivering on the vow he made in his jarring inaugural speech last year to put an end to what he termed "American carnage."

"It is a promise that he has kept," Sessions declared. "Ensuring every neighborhood in America is safe again will take time, but we are already starting to see results."

If the Attorney General ignorantly believes a President can have such an impact on crime, perhaps we are already starting to see results.

"Researchers and gun control advocates," The New York Times notes, "say that since 2013, they have logged school shootings at a rate of about one a week."  However, the record of late has been significantly worse and the shooting incident in Benton, Kentucky on Tuesday "was one of at least 11 shootings on school property recorded since Jan. 1, and roughly the 50th of the academic year."





"We're restoring respect for law enforcement," Sessions claims. There is less evidence for that, however, than that potential murderers are being excused by the President. Also from the Times, from last November:

“I think that mental health is your problem here,” Mr. Trump told reporters at a news conference in Japan, the first stop on his 12-day overseas trip. Based on preliminary reports, the gunman in Sutherland Springs, Tex., was a “very deranged individual,” he said. “We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries.”

“But this isn’t a guns situation,” Mr. Trump added. “I mean, we could go into it, but it’s a little bit soon to go into it. But fortunately, somebody else had a gun that was shooting in the opposite direction, otherwise it would have been — as bad it was — it would have been much worse. But this is a mental health problem at the highest level. It’s a very, very sad event.”

With statement(s) irresponsibly attributing these crimes to mential illness, the President has excused individuals involved in mass murder.  He has given such murderes license, and they have taken it.

Of course, crime levels respond to far more than whatever comments a President in Washington, D.C. makes about either law enforcement or mental health.  No one reason (not even abortion) is primarily responsible for the quarter century drop in violent crime in the USA. Responding to Sessions' ludicrous and irresponsible claim, Inimai Chettiar of the Brennan Center for Justice points out "politics implemented only a few months ago can't bring down crime. Crime is a very complex issue."

And so it is. However, any drop in violent or non-violent crime during any period will be touted (however dishonestly) by this Administration as it continues to promote the myth of a terrible country turned around and made "great again" by Donald J. Trump. Democrats must promote a counter-narrative, whether arguing  that crime is a complex issue or that the President is responsible for any spike.  But it cannot leave the field to the GOP, which has become a gang of toadies for the Authoritarian-in-Chief.

Share |