While Donald Trump declares he's "the Nation's Chief Law Enforcement Officer" which he is not, and while issuing clemency and pardons for his "donor class" of convicted felons,  do the Democrats use their most recent Nevada debate to attack the rogue president or inflict as much damage upon each other? After last week's Nevada debate, it was clearly the latter.  With Bernie Sanders seemingly in control of the nomination game,  Elizabeth Warren decided she had to throw her own "Hail Mary" pass and it may have worked.  Her relentless attacks on Michael Bloomberg effectively exposed his candidacy for what it is - a shallow attempt to avoid real issues while trying to steer public opinion against Trump. The result?  Another candidate capable of defeating Trump became toast.  Bloomberg's response to the attacks made it clear.  He has made little effort to really prepare for the Democratic nomination battles.  Warren?  Sure, she came out swinging and perhaps technically knocked out Bloomberg from the race.  But while doing so, she left Bernie Sanders untouched.  Did she think Bloomberg supporters would shift to her camp?  Perhaps, but letting Bernie off the hook in such a large format just makes it easier for Sanders to carry the nomination.  
       As for Joe Biden, he stayed pretty much above the fray, but did nothing to hurt his chances.  The jury is still out on Biden, but South Carolina is his "fire wall"; we will see soon enough whether Biden's candidacy will "have any legs."  As far as the Bernie Bros. attacks on Biden, let's all remember Sanders is the same age as Biden (and Biden hasn't suffered a heart attack). 
     Mayor Pete seemed to follow Warren's lead by attacking Sanders, but the audience will only be reminded of his performance for attacking Amy Klobuchar, who under the pressure of the moment, was unable to defend herself in any meaningful way.  Pete exposed her inability to take a serious attack and turn the tables on the attacker.  Her response to Pete of "So you think I'm dumb" fell flat.  I sense her campaign going forward will also be flat and I predict she will be the next candidate to drop out of the race.  As far as Pete goes, he may have convinced some Bloomberg moderates that he is the better option for the moderate lane than Biden.  We shall see soon enough.
      One real winner did emerge from the debate last week.  That would be Donald Trump, who has already taken advantage of Bloomberg's awful performance as well as framing the election as a referendum on Socialism instead of Trumpism.  Hopefully, the Democrats will wake up (very soon) and realize the real threat to our democracy is not each other, but the man who would be king - Donald Trump.   
     But will the Democrats ever learn?  We can only pray they do before it is too late.  Regardless, this voter will be voting "Blue no mater who."  Now to convince most Americans to do the same. Have a great week. 
      
         

         Now that the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary is complete, some would have us think that the Democrats have chosen a clear winner for the Party's nomination for president.  But, from a political science perspective, nothing could be further from the truth.  Now we all can understand and appreciate why the "Big Mo" (momentum) is needed to enthuse and lift a campaign with the "wind at its back", but this years contest is not quite like the others we have seen. 
          Despite two rounds of voting,  it appears a majority of voters still have not decided on any single candidate to pull away from the pack.  After New Hampshire, we see Mayor Pete Buttigieg clinging to a small delegate lead, while maintaining a solid second place finish in New Hampshire.  But does Pete have the political infrastructure to maintain and sustain a nationwide campaign to secure the nomination?  Amy Klobuchar  now seems to have picked up some momentum in New Hampshire, but she is reported to be very short on available campaign cash and too lacks a solid political infrastructure to sustain her through the remaining primaries.  One thing we can tell from the early voting, is that Elizabeth Warren lacks enough of a base to sustain her candidacy and her future is perhaps the must muddled.  If she eventually is forced to abandon her campaign, she may have a significant impact on who does seal the nomination.
         That leaves to wild cards on the table.  One is beginning to see the way to the back door, the other has the independent financial strength to kick in the front door.  Joe Biden's poor showing in Iowa and New Hampshire leaves him with South Carolina and Nevada to pull back "onto the scene" as a viable candidate.  Although his numbers with African-Americans in South Carolina remain strong, nothing is certain in electoral politics and taking the African-American voting block is certainly not something to be considered a lock (at any time).  At this point, Biden appears the most wounded along side Warren.  But what about Bloomberg?
        Amongst purists in the Democratic Party, Bloomberg seems to pose a threat.  Once a Republican (so was Warren), Bloomberg's tenure as New York City's mayor was riddled with inconsistencies,.  The worst of which was his policy of "Stop and Frisk:" specifically targeting young Blacks and Hispanics for criminal stops. After all was said and done, the data plainly revealed the policy to be nothing but a misguided effort to "clear the streets" of gang and gun violence.  Except the only thing it did do was alienate African American communities from the policing authorities - and rightfully so.  Bloomberg did though reduce  the prison population of people of color well below the national average and the murder and gun crime rates did fall under his tenure.  The man also led significant efforts to improve lower income education, while embracing efforts to combat climate change. So what gives?  New Hampshire was not only a primary state for the Democrats.  New Hampshire also is an open Primary" which allows Republicans, Democrats and Independents to vote for any candidate on the primary ballot. And guess what happened?  Bloomberg scored significant support from Republicans and Independents. Does Bloomberg have a path to the nomination?  As in everything political, trends take time to develop. and anyone telling us Bernie now has the clearest path to the nomination is clearly ignoring one of the truths of political science.  We won't know util after Super Tuesday who the real leading candidate is for the Democratic nomination.  And then, we still might have a brokered convention. 
         One thing is for sure though.  The biggest threat to our democracy is Donald Trump.  Once the Democrats unite behind their candidate, we must all fall into line and support that candidate.  Trump must go.  We can worry about the next president's policies after that happens.  Until then, the fight for the nomination continues. Strap in.  We all have work to do.   Have a great week. 

         Now that the Impeachment "trial" of Donald J. Trump has wound down in the US Senate, I thought it best to point out some things I picked up as a citizen along the way.   First, the American Public has yet to understand impeachment is not removal from office or acquittal in the Senate does not erase the fact a sitting president has been impeached.  Impeachment, once passed by the House of Representatives, is forever, whether removed from office or not. 
        Second, despite what Republicans have been publicly stating as fact, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring Congressional oversight in an Impeachment matter to include the Courts.  You see the GOP has routinely attempted to "sell" a notion that if the Executive in an impeachment inquiry refuses to abide by subpoenaed issued by the House in its efforts to investigate potential wrongdoing of the Executive, they must seek the "third co-equal branch of government to decide if the issued Subpoenas are "lawful." Except no wherein Article I of the Constitution (or under authority granted to the Courts under Article III), does it require anything of the sort.  In fact, under Article I, the Constitution explicitly states the power of impeachment resides "solely" within the House.  If the power to investigate a sitting president requires judicial intervention (as asserted by the GOP), then why didn't the Framers include such language?  I submit because of two things.  One is that the Courts were to have NO role in investigating a sitting Executive, because there is NO  authority granted to the Courts in the Constitution to engage in said action.  The Second?  When the Constitution was proposed and ultimately ratified (1787/1791), there were NO Courts established under Article III, except the High Court.  In fact, under Article III, all lower Courts and the rules in which the operate are determined by acts of Congress. So if there were no Courts to rule on impeachment at the time the Framers wrote the provision into the Constitution, why would anyone think they were meant to included?  The word "solely" really should mean something.
        Another argument raised by the GOP is just as disingenuous.  We should not disrupt the will of the people in a prior election by impeaching and removing a sitting president within an upcoming "election season."  This same logic was used to block Merrick Garland's appointment by President Obama to the High Court. (See: www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person).  Except once again, there is absolutely no such restrictions in the Constitution limiting the ability to remove a corrupt president just because the people could decide in the next election.  What if the impeachment  arises in the second term of a sitting president?  Would they argue no such proceedings should take place because they would be gone anyway on the next election?  Based upon the current GOP's logic, is there ANY basis for removing a sitting president? (See: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/republican-case-against-impeachment/603712/). 
        Another alternative the Senate GOP is refusing to consider is the option to remove Mr. Trump from office, but allow him to run again in the next election.  Could it be possible a sitting president is removed by not prohibited him/her from running again? Yes, they can.  If the Senate votes to remove but not bar him from seeking office again, Trump could remain on the GOP ballot for President and continue to seek re-election, even if removed due to wrongdoing.  So when the GOP say impeachment and removal over-turns the will of the people and we should let the voters decide, this would be a win-win for us all - except the GOP has no guts to do anything remotely correct in this matter.  (See: www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/06/could-donald-trump-be-impeached-removed-and-then-r/).  Despite their oaths to remain impartial, Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader of the GOP Senate stated up front (as did several other Republican Senators) that they were in "lock-Step" with the president and his defense team.  Some justice right?
      Now we learn that Pat Cippilone, Trump's White House Counsel and Senate Impeachment Trial defense counsel has been directly implicated as a participant in the Ukraine Scandal.  All the while asserting there was no first hand evidence against Trump and no need to call actual fact witnesses, the man making the argument is in fact himself a witness to the wrongdoing.  Talk about violating ethic rules universally applied to all legal counsel.  This alone ranks right up there with GOP House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member David Nunes complete failure to admit during the Inquiry stage his own involvement in the Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy nonsense. (See: www.rawstory.com/2020/01/holy-crap-bolton-directly-implicated-pat-cipollone-as-a-fact-witness-in-trump-impeachment-trial/).  (See: www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/nunes-ukraine-controversy/index.html). 
        And finally, calling no witnesses to a trial is hardly how trials actually are run.  The GOP argues that the House Democrats "rushed the impeachment" to be out front of the election, yet admit they "don't have the time necessary to hear from witnesses", despite the severity of the charges involved.  This stretches credibility considering the sitting Senate has set a record for doing so little by way of passing legislation (0ver 400 bills from the House remain on McConnells' desk).  They "work" no more than 4 1.2 days a week (if that).  Not a bad gig for $174,000 plus in salary plus benefits. (See: www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/54664816). 
       So as we head into the thick of Election 2020,  Please remind yourself that a sitting president without any way of investigating him for wrongdoing, any way to indict him for proven wrongdoing and no way to overcome stonewalling efforts by Congress to force testimony and documents, leaves the president in an enviable position of having no more checks and balances left against him.  Even the basic premise of the Congress having the "power of the purse" is gone now that Trump can (according to the GAO -illegally) use congressionally authorize taxpayer monies to be leverage for his personal gain.  In other words, the GOP today no longer cares to act in its role as a check against a separate branch of government, and instead, prefers to solidify political power over the power granted to it by the Framers in our Constitution. 
        If the GOP is so confident in allowing the American voters to decide our next president and elected officials, then let's see them stop pushing voter suppression measures, gerrymandering and pushing foreign money into our electoral process.  Let's also hope come November, those very same American voters show the GOP how we really feel by not only defeating Donald Trump, but by wiping away dozens of GOP seats in the House and more than enough in the Senate to switch control of that once esteemed institution.  Have a great week.