Tag Archives: russia

Catching Up

I haven’t posted for over a month. I’ve posted articles in other places, but nothing here on Fluid Imagination. Part of the reason had to do with my job. During the last month, I wrote, built, and launched a new website for my school, and before that, I spent most of my free time developing the second-quarter schedule for all of our staff and students. You see, along with teaching, I’m also an administrator and marketing person, so things can get a little busy.

But a lot of things have been happening over the last month: sexual predators facing the music, President Trump’s administration circling the drain, Congressional Republicans stealing trillions of dollars from the future, the potential loss of Internet freedom, and so much more. Here’s a quick recap of what I’ve missed.

First and foremost is the continued outing of powerful sexual predators, assaulters, and harassers. While we can all applaud the takedown of powerful sleaze bags, in my own life, I’ve seen the #metoo movement help individuals come out against their not-so-famous assaulters. Several months ago, a person I know had fallen victim to a sexual predator, but with all of the shame around the issue, they had not gone to the police about it. Following  the publicity around these other cases though, and the way the predators have actually seen some consequences from their actions, the person I know gained the confidence to press charges against her perpetrator. What we’ve seen on the news is just a drop in the bucket, but if the (apparently) changing perceptions of assault victims continues towards belief rather than doubt, the world might actually improve a little bit.

Next, of course, is the way Comrade Trump’s administration continues to flounder in light of the Russia investigation. Without a doubt, the best explainer of all this stuff has been the Twitter feed of a professor of law and journalism at the University of New Hampshire, Seth Abramson.

If you’re not following Abramson on Twitter, get on it. The guy deserves a Pulitzer for the work he’s been doing.

Then, of course, there’s the incredible distribution of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, also known as H.R. 1: Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, which according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office will increase the deficit by $1.437 trillion over the next 10 years. The Senate snuck this thing through in the most ridiculous and cynical manner possible, and every relatively moderate Republican ought to be ashamed of themselves (the other Republicans are long past the ability to actually feel shame).

Along with reporting on that increase in the deficit, the CBO reports that “it is not practicable for a macroeconomic analysis to incorporate the full effects of all of the provisions in the bill…within the very short time available between completion of the bill and the filing of the committee report.” In other words, this bill is not only messed up from a content perspective, but from a process perspective too. By now, you’ve heard that this 400+ page bill was passed before anyone had the time to read it, and that the bill itself still contained handwritten amendments since they wouldn’t take the time to print out the changes.

Next, there’s the announcement from the chairman of the FCC that they’d like to repeal the rules that protect net neutrality. This is an incredibly colossal mistake, putting the freedom of the Internet into the corrupt and greedy hands of Comcast, Verizon, and others.

One member of the FCC, who posted in Op-Ed in the LA Times under the headline, “I’m on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality,” writes, “There is something not right about a few unelected FCC officials making such vast determinations about the future of the internet…Before my fellow FCC members vote to dismantle net neutrality, they need to get out from behind their desks and computers and speak to the public directly…When they do this, they will likely find that, outside of a cadre of high-paid lobbyists and lawyers in Washington, there isn’t a constituency that likes this proposal.”

Nobody but the telecoms want this bill. No real human being has complained about having an open internet that allows low-income individuals to access the same websites as high-income individuals, and mom-and-pop and startup organizations to access the same audience as multinational corporations such as Microsoft and Google.

No one wants this policy change. But because the FCC is run by a former Verizon employee, the policy change is going forward. And that sucks.

So…that should bring us up today. Hopefully, my next post won’t be another month from now.

Hunt the Right Rabbit

I’m trying to understand the conspiracy of all this.

Yesterday, a friend of mine on Facebook continued to spread (in a forceful and angry manner) the debunked theory (see Snopes’ debunking article and Politifact’s explainer article) that Secretary Clinton sold 20% of the United States’ uranium to Russia for $145 million and she laundered the money through her and her husband’s non-profit Clinton Foundation.

In reality, Russia’s state-controlled nuclear agency purchased a 51% stake in a Canadian-based mining company that had originally been owned by South African interests. The Obama Administration, of which Secretary Clinton was part, needed to evaluate the purchase because U.S.-based subsidiaries of the Canadian company managed a significant portion of the U.S.’s uranium stock. Though her department had a place on the nine-member evaluation board (as did several other agencies), Secretary Clinton did not partake in the meetings, and even if she had, she had no say as to whether the deal went through or not.

Now, one of the previous investors in the Canadian company — a person who at the time of the deal no longer owned any stock in the company — had made a $131 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, but he made it over a year prior to Secretary Clinton even becoming Secretary of State and three years prior to the deal between the Russians and the Canadian-based company even being made. Around $4 million of the donations to the Clinton Foundation, however, were donated by other members involved at the time of the deal, but those members deny accusations of a quid pro quo exchange with Secretary Clinton, claiming that their donations to the Foundation were offered in good faith.

If the exchange was a quid-pro-quo offer, it was made with incredible foresight while also being very poorly managed, seeing that it first required Hilary Clinton to be elected President (which did not happen), and then it required the main investor to own stock in the Canadian company when the deal went through (which also did not happen). If the quid pro quo was about Russia being able to steal our uranium, it was also very poorly managed, seeing as the U.S.-based subsidiary that manages the uranium is not licensed to export it. When the story was first debunked by Snopes & Politifact, they both rated the story “False” or “Mostly False.”

The story came up again recently when The Hill reported on an active case at the Department of Justice involving Russian nuclear officials, Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation, Russian corruption of the U.S. uranium market, and a coverup in the Obama Administration (including by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, who is the man now most responsible for investigating President Trump’s Russian connections).

The Hill‘s new findings on this many-years-old story are indeed concerning. Essentially, The Hill‘s reporting implies (though does not assert) that the Obama Administration covered up a story that clearly demonstrates Russia’s attempts to manipulate various aspects of our economy and our national security. The story also implies (though does not assert) that Secretary Clinton supported Russia’s efforts in exchange for millions of dollars. It also implies (though does not assert) that the man now responsible for investigating President Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia also played a part in the coverup.

I’m not going to agree or disagree with the facts as reported by both Snopes, Politifact, or The Hill. I believe all of the articles are reported in good faith and provide the facts as they are understood by the writers of those articles.

What I want to do is try to understand the conspiracy here.

Let’s say that high-ranking officials in the Obama Administration actively colluded with Russian agents to provide access to the United States’ uranium. The facts as they’ve been reported do not support the theory that Russians have smuggled, are smuggling, or will smuggle enriched uranium out of the borders of the United States.

They do support the theory, however, that Russians have influenced and may still influence the movement of that uranium within our borders. They also support the theory that a lot of individuals, both Russian and American, received a lot of dirty money in the process. And finally, they support the theory that some of those Americans may have been high-ranking officials in the Obama Administration.

But there are a few other facts we have to deal with too.

Like the fact that high-ranking officials in the Trump campaign and the Trump Administration also received a lot of dirty money in connection with Russian agents, starting with Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and extending to Trump’s former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn (Ret.).

Like the fact that the Trump Campaign expressed an interest in colluding with Russian agents to take down Secretary Clinton during the election.

Like the fact that President Trump has significant financial relationships with known friends of President Putin.

Like the fact that President Trump’s Secretary of Commerce is (was?) the major stockholder of a Cyprus bank where Russian oligarchs are known to launder the money they steal from the Russian people.

Like the fact that U.S. intelligence agencies have reached a positive consensus as to whether Russian agents attempted to manipulate the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.

Like the fact that President Trump’s continued belligerence towards North Korea, Iran, undocumented workers, and others redirects American anger away from Russia and towards virtually anyone else.

In short, there’s a lot of facts we have to consider, and those facts imply (though do not assert) wrongdoing by high-ranking officials in both the Obama and the Trump Administrations. I’m interested in the conspiracy that connects all these reported facts together.

What’s the common thread here? It’s not Left vs. Right. It’s not Democrat vs. Republican. It’s not Black vs. White or Socialist vs. Capitalist. And with Hilary involved, it’s not even Men vs. Women. It’s what then? What’s the common thread?

Oh yeah. They’re all fucking rich.

Know your enemy people. It’s not who all the rich people on TV tell you it is. It’s not Mexican farmers or Russian cab drivers or Iranian students. It’s not the peasants in North Korea or the poor people in Pakistan. It’s not the people starving through the civil war in Syria or the people surrendering to Iraqi forces in Hawija. It’s not hurricane victims in Puerto Rico or redneck loggers in Montana. It’s not the fishermen who stab the dolphins or the college students who save the whales.

It’s one thing and one thing only.

It’s the fucking rich people. And they’re all in it together.

If there’s an actual conspiracy behind all of these reported facts, any single element that ties them all together, it can only involve the rich.

Is there any doubt that President Putin, President Trump, and Secretary Clinton are all rich?

Is there any doubt that their high-ranking officials are also rich?

Is there any doubt that the individuals who control corporate media are rich? That the individuals who control the military-industrial complex are rich?

Is there any doubt that the individuals who control the pharmaceutical giants, the energy companies, or the banks are rich?

Is there any doubt that the individuals who control the text book publishers are rich or that the ministers who control the megachurches are rich?

Draw any conspiracy you want — make it look like an Oilman’s plot, a Yankee plot, an Islamist plot, a Capitalist plot, a Vatican plot, a Jewish plot, a Hollywood plot, a Monsanto plot, a Banker’s plot, a Patriarchal plot, a White Power plot — draw it any way you like, and what you’ll find is that it only and always involves the rich.

Know your enemy people. And focus your anger thusly.

A Version of a Speech I Need to Give My Students Tomorrow

Okay guys, I’m floundering. I need your help.

About the only thing I know about this class is its frickin’ title: How to Combat Online Bullshit. When I came up with it, I had a whole idea about learning all about fake news — how it’s created, how it spreads, what kind of effects it can have — and then teaching you how to combat it.

The problem is, I don’t know if you care about fake news. I want you to feel a sense of righteous indignation toward it, but at least two of you don’t. I don’t really understand why, because my own righteous indignation is so close to the surface.

I make my living trying to get young people to understand and examine certain truths about the world, not truths that I necessarily have access to, but truths that I have received. One of those truths is that democracy is good; another is that democracy is hard; and another is that an enlightened electorate is the only weapon capable of of defending it. If that weapon gets any weaker, then the great experiment that is America will come to an ignoble end.

You two, the ones who are throwing me for a loop in this class, you two are still two or three years away from joining the electorate. But me and him, we’re already there.

And both of us are telling you that the information you find on the Internet is often completely fake, regardless of how real it may sound. I suspect (I hope) you already believe that, but I’m not entirely sure you understand the ramifications of it.

There’s something else I’m not sure about: I don’t know how much you read, or if you do, what kinds of things you might read.

When I conceived of this class, I made (and continue to make) an awful lot of assumptions about you, and I realize now that one of them is that you care (at least somewhat) about some of the events that are taking place beyond your own lives. That may have been a mistake.

Some basic knowledge of current events is necessary if I’m to rile up that righteous indignation I assumed you would already have. But if you don’t have this basic knowledge — if you don’t at least somewhat depend on the news to guide your understanding of reality — then you have no context from which to draw your anger from; you simply have no idea that we are currently being attack by an onslaught of verifiably intentionally-fake news.

Which means we need to go back to step one.

The purpose of a high-school education is, primarily, to prepare the future citizens of this country to continue the great experiment that we call democracy. Anything you learn above and beyond that in high school is just gravy.

But the key ingredient to democracy is, again, an enlightened electorate. And in order to cultivate that, I need you to become critical of everything you read, hear, and watch — I need you to become critical of media.

Because that’s where the battle is being fought now. It’s where democracy is currently being attacked. This is not hyperbole. This shit is actually going on.

Russia, that great enemy of my childhood, is literally attacking our country, and almost everyone has a reasonable suspicion that Russia may have even compromised the Chief Executive of our government, a possibility that is being diligently investigated by an incredibly powerful — and by all accounts, highly ethical — civil attorney, as well as by some of the more patriotic members of Congress. Reality is now literally a bad 80s movie that has been reboot for the 21st century, where the writers have replaced nuclear bombs with information bombs.

I shit you not.

My question to you is, “What character do you want to play in that movie?” Do you want to be someone shoveling your own shit in the background, or do you want to be someone driving the enemy all the way back to its capitol?

In the 21st century, heroes may not jump out of helicopters; they may work quietly and furiously on a laptop; but the dangers are just as real. The same menacing villain, a former high-ranking officer in the menacing KGB, is directing the same group of menacing bastards to train their sights on America. Behind it all stands a shadowy group of menacing rich bastards, luxuriating in the arrogance of their wealth, while in front of it all, the same innocent victims fall prey.

It’s up to somebody to stop them. Why shouldn’t that someone be you?

If it’s not, that means you’ve opted to become just another victim, and that  means America’s great experiment in democracy has failed.

I’ll say it again. Our democracy is really and truly under attack — not by some shadow terrorist, but by another sovereign nation whose military may not be as evolved as ours, but whose ability to engage in information warfare seems to be operating on a completely different level.

You’re both going to be 18 soon, which means, first, you’ll be eligible to participate in our democracy, and second, that you’ll be eligible to fight for it.

I want to teach you what the fight is actually about, and then teach you to defend yourself and throw a punch. I have the skills to do that.

But first, you have to show me what you know.

President Trump Did What Now?

I haven’t written about politics in a bunch of weeks. The reason is simple: it’s only a matter of time before Donald Trump gets impeached. There seems to be enough smoke now for any fair-minded person to agree that there must be some kind of fire. I don’t claim to know exactly what it is or who was involved, but I don’t doubt that the act of collusion includes the man at the highest level.

The NY Times is now reporting that Presidents Trump and Putin had an undisclosed, private conversation that lasted as long as an hour during the G20 Summit. It’s true that the conversation occurred in front of many of the world’s leaders, but except for Presidents Trump and Putin, only a Kremlin-employed interpreter knows exactly what was said.

Trump is attacking the Times for the story — “Fake News story of secret dinner with Putin is ‘sick.’ All G 20 leaders, and spouses, were invited by the Chancellor of Germany. Press knew!” — but it’s not about whether the press knew about it (nor is it about the President’s use of quotation marks around “sick” — does he think he’s quoting somebody or is he misunderstanding  the use of scare quotes?). It’s about whether the press reported the conversation, and until now, they had not.

Journalists know a lot of things. They don’t report on everything they know. The best of them only report on the things they know for sure, which means they have evidence to support it.

And what did the NY Times journalist, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, report?

She reported that “hours into” a G20 dinner, President Trump rose from his seat and joined President Putin for “a one-on-one discussion…that lasted as long as an hour and relied solely on a Kremlin interpreter.”

She wrote some more words to allow the White House to register its reaction,  and she wrote some others words to provide context for more casual readers, but at bottom, those are the only facts that she reported.

And President Trump calls it “Fake News!,” not because he denied it happened, but because he’s upset someone thinks such a conversation should be news.

This is the reason those of us on the left think he is an idiot. He can’t stop getting in his own way. How hard is it to not have a private conversation with the person you’re being accused of colluding with? And if you must have a conversation, how hard is it, really, to arrange a truly private one?

You know how hard it is for this president? Incredibly hard. Everyone in the bureaucracy is out to get him. He can’t make a phone call to anyone on the planet without someone else knowing about it, and with the leak culture being encouraged by the press and, let’s face it, the American people, that someone else is more than likely to let the information slip. How much worse would it look if President Trump tried to arrange an actual secret meeting with President Putin?

He had no choice. He can’t just not talk about the situation with President Putin, collusion or no collusion, so his only choice is to do it in the most public place possible.  If he actually wants to talk about the collusion issue, he can’t trust the State-department interpreter to not share the details of their conversation, even if only under oath to a prosecutor.

So what the President did, collusion or no collusion, makes complete sense. But to think, even if only for a minute, that such a conversation doesn’t deserve to be news is to think something bat-shit stupid. If the President of the United States had a private, one-on-one conversation with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, the existence of that conversation would make the news — and I don’t even know if they have Prime Ministers there. To imagine it wouldn’t be news when you do it with your alleged colluder in treason…that’s just dumb.

That’s why I haven’t been writing about politics lately. I’m so done with trying to understand this President. I don’t have to anymore. I get it, and I honestly don’t think he’s a match for the one-two punches that keep coming at him from the bureaucracy and the press. If Mueller is as ethical as the press suggests, then it’s only a matter of time before they take him down.

At this point, writing about Trump feels more like trying to catalog and predict the ending of a one-sided fight — will he go down because of some kind of final, powerful blow or will he just succumb to a continuous onslaught of jabs? Making those kinds of prediction can be fun some of the time, like trying to predict which character on your favorite HBO show is going to die next, but more often it feels like trying to get excited about the arc on a crappy reality show.

There’s a danger in feeling that way, of course. If we allow ourselves to get bored by the lack of progress or overwhelmed by the case’s ever-growing details (how many fucking people were in that room with Don Jr. and how the fuck are they all connected again?), then we risk losing the urgency of the resistance. I get it.

But seriously, let’s look at this shit. Yes, the Republicans are trying to fuck up all kinds of shit in Congress, and yes, the President is doing a ton of real damage via Executive Order, but it seems the most they can do right now is all short-term stuff. They’re not organized enough to ram something through Congress — Trump is too unhinged and vague, and the Republican Congress has to reconcile the desires of too many “moderates” (as if…) with too many Tea Party crazies. If the Democrats can stay united in their resistance, the Republicans can’t deliver on the biggest promises they’ve made to the electorate, and they’ll continue to look and act completely dysfunctional.

Yes, there are things to do. Yes, there are real dangers to fight. But in all honesty, it seems like those who are doing the fighting for my side of things are doing a damn fine job, and I’m trusting them to continue to do so.

Me? I’ll keep going to work each day to teach the next generation of leaders how to think for themselves. It’s the least I can do.

Donald Trump is a Thug

I picture Donald Trump in a hotel room somewhere in Eastern Europe. The lighting is dim, and smoke burns from the tip of a lit cigarette, filling the room. One man sits at a skinny, wooden desk, the cigarette resting on the lip of the thin, glass ashtray sitting in front of him. Two other men, and Donald, stand near the center of the room. Donald has just arrived, and he flashes a smile that is both confident and cordial, but behind his eyes, the men see a scared tiger. There’s a lot of money in a bag on the bed.

I’ve never been in that room, and I’m guessing neither have you. It takes balls to be in that room. The kind of balls it takes to do business with thugs.

I picture Donald Trump under a bridge in New Jersey. Two men, both of whom he pays in return for their loyalty, stand strong and nearby. Three other men, only one of whom talks, stand opposite Donald. Together, they discuss building contracts and union dues, and at all times they both underline their words with a variety of subtle (and not so subtle) threats. Four of the men present carry a gun. There’s another man concealed but not doubted, seated in the passenger seat of Donald’s car.

This is the man we’ve watched for the past 100+ days. A man who engages in handshake competitions with rival strangers who aspire to be his equal or his better. A man who shoves aside anyone he deems lower than himself in importance. A man who can drive once mortal enemies into each others’ arms (note the handshake, by the way) and force a century’s worth of alliances into disarray.

I’m reading Paris 1919, a book about the personalities and politics of the Treaty of Versailles. For those who don’t know, the Treaty of Versailles is the peace treaty from World War I, where Great Britain, France, the United States, and (to a more limited extent) Italy and Japan created the conditions whereby many of the horrors of the 20th and 21st century found purchase. The book lays out in incredible detail the singular reality that governs our entire world, namely, that our biggest issues rarely exceed the infantile drives of adult male primates meeting in small spaces. Many of these primates desire, more than anything else, more power than their competitors — sometimes for defensive reasons, sometimes for offensive ones, but always and only for more power.

Us liberals like to think the civilized world has moved beyond power politics, but it drives everything that distracts us from our self-fulfillment as a species. It belittles our drive for equality; it impugns our desire for a healthy habitat; and it reacts violently to our calls for mercy.

Donald Trump is the man in our White House. He is not an idiot. He is not a dupe. He is a thug. He rose to power not because he inherited millions of dollars (millions of people inherit millions of dollars), but because he knows how to stand in a dimly lit room or under a rainy night bridge and wield actual and real power.

He stands as a challenge to all civilized people. How will we respond? As Democrats with a capital D? Or as small-d democrats, the inheritors of an idea that too was formed in a small and dimly lit smoke-filled room, an idea of rebellion and resistance, not in the dark shadows of assassins or the cowering masks of terrorists, but en masse and in the streets, on the pulpit and in the press, in our businesses and in our homes, resistance, rebellion, resistance. Resistance, rebellion, resistance. Resistance, rebellion, resist…

I picture Donald Trump sitting in a tall chair in the Oval Office. A young black woman arrives dressed in a blue pantsuit and wearing dark glasses. Her pants are almost too short for her chubby legs, revealing — more than they’re supposed to — her feet in blue flats. There is nothing pretty about her, nothing powerful. She walks from the door to the desk, where Donald Trump sits alone. He makes eye contact with her as she crosses the room, but she knows he doesn’t see her, his mind still trying to ferret out some small hole he can slip through. She reaches the desk, and instantly, she knows it: he sees her now, sees the light and the person in her eyes. With everything she can muster, she projects with her mind’s eye a vision of millions of Americans standing strong in a nighttime rainstorm, quiet and dignified, solemn and righteous. She wants him to see it in her eyes, to see them, the people whose power she now represents, a power whose like he has never faced, the power of the demos.

She reaches across the desk. He reaches up, and she places the paper in his visibly shaken hand. She stands and waits. It is he, not she, who has been dismissed.

Trump In The Führerbunker

Donald Trump is a dumb guy. He’s not the dumbest guy — you’ve got to have some kind of intelligence (a ruthless one?) if you’re going to make as many millions of dollars as he has — but to fire James Comey like that, right now, with the Russian heat as hot as it’s been, is there any other word for it except dumb?

I guess we could call it bad strategy. I’ve been reading a lot about war and politics lately, as well as playing a lot of Madden football, so strategy is something that’s been on my mind, and thinking about Donald Trump, I have to ask: What kind of game is he playing?

He’s not playing politics. If you’re playing the game of politics, you do not fire the official who is in charge of investigating your administration the day after the other justice official you fired testifies in front of Congress about that investigation, a testimony that includes the coincidence that just as she increased the heat on the investigation of your administration, you found another cause to fire her. That would just be dumb. It arouses more suspicion, which craters your approval ratings, which decreases your influence among those whose votes you’ll need to get your policies passed. It’s just bad politics.

But what if he’s playing war? If this is a war between Donald Trump and the rest of the world (as a narcissist like Donald Trump could only imagine it to be), would firing Comey still be such a dumb idea? I’m not so sure.

Comey was obviously a liability to the White House. The man was actively investigating the administration’s ties to a foreign power where the suspicion was not simply money laundering, but also straight-up treason. If your only public goal is to survive until the next election, then it might make a lot of sense to cut your losses and simply get rid of the guy. As the head of the executive branch, you’re responsible for appointing the man’s successor, so why not get rid of him now and install someone you know you can trust? Yes, you’ll take shit for it in the short term, but in the long term, you might be able to sleep better at night.

Trump has to be wondering what his opposition’s counter move is going to be. Yes, the Congressional investigations will get more intense, and yes the heat from the media will increase, but ultimately, what does that matter? If the Republicans keep control of the Congress, there’s no way he gets impeached, and if you’d just won a Presidential election against all the odds that the bookmakers could quote you, you’d probably believe it doesn’t matter what the odds are going to be in 2018, because you’ll still end up on the lucky side of the coin.

In that case, firing Comey right now, regardless of what it looks like, makes perfect sense. You know the battle’s lost on the investigation front, so cut your losses, appoint someone loyal to defend the front, and move on to the next problem. The Congress and the media can do whatever they want, as long as you’re ultimately protected by those whom you know are loyal.

It’s a bunker mentality, and the Trump White House is currently under siege.

And in that kind of reality, it’s actually a reasonable move.

So now you have to ask, as the opposition, what should we do to counter it?

We could intensify the investigation, of course; that’s where the White House is feeling the most pressure, so we should just keep pushing until it breaks. Already, the quantity and quality of the leaks have expanded, so appointing someone loyal might be the equivalent of Trump trying to stick his thumb in the dyke.

But to use a war analogy, that would be like we were sticking with the infantry instead of overwhelming our opponent through a combination of Air Force, Army, and Navy.

We ought to, of course, intensify the investigations (which the Senate Intelligence Committee seems highly committed to doing, thank goodness), but we’ve got to account for the possibility that the person Trump appoints might actually be up to the job of derailing the investigation long enough for the Republican House to get re-elected (which, again, would eliminate the risk of impeachment), which means that the investigation can’t be the only front in our war.

The other front is obvious: taking control of the House in 2018. I live in Vermont, where the House & the Senate are a lock, so there’s only so much good I can do (and all of it will have to be at a distance). Thankfully, Bernie’s movement is actively channeling itself into local and state elections, which means there’s already an army on the ground. Now we just need to give them some air support.