Jack Holmes suggests that Trump's climate actions deserve impeachment even more than all of his treasonous machinations and lies (my terms).
Yeah, Ukraine. But actively undermining our efforts to combat an existential threat
to human civilization as we know it surely qualifies as a high crime.
About half of the 88 cities in Los Angeles county are classified as "Very High Fire-Hazard Severity Zones," raising the prospect that in the future, the gleaming jewel of the West—our great American dream factory—will come to resemble a very particular kind of hell. After all, as Wallace-Wells tells us, some of these fires grow an acre a second. Some grow three times faster still. You cannot outrun fire traveling 60 miles per hour on the Santa Ana winds.
... someday, assuming we make it that far, future generations will surely wonder why we did not remove him from the world's most powerful office simply because he denied the existence of a fundamental threat to human civilization as we know it.
He has actively rolled back our efforts in pretty much every department, to combat a crisis that will upend not just our children's lives, but our own.
Surely, this constitutes a high crime against humanity.
... his rich cronies probably believe they can make enough money to outrun whatever the consequences may be if they're still around when the time comes. That will require covering an acre a second.
Holmes echoes what Naomi Klein says,"Trump, no matter what he tweets, knows climate change is real. What he believes, as so many in his class believe, is that his wealth will keep him safe" Naomi Klein on the Green New Deal & the Working Class
Ruth, unless there is evidence i question whether he believes climate change is real. I know he took a test that quite a few candidates took in science and he scored lowest of all. I know he has bragged about never having read a book. He was not reading his intelligence briefings. He seems to have a greatly overblown sense of self and relies on his intuition.
A better question is why was he elected? Is there any real departure from what we knew him to be?
Excellent question: "Why was he elected?"
A majority of the people who got to vote chose Hillary Clinton... a margin of three million was not enough, though, to overcome a biased system.
Part of the answer is because many white voters wanted to repudiate and reverse our recent successful "[n-word] presidency" and its accomplishments, as Ta-Nehisi Coates put it in his long, powerful essay "The First White President" (The Atlantic; includes audio link for listening).
Part of the answer is because the Electoral College, that compromise to inflate slave states' representation in presidential elections to keep them in the Union, distorts the vote. The Founders did not envision that a state (like California) would have 68 times the population of another (Wyoming). It takes over three Californians to have the voting power of one Wyomingite -- clearly undemocratic in a system that's supposed to be premised on "one person, one vote", not "one acre, one vote", and most certainly not "one dollar ruble, one vote"!
(Also, even if people were equally and fairly represented in the Electoral College, 48 out of 50 states' winner-takes-all rules resulted in 27,839,449 wasted votes that didn't help their candidates. Every vote beyond the winner's bare plurality in a state, and every third-party vote, has no effect on the candidates' electoral votes.
National Popular Vote is a workaround, making progress and being enacted in state legislatures, that would "patch" the EC to represent the actual will of the people, without a Constitutional amendment, letting every voter in every state have an equal voice.)
Part of the answer is voter suppression that very well may have flipped crucial swing states. ("The Election Was Stolen - Here's How", by Greg Palast, showing that Trump's apparent victory margins in Michigan, Arizona, and North Carolina -- whose electoral votes put him over the top -- were dwarfed by the numbers of voters, mostly people of color, targeted by Kris Kobach's deliberately and criminally sloppy "Crosscheck" interstate voter registration matching system. Never mind that being registered in more than one place is not a crime: it was fine for prominent Republicans like Tiffany Trump, Steve Bannon, and Steven Mnuchin.)
There are surely more parts, including hackable DRE (direct recording electronic) voting machines...
Now that Trump can officially do no wrong, you can bet voter suppression will become US policy big time. He and the oligarchs will lock in their control. Even if they have to declare entire state elections void and use troops or police to whisk away evidence, no actions are off the table. Congress has castrated itself, on national TV.
Money buys seats, bought seats establish gerrymandered districts, voter suppression runs rampant, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial conspire, leaving little recourse for the voters who aren't allowed to register, can't vote even if they want to, or are manipulated by fear, boredom, or criminal interference.
Was not the French Revolution one way to counteract such limitations?
I like the word you used...treason. It would have been a far better moniker and legal weapon in the impeachment. Call him Benedict Arnold...keep saying treason...it is easier to relate to. And since republicans and Trump in particular seem to go Joseph Goebbels with alarming regularity, why not take a page from their playbook.
What the democrats have missed in this boring play is that the presidency is the office in which the greatest fiduciary duty is owed. The public has placed its TRUST in Trump. You are right that it is a high crime without being a high crime. Perhaps no misfeasance or malfeasance but failing to act and perpetuating the mythology of denial is a major breach of trust. And of course so is acting in his interest and saying fuck you to the public's.
"Treason!" Yes, I like that word!