reflectivepundit

Not Racial, Ethnic, and Religious Diversity but White Supremacy and Crazy Conspiracy Theories Loom as Serious Threats to U.S. Democracy

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In his 2011 book “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” the one-time presidential speechwriter, presidential GOP candidate, and to this day right-extreme pundit Patrick J. Buchanan characterized the essence of a nation as “a people of common ancestry, culture, and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, share the same music, poetry, art, literature, held together, in Lincoln’s words, ’by bonds of affection…mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriotic grave, to every living heart and heath-stone.”

Given those characteristics, Buchanan lamented, “the European and Christian core of our country is shrinking” and “the death of its [America’s] cradle faith brings social disintegration, an end to moral community, and culture war.”

 He left no doubt that the election of President Barack Obama represented the greatest threat to the survival of “his” idea of America. And in his prescriptions to save the European-Christian America included a moratorium on immigration and rolling back any progressive gains won in what Buchanan labeled the [liberal] culture war.

Not only pundits like Buchanan but also some well-known scholars have long warned of the evils of multiculturalism. In 2004, the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington chose as the lead in his article “The Hispanic Challenge” the following paragraph,

“The persistent flow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves—from Los Angeles to Miami—and rejecting Anglo-Protestant values that build the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril.”

It is ironic that President Joe Biden warned the other day in his Memorial Day that “democracy itself is in peril,” using the same term as Huntington. But the peril Biden spoke of has a very different meaning than the peril Huntington meant.  

Whereas Huntington and Buchanan saw multicultural challenges to what Isabel Wilkerson described in her recent book “Caste: The Origins of our Discontents” as a system of White caste dominance, Joe Biden invoked the beliefs and values of true Christianity and inclusive democracy, when he said, “Wherever Americans are, there — there is democracy: churches and synagogues and mosques, neighborhoods and coffee shops and diners, bleachers at kids’ baseball or soccer games, libraries and parks.  Democracy begins and grows in the open heart and the impetus to come together for a common cause…Americans of all backgrounds, races, creeds, gender identities, sexual orientations, have long spilled their blood to defend our democracy.  The diversity of our country and our arm- — and of our armed services is and always has been an incredible strength.”

Shame on Mainstream Media for Publicizing another Trump for Political Office

By Brigitte L. Nacos

It is well-document that the most influential organizations of the U.S. mainstream media—from CNN to the New York Times and Washington Post—singled out Donald Trump for the bulk of their election-related coverage. This was the case in 2015 before and in 2016 during the Republican primaries. The celebrity candidate, however rude and insulting, received significantly more and more positive coverage than his competitors on the GOP side but also with respect to Hillary Clinton. Only after he had won the presidential nomination, did the same news organizations finally scrutinize the least qualified and the most dangerous of all candidates. It was too late.

While these same newsrooms deserve credit for their watchdog role during the nightmarish years of the Trump administration, they seemed not to have learned from their past mistakes in 2015/16. Again, they help—unwittingly, I assume—to pave the way for another Trump’s political career.

I was shocked this morning, when I first saw on Yahoo’s home page a story on Lara Trump, Donald’s daughter-in-law, under the headline “Lara Trump for North Carolina Senate Seat?” The article originated in the New York Times and was, as the story revealed, teased by Donald Trump’s enabler-in-chief Lindsay Graham, Senator of North Carolina, who told FOX News that the pro-conviction vote by Richard Burr of North Carolina in the Senate’s impeachment trial “made Lara Trump almost the certain nominee for the Senate seat” in that state.

So, the ambitious Trump through marriage, whose political ambitions had already been covered quite generously before, won another plum piece of free media without saying a single word or doing a single thing—just like father-in-law Donald whose ample free news in 2015/16 freed him from pleading for donations or spending his own money.

The news media must not become the former president’s substitute for his no longer available Twitter account but treat him like any former ex-president, better less so, although the FOX News newsrooms and their competitors will be delighted to serve as his bullhorns.

Just as important, the influential mainstream media must refrain from providing free publicity to other members of the Trump Clan: his sons, his daughters, daughters-in-law, and son-in-law.

When it comes to Mr. Trump and his family, journalists, editors, producers—all in the mainstream media must act according to George Santayana’s aphorism, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I do not expect that they will.

Trump and the Madman Theory: A Madman Without a Theory

 By Brigitte L. Nacos

In his book “The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World” Jim Sciutto applies President Nixon’s so-called “Madman Theory” to President Trump. But whereas Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser/Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had some, however crazy plan as they tried to convince adversaries of a president mad enough to resort to weapons of mass destruction to get concessions, Trump and his advisers never had a plan.

Now, after four crazy years, there is still a madman, a would-be tyrant and his hardcore followers trying to overthrow America’s more than 200-year-old democracy. What we have witnessed during the last four years and especially since Trump’s electoral defeat two months ago has been a huge step away from democratic principles—most of all the acceptance of election results by winners and losers in the pluralist system of governing.

As I watched FOX New last night at a time when Georgia’s election returns indicated a possible double win for the Democratic Party in the run-off for seats in the U.S. Senate, I heard hysterical outcries about those two “communists” ahead of their patriotic opponents. Given the long-used labels “communists” and “socialists” attached to “extreme liberals” by Trump and his propagandists, the time has come to call the Trumpian fascist movement no longer benignly “conservative” or “the conservative right,” they are in reality autocrats and, yes, they are fascists trampling on the rule of law.

At the end of his book “The Anatomy of Fascism” Robert O. Paxton details what he calls the “mobilizing passions” of fascism, among them,

• the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without any legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;

• the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny;

• the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success.

We see these fascist mobilizing passions at play right now at work in Washington, D.C. and around the country with the President of the United States Donald Trump in the starring role. We see these fascist mobilizing passions in the two chambers of Congress where too many GOP Senators and Representatives violate the oaths they swear to the U.S. Constitution. And we see these fascist mobilizing passions in the social media posts of online fascists who are devoted to and courted by their Dear Leader.

In two weeks, there will be a changing of the guards in Washington. Joe Biden will become U.S. President, and Kamala Harris will become U.S. Vice-President.

But to assume that the fascist passions will evaporate once Biden and Harris move into the White House would be naïve. The Madman without Theory will not go quietly into a post-presidential life.

                                                                                                              ***

I wrote the above post a few hours before Trump's fanatic followers unleashed terror in the halls of the U.S. Congress. While the violence did not surprise me at all, I watched in amazement the thin or non-existent law enforcement presence in and around Capitol Hill. Assuming that the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and other agencies kept track of violent online extremist communities, law enforcement was fully aware that many fanatic Trump followers heard their idol's call to come to Washington and fight for his second term. Whereas overwhelming military and police might threatened peaceful "Black Lives Matter" demonstrators in the capital last year, the White Supremacists, typically insisting on their right to wear arms, met no serious resistance as they entered through doors and windows into congressional buildings.

After inciting and watching the seditious horror show for hours Donald Trump finally asked his terrorist followers to "go home" assuring them that he loved them...

 

 

Trump’s Hateful Rhetoric and Political Violence

By Brigitte L. Nacos, Robert Y. Shapiro, and Yaeli Bloch-Elkon

On September 29, 2019, with his impeachment looming, President Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) retweeted a warning by the Evangelical Pastor Robert Jeffress, “If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Two days later, U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Republican of Texas, warned Democrats that their “coup” was “pushing America into a civil war.”[1] On far-right websites Trump supporters suggested drastic and even violent actions against the “enemy” within. Some warned that they may need to exercise their Second Amendment rights—in other words, take up arms against the traitors. Responding to one of Trump’s daily Twitter attacks on Adam Schiff, the leading U.S. Representative in the impeachment inquiry, his followers seconded the President’s rhetorical assaults. One male commenter attacked Schiff as “a co-conspiratory [sic] in a coup attempt. This is treason.” That same day, a 52-year old man in Tucson, Arizona, left a death threat on Schiff ’s voice mail. “I’m gonna f_ing blow your brains out,” he warned.[2] The would-be attacker told police officers that “he watches Fox News and likely was upset at something that he saw on the news.” He also stated that “he strongly dislikes the Democrats, and feels they are to blame for the country’s political issues.”[3] In his residence, the police found an AR-15 assault rifle, two pistols, and 700 rounds of ammunition.[4] Although these examples of hate speech and threats of violence seemed shocking, they were merely iterations of Trumpian rhetoric and signposts for significant increases in right-extreme violence and school bullying in the United States. Our research found that Trump’s online and off-line hate speech corresponded with his followers’ aggressive rhetoric, violent threats, and actual violence against Trump’s declared “enemies,” most of all, minorities, the news media, and oppositional politicians.

For the comprehensive research report on the links between Trump's aggressive words and the growth of right-extreme violence read our just published article in the online journal Perspectives on Terrorism.

Can America’s Democracy Survive the Onslaught by Trump and his Henchmen? Will the Press Act as Guardian of Democracy?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Shamelessly like autocratic rulers at all times President Trump spelled out what he had alluded to for some time: If his opponent Joe Biden wins the election, Mr. Trump will not leave office peacefully. Worse yet, he and his henchmen are now plotting a scheme that is to assure Trump’s victory as The Atlantic reported. Asked yesterday during a news briefing whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power [in case he would lose the election], Mr. Trump answered, “Get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very — we’ll have a very peaceful, there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation.”  

In other words, 40 days before election day Donald Trump America and the world that he will remain U.S. president regardless of the election results. That is what happens in dictatorships, not in democracies. But during Trump’s presidency the rules of the games have already tilted in favor of raw presidential power.

To disregard Trump’s statements as just words would be a grave mistake. Especially when coming out of the mouths of the powerful, words matter; they tend to be followed by deeds.  

Like other autocrats, Trump signals his misdeeds by tweets or public statements. Thus, he makes no secret of the reason behind his rush to appoint and seat a replacement for Justice Bader Ginsberg: He wants a full Supreme Court dominated by GOP appointed conservatives in place to rule in his favor in case of a post-election dispute.

For more than 200 years, no sitting U.S. president declared upcoming elections to be illegitimate and refused to promise a peaceful change of power in case of defeat. It took the worst president in American history to throw his nation into an existential crisis of democracy.

The issue is no longer whether Republicans or Democrats win next month’s election, the issue is whether American democracy survives the already raging onslaught by an autocratic showman and his equally ruthless supporting cast.

Since there is little hope that other Republican leaders join Senator Mitt Romney in rejecting Trump’s power play, the leading media organizations may be the last hope to act as guardians of our democracy.

But that would take an agreement to report Trump’s threat to democracy day-in and day-out as most important news. It would mean for the press not to be distracted by Trump’s daily or even hourly launched rhetorical bombs that are minor in comparison to the existential danger. It would also mean that the failures of this presidency are highlighted every day, again and again.

Especially with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic. The president ignores the more than 200,000 Americans who died so far—more than half of them because of his mismanagement and his diabolical political calculations early on that states with Democratic majorities were mostly affected by the deadly disease.

It would mean for the press to remind the public that at this point the number of coronavirus victims is 70times higher than the number of those killed during the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden, in charge of those the horrific 9/11 incidents, was called here and elsewhere in the West “evil-doer.”

I have spent much times and effort to research the central role of publicity and propaganda in terrorism and argued consistently that over-covering might well encourage more such political violence.

Concerning the coverage of President Trump now, I argue similarly that the news media must refrain from over-covering him and from reporting every aggressive and nasty word he speaks and tweets.

Instead, the news media must stick to the only matter that counts now: Most prominently reported and placed news and commentary about the existential calamity Americans faces—and must resist.

Trump and his Base: Threat of Fascist “Mobilizing Passions”

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Fifteen years ago, in his excellent book “Anatomy of Fascism,” Robert O. Paxton wrote in the last paragraph of the last chapter, “Fascism exist at the level of Stage One within all democratic countries—not excluding the United States.” Today, American democracy may have moved into a higher stage of fascist infection.

I reread Paxton’s book after (1) I saw video clips of Stormtroopers in the streets of Portland, Oregon, grabbing non-violent persons and driving them away in unmarked vehicles; (2) I learned that heavily armed agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were the  “law and order” forces; (3) I read of the acting secretary of homeland security Chad Wolf tweeting that “our men and women in uniform are patriots. We will never surrender to violent extremists on my watch;” and (4) I heard Donald Trump refusing to answer the plain question, whether he would accept the election results in fall in case of his loss.

All of the above is straight out of the horror book of fascism and reminiscent of violence by Mussolini’s Black Shirts and Hitler’s Brown Shirts against political opponents during their respective leaders’ rise to dictatorial powers, and fascist leaders’ success to extend their staying power by all means.

While it seemed strange that the DHS, established after 9/11 to counter terrorism, never dispatched those agents to show their patriotism against violent right-extremists responsible for almost all domestic terrorism in the last several years, the U.S. President himself revealed that the storm trooper deployment was a partisan move to energize his movement in the forefront of the upcoming elections. “I’m going to do something — that, I can tell you,” Mr. Trump told reporters the other day. “Because we’re not going to let New York and Chicago and Philadelphia and Detroit and Baltimore and all of these — Oakland is a mess. We’re not going to let this happen in our country. All run by liberal Democrats.”

Just as the more than 140,000 Americans killed by the Trump virus have become our daily normalcy, the federal “law and order” violence in Portland and the promise of more of these storm trooper deployments did not result in massive public or elite outrage and protest. It seemed merely another illegitimate move by a president and his devoted servants.

Instead of providing a succinct definition of fascism Paxton enumerated what he calls “mobilizing passions,” among them the following:

• The belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justified any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;
• The need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
• The beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;
• The right of the chosen people to dominate others without restrain from any kind of human or divine law…

We have not yet arrived at fascism as we know it from history, but we are witnessing in the age of Donald Trump demagogic populism with moves to illiberal democracy and now fascist traits as well.  

The acceptance of the unacceptable is the scariest aspect of the present political crisis. As Paxton notes rightly, fascist movements “could never attain power without the acquiescence or even active assent of the traditional elites…party leaders, high government officials” …”and the help of ordinary people, even conventionally good people.”

He ended the book with a somewhat optimistic chord. “We stand a much better chance of responding wisely, however, if we understand how fascism succeeded in the past,” Paxton wrote.  

I do not share that optimism and fear that most Americans did not learn the lesson of earlier fascism.

 

When a Weak Draft-Dodger Plays Military Strongman

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When civil unrest breaks out in countries ruled by authoritarian leaders, protesters are attacked, injured, and killed by heavily armed police or, more often, by military forces. In democracies top leaders recognize legitimate grievances of peaceful protesters, talk to activists, cool down the heat, and leave the law and order part to local and state leaders—especially with respect to terrorist and criminal violence perpetrated by a small minority of extremist intrudes that exploit these situations for their own causes.

In the last nine days, the U.S. President has not acted like the leader of a democracy and certainly not the American democracy. Instead of recognizing the rightful grievances of African Americans and all people of color—not only concerning the documented police violence, he exploits the violent destruction and looting of properties for his own interests.

In his tweets and public statements this president blames the radical left Antifa for carrying out violence. The fact is that some anarchists are responsible for violent acts designed to increase unrest and weaken the glue that holds citizens and their governing institutions and actors together. But this leaderless movement has at best a few hundred activists. The president does not talk at all about the more serious threat: the many extreme right groups that fit under the umbrella of the alt-right: White Supremacist, Neo-Nazis, White Nationalists—many of them heavily armed and militarily trained. Last weekend, three members of the far-right "Boogaloo" movement were arrested in Las Vegas with Molotov cocktails in their possession as they mingled with “Black Lives Matter” protesters. Boogaloo members, as some other organized right-wing extremists, want to provoke a civil war and turn it into a race war against minorities.

But neither the President nor his Attorney General are interested in countering the political violence, terrorism in other words, by intensifying the work of the very capable counterterrorism community. Instead, it seems that the President and his Enablers consider the violent part of the powerful protest movement in the streets as an opportunity. As Rush Limbaugh said last week, “Trump is having fun watching the fires.”

Fun? Opportunities?

Just think of Monday this week, when military forces were moved into Washington, D.C. and used raw force to remove peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park. The uniformed force charged the crowd, beat a team of Australian reporters, and used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. A blackhawk helicopter hovered low over buildings and streets to scare the hell out of ordinary citizens

For Donald Trump, the cowardly draft-dodger, this was a beautifully staged scene to pose as military strongman along the lines of all the autocrats around the world he admires.

We know that nothing will change in Trump’s rhetoric and behavior. Therefore, it is most frightening that his supporting cast plays all roles according to the president’s script. A Defense Secretary who calls American cities “battle spaces” that need to be “dominated.” By force. A chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who marches in camouflage uniform along with the President in the park just “liberated” from citizens. For a macabre photo opportunity that is already fashioned into a campaign ad. Docile Republicans in Congress condoning Trump’s misdeeds by silence or excuses that they are “late for lunch.”

November 3^rd is Election Day. Trump mentioned this date often. I pray and hope that there are more voters on the side of our constitutional rights of “peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances” than on the side of a would-be strongman that commands the military.

Joe Biden and the TRUMP VIRUS

By Brigitte L. Nacos

During the 2016 primary season, then candidate Donald Trump got most of the publicity oxygen that the news media produced. At the expense of his Republican GOP and Democratic rivals. Ironically, he accused the news media then and ever since, wrongly, of anti-Trump bias. And worse.

Now, the very news organizations that Trump characterizes collectively as “enemy of the people” fall into the same trap: They report and magnify everything that the president says and tweets—including the daily diet of claims that are false and, yes, big lies.

In contrast, there is little coverage of the presumptive Democratic candidate Joe Biden. To be sure, he follows the stay-home and wear-a-mask advice of public health experts that Mr. Trump openly defies. But if fair and balanced reporting means to actively enlist statements and comments from the other side, Mr. Biden and his campaign leaders are merely a phone call, text message, or email away.

However, the current laying-low tactic will not work for long for a presidential candidate. Not even during a crisis period, when the opponent’s attacks relentlessly. For all the craziness that is coming out of Trump’s mouth and tweet production, he does control the mass-mediated narrative.

That must change, if the Democrats’ ticket has a winning chance in November. Biden and his campaign should take its cue from the Never Trump Group’s Lincoln Project. Most of all, from their compelling documentary-like videos.  

Biden’s campaign needs slogans that can compete and beat the catch words of the Trump campaign.

Here is the thing: Trump’s politics of denial was responsible for the long delay in preparing and instructing the health care sector and the American public for the most devastating crisis since WWII. Yes, the virus originated in China. But Covid-19 deserves the name Trump VIRUS because this president’s alternative reality and alternative facts lulled adequate preparedness. As research shows, he is responsible for thousands of deaths.

In his book “Time to Get Tough” Trump wrote that “a president doesn’t ‘create’ jobs, only businesses can do that.” But as President he has credited himself with creating the best economy, the best stock market, and the lowest unemployment rate in American history. Well, then, Joe Biden. Why not talking now of a Trump Recession and Trump’s Record Unemployment? Besides the Trump Virus, of course.

And one more thing: Time to Get Tough!

The GOP Crowned the First American King

By Brigitte L. Nacos

 “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!” Nothing characterizes today’s state of affairs in our country better than this sentence from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” that came to mean more generally that things are wrong, troubling, threatening.

If there were any doubts that the liberal democracy that the Founders designed and codified in the U.S. Constitution was trampled by the 45^th U.S. president and the Republican Party in the first three years of his term, such calms were squashed during the impeachment procedures against Donald J. Trump in the U.S. Senate.

What unfolded in the upper chamber of Congress this week was as shameful as it can get in a democracy: In concert with the White House, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell staged a show trial as practiced in totalitarian settings. Witnesses were not allowed to testify, documents not subpoenaed.

In spite of massive evidence in support of the two impeachment articles presented by House managers GOP senators broke their oath of impartiality and sided with their “Great Leader” and his wacky crew of defense attorneys.

Before the ultimate “not guilty” verdict was in, the outcome was clear. Even those GOP Senators who believed that Trump was guilty of “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress” supported acquittal.    

The party of Trump—once known as the Republican Grand Old Party—completely accepted and excused this president’s (1) well-documented efforts to bribe the president of Ukraine to smear a potential political opponent in the upcoming presidential campaign by withholding congress-approved military aid urgently needed to fight Russian invaders; and (2) his refusal to allow White House officials testify in the impeachment procedures in the House and provide relevant administration documents to House committees.

In short, Mitch McConnell and GOP senators crowned the first American King, the monarch that the Founding Father’s wanted to abolish forever through a system of checks and balances and shared powers.

Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his respect and admiration for the most authoritarian leaders of our time, from Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan, China’s Xi Jinping to North Korea’s Kim Jong Um, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, and others. He loves these men because they are “strong” and wield their power widely.  Now he has increased his own power.

Even before the final roll call next week, President Trump knows that there will be not be congressional checks on any misuse of power  nor on obstruction of congressional oversight as long as the GOP has the majority in the Senate.

With a toothless majority in Congresses upper chamber, and Attorney-General at the President’s service, two Trump appointed members on the Supreme Court, and intimidated civil servants fearful to stick to fact and truth, American democracy as envisioned by the Framers and we know from the past is rotten.

No, we do not have an authoritarian system yet, but we are moving towards what Hungary’s Viktor Orban and other European populists call blatantly “illiberal democracy.” It is not difficult to imagine what would happen in a second Trump term.

The elections on November 3 can stop this downward slide!

Why did Trump order the Assassination of the Iranian General? The President’s Twitter Archive provides the Best Answer

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Since 2011, Donald Trump mentioned Iran 380 times in tweets that revealed his obsession with and hostility towards the Islamic Republic. In many of these Twitter messages he attacked President Obama for not being tough enough.

But in the most revealing tweets are the following:

Nov.  14, 2011: @BarackObama will attack Iran in the not too distant future because it will help him to win the election.

Nov. 29, 2011: In order to get elected @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

April 4, 2012: Remember what I said about @BarackObama attacking Iran before the election...

Oct. 22, 2013: Don’t let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected—be aware Republicans!

As we know, President Obama did not attack Iran to trigger a rally-‘round-the-flag effect in support of his reelection chances as Trump predicted wrongly.

However, according to the Pentagon, it was Trump who ordered the deadly drone strikes that killed Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian general in charge of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force. While not shedding tears over Soleimani’s demise, one wonders about the overall strategic concept behind the assassination. While an all-out war is unlikely, Iran will strike back sometime, somewhere.  And the explosive Middle East will become even more dangerous and destabilized.

But that obviously does not concern Trump.

Replace “@BarackObama” and “Obama” with @realDonaldTrump in the four tweets above and you get a good idea why the Commander-in-Chief gave the green light for the assassination of the Iranian general on the territory of the sovereign state of Iraq.  

The President obviously believes that the conflict with Iran will raise his public approval and help his reelection along with his fight against the impeachment process.

So far, so good, for Trump: The breaking news now is all about the U.S.-Iran conflict—not about impeachment and likely Democrats running against the president in the general election campaign.