US Senate

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      'Jim Crow relic': Senate filibuster stands in way of Democratic voting rights push

      by

      As states around the country advance a wave of measures that would make it harder to vote, Democrats in Washington are planning the most sweeping voting rights protections in decades. But to pass those protections, Democrats will have to overcome a huge barrier.Shortly after taking control of the US Senate last month, Democrats made it clear that they wanted to move quickly to advance a version of the massive voting rights bill that passed the US House last year. The measure would require every state to offer automatic, same-day and online voter registration. It would require states to let anyone vote by mail if they wish and implement new guidelines to prevent states from being overly aggressive in how they purge their vote rolls. It would also strip state lawmakers of their power to redraw congressional districts every 10 years, curbing their ability to draw lines that virtually guarantee re-election.Democrats are also considering separate legislation to restore a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act that would require states with a history of discriminating against voters to get any voting changes approved by the federal government before they go into effect.Though they control both chambers of Congress and the White House, Democrats won’t be able to pass either measure unless they get rid of the filibuster, a procedural maneuver the minority party in the Senate can use to block legislation that doesn’t have the support of 60 senators.Democrats are divided on whether to get rid of the filibuster, and it’s unclear whether they will ultimately do so. Those who favor scrapping the procedure argue that it is impeding a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect the right to vote. Not doing so, they say, would amount to giving Republicans a free pass to continue a brazen effort to restrict voting rights and entrench their power amid a shifting electorate that appears less likely to favor the GOP.The filibuster should not block Democrats from passing a major voting rights bill and a new voting rights act, Eric Holder, who served as US attorney general from 2009 to 2015, said in a statement to the Guardian. Both measures, he added, were “badly needed corrections and reforms that will strengthen our democracy”.“The reality is that too many in the Republican party have grown comfortable manipulating our political system for partisan advantage,” added Holder, who is leading the Democratic effort to combat excessive partisan gerrymandering. “The Senate should not allow the filibuster, which was once used to stop civil rights legislation, to now stop critical bills that would protect and strengthen our democratic system.”Stacey Abrams, the former former Georgia gubernatorial candidate who helped flip her state blue in 2020, also urged Democrats in Washington to go full throttle to protect voting rights.“Democrats in Congress must fully embrace their mandate to fast-track democracy reforms that give voters a fair fight, rather than allowing undemocratic systems to be used as tools and excuses to perpetuate that same system,” she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in which she endorsed getting rid of the filibuster.“This is a moment of both historic imperative and, with unified Democratic control of the White House and Congress, historic opportunity.”The last few weeks have crystallized the need for those protections as states that saw record turnout have taken up bills that would make it harder to vote. In Georgia, where Democrats won for the first time in decades amid record turnout, Republicans are weighing measures to require voters to submit ID during the mail-in ballot process and to get rid of no-excuse absentee voting. Republicans in Arizona, another state Democrats flipped in 2020, are considering legislation to make it easier to remove voters from a permanent vote-by-mail list and to require mail-in ballots be notarized.Across the country, at least 165 bills in 33 states would make it harder to vote, according to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.Danielle Lang, a voting rights attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, noted that lawmakers who campaigned on strengthening America’s voting laws now had an obligation to see it through.“Failure to act is not an option,” she wrote in an email. “While we averted democracy disaster in 2020 – due to the sheer willpower of election officials, organizers, and voters nationwide – it would be folly to ignore the warning sirens it set off.”The filibuster has a long history of impeding civil rights legislation in America and has been deployed to try to block civil rights protections, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. When Barack Obama spoke at the funeral for John Lewis, the civil rights icon who died last year, he called the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic” that should be eliminated to pass sweeping voting rights legislation.The filibuster also essentially allows a small minority of senators to exercise outsize influence over legislation, thwarting the will of the majority. “It’s supremely ironic that something that gives rural, sparsely populated states so much power already would further kind of entrench minority rule and further make it difficult to access the ballot box,” said Stephen Spaulding, senior counsel for public policy and government affairs at Common Cause, a government watchdog group.Keeping the filibuster in place and not passing sweeping voting reforms would have “profound downstream effects”, Spaulding added.“The American people chose new leaders; they want a responsive government,” he said. “To have essentially a minority of senators exercising veto power over the entire legislative process is just not gonna be tenable.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Senate leaders announce Trump impeachment trial rules – video

      by

      On the eve of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial on a charge of inciting the deadly US Capitol attack, Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority and minority leaders, have laid out the framework for the trial. ’All parties have agreed to a structure that will ensure a fair and honest Senate impeachment trial of the former president,’ Schumer said. Each side will have 16 hours to present their arguments and the trial will break on Friday afternoon and resume on Sunday afternoon
      Trump impeachment: Schumer says agreement reached on rules for trial – live More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats to open Trump impeachment trial by recounting Capitol attack

      by

      House impeachment managers will open their prosecution of Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” by recounting the deadly assault on the US Capitol in harrowing and cinematic detail, rekindling for senators the chaos and trauma they experienced on 6 January.The historic second impeachment trial will open on Tuesday, on the Senate floor that was invaded by rioters, with a debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings. In a brief filed on Monday, Trump’s lawyers assailed the case as “political theater” and argued that the Senate “lacks the constitutional jurisdiction” to try a former president after he has left office – an argument Democrats promptly rejected.Exactly one week after the Capitol assault, Trump became the first president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives. This week, he will become the first former president to stand trial. It would take 17 Republicans joining all Democrats in the Senate to find Trump guilty, making conviction highly unlikely.Nevertheless, when opening arguments begin later this week, House Democrats will try to force senators to see the assault on the Capitol as the culmination of Trump’s long campaign to overturn the result of the election he lost to Joe Biden. Relying on video and audio recordings, impeachment managers, led by the Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, will try to marshal the anger and outrage many members of Congress expressed in the aftermath of the riot, which sought to prevent them from counting electoral college votes and thereby to disrupt the transition of power.In a 78-page brief submitted to the Senate on Monday, Trump’s lawyers laid out a two-pronged rebuttal, also arguing that his rhetoric was in no way responsible for the Capitol attack.The senators will grapple with the constitutional question on Tuesday, when they are expected to debate and vote on the matter. Though scholars and a majority of senators say they believe the trial is constitutional, many Republicans have seized on the technical argument that a former president cannot be tried for “high crimes and misdemeanors” as a way to justify support for acquitting Trump without appearing to condone his behavior.In their own pre-trial filing on Monday, the House managers dismissed the arguments laid out by Trump’s lawyers and vowed to hold Trump accountable for the “most grievous constitutional crime ever committed by a president”.“Presidents swear a sacred oath that binds them from their first day in office through their very last,” they wrote. “There is no ‘January Exception’ to the constitution that allows presidents to abuse power in their final days without accountability.”In a vote last month, all but five Republican senators voted to dismiss the trial as unconstitutional. Yet Charles Cooper, a leading conservative lawyer, rejected that view in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published on Sunday.Because the constitution also allows the Senate to disqualify former federal officials from ever again holding public office, Cooper wrote, “it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders”.The trial begins just more than a year after Trump was first impeached, for pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s family. He was acquitted by the Senate.Americans are now more supportive of convicting Trump, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday. It found that 56% of Americans believe the Senate should convict Trump and bar him from future office.Though the exact framework of the trial remains uncertain, subject to negotiations between the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and the chamber’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, it is expected to move much faster than Trump’s first trial.Under a draft agreement between the leaders, obtained by the New York Times, opening arguments would begin on Wednesday, with up to 16 hours for each side. At the request of Trump’s attorneys, the proceedings will break on Friday evening for the Jewish Sabbath and resume on Sunday.The House managers are expected to forgo calling witnesses, a major point of contention during Trump’s first trial. The former president declined their request to testify, a decision Raskin said “speaks volumes and plainly establishes an adverse inference supporting his guilt”.The managers have indicated that they intend to lay out a comprehensive case, tracing Trump’s extraordinary efforts to reverse his defeat, including a call in which he pressured the Georgia secretary of state to “find” enough votes to overturn Biden’s victory there. When it became clear that all other paths were closed, they will argue, Trump turned his attention to the certification vote on Capitol Hill, encouraging supporters to attend a rally held to protest against the result.At that event, Trump implored them to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol to register their discontent – words his defense team will argue are protected under the first amendment.The House managers contend that “it is impossible to imagine the events of 6 January occurring without President Trump creating a powder keg, striking a match, and then seeking personal advantage from the ensuing havoc”. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The crucial differences in Trump’s second impeachment trial

      by

      It might be tempting to call it the trial of the century but it is just as likely to invoke a sense of deja vu. This week Donald Trump faces an impeachment trial in the US Senate. Yes, another one.Trump stands accused of inciting an insurrection when he urged supporters to “fight” his election defeat before they stormed the US Capitol in Washington on 6 January, clashed with police and left five people dead.In some ways it will be a replay of his first impeachment trial a year ago. Again Trump himself will not be present and again the outcome, given his subjugation of the Republican party, has an air of inevitability – acquittal.But there are crucial differences the second time around. Trump is now a former president, the first to be tried by the Senate after leaving office. For this reason the sessions will be presided over not by John Roberts, the chief justice of the supreme court, but 80-year-old Patrick Leahy, the longest-serving Democratic senator.Whereas Trump offered running commentary on the first trial via Twitter, he has now been banned from the platform for incendiary statements. And whereas his first trial, on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress, turned on whether phone records and paper trails showed that he pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, the sequel promises to be more raw and visceral.Proceedings will unfold at the scene of the crime: the hallowed Senate chamber that was invaded by rioters including white supremacist groups. The nine Democratic impeachment managers are expected to present new video footage and eyewitness testimony that will vividly evoke the terror felt by members of Congress as they barricaded themselves inside offices and feared for their lives.“If the Democrats do what’s being reported and present the visual evidence, it will be nothing a Senate trial has ever seen before,” said Charlie Sykes, founder and editor-at-large of the Bulwark website. “It’s going to be a graphic narrative of the build-up and the attack and the violence and the scope of the threat and it’s going to be very difficult to minimise that, especially because every one of those senators was a witness to it in some way.“So I actually think that it’s going to be more powerful than some people expect. The result is preordained – I don’t have any illusions about that – but, because the evidence has been mounting over the last several weeks, I am expecting it to be dramatic.”There have only been four presidential impeachments in American history and Trump owns half of them: his second came last month in a vote by the House of Representatives, with all Democrats and 10 Republicans charging him with inciting violence against the US government.That set the stage for Tuesday’s Senate trial where legal briefs filed by both sides offer a preview of the territory that will be contested. House prosecutors argue that that Trump was “singularly responsible” for the sacking of the Capitol – where Biden’s election win was being certified – by “creating a powder keg, striking a match, and then seeking personal advantage from the ensuing havoc”.If the Democrats do what’s being reported and present the visual evidence, it will be nothing a Senate trial has ever seen beforeIt is “impossible” to imagine the attack taking place as it did without Trump whipping up the crowd into a “frenzy”, they argue, citing the same view expressed by the Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney, a Republican who defied the party line by voting for impeachment.But in a 14-page brief that uses the word “denied” or “denies” some 29 times, Trump’s hastily assembled legal team contend that he cannot be blamed because he never incited anyone to “engage in destructive behavior”. The people “responsible” for the attack are being investigated and prosecuted, they add.But the Democrats’ brief carries detail of the horror felt by politicians and their staff during the mayhem. “Some Members called loved ones for fear that they would not survive the assault by President Trump’s insurrectionist mob,” they write.The anguish was on vivid display in recent days as members such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib recalled the traumatic events of 6 January during speeches on the House floor. Tlaib broke down in tears as she pleaded with colleagues: “Please, please take what happened on January 6 seriously. It will lead to more death, and we can do better.”Trump’s conduct not only “endangered the life of every single member of Congress”, the impeachment managers say, but also “jeopardized the peaceful transition of power and line of succession”.Their brief details threats to Mike Pence, the then vice-president, and Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, as the pro-Trump mob rampaged through the building and “specifically hunted” them. Some chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” and branded him a traitor for refusing to overturn the election result, video footage shows.But how ever emotive the evidence, Trump’s team denies that the Senate has the authority to hear the case because he is now a private citizen and no longer in office. Democrats reject this, pointing to the example of William Belknap, a war secretary whose resignation in 1876 did not prevent him being impeached by the House and tried the Senate.They also argue that the constitution explicitly allows the Senate to disqualify a convicted former official from holding office in the future, a vital consideration given that Trump has not ruled out running for president again in 2024.The defence’s challenge to the constitutionality of the trial, however, looks certain to clinch Trump’s acquittal. Already 45 out of 50 Senate Republicans, including the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, voted on that basis in an effort to end the trial before it began.A two-thirds majority of the 100-member Senate would be required to support the charge to convict Trump, meaning that 17 Republicans would need to join all 50 Democrats. Most Republicans have repeatedly shown they are loyal to Trump and wary of retribution from his base.Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, predicted: “You may be able to get seven or eight Republicans at the end of the day voting to convict but they’re weak and afraid that they may lose their little precious seat. ‘So the country be damned, I’m still going to be a senator, I have to get re-elected.’“That’s the most important thing for them. If their mama were on trial, they would sacrifice their mama if they get to keep their seat: that’s what it boils down to. Tell me, what are you willing to sacrifice your re-election for, if not the country?”Even so, there is still some suspense around whether Trump will pressure his legal team to push “the big lie” of a stolen election. Over two months his bogus claims of election fraud were rejected by courts, state officials and his own attorney general.What are you willing to sacrifice your re-election for, if not the country?The defence’s legal brief points to the first amendment, which protects freedom of speech, to assert that Trump was entitled to “express his belief that the election results were suspect”. Pushing this hard at the trial could prove a spectacular own goal that will make it harder for Republicans to defend him.Steele added: “If they present that as an argument, they’ll get laughed out of the out of the chamber. They would actually be lying. They would be presenting false evidence because they could make the allegation and, if I’m a senator, ‘Show me the proof. You mean to tell me you have proof that 60 courts and the supreme court didn’t have?’”A key figure in the trial will be Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who, despite being a relatively new member of the House, has risen to prominence as lead impeachment manager. His 25-year-old son, Tommy, a Harvard law student who struggled with depression, took his own life on New Year’s Eve. Raskin told CNN last month: “I’m not going to lose my son at the end of 2020 and lose my country and my republic in 2021.”Raskin requested that Trump, now living at his luxury estate in Florida, testify under oath at the trial but the ex-president’s lawyers, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, rejected the idea as a “public relations stunt”. It remains unclear whether the prosecutors will be able to call other witnesses, such as police officers still recovering from serious injuries.Impeachment is inescapably a political process and the fact that Leahy, a Democrat, is presiding rather than the neutral chief justice is only like the fuel the partisan fires among senators who always have an eye on the next election.Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said: “The key audience for this trial, if it exists, is suburban voters. They defected from the Republicans at the presidential level and defected from them in Georgia at the Senate level in the runoff.“If the Democrats can gain with suburban voters by tying the incumbent Republican senators to Donald Trump for the next two years, it helps them keep the Senate and that’s the whole reason this trial is happening.”Schiller added: “You can see why the House impeached Donald Trump: a, he was still in office and b, it was to safeguard the country against any abuses of power that he might commit in the 10 days between impeachment and January 20. [But] It’s very hard to make the argument that this trial is meaningful.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris uses casting vote to pass Covid relief budget resolution

      by

      The US Senate has passed a budget resolution that allows for the passage of Joe Biden’s $1.9tn (£1.4tn) Covid-19 relief package in the coming weeks without Republican support.
      The vice-president, Kamala Harris, broke a 50/50 tie by casting a vote in favour of the Democratic measure, which sends it to the House of Representatives for final approval. It marked the first time Harris, in her role as president of the Senate, cast a tie-breaking vote after being sworn in as the first female vice-president on 20 January.
      The House passed its own budget measure on Wednesday. Congress can now work to write a bill that can be passed by a simple majority in both houses, which are controlled by Democrats. Mid-March has been suggested as a likely date by which the measure could be passed, a point at which enhanced unemployment benefits will expire if Congress does not act.
      The vote came at 5.30am on Friday at the end of a marathon Senate debate session, known among senators as a “vote-a-rama”, a procedure whereby they can theoretically offer unlimited amendments.
      US cases
      Biden is scheduled to meet with Democratic House leaders and committee chairs early on Friday morning to discuss the Covid economic stimulus, and is expected to make public remarks on the progress at an 11.45am EST (1645 GMT) briefing.
      There was dissent from Republicans in the Senate overnight, particularly over plans for a $15 federal minimum wage. Iowa’s Republican senator, Joni Ernst, raised an amendment to “prohibit the increase of the federal minimum wage during a global pandemic”, which was carried by a voice vote.
      The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders said he still intended to support bringing the measure through: “We need to end the crisis of starvation wages in Iowa and around the United States.”
      He outlined plans to get a wage increase, phased in over five years, included in a budget reconciliation bill. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour, and has not been raised since 2009.
      In a tweet after the vote, Sanders said: “Today, with the passage of this budget resolution to provide relief to our working families, we have the opportunity not only to address the pandemic and the economic collapse – we have the opportunity to give hope to the American people and restore faith in our government.”
      During the debate Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said “This is not the time for trillions more dollars to make perpetual lockdowns and economic decline a little more palatable. Notwithstanding the actual needs, notwithstanding all the talk about bipartisan unity, Democrats in Congress are plowing ahead. They’re using this phony budget to set the table to ram through their $1.9 trillion rough draft.”
      The $1.9 trillion relief package proposed would be used to speed Covid-19 vaccines throughout the nation. Other funds would extend special unemployment benefits that will expire at the end of March and make direct payments to people to help them pay bills and stimulate the economy. Democrats also want to send money to state and local governments dealing with the worst health crisis in decades. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump's second impeachment: will the Senate convict him?

      by

      Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial begins in the Senate next week. Lawrence Douglas explains the process and politics of the spectacle ahead

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      The US Senate will be transformed into a courtroom next week when Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial begins. After hearing evidence against the former president, the Senate’s 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats will have to decide whether Trump was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” when he incited supporters to storm the Capitol building and disrupt the election certification process. Lawrence Douglas, an Amherst College professor and Guardian opinion contributor, explains what kind of defence Trump is planning to mount, and whether any Senate Republicans are likely to vote to convict him. And the former Democratic senator Russ Feingold, who served during Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the 90s, tells Anushka Asthana how the process has become more partisan than ever. Archive: CNN, C-Span, Rev, Bloomberg, CBS-DFW, Fox News, CBS, 60 Minutes (CBS), YouTube More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump will refuse to testify at Senate impeachment trial, lawyers say

      by

      Donald Trump’s legal team has said the former president will not voluntarily testify under oath at his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, where he faces the charge from House Democrats that he incited the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January.
      The lead House impeachment manager, Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, wrote to Trump asking him to testify under oath before or during the trial, challenging the former president to explain why he and his lawyers have disputed key factual allegations at the center of their charge that he incited a violent mob to storm the Capitol.
      “You denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment. You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue,” Raskin wrote in a letter made public on Thursday.
      He went on to say that if Trump refused to do so, an adverse inference would be made from his reluctance.
      Hours after the letter was released, the Trump adviser Jason Miller said that the former president “will not testify” in what he described as an “unconstitutional proceeding”. Trump’s lawyers dismissed the request as a “public relations stunt”.
      The request from House impeachment managers does not require Trump to appear – though the Senate could later force a subpoena – but it does warn that any refusal to testify could be used at trial to support arguments for a conviction. Even if Trump does not testify, the request nonetheless makes clear Democrats’ determination to present an aggressive case against him even though he has left the White House.
      The Senate impeachment trial starts on 9 February. Trump is charged with inciting an insurrection on 6 January, when a mob of his supporters broke into the Capitol to interrupt the electoral vote count. Democrats have said a trial is necessary to provide a final measure of accountability for the attack. If he is convicted, the Senate could hold a second vote to disqualify him from seeking office again.
      In the letter, Raskin asked that Trump provide testimony about his conduct “either before or during the Senate impeachment trial”, and under cross-examination, as early as Monday, 8 February, and not later than Thursday, 11 February.
      The request from Raskin cites the words of Trump’s own attorneys, who in a legal brief earlier this week not only denied that Trump had incited the riot, but also asserted that he had “performed admirably in his role as president, at all times doing what he thought was in the best interests of the American people”.
      With that argument, Raskin said, Trump had questioned critical facts in the case “notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense”. He said Trump should be able to testify now that he is no longer president.
      Raskin said if Trump refuses to appear, the managers will use his refusal against him in the trial – a similar argument put forth by House Democrats in last year’s impeachment trial, when many Trump officials ignored subpoenas. Trump was eventually acquitted of the Democratic charges that he abused his presidential powers by pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden, now the president.
      The impeachment managers do not have the authority to subpoena witnesses now since the House has already voted to impeach him. The Senate could vote to subpoena Trump, or any other witnesses, on a simple majority vote during the trial. But it is unclear if the Senate would be willing to do so.
      Shortly after Raskin’s letter was made public, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said he would listen to the House managers’ arguments if they felt a subpoena was necessary. But he said that “the more I see what’s already in the public record, the more powerful the case” against Trump, based on his own words and actions.
      Trump’s statements before and after the attack on the Capitol “are the most powerful evidence”, Blumenthal said. “His own words incriminate him. They show his guilty intent.”
      The South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s closest GOP allies, said he thought the letter was a “political ploy” and noted that Democrats did not invite or subpoena him to testify before the House, which voted to impeach Trump on 13 January.
      Asked if he thought Trump would testify, Graham said it would be a “bad idea”.
      “I don’t think that would be in anybody’s interest,” he said.
      Associated Press contributed to this report More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Democracy or the white supremacist mob: which side is the Republican party on? | Richard Wolffe

      by

      In 2001, nine days after terrorists attacked the United States and its federal government, a Republican president stood before Congress with the overwhelming support of a terrified nation, as he presented a stark choice to the world.“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” said George W Bush to loud applause in September 2001. “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”Thus was born the post-9/11 era, which survived for the best part of two decades, costing trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, and realigning American diplomacy and politics in stark terms.Republicans fought and won two elections on the basis that they were strong and unequivocal in defending the nation, while Democrats were weak flip-floppers who tried to have it both ways.Today Washington is staring at something like a new dawn – the start of the post-Trump era – and Republicans don’t know which side of the war they’re on. Are they with the United States or with the insurrectionists?The early answers are catastrophically weak in a world where the threats are not distant or abstract. This is not a risk posed to American officials halfway around the world, or a potential threat that might one day materialize in a foreign capital.This is a clear and present danger for the very members of Congress who must now decide between protecting their own careers or protecting the lives of the people working down the hall. With the second impeachment trial of Donald J Trump starting next week, there’s no escaping the moment of decision for at least 50 Republican senators: are you with the United States or not?In every single other working environment, this would not be a hard choice. Given the chance to save your own job or save the lives of your co-workers – even the ones you dislike – the vast majority of decent people would save lives.Just listen to the first-hand accounts of representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Katie Porter. Ocasio-Cortez gave a chilling account of hiding in her office bathroom to save her life as insurrectionists stormed the Capitol last month.It is long past time to admit the blindingly obvious: the Republican party has been hijacked by fascist extremistsThere’s no question that she, like many others, feared for her life. Porter recalled her friend desperately seeking refuge in her office. She gave Ocasio-Cortez a pair of sneakers in case they needed to run for their lives.The mortal threat was not confined to high-profile Democrats. Mike Pence, the most toady of Trump loyalists, was hiding from the mob with his family, while terrorists chanted about hanging him. If anyone needed confirmation of their murderous intent, there was a makeshift gallows outside the Capitol.It is long past time to admit the blindingly obvious: the Republican party has been hijacked by fascist extremists. It is now a far-right organization in league with neo-Nazis who have made it painfully clear they want to overthrow democracy and seize power, using violence if necessary.Every decision the so-called leaders make at this point defines which side they are on: the United States as we know it, or the white supremacist mob.In these few weeks since the mob trashed the Capitol, leading to five deaths, Republican leaders have bathed themselves less in glory than in the sewage of fascism. Given a choice between the conservative Liz Cheney and the fascist Marjorie Taylor Greene, House Republicans have shunned the former and hugged the latter.It’s Cheney whose position as part of the Republican leadership is under threat, while Greene is only coming under pressure from Democrats – who for some reason find themselves alone in feeling horrified by Greene’s advocacy for the execution of Democrats and white supremacy in general.Republican leaders now find themselves in a prisoner’s dilemma of their own making. Both Mitch McConnell in the US Senate and Kevin McCarthy in the House of Representatives could escape the worst public punishment if they act together to take back their own party. Instead, they are ratting on each other.McConnell said in a statement on Monday that Greene posed an existential threat to the party. “Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican party and our country,” he said, while also supporting Cheney’s leadership.Technically this is McCarthy’s mess to clean up, in the House rather than the Senate. But McCarthy can’t bring himself to say something in public about the QAnon cultist Greene, or what she represents.Instead he traveled to Florida at the weekend to kiss the ring of the man who really stands at the center of this threat to our democracy: one Donald J Trump, who is supposedly a Greene fan, according to Greene herself.There may be rational short-term reasons why McConnell and McCarthy have parted ways on this fascist thing.McConnell just lost control of the Senate because it’s challenging to win statewide contests – even in conservative places like Georgia – when you’re trying to overthrow democracy at the same time. McCarthy, meanwhile, deludes himself that he can get closer to power because House districts are so gerrymandered that Republicans are only threatened by the cannibalizing power of the mob.But in reality, there is no choice. This isn’t about loony lies or conspiracy theories, as McConnell suggests. It’s not about Republican primaries or Trump’s disapproval, as McCarthy fears.The choice in front of Republicans is whether they support democracy or not; whether they want to live and work in fear of the mob, or not. QAnon may be loony but its goals are to murder elected officials, and its supporters include heavily armed insurrectionists. The 1930s fascists were also unhinged and proved themselves deadly serious about mass murder.Next week Republicans in Washington have one more chance to turn their backs on fascism. They could reject the laughable claims from Trump’s lawyers that he was merely exercising his free speech rights by telling his mob to march on Congress and fight like hell. Apparently such conduct does not constitute incitement to riot, because the word “incitement” has lost all relationship to reality.Nobody expects Republican senators to vote in enough numbers to convict Trump of the obvious charges that played out on television. Nobody expects enough of them to reject the violent overthrow of the democracy that put them in the Senate.They represent, to use Bush’s language, a hostile regime inside the nation’s capital. Until Republicans split with the insurrectionists – by ejecting them from their party or forming their own – democracy itself is unsafe. More