The Dictatorship
Democrats have the evidence to call for Trump’s impeachment. But that’s not what they should pursue.
ByAustin Sarat
Progressive Democrats turned up the heat last week in their effort to convince party leaders to start impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. Among other things, they cite as impeachable offenses the president’s unprovoked attack on Venezuelaand his use of the Justice Department to target his political opponents.
ABC News quotes Kat Abughazaleh, who is running for Congress in Illinoiscalling for Democratic leaders to “‘grow a f—ing spine.” Abughazaleh, who says political leaders have helped convince Americans that we “shouldn’t take measures toward a future that we want to live in,” calls impeachment “just another tool in the accountability machine.”
President Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but that does not mean that impeachment is the best remedy.
President Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but that does not mean impeachment is the best remedy. It would be, at best, a distraction from Trump’s real vulnerabilities, and even if it succeeded in elevating JD Vance to the highest office in the land, it would not spare the nation from the plague of cruelty and corruption we have experienced since Jan. 20, 2025. That is, it would not save American democracy.
Even though this isn’t the time to actively pursue impeachment, that doesn’t mean Democrats should be silent or fail to talk about why impeachment is warranted. Failing to do so normalizes the president’s abuses of authority and, as they accumulate, habituates people to them.
But, contrary to what Abughazaleh is doing, Democrats definitely shouldn’t make impeachment a part of their platform. The best chance Democrats have to check the president’s lawlessness, corruption and abuses of power is to win control of the House of Representatives and/or the Senate later this year. To do so, they must convince voters that they care more about their own conditions than about holding Trump accountable.

The president and his allies are already using the threat of impeachment to rally the troops. On Jan. 6, President Trump told an audience at a House Republican policy retreat that “if we don’t win the midterms … they’ll find a reason to impeach me. I’ll get impeached.”
In July, NBC News quoted a senior Republican strategist actively involved in congressional races, who said impeachment “will be the subtext of everything we do, whether it’s said overtly or not.” John McLaughlin, a Trump pollster, told NBC News that Republicans had a lot of work to do getting “happy and complacent” Trump voters fired up and that if Republicans lose in the midterms, “Democrats will begin persecuting President Trump again. They would go for impeachment.”
Democrats should not take the bait. In this case, as in others, leaders and citizens must temper a commitment to democratic principles with prudence.
That’s not an excuse for inaction. Prudence doesn’t mean acquiescence in the face of assaults on our constitutional order. But it does mean choosing the best course of action given current circumstances. This is never more important than when anti-democratic forces seek to provoke a response that will give them an excuse to double down on their anti-democratic actions.
Democrats should not take the bait.
“Today, many Democrats have understandably questioned whether impeachment is possible again under the current political reality,” Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., observed this month, as she argued that “Democrats cannot remain silent or passive in the face of actions this extreme from this Administration.”
On Jan. 11, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., provided an example of what it means to speak out when he accused Trump of committing far more impeachable acts in his second term than in his first. Even so, Murphy recognized that any effort to impeach the president should wait until after the 2026 election.
Some of his colleagues in Congress clearly disagree. In April, Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., introduced seven articles of impeachmentagainst Trump. He argued that the president should be removed for ignoring “the Constitution, Congress, and the courts.”
Thanedar”https://x.com/repshrithanedar/status/1916920864521519363″>offered a persuasive bill of particulars, ranging from obstruction of justice to taking away Congress’ power of the purse. He said impeachment is necessary to remind the American people that obeying the Constitution is “not optional.”
Nonetheless, his impeachment resolution attracted only one co-sponsor.
In December, that co-sponsor, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, introduced his own impeachment resolution, labeling Trump “an abuser of Presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote the incitement of violence, engender invidious hate, undermine our democracy, and dissolve our Republic.”
Green noted, among other things, that “President Trump called for the execution of six Democratic lawmakers, all of whom are currently serving in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives and who previously served in the U.S. Military or in U.S. Intelligence communities,” who had made a video reminding members of the military of their duty to disobey illegal orders.
This is not the time for Democrats to go tilting at windmills.
But when Green tried to force a vote on his impeachment resolution, almost two dozen of his Democratic colleagues voted against it, with another 47 voting present.
Even if an effort to launch an impeachment inquiry were to pass, the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee would be in charge of leading it. That’s one reason going forward with a serious impeachment effort now would be futile as well as make it harder for Democrats to work to ensure free and fair elections in November.
This is not the time for Democrats to go tilting at windmills. This is a time for what Alexander Hamilton called “sound discernment.”
Sound discernment suggests this is not the time for impeachment, even if it is merited.
Instead, Democrats should heed Hamilton’s admonition that it is often preferable to “incur the negative inconveniences of delay” than experience “the positive mischiefs of injudicious expedients.”
Austin Sarat
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. The views expressed here do not represent Amherst College.
The Dictatorship
Amanda Gorman honors Alex Pretti in new poem
Amanda Gorman shared a powerful poem on Instagram that she wrote in honor of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen killed by a federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Saturday.
The poem, “For Alex Jeffrey Pretti,” characterizes Pretti’s killing as a “betrayal” and an “execution.”
Gorman, earlier this month, also paid tribute to Renee Nicole Good, another U.S. citizen killed by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. In a caption accompanying another poem shared on Instagram, Gorman said she was “horrified by the ongoing violence that ICE wages upon our community. Across our country, we are witnessing discrimination and brutality on an unconscionable scale.”
Her poem says, in part: “You could believe departed to be the dawn/ When the blank night has so long stood./ But our bright-fled angels will never be fully gone,/ When they forever are so fiercely Good.”
The 27-year-old writer and activist famously recited her poem, “Blue Light News We Climb,” at Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration in 2021. Gorman has also written poems in the wake of other tragedies in the country, including “Hymn for the Hurting,” about the Robb Elementary mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas in 2022. She also performed a poem she wrote about reproductive rights and the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court case in a NowThis video in 2019.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
The Dictatorship
Ted Cruz bashes Vance and Trump in secret recordings
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in recordings obtained by Axiosseems to have a bone to pick with Vice President JD Vance and sometimes, President Donald Trump.
In his remarks, which lasted about 10 minutes and were reportedly made in a private meeting with donors sometime last year, Cruz portrays himself as an economically-minded, pro-interventionist who has the president’s ear.
The Texas senator is also heard criticizing former Fox News personality, Tucker Carlson, and his relationship with the vice president. “Tucker created JD. JD is Tucker’s protégé, and they are one and the same,” Cruz told donors.
Cruz, who has clashed with Carlson in the past over foreign intervention policies, bashed the administration’s appointment of Israel critic Daniel Davis to a top national intelligence position. A vocal supporter of Israel himself, Cruz called Davis “a guy who viciously hates Israel,” and credited himself with removing Davis from the job.
The Republican senator also blamed Vance and Carlson for ousting former national security adviser Mike Waltz over similar anti-interventionist sentiments related to Iran.
“[Waltz] supported being vigorous against Iran and bombing Iran — and Tucker and JD took Mike out,” Cruz said.

Cruz also said he has been trying to get the White House to accept a trade agreement with India, but claimed White House economic adviser Peter Navarro, Vance and “sometimes” Trump, are resistant.
Domestically, Cruz cautioned donors about Trump’s tariffs, which he said could result in severe economic and political consequences. Cruz is reportedly heard telling donors that he told the president “if we get to November of [2026] and people’s 401(k)s are down 30% and prices are up 10–20% at the supermarket, we’re going to go into Election Day, face a bloodbath.”
Cruz said a conversation he had with Trump about tariffs “did not go well,” and that Trump was “yelling” and “cursing.” Cruz said Trump told him: “F*** you, Ted.”
“Trump was in a bad mood,” Cruz said. “I’ve been in conversations where he was very happy. This was not one of them.”
In a statement about the recordings, a spokesperson for Cruz said he is “the president’s greatest ally in the Senate and battles every day in the trenches to advance his agenda. Those battles include fights over staffers who try to enter the administration despite disagreeing with the president and seeking to undermine his foreign policy” and that “these attempts at sowing division are pathetic and getting boring.”
In an email responding to MS NOW’s request for comment on Cruz’s reported statements, the White House did not address Cruz’s statements.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
The Dictatorship
The real reason Trump and MAGA are so quick to blame Minneapolis shooting victims
Alex Pretti was shot to death on the sidewalk of a street in Minneapolis after he didn’t leave when federal agents demanded he leave. Renee Good was shot to death in her car on a street in Minneapolis because she tried to leave when federal agents demanded she not.
Advocates of President Donald Trump’s administration will cite this disobedience as a central factor in Pretti and Good’s deaths. Each has been assigned a contrived danger, as well, to reinforce the urgent need for their killings: Pretti had a gun (that he doesn’t appear to have drawn) and Good had her car (that she doesn’t appear to have used as a weapon).
But their central offense, among those eager to champion Trump’s politics and policies, was their failure to be pliant. They were at odds with the state and, well, sometimes that’s punishable by death.
It is stunning, though not surprising, to see the president of the United States and sworn federal officials impugn dead citizens so callously.
It has been posited that the eagerness with which Trump and his allies have defended Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents against charges of excessive force, and the alacrity with which they assign blame to the victims of those shootings, demonstrates hypocrisy, given their collective willingness to absolve — to beatify! — the rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. They, too, defied state authority and, in many cases, far more aggressively. But they are hailed as heroes by the current administration.
But this isn’t hypocrisy at all. It’s consistent. If you object to or impede their politics, they will hurt you. That is the consistency and it is why off-duty police were in the mob on Jan. 6 and why Trump supporters defend ICE today. It’s not the badge that matters. It’s the red cap.
The most jarring element of the response to Pretti’s death and to Good’s death is the speed with which the administration has disparaged the victims rather than the perpetrators. Each of them was also immediately asserted to have been a premeditated, violent actor. A terrorist. When each, instead, was at the scene of their unwitting deaths because they were part of and supportive of their community.
It is stunning, though not surprising, to see the president of the United States and sworn federal officials impugn dead citizens so callously. It’s utterly immoral, if not deranged. What flows through their veins is partisanship, and what dominates their thoughts is knocking their opponents and critics back on their heels. Perhaps there are flutters of recognition that this is not how human beings behave, much less political leaders in a democracy. But if those flames flicker into existence, they are quickly snuffed.

And for what! This is the question that continues to baffle me more than any other. Why has the Department of Homeland Security dispatched vans and SUVs filled with masked men to Minneapolis? Most immediately, it seems, it’s because a bad-faith “investigation” from a right-wing media personality made Minnesota a focus of the right’s collective anger. So the president pointed at Minnesota and his shock troops marched.
Their mission has been described in a number of ways, which means that (as with so much else in Trump’s world) the effect was decided before the cause. Maybe it’s about combatting the fraud alleged by the media personality, even though prosecutors had been investigating and securing convictions for social services fraud in Minnesota for years. Or maybe it’s just about uprooting immigrants.
This is the government’s most common explanation. Trump and his aides have repeatedly insisted that the expansive, guerrilla-style raids being conducted by federal agents in Minnesota have been effective at removing the “worst of the worst” criminal immigrants from the area, something it insists that the state’s Democratic leaders had refused to do. (The state disagrees.)
What’s the right ratio here, Mr. President? How many citizens being shot to death is worth this campaign of fear and its sporadic deportations?
At a White House press conference on Jan. 20, Trump held up images of 40 individuals who he claimed had been detained by federal agents in Minnesota. A DHS website titled, “ARRESTED: WORST OF THE WORST,” — identifies just under 500 such people in the state. Some of them (as was the case with Trump’s visual aids) seem less like “the worst of the worst” than like “people with any criminal record at all.” Does having a DUI make you one of the nation’s worst criminals? If you weren’t born here, I guess so.
Even by DHS’ count, though, the government isn’t only targeting “the worst of the worst.” On Jan. 14, the agency put out a press release claiming that they’d arrested 2,500 of the “worst of the worst,” meaning that the website, even with the drunk drivers, is a couple thousand short in its tally. Nationally, of course, ICE has accelerated its detention of people with no criminal records at all. One analysis estimates that 92 out of every 100 people added to ICE detention last year faced no criminal charges and had no past convictions. Besides, violent crime in Minnesota was already on the decline before DHS and ICE showed up (also mirroring national trends).
So the feds rolled up some people with criminal records or maybe pending charges. In doing so, they spread chaos and confusion around the city, shipped a kindergartener off to Texas and sent a baby to the hospital.
In doing so, they killed two residents of Minneapolis, their dying bodies laying at the side of the road.

What’s the right ratio here, Mr. President? How many citizens being shot to death is worth this campaign of fear and its sporadic deportations?
It seems as though the answer is clear by now: As many as can be killed with his base still believing that they were violent opponents of the president’s politics. As long as that belief is sustained, the killings can continue because it means that his supporters’ confidence and trust in him is sustained, too. And that, more even than purifying the populaceis what matters to Trump.
The White House and DHS frequently validate their work by pointing to the killers they’re taking out of the country, outsiders who’d killed Americans. It would be a more effective argument if they weren’t defending the outsiders they brought into Minneapolis who did the same thing.
Philip Bump is a data journalist and MS NOW contributor.
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics11 months agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship5 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics11 months agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics11 months agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics9 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’

