Donald Trump hit with 26 articles of impeachment

Billal Rahman
Sat, September 26, 2026

President Donald Trump has been slapped with 26 new articles of impeachment by a House Democrat, accusing him of abuses of power, violations of his oath of office, and a sweeping range of other alleged misconduct.

Representative Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat and senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the articles on September 24, just nine days after the House rejected a separate impeachment effort brought by Democratic Representative Al Green of Texas.

The latest effort comes as Democrats remain divided over pursuing impeachment against Trump.

Green's resolution was shelved by the House in a 232-147 vote on September 15, with 18 Democrats joining nearly all Republicans in voting to table it and another 47 lawmakers voting present. Those voting present included House Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar.

What Are the 26 Articles of Impeachment Against Trump?

Cohen's resolution is considerably wider than Green's. Its 26 articles encompass allegations involving Trump's immigration policies, the use of military power, federal spending, tariffs, presidential pardons, the federal workforce, universities, law firms, the media, and alleged personal financial benefit from the presidency.

View embedded content

The first article accuses Trump of "undermining democracy" by sowing doubt in elections, while the second alleges an abuse of power by waging war on Iran without congressional approval. Another concerns alleged extrajudicial killings in international waters off Venezuela, while a fourth targets the deployment of military forces against U.S. cities.

Immigration features prominently in the resolution. The articles target Trump's birthright citizenship executive order and the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. They also make allegations concerning conditions at El Salvador's CECOT prison and accuse the administration of defying court orders in immigration enforcement.

Other articles accuse Trump of unlawfully withholding congressionally appropriated funds, imposing loyalty tests on the federal workforce, improperly terminating inspectors general, and abusing presidential pardon powers.

Cohen also targets Trump's dealings with the press, law firms and universities. Two articles accuse the president of attacking press freedom, including by excluding reporters from the White House over coverage and allegedly coercing CBS and ABC to alter editorial content.

The press-freedom allegations come amid an ongoing legal battle over Trump's banishing of CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters from the White House, with the three outlets suing to regain access.

Others concern executive actions against law firms and the withholding of federal funds from universities.

The final article alleges that Trump violated the Constitution's emoluments provisions by "profiting personally and directly from the presidency." The claims contained in the resolution are allegations made by Cohen and do not themselves establish that Trump committed impeachable offenses.

"Trump is clearly the most impeachable President our country has ever endured. His continued presence in office is a danger to our democracy," Cohen said in a press release.

"That the sycophantic Republican majority in Congress is derelict in its duty does not mean that I must abandon my responsibilities. I took an independent oath to support and defend the Constitution. That commitment compels me to introduce this resolution today. When historians write about this period, and our constituents ask who stood up to President Trump's lawlessness, this resolution is the answer."

Cohen has acknowledged that the effort is unlikely to advance. "I know they won't go anywhere, but I'm not going to stop standing up for my constituents and for democracy," he told Nexstar.

The White House has been contacted for comment.

Democrats Divided Over Impeachment

The new resolution arrives amid clear differences among House Democrats over how and when to pursue impeachment.

Green's September effort focused much more narrowly on the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. His resolution accused Trump of abusing presidential powers in connection with immigration operations in which federal officers killed several civilians. The administration defended the officers' actions, saying they had feared for their lives and acted in self-defense.

Democratic leaders did not endorse Green's effort and said impeachment should follow formal investigations and hearings that had not taken place.

Aguilar, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, also said shortly before the Green vote that impeachment was not at the top of House Democrats' agenda.

There is some overlap between the two efforts, particularly over immigration enforcement. Cohen's articles include allegations involving Abrego Garcia, CECOT, and the administration's compliance with court orders in immigration cases. Green's September resolution, by contrast, centered on the immigration crackdown and civilians killed during federal enforcement operations.

Previous Trump Impeachment Efforts

Both Cohen and Green have a history of seeking Trump's impeachment dating back to his first term.

Cohen introduced five articles against Trump in November 2017 while serving as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Green also pursued impeachment during Trump's first year in office. He introduced an impeachment resolution in 2017 accusing Trump of conduct that Green argued had fueled bigotry and hatred and brought the presidency into disrepute.

When Green forced a House vote on an impeachment resolution in December 2017, lawmakers voted 364-58 to table it, with Republicans and most Democrats opposing an effort that Democratic leaders at the time argued was premature.

Trump was impeached twice by the House during his first presidency.

The first came on December 18, 2019, when the House approved articles accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress following an investigation centered on his dealings with Ukraine. The Senate acquitted Trump on both articles in February 2020.

The House impeached Trump for a second time in January 2021 on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. He was subsequently acquitted by the Senate.

The latest 26-article resolution does not mean Trump has been impeached again. An individual House member can introduce articles of impeachment, but impeachment occurs only if the House votes to approve at least one article. Cohen's effort also enters a House controlled by Republicans, and the recent Green vote demonstrated that even Democrats are not united behind another impeachment push.

Nader Rips ‘Feeble, Weak, Cowardly’ Democrats for Eschewing Trump Impeachment

“The Democrats and electorally frightened Republicans pushed Richard Nixon out in 1974 for far, far lesser transgressions than those committed by Trump in a week.”

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader listens during a news conference  at Public Citizen in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Sep 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


As Democrats campaign for the November midterm elections after helping kill the latest congressional effort to impeach President Donald Trump, progressive consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader this week renewed attacks on the party’s leadership for abandoning their constitutional responsibility to hold the president accountable.

In a September 14 essay published by Current Affairs, Nader argued that Democratic leaders have effectively given up on impeachment even as Trump’s second administration faces continuing allegations of executive overreach and misconduct.

“The chronic prevaricator and delusionist Donald J. Trump knows that the worse his outlaw actions become, the less likely the Democrats in Congress are to impeach him,” the Public Citizen co-founder wrote. “The massive number of blatant, impeachable acts by the lawless, corrupt, violent, systemically racist, unstable, dangerous tyrant increases by the day.”

“The American public knows it,” Nader continued. “The majority of Americans favor impeaching Trump. Among Democrats, it’s 84% in favor, as well as a majority of independents. Polling even shows that most Americans think Trump is a ‘dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.’”

Yet, “when asked about impeachment, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries [D-NY] replied: ‘We haven’t ruled anything in and we haven’t ruled anything out,’” he noted. “What? Every day, the mega-arsonist is burning down our republic and its Constitution, with tens of millions of Americans suffering and endangered. Yet Jeffries has been noncommittal about whether Democrats would pursue impeachment even if they had a congressional majority.”

In a column republished by Common Dreams earlier this month, Nader wrote, “What must Tyrant Trump be thinking about his opponents’ feeble, weak, cowardly responses to his daily torrent of serious, impeachable offenses?”

“Even his egomaniacal narcissism cannot fully explain his amazing good luck,” he opined.

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted 232-147 to table an impeachment resolution introduced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), effectively ending the measure’s consideration. Eighteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting to table it, while 46 Democrats—including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—voted “present.”

Green’s resolution accused Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors arising from the administration’s deadly anti-immigrant crackdown, including alleged violations of civil liberties and due process. Green said before the vote that the Constitution contains no provision requiring Congress to wait before confronting impeachable conduct.

Democratic leaders have attempted to justify their decision not to support Green’s resolution by arguing that impeachment requires a substantial investigative record, hearings, witness testimony, and document review. Jeffries, along with Democratic leaders Katherine Clark of Massachusetts—the House minority whip—and Pete Aguilar of California, the House Democratic Caucus chair, said they would vote “present” because “none of that serious work has been done,” as they jointly explained.

Nader rejects that reasoning. In Current Affairs, he argued that saying Democrats “don’t have the votes” misses the purpose of a sustained impeachment campaign, which he described as a way of building public pressure and organizing voters.

“Impeachment is a mobilizer for get-out-the-vote efforts,” he wrote, as well as “for educating and energizing the people back home.”

Trump has already been impeached twice by the House, although the Senate failed to convict him either time. No other president has been impeached multiple times. Nader has pointed out that Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors are more grave than those for which then-President Nixon resigned from office in 1974 rather than face impeachment, and that Democrats’ fear of the consequences for impeaching Trump again is no excuse for their cowardice.

“The Democrats and electorally frightened Republicans pushed Richard Nixon out in 1974 for far, far lesser transgressions than those committed by Trump in a week,” he wrote.

GAUDY GRIFT

Senators Accuse Trump of Taking ‘Cartoonish Bribe’: A 321-Diamond Ring From Belgium

The gaudy gift came just weeks before Trump exempted Belgium’s diamond industry from his sweeping tariff regime, which the senators said “fit seamlessly” into a pattern of relief for those who give him gifts.

A photo of the 18-karat gold ring encrusted with 321 diamonds and 75 gemstones gifted to President Donald Trump by the Antwerp World Diamond Center on June 28, 2026.
(Photo from the Antwerp World Diamond Center, via Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal)

Stephen Prager
Aug 11, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A pair of Democratic US senators has some questions for Belgium’s diamond industry after it gave President Donald Trump what they said appears to be a “cartoonish bribe.”

On Monday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) sent a letter inquiring about a “watch-sized, 18-karat gold ring encrusted with 321 diamonds and 75 gemstones” that the president had been gifted in late June by the Antwerp World Diamond Center (AWDC), a lobbying group for Belgian diamondmakers.

The custom ring, emblazoned with a gem-encrusted presidential seal, diamond emblems with the initial “T,” and an interior engraving that reads “Crafted in Antwerp for Donald John Trump,” is estimated to be worth $25,000-35,000.

“A very special thank you to my friends from Antwerp for the magnificent Freedom 250 ring,” Trump said in a video message during an event in Brussels upon receiving the gift at an event commemorating the 250th anniversary of the United States.

Just weeks later, the administration announced it was exempting European diamonds from Trump’s sweeping tariff regime, which he was attempting to reinstate after the US Supreme Court had struck it down earlier this year.




After the diamond tariffs had been lifted, a press release from AWDC celebrated the decision, calling it a “significant boost” for Antwerp’s diamond industry and “its international competitive position.”

According to the company, Antwerp exports about $2 billion worth of diamonds to the US each year. At 10%, that means importers would avoid paying about $200 million in tariffs annually under the exemption.

The senators noted that Isidore Mörsel, the president of the World Diamond Center, “explicitly linked the gift to trade issues” when presenting it to the US Ambassador to Belgium, Bill White, for delivery to Trump.

Mörsel said that AWDC commissioned the ring to “celebrate that enduring relationship” with the Antwerp diamond sector’s “most important trading partner for generations.”

The senators said AWDC’s public-private partnership with the Belgian government meant that Trump might be required to give up the ring under the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution, which forbids federal officers from receiving gifts from foreign states without Congress’ consent.

However, they said “presenting a gift of this magnitude could still play directly into President Trump’s well-established affinity for shiny gifts.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai has denied that the gift had any influence over Trump’s decision, telling MS NOW that the administration “agreed to provide preferential tariff treatment for diamonds as part of our historic trade deal with the European Union that was signed last summer.”

He added that “the only special interest guiding the Trump administration’s decision-making is the best interest of the American people.”

But the senators said the gift to Trump “fit seamlessly into [the] pattern” of executives appearing to use gifts and flattery to obtain lucrative tariff exemptions.
Apple CEO Tim Cook, who donated $1 million to the president’s inauguration committee, appeared to leverage his “very good relationship” with the President and a well-timed “24-karat” gold gift to secure exemptions from tariffs for various Apple products imported from China.

After Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang purchased a seat at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago table for $1 million, the administration reversed course on implementing rules that would have prevented Nvidia from selling its most advanced chips to China.

And the administration slashed tariffs on Swiss imports from 39% to 15% just days after Swiss executives—including Rolex CEO Jean-Frédéric Dufour—presented President Trump with a personalized gold bar worth more than $130,000 and a luxury Rolex desk clock.

The senators said Antwerp’s gift “raise[d] serious legal questions” under federal bribery law. They asked Mörsel and the jeweler who made the ring, David Gotlib, to provide details about the gift, including who funded it. They also requested information about any contact between the diamond lobbyists and White or other administration officials.

Election Security—or the Engineering of Distrust?

Ervin Hoskins

 August 4, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

By turning voting machines, classified intelligence, and alleged foreign interference into political theater, the Trump administration is preparing voters to distrust an election that has not yet taken place.

Donald Trump has never treated elections simply as contests to be won or lost. He treats them as tests of legitimacy whose results are valid only when they confirm his political authority. His planned national address on the “integrity” of voting machines therefore should not be dismissed as another attempt to relitigate the 2020 election. It may represent something more consequential: an effort to establish, before the 2026 midterms, a rationale for challenging any result unfavorable to Republicans.

The issue is not whether election systems should be protected. They should. Foreign governments have sought to influence American voters, spread disinformation, and deepen existing political divisions. Voting equipment, like every form of critical infrastructure, also requires testing, oversight, and investment.

But election security becomes election sabotage when the government uses the language and institutions of national security to manufacture suspicion without presenting credible evidence.

The Trump administration’s emerging campaign reportedly goes beyond a presidential speech. A White House task force has been reviewing classified intelligence and law-enforcement material concerning alleged election irregularities. Officials have considered releasing selected intelligence about foreign efforts to influence the 2020 election. At the same time, the federal government has increased pressure on state and local election authorities and expanded its scrutiny of election administration.

Each step can be defended separately as a security measure. Taken together—and placed in the context of Trump’s continued refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of his 2020 defeat—they suggest a political strategy: create an atmosphere in which a future Republican loss appears suspicious before a single ballot is counted.

That strategy depends on blurring a crucial distinction between foreign influence and the technical manipulation of votes.

The National Intelligence Council’s 2021 assessment found no indication that a foreign actor attempted to alter “any technical aspect” of the voting process, including voter registration, ballot casting, vote tabulation, or the reporting of results. Reviews by the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security reached similar conclusions. Most votes are also backed by paper records that allow officials to audit electronic totals.

Technical vulnerabilities can exist without proving a stolen election. A responsible administration would explain that difference carefully. It would identify specific risks, provide evidence, work with state officials, and propose practical remedies. It would not use a prime-time presidential address to place an entire electoral system under a cloud of generalized vulnerability.

This is not transparency. It is political curation backed by the authority of the intelligence community.

Applying that model to domestic elections would cross a dangerous line. Intelligence agencies possess extraordinary powers because they are supposed to defend the country from genuine threats—not determine which election outcomes citizens should trust. When intelligence becomes ammunition in a president’s campaign against an anticipated defeat, national security institutions cease to act as neutral guardians and become participants in a struggle over political legitimacy.

The objective would not need to be proving fraud. It might be enough to keep allegations alive.

That is the central political utility of election conspiracy theories. They do not require most Americans to accept one detailed account of how an election was stolen. They require only enough uncertainty to persuade millions that no adverse result can be considered final. Suspicion becomes the product, not an unfortunate side effect.

This approach also hands foreign adversaries an extraordinary victory. The most effective attack on an election is not necessarily changing votes. It is persuading citizens that their votes no longer matter. If the White House amplifies unproven claims, exaggerates ambiguous intelligence, and portrays election officials as possible conspirators, it completes the work that foreign disinformation campaigns seek to accomplish.

Protecting elections requires vigilance against foreign interference. It also requires vigilance against a government willing to turn that threat into a weapon against democracy at home.

Ervin Hoskins is an American freelance writer, peace advocate and anti-war activist focused on justice, equality and thoughtful analysis of international affairs

We’re Not in Kansas Anymore: Fairy-Tale Politics and the Need for a Plan C

John G. Russell

 August 5, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photo by Hulki Okan Tabak

“I don’t care about the midterms.”

—Donald Trump

“We’re not gonna lose an election for a hundred years.”

—Donald Trump

As the midterms approach, the conventional wisdom holds that Democrats are virtually guaranteed victory. The narrative assumes that voters, disillusioned with Trump’s failed “concept of a plan” economic policies and vanity projects and frustrated by the GOP’s failure to deliver the financial security they promised and restore the nation’s moral rectitude, will sweep Democrats into power. Once there, the thinking goes, Democrats will reverse the damage – and global embarrassment – inflicted by Trump and his enablers. They will impeach him a third time – and, we are led to believe, convict him (though this is unlikely given the necessary 67-vote Senate majority) – along with other members of his griftocracy. Construction on the White House ballroom and other vanity projects will cease, and their structures will be torn down. The full Epstein files will be released, paving the way for the criminal prosecution of the culprits and their ouster from government, including those responsible for the coverup. Democratic-led oversight committees will launch investigations into corruption. Taken together, should these actions prove successful, they will presumably clear the way for victories in 2028. The rule of law will be restored, the Wicked Witch of the West melted, and her flying monkeys defanged. We will live happily ever after.

But wait. Let’s remove the rose-colored shades. This scenario assumes that midterm elections will actually be held. It assumes that the electorate, exhausted by gratuitous economic woes and capricious wars, anxious about the gaping holes torn in the social safety net, and disgusted and incensed by pandemic levels of corruption, will vote the scoundrels out. It assumes voters will have finally realized that Republican policies do not serve their interests, but rather those of the party and its wealthy corporate mega-donors.

For their part, Republican officials are fully aware of the jeopardy they are in. They have seen the polls, the precipitous tanking of Trump’s approval numbers, the public jeering, and the vocal dissatisfaction expressed at Republican town halls, if and when they are held. Some have backed away from certain Trump policies. Former MAGA pundits and media influencers have voiced their disappointment and disillusionment with Trump, MAGA, and the GOP. Yet, for every ballyhooed MAGA “revolt,” there is a weak-kneed, opportunistic retreat. Despite this “civil war,” the Republican leadership has remained remarkably calm, their loyalty to Trump and his Project 2025-adjacent agenda barely wavering, at least in public, suggesting they do not fear a Hokusai-level blue wave.

The question is why? The Occam’s Razor answer is that they are betting the farm that there will be no midterms or that, if held, they will be finessed to favor them.

While it is unlikely Trump’s SAVE America Act will see the light of day (or so one hopes), it is already clear that Republican legislators intend to ensure, through gerrymandering, intimidation, and other voter suppression tactics, that there are no free and fair midterms – if any at all – a prelude to their Fuehrer’s gleeful prediction of a 100-year Reich during which Americans will “never have to vote again.” Indeed, should they be held, their results will be questioned if Democrats win. Think 2020, but this time on a state-by-state level.

What happens then? What is the Democrats’ Plan B?

Let’s be optimistic and assume that despite Republicans’ machinations, the midterms are held and Democrats win both the Senate and the House (Recent forecasts suggest Democrats may win only the House, in which case we can expect the usual legislative gridlock.) If so, what guarantees do we have that they will follow through with their course correctives? Given the party’s history, why should we assume that they mean what they say, or that they will deliver on their promises to restore the rule of law, legislate for social justice, end yet another forever war, and reverse the nation’s status from global laughingstock back to a respected, if flawed, inspirational republic?

The Democratic leadership, when it is not writing “very strong letters” and gesturing in manual semaphore, pragmatically assumes that to regain political power it must appeal to Independents and disaffected Republicans rather than embrace its own center-left and progressive wings, fearing that it will lose its James Carvilles, Rahm Emanuels, and other establishment Democrats if it does. This despite the fact that American voters generally favor progressive economic policy positions over those of the Democratic establishment.

This is ironic given that Carville himself famously declared, “It’s the economy, stupid.” One would think his ilk would realize that this progressive gift is not a Trojan horse. But this assumes the Democrats will focus their energies on actually repairing the long-term economic damage wreaked by the Trumpists, rather than merely campaigning on it, and that, if not eggs, the rising prices of gas, electricity, and other essentials will have enough legs to carry them to victory. Given the impact of Trump’s eat-the-poor policies, pressing these issues would undoubtedly serve their interests. But will they also seek to repair the damage unrestrained Republican rule has inflicted on democracy itself? Will they commit to a national self-esteem based not on the capricious projection of military might but on adherence to the higher ideals of accountability, equity, minority rights, and diversity – and to the structural checks and balances intrinsic to the success of multicultural democratic governance?

In short, what is to prevent the Democratic establishment from lazily falling back on the bipartisan, forgive-and-forget habits of the past?: A past in which Ford pardoned Nixon, and George H.W. Bush pardoned many of those involved in the Iran-Contra affair. And Obama, backed by a short-lived Democratic majority during his first term, refused to pursue the yellowcake-waving architects of the Iraq War, waterboarding, and illegal domestic surveillance, essentially pledging to “move the country forward” rather than linger on the past. Even Trump, despite his relentless critiques of Obama, has not challenged his predecessor’s illegal drone strikes; he has only escalated them. Consequently, while we can expect the Democrats to pull up their sleeves and reckon with the affordability crisis, is it realistic to expect they will do anything to hold Trump – and his enablers – accountable for his election interference plots, his violations of the Emoluments Clause, and his laundry list of other high crimes and misdemeanors? Or will the dirty work of pursuing justice and accountability simply be mistaken for dirty politics, rather than necessary housecleaning?

Trump has set a finger-trap of distrust within our political systems. The problem is not merely that a lie told often enough – and Trump has told a record number of them – becomes the truth, but that it redefines our relationship with reality. Repeated lies about voter fraud and election theft have generated suspicion and distrust of the political system as a whole. Trump and his allies rage about stolen elections without a scintilla of evidence, even as evidence mounts that they are actually plotting to subvert upcoming ones. Who is lying? Who is telling the truth? Does the truth exist? The details matter, but they are obscured by a manufactured uncertainty that breeds indifference, disgust, and, yes, cynicism, the kind of cynicism that may prevent people from casting their vote, which, of course, is the ultimate aim of the trap.

The Republicans cast their witch hunts against their political enemies as legitimate activities meant to ensure accountability; yet, if and when Democrats announce their intent to launch their own hearings against Republican misconduct, the GOP will denounce it as vindictive, weaponized “lawfare,” despite the fact that Democratic-led investigations have generally relied on evidentiary legal standards, unlike their opponents.

The trap is not just psychological. What of all the money wasted on Trump’s ill-conceived and poorly executed vanity projects? Once back in power, will Democrats, acting on their cathartic rhetoric, actually raze them and risk being accused of suffering from the same petty, vendetta-driven politics of those they defeated, that, if pursued, threatens to further national polarization?

How many more taxpayer dollars will be wasted to tear down a $600 million (and counting) ballroom-bunker and a $100 million Independence Arch? This is, of course, in addition to funds required to repair the damage to the Reflecting Pool. (Does anyone seriously think that a second try, by the same no-bid contractors, no less, will restore it?)

Not to mention the German-American Friendship Garden fountain and other historical properties that are all in need of post-“repair” repairs, including removing all of the superglued, gilded Home Depot appliqués and Shelley Script signage that decorate the White House. How can Democrats justify such spending when it would be better spent on restoring funding to social and international aid programs that actually benefit the people?

What can be done to ensure that they rise to the task, assuming, of course, there is any agreement on what that task should be? And how do we ensure that their corporate mega-donors do not intervene to sway them from it?

Again, Republicans have already laid the groundwork to delegitimize whatever course corrections Democrats might be planning, preemptively characterizing them as “weaponized lawfare,” essentially borrowing a page from Trump’s playbook to project their own tactics onto their political opponents, whose more progressive wing they now dub “communists” to scare the public back into complacency and docile acceptance of Republican rule. The situation is not helped by weak-kneed Democratic centrists who have piggybacked on the charge, not because they fear Republican rule, but because they fear their own political obsolescence. They fear that the Republican war machine will use the Democratic Socialists as a means to scare voters away from more moderate Democrats, a fear that is justified only so long as these centrists refuse to articulate and act on positions in ways that reach the public whose judgment they fear.

Ironically, fearing that pursuing justice will further divide the country or the party itself, and acting to signal their moral superiority, Democrats will likely choose to move on instead. Wash, rinse, repeat. Like Cronus, the party eats its children for fear of losing its throne. Just ask Al Franken, Eric Swalwell, and Graham Platner, whose stalled or disrupted political careers demonstrate how swiftly Democrats clean house.

In contrast, the Republican establishment routinely slow-walks accountability, dragging its feet for months through ethics probes and shielding figures like Matt Gaetz, Chuck Edwards, Cory Mills, and Max Miller from swift discipline, preferring to ignore or, worse still, promote its own party’s filth. Indeed, despite sexual assault allegations and a subsequent financial settlement, Pete Hegseth was confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Similarly, Department of Justice and House Ethics Committee investigations into Gaetz’s sexual misconduct and other illicit activities failed to prevent his nomination for Attorney General. The exception to this rule is Tony Gonzales, currently the party’s sole high-profile offender of color, whose resignation under pressure exposes a glaring racial double standard. This only goes to prove that while both parties have evil stepmothers, only one rushes to do anything about them. Call it the Paxton paradigm.

So where is our Plan C if they do fail to follow through? Fed up with the usual by-the-numbers politics, will we launch general strikes, tax boycotts, and other prolonged and sustained acts of civil disobedience? A massive subscriber boycott of ABC’s corporate overlords returned Jimmy Kimmel to the air, but Stephen Colbert was not so fortunate. What coordinated actions will bring back our democracy when our elected representatives fail to protect it? Or will we simply be satisfied that Trump and his ilk have been defeated and move on? What other response is there to disillusioning, grim fairy tales? Or is the thought of active, ongoing resistance, Sisyphean though it may be, merely adding another fairy tale?