Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
A recent comment about spirituality here led to some thinking and that led to some Q&A with Perplexity. This may be of some interest to some people.
Comment: “‘Spirituality’ might usefully be defined as an immaterial concern.”
No, really, there are things that matter without being matter, and these “immaterialities” would be the concern of spirituality.
My tentative proposal is that we are engaged in "spiritual" pursuits whenever we turn our focus from external, material concerns (fitting brick on brick or microchip on circuit board), to internal, non-material concerns ....
Q1: Is the concept of a "spiritual pursuit" essentially contested? A1: The concept of a "spiritual pursuit" does appear to be somewhat contested or at least subject to varying interpretations, though there are some common themes that emerge. ....
Q2: As an atheist and interested in the biology of spirituality, I do not view spirituality through a religious or theistic lens. Instead I look at is as matter of cognitive biology and social behavior arising from evolution. From that point of view "spirituality" and "spiritual pursuits" look very much like they are essentially contested. Is that a defensible argument or belief? A2: From an evolutionary and cognitive biology perspective, there are indeed arguments that support viewing "spirituality" and "spiritual pursuits" as essentially contested concepts. .... Spirituality may have evolved as an adaptive trait that promoted social cohesion and cooperation in early human groups. .... It can also be seen as fundamentally about ethics and moral behavior. .... Researchers face several challenges in studying spirituality scientifically. There is no universally accepted operational definition of spirituality for research purposes. Spiritual experiences are subjective and difficult to measure objectively. (emphases added)
I wondered if my penchant to apply different points of view to considering various concepts can be argued to be an aspect of spirituality.
Q3: By often trying to look at often contested concepts from differing points of view, e.g., religious and non-religious, could that be considered a spiritual pursuit? It is one of my ways to try to understand what a person means by what they say in terms of contested concepts.
A3: Your approach of examining contested concepts from multiple perspectives, including both religious and non-religious viewpoints, could indeed be considered a form of spiritual pursuit, particularly from a broad, inclusive understanding of spirituality:
Your method aligns with the idea of spirituality as a search for meaning and understanding. Spirituality can be seen as "a search for the sacred" and an effort to find, conserve, or transform what is considered sacred in one's life. By exploring different viewpoints on contested concepts, you are engaging in a form of meaning-making and seeking deeper understanding.
Your approach transcends rigid categorizations, which is often associated with spiritual pursuits. Spirituality is sometimes viewed as transcending critical reasoning and embracing "the big questions" that may not have ultimate answers.
Your method demonstrates qualities often associated with spiritual growth. Openness to different viewpoints and willingness to question assumptions are frequently considered aspects of spiritual development. Self-reflection and examination of one's own beliefs, which your approach encourages, are common elements in many spiritual practices.
In my opinion, that was interesting. Two things.
One can have interesting conversations with AI, despite AI’s flaws and weaknesses. Sometimes the weakness of it not being human isn’t a weakness if the human has a sense of what that means and can deal with it. All one has to do is ask questions and see where the “conversation” goes.
Regarding Perplexity’s responses, if its line of reasoning or logic here is basically defensible, and it seems to be, then my brand of secular spirituality arguably includes engaging with things that transcend critical reasoning and embracing questions that may not have ultimate answers, i.e., essentially contested concepts.
Sometimes I get criticized for being irrationally alarmist or hyperbolic for using labels that some people feel to be too inflammatory irrational and/or just plain crackpot under current circumstances in American society and politics. Labels like kleptocratic autocracy, Christian Taliban, and Christian theocracy, strike some people as at least ludicrous because of a perceived implausibility of such bad things actually coming to pass in American government and politics.
I hear and understand the criticisms. But that has not changed the intensity of personal fear about what could happen to our democracy. My critics are not seeing and feeling what I see and feel. Maybe I am wrong and my critics are right, but it does not feel that way.
Whaddabout how MAGA feels about things?
One way to think about the nature and severity of any threat to American democracy and civil liberties is to consider how rank and file MAGA people feel about various threats, including threats to democracy. Common feelings and complaints from the MAGA rank and file include:
anxiety about rapid social and cultural shifts they perceive as threatening traditional values, e.g., fears about immigration, changing demographics, LGBTQ+ rights and perceived severe attacks on religious liberty, often amounting to religious persecution,
resentment of condescending liberal elites and institutions they see corrupt, a mainstream media perceived as biased against conservatives, anti-American liberal universities and academia and nefarious deep state government bureaucrats who work against conservative interests,
economic anxiety over socialism and expansion of welfare programs, and resentments over perceived unfair advantages given to minorities and immigrants, and
serious threats to democracy from Democrats who (i) engage in alleged voter fraud and election manipulation, and (ii) use baseless legal actions against Trump as a form of election interference, and an attempt to disqualify or block Trump from running for office.
Those fears and resentments are often amplified by authoritarian radical right media and dark free speech from authoritarian elites to create a sense of urgency and existential threat. Although these concerns are commonly expressed, they often do not align very well or at all with factual realities or broader societal trends. This group constitutes about half of adult Americans.
Whaddabout how Germaine feels about things? The missing mindset factor
Well, if about half of adult Americans feel urgent existential authoritarian threats allegedly from Democrats, shady deep state bureaucrats and other bad people, why can’t a person feel even more threatened by Trump and MAGA? If Germaine is a crackpot or alarmist idiot, what does that make the MAGA rank and file? The majority of the evidence indicates that Trump and the GOP are fundamentally authoritarian. For example:
A: It appears more accurate to characterize Trump and the modern Republican Party as radical right authoritarian rather than pro-democracy conservative. The GOP has undergone a decades-long shift away from traditional conservative principles toward authoritarianism. This transformation predates Trump but accelerated under his influence. The party has embraced an agenda that undermines democratic norms and institutions, including blocking investigations into the January 6th attack on the capitol, promoting false claims of election fraud, and making it easier to tamper with vote counting processes.
Solidly authoritarian is how I see Trump, the GOP and the MAGA movement. In my firm opinion, the power and social and political infrastructure of American radical right authoritarianism is already a deadly serious threat. That is a part of why I feel the situation is a lot worse than my critics assert.
To be fair and balanced, the Democrats and liberalism arguably are significantly more pro-democracy than MAGA. One can argue the level of threat is not the same from the two sides because that is what most of the evidence I am aware of indicates.
The mindset factor
What are the difference between me and my critics? Based on how I understand their criticisms, the main difference appears to be the weight given to the authoritarian mental state. I weigh it pretty heavily. Authoritarianism eroding democracy is a lot like water wearing down rocks that get in the way, even if it takes a very long time. I’ve called the situation something like a one-way ratchet to a corrupt authoritarian hell.
From what I can tell, the arguments my critics level at my alleged alarmism/crackpottery put most weight on non-mental factors. They look at the long history of stable, American democracy (arguably partly false), solid democratic institutions, and national prosperity. From that point of view they conclude it is very unlikely that anything close to true authoritarianism is possible, despite Trump, the GOP, the supreme court, and the rest of the MAGA wealth and power movement. The “it can’t happen here” arguments assert that, e.g., (i) the US is not Weimar Germany, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, (ii) there is not the economic stress of the Great Depression, or (iii) a small minority of elite authoritarian activists cannot thwart majority pro-democracy public opinion. Some of that is true, i and ii, but all of it seems to overlook or downplay the elite authoritarian mindset.[1]
I seem to weigh the elite authoritarian mindset factor more heavily than other factors like democratic institutional stability and national prosperity. Like Trump and his MAGA movement, Project 2025 is more authoritarian than democratic. Determined authoritarians know how to subvert a democracy.
Authoritarians target and exploit vulnerabilities in democratic systems, e.g., social susceptibility to deceit and manipulation by dark free speech, government corrupted by special interest money, a collapsing rule of law for rich and powerful elites and businesses, etc. What we do not know is how far Trump, the GOP and MAGA will descend into corrupt authoritarianism compared to monsters like Hitler and Stalin. But if his mindset based on his rhetoric and past behavior are reliable evidence, Trump intends to go pretty deep if he gets the power to try.
None of this is likely to change any minds. But, at least my reasoning should be clear.
Q: In comparing various events in history, e.g., Trump’s 1/6 coup attempt vs Hitler’s 1923 putsch in Munich, how much weight is given to assessing mindsets, e.g., authoritarian vs democratic, to assess differences vs similarities?
A: Several factors are considered to assess similarities and differences, with the underlying mindsets and ideologies playing a significant role:
Ideological Underpinnings: The authoritarian vs. democratic mindset is a crucial factor in these comparisons. Both events involved leaders with authoritarian tendencies attempting to subvert democratic processes.
Seven in ten Americans (70%) believe things in the country are going in the wrong direction, including most Republicans (94%) and independents (70%), compared with 41% of Democrats.
While a majority of Americans (54%) also believe that things in their home state are going in the wrong direction, 56% of Americans believe things in their local communities are going in the right direction.
Republicans (68%) are more likely than independents (48%) and Democrats (31%) to say that American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the worse since the 1950s.
White Christian groups and Hispanic Protestants are the most likely to say American culture and way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s.
More than six in ten Americans rate increasing costs of housing and everyday expenses as a critical issue to their vote in November.
Among Republicans, abortion has declined as a critically important issue since the last presidential election, from 49% in 2020 to 29% in 2024. Abortion has increased in salience among Democrats, from 35% in 2020 to 55% in 2024.
Since the last presidential election, immigration has become far more salient for Republicans, with the percentage considering it a critical issue rising from 38% in 2020 to 71% in 2024. While 36% of Democrats viewed immigration as a critical issue in 2020, that figure drops to 24% today. However, immigration has risen in significance for independents, from 29% in 2020 to 42% in 2024.
Seventy-two percent of Americans say they are worried about not having enough money to retire, while more than six in ten say they are worried about being unable to afford health care (65%), housing (64%), everyday expenses such as groceries or gas (61%), or getting a job that pays a living wage (59%).
Three-quarters of voters (75%) who say that immigration is a critical issue prefer Trump over Harris (23%).
Voters who say that jobs and unemployment are a critical issue prefer Trump (58%) over Harris (41%); similarly, voters who prioritize increasing costs of housing and everyday expenses slightly prefer Trump instead of Harris (53% vs. 45%).
There is a LOT of stuff to consume in the following link, but I just wanted to give a sampling:
The American public is evenly divided about whether there is a real danger that Trump will use the presidency to become a dictator (49% agree vs. 48% disagree). Only 11% of Republicans agree with the statement, and 89% disagree. Among Democrats, 88% agree with the statement that Trump intends to become a dictator and 12% disagree. Independents are divided on this question (48% agree vs. 50% disagree).
Simple question: Have the Dems missed the boat on the issues of immigration and the economy by focusing too much of their messaging on abortion and the thread to Democracy?
One of my very favorites, presidential historian Jon Meacham, was on Morning Joe this morning. What a clear thinker and articulate speaker.
Meacham ended his segment with a stark comment about something I often wonder about:
“So, the choice cannot be clearer. … If in fact [Trump] wins, maybe this is who we are. And maybe that's the complicated terrible reality that we’re gonna have to confront.”
Yes. Exactly. November 5th (and the days that follow until the votes are all counted) will be a defining moment; it will be a solid indicator of who we now are.
Me? I’m afraid of who we are and what we’ve become. What better testament can I point to than the violence and viciousness of our entertainment, the audacity of our bald-faced lies, and the denial of civility?
What do you think? Is Trump who we’ve (as an American society) become? Make your case.
The NPR program Throughline broadcast a very interesting historical summary of American Christian nationalism (CN). Christian nationalist beliefs are rooted in the idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and that its laws should reflect certain Christian values. And versions of these beliefs are widely held by Americans of different ages, races, and backgrounds. In 2022, a Pew Research poll reported that 45 percent of Americans believe the country should be a Christian nation. More than half of those people said the Bible should influence U.S. laws.
The main points are:
The concept started with colonists coming to America for religious freedom. The idea of the shining city on a hill came from the bible, Book of Matthew, and the colonists echoed it in the American colonies. Colonist John Winthrop, English Puritan and the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, said: We shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world. In other words, if you colonists fail, God will punish you. The colonists had an obligation to live up to the special covenant that as God's chosen people, they had a moral obligation to be a model for the rest of the world to marvel at, i.e., a Christian nation, not a secular one.
In the mid 1900s CN was significantly anti-communist. With the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education supreme courts decisions on desegregating public schools, the political focus of the CN movement shifted to defending segregation. As opposition to desegregation because untenable, the elites latched onto the idea of opposition to abortion. That took hold and gained dominance. But until Barry Goldwater came on the scene in 1964, CN was generally on the fringes of politics and political power. Goldwater, a hard core libertarian, openly invited Christianity into power. Goldwater was a game changer for the CN movement. Throughline asserted that Goldwater gave a permission structure for extremism that still resounds today. If you want your country, you got to be a radical. If you're not a radical, you're not one of us:
Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall return to proven ways, not because they are old, but because they are true. Freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God. .... That extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
After Goldwater, the CN movement became vocal in opposition to civil rights, feminism and opposition to the Vietnam war. The CN movement mobilized around issues like tax exemption for a private religious university, which the IRS had rolled back when the school refused to desegregate. CN elites opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have prohibited gender-based discrimination in the United States. And when neither of those strategies proved universal enough to draw in the voters it needed, the Republican Party pivoted to abortion. One CN partisan criticized the left like this:
They think they're above things like the Pledge of Allegiance, they're above this patriotism, they're above things like God. It's an attack on God, on Christianity, and it's an attack on Western civilization. What the left has done is it's replaced Christianity with secular humanism.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan gave the CN movement another boost. He appealed directly to CN elites at the 1980 GOP convention in Dallas, TX:
I know you can't endorse me. I want you to know that I endorse you. .... When the Israelites were about to enter the promised land, they were told that their government and laws must be models to other nations, showing to the world the wisdom and mercy of their God. To us, as to the ancient people of the promise, there is given an opportunity, a chance to make our laws and government not only a model to mankind but a testament to the wisdom and mercy of God.
That 1980 GOP convention was the same one where CN elite Paul Weyrich directly attacked free and fair elections with his goo goo government screed:
Throughline comments: The separation of church and state and what the founding fathers meant by it is a flash point in the debate surrounding Christian nationalism today. Some Christian nationalists say they don't have a problem with separating the institutions of church and state, but that divorcing morality from the state is a bad idea, if it's even possible. Others claim the founders came up with the First Amendment as a way of protecting the church from political influence, not vice versa. Republican activist David Barton has been a leader in this line of thinking and has even claimed the U.S. Constitution contains direct quotes from the Bible. Those claims, for the record, have been debunked.
Note the moral arrogance of CN belief that morality has to come from the bible. Secular law often deals with matters of morality, e.g., illegality of child porn, prostitution, slavery and discrimination.
Exactly what are the biblical values that the CN wealth and power movement demands? That is impossible to know. It could mean laws demanding all speeches end with God Bless America. It usually means advocating for more prayer in public schools, and sometimes requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments. It almost always means opposing and restricting abortion, same-sex marriage and gender-affirming health care. And in my opinion, among a couple of other bad things, it means opposition to free and fair elections and thus democracy itself.
Wonk alert: For the folks not yet at the TL/DR stage, here are two nuggets:
Nugget 1: One thing that baffles me is why Goldwater said to fear the Christians in politics while embracing them.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
That makes no sense to me. Regardless, it is fair to say that the preachers finally got control of the GOP more or less. That was something that Goldwater enabled and empowered, but then claimed to fear.
A: Christian nationalism has indeed been particularly influential in the Western Hemisphere, especially in the United States, for both historical and cultural reasons. The roots of Christian nationalism in the Americas can be traced back to European colonization. In 1493, following Christopher Columbus's voyages, the Catholic Church established the Doctrine of Discovery, which claimed European Christian superiority over other cultures and religions. This doctrine provided religious justification for colonial conquest and laid the groundwork for Christian nationalist ideologies in the Americas.
Founding Mythology: Despite the First Amendment's prohibition on establishing an official religion, a narrative of the U.S. as a "Christian nation" has persisted since its founding. This mythology was promoted by some evangelical historians and pundits to sacralize the nation's origins.
20th Century Resurgence: Christian nationalism experienced a resurgence in the 1930s, driven by anti-New Deal business interests seeking to link American capitalism with Christianity. The Cold War era saw further reinforcement of religious language in national mottos and pledges.
Contemporary Influence: In recent years, Christian nationalism has gained significant political traction in the U.S. It played a role in Donald Trump's 2016 election victory and subsequent policies. According to a 2023 survey, over half of Republicans either identified as Christian nationalists or sympathized with Christian nationalist views.
Cultural factors: In the U.S., Christian nationalism often intersects with white identity politics and notions of racial hierarchy. Increasing political division has led some groups to embrace Christian nationalism as a reactionary ideology.
Q2: To what degree is Christian nationalist ideology anti-Semitic?
A2: Christian nationalists tend to believe in more antisemitic tropes, primarily due to their investment in the social dominance of Christians. Antisemitism among Christian nationalists appears to be part of a broader set of negative views toward all minorities. The desire for Christian social dominance can lead to negative attitudes toward non-Christian groups, including Jews.
Q3: Is American Christian nationalism generally unwilling to compromise in its politics?
A3: American Christian nationalism generally demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise in its political approach. Several key points support this:
1. Ideological rigidity: Christian nationalists often view their beliefs as divinely inspired and infallible, leaving little room for negotiation or compromise. They believe their interpretation of the Bible and God's law should supersede human laws when there's a conflict.
2. Cultural dominance: There's a strong belief among Christian nationalists that America was founded as a Christian nation and should remain so. This leaves little room for accommodating other religious or secular viewpoints in governance.
3. Authoritarian tendencies: Christian nationalism is often described as "authoritarian" and "boundary-enforcing", suggesting a preference for imposing their views rather than finding middle ground.
4. Rejection of democratic norms: Some scholars argue that Christian nationalism promotes anti-democratic sentiment.
7. Indoctrination against compromise: According to one source, Christian nationalists are "indoctrinated to never compromise, making them dreadful politicians."
While individual Christian nationalists may vary in their willingness to compromise, the overall ideology and political approach of the movement appear to be largely incompatible with political compromise. This stance is rooted in their religious convictions, cultural beliefs, and perception of existential threats to their vision of America.
A very long WaPo article (not paywalled) reviews the impact on the life of the CIA analyst who blew the whistle on Trump for trying to pressure Ukrainian officials to get personal and political favors:
The CIA analyst would soon submit a meticulously sourced nine-page memo to the U.S. intelligence community inspector general that would spark Trump’s first impeachment. In Washington and around the world, the analyst would be known as “the whistleblower,” a moniker that he didn’t choose and has come to see as a burden.
In the half decade since his complaint kicked off a political firestorm, the analyst has declined all requests to speak publicly about his actions, even as he has reckoned privately with whether they made a difference. Did his lonely stand help to check what he saw as Trump’s bad behavior or reveal the weakness of the guardrails around the presidency? Did it strengthen his country’s democracy or lay bare its flaws?
He described his experience, which included death threats that upended his life and required the CIA to provide him with round-the-clock protection, in interviews over the past two months. The Washington Post is granting him anonymity because of the ongoing concerns for his safety and has confirmed his account with more than a half dozen former senior officials.
His story mirrors those of dozens of other bureaucrats, diplomats, intelligence analysts, FBI agents, politicians and military officers who stood up to what they saw as efforts by Trump to subvert the country’s democracy. Some of these officials were fired or resigned in protest. Others sought to temper Trump’s demands without alienating him and, in the process, protect themselves and their institutions from retribution.
Trump has routinely described these people as participants in a “deep state” conspiracy to destroy the country and rob his voters of their voice. If elected next month to a second term, he’s vowed to purge them from government.
Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, said the former president’s actions leading to his first impeachment had been “litigated and re-litigated” and described the evidence against him as “manufactured lies from the Democrat Party.”
The CIA lawyers seemed “at a loss” about what to do, the analyst said. He hoped they would notify Congress. Instead, they informed the NSC’s top lawyer that a CIA employee was raising concerns about the president’s conduct. White House officials hurriedly moved the call transcript to a server set aside for highly classified information and warned NSC officials not to talk about Trump’s call with anyone.
Two months later, the Senate voted almost entirely along party lines to acquit Trump. The sole dissenting Republican vote was Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) who spoke from the floor about his faith and the president’s “flagrant assault” on voters’ rights.
The analyst listened to Romney’s speech at his desk and to the final roll call as he was driving home from work. That evening he wrote a personal reflection: “Huge disappointment that more Republicans didn’t stand up against this lawless behavior. Relief that this chapter is over, but extreme apprehension about the backlash against me. The country will have moved on, and I will be stuck with Trump’s ire.”
That reality has left the analyst reckoning with whether his actions made a difference, whether his stand was worth it. In 2020, shortly after Trump was acquitted, the analyst discussed the outcome over dinner with a former CIA colleague. The analyst summarized his and his colleague’s thoughts in a journal entry: “We kind of decided that the system basically worked, and that I had given a clear and convincing case for what abuse of power looks like … even if it didn’t ultimately hold him accountable.”
The interpretation now seems “charitable,” he said.
He never deviated from believing that he did the morally right thing. “The public needed to know,” he said of Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election. (emphases added)
Yes, the public needed to know. But today in 2024, about half the American public still either (i) rejects what Trump did as a pure lie by the Democratic Party, just as his spokesperson is quoted above as saying[1], or (ii) at least somewhat knows what Trump tried to do but rationalize it into something of insufficient importance to change their current support for Trump.
Q: Is this blog post (i) useless old news, (ii) too biased, hyperbolic, partisan, crackpot, or insulting, and/or (iii) just a pack of pure lies as the Trump and the GOP still assert?
Q1:How does the Republican Party talk about the reasons for Trump's first impeachment?
A1: Republicans largely rejected the charges against Trump, arguing that the articles of impeachment failed to allege any specific crimes or violations of law. They maintained that impeachable offenses must be violations of established law.
Constitutional Concerns: Some Republicans claimed that the impeachment process itself was unconstitutional, arguing that the House lacked proper authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding and violated due process.
First Amendment Defense: During the trial, Trump's attorneys invoked the First Amendment, asserting that his political statements were protected as core free speech and thus not impeachable offenses.
Key Republican Arguments 1. No Quid Pro Quo: Many Republicans argued that there was no clear evidence of a quid pro quo in Trump's interactions with Ukraine.
2. Abuse of Power Not Impeachable: Some contended that "abuse of power" was too vague and not a sufficient basis for impeachment.
3. Partisan Motivations: Republicans often characterized the impeachment as a partisan attempt by Democrats to remove Trump from office.
4. Lack of Criminal Conduct: They emphasized that the articles of impeachment did not allege any specific criminal acts.
Q2: On balance, how valid are Republican defenses of Trump in relation to what he actually did to trigger the first House impeachment?
A2: .... It's notable that Republican defenses shifted over time, from denying the charges to arguing they weren't impeachable even if true. This evolution [I call it partisan motivated reasoning] suggests a struggle to maintain a consistent, factually-based defense. In conclusion, while Republicans presented various defenses, many of these arguments appear to have limited validity when compared to the evidence and testimony presented during the impeachment proceedings. The shifting nature of these defenses further undermines their overall credibility.
