Trump Could Have Easily Won Re-election

I am feeling cautiously relieved at this point that Biden appears likely to win the presidency. But I am not feeling a large amount of relief, for a few reasons. First, the bird is not firmly in the hand yet - as I write this, the counting of ballots is not over.  Second, Trump will get to stay president for a bit longer. And third, what this post is about - Trump could have easily won re-election if he was even slightly less inept or had a small bit more self-control.

American did not clearly and strongly reject Trump's policies - more tax cuts for the rich and corporations, the xenophobic and wasteful border wall and immigration policies, more money for defense contractors, exploding the level of debt, threatening Social Security, encouraging white supremacists and anti-immigrant and anti-LGBQT hatred, trashing the environment for corporate profits, and the others that I am forgetting right now.

Look at the public opinion of Rudy Giuliani following his response to 9/11, or even the public opinion of Chris Christie following his response to Hurricane Sandy. Remember, this election was very close, and if Biden does in fact pull it out, it will be a near thing. To me, the examples of these past crises show that Trump could have easily won this election, and he could have done it 99% on style, with almost no change in policy or actions.

Here is how:

1) COVID-19 pandemic hits. Trump gives a speech, the gist of which is: "We understand that there is a new corona virus, COVID-19, that may pose a serious health threat. We have tasked our infectious disease experts at the CDC to analyze it and keep us informed."

2) There is the same delayed and haphazard response as was done, same China travel ban.

3) Trump gives a major speech from the White House. Trump shows up with a red MAGA face mask and a dark blue one with the Presidential seal. Melania and Ivanka have stylish designer masks that match their outfits.

4) Trump gives an inspiring we're-all-in-this together speech. He can cite to the size and diversity of the US to say that the way to respond to COVID-19 will be left up to each state, and directs everyone to cooperate with their state's public health experts, with the recommendation that they minimize disruptions to business. He encourages people to wear masks, and shows off his red MAGA mask and dark blue POTUS mask. He expresses confidence that America's phenomenal scientists, universities and pharmaceutical companies are working around the clock to bring us vaccines and treatments.

5) Trump declares an emergency, and has the federal government quickly procure and distribute massive numbers of masks to the hardest hit states.  He says he will do something similar with ventilators, but only really does some minor symbolic things.

6) He steps back and mostly shuts up. (Yeah, this is the hard part for him.) He lets Fauci and Birx make statements and hold press conferences, but not too often, and with control over their messaging. He stops vilifying and criticizing governors for what they do or what they say, especially re COVID-19. He expresses support for the ones he likes. He does not threaten any state's COVID-19 funding. He doesn't say anything about the press coverage of COVID-19 (his surrogates can, but his kids should not).

7) Every once in a while he gives an optimistic, upbeat Tweet or other communication about how much progress we are making towards beating COVID-19, and encouraging Americans to keep up their efforts.

8) In other areas - tariffs, TikTok, taxes, border wall, immigration, environment, etc. - he does not do anything substantively different than what he has done.

9) People feel good about Trump's "leadership" on COVID-19, and he wins re-election, beating Biden in a number of key swing states.

This is just one reason why Biden's narrow lead (and potential victory) is not all that reassuring to me. (There are other reasons, too.)  We are picking presidents more on in-the-moment feelings than we are on substantive policies. If Trump was just slightly more subtle and adept at playing those feelings, we would have had him as President for another four years.  And if someone like that is out there learning from Trump's playbook and watching his mistakes, we could easily have someone like that in the future. 

If I am wrong, please let me know.

 

Propositions! November 2020 (Second Batch)

 

There are a bunch of propositions on the November ballot, and some of them are pretty dense, so I had to break them down into two batches - here is the second batch.  The first batch is here: https://peterallenforag.blogspot.com/2020/09/propositions-november-2020-first-batch.html

Proposition 19 - Maybe no?  This one is a bit tricky to figure out what to do with, as it has some good parts and some less good parts. Under Proposition 13's limits on property taxes, properties are reassessed at market value (usually a significant increase) when they are bought/sold/transferred, but there are some exceptions/exemptions, and Proposition 19 tweaks those exemptions.

Under current law, certain people (over 55, disabled, fire and disaster victims) can take their (low) Prop 13 tax assessment with them when they buy a new house, but only to certain counties, and only if they buy a new house that is cheaper than their old one. (This is because the purpose of the exception was to allow old people who wanted to downsize to do so without getting hit with a big increase in their property taxes.) Proposition 19 would allow these sellers to take their tax assessment anywhere else in the state (a good thing, as the county-by-county limitation is bizarrely arbitrary), but would also allow the Prop 13 assessment to be used to reduce the assessment on a more expensive house (this is not so good - essentially a tax subsidy for someone who likely has plenty of money and is upgrading rather than downsizing).

Under current law, transfers from a parent to child do not trigger a reassessment - in other words, the children get to keep the parents' Prop 13 assessment.  This is true whether the children live in the house or not - they could rent it out or use it as a vacation home. Proposition 19 narrows this exemption, and only allows the children to keep the Prop 13 assessment if they live in the house. This seems like a good thing to me, as it reduces the tax subsidy granted by Proposition 13, and would likely result in increased property tax revenue.

Proposition 19 would earmark the increased proceeds for a California Fire Response Fund. I don't have a problem with the state spending money on fire response - I think that is a good thing. But budgeting-by-initiative that locks in funding for things, no matter how good, makes it harder for the state to adjust its budget. The legislature and the governor (no matter what you think of them) can no longer re-prioritize spending to meet the state's changing needs.

Overall, it is a close call, but I think we are a bit better off without Proposition 19, so I would lean towards a no vote.

Proposition 20 - No. This proposition goes deep into the weeds of criminal sentencing and parole, but its intent is clear - longer prison sentences for criminal convictions (including non-violent ones), make it harder to qualify for parole, and require many more DNA samples to be taken and maintained by the government. And it would reverse prior propositions approved by the voters. It is basically trying to turn the clock back to an earlier "tough-on-crime" approach that failed in everything but ballooning California's prison population. It was a bad idea then, and is a bad idea to repeat now. Vote no.

Proposition 22 - No. This is the Uber/Lyft/DoorDash sponsored measure to undo a state law (AB 5) that categorized their drivers as employees, rather than independent contractors. Under Proposition 22, app-based drivers would be considered independent contractors rather than employees. (Proposition 22 does not affect other businesses covered by AB 5.) It also requires that app-based drivers get certain benefits, such as insurance coverage.

I tend to dislike initiatives like this one that are put on the ballot by deep-pocketed companies for their own benefit. This is an attempt by corporations to protect their profits at the expense of their workers by overturning legislation passed to protect those workers. (Who will all probably be out of work anyway once autonomous cars become feasible, so it is not clear how long the impact of this will last.) Slimy. Vote no.

Proposition 23 - No. This is sort of like a proposition that we voted "no" on a few years ago, and would impose more regulations on kidney dialysis clinics, such as having a physician on duty all the time. I can't say that I'm a fan of corporate dialysis clinics, but this one is weird, and appears to be the latest manifestation of a fight we don't have a dog in rather than a response to a specific need to have these particular regulations imposed on dialysis clinics.  Looks to me like another abuse of the initiative process. Vote no.

Proposition 24 - No. Proposition 24 tweaks another recently-passed law on data privacy.  This one is really complicated and detailed, and has some decent stuff in it, but it has a couple of things that give me pause.  One, it creates a new state agency for data protection, rather than just having the attorney general's office address it.  Creating a new state agency when one is not needed is a bad (and expensive) idea. Second, it allows for "paying for privacy" schemes, where businesses could offer discounts to those who waive privacy rights.  For more details, EFF has a nice analysis here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/why-eff-doesnt-support-cal-prop-24

My inclination is to vote no.

Proposition 25 - Yes. The legislature recently passed a bill, SB 10, that replaces cash bail for criminal suspects with a risk-based assessment that considers risk of not showing up and risk to public safety. (Low risk suspects get released, high risk suspects stay locked up, medium risk suspects could go either way.) Not surprisingly, the bail bond industry does not like this, and have sponsored a "veto referendum" (which I didn't even know was a thing).

The way the veto referendum works is like you are voting anew on SB 10, so voting yes means to approve SB 10's shift from cash bail to a risk-based assessment system. Voting no would repeal SB 10.

There are some valid criticisms of SB10's risk-based assessment system, including that it would likely incorporate racially-biased criteria. But overall it seems like a step in the right direction. Additionally, Proposition 25 (like Proposition 22) is another attempt by an industry to use the ballot box to protect its bottom line, regardless of the public's interest. My inclination is to vote yes.

Propositions! November 2020 (First Batch)

There are a bunch of propositions on the November ballot, and some of them are pretty dense, so I haven't had the mental bandwidth to analyze all of them yet, but here is a first batch.

Proposition 14 - Probably yes. This proposition would authorize the issuance of $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds to fund grants for stem cell and other medical research and therapies, medical training and construction of research facilities.  This is a follow up to a 2004 bond issue to fund stem cell research. (Which I recall being an in-your-face move to the Bush II administration refusing to fund it because stem cells could come from fetal tissue.)

According to the Secretary of State’s website, the cost to California will be $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds, and the average annual debt payments would be about $310 million for 25 years.

On the one hand, this is a worthwhile and potentially useful thing to fund, and there is likely a lack of federal funds for this research.  On the other hand, there are a few questions to ask: 1) given the significant cost, is this the highest priority use for this money, or is there something else we should be spending it on; 2) how much debt should California take on, and how risky is it for the state to add this debt; and 3) should bonds be used to pay for ongoing expenses rather than large capital projects (like bridges, etc)?

So if you like the purpose of the bill, and you are okay with the borrowing and spending necessary to fund it, vote for it.

Proposition 15 - Yes. This proposition modifies the existing Proposition 13 limits on property taxes, by creating what is known as a “split roll” system.  Right now, property taxes on all real estate in California – houses, apartment buildings, farms, factories, high rises, shopping malls, etc. are capped in how much they can increase (I think it is 2% a year), regardless of how much the actual value of the property has increased.  But it does get reassessed at market value when a property is bought/sold. So if you bought a property one year ago for $500,000 and now it is worth $1 million, your assessed value for calculating property tax would only be $510,000, not $1 million.

Proposition 15 would have property taxes for commercial and industrial property (but not residential or farm property) calculated based on the actual value of the property, and no longer subject to the cap of Proposition 13. There is an exemption for commercial and industrial property with a value of less than $3 million.  While Proposition 13 has helped keep property taxes on peoples’ homes more manageable, it has also acted as a subsidy for real estate speculation and has created weird market distortions.  This proposition would result in significantly higher property tax revenue, and allocates that additional revenue to schools and local governments. (Local governments and school districts took a big hit from Proposition 13.) This type of reform to Proposition 13 is long overdue. Vote yes.

Proposition 16 - Yes. This proposition would repeal Proposition 209 that was passed in 1996 and prohibited the state from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The California Constitution defines the state for these purposes to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.”

Proposition 209 resulted in more than just barring affirmative action in school admissions or hiring, and has more broadly limited or prevented the consideration of and support for diversity. Proposition 209 did not magically result in a color and gender blind society, and in fact appears to have had the opposite effect - a marked loss of diversity. (Spoiler: racism and sexism still exist.) While there may be disagreement on what measures should be used to promote diversity, doing so should not be barred by law. Vote yes.

Proposition 17 - Yes. Right now, people cannot vote in California if they are in prison or on parole for a felony, or if they are mentally incompetent. (That last criteria seems to be rather laxly applied, at least in some states.)  This proposition would allow people out on parole to vote.

This makes sense to me – we want former criminals to feel like they are part of society. Once they are out of prison they should be able to vote. Vote yes.

Proposition 18 - Probably yes. Right now you have to be 18 to vote in California. This proposition would allow 17 year olds to vote in primaries and special elections if they will be 18 at the time of the next general election.  I am not sure about the judgment of many 17 year olds (although the judgment of lots of older people seems to be pretty questionable, too), but it is a pretty minor change, and to the extent it encourages younger people to vote that is a good thing. I would lean toward yes.

Proposition 19 and 20 - Coming later.

Proposition 21 - Probably no. This one will change state limits on local rent control ordinances.  If your city does not have rent control (and is unlikely to enact it), this does not directly affect you.

Under current state law (known as Costa-Hawkins), in cities with rent control there is “vacancy decontrol,” meaning that when a tenant moves out of a rent controlled unit, the landlord can raise the rent to the market rate. Costa-Hawkins prohibits cities from limiting rent increases when a tenant moves out and the unit becomes vacant. Under Proposition 21, a city could impose limits on how much a landlord could raise the rent on a vacant unit, with the condition that the landlord could raise the rent by up to 15% over three years.

To illustrate how this would work, assume you have a duplex in a rent-controlled jurisdiction, and you rent out one unit. Market rate on that unit is around $2500/month. Your tenants have been there for a number of years, and are paying rent of $1000/month. Under current law, when the tenants move out, you could raise the rent for the new tenants to $2500. Under Proposition 21, when the tenants moves out, you could only raise the rent for the new tenants to $1,150 over three years.

Proposition 21 makes some other changes as well; the most significant one is that Costa-Hawkins exempts buildings built after 1995 from rent control, while Proposition 21 would change it to a rolling 15-year period, with newer buildings exempt.

Adding rent control to vacant units would have a range of impacts, some intended, some not. The intended effect would be to try to maintain a larger number of rental units at more affordable below-market rates, and it might do that. On the other hand, it will have some other effects. First, small landlords who are on the fence about whether or not to rent out a vacant unit (like half of a duplex or a backyard cottage) will be more likely to not rent it out, taking rental units off the market. (This happens a lot in Berkeley, even under current law.) Second, landlords will never offer reduced rent to anyone (like a friend, a relative, or a fire victim) because the effect of that reduced rent will be carried forward to every other successive tenant. (Not that they are likely to do that now under rent control, except possibly for short-term tenants.)

Because in general rent control hits small landlords harder, and new construction is exempt from rent control, there has been a shift in rental housing from smaller, individually-owned older buildings to larger, corporate-developed apartment buildings. This is particularly true in the jurisdictions with high land costs that are most likely to have rent control. Proposition 21 will likely exacerbate that shift and result in more small buildings being taken off the market, with proportionally more rental housing being larger and not locally owned. I don’t know enough about the economics of apartment buildings to know whether Proposition 21 will be a disincentive to the construction of new rental housing or not, but it may increase the incentive to build new rental housing in non-rent controlled cities.

If you are a renter in a jurisdiction with rent control, you should probably vote for Proposition 21. If you are a landlord or property owner in a jurisdiction with rent control, you should probably vote against Proposition 21. If you are not in a city with rent control, it won’t directly affect you, but don’t be under the illusion that Proposition 21 or rent control will fix our housing affordability problem.

Rent control helps tenants in rent-controlled housing, can help rein in abusive landlords, and can slow gentrification, but neither rent control nor Proposition 21 will do anything significant to address the real problems caused by California’s high housing costs. We have a significant problem with housing affordability due to high property values and relatively low incomes, which needs a major social/governmental response (such as public housing or a universal basic income or the like), and a privatized band-aid approach like rent control won’t fix that, with or without Proposition 21. But approval of Proposition 21 would allow us to pretend for a little longer that we have actually done something significant about housing costs, when we really have not.

Disclosure: my wife owns a four-unit rental building in Berkeley, which has been quite the learning experience. If I didn’t live in Berkeley (or hadn’t read their rent control ordinance), I might feel differently, but if you don’t otherwise have a strong opinion, I would suggest voting no.

Propositions 22 through 25 - Coming later.

 

 

Privilege for All! Or Maybe "Privilege" is the Wrong Word...

You have likely seen arguments like this: "Hey, Congress gets 100 days off a year and a pension!  That's not fair - I only get two weeks off and no pension, so Congress should only get two weeks off and no pension, too!"  I understand the envy, but I don't like the argument, which essentially boils down to:  "Since I have been fucked over, others should be similarly fucked over, too."  I prefer the reverse approach of unfucking everyone: "Hey, if Congress gets 100 days off and a pension I should get that, too!" That would be better for everyone.

There is a somewhat similar dynamic around the term "white privilege," which I think makes it harder for white people to accept the legitimacy of the idea.

I saw a description of white privilege as encompassing things like being able to go jogging without being shot or walk into a store without having security follow you around; not getting arrested for trying to open the front door of your own house or driving a nice car; being able to have a barbecue or dance in the street without someone calling the police. But these are things that everyone should have. In other words, if these are "privileges," everyone should have them.

But the word "privilege" tends to connote something that you did not do anything to earn - it just comes to you. When you hear that someone comes from a "privileged" background you understand that their family was wealthy. You do not have to work to become privileged, and in fact the word indicates that you did not work for your privilege.  With white privilege this is true - you get it just by being born white. That's it: if you are white, you have white privilege.

The status of being white is different than having a privileged background - there are plenty of white people who are poor, or who live in dangerous places or are subject to violence. So even though they have white privilege, they understandably do not think of themselves as "privileged," and hearing themselves described as having privilege feels jarring and unfair.

Adding to that, the American ideal of the self-made individual relies upon the story: "I am responsible for my success; I worked hard to get here."  In other words, success is earned. You can see the darker side of this ideal with the denigration of welfare recipients: "Hey, I worked hard for my money, but they get money for just sitting around, doing nothing. They don't deserve that." But white privilege is not earned - it is just conferred.

So if you put together the idea that privileges, such as material wealth or living in a nice neighborhood should be earned, with the fact that white privilege is not earned, the resulting implication is that white people do not deserve their privileges.  This can trigger a visceral response in some white people, as an accusation of having white privilege sounds like someone wants to take away their white privilege. (Just like some people want to take away vacations and pensions from Congress.)

But that is not the desired goal. Rather than fucking over white people to the same extent as black people, the better solution is to make everyday life for black people just as easy and safe as it is for white people. It is preferable for everyone if we unfuck black people rather than fuck over white people. In other words, everyone should have the same privilege as white people - privilege for all. 

But privilege for all is an odd construct, given the meaning of the word privilege, which is exclusive. Not everyone has privilege. Which is why I think "privilege" may not be the best word to use to describe what white people have. Because it is not that white people have something that they don't deserve, and that should be taken from them, but rather they have something that everyone deserves.

Maybe instead of white privilege we should call it "white normal," or better yet, just "normal." It shouldn't be something special, and it isn't something that you don't deserve or that should be taken from you - it is just normal. But it should be normal not just for whites, but for everyone. When everyone gets there it is just normal. For everyone. I think that would be nice.

My Articles of Impeachment

I was (and still am) unhappy that the Democrats in the House of Representatives only brought two articles of impeachment against Trump when he has done so much more that is impeachable. Here are some of the other articles that I would have brought:
 

1) Obstruction of Justice - Mueller Report Volume II.  

In the introduction to Volume II of his report, Mueller states:

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."

This means, in simple terms, that Mueller found evidence of obstruction of justice. His report then lays out that evidence. I find it astonishing that the Democrats did not use this.

Volume II of the Mueller Report is here:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf

2) Violation of Campaign Finance Laws - Payment to Stormy Daniels

Michael Cohen was convicted of violating campaign finance laws due to his payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels. Trump reimbursed Cohen for his payment to Stormy Daniels. If Trump knew what the money he was paying Cohen was for (which seems likely) and the hush money was paid for political reasons (i.e. keeping voters from knowing about Daniels) rather than personal reasons (i.e. keeping Melania from knowing about Daniels), which also seems likely, then Trump violated campaign finance laws.

Yes, based on public information it is not a 100% clear cut violation, but it looks pretty strong, and there is likely more evidence out there we haven't seen.

Additional information is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/07/government-implicates-trump-trump-campaign-federal-campaign-finance-law-violations/

3) Violation of Financial Disclosure Laws - Payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump failed to properly disclose his payments to Cohen. If intentional (which it appears to have been), this is a crime. The Office of Governmental Ethics referred the matter to the Department of Justice, who appears to have done nothing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-financial-disclosure-form-michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-payment-2018-5

4) Conflict of Interest/Self-Dealing/Violation of the Emoluments Clause - Multiple

Trump has been shamelessly using his office for personal profit.  From trying to have the G7 meeting at one of his resorts, to charging the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) for his security detail to stay at his resorts, to special interest groups and foreign governments staying at his properties to curry favor with him, Trump has been raking in the money, all because he is president.

This is corruption, plain and simple.

https://www.propublica.org/article/political-and-taxpayer-spending-at-trump-properties-16-1-million

https://www.citizensforethics.org/presidential-profiteering-trumps-conflicts-got-worse/

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-05/how-is-donald-trump-profiting-from-the-presidency-let-us-count-the-ways

5) Soliciting a Bribe (or Extortion) - Phone call with Zelensky

The facts on this one are pretty clear. Ukraine had a legal right to receive military aid from the US - it had already been approved pursuant to US law. Trump withheld that aid and asked Ukraine's President Zelensky to investigate the Biden family. Like a government clerk who demands an extra personal payment to perform the job they are supposed to do, this is solicitation of a bribe. Looked at from a different angle, it is like a mobster asking a storekeeper for "protection" money to prevent harm from coming to his store, which is extortion.

Among other things (including testimony of multiple witnesses), the fact that Biden was the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination at the time makes Trump's claim that he was just trying to root out corruption laughable at best.

Bribery and extortion are crimes - why the Democrats didn't spell even one of these out is baffling to me.

Here is a primer: https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-whistleblower-is-right-trump-may-have-committed-extortion-and-bribery?ref=scroll

6) Violation of Campaign Finance Laws - Phone call with Zelensky

Just asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden, a political rival, is a violation of campaign finance laws (even without the withholding of military aid threat). Soliciting foreign assistance to influence the outcome of an American election is illegal. This is an impeachable offense.

It is spelled out pretty clearly here: https://campaignlegal.org/update/yes-president-trump-violated-campaign-finance-law-asking-ukraine-favor

7) Violation of Campaign Laws - Asking China to investigate Biden

After he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, Trump asked China to investigate the Bidens. Again, just like with Ukraine, this is a violation of campaign finance laws, and a basis for impeachment.

More here: https://apnews.com/c4fc388b22f549e0a67925cab8cd7e93

8) Obstruction of Justice - Hindering Congressional investigation of Zelensky call

They are doing this one (and they should). You may have heard about it.

9) Abuse of Power - Multiple

Yes, they are doing this one, but on a narrow basis. I would make this one broader, to capture Trump's pattern and practice of abusing his power in many areas. Individually, some of these may not support impeachment, but together they add up.

Trump's attacks on the judiciary - criticizing rulings that go a against him, questioning the authority of courts to issue injunctions, pardoning Joe Arpaio for his intentional violation of a court order, implied promises of pardons for others, nominating unqualified partisan hacks for federal judgeships - are inconsistent with the Constitution's separation of powers.

Trump's attacks on the press - calling all critical coverage "fake news," revoking journalists' White House press passes, threatening to revoke NBC's license, etc. - are in contravention of the 1st Amendment.

Having Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, doing investigations and negotiations with foreign governments on his behalf that are inconsistent with US interests and policies also undercuts the separation of powers, and having him (as a private citizen) appear to be conducting foreign policy is a potential violation of the Logan Act.

Demanding that cabinet members and other Federal officials, such as the Attorney General, exhibit unquestioning personal loyalty to him, and put that above their duty to the US and the Constitution, is a classic trait of the tyrant. Trump is acting like a wanna-be dictator, of the kind the Constitution is intended to protect against.

All of these (plus the other offenses listed above) are attempts to increase his power beyond that granted by the Constitution, and are an abuse of that power.

If the Democrats only brought the two articles because they were concerned that "piling on" more would somehow look bad, or more partisan, they are being weenies (again) and really don't seem to understand how the game has changed.

My hope is that the Democrats only brought two articles so that they can use the others later. As soon as the Senate refuses to convict on the two charges before them, the House should vote out (at least) two more. They have more ammunition - they should use it.