• Complain

Adam Schiff - How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could

Here you can read online Adam Schiff - How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 2021, publisher: Random House Publishing Group, genre: Politics. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:

Romance novel Science fiction Adventure Detective Science History Home and family Prose Art Politics Computer Non-fiction Religion Business Children Humor

Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.

Adam Schiff How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could
  • Book:
    How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could
  • Author:
  • Publisher:
    Random House Publishing Group
  • Genre:
  • Year:
    2021
  • Rating:
    5 / 5
  • Favourites:
    Add to favourites
  • Your mark:
    • 100
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5

How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could: summary, description and annotation

We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.

From the congressman who led the first impeachment of Donald J. Trump, the vital inside account of American democracy in its darkest hour, and a warning that the forces of autocracy unleashed by Trump remain as potent as ever. If there is still an American democracy fifty years from now, historians will be very grateful for this highly personal and deeply informed guide to one of its greatest crises. We should be grateful that we can read it now.--Timothy Snyder, #1 New York Times bestselling author of On Tyranny In the years leading up to the election of Donald Trump, Congressman Adam Schiff had already been sounding the alarm over the resurgence of autocracy around the world, and the threat this posed to the United States. But as he led the probe into Donald Trumps Russia and Ukraine-related abuses of presidential power, Schiff came to the terrible conclusion that the principal threat to American democracy now came from within. In Midnight in Washington, Schiff argues that the Trump presidency has so weakened our institutions and compromised the Republican Party that the peril will last for years, requiring unprecedented vigilance against the growing and dangerous appeal of authoritarianism. The congressman chronicles step by step just how our democracy was put at such risk, and traces his own path to meeting the crisis--from serious prosecutor, to congressman with an expertise in national security and a reputation for bipartisanship, to liberal lightning rod, scourge of the right, and archenemy of a president. Schiff takes us inside his team of impeachment managers and their desperate defense of the constitution amid the rise of a distinctly American brand of autocracy. Deepening our understanding of prominent public moments, Schiff reveals the private struggles, the internal conflicts, and the triumphs of courage that came with defending the republic against a lawless president--but also the slow surrender of people that he had worked with and admired to the dangerous immorality of a president engaged in an historic betrayal of his office. Schiffs fight for democracy is one of the great dramas of our time, told by the man who became the presidents principal antagonist. It is a story that began with Trump but does not end with him, taking us through the disastrous culmination of the presidency and Schiffs account of January 6, 2021, and how the anti-democratic forces Trump unleashed continue to define his party, making the future of democracy in America more uncertain than ever.

Adam Schiff: author's other books


Who wrote How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.

How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work

Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.

Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make
Contents
Landmarks
Print Page List
Copyright 2021 by Adam Schiff All rights reserved Published in the United - photo 1
Copyright 2021 by Adam Schiff All rights reserved Published in the United - photo 2

Copyright 2021 by Adam Schiff

All rights reserved.

Published in the United States by Random House, an imprint and division of Penguin Random House LLC, New York.

Random House and the house colophon are registered trademarks of Penguin Random House LLC.

Hardback ISBN9780593231524

Ebook ISBN9780593231548

randomhousebooks.com

Book design by Susan Turner, adapted for ebook

Cover design: Carlos Beltrn

Cover photo: Yaya Ernst/ Getty Images

ep_prh_5.8.0_c0_r0

Contents

For truth is truth

To the end of reckoning.

William Shakespeare , Measure for Measure

PROLOGUE
WHY SHOULD I?

The Senate chamber was so much smaller than I remembered. I had tried an impeachment case against a federal judge ten years earlier and hadnt been on the Senate floor since. In the House, I could see members on the other side of the chamber, but only dimly, their faces indistinct in the distance. Some of the Republican members of the House have been there for years, but sit in the far corner and are not on any of my committees, and if I passed them at the airport, I wouldnt know them from a stranger. Indeed, I have passed them at the airport and not known who they were until they stopped and introduced themselves. But as I walked onto the Senate floor again after so long, I couldnt get over how intimate it washow closely I could observe each of the senators and their expressions, faces so familiar to me even if I had never worked with them, or spoken with them, before.

During the trial, with one glance I could tell how closely they were paying attention, or not paying attentionfrowning, thoughtful, drifting off, engaged, moved, angered, or, worse, indifferent. You could see when their eyelids got heavy after lunch or long argumentation, or when their eyes glistened with emotion. We had twenty-four hours, spread out over three days, to make our case for the impeachment of a president, which didnt seem like much, which wasnt much, to sum up all of the reasons why Donald J. Trump posed a continuing danger to the Republic. We had spent two of those days making what I thought was a powerful case, my talented colleagues and incredible staff having put together a series of compelling presentations, integrating the testimony of the witnesses, documentary records, constitutional sources, and all of the powerful argumentation we could musterbut before the last argument of the day, one of my staff put his hand on my arm and stopped me.

They think weve proven him guilty. They need to know why he should be removed.

I didnt have time to ask my staff who they were. We had been getting feedback during the course of the trial, sometimes directly from senators who would walk past us in the small lobby behind the Senate floor, going to and from lunch, or on a break, or who would wander up to our small table on the Senate floor when the days presentations were done. But the best sources of information came from Senator Schumers staff, passed on to my staff in whispers and handwritten notes. Were these questions coming from Democratic senators, like Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, or Doug Jones of Alabama? If so, we were in trouble.

Or was this feedback coming from Republican senators, several of whom had kept their cards close to the vest? If the Republican senators were asking, that meant their minds were still open to conviction, and that was good, even though at this point in the trial they had yet to hear the defense case.

And still, what were they really asking? If senators believed that we had proven Trump guilty of withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid from an ally at war in order to coerce that nation into helping him cheat in the upcoming election, wasnt that enough? Had the bar become so high with this president that that wasnt enough? It was like a juror in an extortion case involving the president asking the judge, Okay, hes guilty, but do we really need to convict? Cant he just go on running the country?

But as I walked to the lectern, I suddenly understood, in a way I hadnt fully appreciated until that moment, that this was the central question: Why should he be removed? He was the president of their party. He was putting conservative judges on the court. He was lowering their taxes. Why remove him? I had watched during breaks in the trial as the presidents Senate defenders took to the airwaves to proclaim his innocence, and I had believed themnot their claims about the presidents conduct, but that they believed what they were saying, that they believed there had been, to quote the presidents mantra of defense, no quid pro quo. But I could see now that that wasnt it at all.

I should have known better. For the past three years, Republicans had confided, to me and to many of my Democratic colleagues, their serious misgivings about the president. Some would go on Fox News and bash me, only to urge me privately to keep on with the investigation. And it became clear that many Republicans felt someone needed to do it, someone needed to put a stop to it all, even if they couldnt, or wouldnt. And the question wasnt so much Why should he be removed? as Why should I be the one to remove him? Why should I risk my seat, my position of power and influence, my career and future? Why should I? Why should I?

There was only half an hour left of our case that day when I pulled my thoughts free of my staff to make those seven short paces from the House managers table to the lectern, and I had no idea how I was going to answer that question. I had prepared to go through the record of the presidents call again, the one in which he says I want you to do us a favor, thoughbecause I had discovered there was so much more to that transcript, so much more now that we understood the whole scheme, and I had planned to go through it, line by line. It had become a practice of mine, during the hearings in the House, to do a kind of impromptu summary at the end of each proceeding, to try to distill the importance of what we had heard or learned, to try to express simply the significance of something that had struck me as particularly powerful or telling. It didnt even have to be all that important in its own right, as long as it spoke to something larger, something that shed light on the bigger issue, on what was at stake. But the call record now seemed insignificant, compared to the question: Why should I?

I needed time to think, and so I did go through the call record with the senators, pulling out a line here or there to explain its new significance. Most of the senators were listening politely after a long day, but not all, and their concentration was wandering, and so was mine. I was doing a kind of extreme multitasking, reading and speaking about the call but thinking about the question I needed to answer, and all the other questions that it presumed: What made this man so dangerous? What had he done to the country? How, in three short years, had he been able to so completely remake his own party, get it to abandon its own ideology, get my friends and colleagues to surrender themselves to his obvious immorality? How had he caused us to question ourselves, our values, our commitment to democracy, what the country even stood for? How had he been able to convince so many of our fellow citizens that his views were the truth, and that they should believe him no matter how obvious the lies?

Next page
Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make

Similar books «How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could»

Look at similar books to How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.


Reviews about «How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could»

Discussion, reviews of the book How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.