I agree with your main thesis that the word "liberal" doesn't mean what it once did.

I disagree with the comments on LBJ. There was nothing inevitable about the passage of Civil Rights bills in 1964-5. On paper there was no way to overcome Senate filibusters by Southern Democrats. Republicans might vote against cloture just as an act of partisan calculation. However, Johnson was a master politician and had an deep knowledge of the Senate and the Senators. He got the bills passed by forging an alliance of Republicans and Democrats, that reduced the die-hard segregationists to a minority that did not have the votes to stop cloture. He was one of the few leaders who could have gotten those bills passed. He would loathe the Progressive Democrats of today, not the least because of their disdain for the Senate and its institutions.

These hearings have really opened my eyes. I have said Merrick Garland should have received Senate hearings and a vote. I felt the Republicans were afraid they would have found him so reasonable and moderate they couldn't come up with a real reason to vote against him. I concluded he was a moderate who should have been confirmed.

I was wrong. These hearings have exposed him as evasive, with legal convictions that shift with the pandering winds. When he isn't meandering away from giving clear answers, he is explaining his justification for repressive crackdowns. He is a dangerous authoritarian, albeit in Mr. Meek disguise. The Republicans should have voted against him in 2016. They should vote against him now.

A conclusion of no fraud is an invalid inference. The inability to prove fraud does not prove no fraud occurred, just like the inability to prove guilt does not prove innocence. It's an admittedly subtle point but it is a critical point in the logic of law and statistics. In statistics we say the data leads to us to either reject the null hypothesis or to fail to reject it. The logic of Statistics does not allow a conclusion that we accept H0.

The reason this election was the most insecure in recent memory was due to the record high…

You have hit on the key point. We should aim for a quantum improvement in election integrity. Statements by experts that there is no fraud when they have know way of detecting it even it was happening do not really convince anybody. I would aim several steps further. Before a vote is counted it ought to be verified as eligible by a videocam pic of the voter holding the ballot, a digital pdf of the fingerprint of the voter, and a digital pdf of the signature. Videocams and scanners at drop-off boxes and at post offices and apps on phones…

Bad Precedents and No Precedents

Why the House Managers Case Against Trump Was Flawed and Dangerous

In 230 years, no President had been impeached or tried after he was out of office. The House Democrats ripped up that precedent. There were Presidents who arguably should have been impeached and tried, but the country had never done so.

What about Richard Nixon? If ever there was a President who could have been impeached after leaving office, Nixon is the one. There was bipartisan support for his impeachment when he was in office. …

The Democrats really made it quite a clown show with this Impeachment trial. They lost, as they knew they would over a week ago. So why did they go forward over the cliff? That’s the fun of watching the show. In the process they brilliantly made Trump a martyr yet again. They put him through a viciously unfair proceeding that elicited sympathy for him. From the House Instant Impeachment on, it all seemed rushed and devoid of due process. Half the country felt it was either unconstitutional or senseless. He was out of office already. What was the point really…

There is only one real precedent for an impeachment trial of an official who has already left office. It is the Senate trial of the former Secretary of War, Belknap. He resigned in March 1876 hours before the House impeached him. The Senate trial started with a debate that led to a vote of 37–29 that the Senate did have jurisdiction to try the impeachment of a person no longer in office. All Democrats and some of the Republicans voted for it. Finally, on August 1, 1876, the Senate voted, but it failed to convict Belknap by the required 2/3…

Some have claimed the Impeachment trial of President Trump is unconstitutional. They claim the Constitution does not allow impeachment of a person no longer President. They further claim that in any event his actions do not constitute impeachable conduct. They are wrong.

You only need to look at the relevant clauses to see that the impeachment trial of an ex-President is absolutely Constitutional.

Article I, Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments against Currently Serving Officials and those who are Prior Officeholders. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation…