The Battle for People's Park: Berkeley 1969 is an awesome compendium, commemorating the founding, desecration, and resurrection of a plot of land that became known around the world as People's Park. This new book is a handsome and hefty collection of historic photos, personal testimonies, poems, and press accounts that fills 371 heart-pumping, gut-wrenching pages.

Berkeley's Heyday Books is the perfect publisher for this hardbound picture-book whose publication coincides with the 50^th anniversary of the founding of People's Park. Tom Dalzell (whose long-running Quirky Berkeley column appears in Berkeleyside) is the perfect ringmaster to preside over this spectacular high-wire act of "people's journalism." 

This is a whopping hulk of a book, weighing in at just under five pounds. (Warning: If you try to read this sitting down with the book in your lap, be advised that it might cut off blood circulation to your legs. Useful tip: If you wish, you can also use the book as part of a home weight-training program.) 

Producing any book can be a major undertaking but producing a commemorative book like this is a special challenge. A standard book is like a highway. It sets off in one direction and moves steadily forward, each page paved with words. Sure, there will be stops and intersections along the way ("chapters") and there might be a U-turn or two ("flashbacks"), but otherwise it's fairly straightforward undertaking. 

A commemorative book, however, is more complex. Instead of roaring out on a literary highway headed towards a predetermined destination, the editor of a commemorative edition needs to have everything packed in advance and, instead of plowing down a long stretch of asphalt at 60 mph, has to slow down and proceed in slow increments—mostly, two pages at a time. 

This is because the book contains a wild assortment of text and graphics and there's only so much room available when you're laying out a book two-pages-at-a-time. So editing and designing this project was less like "paving a road" and more like slowly landscaping a garden—page by page. A typical "double-truck" (two-page) layout might feature a half-dozen short written recollections (drawn from hundreds of words culled from the personal files of activists, students, neighbors, reporters, and politicians), frequently topped with a framing, editorial commentary, occasionally garnished with a large pull-quote, and topped off with one or several striking photographs. 

If the videocamera had never been invented, this is the way Ken Burns might have presented the story of People's Park. Hundreds of participants are quoted and hundreds of iconic photos are featured. All these elements combine to revive the memories of this transformative experiment in "people's power" and the calamitous push-back when political forces intervened in an attempt to crush the proletarian "land grab"—by sending in armed cops, county sheriffs, and eventually the National Guard to flood the streets teargas and riddle unarmed demonstrators with buckshot. 

I was working on the staff of the Berkeley Barb at the time and remember when Stew Albert (writing anonymously under the pseudonym, "Robin Hood's Park Commissioner") stopped by to deliver a "Hear Ye, Hear Ye!" announcement inviting folks to assemble at the university's muddy, junk-strewn site on April 20, 1969 and repossess the land. "Hear Ye, Hear Ye," it read: "a park will be built between Dwight and Haste . . . . Nobody supervises and the trip belongs to whoever dreams." 

The photos capture it all: the joy of creating the park, designed in-the-moment and built-from-scratch by the people themselves; the shock as Allan Blanchard was shot in the face and blinded; the horror as James Rector's blood slowly spilled out on a rooftop overlooking Telegraph Avenue—after he was gunned down by an Oakland sheriff who was named but never put on trial. 

Rector's shooting was captured by freelance photographer Nacio Jan Brown who (unlike most press photographers of the day) had packed his 35mm camera with color film. The book features two pages of never-before-seen photos of Rector writhing in agony. After he died later in a hospital, then-governor Ronald Reagan attempted to justify Rector's murder by calling Berkeley "a haven for communist sympathizers" and falsely claiming police had found bomb-making materials in the trunk of Rector's car. 

During a book event at UC's School of Journalism, Heyday publisher Steve Wasserman responded to UC Berkeley's recent announcement of plans to replace the park with housing. "This is sacred ground. Blood was spilled," Wasserman protested. And it stands as a monument to a signal moment in the nation's history, marking "the first time that police turned their weapons on white children." 

It was also the first time that an American city was subjected to an airborne assault by the US Army, which sent a low-flying helicopter over Sproul Plaza to release a cloud of tear gas over a large crowd of students below. The students had been ringed in by a circle of soldiers armed with bayonets. Unable to escape, the students knew that something bad was about to happen when they saw the troops suddenly donning gas masks—but no one expected a helicopter. 

Al least 30 students and citizens were shot by police on Bloody Thursday. One of the wounded was Donovan Rundle, memorably photographed flashing the peace sign as he lay on a stretcher, severely wounded. 

Rundle, who has undergone endless operations over the years and has been permanently disabled, provided a moving, five-page recollection for the book. "I felt like I'd been hit in the gut with a sledgehammer," Rundle recalled. "I am still carrying lead in me." 

At the J-School event, Heyday's Wasserman chided Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin for being in the pocket of developers who stand to profit from the destruction of the park and the construction of housing. Noting that the mayor's father "worked with Cesar Chavez," Wasserman added: "He should be ashamed." 

The UC Regents and Berkeley's Chancellor need to confront and consider the messages on display in this powerful collection of photos and prose. The University's elite are threatening to destroy a park that people built, risked their lives to protect, and have occupied for a half-century. UC should be ashamed. 

On a Personal Note 

I was one of the post-FSM activists who lost my home when UC ordered the demolition of the houses in the Dwight/Haste/Telly neighborhood. As Stew Alpert put it in his "Hear Ye! Hear Ye!" broadside, UC "tore down a lot of beautiful houses to build a swamp." 

It was no coincidence that one of the houses targeted for demolition contained a den of "off-campus agitators," including Free Speech Movement vets and civil rights activists. The residence came complete with a phone bank, meeting rooms, and printing machines (which, in those days, meant hand-cranked mimeographs). 

The university justified the removal of the neighborhood by claiming it was a "scene of hippie concentration and rising crime." The University showed no interest in putting the land to any future use. The goal was removal. 

The Birth of a Park 

On that first day, when people started gathering on the blighted block, I looked around at the junk and jumble on the abandoned parcel and heard someone pun: "Well, it looks like we've got a LOT to do." 

Soon, scores of volunteers began clearing the site of trash and the wrecks of abandoned cars. Some planted flowers while others busied themselves setting up a playground for neighborhood children. 

One lasting memory of that first day was the moment when activist/writer/architect John Read drove onto the lot in a pickup loaded with of rolls of green sod. Volunteers immediately swarmed the truck and started carrying off sections of living groundcover on their shoulders. When they began to unroll them on the barren ground, it was magical—like applying fresh paint to an old, battered cabinet. Suddenly, the landscape was transformed. Carpets of grass now ran from one weathered tree to another, uniting the previously solitary trunks into a reborn landscape of vibrant, green Nature. 

Week after week, we dug and planted, built furniture and cooked free meals. People came from all over the Bay Area to work on the park. One afternoon, I was joined by two young men from Oregon who said they were driving to LA when they heard about the park and decided to stop and join the work crew. We all grabbed picks and shovels and got busy—working shoulder-to-shoulder with a band of young kids from Oakland on one side and a Nobel Prize-winning UC professor on the other. 

So how could something so innocent and galvanizing as a public park become a target for such disproportionate violence? 

From the beginning, I suspected that the ferocity of the repression was rooted in a devastating political revelation: Individuals working collectively could be a more effective force for achieving positive public goals than the well-paid factotums of city government. 

At the time, there had been a good deal of impatience over the City's poor management of other parks in the South Campus area. Residents were repeatedly told that the city was doing the best they could, to clean, improve, and maintain these open spaces. City officials explained that slow, incremental attempts to improve the situation were all we could expect in the "real world." 

The creation of Peoples Park was a game-changing social and political revelation. The lessons were stunning. Forget the "powers-that-be." People's Park demonstrated that the power of everyday folk could accomplish more in a day than all the politicians, boards, and employees of city government had been able to accomplish in a year. And all without a budget. 

The message was revelatory and revolutionary: We don't have to go to the city to beg for help; Noblesse oblige is dead; We can bloody well take charge and solve community problems using our own heads and our own two hands. 

I subsequently wrote an article citing Thomas Jefferson's rule of "usufructuary rights" to argue that the people of Berkeley might have a legitimate, legal claim to ownership of the park. It was Jefferson's argument that anyone who put abandoned land to productive use thereby gained title to the reclaimed land. 

The Battle for People's Park: Berkeley 1969 is a massive undertaking and a grand accomplishment. Readers can spend days wending their way through this superb historical document. Every page holds a reward. 

And for those who wish to continue their exploration of the park's birth and legacy, a cornucopia of articles can be found in the Berkeley Barb Archives—a nearly complete collection of the Underground Weekly that was scanned by Reveal Digital in honor of the Barb's 50^th Anniversary. The archives include both visual and text scans of every available issue so it's possible to search for topics, authors and complete articles. 

“Berkeley is a city in California with a population of 120,179. Berkeley is in Alameda County and is one of the best places to live in California. Living in Berkeley offers residents an urban suburban mix feel and most residents rent their homes. In Berkeley there are a lot of bars, restaurants, coffee shops, and parks. Many young professionals live in Berkeley and residents tend to be liberal. The public schools in Berkeley are highly rated.”

It's #1 in Best Suburbs to Live in California

And not only that, it’s #3 among the Best Cities to Live In in America.

All this is from a web site I’ve never noticed before, niche.com, brought to my attention by an admiring story in the East Bay [formerly Contra Costa] Times.

Just think, I’ve lived in this paradise for about 49 years of my life altogether.

Not only that, twelve of my other years were spent in #2, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

I’d argue that Berkeley is actually ahead of Ann Arbor, where at least three months of every year are cold and gray (though climate change may be fixing that). But on the other hand, no earthquakes, no wildfires. 

October in Berkeley is remarkably lovely, weather-wise. However. I was enjoying the sunshine on my little porch yesterday when a whole bunch of sirens roared past on Ashby, and I remembered when I’d seen the same thing in 1991, the beginning of the Oakland Hills firestorm.  

Yesterday it was a big fire in an oil storage facility up towards Crockett. Thank goodness it didn’t spread this time. 

October also brings memories of the 1989 earthquake. 

My parents were living in Scots Valley at the time, close to the Loma Prieta fault. 

My daughter happened to be on the phone with her grandmother just as things started to shake down there, so we had a few seconds warning. Our office was in an old un-reinforced brick building on Telegraph, and boy, did it rattle.  

Granny’s birthday was October 19, so when we drove down to check on the grandparents (with the Bay Bridge and Highway 17 both closed) we brought a cake and candles. It was an interesting experience which I’d rather not repeat, but I always think of it in lovely October. 

In the same Niche.com list, Best City #1 is Arlington, Virgina, chock-a-block with Washington D.C. Really? This week? I’d estimate that a strong majority of the people who live there work in the federal government or for the legions of supplicants (lobbyists, lawyers, consultants, pollsters…) it attracts. 

As Rachel Maddow said yesterday, it seems that the wheels are coming off the bus. For many of the above-mentioned inhabitants of Arlington, it can’t be much fun right now. 

My general target use for this space is to comment on specifically Berkeley situations and events, but frankly it’s a little hard to worry about Beautiful Berkeley when Washington is unraveling before our very (online) eyes.  

In case you’re better than I am at ignoring the news, Ashley Parker in the Washington Post has a good summary of the major plot lines. 

But there are many more commentators at least as well informed as I am who have plenty to say about the end of civilization as we’ve known it, several of them on this very site. So I will make a modest effort to stay on target and talk to you about Berkeley. 

First, as Niche.com has noticed, things are really swell here, by and large. That is, of course, unless you’re one of the unlucky people who don’t have a home to live in, even if you’re working, if your job doesn’t pay enough to cover rent. Or, to put it another way, Berkeley’s a great place to have a home if you do have a home. 

It’s also a better City to Live In if you’re not likely to be Driving While Black or Delivering Mail While Black or Eating Pizza While Black or even Sending Your Kids to Berkeley Schools While Black if you’re unhoused here. 

For some of us, for example the neighbors of the Honda expansion site on South Shattuck, it is getting to be a Worse City to Live In, as the City Council’s largesse to developers continues. It seems to have been decided that it’s the civic duty of South and West Berkeley to accommodate speculators who build ugly faux-luxury bedrooms for well-paid San Francisco commuters who want to move here, possibly because Berkeley is the #1 Best Suburb. 

The next election is a bit more than a year away now, and the current mayor has announced that he’s going for another round. He’s released this list of Very Important People who apparently like what he’s done so far: 

• Governor Gavin Newsom,
• State Assemblymember Buffy Wicks,
• Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson,
• State Board of Equalization Chair Malia Cohen,
• Vice Mayor Susan Wengraf,
• Former Vice Mayor Linda Maio,
• Councilmembers Ben Bartlett, Kate Harrison, Sophie Hahn, and Rigel Robinson,
• Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf,
• Richmond Mayor Tom Butt,
• and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo

For today, let’s just say that Gavin Newsom is a cheerleader for the developer-backed drive to strip local jurisdictions of their power to plan for land use. Part and parcel of this building industry power grab is his recent veto of the bill giving local non-charter cities the right to choose ranked choice voting, which passed both legislative houses with big majorities. Ranked choice has served Berkeley well—Arreguin and his somewhat progressive allies on the city council might not have been elected without it, not that claiming a progressive label means much these days. 

Which brings us to the beautiful Buffy Wicks. So far she’s distinguished herself in Sacramento as the main ally of Senator Scott Weiner, the gentrification genie. Explaining what he’s up to requires more words than I have space for here, not to mention taking a look at the rest of the endorsers on this list. 

Oh, and also, I think the radio news is coming on soon, isn’t it? Berkeley can wait. After all, it’s almost the Best City in America already. 

To: Flight Free USA

CC: Berkeley Daily Planet

I noted with interest your op-ed in Berkeleyside ("Please don't fly in 2020: From Sweden to Berkeley, the 'flight shaming' movement takes off", October 14, 2019). Thanks for trying to raise awareness of the climate emergency and to encourage meaningful action.

I noticed in your Berkeleyside op-ed and on your web site that you significantly understate the urgency and scope of the emergency. In two cases you misrepresent the scientific consensus, at least as expressed in the "IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C" (aka "IPCC SR15").

In the op-ed: "At the same time, climate scientists are warning that we have less than 10 years to make a significant reduction in our carbon emissions in order to avoid catastrophic climate change." 

The scientific consensus is that we have 0 years, not 10, to make significant reductions in net global GHG emissions. You might find helpful here figure 2.5 on page 113 of IPCC SR15. The graphs show various pathways by which emissions reductions might stay low enough that we experience only (or only temporarily exceed) 1.5°C warming. In every scenario save one, rapid emissions reductions (far in excess of voluntarily not flying) must happen immediately and then again, year over year, for a long time. Of the scenarios, only the LED scenario ("low energy demand") relies only on proved technology - and that scenario requires emissions to drop like a stone NOW, not in 10 years. The sole exception, scenario S5, allows us to continue to use lots of fossil fuel, but it relies on technologically removing carbon from the atmosphere much, much faster and in greater total amounts than we have any real idea how to do:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ 

A danger of campaigns such as yours can be illustrated this way: If I believe what you say (as opposed to what the science says) then over the next 6 years we could make plans and get ready, then in years 7-10 make sharp reductions. Yet on this path, in 6 years we will have exhausted the carbon budget for 1.5°C and almost half that for 2°C (and those are rosy projections, it looks like!).

For information about carbon budgets, see the table on page 108 of SR15, which is also in chapter 2. Be sure to subtract the earth climate systems feedback from the budgets (column 4). The 67% confidence budget for 1.5°C as of January 1, 2018 was thus 320GtCO₂. Emissions in recent years, including emissions related to land use changes, have been around 40Gt. So the budget on January 1, 2020 (again, a rosy estimate) is around 240Gt. We are on track to exhaust that budget in 6 years or less. 

You can begin to see the real urgency and scope of the problem. The existential predicament for our civilization is not at the level of choosing to fly a bit less. It is at the level of dropping emissions in the US by double-digit percentages in 2020 and again each year for years to come. It is not about minor changes in lifestyle. It is about questions like how we will cope shutting off natural gas to Berkeley homes, preventing most work commutes long before public transit can compensate, coping with the resulting economic catastrophe, and rapidly adjusting to low-carbon life starting at once, not in 6 or 10 years.


On the Flight Free USA web site: The carbon budget link to https://create.piktochart.com/output/40269429-co2-budget-and-travel 

On the web site you "explain" carbon budgets as personal carbon budgets when, as you can see above, it is the global budget that matters. Worse, you suggest that the goal is a small but positive personal carbon budget when, in every scenario, emissions (global and per capita) must become net negative. A positive personal carbon budget would make carbon capture and sequestration that much more difficult. The whole presentation is confused insofar as there is no definitive personal carbon budget in any of the relevant climate science. (The footnotes on this page don't provide enough information to figure out what confused your group.)

I hope you'll work to improve your communications significantly, around these points. The future of today's young adults and children very much depends on it, as does human civilization itself.

The main risk of asking the wrong question is that it most likely will yield the wrong answer. The headline caption in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, for example, states that the "Nationwide jobless rate last month is at a 50 year low". The obvious question for those who view this as good news is how do we explain the favorable economic climate for working people. In the same article, a corporate VP provides his explanation. "We're still seeing strong demand, we're still seeing more job opportunities out there than candidates". Apparently this executive thinks that the economy is benefiting from the tremendous impact of spending by America's optimistic consumers.

But is the public really optimistic? Not according to the Conference Board, which is a business organization that surveys the public monthly on its views of the economy. The Conference Board's recent survey found that the percent of the public who expect business conditions to worsen has increased substantially. Surveys by the New York Federal Reserve and the University of Michigan also found a steep decline in public confidence.

Unfortunately, the public is right. Over 330,000 jobs were cut during the first six months of this year. Especially worrisome, this figure is a 35% increase from the same period last year. 

The massive cut in jobs by the business community is certainly not a unique event. With regard to job losses in the manufacturing industry, since the year 2000 jobs declined from 17.2 million to12.4 million by 2017. That's about a one third reduction. City Bank has recently laid off 10,000 employees. Tesla Inc, which manufactures electric cars and solar panels, laid off 3600 workers. And the private health organization, Tenet Health, gave pink slips to about 2,000 workers. Many workers who Tenet Health dismissed received only a two day notice. Clearly, Tenet Health is unconcerned with the possible health implications of its abrupt action. 

In addition to these losses, there has been another disturbing development. Employers have not only been eliminating a tremendous number of jobs. They have been converting many more full-time jobs into part-time positions, which are low paying and generally offer no benefits. As a result a growing number of workers are compelled to work part-time for poverty wages because they are unable to obtain full- time work. 

Consider the statistical implications of counting these jobs. Splitting one job into two or more jobs is interpreted as good news by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) because it appears as an increase in the number of jobs in the labor force. Particularly important this maneuver lowers the official unemployment rate.  

So the question "Is a recession coming" seems to be a reasonable one except the future tense may be wrong. We do know that current layoffs are substantial.  

Also, jobs are hard to get, particularly decent paying jobs. That's because there are on average for each corporate job opening at least 250 applicants. When describing labor market conditions, then, we should be using the present tense. For millions of working people the recession has already begun.  

American foreign policy continues to sink into a bottomless pit of policy blunders.


In 2003 President GW Bush, his hawkish Vice-President Cheney and British Prime Minister, Tony Blair (Bush’s poodle) crafted a fictitious tale of WMD’s, to justify the invasion of Iraq.


Following the “shock and awe” invasion resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and scores of Americans, Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority d unilaterally disbanded the Iraqi military and began a process of de-Ba’athification of the Iraqi government and police forces which coalesced into the armed ISIS insurgency.  

They went on to loot, rampage and torture non-believing infidels and the Yezidi minority. Whole families were slaughtered and young girls were forced to become sex slaves. Driven from Iraq, ISIS fighters moved to Syria where they encountered fierce opposition from Kurdish fighters supported by US airpower. Thousands of ISIS fighters were captured and the movement all but vanished until one fateful “off-script moment” phone call between President Trump and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Putting his political ambitions ahead of the welfare of our Kurdish allies, Trump ordered the immediate withdrawal of US troops effectively giving a green light to Turkey to attack the Kurds. Scores of Kurds perished in the brutal Turkish aerial onslaught. Left unguarded, hundreds of ISIS fighters escaped. 1,000 Americans troops still remain in Syria. Abandoned by the US, the Kurds switched sides hoping the messianic Assad forces and Russians would protect them. To add to America’s woes, 50 U.S tactical nuclear weapons are stored at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, about 250 miles from the Syrian border. 

In another bizarre twist, President Trump ordered 2,000 US troops to Saudi Arabia to protect the heavily armed Saudis. In an act of “magnanimous Christian gesture” Trump forgave “bone saw (BS) Salman” for the murder and chilling dismemberment of Washington Post Kashoggi. Trump’s gut is leading us to perdition. 

Oh, America patriots where art thou? For more go to, http://callforsocialjustice.blogspot.com/

Incensed at being challenged over his “brilliant Syrian policy”, thin skinned President Trump lashed out at his critics calling Speaker Pelosi a “third-rate politician” and former Defense Secretary James Mattis “the world’s most overrated general.” He then sent a warning to President Erdoğan of Turkey “Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!” Americans should be most concerned of Trump’s rapidly declining mental state. He is behaving more and more like a purulent child than the leader of a powerful country. 

In a desperate effort at damage control to counter fierce criticism from House Democrats and Republicans, Trump dispatched Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State, Pompeo to Turkey and threatened to 'totally destroy and obliterate' Turkey's economy. Pelosi described Trumps’ temper tantrums as “a serious meltdown”. 

Trump's prior refusal to confront President Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin raises serious concerns of his massive conflicts of interest. If Democrats are able to force him to release his tax returns it would expose his business interests in Turkey and possibly Russia. This might complete the missing pieces of the puzzle of his deference to President Erdoğan and Putin who helped get him elected. For more, go to http://callforsocialjustice.blogspot.com/

Ready or not, the Impeachment of Donald Trump is coming. Before the end of 2019, the House of Representatives may vote on a variety of impeachment charges and the issue will be passed to the Senate. Here's what we've learned so far.

1. During the next 90 days, there will be an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives. The House Intelligence and Judiciary committees have already assembled enough evidence to call for a House vote. (It's not a matter of if, but when the vote will occur.) Trump appears to be guilty of multiple violations of the U.S. Government code including bribery, extortion, obstruction, and campaign finance misdeeds. (He's also guilty of obstruction and, quite possibly, conspiracy.) The House Dems are going forward, at a deliberate pace, to build the strongest case possible before year end. Some of the impeachment counts require information that will be provided only if ordered by the Supreme Court. 

2. Regardless of what happens in the Senate, once the House votes for impeachment, the Republicans' fate is sealed. While there is no doubt that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will mess with the Senate Impeachment trial -- attempt to doctor the proceedings so they favor Trump -- the evidence is too damning: Trump has committed a variety of high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump will lose in the court of public opinion, and he will drag down those Republican Senators that side with him. 

There are 100 Senators: 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 Independents who vote with the Dems. Therefore, the two-thirds majority will require 20 Republican Senators to vote with Democrats. At the moment, it's difficult to see more than 10 who will shift: Alaska (Murkowski), Arizona (McSally), Colorado (Gardner), Georgia (Perdue), Iowa (Ernst, Grassley), Maine (Collins), Nebraska (Sasse), North Carolina (Tillis), and Utah (Romney). When the Senate vote occurs, every swing-state Republican Senator will be between the proverbial "rock and a hard place." (Trump has already gone after Romney for indicating that he is appalled by Trump's actions and might vote for impeachment. (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/16/club_for_growth_ad_democrat_secret_asset_mitt_romney_is_colluding_with_democrats_to_impeach_trump.html) ) 

As long as there is a Senate majority that favors impeachment -- and public opinion that favors impeachment -- Republicans will lose. 

3. The Democrats' impeachment message must remain simple. Over the past month, public sentiment has shifted in favor of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry. To maintain this momentum, Dems have to move quickly and keep the impeachment charges simple -- Trump violated the law by manipulating foreign policy for his own benefit. If the message gets too complicated, voters' attention will waver and support for impeachment will diminish. 

At the same time that House Democrats go forward with the impeachment inquiry, they must ensure that they are perceived as also doing the people's business: working on legislation. So far, Speaker Pelosi has done a good job advertising that the House Dems are working on three paths: "Legislate; Litigate; and Investigate." 

4. Democrats must retain public support. On September 24th, Nancy Pelosi announced the House had initiated an impeachment inquiry -- based upon the Ukraine affair. Since then there's been a 17-point swing in favor of the impeachment inquiry. (And the positive sentiment is growing.) 

The majority of Americans support the impeachment inquiry. Democrats have to build upon this and carefully construct a case to present to the Senate. 

Over the next three months there are six other factors that will influence this drama. 

5. Count on Trump to "self impeach." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi predicted that Donald Trump would eventually"self-impeach" -- that his behavior is so warped that he cannot resist committing illegal acts. That's happening at least once each week: On October 3rd Trump seemingly admitted to reporters that he tried to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens == Ukraine needs a “major investigation” into the Bidens -- and volunteered that China “[also] should start an investigation into the Bidens." On October 17th, Trump announced that in June he will host the G7 Summit at his failing Doral resort in Miami. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/us/politics/trump-g7-doral.html ) 

By the time the Senate votes on the articles of impeachment, there will be overwhelming evidence against Trump -- but that may not be enough to produces a two-thirds majority. 

6. Trump loyalists will turn. Even though the Trump White House leaks like the proverbial sieve, during the lengthy Mueller inquiry there weren't any significant defections from the Trump inner circle -- with the exception of Michael Cohen. With regards to the Ukraine scandal, the opposite is the case -- there are major defections. Numerous members of the Federal government have defied Trump and testified before the House Intelligence Committee. (For example, former Trump national-security aide, Fiona Hill.) 

On October 17th, Trump's acting Chief-of-Staff, Nick Mulvaney, admitted there was a Ukraine quid pro quo ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/17/white-house-chief-staff-mick-mulvaney-admits-it-there-was-ukraine-quid-pro-quo/). 

There are a variety of theories about what's different now. It may be that Trump's behavior is so egregious -- badgering the Ukraine President to dig up dirt on the Bidens -- that the vast majority of Administration officials recognized it was wrong. It may also be that the involvement of Trump's pal, Rudy Giuliani, has had a catalytic impact -- most insiders don't like Rudy. 

7. Trump's behavior will get more extreme. Over the past few months we've seen many experienced folks leave the White House. (Most recently, Dan Coats resigned as Director of National Intelligence and was replace by a less-experienced person, Joseph Maguire.) Like or not, Trump is now operating without training wheels and is making decisions primarily based upon his gut feel. (Abandoning the Kurds is an example of this.) Because of the pressure, Trump is decompensating. 

8. Trump will do anything to stay in power. We already know that Trump is a liar. As the impeachment process plays out, Trump's lies will become more extreme. (For example, his claim that the Kurds are worse than ISIS.) 

We already know that Trump will insult his opponents. As the impeachment process plays out, Trump insults will become more extreme. (For example, calling Speaker Pelosi a "third-grade politician" and saying she favors ISIS "because they are communists.") 

We already know that Trump will use false claims of executive privilege to keep Administration officials from testifying before Congress and to deny lawful document requests. What else will Trump do? At the moment, there seem to be no limits to extreme behavior. 

9. Social Media will be an issue. Facebook is permitting Trump to run blatantly false ads and Twitter is allowing him to promote damaging lies. Democrats have called upon the social media companies to regulate Trump's online behavior but they are unwilling to do this.(https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/17/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-says-interview-he-fears-erosion-truth-defends-allowing-politicians-lie-ads/ ) 

10. The Supreme Court will be involved. Even though many Trump-Administration insiders have begun to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, there are others that have declined to do so -- based upon Trump's broad assertion of executive privilege. In addition, House Dems are demanding access to the complete Mueller Report including Grand Jury Testimony. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/house-pushes-for-release-of-mueller-grand-jury-testimony/2019/10/08/a88a504e-ea3a-11e9-a329-7378fbfa1b63_story.html ) 

Both of these matters are wending their way through the courts and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the conclusion of the House impeachment inquiry probably depends upon the Supreme Court schedule.