This paragraph in Frank Miele’s piece at RealClearPolitics caught my eye:
By staking an impeachment claim on the phone call President Trump held with the Ukrainian president, the Democrats in Congress are essentially declaring that the president doesn’t have the power to negotiate with foreign leaders, he does not have authority as commander-in-chief to make deals, and he can neither cajole nor chide foreign nations to do our bidding without being brought to heel by the terrible oversight powers of Lord Congress.
I think that Mr. Miele is underestimating the latitude the Congress has in impeachment but, even assuming he’s right, who would have standing to challenge the Congress’s actions? Claiming that the president has the authority to challenge the Congress in court or even that the Senate has the authority to challenge the House opens a can of worms I do not think we wish to confront. Where would it end?
No, the big problem facing the House Democrats is how do they hold onto their majority if they engage in what is widely seen as a purely partisan impeachment? It doesn’t matter if they have the full support of the people of the New York 15th District. What matters is districts they won narrowly or whose incumbents are unpopular in their own districts and there are at least fifty of those, more than enough to flip the House.
A few years ago, the historian Peter Turchin noted that the enmity among our political leaders was at its highest level since the 1850’s and that the 2020’s were likely to be a period of violent political discord. I think he has underestimated the potential for extreme violence in this country.
Trump’s impeachment is a certainty. The only question is how many Senate Republicans will join Romney in voting to convict him of the charges. If Trump is convicted, there will be a second civil war in this country.
One of the ironies of all of this is that IMO the most likely outcome of all of this is that the House will vote along strictly partisan lines to impeach while the Senate will vote along partisan lines not to convict. This will be construed as proof of “tribalism” among Republicans.
The second most likely outcome is that the House will vote along strictly partisan lines to impeach and enough Republicans vote to convict that Trump will actually be convicted. That, too, will be construed as proof of “tribalism” among Republicans.
I don’t know how likely an actual shootin’ civil war would be over Trump’s conviction. I think it’s definitely a risk.
Trump hasn’t violated his understanding with his supporters by twistin’ arms to get at the truth underlying corruption of “the Swamp”.
If he should be impeached and removed I think his support group may be as little on the old and married side to take up arms. But we’d be burning mad and the Democrats would lose the House. Hell, I’d vote against a local Democrat even if I liked them.
I do sense a momentum shift against the President, I think a lot of people are worn down by the discord. But unknown facts and unseen events can change that pattern overnight.
Ms. Harris has come out in favor of impeachment of Kavanaugh.
It should be amusing to have 2 impeachment trials next year.
If Kavanaugh is impeached; I assume he has to step aside from any cases before the Supreme Court, including ones involving the impeachment of the President?
Impeachment was the goal from election night.
The same people who refuse to admit that the Russia hoax and obstruction of justice were lies have been manufacturing one scandal after another.
At least impeachment is a legal method of removing the President. Like it or not, the Russia hoax was a coup attempt to unlawfully remove a president. Just because tanks are not rolling down the street does not make it any less a coup.
Now roll-out the tinfoil hatters to explain why reality is whatever they say it is.
What I think would be amusing would be for the House to impeach Kavanaugh on grounds as flimsy as those they presently have and then watch the deluge of equally flimsy charges filed against every member of the House leadership.
One again, I think people are in the weeds and diverted from the big issue. Biden and his corruption are interesting. And it will probably take him out. Its pure pay for play.
But the main event is that the DNC, the HRC campaign (and then other strong armers) used and threatened Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump. Then the Trump people got on the scent, and an excuse/distraction had to be ginned up.
Note the threats by Murphy, and the Durbin et al crowd. Also note – hear me carefully – the narrative was that this so called whistleblower a) wrote a memo, b) Team Trump, knowing it was a problem, deep sixed it by not providing to congress, 3) this proves the worst interpretation, including Mafia movies as reality. (snicker)
Fact: the whistleblower knew nothing.
Almost Surely Fact: the whistleblower memo was carefully drafted by partisan lawyers for protection and to create a narrative.
Fact: the standard for whistleblowers has historically been first hand knowledge in order to report to Congress.
Fact: that standard was changed by the IC in August of this year, and made public 2 days before this memo saw the light of day, enabling liars to, presto, say Trump hid it. Then the memo is released to all this fanfare.
As I said, Team Trump was on the scent. The DNC and HRC had used a foreign entity to interfere in the 2016 election. Obama knew. They did exactly what they accused Trump of doing. And they needed a distraction – like right now.
Does anyone really think Pelosi had a religious or moral conversion; that a few new punks on the block caused her to rush this in?
Does anyone think Obama, HRC or the new leadership at the DNC really give two wits about Joe (or Hunter) Biden in the face of a monster scandal in which they colluded with a foreign government to get dirt on an opposing candidate?
C’mon, man.
Dave, you’re kidding us when you state that equally flimsy cases could be brought against every member of congress. First, I think a large number of the members of congress, if not a majority, could be brought up on convictable charges, and two, the permanent members of the DOJ would never ever bring any charges against any member of congress, particularly if they don’t have an ‘R’ after their name. Call me a cynic, but when you have a Barney Franks having a prostitution ring run out of his residence and nothing happens, whereas a sarcastic tweet from fifteen years ago is considered proof that the tweeter is worse than Mr. H and should be banned from gainful employment for the rest of their life, then there’s evidence for my cynicism.
The issue is not whether the DoJ would bring charges but how you go about defending yourself to your constituents against charges you’re in the midst of an impeachment inquiry to impeach someone else for.
“defending yourself to your constituents”
Even Pelosi’s announcement of an inquiry brought a surge of money into RNC and Trump’s campaign.
This will be tried in the media.
The whistleblower’s complaint is that the phone call transcripts were on a server that he could not leak because ha did not have access. You cannot make this shit up.
“It depends upon how long a pause is a pause.” Somebody tell the Democrats that the 90’s are calling, and they want their stupidity back.
Honestly, this is not rocket science.
You cannot make this shit up.
I agree …but, it’s about public perception. It’s about poll numbers.
“declaring that the president doesn’t have the power to negotiate with foreign leaders, he does not have authority as commander-in-chief to make deals”
Nope. POTUS can make all the trade deals, negotiate military aid, whatever, he just cant use the office to go after his political rivals. So how about we give you this so we dont stymie the president. He can go ahead and ask the other foreign leaders to investigate political rivals, he just has to notify Congress ahead of time.
Steve
Steve:
Both the HRC campaign and the DOJ, the IC community, and the State Department of the sitting President conspired with foreign nationals (Steele, Mifsud, Downer, et al) to dig up or manufacture dirt on Trump, which they then leaked to the press or compliant Congressmen for maximum effect. And that’s not going against a political rival? You can’t persecute one side and not the other and still claim to be fair and judicious.