Posts Tagged ‘impeachment’

Rhett Butler: With enough courage, you can do without a reputation.

Gone With the Wind 1939

Based on the reactions of some of the facebook friends of my son last night, a not inconsiderable number of people on the left and abroad are going to wake up this morning and be completely surprised that Donald Trump remains the current president of the United States of America with all the power and prerogatives of the office that he holds still intact.

While I deplore the commentary this is on our educational system a mere twenty years after Bill Clinton’s impeachment as a very vocal Trump supporter in an extremely blue state where even the establishment GOP is not on the side of the angels I confess that am going to enjoy quite a bit of schadenfreude when the reality of that fallacy hits these fools and frankly that feeling will be multiplied as the President not only ignores impeachment but weaponizes it against his foes to defeat them.

I must admit I did not anticipate how much fun this is going to be.


Vincent LaGuardia Gambini: Hey Stan, you’re in Ala-F***in-Bama. You come from New York. You killed a good old boy. There is no way this is not going to trial.

My Cousin Vinny 1992

There were quite a few people on the right who till the very end were convinced that this would not happen because Pelosi would not be this suicidal politically. Yesterday’s vote was a reminder of what I wrote a bit ago that this vote wasn’t about protecting newly elected Democrats in swing districts from primary challenges, it was about protecting longtime house members in “safe” districts from primary challenges. Pelosi wasn’t protecting her majority, she was projecting her leadership team from the violent left that is now their base.


Bill McKay: What do we do now?

The Candidate 1972

There is a real sense that the Democrats are pretty much making it up as they go along and nothing illustrates this better than the elevation of the “Impeach but don’t sent it to the Senate” plan what went from wild speculation a week ago to a threat by Pelsoi’s after impeachment last night.

As I’ve already written this gives the lie to the urgency of impeachment but stresses the point made above that the urgency was for the violent Democrat base to see Democrats had in fact vote for impeachment. I’m sure that focus groups are now being formed and such groups may find that now that they’ve had their vote those same angry activists might INSIST that Pelosi not send impeachment to the Senate to avoid on the record acquittal. All of this is uncharted territory for the left and it’s going to be a great source of income for political consultants for the next six months.


No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.

Helmuth von Moltke

Several other side effects of this decision to delay sending impeachment to the senate instantly come to mind:

  • If a vacancy appears in the SCOTUS and the Senate is about to vote on a Trump nominee don’t be surprised if Nancy & Company choose that moment to send impeachment over to the senate in order to delay consideration of any such nominee.
  • Any delay of more than a few days gives an awful lot of cover to the GOP in terms of voting for a motion to dismiss on the grounds that if the House impeachment was a serious exercise it would have delayed sending the case over.
  • Every day that the House delays sending Impeachment to the senate is a day that impeachment remains an issue in a house race and increases the likelihood that in a congressional debate incumbent democrats will be attacked or questioned over it.
  • It’s completely possible that the House might NEVER send impeachment to the senate and thus it will die at the end of the congress unless by some miracle Donald Trump loses re-election. At that point such a vote in the senate would be of interest only to see if there are 20 Senate Republicans who want a President Pence for two to three weeks.

Isoroku Yamamoto: I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping Giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

Tora Tora Tora 1970

At Legal Insurrection William Jacobson noted the contrast between the so called somber house vote and the Trump Rally in the swing state of Michigan:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Trump seems energized, and as do his supporters I encounter. I think Democrats will rue the day they forced this impeachment through the House.

I watched that rally, he in energized, the crowd is energized and the entire GOP base simply can’t wait to vote in November. This is Pearl Harbor for the Democrats without sinking a single battleship.


Batman: No Joker. You’re playing the wrong game. The old game. Tonight you’re taking no hostages. Tonight I’m taking no prisoners.

Batman the Dark Knight Returns #3 1986

Finally and ironically, the biggest losers of impeachment will be the House of Representatives and the media. Both have played this up as something serious and devastating and the end result seems to be as potent as a eunuch in a harem. While not the final nail in the coffin of the media this is going to weaken it to the point where ironically the only people it will be able to intimidate are those on their own side. Furthermore the threat of a political impeachment in the future is not going to be taken seriously by anyone with 40+ guaranteed votes in the Senate.

Nothing increases my respect for the founding fathers wisdom more then the fact that they anticipated all of this centuries before it happened and planned accordingly.

Some might say that the bad news here is that an actually corrupt President will recognize this and act accordingly but I submit and suggest that nightmare scenario already took place during the Clinton years.

When I started writing this post is was going to be with the following premise: While it is a wise political move to put pressure on swing state Trump district Democrats to suggest that voting for impeachment will be against their political health, the entire premise of that argument is wrong because they were in a no-win situation.

If they vote for impeachment of course they anger voters in their Trump supporting districts who think it’s a sham or might be enjoying their best economic situation in a decade and thus risk their seat in a general election but if they oppose impeachment and embarrass the Democrat party, they are sure to draw a successful primary challenge not only because a 1st term member of congress is as a rule vulnerable but the ANTIFA loving Trump hating fanatics are frankly the most motivated of Democrat voters and such folks would likely draw huge war chest to destroy them.

Moreover that vote would not endear you to the GOP who will simply argue that being part of Pelosi’s majority enabled the whole crooked impeachment business anyway.

So in my mind while you might make some hay out of such pressure I thought it wasn’t likely to work because there was no upside for a Democrat in such a situation so such Democrats might as well stand pat.

Well apparently there is a third option that frankly I hadn’t thought of but Democrat congress Jeff Van Drew did:

Impeachment is already backfiring on the Democrats even before the full House votes on two articles of impeachment. A Democratic member of Congress is preparing to switch parties, joining Republicans amid the Democrat-led impeachment effort that has put dozens of moderate Democrats in a tough position with their Trump-supporting constituents. 

Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey has been in talks with top advisors for President Trump, according to The New York Times. Mr. Van Drew is concerned about losing his seat in the Democratic primary or in the 2020 general election. Van Drew’s district is a traditionally Republican district that voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. 

While there is a value in having a sitting Democrat vote against impeachment, there is a greater value for the GOP for a congressman to switch parties over the vote. It’s true that the Democrats would go all in to defeat him but given that activists would primary him and punish him for it anyway it a wise political move.

Suddenly instead of the GOP trying to beat him no matter how he votes and ad after add linking him to the squad, he suddenly becomes a rock star of the party. Money will pour in. The party in general and the White House in particular will go all in to protect and support him. I’d be shocked if Trump didn’t turn up himself to campaign for him in his district. Furthermore as very few new GOP congressmen were elected in the house last time around, if he wins re-election he’ll have two years seniority over any GOP candidate who wins a seat on the President’s coattails in 2020.

I must confess I didn’t anticipate this move. It will be a shock to the Democrat political system , and if others Democrats on the fence realize that this is likely their best chance on re-election Van Drew might not be alone.

Then it would become an earthquake!

Exit question: How much do you think the British Election results had on his decision.

by baldilocks

Remember, President Trump wants the trial in the Senate to happen.

He knows that the Democrats have been after him since he announced his candidacy; they pre-conjured a reason for his impeachment, for Heaven’s sake. Therefore, he is forcing an impeachment at the time of his choosing rather than theirs.

And with formal articles of impeachment set for a House vote – likely this year – things appears to be going according to plan.

By the way, it behooves every American to review the stages of impeachment; who is supposed to do what and when. Since I like to be helpful, here you go.

The House brings charges for impeachment. The Senate holds a trial and votes to convict or acquit. The only way to remove a President, Vice President, or Article 3 judge is through impeachment. Impeachments are not tried by a jury. The rest of the process is left to the rules of Congress.

The process begins with the House. It votes on passing articles of impeachment against a member of the Executive or Judicial branches. If the articles pass, then it is said that the person has been impeached. The vote is a straight up-or-down, majority vote.

After the House votes, the impeachment goes to the Senate. There, members of the House who were advocates for impeachment become the prosecutors in the Senate trial (they are called the House Managers). The accused secures his own counsel. The judge is the Senate itself, though the presiding officer acts as the head judge. In the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides; in other cases, the Vice President or President Pro Tem presides.

After all testimony has been heard, the Senate votes. If the Senate votes to convict by more than a two-thirds majority, the person is impeached. The person convicted is removed from office. The Senate may also prevent that person from ever holding another elective office. The Senate may set its own rules for impeachments, and the rules are not subject to judicial review. The Senate has streamlined rules for trial of impeachment for persons holding lower offices. There is no appeal in the case of conviction of impeachment.

Emphasis mine. Won’t that be interesting?

I wish I were surprised at how many people think that when the House votes on formal impeachment articles that the president must be removed from office right then and there, but I’m not. Even some of those who were around when it happened to President Clinton will not bother themselves to understand the process.

Anyway, some of my smart friends speculate that, during the trial, the defense will call only one witness: President Trump himself. If true, it’s very smart in that it will force all eyes – corporeal and digital — to be on the showman …

… the one who is holding all high cards. And the MSM will not be able to ignore it when the president reveals his hand — like they usually do with news they don’t like.

Bonus: it will be Trump versus Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff on the cross-examination!

I think Speaker Pelosi understands what’s coming, but she is powerless to stop the freight train. Her dimmer, less experienced charges – not to mention most of the Democrat voting public — want the president’s hide for daring to beat the anointed Hillary Clinton and they are unable to comprehend reason. This is probably why the speaker doesn’t care about being drunk on camera. I’d be frequently sloshed, too, if I were in her position.

This will be the Show of Shows.

People tell me that popcorn is high in carbs. Any suggestions for crunchy low-carb substitutes? I’m going to need them, and you will, too.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Can’t anybody play this game?

Casey Stengel

All Democrats had to do was not be crazy

Glenn Reynolds

OK so you’re the Democrats and you have a panel of law professors to start your impeachment panel in the house. You’re looking to create a few sound bites that you can spread to bolster the argument for impeachment legally or at the very least generate a few memorable lines.

What is it that you’re not looking to do? Weaponize the 1st Lady against you by bringing her 13 year old son into your hits on the President.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

That’s going to play so well to the suburban moms that supposedly are not fans of Trump isn’t it?

That’s the Problem with being a Democrat Professor Living in a Liberal Bubble once you step out of that bubble you find that there is a real world that doesn’t play by your rules.

And frankly a snide apology might bring smiles to the left Twitter reverse iceberg but it’s not going to help their cause.

I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.

Amazing, simply amazing.