Impeach! Impeach? (Part 2)
Part 1: http://caucus99percent.com/content/impeach-impeach-part-1
Will Trump be removed?1 "Never say never," especially when the POTUS seems hostile to the COTUS and prone to scamming, among other things.2 And, as stated in Part 1, establishment media seems to be trying to get Americans to demand removal. On the other hand, members of the PPC (Politician Pundit Complex) are highly risk averse and continuously looking backward for a peck of potential political pitfalls they should avoid going forward. Looking back reveals that, in 228 years, we have had only two Presidential impeachments.3 That qualifies impeachment as a big funking4 deal and big funking deal votes tend to be big funking political risks.
At least in theory, the goal is not only impeachment by the House, but removal by the Senate. Voting to remove a President, especially one of your own Party, is an even bigger political risk than voting for impeachment; and Senators are supposedly even more conservative than members of the House. Moreover, the more recent impeachment backfired badly, perversely sinking the popularity of the impeachers, while lifting that of the impeached,5 not to mention that one of the impeachers felt compelled to resign.6
With the perverse outcome of the Clinton impeachment as relatively recent precedent, will risk-averse members of the House impeach again this soon? If they do, will the Senate vote to remove? Remember, these are the people who tell us that the left still can't have nice things because, forty-five ago, a liberal Democratic Senator lost an election that no one but Richard M. Nixon could have won anyway.7
Do Democratic pols even want Trump removed? Or does their self-interest lead them just to keep the I word on the lips of the PPC, or perhaps impeaching only to humiliate Trump and the Republican Party, but not removing? For the sake of discussion, let's assume removal is their sincere goal. Removal would get us, in this order, Pastor Pence, Speaker Ayn R Ryan, Orrin Hatch or Secretary of Exxon State Tillerson. Is it worth it?
Whom would you rather see Presidenting in the near future--and running as an incumbent in 2020--one of those four, or Trump? (Scylla and Charybdis. squared.) And against whom would Democrats really rather run in 2020? Democrats collectively have devolved into a Party whose most persistent theme has been “Vote Democratic because Republicans are even worse.” If anything at all can breathe life and cred into that uninspiring message, it may be Trump’s antics.8
There is also the inconvenient truth that Republicans currently control both the House and the Senate. Ordinarily, that would make removal of a Republican President seem unlikely. Nonetheless, the PPC claim that some Republicans want to impeach Trump, which may be true. For the same reasons as Democrats may prefer that Trump remain where he is, Republicans may want him gone--especially if he damages or destroys Social Security and Medicare for them and the Democrats) before impeachment. But, will they risk the ire of those who voted for Trump in surprising numbers in Republican primaries because they were already fed up with establishment Republicans--like the ones in Congress who would be doing the removing?
Impeachment may or may not hurt or help Republicans and/or Democrats, but, this should be about ourlives, not the careers of our allegedly elected alleged representatives. Do we again want to pay for one Party's effort to humiliate the President of the opposing party, while neither Party is doing much productive for us or anyone else? Especially if the Senate does not convict? Do we want to be so cavalier about overturning elections that talk of impeachment begins on election night?
Only once has the U.S.A replaced a live President before the end of his term. Poppy Bush, then Chair of the Republican National Committee, simply had a heart-to-heart with President Nixon, who, ironically, had chosen Poppy for that post. I imagine that Poppy may have said something about having enough votes to impeach. Possibly, he also mentioned something about people being willing to testify against Nixon in a criminal trial unless he resigned. Perhaps Poppy even made Nixon, one way or the other. In any event, Poppy's chat accomplished what no impeachment to date has managed.
All things considered, should we leave bad enough alone, or should we go for the nation's first removal--and, if successful, end up with Pastor Pence as President? And, is impeachment where our focus really needs to be, especially only three months after a Presidential election? Finally, if our focus is on impeachment this soon into Trump's term, is there something else that we would be focusing on, if our attention were not on impeachment?
(ETA Orrin Hatch into the current line of Presidential succession. March 22, 2017
________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Disclosure: my views of President Trump: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/240890#comment-240890
2 https://www.romper.com/p/can-you-sign-a-petition-to-impeach-trump-yes-bu... Allegations against Trump that implicate provisions of the Constitution are that he is anti--Muslim and misogynist, which would violate the Fifth Amendment (into which some Equal Protection principles have been subsumed) and that his conflicts of interest violate the Emoluments Clause. However, if Trump does get removed, my money is on the lawsuit for fraud and racketeering filed by those who enrolled in Trump University.
3 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-andrew-johnson-impe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
4 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/funk Hat tip to NCTim
5 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-73-approval-for-clinton/
6 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/li...
7 Among many other reasons Nixon was destined to win, Americans have never failed to elect a war-time incumbent. Please see this post and the replies: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825 However, the right wing of the Democratic Party still knee jerk memes McGovern's 1972 loss as the reason liberals cannot ever be nominated for President--or, these days, for almost any elective office.
8 Establishment forces have already been busy trying to making certain that what still remains of the left wing of the Democratic Party doesn't get any ideas from Hillary's loss to Trump. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/poll-trump-democrats-elizabeth-war...
Comments
Other than...
McCain, who's jealous that Trump won while he lost, and Graham, who's a Class A weirdo, what serious Republicans in the Senate would support a conviction? Wishful thinking by the MSM rarely translates into real-life action.
Thanks, edg.
I could certainly be wrong, but my perception is that mass media is the propaganda arm for D.C. politicians. Media and pols started talking protest and impeachment from day one, so I am assuming there is a reason. The reason may not be that they intend to pursue impeachment, but, IMO, there is a reason.
@edg Nah, it's all about
Nah, it's all about whether mainstream Repubs will do what the Bush/Cheney political machine wants them to. Remember that Cheney backed Hillary. The neocons love her for her warmongering. So far, the Bush/Cheney faction has had solid control of all the Republican pols with the possible exception of the Tea Partiers and libertarians.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I enjoyed the essay you wrote.
You spelled out the problems on both sides of the issue and I appreciate it.
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer and leftists can stand aside, we've been shoved there anyway, and watch what happens. If the military/industrial/financial complex is out to get Trump, then maybe there's a little something to be said for him. I think part of this little something is that Trump has the ability to honk off all sorts of influential people worldwide. As he does this, he provokes them into exposing where their real interests lie and how anti-worker and anti-biosphere they really are. Attention is being called to the pervasive spying our 17 intelligence agencies engage in contra the Bill of Rights. His call for "deadbeat" European countries to pay their share of NATO may cause a nation or two to drop out of this imperialist organization. Who knows, he may recall the troops from Poland where Obama had no good reason to send them in the first place.
The MIFC is comfortable with Pence. That's a very good reason not to give him the top job. Trump has the attention span of a gnat and the self control of a 2 year old. I don't think it's a plus to have a RW president who presents a rational image, especially one who thinks he was called to the job by Jesus.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Thanks, duckpin. Glad you enjoyed it. You are always
very kind.
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I think Part 1, which I posted yesterday, gave away that I am against being so quick to push impeachment, especially one being inspired top down. This is the link to that thread, which you also commented on. http://caucus99percent.com/content/impeach-impeach-part-1 And I do think this is definitely top down.
I've been picking up clues from the off: The delay in Hillary's concession speech until she and Bill could don mourning colors, the grudging speeches given by her and Obama, media repeatedly characterizing those grudging speeches, encouraging demonstrations, even after some of them had taken a destructive turn, constantly talking about how afraid Americans are of a Trump presidency, even during live inauguration coverage, the grim expression worn by Obama during Trump's first (only?) visit to the White House, etc. I've never experienced anything like it. It's just been a drumbeat since election night.
It is top down in my view also.
Trump won against all the establishment's rigging. This doesn't make him any good but it's a fact that the forces who control the economic/political apparatus had it in the bag for Clinton. Nate Silver said so! Clinton had a large lead in money to spend which usually ensures victory. It's interesting to see who this losing side blames, although blame has shifted as time goes by.
Given how bad the two candidates were, I think the turnout was rather large.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
@HenryAWallace It's very creepy to
It's very creepy to have a concession speech include self-congratulation for allowing a peaceful transition of power. In fact, it's creepy to even use the words "peaceful transition of power" in a concession speech, as if there were another choice to be had.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That was another phrase that was making the rounds in
those exact words. I think Bush the Lesser (Poppy was probably too sick) allowed as how he would be attending the inauguration out of respect for the "peaceful transition of power" or some such. The MSNBC crowd were throwing the term around and misdescribing it as democracy as though democracy were the opposite of violence!
http://caucus99percent.com/content/sleights-santa-and-republic
So, yeah, I noticed the multiple repetitions of that phrase, too. Check it out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+peaceful+transition+of+power&ie=ut...
@duckpin
Sounds great from that viewpoint - but on the other hand, pay-to-play in what are (theoretically) supposed to be united and positive global efforts potentially excludes all but the richest from any voice or influence potentially bringing any of them to some semblance of sane usefulness, as in containing such threats as are now being posed by the US PTB and their ginormous globe-trotting army and hostile global corporate/military takeover agenda. Not that that's likely, lol, just mentioning, on principle.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
The key word, of course, being "theoretically."
I'm about ready to call for dismantling of all of them, including the United Nation.
Elizabeth Holtzman,
who worked on the impeachment of Nixon is on the Intercept podcast. Bonus Greenwald and Klein.
Didn't Hillary work on that, too?
This is, I think, the brass ring here for the PTB:
Do we want to be so cavalier about overturning elections that talk of impeachment begins on election night?
Although the ability to get a pro-WWIII and completely compliant corporate executive, oops, sorry, I mean chief executive is no small potatoes.
When you think of the Bushes and Clintons as a single political entity, which makes sense nowadays, both impeachment and removal become more plausible.
And I would venture that Hillary would much rather run against Mike Pence than Donald Trump. He's the perfect foil for her supposed feminism.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Although Democrats had them in place before Republicans,
both parties now have super delegates who can, in effect, overturn primary voting, except when the margin is huge--and what are the odds that the candidate who is not the party's choice will be the one to get a huge margin?
Then, they give the Executive more and more power. After all, controlling one person is easier than controlling 536 people.
And now, they seem to be working toward making impeachment and removal, which overturns election results like super delegates can overturn primary results, seem like a Martha Stewart "good thing."
Soon, they'll ask us if we really want to be bothered shlepping to the polls at all. (Kidding. The illusion that the people still have a voice suits them very well.)
As an idealist, I like to think Bobby Kennedy had a chance.
As a cynic, I note that somebody else obviously shared my opinion.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
He certainly did. He won California, with its huge number of
delegates. And Humphrey got into it too late to get on the primary ballot. He was going the favorite son proxy route.
Supposedly. McCarthy's heart was not even in it. He just wanted to get out his anti-war message. Humphrey was clearly the establishment candidate though, and by then, voting machines were already a factor. Still, the Kennedy charisma and subconscious guilt over the assassination of JFK was still huge in the hearts of Americans.
But, I was talking about McGovern in 1972, not Kennedy in 1968. Nixon was not the war time incumbent in 1968. LBJ was, but he chose not to run. Even the right wing of the Democratic Party (meaning all of it) would not have the nerve to count an assassination as losing an election.
BTW, JFK's 100th birthday is this May. They released a JFK commemorative Forever stamp today for Presidents' Day.