Is the table being set to impeach Trump?
You all remember Paul Ryan, the VP candidate from 2012 whom Republicans begged to become Speaker of the House. In case you had any doubt, audio from an October 2016 conference call of Republican House members proves the supposedly reluctant Ryan is no fan of Donald Trump:
I am not going to defend Donald Trump not now, not in the future,” Ryan can be heard saying. “Look, you guys know I have real concerns with our nominee,” Ryan continued. “I hope you appreciate that I’m doing what I think is best for you, the members, not what’s best for me. So, I want to do what’s best for our members, and I think this is the right thing to do. I’m going to focus my time on campaigning for House Republicans. I talked to a bunch of you over the last 72 hours and here is basically my takeaway.
To everyone on this call, this is going to be a turbulent month. Many of you on this call are facing tough reelections. Some of you are not,” Ryan added. “But with respect to Donald Trump, I would encourage you to do what you think is best and do what you feel you need to do. Personally, you need to decide what’s best for you. And you all know what’s best for you where you are.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/i-wont-defend-trump-not-now-not-in-the-...
Reading between the lines, it's seems clear that at least some of the House Republicans on that call thought Trump was making their bids for re-election more difficult. We know Senators Graham and McCain are not big fans. Senator McConnell is circumspect, but I can't imagine that Trump is his style. Democrats, of course, have had their knives out since election night. Actually, well before that, but, Democrats, being in the minority, will get nowhere with removal unless House Republicans vote to impeach and Senate Republicans vote to convict.
A couple of weeks ago, President Not Hillary tweeted that President Obama had tapped his (Trump's) phone. So, of course, a Congressional Intelligence Committee had to hold hearings to see whether or not the tweet was perfectly accurate.
Wait. What?
We hold hearings to see if everything a President says is accurate? Did I miss all the hearings about everything Obama said while he was POTUS, including the time he said he had no idea Hillary was using a private server, while the FBI was investigating that very matter? No hearings about anything Bush the Lesser said, either. Or Reagan. Slick Willie, either.
Anyway....Yesterday, the TV machine being on while I worked on various projects, I half listened to a chunk of the hearings, along with some of the MSNBC drivel. Some of you may have seen me posting that disclosing emails that have not been altered is in no way interfering with an election. Rigging voting machines is interfering with an election. Caging votes is interfering with an election. Putting accurate information about a candidate's campaign before voters, however, is not interfering with an election.
If the Russians indeed hacked the DNC and/or Podesta, they may be guilty of computer crimes, but not of interfering with our election. Yet, government and media have been saying over and over that Russia interfered with our election, as though it actually made sense. And NO ONE contradicts it. We seem to do a pretty good job of ignoring actual interference with elections, but we're all over this heinous telling Americans the truth about the DNC and Hillary crime like Sherlock Holmes on speed!
As it turns out "a foreign government interfering with U.S. elections," is one of the milder hyperbolic lies. Yesterday, I heard it described as an invasion of the U.S. by Russia and--wait for iiitttt--an act of war against the U.S. by Russia. The big news? The now infamous Comey said that he had the permission of the Department of Justice to announce that the FBI was investigating both the Russkies and anyone who may have had contacts with them in connection with this, including anyone within the Trump campaign. Anyone within the Trump campaign like, oh, I don't know...Trump?
But, of course, even if Trump is under investigation by the FBI, Trump's suggestion that his phone was tapped is insane, amirite? After all, when does anyone ever tap the phone of someone the FBI is investigating? (FWIW, when I looked up at the screen, I noted that Comey's blinked quite frequently. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/2014... http://time.com/77940/detect-lying/) Oh, and a sitting President's being under investigation by the FBI isn't close enough to a wiretap for government work? Or a tweet that shouldn't require Congressional hearings?
Speaking of insane: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/carl-bernstein-nervous-republican-offici...
If it were only Democrats suggesting that Trump cooperated with Russians in this alleged act of war and invasion of the U.S., I'd shrug it off. But it isn't only Democrats. And, if cooperating with a foreign nation in invading the US or committing an other act of war against the US is not one of them there "high crimes or misdemeanors,"* I don't know what would be.
Is the table being set up for impeachment? If so, will the counts include that he is unable, by reason of instability, to perform his duties? How about a bunch of other counts, from failure to register as a foreign agent (suggested by Rep. King during an interview as the minimum charge against anyone involved with the alleged Russians hack) up to and including treason? Or, are they setting the table for war with Russia? Both impeachment and war with Russia? If not, what the heck is happening?
*
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.
Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 4.
Comments
More blah blah blah distract divide and get on with the
pillaging. My opinion is impeachment wont/cant happen, however I wouldn't remove health reasons [commitment to a psychiatric hospital/Trump Resort] off the table.
Mea culpa. They sure distracted me.
Nothing against you or your diary [just to make that clear]
I'm tired of the government circus that results in just more of the same to distract from the reality
Awww. Thanks for the disclaimer.
As far as I am concerned, you can diss government until every member of both Houses of Congress is incorruptible. In my opinion, politicians are lower than whale poo.
So...
I'm trying to care if Richy Rich gets impeached... trying... trying... trying... aaaah, no. Sorry.
He's clearly unqualified and in WAY over his head, as well as mentally unstable. At best. I actually believe he is diagnosably mentality ill, in a way that makes him exceptionally dangerous, and he should be removed from office, posthaste.
Many people here were gravely concerned that HRC might have had some kind of cognitive defect or deficiency that was disqualifying, and were demanding she undergo a medical evaluation to prove fitness for duty. Trumpolini obviously has extremely severe mental and emotional problems, which easily surpass anything we ever saw from her. Impeachment exists for a reason. The constitution includes a couple of processes for removing a president, precisely because there are times when a very wrong lizard somehow gets in, and needs to go. This is one of those times.
And ya, I know that Mike Pence is the VP, and a full-blown religious wacko who is also exceptionally dangerous. But at least he's an actual human being. At this point that's the best we can hope for.
Don't worry though, Trump fans. The democrats will save him and stop any impeachment, because they still imagine that HRC can win next time if we just keep him in there. She still wants her cakewalk to the coronation and still thinks trump is the key to her success. They never learn.
Democrats began instigating
"Not My President" demonstrations the day after the election. I don't think they will stop an impeachment. Besides, the only two Presidents impeached so far have been Democrats. I bet they would not mind changing that footnote to U.S. history.
BTW, I don't think I care if he gets impeached. I don't see a lot of percentage in it, but I'm not sure I care, one way or the other.
I do care about being manipulated, though.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkXQX1C9VWo]
Don't forget that
even if we get rid of the buffoon(as we should)the people his antics are distracting us from will still be in power.
the "sane" republicans are even worse than President Pussygrabber.
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore
I have a hard time thinking of any of them as sane.
Wars, torture, serial drone murders, violations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, deceiving us, manipulating us, getting rich at our expense and calling it "public service" and on and on.
If that is sane, I'd rather be certifiable. Of course, those who'd like to use that opening to take a cheap shot might say I am.
I think Ryan and the money behind the Republican
party is indeed keeping this impeachment option open to the point of counting heads and taking stock of which "outrage" will be enough to start the proceedings against Trump. We are seeing Australia take the first steps away from the USA's "pivot to Asia" and express a desire for closer relations with China. Maybe this is the chance for Australia to stop getting involved in America's endless wars which have proven unpopular with Australians.
My view is that when global capital sees their greed interfered with, like border taxes and making the shedding of American jobs harder, then a sincere effort to get rid of Trump will begin. They want Ryan but will accept Pence, I think.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I think so too.
And it makes sense to keep it hanging out there as a threat to get him in line. I don't think he'll do much about interfering with the offshoring of jobs though, all that talk aside, I'll believe it when I see it. He would not like the humiliation of being Impeached so I can see him getting in line, and since he is exceptionally childish, the threat probably does work.
I just told a co-worker today about Pence and she wasn't aware of just what he is. I believe she may have voted for Trump but she does listen to a lot of rants out of me and shares my views on many of them. Surprised me she didn't know about Pence, but she too is willfully ignoring all "news" right now and I can't blame her. It is distraction and while I'd love to see Trump impeached just due to personal revulsion, it isn't any solution.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Someone, in a rare calm moment, will tell Trump of
the real possibility of impeachment, conviction and removal. You are correct, in my opinion, that Trump will hate the idea of losing his platform and may well conform...but I don't want to try to predict what he will do when it seems he never knows himself.
Trump showed in Indiana that he is not interested on hampering offshoring. He "saved" 800 jobs at Carrier at the cost of Indiana taxpayer assistance & Carrier and other manufacturers in that state have already told their workers at 1000 or more jobs will disappear by the end of this year.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
My guess: McConnell, Ryan, Priebus or some other
suitable Republican carefully explained impeachment and removal to Trump as soon after Election Day as they thought seemly. Maybe even before that.
Thanks, duckpin. I agree and
also wonder if I wonder if they are not being even more pro-active.
I can't recall now if I heard "interfering with U.S. elections" when the DNC came out or only after the Podesta emails came out. However, as soon as I heard it, I knew it was yet another Big Lie.
And so it has manifested from government and the msm.
Republicans used to excel at the Big Lie, while Democrats were much less successful at keeping it simple(and therefore also impressive, memorable and easily repeated). Democrats seem to be getting the hang of it, though.
Hearing Obama and other Democratic politicians say it was one thing. However, in theory, the Republicans' guy was the one who got elected and therefore Republican should want to protect the integrity of that election, especially from a Big Lie. In theory, Republicans would want to expose the lie that releasing actual emails = interfering with elections. Not only did Republicans fail to challenge the Big Lie, but they were right there repeating it, simultaneously with Democrats! Hello?
Now, a predominantly Republican House is holding hearings to determine whether a Republican President's tweet against a former Democratic President is 100% accurate? And they don't flinch, even for a second, when Comey announces that the FBI has been investigating Trump, let alone claim that announcement vindicates the tweet?
After all, how fine is the line between the FBI investigating a President Elect, then a sitting President and the government officially or unofficially wiretapping a President Elect? Heck, if I were a Republican in that hearing, I would have started jumping up and down when Comey said that and yelling "Investigating? Close enough! This is an outrage!") And Representative fricking King is talking about minimum charges on national TV?
When was the last time you saw or heard of any Party doing things like that to a newly-elected President, let alone his own Party?
As far as the rest of the world, I have a very unofficial theory. If you remembered only World War I, you thought "Yanks" bully. Maybe the same if you remembered only World War II. Since America barely remembers or acknowledges the "Korean Police Action," I have no idea how the rest of the world may have viewed that one.
If your earliest memory of Americans dates to the early days of air travel, when wealthier, entitled American Exceptionalists below the economic level of Astor and Rockefeller started mingling with citizens of other nations abroad, you agree with the book title The Ugly American, even though the book itself was about U.S. diplomats in S.E. Asia. And if your earliest memory of America is Vietnam or later, well.....
Fewer and fewer people in power abroad remember anything much earlier than Vietnam. Their opinions are reflected in their media, much as our media reflects the views of our ruling classes. And that filters down to the populace. We got goodwill from the world after our civilians were attacked without warning on 911. However, when a nightclub full of Aussie tourists got attacked, we made no official statement of sympathy to Australia. It's Ugly American déjà vu. And, yeah, they're probably tired of fighting in our wars. Lord knows, we should be tired of fighting in them ourselves.
Apparently, Maxine Waters thinks the table's already
set to impeach DT. See below.
Seriously, I think you're right, HW. IMO, there is no other way to read the actions of the Elite of both parties, not to mention the new opposition party, the MSM.
I believe that if Pence is elevated to Prez, we won't see a bright light shined on the sausage making when it comes to tax-entitlement 'reform,' etc. Or, on future budgets.
Which means that we may experience even deeper cuts to entitlements, etc. Remember, during the 'O' Administration, it was next to impossible to find anything on the myriad of cuts enacted, including both Medicare and Social Security. I literally stumbled on the one that undid ACA subsidies for early recipients of Social Security--or, those ages 62-64.
Not to mention the repeal of (Social Security) 'file and suspend,' restricted filings, and all the Medicare cuts that were tacked on as amendments following the Bowles-Simpson Chairman's Mark, The Moment Of Truth.
That is because Pence, IMO, is more of a traditional ultra-fiscal hawk, and one who is known to have high regard for the Dems 'paygo' budget rules. I could be wrong, but I suspect that DT is more willing to operate in the tradition of Cheney's 'deficits don't matter' mode, if it means getting what he wants, and not alienating his Base.
Not to sound like a broken record, but the Bipartisan Power Brokers are terrified that someone has ascended to the Presidency who does not publicly agree with them on their 'free trade' and entitlement slashing agenda. I expect that they will stop at nothing to ensure that he does not upset the One Percent's apple cart in these two areas. And, the near constant question coming from the Cable News talking heads (speaking for the One Percent. I presume) is, "How are they going to pay for this?"
BTW, this is not to say that I don't believe that DT wouldn't be willing to 'negotiate' any cuts to Social Security or Medicare, with Ryan and corporatist Dems--I do. But, he's a transactionist, so while I don't believe that he's as philosophically inclined to cut entitlements, I fully believe that he'd be willing to trade them off for something he wants. OTOH, I think that because of his Base (and his path to the White House), he would be somewhat reluctant to cut entitlements until after the midterm elections.
It will be fascinating to watch, for sure.
Mollie
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."
____Author Unknown
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
____Will Rogers
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit and therefore–to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
____Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
The SOSD Fantastic Four
Available For Adoption, Save Our Street Dogs, SOSD
Taro
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
omigosh! I promise I did not see Waters' tweet until I read
your post just now. Thanks so much for bringing that to our attention and for the rest of your reply.
I've been planning to do an essay about Obama and "entitlements." If I do, don't be surprised if you see yourself linked and/or quoted in my essay!
According to the board where I used to post, Obama was merely playing 26-dimensional chess with Republicans when he kept offering them cuts to entitlements. See, he knew they would turn him down. Therefore, he made the offer because....
Oh, yeah, I forgot. They never did explain the point of having a Democratic President intentionally propose cuts to entitlements with the idea that Republicans would save Americans from them by rejecting his offer. For those posters, it was enough to prove that Obama intended that Republicans reject his offer to cut OASDI and Medicare.
Oh, wait. They never proved that. They only pulled it out of their
Never mind.
Hey, HW! Sorry, I missed your reply, earlier. I sorta
stumbled upon Waters' Tweet--glad to offer some positive reinforcement of your premise.
BTW, thanks for posting the photo of Gilda and Jane--two of my favorite SNL cast members. Ironically, I just read a piece about Gilda's last year and illness, earlier this week. All the more tragic, since it appears that she was misdiagnosed more than once.
One of my favorite signature lines is a Radner quote. I'll close with that now.
Mollie
"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures--they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive."--Gilda Radner
Amen!
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Thanks. So sad. Her husband was sick, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Wilder
He remarried after she passed.
Tribute to Wilder and Pryor:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNbZcT8RXgE]
If I was conspiracy minded...
I'd say Trump was a Trojan candidate to begin with. The real man they wanted in was Pence. He has all of the odious politics, and probably worse, plus he's a "true believer" not prone to fly off the handle like Trump. And he is willing to play the game. He's a politician and TPTB are going to be a lot more comfortable with him.
But there's the rub. I think Hillary, weak as she was, maybe could have beat him because he is that standard Republican white bread archetype. I don't think Pence fires anyone up and I suppose there would have been the anti-Hillary crowd, but he certainly inspires his own anti- voters too.
So they let Trump in and let him burn out. Bonus, it will be the Republicans who take him out. They end up looking like heroes, they get the guy they really wanted in there and the world breathes a sigh of relief, not realizing this was a real "out of the frying pan, into the fire" move.
Whew! I just wasted a lot of words for someone who doesn't do conspiracy theories. Lol. Anymore, I feel reality keeps coming up with anything crazier than anything I could imagine anyway.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I completely agree. I've suspected this scenario as well.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Agree with part of your analysis, but not
the part about him being a Trojan candidate. Here's a transcript of DT's response to Oprah about running for President in 1988.
Personally, I believe it when he says that he 'wouldn't go in to lose.' IMO, it would be totally out of character for him; and, in some areas, he is quite consistent.
I do think that he'd replicate Nixon, though, if impeachment proceedings should be lodged against him. IOW, he'd probably resign--not fight it out.
Mollie
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."
____Author Unknown
Mollie
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."
____Author Unknown
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
If he was a Trojan, he'd be the last to know.
and that's the part where it would get really interesting. I agree with your assessment. The guy's ego can't handle being a "loser" so there's no way he's going to willingly take the fall. I'd be curious to see if he would try to stage his own coup or...?
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Supposedly, Trump's kids comprised the
committee that chose Pence as Daddy's running mate.
I imagine that it would have been easy enough for political pros to lead the newbies in Pence's direction, though.
The Impeachment Fantasy
While it makes us feel good to drool over impeaching Trump (or impeaching Hillary had she won), I suspect it's nonsense and Trump will serve out at least one full term. It wouldn't surprise me if he voluntarily stepped down after a single term and set the stage for President Pence, but impeachment is pure fantasy and wishful thinking.
It doesn't make me feel good to "drool" over
impeachment. I posted upthread that I probably did not care, one way or the other; and, in February, I posted two essays on impeachment concluding that impeachment may set a very undesirable precedent and, in any event, would not get the left much, if anything. The second of that pair of essays also stated that, while we were clearly being ginned up to think impeachment, impeachment was improbable. http://caucus99percent.com/content/impeach-impeach-part-1; http://caucus99percent.com/content/impeach-impeach-part-2
However, impeachment is starting to seem to me like more of a possibility. For reasons in addition to those stated in the essay that begins this thread, please see my reply to duckpin upthread http://caucus99percent.com/comment/251039#comment-251039
Of course, another option is that someone has a chat with Trump ala Poppy Bush and Nixon; and Trump finds some face-saving reason to resign before he is impeached, possibly conflicts of interest with the businesses that are now supposedly in the hands of his children, the Emoluments Clause, blah, blah.
Yes, and yes.
"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
Yes, yes, and yes. ;-D Seriously, I think Dr John nailed
it in his second paragraph, below:
I've heard national reporters (on XM) speak to the situation after 'the tape' was released. If their report contains a word of truth in it, DT became convinced that he'd lose, and let down his supporters. So, he strongly considered stepping down, letting Pence take his place at the top of the ticket. But, some in his inner circle--Reince Priebus, and his family members, in particular--convinced him that his popularity wasn't 'transferable,' and that he needed to see it through to the end--win, or lose.
I agree with Edg--if he survives this term, he'll probably not elect not to run for a second.
The only way he will probably survive the first term, is if he continues to hold campaign rallies which are well-attended. If/when he loses the strong support of his Base--he's toast.
Mollie
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."
____Author Unknown
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Given his recent approval numbers, he's lost a lot of
support since election day. Before reaching the 100-day review mark, He's already almost down to the approval ratings of Bush the Lesser in 2008.
Let's put it this way...
three months in and those around Trump have felt the need to hold how many rallies to prop up his wounded ego? I mean, I've heard these discussed in the MSM as being basically because Trump is bummed out and it's just accepted. Even when Bush the lesser was having his photo-ops, they weren't so blatant about it.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I lean to yes, the table is being set, with some
caveats because there are so many moving pieces and unknowns.
IMO Trump will resign due to the simple fact that he cannot tolerate low polling and diminished popularity. His entire identity and self-worth is based on being a "winner" so I wouldn't be surprised if some previously unknown health issue popped up giving him and excuse to resign and get out while the gettings still good and let Pence step in to run the rest of the show.
Recently, I saw a bit of video of him walking across the lawn returning from some trip to Mar-a-Lago and I thought "He's a beaten man. He knows his days in office are numbered." His shoulders were slumped and he had a besieged expression on his face. I always thought privately that he had no intention of actually winning the Presidency and was simply embarking on a long term publicity stunt to enhance his own brand, be a disruptor and gain a position of power as a commentator and future kingmaker, most likely in some media arena. I think he may have been just as shocked and horrified as HRC herself when he pulled it out in the ninth.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Thanks, Phoebe.
I agree with most of your response. However, I did believe Trump when he said he would not go into a Presidential race to lose. Not because he is so credible, but because he has too much ego to try for anything with the intention of losing.
Moreover, I am not sure how becoming yet another "a losah" from the clown car, "fired," like all the 20+ Republican candidates he ran against, would have enhanced his brand. His brand--at least the one he strives for--is as commercial empire kingpin, king maker (The Apprentice), and, above all, not a "losah."
I think it depends on the definition of winning
Hillary Clinton was supposed to be a no-brainer. The predictions close to the election were for her to turn red States blue - for Trump to even come close would have been chalked up as a "win". He took out the entire Republican establishment which also had to be put in the win column. He generated huge crowds and (misguided)enthusiasm which would have been a win. He had the media savvy and knowledge to parlay any loss into a long-term presence and king-maker power a la Rush Limbaugh in his(vain)glory days which would have been a win. By losing he would have concentrated his brand, image and power possibly more than he accomplished by winning, where he grows smaller and more diminished by the day. Although nothing can negate the fact that he gained the highest and most powerful office in the world against almost insurmountable odds.
Not to say that you could be completely correct and that he always envisioned himself winning.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Thanks.
I think it depends on how one sees Trump and how one sees what Trump's ego and what one thinks would have, in Trump's eyes, helped his brand.
He did amazingly well, obviously. However, I thought we were talking about whether Trump intended to become President when he first decided to run. The things you cite happened after he decided to run. So, I don't know how those accomplishment would have played into his initial decision whether to run or not.
Obviously, we see it differently, which is fine. If we all saw things exactly the same way, this would be a very boring board. We could just as well talk to a mirror.