Tag: impeachment

The Secret of the Second Impeachment

Post author By Redactor
Post date January 7, 2022
2 Comments on The Secret of the Second Impeachment

The impeachment that followed the events of January Sixth was … peculiar. President Trump had just a few weeks to go in his term, thus “removing him” on the way out seemed … almost pointless.

And we quickly learned that the Senate wouldn’t hear the case until after Trump’s replacement was installed in office.

So why?

Had enough Republicans in the upper chamber jumped ship, what House Democrats would have obtained for their troubles was (1) a prohibition on Trump running again and (2) a twist of the knife.

Key word: Payback.

Democrats had never really “accepted” their defeat in 2016. So they played up Trump’s unwillingness to “accept defeat” in 2020. A poetic revenge — “with a twist.”

But this may have been more than merely partisan payback.

Here’s the proverbial Rest of the Story: The lame duck president had been seriously considering pardoning Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. And that was something the permanent government of the intel agencies and military-industrial complex could not allow. So, as Glenn Greenwald reported on Rumble, the Deep State’s most ardent Republican supporters in the Senate — Lindsay Graham being most prominent — threatened to vote against Trump in the impeachment proceedings if the president pardoned either of those … heroes.

By impeaching Trump, Democrats not only humiliated the man, to the extent he could be humiliated, they scored a political win against Snowden and Assange, two men who had humiliated the establishment in general and their party in particular.

The big winner? The Deep State.

And the real loser? Not Trump — the American people.

Because we are left with a Leviathan that spies on us and lies to us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Donald Trump, Edward Snowden, impeachment, julian assange

national politics & policies

Much Ado in D.C.

Donald Trump, State of the Union, Twitter, impeachment,

The impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump began yesterday, after much stalling by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had postponed sending the House impeachment documents to the Senate after the finalization of the impeachment vote a month ago. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts swore in the assembled senators — 99 of 100 signed their oaths — and a schedule was announced.

The question of new documents and testimony remains a bit up in the air. “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says a federal watchdog’s report on President Donald Trump’s freeze of aid to Ukraine makes it more important for Congress to get new testimony and documents,” according to the Associated Press. Seems odd that a trial would require more information than was present in the original indictment, er, impeachment, but I’m no scholar of the legality of this issue.

I do remember the last presidential impeachment.

And it was a real partisan — indeed, all-around — let-down.

Interestingly, that trial was held around the time Bill Clinton was to give 1999’s State of the Union address. And he gave it, indeed, in the midst of the whole brouhaha.

Defiantly.

What will President Trump do? What should he do?

I don’t know. But I know what would be fun: deliver it via Twitter.

The Constitution, as I’ve noted before, does not specify a format of the annual presentation before Congress. Thomas Jefferson wrote it out and had it delivered. No speech at all.

But the idea of the Twitterer-in-Chief tweeting it and even not correcting the spelling errors? Priceless.

He could end with “Covfefe.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Donald Trump, impeachment, State of the Union, Twitter

national politics & policies

Impeachment Day, 2020

“The difference between this and parody?” asked Loserthink author Scott Adams, referring to Adam Schiff’s latest rationale for impeaching the president. His answer: no difference.

“It’s completely merged.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D‑Cal.), repeating a theme he had been pushing all week on talk shows, had tweeted to explain why the Democrats “had to move forward with articles of impeachment:

The threat persists.
The plot goes on.
And Trump’s efforts to cheat in the next election will never stop.
The President — and his lawyer — continue to make the case for his own removal.

Scott Adams found it impossible not to see this as an appeal to ‘pre-crime’ to distract us from the paucity of evidence the two impeachment committees had collated.

After yesterday’s deed had been done, Schiff castigated Republicans for failing to vote for the “historic” impeachment. “They have made their choice and I believe they will rue the day that they did.”

Adams thinks it will be Schiff to rue Impeachment Day, 2020. By genius or luck, President Trump has egged Democrats to do the one thing that will help him most: play Bad Boy and survive impeachment, making Democrats look ridiculous in the process.

He knows it: “It doesn’t really feel like we’re being impeached,” Mr. Trump said as the impeachment votes were tallied in the House, using the Majestic Plural.

Only if the Senate convicts Trump will this scenario not help the president.

“We” for Trump refers (obviously) to himself and the people … who voted for him.

But he had made a more telling remark earlier: “I’m the only politician in history that have [sic] kept more promises than I made.”

Impossible? Sure.

But funny.

The president’s Yogi Berra-ism was deliberately hyperbolic.

The Democrats’ form of comedy seems . . . less advertent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Adam Schiff, Donald Trump, impeachment

insider corruption

Another Impeachable Offense?

Post author By Redactor
Post date December 16, 2019
2 Comments on Another Impeachable Offense?

“Do me a favor: start buying agriculture.”

That’s what President Donald J. Trump says he said to the Chinese in agreeing to Phase One of a U.S.-China trade deal.

Now, if China starts buying more American agricultural products, Trump might be aided in defeating his Democratic opponents next November.

“The biggest winners in the China trade deal announced Friday appear to be a key part of President Trump’s voter base: U.S. farmers,” Jon Healey wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “There’s nothing wrong with that, because Trump’s political interests coincide with U.S. national interests.”

But when President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a favor, back during the now-infamous July phone call, a whole lot of people concluded that Trump’s desire to “get to the bottom” of the Bidens’ pungent possible corruption in Ukraine was not a harmony of interests between Trump and Americans.

Last week, his biggest critics on the House Judiciary Committee passed two articles of impeachment against him, alleging (1) that he abused his power in delaying the aid Congress had appropriated for Ukraine in order to push the Ukrainians to open up an investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that hired him, and (2) obstruction of Congress, for refusing to adequately respond to congressional subpoenas.

An investigation launched by Ukraine into former Vice-President Joe Biden’s son would certainly be news — bad for Biden, currently the leading Democratic rival to the president; good for Trump.

But is such an investigation warranted?

Surely Americans who voted for Trump to “drain the Swamp” would think corruption is always worth investigating.

The Swamp — along with many good Americans — disagrees.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Donald Trump, impeachment, swamp

ideological culture insider corruption national politics & policies

Deep State Consensus

Donald Trump was not elected with a mandate to “drain the ‘interagency consensus.’”

You can’t “drain” a “consensus.” More importantly, “the Swamp” that Trump promised to “drain,” is not the same thing as that “interagency consensus.” That latter, new phrase better serves as something coextensive with — or subset of — something distinct, “the Deep State.”

But the Swamp and Deep State are related.

Though the term, interagency consensus, was floated earlier, this new bit of jargon hit public consciousness as a result of the impeachment proceedings, the testimony of Alexander Vindman in particular.

Mr. Vindman — excuse me, Lt. Colonel Vindman — is an Army officer assigned to the National Security Council who became alarmed at “outside influences” in the Trump Administration that were upsetting the “interagency consensus” on the subject of his homeland. The new “narrative,” he testified, “was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”

The problem with this is obvious. It is not the job of junior diplomats and spies to work against the policies of a constitutionally-elected and ‑authorized U.S. president.

Sophisticates in Washington and in the press corps sometimes pooh-pooh the term “Deep State.” Vindman’s testimony justifies the term. Yet, he sure seems earnest in thinking that government hirelings should develop policy that must be defended from tampering, including by we who wade in the shallow end of government, stuck with our piddling votes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags hearings, impeachment, Schiff, Vindman

insider corruption international affairs national politics & policies

The Democrats’ Wrong Number

Post author By Redactor
Post date October 14, 2019
1 Comment on The Democrats’ Wrong Number

Donald Trump, telephone, phone call, impeachment,

“Where’s Hunter?” Donald Trump asks in front of his pro-Trump rallies (and of course on Twitter), referring to Joe Biden’s son and his cushy Ukrainian sinecure.

From the beginning of the Phone Call quasi-scandal, the upshot sure seemed to portend disaster for the Democrats, in general, and Biden’s presidential bid in particular — for, nested in the secrecies of Ukrainian corruption are not only the ties to the Biden Family Biz, but also perhaps to the conspiracy behind the Russiagate fizzle.

Surely, President Trump cannot kill two birds with one phone.

Impeaching him, however, still seems risky — for Democrats.

Mark Tapscott explored just how perilous by focusing on what might happen in the Senate, after a House impeachment. “Trump’s defense lawyers for the trial will have wide latitude to call witnesses and subpoena documents,” wrote Tapscott in late September.* “That could lead to devastating blows damaging Democrats for years to come, which possibility they would be foolhardy not to ponder seriously, given Trump’s love of political fisticuffs.”

Can the party of Big Government afford to publicize the most obvious lesson coming from their hyping of the Phone Call?

The lesson being that the undrained swamp is nothing other than Crony Capitalist Politics As Usual.

No matter how divisive all this may seem, it may prove awfully educational — in the case against Big Government.

Bob Hope had a funny punchline, way back in the Eocene: “Boy, did I get a wrong number.”

In impeaching Trump over a phone call, Democrats may have dialed their destruction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* See “Assessing the Most Dangerous ‘What Ifs’ of the Democrats’ Impeach Trump Frenzy,” The Epoch Times (September 29, 2019).