The impeachment argument

The Constitution provides a remedy for a law-breaking president. He can be impeached by the House and convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Therein lies the problem in the case of Individual 1.

Even if the House impeached Donald Trump — no sure thing — the Senate would quickly toss the indictment into the circular file. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might never even bring it to a vote. The Senate, with six-year terms and originally not even elected by the people, was intended to be a check on the popular and passing passions expressed by the House. But it has become something more in recent years.

The Senate is now a Republican firewall against any Democratic initiative or electoral gains. With solid control ensured by small primarily red states — Wyoming, with 578,000 people (about the size of Tucson), has the same number of U.S. Senators as California, with a population of 39.6 million. But it also prevents urgent action, whether to address the existential challenge of climate change or the mortal threat to the republic embodied in Trump.

Given this reality, is Speaker Nancy Pelosi correct in saying impeachment is "not worth it"?

The left — widely covered by the media, energized, angry, and loud on social media — argues she is terribly wrong. Trump must be impeached. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that “Failure to impeach now is neglect of due process.” In an interview with Reuters, she said, “I think that, at a certain point, this is no longer about politics. This is about upholding the rule of law.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren is also among the impeachment supporters.

The center is cautious. Beyond certain failure in the Senate, impeachment would put House members in swing districts on the spot — and Democrats might well lose the House in 2020 as a result. Cleared in the Senate, Trump could claim vindication from what he's termed "a witch hunt" and attempted "coup." On Meet the Press, Majority Whip James Clyburn speculated that most Democrats would vote against impeachment if a secret ballot were held in the caucus. “A majority will be for staying steady, staying focused, because this thing is moving in our direction,” he said.

I'm all for upholding the rule of law, especially against this most lawless administration. But it's also about politics, like it or not.

The split, along with the argument over "neoliberalism" vs. socialism or social democracy, points to a dangerous inflection point. America is close to three political parties: Republicans, Democrats, and whatever label the left wants to fight under (Progressive? Social Democrats? Socialist?). Dangerous because the Republicans would outnumber the opposition, which would kill each other off in countless elections.

Far-left Democrats and Bernie Bros hate centrist Democrats such as Joe Biden more than they hate Republicans. They also live in safe deep-blue bubbles, thinking that the Bay Area, New York City or Seattle represent the nation. Of course this is not true. And it matters when the 2016 election was decided by 78,000 votes in three Midwestern states. Then there's the challenges of vote suppression and Kremlin interference in the next election.

In Watergate, where a much less corrupt president than Trump faced certain impeachment, conviction, and removal, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And many Republicans would have voted against Richard Nixon. Back then, each party had conservatives, centrists, and liberals. Even conservative Republicans such as Barry Goldwater and John Rhodes turned against the president. Today's Republicans are an exclusively right-wing party — they got all the policies and judicial appointments they craved from Trump, and they fear his base. They would never vote against him.

Only a mass Democratic Party stands a chance of keeping the House, winning the presidency, and possibly retaking the Senate. Trumpism won't go away — it owns today's GOP. But it might be defeated.

Peggy Noonan made the most sensible case to censure, rather than impeach Trump. Impeachment would be suicide and wasted time.

What do you think? The comments section awaits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[cal lash]

this guy from the Front Pages agrees with you:
https://prospect.org/article/why-2020-starting-feel-2004

[HMLS]

Four more years for Trump whether there are impeachment proceedings or not. Record low unemployment, tame inflation and an incumbent president running. Republicans love their Trump.

Democrats best focus on protecting the House and striving for the Senate. Tariffs cratering the global economy and the consequences of Trump’s numerous ignorant foreign actions won’t come home to roost in time to influence the 2020 election.

[Don Smith]

As usual, you make a good case for a bigger-picture, more nuanced view of an ugly situation. I've been involved in liberal causes since 1966 and have often seen purists and "lefter-than-thou" folks cause more damage than the right ever could. A large chunk of America and the world are now looking for Dems to restore sanity and institutional norms to a badly unstable government. Impeachment, and its resulting conflicts, will not win many of them to the goal of righting the ship. This is a very dangerous time, too dangerous to indulge in self-righteous one-upmanship.

[Tiara Crouse]

If these were 'normal' times in the American Republic, the House would and should let 'politics be damned' and pursue their Constitutional duty for impeachment. The problem is that we have already entered a phase of authoritarianism that is near totalitarianism--where the king (Trump) his party (the Senate) their state propaganda media (Fox News)and the acolytes (that intractable 40 %) have squelched other party and individual opposition through repression, personality cultism, control over the 'message' (Barr), control over the economy (think recent trade bills),ripping families apart, stacked judiciary, etc. In effect, they are trying to alter all aspects of American life--commerce, art, education, science, personal choice,and morals. If we 'lose' the impeachment attempt, we just may lose everything. Well, we really have already lost everything because we have to think and act against the Constitution and our common interests just to try to save a semblance of Democracy. But without the Constitution, what is Democracy?

[Charles Blonkenfeld]

The reason for impeachment is the vote n the senate, let those republican senators be on the wrong side of history. I want the history books to have the story correct and bringing it to a vote puts it on record. There is also a chance that the senators will realize they don’t want great grand children seeing how wrong they were and may change there vote

[DoggieCombover]

As things now stand, removing Trump via impeachment is not possible. Although Mueller laid out a clear roadmap to do so by virtue of numerous obstruction of justice acts, it will not happen. Better to continue to follow up on the issues Mueller outlined and keep Trump's corruption in the public eye via hearings and the media. And who knows, perhaps more evidence will emerge that will tilt public opinion? His 40% base cannot be budged, the appeal has to be to the rest of the electorate, who after watching 4 years of buffoonery and corruption will be ready for "anyone but more Trump."

Although I am no fan of hers, Democrats would be well advised to listen to Pelosi, they need a street fighter who knows how that town works. Tilting at windmills and falling on swords is no strategy at this point.

[Mike Doughty]

As long as Trump appoints Federalist approved judges,the 40% will stay with him regardless of what mysogenistic boners he pulls. Evangelicals will stick with him until the last dog dies.They are “anybody but a Democrat” to the bone. Anything as subtle as a well deserved impeachment will fall on deaf ears,unfortunately.

[Cal Lash]

"When the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. "

[Arizona Eagletarian]

Jon, I disagree with you on several points.

First, we can't allow Democrats in Congress to vote in secret. ALL Dems and GOP members must be made to put their votes on the record.

Yes, the GOP is very solidly right-wing. But really, your analogy with Nixon and Goldwater seems faulty. At that time, Republicans did NOT initially want to impeach. They came around.

I don't hate Biden. I love him... as a person. But I could never vote for him in the primary. I hope I don't have to in the general. He faces the same issues of lack of enthusiasm now that Hillary did in 2016.

That WAS a significant factor, even though it wasn't the only factor.

As far as the impeachment question being contingent on political situations, I think you drastically underestimate the American people. Getting Trump's criminality to the ears and eyes of more of the voters will do now what it did in 1974.

There's more, but I'll leave it at that.

On my blog, I posted a video made by Mehdi Hasan that obviated all of the political arguments.

[Cal Lash]

May your dreams come true.

[Cal Lash]

The following three items make all other news pretty irrelevant.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597kpd/new-report-suggests-high-likelihood-of-human-civilization-coming-to-an-end-in-2050

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/deforestation-of-brazilian-amazon-surges-to-record-high-bolsonaro

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/crowds-tourists-are-ruining-popular-destinations/590767/

[drifter]

Poor Americans likely to be hit the hardest by President Trump’s tariffs

Associated Press
FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images
PHOENIX (AP) — The biggest victims of President Donald Trump’s tariffs won’t necessarily be Mexicans or Chinese or young urbanites who will have to pay more for avocado toast.

The people likely to pay the steepest price for Trump’s attempts to bend Mexico and China to his will are poor Americans, who already live close to the financial edge and could have to pay more for everyday purchases.

For many low-income households, tariffs “are a tax on their consumption, and by raising the cost of their consumption, they will likely have to cut back,” said Jay Shambaugh, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

The president last week announced plans to impose a 5% tax on Mexican imports unless that country halts all unauthorized border crossings into the United States. The tariffs would rachet up to 25% in the coming months if Mexico fails to stop the flow of immigrants and asylum-seekers.

The threat of higher tariffs follows a decision in May to hike tariffs to 25% from 10% on Chinese imports, a move designed to increase pressure on China to agree to more favorable trading terms with the United States.

But rather than force concessions from China and Mexico, the tariffs could boomerang on U.S. consumers and companies. The taxes could raise the price of fruits and vegetables and disrupt the supply chain for auto parts in ways that could hurt vehicle sales.

That would be hard on people like Walter Rogers, a 65-year-old retiree living in Phoenix on a Social Security check he says is about $700 a month.

“We just got a cost-of-living raise. Now they’re going to raise prices?” Rogers said as he walked to Walmart. “Hardly anybody can afford this.”

Executives at Walmart and dollar-store chains, which import much of their merchandise and serve many low-income customers, have warned that tariffs could lead to higher prices.

A 2017 research paper co-authored by Shambaugh found that tariffs would eat up a greater proportion of the incomes of the bottom 10% of households. The burden would be much lighter for those higher up on the financial ladder.

The findings — which are backed by most economists — stand in sharp contrast to Trump’s misleading claim that foreign countries are paying the tariffs. In reality, the taxes are passed along to consumers and companies in the form of higher prices and reduced economic activity that can stifle overall growth.

There are two major reasons why the poor face an outsized burden, Shambaugh said.

First, poorer Americans tend to spend all of their income, while wealthier Americans have enough income left over to save and invest. That leaves the poor more exposed to higher prices from import taxes.

Second, the wealthy are more likely to splurge on services such as farm-to-table restaurant meals or gym memberships that are not subject to tariffs at all. But poorer Americans spend a higher percentage of their income on basics such as clothing and groceries that are more likely to be imported and subject to tariffs.

Marlene Grimes has noticed higher prices for dairy goods and vitamins at the drugstore near her Phoenix apartment. If prices go even higher, she said, she would have to visit the local food pantry more often.

“I’m on a fixed income,” said Grimes, a 74-year-old retiree. “If it goes up on what you buy, you just don’t buy it.”

During a period of widening income inequality, Trump’s plan to levy tariffs will complicate the legacy of this 2017 income tax overhaul, his signature policy achievement.

Administration officials repeatedly pledged that the middle class and poor would benefit from lower tax rates, but the chief beneficiaries of the overhaul so far have been the wealthy and corporations. Any tax savings realized by the poor could be eaten up by higher prices from tariffs, according to an analysis being released this week by the Tax Foundation, a right-of-center think tank in Washington.

Assuming a 25% tax on both Chinese and Mexican imports, the bottom fifth of households would probably be worse off under Trump than they were during Barack Obama’s presidency, said Kyle Pomerleau, chief economist at the Tax Foundation. Wealthier households would likely be insulated from the tariffs and could keep most of their savings from lower income taxes.

“You’re looking at an administration that may have raised taxes on the bottom 20% and cut taxes for the top 1%,” Pomerleau said.

Tariffs on Mexico would be especially tough on Arizona, which imported $9 billion worth of goods from its southern neighbor last year, nearly three times as much as from its next closest trading partner, China. The historically Republican state voted narrowly for Trump in 2016, but in last year’s midterm elections Democrats picked up offices they had not won in decades. Arizona is expected to be a battleground in the 2020 presidential election and will have a crucial Senate contest.

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey generally opposes tariffs but has avoided criticizing Trump’s threat, saying national security is more important than commerce.

“Our economy is doing terrific. Our economy is going to continue to do terrific,” Ducey told reporters Monday.

[drifter]

Rogue, I tried to email the article above to you but it was rejected. Maybe you could delete this OT comment and list it in your article link. Or not.

[John Kanelis]

The "rule of law" mantra is meant to make lefties feel good about impeachment. I agree that POTUS is as corrupt as it gets. He needs to be removed. Impeachment is a quintessentially political process. The House will impeach/indict; the Senate will give POTUS a pass. Why? The political composition of both legislative chambers. I fear that impeachment will be a waste of time and well might provide Trump a path to re-election.

[Cal Lash]

I like conviction to Rikers and Exile to Slovenia.

[David Huizingh]

from -

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/05/opinion/impeachment-trump-democrats-nixon-clinton.html

"An impeachment inquiry against Mr. Trump is far from guaranteed. And whether impeaching him would politically help or hurt Democrats remains an open question. But there is no question that by the standards for high crimes and misdemeanors applied to past presidents in living memory, Donald J. Trump has committed impeachable offenses."

So open the impeachment inquiry and continue it until near the election, draw up the articles of impeachment and send them to the Senate, and get every Republican in the Senate to go on record documenting either their recognition of his guilt and the threat his behavior presents or their moral cowardice and failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Of course, that assumes Mitch McConnell allows the vote to happen.

[Cal Lash]

Good points, David.

And McConnell and Chao need to be gone along with Donald to a place far far away. With no income from Hemp.

[Cal Lash]

How does Pelosi imitate Trump?
Pelosi said the I word.
Lock'em up, lock'em up
is the new rally cheer.

[joel hanes]

I think Pelosi is pursuing continual slow escalation, racking up an ever-longer list of Trump's ever-more-blatant violations of law, and will continue to do so until November 2020 or until her whip-count of her caucus says they'll vote unanimously for impeachment, whichever comes first.

Whether or not I think this is the best course is irrelevant, since I'm not the speaker of the House.

But every time the House steps on his toes, The Donald over-reaches a little farther, gets a little more blatant. Also, I think his mental competence is obviously decaying, and he's getting more and more likely to make a truly fatal misstep.

Here there lies a fallen god
His fall was not a small one
We did but make his pedestal
A narrow and a tall one.

[terry dudas]

Cal, I believe the original rally cry was 'lock HER up, lock Her Up".

[Cal Lash]

Dudas, as usual u r Absolutely right.
But my post was hoping for more than one.
Like Pence and Barr, tambien.

[Cal Lash]

"When the pro-leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the end has come."
From On Tyranny

[Clay Cavness]

I worked for Tiara Crouse. I love Tiara Crouse. As for that other guy we're talking about, maybe Roger Cohen said it best. He is an impostor.