Thursday, January 17, 2019

Rashida Tlaib Was Right-- Impeachment Time Has Come

>


This morning's news would have made anyone in TrumpWorld want to stay in bed. Ben White wrote that recession warnings are piling up, exacerbated by the Trump-McConnell government shutdown which itself is starting to look like a serious crisis nudging the country towards recession. White wrote that "Across Wall Street, analysts are rushing out warnings that missed federal paychecks, dormant government contractors and shelved corporate stock offerings could push first-quarter growth close to or even below zero if the shutdown, which is wrapping up its fourth week, drags on much longer. Their broader fear: The protracted impasse could convince consumers and businesses that the federal government will spend all of 2019 on the brink of crisis-- whether on the border wall, trade with China or the debt limit. That could choke business investment and consumer spending, bringing an end to one of the longest economic expansions on record."

Perhaps even more of a nightmare for Trumpists was the new Marist poll just released by PBS, showing that more and more voters plan to help remove Trump from office in 2020. Even his base is showing signs of cracking. He is:
Down significantly among suburban men, a net-positive approval rating of 51-to-39 percent to a net-negative of 42 percent approve, 48 percent disapprove. That's a net change of down 18 percentage points;
Down a net of 13 points among white evangelicals, from 73-to-17 percent approve to 66-to-23 percent approve;
Down a net of 10 points among Republicans, from 90-to-7 percent approve to 83-to-10 percent;
Down marginally among white men without a college degree, from 56-to-34 percent approve to 50-to-35 percent approve, a net change downward of 7 points.


Domenico Montanaro reported for NPR that "just 30% of registered voters said they will definitely vote for Trump in 2020, while 57% said they will definitely vote against him." Big understatement: to have more than half the country already saying it definitely won't vote for him indicates Trump is facing a difficult re-election. "'The president has had his base and not much else,' Miringoff said, 'and when you look ahead to the election ... he enters with a significant disadvantage. His re-election prospects would definitely be in jeopardy at this point.'"

If he even gets to a 2020 reelection campaign. The cover story on the March issue of The Atlantic calls for his impeachment, Yoni Applebaum making a powerful case for Pelosi, "her antediluvian leadership team" and, especially, Jerry Nadler to read even before the results of the Mueller investigation are in. As we've been saying since Pelosi was elected speaker, "Starting the process will rein in a president who is undermining American ideals-- and bring the debate about his fitness for office into Congress, where it belongs."

Trump, writes Appelbaum, "has mounted a concerted challenge to the separation of powers, to the rule of law, and to the civil liberties enshrined in our founding documents. He has purposefully inflamed America’s divisions. He has set himself against the American idea, the principle that all of us-- of every race, gender, and creed-- are created equal... The oath of office is a president’s promise to subordinate his private desires to the public interest, to serve the nation as a whole rather than any faction within it. Trump displays no evidence that he understands these obligations. To the contrary, he has routinely privileged his self-interest above the responsibilities of the presidency. He has failed to disclose or divest himself from his extensive financial interests, instead using the platform of the presidency to promote them. This has encouraged a wide array of actors, domestic and foreign, to seek to influence his decisions by funneling cash to properties such as Mar-a-Lago (the 'Winter White House,' as Trump has branded it) and his hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. Courts are now considering whether some of those payments violate the Constitution. More troubling still, Trump has demanded that public officials put their loyalty to him ahead of their duty to the public. On his first full day in office, he ordered his press secretary to lie about the size of his inaugural crowd. He never forgave his first attorney general for failing to shut down investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and ultimately forced his resignation. 'I need loyalty. I expect loyalty,' Trump told his first FBI director, and then fired him when he refused to pledge it... Trump’s bipartisan critics are not merely arguing that he has lied or dishonored the presidency. The most serious allegations against him ultimately rest on the charge that he is attacking the bedrock of American democracy. That is the situation impeachment was devised to address."
Trump has evinced little respect for the rule of law, attempting to have the Department of Justice launch criminal probes into his critics and political adversaries. He has repeatedly attacked both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. His efforts to mislead, impede, and shut down Mueller’s investigation have now led the special counsel to consider whether the president obstructed justice.

As for the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, Trump has repeatedly trampled upon them. He pledged to ban entry to the United States on the basis of religion, and did his best to follow through. He has attacked the press as the “enemy of the people” and barred critical outlets and reporters from attending his events. He has assailed black protesters. He has called for his critics in private industry to be fired from their jobs. He has falsely alleged that America’s electoral system is subject to massive fraud, impugning election results with which he disagrees as irredeemably tainted. Elected officials of both parties have repeatedly condemned such statements, which has only spurred the president to repeat them.

These actions are, in sum, an attack on the very foundations of America’s constitutional democracy.

The electorate passes judgment on its presidents and their shortcomings every four years. But the Framers were concerned that a president could abuse his authority in ways that would undermine the democratic process and that could not wait to be addressed. So they created a mechanism for considering whether a president is subverting the rule of law or pursuing his own self-interest at the expense of the general welfare-- in short, whether his continued tenure in office poses a threat to the republic. This mechanism is impeachment.

Trump’s actions during his first two years in office clearly meet, and exceed, the criteria to trigger this fail-safe. But the United States has grown wary of impeachment. The history of its application is widely misunderstood, leading Americans to mistake it for a dangerous threat to the constitutional order.

That is precisely backwards. It is absurd to suggest that the Constitution would delineate a mechanism too potent to ever actually be employed. Impeachment, in fact, is a vital protection against the dangers a president like Trump poses. And, crucially, many of its benefits-- to the political health of the country, to the stability of the constitutional system-- accrue irrespective of its ultimate result. Impeachment is a process, not an outcome, a rule-bound procedure for investigating a president, considering evidence, formulating charges, and deciding whether to continue on to trial.

The fight over whether Trump should be removed from office is already raging, and distorting everything it touches. Activists are radicalizing in opposition to a president they regard as dangerous. Within the government, unelected bureaucrats who believe the president is acting unlawfully are disregarding his orders, or working to subvert his agenda. By denying the debate its proper outlet, Congress has succeeded only in intensifying its pressures. And by declining to tackle the question head-on, it has deprived itself of its primary means of reining in the chief executive.

With a newly seated Democratic majority, the House of Representatives can no longer dodge its constitutional duty. It must immediately open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, and bring the debate out of the court of public opinion and into Congress, where it belongs.

...Congress can’t outsource its responsibilities to federal prosecutors. No one knows when Mueller’s report will arrive, what form it will take, or what it will say. Even if Mueller alleges criminal misconduct on the part of the president, under Justice Department guidelines, a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nor will the host of congressional hearings fulfill that branch’s obligations. The view they will offer of his conduct will be both limited and scattershot, focused on discrete acts. Only by authorizing a dedicated impeachment inquiry can the House begin to assemble disparate allegations into a coherent picture, forcing lawmakers to consider both whether specific charges are true and whether the president’s abuses of his power justify his removal.

Waiting also presents dangers. With every passing day, Trump further undermines our national commitment to America’s ideals. And impeachment is a long process. Typically, the House first votes to open an investigation-- the hearings would likely take months-- then votes again to present charges to the Senate. By delaying the start of the process, in the hope that even clearer evidence will be produced by Mueller or some other source, lawmakers are delaying its eventual conclusion. Better to forge ahead, weighing what is already known and incorporating additional material as it becomes available.

Critics of impeachment insist that it would diminish the presidency, creating an executive who serves at the sufferance of Congress. But defenders of executive prerogatives should be the first to recognize that the presidency has more to gain than to lose from Trump’s impeachment. After a century in which the office accumulated awesome power, Trump has done more to weaken executive authority than any recent president. The judiciary now regards Trump’s orders with a jaundiced eye, creating precedents that will constrain his successors. His own political appointees boast to reporters, or brag in anonymous op-eds, that they routinely work to counter his policies. Congress is contemplating actions on trade and defense that will hem in the president. His opponents repeatedly aim at the man but hit the office.

Democrats’ fear-- that impeachment will backfire on them-- is likewise unfounded. The mistake Republicans made in impeaching Bill Clinton wasn’t a matter of timing. They identified real and troubling misconduct-- then applied the wrong remedy to fix it. Clinton’s acts disgraced the presidency, and his lies under oath and efforts to obstruct the investigation may well have been crimes. The question that determines whether an act is impeachable, though, is whether it endangers American democracy. As a House Judiciary Committee staff report put it in 1974, in the midst of the Watergate investigation: “The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.” Impeachable offenses, it found, included “undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on the system of government.”

...The question of whether impeachment is justified should not be confused with the question of whether it is likely to succeed in removing a president from office. The country will benefit greatly regardless of how the Senate ultimately votes. Even if the impeachment of Donald Trump fails to produce a conviction in the Senate, it can safeguard the constitutional order from a president who seeks to undermine it. The protections of the process alone are formidable. They come in five distinct forms.

The first is that once an impeachment inquiry begins, the president loses control of the public conversation. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton each discovered this, much to their chagrin. Johnson, the irascible Tennessee Democrat who succeeded to the presidency in 1865 upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, quickly found himself at odds with the Republican Congress. He shattered precedents by delivering a series of inflammatory addresses that dominated the headlines and forced his opponents into a reactive posture. The launching of impeachment inquiries changed that. Day after day, Congress held hearings. Day after day, newspapers splashed the proceedings across their front pages. Instead of focusing on Johnson’s fearmongering, the press turned its attention to the president’s missteps, to the infighting within his administration, and to all the things that congressional investigators believed he had done wrong.

It isn’t just the coverage that changes. When presidents face the prospect of impeachment, they tend to discover a previously unsuspected capacity for restraint and compromise, at least in public. They know that their words can be used against them, so they fume in private. Johnson’s calls for the hanging of his political opponents yielded quickly to promises to defer to their judgment on the key questions of the day. Nixon raged to his aides, but tried to show a different face to the country. “Dignity, command, faith, head high, no fear, build a new spirit,” he told himself. Clinton sent bare-knuckled proxies to the television-news shows, but he and his staff chose their own words carefully.

Trump is easily the most pugilistic president since Johnson; he’s never going to behave with decorous restraint. But if impeachment proceedings begin, his staff will surely redouble its efforts to curtail his tweeting, his lawyers will counsel silence, and his allies on Capitol Hill will beg for whatever civility he can muster. His ability to sidestep scandal by changing the subject-- perhaps his greatest political skill-- will diminish.

As Trump fights for his political survival, that struggle will overwhelm other concerns. This is the second benefit of impeachment: It paralyzes a wayward president’s ability to advance the undemocratic elements of his agenda. Some of Trump’s policies are popular, and others are widely reviled. Some of his challenges to settled orthodoxies were long overdue, and others have proved ill-advised. These are ordinary features of our politics and are best dealt with through ordinary electoral processes. It is, rather, the extraordinary elements of Trump’s presidency that merit the use of impeachment to forestall their success: his subversion of the rule of law, attacks on constitutional liberties, and advancement of his own interests at the public’s expense.

The Mueller probe as well as hearings convened by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have already hobbled the Trump administration to some degree. It will face even more scrutiny from a Democratic House. White House aides will have to hire personal lawyers; senior officials will spend their afternoons preparing testimony. But impeachment would raise the scrutiny to an entirely different level.

In part, this is because of the enormous amount of attention impeachment proceedings garner. But mostly, the scrutiny stems from the stakes of the process. The most a president generally has to fear from congressional hearings is embarrassment; there is always an aide to take the fall. Impeachment puts his own job on the line, and demands every hour of his day. The rarest commodity in any White House is time, that of the president and his top advisers. When it’s spent watching live hearings or meeting with lawyers, the administration’s agenda suffers. This is the irony of congressional leaders’ counseling patience, urging members to simply wait Trump out and use the levers of legislative power instead of moving ahead with impeachment. There may be no more effective way to run out the clock on an administration than to tie it up with impeachment hearings.

But the advantages of impeachment are not merely tactical. The third benefit is its utility as a tool of discovery and discernment. At the moment, it is often hard to tell the difference between wild-eyed conspiracy theories and straight narrations of the day’s news. Some of what is alleged about Trump is plainly false; much of it might be true, but lacks supporting evidence; and many of the best-documented claims are quickly forgotten, lost in the din of fresh allegations. This is what passes for due process in the court of public opinion.

...Hosting that debate in Congress yields a fourth benefit: defusing the potential for an explosion of political violence. This is a rationale for impeachment first offered at the Constitutional Convention, in 1787. “What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious?” Benjamin Franklin asked his fellow delegates. “Why, recourse was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character.” A system without a mechanism for removing the chief executive, he argued, offered an invitation to violence. Just as the courts took the impulse toward vigilante justice and safely channeled it into the protections of the legal system, impeachment took the impulse toward political violence and safely channeled it into Congress.

...The public understood that once the impeachment process began, the real action would take place in Congress, and not in the streets. Johnson knew that inciting his supporters to violence would erode congressional support just when he needed it most. That seems the most probable outcome today as well. If impeached, Trump would lose the luxury of venting his resentments before friendly crowds, stirring their anger. His audience, by political necessity, would become a few dozen senators in Washington.

And what if the Senate does not convict Trump? The fifth benefit of impeachment is that, even when it fails to remove a president, it severely damages his political prospects. Johnson, abandoned by Republicans and rejected by Democrats, did not run for a second term. Nixon resigned, and Gerald Ford, his successor, lost his bid for reelection. Clinton weathered the process and finished out his second term, but despite his personal popularity, he left an electorate hungering for change. “Many, including Al Gore, think that the impeachment cost Gore the election,” Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior member of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s team, told me. “So it has consequences and resonates outside the narrow four corners of impeachment.” If Congress were to impeach Trump, whatever short-term surge he might enjoy as supporters rallied to his defense, his long-term political fate would likely be sealed.

In these five ways-- shifting the public’s attention to the president’s debilities, tipping the balance of power away from him, skimming off the froth of conspiratorial thinking, moving the fight to a rule-bound forum, and dealing lasting damage to his political prospects-- the impeachment process has succeeded in the past. In fact, it’s the very efficacy of these past efforts that should give Congress pause; it’s a process that should be triggered only when a president’s betrayal of his basic duties requires it. But Trump’s conduct clearly meets that threshold. The only question is whether Congress will act.

...Some Democrats have already seen enough from the Trump administration to conclude that it has met the criteria for impeachment. In July 2017, Representative Brad Sherman of California put forward an impeachment resolution; it garnered a single co-sponsor. The next month, though, brought the white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Trump’s defense of the “very fine people on both sides.” The billionaire activist Tom Steyer launched a petition drive calling for impeachment. A second resolution was introduced in the House that November, this time by Tennessee’s Steve Cohen, who found 17 co-sponsors. By December 2017, when Representative Al Green of Texas forced consideration of a third resolution, 58 Democrats voted in favor of continuing debate, including Jim Clyburn, the House’s third-ranking Democrat. On the first day of the new Congress in January, Sherman reintroduced his resolution.

...[T]the resolutions proposed so far offer a valuable glimpse at the issues House Democrats are likely to pursue in such an inquiry. Some have made a general case that Trump has done violence to American values-- Green’s stated that Trump “has betrayed his trust as President... to the manifest injury of the people of the United States”-- but others have claimed specific violations of statutes or constitutional provisions. Both types of allegations may turn out to be important.

Despite the consensus of constitutional scholars that impeachable offenses need not be crimes, Congress has generally preferred to vote on articles that allege criminal acts. More than a third of representatives, and an outright majority of senators, hold law degrees; they think like lawyers. Democrats are thus focused on campaign-finance regulations, obstruction of justice, tax laws, money-laundering rules, proscriptions on bribing foreign officials, and the Constitution’s two emoluments clauses, which bar the president from accepting gifts from state or foreign governments.

They have studiously avoided, however, the primary area of public fascination when it comes to Trump’s alleged misdeeds: whether the president or his campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. Lawmakers are clearly wary of bringing charges that could bear on Robert Mueller’s report, lest they interfere with an ongoing investigation that they hope will somehow force Trump from office. “It all depends on what we learn from hearings and from the Mueller investigation,” Representative Cohen told me. But the highly anticipated Mueller report is unlikely to provide the denouement lawmakers are seeking. Whether a president can be impeached for acts committed prior to assuming office is an unsettled question. As Trump himself never tires of pointing out, collusion with Russia is not itself a crime. And even if Mueller produces a singularly damning report, one presenting evidence that the president himself has committed criminal acts, he cannot indict the president-- at least according to current Justice Department guidelines. Congress will have to decide what to do about it.

...Today, the United States once more confronts a president who seems to care for only some of the people he represents, who promises his supporters that he can roll back the tide of diversity, who challenges the rule of law, and who regards constitutional rights and liberties as disposable. Congress must again decide whether the greater risk lies in executing the Constitution as it was written, or in deferring to voters to do what it cannot muster the courage to do itself. The gravest danger facing the country is not a Congress that seeks to measure the president against his oath-- it is a president who fails to measure up to that solemn promise.



Labels: , , ,

11 Comments:

At 1:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

these numbers, even their "improvement" since the last round, just prove beyond any doubt that white people are the most evil and dumbest motherfuckers on earth. History is replete with white people being total shitheads from the time that white people first lost their African pigment to now.

Also, fuck the democraps (and Nazis too) who are only now realizing that trump should be impeached.
From day 1, these "white" leaders (see above), who have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, have refused to enforce its emoluments clause by refusing to impeach the pos in the white mens' house.

There need not be any proven collusion (treason) nor financial crimes nor any perjury in his written testimony nor tax fraud nor his overt mental illness to impeach. He's been violating the constitution since day 1... out in the open... not even trying to hide it.

fuck them all.

that's why I haven't voted for a Nazi ever nor for a democrap since the early '80s.

And that's also why this is a cluster fuck of a shithole swirling the bowl.

 
At 1:38 PM, Anonymous ap215 said...

If only Nancy Pelosi & the GOP Senate weren't in the way Trump would be in big trouble but then Mike Pence would take over if he was impeached he's worse i still don't see this happening.

 
At 1:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is no more correct to follow the lead of The Atlantic calling for impeachment than it was OK for Lush Limpballs and (M)Ann Coulter to chide Trump into reversing course on an agreement to open the government without the wall funding.

THE MEDIA IS PART OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE SOLUTION!

The fact that some media corporations (and their owners by default) have decided that it's time to impeach Trump -and the voter sheep bleatingly follow- is a pathetic exposition of the sorry state of this nation. As much as I want to see Trump gone, I want to see the American people take action on their own volition and not react as an unruly mob just because some Big Money mouthpiece calls for it.

If that can't happen, we gain nothing by ousting Trump, for the real problems remain unaddressed if the Big Money remains in control of the masses.

 
At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only way to insure Trump's re-election is to impeach him before 2020. I expect the stupid Democrats to do just that and lose the House because of it.

 
At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:04, you're delusional. Pelosi's ONLY goal is to remain relevant in the house. Toward that end, she did not impeach in 2007-2010 and she will not impeach now... or ever, for the very reason you illustrated.

1:52, a fine post.

"I want to see the American people take action on their own volition and not react as an unruly mob just because some Big Money mouthpiece calls for it."

Actually, "react(ing) as an unruly mob" would be an improvement... it WOULD be them taking action on their own. remember the "tea party" rallies? like that... except on the left.

The voters on the left haven't done shit for 40 years except bend over, beg for another stove-piping and to keep voting for democraps.

An unruly mob would be long overdue... and be the first sign of life on the left since viet-nam or Nixon.

Occupy and the womens' march both evaporated as soon as they were "organized". neither did shit... to name 2.

 
At 3:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DWT can stay in his "impeachment" sandbox, as much as he likes. Ironically, Trump has proven to be slightly-less hawkish than the Dem establishment people. In his own-deranged way, Trump now actually has become the "lesser" evil. I know of some people who will vote for Trump if Sanders or Warren are not the Dem nominee.

 
At 3:43 PM, Blogger Gadfly said...

Anon 2:04 gets it.

Anon 3:06 only partially gets it. Trump has sold arms to fascists in Ukraine (which Obama refused to do), lobbed cruise missiles at Syria, and, after head-faking that relations with North Korea might be different, gone back to the old bipartisan foreign policy establishment line of wanting total nuclear disarmament from Kim first, period. On Iran, he keeps beating the drums for war.

Anon 3:06: I'll be voting Green again. Any "Democrap" who keeps his or her ballot confined inside the duopoly lockbox, at that point, is just as much a Democrap as Pelosi or Schumer.

 
At 3:46 PM, Blogger Gadfly said...

Anon 2:40: Occupy was whiter, richer and better educated by far than the national average. Click my link as to why, IMO, the original Zucotti Park movement started.

Occupy also had leaders from at or near the start. Don't believe myths.

 
At 3:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate your reply Gadfly. But, I really am fed up of the Dem Establishment. The GOP and the Dem establishment are essentially the same and both work for the same corporations and Wall Street banks. At least, Trump (irrespective of the reason for doing so) has withdrawn from Syria where as Obama wanted to have a full-fledged Iraq-type war with Syria. Everyone knows whatthe GOP stands for. But, the Dem party puts on a progressive facade while doing just as much damage (if not more) as the GOP.

 
At 8:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

occupy does not exist. It barely qualifies for an historical footnote. It is irrelevant today. it was short-lived and amounted to a whole lotta nuthin. And it was destroyed by active measures and indifference BOTH from the democraps at the national and local levels.

BLM has outlasted occupy... probably because unarmed blacks keep getting blown away for some reason. But BLM is a shadow of its former self all the same.

There have been a plethora of grass-roots "movements" and "twitches" that the democrats of yore would have ID'd with but the democraps of today refused to even address, except to "resist" them. The recalls in WI are another example (obamanation actively FORBADE his DOL from even setting foot in WI to aide their labor orgs) where the democraps should have participated but refused.

more proof of the utter waste all democrap votes have been for a long time. Even when the democraps win, which is only in response to particularly shitty Nazi activities, they (Pelosi, reid, scummer, obamanation...) still make things worse instead of better.

 
At 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cointelpro lives, 8:47. The Establishment is actively attempting to maintain dominance over an increasingly restive populace. Any true populist uprising will be strangled in the cradle. This is why it's important to know where the military currently stands, for they will be ordered against We the People at some point. Will they obey the order?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home