Maybe there were such Democrats. But Peter Baker in today's New York Times (12/19) captures what has really been going on: "WASHINGTON — For the most unpredictable of presidents, it was the most predictable of outcomes. Is anyone really surprised that President Trump was impeached? His defiant disregard for red lines arguably made him an impeachment waiting to happen."
Yes! This was an impeachment waiting to happen. The norms and rules of presidential governance have been overturned and repudiated by Trump from the day he took office, including his refusal to give up his business ties, his quarrel with inaugural crowd estimates, his installing his daughter and son in the White House, etc., etc. We can argue, as Republicans might that none of these (and other example) were an impeachable offense, but they, and many other examples of Trump's words and deeds have undermined good government. Trump has reaped the whirlwind that he revved up and has maintained at lightening speed.
Republicans have been thrown a life preserver by George Conway (spouse of Kelly Anne) et al, in announcing a political Pac and effort to thwart Trump's reelection. "We Are Republicans and We Want Trump Defeated." Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, etc. take note.
UPDATE: Where did the "Ukraine interfered in 2016" story come from? Here's a Washington Post story based on reports from several former Trump Admin. officials.
"After
meeting privately in July 2017 with Russian President Vladimir Putin
at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Trump grew more insistent that
Ukraine worked to defeat him, according to multiple former officials
familiar with his assertions.
"The
president’s intense resistance to the assessment of U.S. intelligence
agencies that Russia systematically interfered in the 2016 campaign —
and the blame he cast instead on a rival country — led many of his
advisers to think that Putin himself helped spur the idea of Ukraine’s
culpability, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
to describe internal discussions.
"One
former senior White House official said Trump even stated so explicitly
at one point, saying he knew Ukraine was the real culprit because
“Putin told me.”
Jennifer Rubin, also at the WashPost, asks why those former officials haven't come forward...or didn't come forward during the House impeachment hearing. OR why don't they go public now?
UPDATE 2: We could each impeach Trump from our lap tops!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeggy, I agree re: the blurring and crossing of red lines, the disregard and breaking of rules and norms, the cronyism, et al. But I don't think any of those, singly or in toto, constitute "Treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors". I think the remedy for Donald Trump is to run a better candidate against him in 2020.
ReplyDeleteI guess the Democrats are looking to cast his Ukrainian shenanigans as one of those constitutional provisions. They'll put it to a trial.
I also think that Trump relishes this fight, and certainly relishes being the center of media attention.
Jim, You may be right that a better candidate may beat him in 2020. And that Trump relishes this fight (though he look more than hysterical last evening at the Battle Creek jamboree [as seen on my TV]).
DeleteBut on many fronts he is eroding, corroding, and dismantling our norms of government and with that many long-standing policies, foreign policy especially. Some policies may need change, but there is a deliberative process for doing that. We will pay as a nation a terrific price for his behavior and that of his enablers (cf. Pompeo, Mulvaney, et al). I notice that Mark Meadows tea party enabler will be leaving the House....Rats leaving the sinking ship? Okay I'm not a Republican, never have been, but our second party is being destroyed by Trump.
No doubt about his corrosive effect on the GOP. That parade of clowns yesterday trying to justify their vote against impeachment was ... whatever the opposite of statesmanship is.
DeleteHere is James Martin, SJ, on one of those clownish claims put forth yesterday, that Jesus had more rights in his trial before Pontius Pilate than Trump does in this impeachment: “Pilate had Jesus beaten and whipped, thrown into jail overnight, marched through the streets carrying his cross, and then nailed to that cross until he died. Comparing the treatment received by the President to what Jesus suffered is absurd. Also, only one of them is sinless.” (h/t David Leonhardt).
I was ruminating this morning that Trump's core - cf those at the Battle Creek rally yesterday - are the descendants of those white Democrats who became Republicans in the seismic 1980 election. I knew (was related to) some of those 1980 erstwhile Democrats. It wasn't Reagan's fiscal rhetoric (not pursued during his presidency) that appealed to them; it was the idea that Reagan would 'take our country back'. That is the same essential appeal that Trump has for their descendants today.
Jim, you don't think the articles of impeachment brought against Trump constitute "treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors"? I well remember Watergate. I regret to say that I cast my vote for Richard Nixon the first year I was eligible to vote. In my opinion Trump's abuse of his office and obstruction of Congress exceed Nixon's crimes.
Delete"Jim, you don't think the articles of impeachment brought against Trump constitute "treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors"?"
DeleteRight. I think the Ukrainian escapade was a low-ish crime. I haven't been able to work up any outrage or even dudgeon about it. My advice to Congress would have been, Slap him hard on the wrist/censure him/write him a stern letter, and then work to defeat him in 2020.
An impeachable offense doesn't actually have to be a criminal offense. Possibly the Ukrainian thing doesn't actually rise to the level of a crime, though it certainly is sketchy as hell. Obstruction of Congress in the form of denying a subpoena and instructing others to deny subpoenas is another story. Under any other circumstances that would be a prosecutable crime. And deserving of more than a slap on the wrist.
DeleteTrump has managed to define down what we consider presidential behavior to such an extent that it's hard to pick something that is "impeachable". Because where do you start? Nothing he does is abnormal for him, it's just "Thursday".
DeleteA friend of mine pointed me to this site which is a general primer on impeachment. It provides this explanation of the meaning of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors". Perhaps Trump's overall track record falls within a few of the categories exemplified here.
Deletehttps://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
"The [Constitutional] convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve."
Peter Baker is right. From the moment Trump took office he made it clear that there are no stinkin' precedents, laws or constitutional provisions he has to pay attention to. He has made a ton of money for his business by choosing his spots. Cf:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.opensecrets.org/trump/trump-properties
Is that impeachable? Or just incredibly bad taste? Well, the bad taste is part of the appeal. But there were more serious acts right from the starting gate. IMHO, he should have been sued for the translators' notes -- which he made them tear up -- from his secret meeting with Putin at Helsinki, and there should have been an impeachment begun for his servile sucking up to the former KGB agent. But he got a pass there. He should have been impeached for Book 1 (yes, 1, not 2) of the Mueller report; it's all there. So it is about time he is impeached for something, even though the articles leave out a lot of things that presumably will become precedents for the next con man in chief. Brain dead D's.
As to Jim's idea of what's impeachable, the "high" in "high crimes and misdemeanors" means that even misdemeanors related to his official (high) duties are impeachable. All presidents are impeachable. It's only when their deeds stink to high heaven that they get impeached.
I don't think Trump "relishes" this fight, either. That 6-page rant against Nancy Pelosi (sort of a "War and Peace" for the Twitterworld) reads like a mind unhinged.
Tom, yeah, the articles leave out a lot of things. But they include things Trump admitted to in front of God and everybody. Keeping it brief expedites things. Too bad the proceedings didn't take place earlier, as it is we are running right up to the primaries.
DeleteThe funny thing about keeping it brief: this morning, our former do-nothing-talk-a-lot attorney general, lately turned into a $115,000 a month (cq) lobbyist for one of the Arab kingdoms, and now speaking officially on behalf of Mr. Trump, was on NPR to say (after being corrected when she said the Republicans on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees weren't allowed to ask questions) that the Democrats were rushing the impeachment through and should hurry up about it.
DeleteIn the Nixon years, impeachment was a last resort. The Republicans changed that when they impeached Clinton. Now it is merely politics as usual with the usual political considerations. Pelosi was wise in trying to hold off on impeachment in the hopes or restoring its formal role. But politics now trumps morality; the Donald has made that very clear. I don't see any common morality to which Republican and Democrats can appeal.
ReplyDeleteSo what happens now? Pelosi is holding up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, saying that there can't be a fair trial with no witnesses or documents. She can try to bargain a little, but not much. Because McConnell and the Senate can choose to go ahead with the trial on their own, or they can choose to do nothing. Basically Pelosi is going to have to cave at some point. Question is, will she get any concessions from the Senate?
ReplyDelete"Because McConnell and the Senate can choose to go ahead with the trial on their own"
DeleteIs that for sure, that the House doesn't need to send the articles of impeachment to trigger the trial? I haven't had a chance to read up on this yet. If this process isn't well-defined, then if McConnell and Co. charge ahead without the indictment delivered, it could trigger ... I hate to use the word "Constitutional crisis", because I think the phrase is over-used, but ... at least a Constitutional disagreement that presumably would need to be sorted out by the courts.
To me, this spells delay. The conventional wisdom has been that the Democrats want to get this wrapped up quickly. I've never thought that was the right approach; I've thought all along that the smart move is to keep Trump twisting and writhing as long as possible. Maybe Democrats are coming around to that view?
According to this article, https://www.vox.com/2019/12/19/21029938/pelosi-impeachment-articles-senate-withheld-trump, it isn't laid out clearly if the Senate can or cannot proceed on their own. The one who is most antsy to get it over with is Trump. He has declared that the Senate can set a date, and if the House fails to show up, they can "...throw this whole SCAM into default." In other words, he thinks he can decide the rules about his own impeachment. I think you are correct that this would trigger a "constitutional disagreement".
DeleteThe more proceedings are delayed over refusing to allow witnesses to testify, the more the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, is brought into bold relief.
DeleteSomeday something will have to be done about Addison Mitchell McConnell, too. Not only has he taken upon himself the decision on when presidents may make appointments (contrary to Art II, sec. 2 of the Constitution), but he is coordinating (in violence to all judicial precedent) with the accused to determine how the accused shall be tried, and he seems to be usurping the Chief Justice's role in the trial as well, along with promising to violate the oath senators take as jurors. I guess you can do what you want if your wife's family gives you $25 million (because they know you can't make it on your looks) while your wife runs the Cabinet agency that oversees regulation of her family's business. Lot to look into.
Delete"...while your wife runs the Cabinet agency that oversees regulation of her family's business." Way more sketchy than Hunter Biden being employed by a Ukrainian natural gas company . But we wouldn't want to engage in "whataboutism".
DeleteThe irony is that Elaine Chao is actually one of the few members of Trump's cabinet who is qualified for her job. If it wasn't for that conflict of interest thing.
By the way: some summers ago we were driving on federal highways in Kentucky (where were we going?). We couldn't help but notice how smooth, how well-graded, how perfect they were compared to the same federal highways in New York. I suppose McConnell gets special treatment for his highways.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is, I don't want Biden to be president. His only appeal to me is as a lesser evil wrt Trump and that is a very low bar. I would like to see him removed from the running but not this way. I think Trump WANTED Biden as an opponent with some ace in the hole to use in the actual campaign. Unfortunately for him, his strategy was revealed early.
ReplyDeleteTo me, any of the Democrats running, including Marianne Williamson, would be better than Trump. But as you say, a pretty low bar. We'll see what happens in the primaries.
DeleteAbout Update 2; it's a smoking gun, but will it matter? Trump's already framing the impeachment as a referendum on his supporters:
ReplyDelete“In reality, they’re not after me. They’re after you,” was plastered above a photo of Trump pointing at the reader. “I’m just in the way.”
He has olympic-level deflection skills.