Special note. Trump posted a video on Twitter and Facebook that has Pelosi tearing up his SOTU not after it was over but while he honored a Tuskegee airman and so forth. They refused to take it down as a doctored video though the article notes starting in March Twitter will label such things “manipulated media." Various replies suggest Pelosi tore up the speech when he talked about "x" and disrespected the people. You never know when such things aren't trolls. See also, here where there is a skillful campaign to target reporters who report bad things about him.
NO presidential impeachment in our history was some fictional united effort. The first major challenge -- that led to a censure -- was against Andrew Jackson. A limited number of Whigs also went against John Tyler. Though some wish to find it evidence of injustice, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was surely partisan. What of Nixon? Surely, until near the end, the effort was one-sided. Yes, there was more support of the impeachment hearings. Even then, Nixon (in his resignation speech) said he was willing to fight further except for lack of support. Such lack came late in the day though and today's party would probably have stuck with him. We would retain talk of a "partisan" impeachment taken to mean the raw reality that the necessary supermajority was not present. And, we know of the Clinton impeachment as well.
Some Republicans were concerned about the "optics" about Trump firing Sondland. Concern and hand-wrigging at some point is trivial; besides, part of this was merely political. Some Republicans will be in tough races this November. Plus, in general, they have some pressures since there are significant numbers out there who -- unlike them -- do not find enabling a person who daily we have reason to be appalled is even on our television screens [he nauseates me -- I'm tired of seeing him mentioned on Stephen Colbert's show, even as a constant subject of scorn] something we at worse have to count as the cost of doing business. The basic "wrong principle" here is not quite the point. I note -- especially as a white person -- the problems of using a speech about slavery here but other than a basic statement of principle, Trump advances racism as well at any rate.
This is not merely a political battle. Impeachment like judicial review is a method to go beyond mere elections and politics. It's a basic line in the sand and I am appalled by some even against Trump who simply find this hard to comprehend. They in part think of things in raw practicality, including fearing impeachment would hurt election success. I find the arguments there dubious and at times of the caliber of Calvinball.* Or, they look at things in a limited fashion -- would not election success be better, especially when acquittal was a given? As if the two things are not connected. Was it wrong to vote against Kavanaugh or filibuster Gorsuch? Sometimes, you need to fight for principle. And, again, elections are discretionary. You balance a range of things. Yes, life is discretionary too. Prosecutors use discretion. But, it is a difference in kind.
Impeachment drew a line in the sand. One person -- and even Romney didn't so on obstruction of Congress -- on the side of Republicans was on the right side. Oh some were in the Concerned Caucus for which Susan Collins won leadership hands down. Some were in the "Hey, we said he was wrong" Caucus though in various levels of conviction. Lamar Alexander followed up with basically giving a Trump re-election endorsement. Others (see last discussion too) will give you a "whataboutism" or complain about process. Others simply will say Trump did nothing much at all wrong. This underlines they do not think it impeachment level, but really just discretionary politics. Politicians do a mix of things there, sometimes fairly serious. But, winning is most important.
Such is the name of the game now. This is the "lesson learned" by Trump. Some might even blame the Democrats, who are given the agency in part since like some five year old or non-human animal, people don't expect anything from the other side anyhow. (One blog calls this "Murc's Law.") Cute trick. But, if Trump was not impeached, would he actually have done less? At least here, the matter was pressed, and one party (and the other party's 2012 presidential candidate) stood on the right side. The battle continues, including in litigation (see March Trump financial cases**) and in Congress (well at least one half). This should not be forgotten akin to a tough loss resulting in not fighting again the next game. Some will say it's over. No fucking way is it over.
Of course, we also need to fight on the electoral battlefield. But, battles tend to overlap as seen in litigation over marriage rights or whatnot. And, impeachment reminds us just what is at stake there. Romney stood up. Who else will, including in November?
---
* One person said an acquittal, likely -- which turned out to be false -- with some Democratic support in the Senate -- as something the Media will hang over the Democrats' heads. As if not going after Trump in the strongest fashion would not either. The Media, when it suits, is said to always find fault with Democrats. Here, they apparently would selectively do so.
Some also just tie Trump as a "Republican." This is akin to thinking men are as a class dubious characters including in our relations with women [we are in various ways and will not claim absence of guilt there in some fashion, particularly my wandering eyes] so actual sexual assault is just par for the course. Trump here stands out. Kavanaugh also stood out there even in comparison to Clarence Thomas who was after all accused of sexual harassment, not sexual assault. Some firm lines have to be drawn.
** Emoluments was flagged by the House as an aspect of the need for the materials sought. This is a somewhat forgotten thing though in a big picture way it fits the wider whole, including allegations Hunter Biden benefited from his connections to the Vice President. This is almost comical given the live benefits to members of the Trump family, including Ivanka Trump's business dealings. Yet another thing that to me is not brought up enough -- surely with daily talking heads etc., there is plenty of time to fill and such matters can be brought up regularly.
The delays of litigation is underlined by how multiple emoluments suits are still in various stages in the lower courts. A court of appeals ruling just rejecting the standing of a suit involving members of Congress and on that ground it might have been correct. But, there are other litigants with direct harm where such a problem does not occur. Plus, it is something that (with or without additional materials) the House can look into and pass legislation to address. This shows the slow nature of things.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice.Abraham Lincoln in his Cooper Union speech was challenging those who strongly criticized Republicans as "sectional" on slavery. It is what comes to mind when today's Republicans cry out that supporters of impeachment were "partisan" and (like there) appealing to the Founders against that sort of thing. What is the ultimate take there? Wrong is right when not enough people on "both sides" think it is wrong? On some level, it was "sectional," but that didn't make the cause against slavery wrong. At some point, divisive things have to be pushed because the alternative is worse. It is simply absurd situation ethics to think otherwise.
NO presidential impeachment in our history was some fictional united effort. The first major challenge -- that led to a censure -- was against Andrew Jackson. A limited number of Whigs also went against John Tyler. Though some wish to find it evidence of injustice, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was surely partisan. What of Nixon? Surely, until near the end, the effort was one-sided. Yes, there was more support of the impeachment hearings. Even then, Nixon (in his resignation speech) said he was willing to fight further except for lack of support. Such lack came late in the day though and today's party would probably have stuck with him. We would retain talk of a "partisan" impeachment taken to mean the raw reality that the necessary supermajority was not present. And, we know of the Clinton impeachment as well.
Some Republicans were concerned about the "optics" about Trump firing Sondland. Concern and hand-wrigging at some point is trivial; besides, part of this was merely political. Some Republicans will be in tough races this November. Plus, in general, they have some pressures since there are significant numbers out there who -- unlike them -- do not find enabling a person who daily we have reason to be appalled is even on our television screens [he nauseates me -- I'm tired of seeing him mentioned on Stephen Colbert's show, even as a constant subject of scorn] something we at worse have to count as the cost of doing business. The basic "wrong principle" here is not quite the point. I note -- especially as a white person -- the problems of using a speech about slavery here but other than a basic statement of principle, Trump advances racism as well at any rate.
This is not merely a political battle. Impeachment like judicial review is a method to go beyond mere elections and politics. It's a basic line in the sand and I am appalled by some even against Trump who simply find this hard to comprehend. They in part think of things in raw practicality, including fearing impeachment would hurt election success. I find the arguments there dubious and at times of the caliber of Calvinball.* Or, they look at things in a limited fashion -- would not election success be better, especially when acquittal was a given? As if the two things are not connected. Was it wrong to vote against Kavanaugh or filibuster Gorsuch? Sometimes, you need to fight for principle. And, again, elections are discretionary. You balance a range of things. Yes, life is discretionary too. Prosecutors use discretion. But, it is a difference in kind.
I made a reference in the other post that the Trump Administration is selectively providing materials to the Senate to aid and abet his crimes against the state (impeachment being for that) regarding Hunter Biden. Sen. Graham, who went into his macho ranting mode when giving his statement on the floor before the impeachment vote (the same guy who in 2016 warned us about what Trump would wrought; didn't quite know he meant on himself to this degree) is a major assist in this effort. AG Barr, who continues to make one pine for the days of AG Sessions, also announced he will veto any investigations regarding the elections.Remarkable. Sen. Graham says he talked to AG Barr this morning and they have set up a "process" by which Rudy Giuliani will now send his Biden "dirt" directly to AG Barr.
Impeachment drew a line in the sand. One person -- and even Romney didn't so on obstruction of Congress -- on the side of Republicans was on the right side. Oh some were in the Concerned Caucus for which Susan Collins won leadership hands down. Some were in the "Hey, we said he was wrong" Caucus though in various levels of conviction. Lamar Alexander followed up with basically giving a Trump re-election endorsement. Others (see last discussion too) will give you a "whataboutism" or complain about process. Others simply will say Trump did nothing much at all wrong. This underlines they do not think it impeachment level, but really just discretionary politics. Politicians do a mix of things there, sometimes fairly serious. But, winning is most important.
Such is the name of the game now. This is the "lesson learned" by Trump. Some might even blame the Democrats, who are given the agency in part since like some five year old or non-human animal, people don't expect anything from the other side anyhow. (One blog calls this "Murc's Law.") Cute trick. But, if Trump was not impeached, would he actually have done less? At least here, the matter was pressed, and one party (and the other party's 2012 presidential candidate) stood on the right side. The battle continues, including in litigation (see March Trump financial cases**) and in Congress (well at least one half). This should not be forgotten akin to a tough loss resulting in not fighting again the next game. Some will say it's over. No fucking way is it over.
Of course, we also need to fight on the electoral battlefield. But, battles tend to overlap as seen in litigation over marriage rights or whatnot. And, impeachment reminds us just what is at stake there. Romney stood up. Who else will, including in November?
---
* One person said an acquittal, likely -- which turned out to be false -- with some Democratic support in the Senate -- as something the Media will hang over the Democrats' heads. As if not going after Trump in the strongest fashion would not either. The Media, when it suits, is said to always find fault with Democrats. Here, they apparently would selectively do so.
Some also just tie Trump as a "Republican." This is akin to thinking men are as a class dubious characters including in our relations with women [we are in various ways and will not claim absence of guilt there in some fashion, particularly my wandering eyes] so actual sexual assault is just par for the course. Trump here stands out. Kavanaugh also stood out there even in comparison to Clarence Thomas who was after all accused of sexual harassment, not sexual assault. Some firm lines have to be drawn.
** Emoluments was flagged by the House as an aspect of the need for the materials sought. This is a somewhat forgotten thing though in a big picture way it fits the wider whole, including allegations Hunter Biden benefited from his connections to the Vice President. This is almost comical given the live benefits to members of the Trump family, including Ivanka Trump's business dealings. Yet another thing that to me is not brought up enough -- surely with daily talking heads etc., there is plenty of time to fill and such matters can be brought up regularly.
The delays of litigation is underlined by how multiple emoluments suits are still in various stages in the lower courts. A court of appeals ruling just rejecting the standing of a suit involving members of Congress and on that ground it might have been correct. But, there are other litigants with direct harm where such a problem does not occur. Plus, it is something that (with or without additional materials) the House can look into and pass legislation to address. This shows the slow nature of things.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!