IMPEACHMENT
Okay, so I couldn't wait to talk about impeachment. Sue me. It is timely, and while completely bogus, there is some strategy to it.
First, a lesson on impeachment. Impeachment is a tool built in to the Constitution for removing members of the Executive and Judicial Branches of government. It is the Legislature's check on them. You know that whole check and balance thing, between the three branches of the government, not the legislature, #AOC. This is important to remember, because when you hear members of Congress whining about Judges being partisan or whatever, they actually could do something about it. They won't, but they could. It starts in the House of Representatives. They vote on Articles of Impeachment. Now, what reaches the level of impeachment is not clearly defined, the only definition being "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
After all, President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, a felony. The only other president impeached was Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, for being sympathetic to southerners after the Civil War. Both Presidents were impeached. President Nixon was not, though likely would have been, had he not resigned. Impeached, but not convicted. Impeachment is only the beginning.
Once impeached, the Articles move to the Senate, where a trial is held. For all except the President, the Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, presides over the trial. In the case of the President the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. My question, which a quick search as I write turned up no clear answer is "what if it is the Vice President being impeached?" This actually could be an issue. Be that as it may, upon conclusion of presenting the evidence from both sides, more on that in a moment, a vote is held, and a two thirds majority is required to convict. If convicted, the President is removed and is no longer eligible for office, and the Vice President takes over. Is that clear enough? Andrew Johnson was done as a President, and President Clinton had increased in popularity, mostly because he had been working with Congress before, and after. This is key, because right now, Congress has not been working with the President on very much.
You know, all of this certainly was common understanding just a few decades ago, along with the concept of the Electoral College, and other Constitutional awesomeness. But it is okay, as this is also a podcast and will be an opportunity to educate.
So lets talk about the impeachment at hand shall we? The Democrats have been talking about impeachment since November 9, 2016, so it isn't like it is a new tune. Actually, I would go a step further and say that it is an old tune that has worn itself out. This is kind of important, because Speaker Pelosi, who launched the inquiry before the transcripts revealed another nothing burger is kind of stuck. Or so it seemed. Rep. Adam Schiff-for-Brains, (D-CA) went so far as to open his inquiry hearing by lying about the transcript. Now he said it was parody, and it very well may have been, except that it is now on the Congressional Record, and I doubt it says that it is a parody statement. That is not a joke. But I digress.
I heard someone say today that since they are all in on this phony baloney impeachment, that they are fast tracking a vote for December. They have the votes, in the House there is no real delaying tactic and now that Speaker Pelosi is committed to this track, she could do it tomorrow. They won't, they are going to try to build a public consensus over the next few months to at least pretend they have that. I don't think it will work. Since impeachment is a broken record, people will say, here we go again. But it is important to them that they have it done by the end of the year.
Why the hurry? Three letters, R B G. The notorious Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, the oldest sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and the most liberal. principled, no question, but a hardcore progressive. Old, frail, and a cancer survivor. many times over. the worst nightmare for progressives is President Trump getting another bite at the Supreme Court, and a chance to tilt the scales to 6-3, assuming that the unreliable Roberts can be counted as a conservative.
The Democrats want to put the President in the position of not legitimately being in the position to appoint anyone, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. Of course, regardless of whether he is impeached or not, until he is convicted he is still President, with all the authority of the office. That includes nominating judges, or justices.
Now what happens to the trial in the Senate? Does the Senate have to take it up immediately? They could, or not. I don't really think that there is a requirement for it, though it is very likely to be in the President's interests to not let it wait. There is a presidential election, after all. Is there likely to be a conviction? Probably not, but that is a few months away, and a lot could change. President Clinton didn't even get all the GOP majority to vote against him, I suspect a few squish GOP members will vote against the President, but not enough for a two thirds majority.
But what about the Biden rule? You know, that whole not considering a Supreme Court nominee in the year of a Presidential election? Well, as a reminder. The two times that the BIDEN rule has been implemented was in 1992 when George H. W. Bush was President and a Democrat majority in the Senate, and in 2016 when Barack Obama was President and a GOP majority was in the Senate. In other words, the opposition party controlled the Senate. For the upcoming year, the President's party, the Republicans, control the Senate, so the Biden rule is not applicable.
Speaking of Biden, he is the big loser in the impeachment debacle. He bragged about threatening to withhold a billion dollars if Ukraine didn't fire a prosecutor that was seeking out corruption that may have impacted a corporation that his son sat on the board. That is a quid pro quo, even if there is no direct evidence of hunting out corruption in that corporation. It is the appearance of it. There are an awful lot of people that stand to lose. Why?
With impeachment, and a conviction trial in the Senate, for the first time in all of this crap, the President and his attorneys will have subpoena power for evidence, and witnesses. That is a long list of people that probably do not want to plead the fifth in front of the nation after proclaiming themselves paragons of honesty. Hmmm, Clinton Foundation? Can you imagine all the people dragged in? This would be bad.
But more importantly, for the American People. Impeachment means that any chance of anything getting done is gone. Another Continuing Resolution, which is disastrous for agencies needing to actually plan ahead. And while it is likely that none of these things would get done anyway, they certainly won't with impeachment.
Immigration reform of any kind
Social Security Reform less than 20 years from insolvency.
Medicare reform
Health care cost relief. fixing the Affordable in the affordable care act.
Gun control
The list could go on and on, but I think that the point that things that need to be done will not be is made.
While impeachment has been a short term winner financially for the Trump 2020 campaign, it is not a winner for the country. The president retweeted something that the Pastor Robert Jeffers stated about a Civil War coming. Of course people freaked on that, Why? I don't know, because only the blind couldn't see that that is the case. Impeachment hardens support for the president, it hardens support for whichever wack job is going to lose to him in 2020, and the middle is either drawn to either side or become even more hunkered down in a no-man's land that will soon be uninhabitable, politically.
This is the Snake River Lib, and don't forget, Taxation is theft.
First, a lesson on impeachment. Impeachment is a tool built in to the Constitution for removing members of the Executive and Judicial Branches of government. It is the Legislature's check on them. You know that whole check and balance thing, between the three branches of the government, not the legislature, #AOC. This is important to remember, because when you hear members of Congress whining about Judges being partisan or whatever, they actually could do something about it. They won't, but they could. It starts in the House of Representatives. They vote on Articles of Impeachment. Now, what reaches the level of impeachment is not clearly defined, the only definition being "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
After all, President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, a felony. The only other president impeached was Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, for being sympathetic to southerners after the Civil War. Both Presidents were impeached. President Nixon was not, though likely would have been, had he not resigned. Impeached, but not convicted. Impeachment is only the beginning.
Once impeached, the Articles move to the Senate, where a trial is held. For all except the President, the Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, presides over the trial. In the case of the President the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. My question, which a quick search as I write turned up no clear answer is "what if it is the Vice President being impeached?" This actually could be an issue. Be that as it may, upon conclusion of presenting the evidence from both sides, more on that in a moment, a vote is held, and a two thirds majority is required to convict. If convicted, the President is removed and is no longer eligible for office, and the Vice President takes over. Is that clear enough? Andrew Johnson was done as a President, and President Clinton had increased in popularity, mostly because he had been working with Congress before, and after. This is key, because right now, Congress has not been working with the President on very much.
You know, all of this certainly was common understanding just a few decades ago, along with the concept of the Electoral College, and other Constitutional awesomeness. But it is okay, as this is also a podcast and will be an opportunity to educate.
So lets talk about the impeachment at hand shall we? The Democrats have been talking about impeachment since November 9, 2016, so it isn't like it is a new tune. Actually, I would go a step further and say that it is an old tune that has worn itself out. This is kind of important, because Speaker Pelosi, who launched the inquiry before the transcripts revealed another nothing burger is kind of stuck. Or so it seemed. Rep. Adam Schiff-for-Brains, (D-CA) went so far as to open his inquiry hearing by lying about the transcript. Now he said it was parody, and it very well may have been, except that it is now on the Congressional Record, and I doubt it says that it is a parody statement. That is not a joke. But I digress.
I heard someone say today that since they are all in on this phony baloney impeachment, that they are fast tracking a vote for December. They have the votes, in the House there is no real delaying tactic and now that Speaker Pelosi is committed to this track, she could do it tomorrow. They won't, they are going to try to build a public consensus over the next few months to at least pretend they have that. I don't think it will work. Since impeachment is a broken record, people will say, here we go again. But it is important to them that they have it done by the end of the year.
Why the hurry? Three letters, R B G. The notorious Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, the oldest sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and the most liberal. principled, no question, but a hardcore progressive. Old, frail, and a cancer survivor. many times over. the worst nightmare for progressives is President Trump getting another bite at the Supreme Court, and a chance to tilt the scales to 6-3, assuming that the unreliable Roberts can be counted as a conservative.
The Democrats want to put the President in the position of not legitimately being in the position to appoint anyone, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. Of course, regardless of whether he is impeached or not, until he is convicted he is still President, with all the authority of the office. That includes nominating judges, or justices.
Now what happens to the trial in the Senate? Does the Senate have to take it up immediately? They could, or not. I don't really think that there is a requirement for it, though it is very likely to be in the President's interests to not let it wait. There is a presidential election, after all. Is there likely to be a conviction? Probably not, but that is a few months away, and a lot could change. President Clinton didn't even get all the GOP majority to vote against him, I suspect a few squish GOP members will vote against the President, but not enough for a two thirds majority.
But what about the Biden rule? You know, that whole not considering a Supreme Court nominee in the year of a Presidential election? Well, as a reminder. The two times that the BIDEN rule has been implemented was in 1992 when George H. W. Bush was President and a Democrat majority in the Senate, and in 2016 when Barack Obama was President and a GOP majority was in the Senate. In other words, the opposition party controlled the Senate. For the upcoming year, the President's party, the Republicans, control the Senate, so the Biden rule is not applicable.
Speaking of Biden, he is the big loser in the impeachment debacle. He bragged about threatening to withhold a billion dollars if Ukraine didn't fire a prosecutor that was seeking out corruption that may have impacted a corporation that his son sat on the board. That is a quid pro quo, even if there is no direct evidence of hunting out corruption in that corporation. It is the appearance of it. There are an awful lot of people that stand to lose. Why?
With impeachment, and a conviction trial in the Senate, for the first time in all of this crap, the President and his attorneys will have subpoena power for evidence, and witnesses. That is a long list of people that probably do not want to plead the fifth in front of the nation after proclaiming themselves paragons of honesty. Hmmm, Clinton Foundation? Can you imagine all the people dragged in? This would be bad.
But more importantly, for the American People. Impeachment means that any chance of anything getting done is gone. Another Continuing Resolution, which is disastrous for agencies needing to actually plan ahead. And while it is likely that none of these things would get done anyway, they certainly won't with impeachment.
Immigration reform of any kind
Social Security Reform less than 20 years from insolvency.
Medicare reform
Health care cost relief. fixing the Affordable in the affordable care act.
Gun control
The list could go on and on, but I think that the point that things that need to be done will not be is made.
While impeachment has been a short term winner financially for the Trump 2020 campaign, it is not a winner for the country. The president retweeted something that the Pastor Robert Jeffers stated about a Civil War coming. Of course people freaked on that, Why? I don't know, because only the blind couldn't see that that is the case. Impeachment hardens support for the president, it hardens support for whichever wack job is going to lose to him in 2020, and the middle is either drawn to either side or become even more hunkered down in a no-man's land that will soon be uninhabitable, politically.
This is the Snake River Lib, and don't forget, Taxation is theft.
Comments
Post a Comment