June 17, 2019--Impeachment

Speaker Pelosi understandably, from a political perspective, has been reluctant to unleash her Democratic colleagues who are pressing to begin the process required to impeach Donald Trump.

She knows her history and saw Bill Clinton's favorability numbers skyrocket when Republicans in the House of Representatives, which they controlled at the time as the Dems do now, moved to impeach him on two counts--lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

Pelosi is worried that she and her fellow Democrats will experience deja vu all over again--in the House Trump will be impeached minimally for abuse of power but will not even come close to receiving the two-thirds vote that is required to remove him from office. As a result, she fears, like Clinton he will emerge more popular, more emboldened than ever, and sprint in 2020 to reelection.

Thus she has held AOC, Jerry Nadler, and others in check, citing these political concerns.

Putting aside for the moment whether political considerations should determine what to do, there may be an historical flaw in Pelosi's reasoning.

She is right about the Clinton example and it should worry anyone who feels that ridding ourselves of Trump in 17 months is even more important than holding him to his constitutional responsibilities.

But that is just one example. 

In our history there is only one other instance when Congress impeached a president--Andrew Johnson who had been Lincoln's vice president and assumed the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated. He subsequently abandoned Lincoln's Reconstruction agenda and as a result alienated virtually all Republicans who promptly passed the 14th and 15th Amendments and resisted Johnson's efforts to fire his inherited secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. He was impeached in 1868 by a wide margin but was not tossed out of office, though Republicans had the required votes in the Senate, because enough of them did not want to put Congress's powers to a constitutional test. He was retained in office by just one vote.

Being impeached did not in any way enhance his political or electoral viability. He is still considered one of our worst presidents.

Many think that Nixon was impeached. He was not. He certainly would have been if he had not resigned, but in fact he was only charged by the House judiciary committee. Their recommendation to impeach was never voted on by the full House. And we know Nixon as a result did not receive an impeachment bump in the polls. His numbers plummeted and for that reason alone he chose to leave office.

And now there might be Trump. 

Let us stipulate that he is not as unpopular as either Johnson or half-impeached Nixon. But, for the sake of seeking historical parallels it is important to point out that he is not as popular as Clinton was even after he was exposed as having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. 

In other words to compare Trump to Clinton (the one example we have of a president whose approval ratings rose while he was being impeached) we have to factor in their relative political power. I is my view that Clinton, by comparison, in spite of all his misdeeds began the impeachment process in much better political shape than Trump. More jobs were created than at any other comparable time in our history, the budget was throwing off surpluses not as now mountains of new debt, and we were not at war. Also, and important, Clinton was an eminently likable rogue.

In addition, the facts about Clinton's malfeasance were well known before impeachment hearings began. After all, his story was full of sex and violence (remember Vince Foster?). Subjects the public turned to for their daily fix. 

With Trump, as the Mueller Report reveals, we have been dealing with relatively complex legal hairsplitting so it is no wonder that the majority of American's to this point couldn't care less. 

In other words, Speaker Pelosi, there may not be that many political consequences to fear if there were impeachment hearings. They would be on television and one might be able to make the case that when the public finally tunes in they may be furious to learn the sordid details of what Trump and his party of grifters have wrought. 

In addition, to move to impeach may be the right thing. Sometimes it's important to do that too.

Andrew Johnson

April 23, 2019--Impeachment

And now the I-word.

It is clear from his report that Robert Mueller did not feel comfortable indicting Trump for obstruction of justice though the case for it in the report is much stronger than the uncertainty about its appropriateness or legality.

There is that Justice Department policy that states that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. It is a policy, not a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Count, a "policy," never challenged in any court. And not an ancient one at that. 

It does not go back to the Founders but rather was written in just 2000 at the end of the Clinton administration. After Watergate and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. After decades of special prosecutors.

In his peport Mueller presents an overwhelming case for obstruction of justice but punts what should be done about the evidence to Congress. In the initial instance to the House of Representatives which has the constitutional authority to initiate impeachments.

It should thus be clear, again from Mueller's mountain of evidence, that the House Judiciary Committee should get right to it.

But then there is politics.

It is evident that Nancy Pelosi is not enthusiastic about the prospect of Democrats taking responsibility for the process. 

She has laid out a number of thresholds that need to be crossed before she would allow that to happen. The one that is an easy deal-breaker is that impeachment hearings should not commence until the prospect for articles of impeachment are bipartisan. This means the Democrats should not move ahead until there is Republican support.

The likelihood of that, as my Aunt Madeline would say, is "zero, less than zero."

Unspoken but evident is the historical evidence that the Republicans, who controlled both the House and Senate in 1998 and moved aggressively to impeach Bill Clinton, lost seats in both and also the speakership when Newt Gingrich, who was held responsible for the debacle, was unceremoniously dumped. 

It is agreed that by taking a partisan approach to impeaching Clinton, Republicans paid a huge price. Pelosi wants to avoid a similar circumstance.

During the impeachment debate and subsequent trial in the Senate Clinton's popularity soared 10 percentage points. He was already quite popular but still his favorability numbers rose to about 70 percent. 

So Speaker Pelosi and the House senior leadership, including Congressman Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, are nervous about moving toward impeachment, fearing that Trump will see a similar bump up in popularity. His people and others will see this as an effort to overthrow the results of the 2016 presidential election and thus Democratic overreach.

To me, though, this is not a sufficient reason to avoid the issue of impeachment.

First, Trump is no Clinton. A majority of voters liked Clinton but fewer than 30 percent feel the same way about Trump. A poll from Monday morning showed Trump's approval numbers falling six points, down to 37 percent after the release of the Mueller report.

Then, though the economy is currently doing well for the top 10 percent, a large majority are not feeling as positively about their well being as they did in Clinton's day where not only were many millions of jobs created but the federal budget deficit was wiped out. In fact, there were annual surpluses.

Yet the concern about losing congressional seats is at the heart of the Democrats' political fears.

Then there are the profiles-in-courage constitutional reasons why it may be important to move to impeach Trump.

Our constitutional system is one where checks and balances define what is unique about our democracy. They are designed to check and balance any attempt by any of the three separate branches of our government to overwhelm and dominate the others.

Our system is designed to limit the power of Congress, the courts, and most potentially concerning the administration, the presidency.

We fought the Revolution to overthrow tyranny and wrote a constitution to marshal forces against that ever happening in the United States of America.

To impeach Trump would be a reminder about what ur Founders intended and what makes us special and kept us strong.

The Mueller report exposes Trump's disregard for constitutional government. It calls for the preeminent branch, Congress, to confront this. It reminds us that ours is a "constitutional system of checks and balances and the principal that no person is about the law." Including, especially, not the president.

I therefore say impeachment must be on the table.

March 23, 2019--Rats: Hope Springs Eternal

Let's hope Alexander Pope has it right because if Hope cooperates with the House Judiciary Committee, considering what she likely knows, a pack of frenzied rats will be pushing others out of the way as they race to the gangplank of the sinking SS Trump.

I am referring to Hope Hicks. Trump's most devoted aide. Whatever her title, at the White House she was Communications Director, her real job was to be Trump's unquestioning, totally loyal, always available, willing to do anything right-hand "girl."

Only 29 when she left him, in effect she grew up in his offices, brought there by daughter Ivanka for whom she also worked. Over time she became Trump's favorite "daughter." Many say he trusted her even more than biological Ivanka.

Ivanka knew what would work for Daddy, what he required. She, after all, before venturing forth, played pretty much the same role. She also knew he liked his women glamorous, with full faces of makeup, and well plastic-surgeried. (Melania, Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, and of course Ivanka herself.)

When working for the Trump Organization, Hope was situated right outside his open office door and would show up in a instant when he would bellow, "Get in here." They had a similar set up and arrangement in the Oval Office.

Now the Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary Committee is interested in seeing everything she has--personal and work diaries and note books, emails, texts, and phone logs as it investigates possible obstruction of justice and conspiracy.  

The committee is also interested in any materials she may have that pertain to Michael Flynn, any evidence that Trump paid hush money to former girlfriends, potential notes and documents about the firing of James Comey, and any information she may have about the infamous June, 2016 meting with the Russians at Trump Tower. Again, where she was prominently ensconced. 

Rather than resist the committee's request for documents, which, by claiming executive privilege she could do and thereby slow down the investigative process, Hope herself has apparently agreed to willingly turn over whatever she has directly to the Nadler Committee. She isn't having her attorneys nor the White House counsel serve as obstructionist intermediaries. At least this is how it looks at the moment.

These are ominous signs for Trump because if she flips or even just voluntarily turns over what she has, a smoking gun could easily turn up. 

It is clear she does not want to spend years in an orange jumpsuit. 

As often is the case when conspiracies are investigated it is the "little people" who contribute most to exposing and bringing them down. The Michael Cohens, the Hope Hicks, the John Deans, and soon Trump's personal accountant, Allen Weisselberg.

March 16, 2019--Rat's Non-Denial-Denial

For the second week in a row Matt Whitaker muscled his way to the top of the gangplank, desperate to abandon the listing SS Trump and in the process hoping to save his own tokhes.

Last Saturday I reported there was much competition among a number of rats but that Whitaker won. He comes in first again this week because he realized that if he doesn't try to clean up the lies he told under oath to the House Judiciary Committee he could find himself in a jumpsuit up the proverbial river.

In spite of his promise to "jump on a grenade" for Trump, for which he was rewarded by being named acting attorney general after poor Jeff Sessions was fired (on Election Day, no less), when he realized the extent of his exposure, including possible disbarment, he disappeared for a couple of weeks to wander in the wilderness to think things over, only to resurface on Wednesday when he agreed to meet with Judiciary Committee chair, Jerry Nadler, ranking member, Georgia Republican congressman, Doug Collins, and a few staff members to go over some of the untruths he told when testifying about Trump's allegedly leaning on him to pull the plug on the Southern District of New York prosecutor who was hot on the Michael Cohen Trail. 

Trump knew that if Cohen continued to flip he might pose a mortal threat to the president. 

The U.S. attorney the president wanted to run the Cohen investigation is a Trump loyalist. In spite of this he is also an ethical jurist and thus recused himself. Trump wanted him un-recused and pressured the acting attorney general to make that happen.

The acting AG subsequently lied under oath to the Nadler committee when he denied he had ever spoken to Trump about this preposterous idea. There is no such thing, even in Trump World, as un-recusals. 

But that lie and a related possible perjury charge hung over Whitaker and thus he sought a follow-up meeting with Nadler on Wednesday.

When they met this time Whitaker offered a classic non-denial-denial, saying he wouldn't deny nor admit that he spoke with Trump about rigging the investigation in Manhattan. 

The next logical step, under relentless pressure, will likely be for Whitaker to tell more of the whole truth. And so, when he comes fully clean, expect him again to be named rat of the week. 

March 13, 2019--He's Just Not Worth It

In truth I had mixed feelings when Nancy Pelosi said that impeaching Trump  would be "horrible for the country" and that she would not be willing to go through it unless there is "overwhelming and bipartisan justification."

In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post, she also said that "impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling . . . I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country." And," she added, "He's just not worth it."

One part of me has been relishing the prospect of Trump's impeachment. Considering the harm and divisiveness he has engendered I was eager for his comeuppance. I wanted retribution. I wanted to see him in the dock in the Senate. I couldn't wait for him, his grifter family, and his flimsy financial empire to be brought down.

But knowing that Speaker Pelosi for decades has been about the smartest political operative in Washington and is as adept at running things as was Tip O'Neill, calming down from what I at first felt was capitulation, I gave what she said more thought.

I am now seeing her strategy as more brilliant than not.

When Bill Clinton went through impeachment and trial in the Senate, rather than losing the support of the American people, his approval ratings soared. As each day of his trial proceeded he became more and more popular. Many in the country felt that the Republicans were overreaching. Of course they were, and politically Clinton benefitted.

Even though she called Trump "unfit" to be president, Pelosi is concerned that this time it would be the Democrats who would be accused of being obsessed with impeachment and Trump's poll numbers would rise. 

As House Tea Partier Jim Jordan claimed untruthfully, from the first day of Trump's presidency Jerry Nadler, then the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, was talking about the need to impeach Trump.

Pelosi doesn't want to see her Democratic colleagues, by ignoring history, fall into the same trap.

She feels the best way to deal with Trump is to allow the Mueller report to lead the way. If it describes high crimes and misdemeanors and includes enough corroborative evidence to justify impeachment and even prosecution, with other evidence gathered by hearings in the House, she and the Democrats at that point, perhaps with some Republican support, could return to the subject of impeachment.

Until that time, she argues that Democrats in the House should get on with their legislative agenda, showing the electorate why they should vote in 2020 to allow Democrats to retain control of the House, compete for leadership of the Senate, and most important, defeat Trump himself at the polls.

So, I am with Pelosi.

One final point. My favorite part of what the Speaker said to the Post is how she concluded her remarks--

"He's just not worth it."

What a subtle, devastating putdown. And how appropriate for a women to say that about an overbearing man.

How many women, stuck in destructive relationships, have had this thought? 

Too many.

But the bells and whistles this will set off among women will hopefully motivate more of them to vote this time than did in 2016 when, inexplicably, more than half the women who voted, in spite of the Access Hollywood tape and many other affronts, voted for Trump.

In that sense women elected him, but with Pelosi clearing the way, women will have the chance in 19 months to send him packing.