I'll get to it. But first, I was struck by what I read in the 12/16/19 Jerusalem Post. Three headlines in particular caught my attention. 1. "Israel develops 'breakthrough' method to identify thyroid cancer." 2. "Israeli pancreatic cancer treatment could extend lives of 3/4 of patients." 3. "Israelis develop 'self-healing' cars powered by machine learning and AI." Not too bad for the tiny "start-up" nation of only 9 million people. So who supports cutting off aid to Israel besides the leftist democrats? If you do, or if you support the BDS movement, then perhaps you should have no right to benefit from Israeli technological innovations.
Okay, so the House voted to impeach President Trump. Is anybody really surprised? Does anybody really think this is about President Trump's telephone conversation with the Ukranian President? If so, perhaps you can explain this comment by Jerry Nadler immediately after Trump's victory in 2016: "We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office...so we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now." The Dems hate Trump and always have. And they really hate the fact that he defeated Clinton in 2016. "Extreme agenda?" The best economy in decades. The best stock market. The lowest unemployment rate in decades. New trade deals. A return of manufacturing jobs. The most supportive of Israel of any President.
Even before the election, here is what Politico asked in April, 2016: "Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?" Again, this blog saw what was happening less than two months into the Trump Presidency. See the 3/12/17 post "The Deposing of an American President." Even Pelosi admitted it. When asked if the impeachment hearing was not a little too quick, she replied that the investigation was going on for 2 1/2 years. That is well before the July, 2019 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky. And 19 minutes after Trump was sworn in, this was on the Washington Post site: "The campaign to Impeach President Trump has Begun."
Here's Jerry Nadler during the Clinton impeachment proceedings: "The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election...There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other." Oh. Then so much for today's impeachment vote. On the first Article, abuse of power, the vote was 230-197. On the second Article, obstruction of Congress, the vote was 229-198. The votes were entirely along party lines, except for the handful of Democrats who defected. Tulsi Gabbard voted "present" on both Articles. Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Collin Peterson (Minn) were two Democrats who voted no on both Articles. And another Democrat, Jared Golden (Maine), voted no on obstruction. All the Republicans voted no.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also had a different attitude 20 years ago from what the Dems are saying now. Now, they claim that McConnell is not going to be an impartial juror in the Senate trial because he said he was going to consult with Trump, the defendant in the trial. But in 1999, Schumer seemed to agree with McConnell, saying this: In this process (the Clinton impeachment) "we'll be consulting the White House because it's the President who's the defendant and due process would guarantee him, or fairness certainly, would guarantee him certain rights."
Now, Schumer and the Dems say the Senate must have a full trial, with subpoenaing documents and calling witnesses. In 1999, Schumer said this: "It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses." The issue of witnesses also demonstrates the inappropriateness of the Second Article - Obstruction of Congress. The House acted as if once subpoenas are issued to the President, the President, representing the co-equal branch of the Executive, had no right to object, no right to seek the intervention of the Courts, which generally resolves conflicts between the other two branches.
But the House could not wait for a Court battle, which might not be resolved until the spring or summer. After 3 years of searching and running non-stop investigations of the President, and having found something that they thought would finally resonate with the American people (it did not), they needed to act quickly as the primaries were only a couple of months away. Therefore, they charged Trump with obstruction, for the simple act of seeking to have his day in Court. Imagine that. I'd say that the Democrats have abused their power with all this nonsense. But I'm looking forward to November, as it looks as if this totally political exercise has locked in a reelection victory for the President.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The best economy in decades. The best stock market. The lowest unemployment rate in decades. New trade deals. A return of manufacturing jobs." These are the types of half truths that can convince people who don't know any better. The economy is doing well on a GDP basis, but most of the gains have gone to the very wealthy. Wage growth is slowing, and the 3-4% growth over the past year has done nothing to offset the outrageous cost of living in most large cities (where the jobs are). While the unemployment rate is low, that statistic says nothing about the types of jobs that are available. There is a reason it's become in vogue to talk about a "side hustle": many jobs barely offer a livable wage, if even that. Regarding the stock market, this helps those with assets in the market, typically the wealthy. While this can be a benefit to many workers' 401k balances, it does nothing to help those people who need it most - the 45% of Americans who couldn't even afford a $400 emergency, and who likely have zero saved for retirement. Finally, a return of manufacturing jobs. What return are you speaking of (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/business/economy/donald-trump-jobs-created.html)? There indeed has been a minor increase, and this can be attributed to Trump's tax law and trade wars, but the absolute numbers are minuscule compared to job growth in a typical month. It's like his efforts to keep coal alive - he's fighting a losing battle.
ReplyDeleteDon't even get me started on impeachment. All I'll say is 1) if the Senate is mandated by the Constitution (which the GOP always claims to revere) to hold an impartial trial, why don't they do that? If Trump is so adamant he did nothing wrong, the Senate should encourage him to produce documents and witnesses that both sides request. 2) If a Democratic president had the exact same phone call, you can be sure the Republicans would be outraged over it. The country is getting sick of the hyper-partisanship in Congress. They should perform their constitutional duties and conduct a fair trial, rather than claiming they have no desire to be impartial (as Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have done). If the facts exonerate Trump, so be it, but if he's so confident they would, why is he refusing to allow certain witnesses to testify?