Year End Reflections, Part III

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.