Sunday, December 8, 2019

Will There Be An Impeachment At All?

Clarice Feldman makes a strong case this morning that there likely will, in the end, be no impeachment: Trumping a Low Pair. I'm somewhat agnostic on this. I certainly see the strength of her arguments:

Impeachment Theater has put Trump's and GOP fundraising generally on steroids heading into national elections.

The Republican base is energized to an extent that may be historic.

Perhaps more importantly, independents across the country are increasingly up in arms over their do-nothing Congress that refuses to address the nations problems.

The country is riding a wave of prosperity for all demographic sectors that is utterly unprecedented and likely to continue.

Impeachment Theater is fronted by the most unlikeable and frankly crazy people to appear before the public since ... well, since the deeply unpopular Kavanaugh hearings.

The House kangaroo court procedures have proven deeply offensive to the American sense of fundamental fairness--which take on an even sharper edge when applied to the national leader, the one official elected by the nation at large. The public at large knows fairness--and fundamental unfairness--when it sees it, and has tuned out Impeachment Theater just when the Dems need an audience riveted to their devices--TVs, phones, tablets, whatever.

All of this militates strongly against impeachment. Rationally, legally, ethically. And yet ... we know those considerations don't enter into this. As the very liberal Professor Turley said, it's about rage. Rage against the undesired reality confronting the left in America. It's as if the left has tried everything to convince America to turn Trans, to deny political and economic reality. It's not working, and they're increasingly frustrated and angry.

As Feldman also points out, the Dems have pretty much painted themselves into a corner. How do they get out of this room? Moreover, their base pretty much lives in a leftist MSM echo chamber that polling shows is increasingly divorced from American reality. Will they simply, once more as in the Kavanaugh hearings, lash out against the people they hate?

I'm at a point where I'd toss a coin. Dems are dancing on the edge of a cliff, or so it seems to me.


  1. Trumping a Low PairTrumping a Low Pair

    The linked article's title is repeated.

  2. I've been 60/40 for some time that impeachment won't happen, though I get to 55/45 whenever I focus on a) that corner you make clear they've painted themselves into, and b) how desperately they need to stay on offense as their only hope of any kind of effective defense.

    But then when I think about:

    - the latest jobs & wages & (importantly!) minority unemployment report and the possibility of the economy continuing to chug along
    -the recent trajectory of Trump's approval ratings
    -the difficulty of drawing up articles of impeachment that could pass the laugh test
    -the exposure of their own wrongdoing they'd risk in any trial
    -the possibility of DOJ reports and indictments coming down in the middle of the hearings that make clear the actual bad guys are the Dems
    -etc, etc,

    I have a hard time thinking many of those swing state Dems won't conclude that, whatever the risk of being primaried out if they vote against impeachment, it'll be less than the 100% certain death they'll face if they vote in favor.

    And of course the real wild card in the short term is Monday’s coming report. It’ll have to be a nearly total whitewash to keep it from giving Republicans a lot of ammunition to give independents good reason to believe the Dems are AT LEAST as guilty as whatever they may imagine Trump to be, and that sort of rough equivalence should alone be enough to make them conclude a Trump impeachment would be grossly unfair.

    1. It's interesting that they're saying that the Dems may already be down to a +10 and falling. I agree re Horowitz--unless it's "a near total whitewash" it will confirm GOPers and Independents that it's time to stop this craziness. No mas!

  3. Turley: “…a paucity of evidence; an abundance of anger…”

    One look at Schiff and “crazed” comes to mind. And he is not the only one. The mad-looking fop Noah Feldman, supposedly put before us to teach us about our Constitution. And the shrieking, histrionic Pamela Karlan who can’t walk in front of Trump Tower. Eric Swalwell, Central Casting for a Nazi SS enforcer in the camps. Miserable Jerry Nadler, the little not-quite-reformed fat man. And the furiously faux pious “don’t mess with me” Nancy. And that’s to name just a few of the crazies who are pushing this fiasco…

    Clarice is on the side of logic and wisdom and what is really legal. We hope she’s right.

    1. If we're speaking of hope then, yes, I'm on her side. I really don't want to see such a debasement of the Constitution, even if it works politically for Trump.

  4. IMHO the #1 reason the House will not vote to impeach : the Senate would have the power to call witnesses like Schiff, the whistleblower,etc. It would be a media disaster for the dems.

    1. I thought I read somewhere the Graham said they wouldn't call Congress critters. But some of the other witnesses--CIA, Congressional staff, etc.--would be absolutely devastating to Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler.

    2. "...Graham said they wouldn't call Congress critters."

      Graham pretty much said this on Bartiromo this morning.

    3. Yeah, I just saw that, so twice in less than a week. It takes us back to the debate: dignify this BS with a trial for the political benefits, or stand on principle and toss it.

    4. I read some time back that any full exposure of the Ukraine corruption and the Bidens on the take would (that’s would, not might) catch some Congress critters who had done some of the same. Lindsey Graham was named.

    5. CTH, on an OAN interview:

      Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress.

      What is outlined in this interview is a  problem for all DC politicians across both parties.  The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently.

      Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family.  This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.

      Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general public?  Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.

      It was evident months ago that U.S. charg√© d’affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump.  It was Taylor who engaged in carefully planned text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam Schiff’s political coup effort.

      Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (’06-’09) and later helped the Obama administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.

      In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA’s for Ukrainian ‘whistle-blowers’ who are willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.

      Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S. Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the aforementioned laundry process.  The VISA’s are unlikely to get approval for congressional testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.

      Much more here:

    6. From which we see the importance of Barr/Durham and their willingness to follow the evidence everywhere.

      One wonders again about the handoff of the Senate Judiciary chair by Grassley to Graham. The timing. It's almost as if they already knew impeachment would be upcoming. Or something that would require coverup.

    7. This long, information-rich article opens up something the average voter (I included) had no idea about. I thought Lindsey’s blocking off any congressional witnesses was odd. Now we know.

      Trump is a threat to this moneymaking scheme. This, as Sundance opines, it is not a simple matter of Republicans vs Democrats in any impeachment vote in the Senate.

      So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote to impeach President Trump, it’s not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican.  We need to look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer President Trump did not interfere in their process.

      McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their sensibilities eased.   As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in November.  Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and she ain’t about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.

      This money-laundering scheme has been in place for more than a while. How many are beneficiaries? Who? Sundance also opines that the IC’s knowledge of this setup gives them power over elected officials. How does all of this get opened to sunlight, fully exposed and dealt with? Will Barr and Durham get into this, too?

      Talk about gangrene!

    8. It raises the questions: What did Trump know and when did he know it? Did he come to DC totally innocent of all this?

      Note that in her Howard Stern interview, Hillary was asked: What's up with Lindsey? Her response was that she doesn't know--she used to be close to him but doesn't get what he's up to now. FWIW. Obviously you don't expect her to tell the truth.

    9. "What did Trump know and when did he know it? Did he come to DC totally innocent of all this?"

      What I find fascinating, in the supposedly "gangsterish" environment of New York developers and builders, no one has found anything illegal of substance that points to Trump.

      And yet he made a ton of money there. How did he do it without bending rules?