Trump And Impeachments Past--The Difference

Daniel McCarthy has a fascinating article at Spectator | USA today that examines the significance of the current Trump impeachment mania of the Dems by comparing it to past impeachments of the modern era. His conclusion is that, as recently as the Clinton impeachment, there was still what he terms a ruling class consensus regarding the fundamental legitimacy of "the system," or as I would say, the constitutional order. We can certainly see that in the attacks from the Left on basic constitutional principles such as the electoral process as it has been know up till now. McCarthy maintains that the consensus has thus vanished and, with it, the legitimacy of the ruling class. The ruling class is going through the forms of legitimate constitutionalism, but in reality they are exposing their own constitutional bankruptcy. What we are seeing now is, thus, tantamount to unthinking "regime suicide."

Impeachment is regime suicideThe ruling class still believes in a consensus that doesn’t exist. Their legitimacy is vanishing

What I present below is the last third or so of the much longer article--read it all. And then compare it with the views of Daniel Greenfield, Patrick Deneen, and Gary Saul Morson that we've examined recently.

To the extent that there was still a skeletal national consensus, it favored Clinton. Impeachment was a circus, but it wasn’t a national trauma. It cast no shadow over the next presidential election two years later. It was a dud that reaffirmed the stability of the American regime. 

With Trump, everything is different. The 2016 election was a referendum on the regime itself. Trump resurrected the populist attacks on the country’s political and economic establishment that Buchanan and Perot had battle-tested in the 1990s. 

Trump was no mere conventional Republican who happened to beat Hillary Clinton. He was a completely unconventional Republican who first beat the party’s own ideological standard-bearers during the primaries, in the course of which he often said things that no Republican had said for a generation or more. Trump’s message in the primaries and general election boiled down to: they screwed you. ‘They’ being the Bushes, the Clintons, the establishment in both parties, the warmongers, the trade-deal architects, the communist Chinese, free-riding allies, and more. 

Trump is no ideologue or political theorist, but he launched a comprehensive attack on the domestic and international liberal order. He campaigned against the system as it has existed since the Cold War ended.​ 

MULTIPLE UPDATES: My Prediction: Ukraine Damage Will Go Deep

Yes, my prediction is that the damage from the Biden-Ukraine scandal--and that's what it is, despite the efforts of NeverTrump bloggers to cast a shadow on Trump--will not be confined to Biden. It will be used by Trump to play up issues that will resonate with and expand his base.

Democrat corruption is one of those issues, of course. Every Blue State voter knows all about that, and this Hunter Biden story is crasser than most, because Hunter is such a despicable person and his father is such an enabler.

Democrat corruption also plays right into the issue of "privilege". What could be more privileged than getting to fire prosecutors who are looking at your ne'er do well kids? Only white Dems get to do that. But, come to think of it, who but white Dems get to lie about their ethnicity to get great paying jobs at elite places like Harvard--with no consequences? They even get to run for president without being challenged on that. But Trump's gonna change that once the campaign starts in earnest. Every middle class person who's paying through the nose for college tuition will hear about that, and about the liberal elites who cheat their kids into those colleges the middle class can't get into.

In a less direct way, this will also play into the immigration and tariffs issues. The nation will likely sense the connection between liberal preference for foreigners over the American middle class--and the Dem tendency to enrich themselves through foreign dealings. Yes, Hillary will be a topic (cf. link, above), and none of this will help the hoity toity Warren.

Finally, if Biden is eliminated before the primaries even start--and I'm betting on that--the Dem race will be a cut throat contest of extremists. Both Warren and Sanders will be competing for the biggest share of the same pool of liberal extremists--because that's who votes in Dem primaries now. Warren is a shrill, hectoring, extremist on virtually any issue you can name, and the country will be treated to her trying to outdo the unrepentant socialist Sanders.

Does Paul Mirengoff Have Things Backwards Re Ukraine?

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has been blogging about Ukraine and the "whistleblower." In his latest post--Why did Trump freeze U.S. aid to Ukraine?--he repeatedly frames the issue as a question of Trump demanding that "a foreign leader ... investigate the president’s potential opponent in a upcoming election." He goes on to point out that the US did, in fact, freeze aid to Ukraine for a time and states:

If Trump froze aid to Ukraine because its government did not investigate Trump’s political opponent, this would, in my view, constitute serious malfeasance. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has approved U.S. aid to Ukraine in order to help that country resist Russian aggression. Freezing this aid because the Ukrainian government wouldn’t go after a Trump domestic opponent would be truly scandalous.

He then suggests that the timing of the release of aid create a presumption that must be overcome by Trump--the presumption being that pressuring Ukraine in this way raises a "good faith suspicion" of a quid pro quo which is illegal:

The administration unfroze aid to Ukraine last week. Is the delay in the release of the aid long and unprecedented enough to raise a good faith suspicion that a quid-pro-quo was at work? If so, Were there legitimate reasons — reasons unrelated to advancing Trump’s political interests — that overcome the suspicion and reasonably explain the delay?

Here's the problem I see with this argument. Mirengoff keeps talking about the possibility that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to "investigate Biden." I can think of no reason why Mirengoff would think this is what was going on. Ukraine knows exactly what happened--Biden is on record telling the world that he spoke directly to Ukraine's leaders, demanding that they fire a certain prosecutor. Ukraine has no need to investigate. They can deal with the matter any way they see fit. Something else, I think, is going on.

UPDATED: The State Of The "Whistleblower" Foofaraw

I've been occupied today. Here is a response I just wrote to commenter Cassander:

It appears that the big issue is that the Obama appointed ambassador to Ukraine was refusing to do her job and was blocking Ukraine officials from entering the US (2018) to discuss this matter--the Biden investigation--with US officials.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/corrupt-obama-ambassador-refused-visas-to-ukrainian-officials-to-enter-us-and-hand-over-evidence-obama-admin-misconduct-to-trump-officials/

Paul Mirengoff, citing Never Trump and one week presidential candidate David French, finds something improper about Trump's personal lawyer, Giuliani, getting involved, supposedly at the request of the State Dept:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/report-trump-urged-ukraines-president-to-reopen-investigation-of-hunter-biden.php

However, John Solomon--who has spoken with persons who were personally involved--says that Giuliani's involvement was more complicated than people like David French think.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/462422-missing-piece-to-the-ukraine-puzzle-state-departments-overture-to-rudy

The Ambassador to Ukraine was yanked ahead of schedule (5/2019), apparently after stepping in in a big way in the Ukraine elections--demanding that the Ukraine anti-corruption prosecutor be fired.

So it seems that normal State Dept. functioning wasn't happening, due to Obama holdovers, and that may explain Ukraine reaching out to people who could communicate with the US government for them, since normal channels were being blocked.

ADDENDUM: This illustrates that ever since the US sponsored coup in Ukraine (2014) our relations with that country have been anything but normal, beginning with the Obama/Clinton use of Ukraine to try to smear Trump. The abnormal relations continued after the election with the Obama appointed ambassador's very unusual--even very suspicious--actitivies.

The bottom line appears to be that Trump will emerge pretty much unscathed, but that Biden won't. And that once again we have received confirmation that Ukraine is at the center of the Russia Hoax.

UPDATE: Not so much an update as an addendum. Don Surber let's loose in enjoyable fashion: Democrats have impeached themselves. Here's how he starts off--but he keeps going:

The Democrat Party began the week by demanding the impeachment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh over an incident 30 years ago that the alleged victim does not recall. The Democrat Party ended the week by demanding the impeachment of President Donald John Trump because he may have said something to a foreign leader that was heard third-hand by a "whistle blower." 

In 1972, Democrats lost the presidency in a 49-state landslide because they called for taxing everything. 

They still do, but now they also want to impeach everyone and anyone who disagrees with them. The Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland shouted "Off With His Head" about someone every minute or so. She would be part of the Democrat Party's moderate wing today.

"Whistleblower" Endgame? WaPo: No Quid Pro Quo

The WaPo is reporting that, in his July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump did not offer an explicit quid pro quo if Ukraine launched an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden's son as initially reported. Per Zerohedge, Did Trump-Biden-Ukraine Drama Just Implode? WaPo Reports No "Quid Pro Quo" Offered During Phone Call:

The latest 'smoking gun' Democrats have been clinging to in search of that ever-elusive Trump impeachment may have just imploded - after the Washington Post quietly reported on Friday evening that a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not contain an explicit quid pro quo if Ukraine launched an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden's son as initially reported.  

While President Trump did reportedly "pressure the recently elected leader to more aggressively pursue" the investigation, "Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that had been pledged to Ukraine, indicating there was not an explicit quid pro quo in that call." 

... 

So - the current US president asked Ukraine to conduct a legal investigation into the former US Vice President, who openly bragged about withholding $1 billion in US loan guarantees unless they fired the guy investigating his son and his son's company - and there was no quid pro quo offered in exchange for that investigation - at least not on that phone call. 

Recall that in the past I've placed great emphasis on the various attempts to discover Trump in some situation that could be construed as a quid pro quo exchange--especially the Trump Tower meeting between top Trump campaign aides and the Russian lawyer, Veselnitskaya. The obvious reason for all these efforts, including the present one, is to try to claim that Trump has violated some federal criminal statute, such as the Bribery Act. Before the election that would have led to Trump being indicted as a candidate, and at this point it would have been grounds for impeachment. In each instance Trump has proved far too smart to get involved in such obvious illegality, and the present case is apparently no exception.

What About Iran?

That has to be the number one thing on Trump's mind these days. My view, my hope, is that Trump is coming to the realization that his policies--and they are his policies, no matter who advised or persuaded him for whatever reasons--have put him in a box with no good alternatives. The Iranian mullahs--possibly assisted by foreign advisers--know that, for the US, war with Iran would be an act of insanity. The only sufficient reason for undertaking such an act would be an act of mass terrorism that dwarfs anything in our past. We've done nothing about past Saudi attacks on the US, so why would we do anything so insane as attacking Iran? The Iranians understand that, and now the rest of the world understands that. Which puts Trump in a box.

While we wait for Trump to sort all this out and, hopefully, find advisers who will prevent future impasses of this sort, here are a few articles/blogs that lay out some of the issues involved.

Pat Buchanan asks, Can Trump Still Avoid War With Iran? and sets forth some of the strategic misunderstandings in Trump's policy of "maximum pressure."

[I]f neither America nor Iran wants war, what has brought us to the brink? 

Answer: The policy imposed by Trump, Pompeo and John Bolton after our unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. 

Our course was fixed by the policy we chose to pursue. 

Imposing on Iran the most severe sanctions ever by one modern nation on another, short of war, the U.S., through "maximum pressure," sought to break the Iranian regime and bend it to America’s will. 

Submit to US demands, we told Tehran, or watch your economy crumble and collapse and your people rise up in revolt and overthrow your regime. 

... 

The demands Pompeo made were those that victorious nations impose upon the defeated or defenseless. Pompeo’s problem: Iran was neither. 

... 

Hence Tehran’s defiant answer to Pompeo’s 12 demands: 

We will not capitulate, and if your sanctions prevent our oil from reaching our traditional buyers, we will prevent the oil of your Sunni allies from getting out of the Persian Gulf. 

... 

America might emerge victorious in such a war, but the cost could be calamitous, imperiling that fifth of the world’s oil that traverses the Strait of Hormuz, and causing a global recession.

UPDATED: Brief Update On The "Whistleblower"

Multiple reports are now strongly suggesting that what the Deep State--and Congressional Dems--found so "troubling" was that Trump is said to have sought information from the new Ukrainian head of state regarding the Biden family's corrupt dealings in Ukraine. That is, understandably, "troubling" for Dems, but the fact is as Trump hater Phil Mudd puts it: the POTUS can say anything he wants to foreign leaders, and if he wants to ask them about the corrupt dealings of US politicians, well, the POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States and is the logical person to deal directly with foreign heads of state. Nor is Congress entitled to be part of those conversations. So play that on your whistle. And if you don't like that, go talk to Bill Barr about it.

UPDATE: Don Surber, We spy on our president? seems to be saying that this whole thing could have been primarily a hit job on Biden to ensure that Warren gets the nomination. Surber is very shrewd and I'd would never idly disagree with him on such matters--so I won't:

Well, well, well, the much trumpeted whistle-blower scandal promoted by the Washington Post and the New York Times turns out to be an attempt to bring Joe Biden's cocaine-addled son to justice. 

Last year, Biden bragged that as vice president, he put the arm on Ukraine not to prosecute Hunter Biden in a bribery scandal. 

The son received $600,000 a year from Burisma Holdings, Ukraine gas company, for a no show job. 

Ukrainian prosecutors were investigating the company's bribery.
Biden stepped in to stop it. 

He said last year, "I remember going over (to Ukraine), convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from (then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) and from (then-Prime Minister Arseniy) Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor (Shokin). And they didn’t…

"They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, … we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president.’ … I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

That is corruption. 

Biden should be prosecuted for using his public office for private gain. The fact that he was so casual about it -- bragging about it -- shows this was a common occurrence for him and Obama. The fact that the media did not blow this up into a Covington Catholic MAGA Cap scandal shows the media is in on the scam. 

... 

The Daily Beast reported, "An explosive whistle blower complaint that is threatening to paralyze much of Washington, D.C., now may upend the 2020 presidential campaign." 

Sure, just like the Times allegation five days ago led to the impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh. 

Prediction: This will fade, and then Warren will use this against Biden. She is tenacious and she wants to win.

But the real scandal is that this "whistle blower" as the press hailed him was spying on our president.

...

Trump: The One-Man Rebuke

The conclusion to Matthew Continetti's article today--Why impeachment isn't going away:

Democrats overwhelmingly support impeachment. Forty percent of adults in the most recent Economist/YouGov survey say Congress should try to impeach President Trump. That number rises to 70 percent among Democrats. It is no wonder why. Trump is a one-man rebuke of progressivism, of political correctness, of a humanitarianism that does not recognize citizenship or national borders. Since 2016 an entire media-political infrastructure has been built to push the messages that Trump's election was illegitimate, Trump's actions in and out of office are criminal, and Trump ought to be excised from the government as quickly as possible. Even if Mueller and his report fade from view—and there is no guarantee they will—the president's adversaries will continue to search for the annihilating angel who will deliver them from Donald Trump. 

Why? Because the impeachment debate is not about what Trump has done, is doing, or might do. It is about whether he and the social forces he represents are entitled to rule.

They hate you. They really hate you.

Important Remarks From President Trump

Today President Trump held an impromptu 17 minute Q&A session with reporters as he was about to leave for West Virginia aboard Marine 1. The following is my transcript of what I took to be the most important portion of his remarks:

This whole thing, honestly, has been collusion. It's been collusion with the media. It's been collusion with other countries. This has been a disaster for the Democrats and I think we're gonna win bigger than ever. 

[Question, inaudible] 

No, because we did nothing wrong. The answer's very simple. Nothing was done wrong. This was all a big hoax and if you look at it today, nothing was done wrong. Now-- 

I believe what you're gonna find, you're gonna find a lot of things that were done very wrong, but that's going on now. That's something you haven't been writing about and that has to do with the other side. That has to do with a thing called "investigate the investigators." Let's see what happens. That's gonna be very interesting.

Here's my takeaway.

"Collusion with other countries." Yes, and that's hugely important--to see that the Dems, including Obama and Hillary, were colluding with foreign powers against our country. That also plays into the next takeaway: "Investigate the investigators." And that's what we saw in John Solomon's latest report.

John Durham is reaching out to people in foreign countries for cooperation, as is Michael Horowitz. Steele has been interviewed, Mifsud will be interviewed. More is coming. And the investigators are going to be investigated--Team Mueller is being scrutinized, and that must also mean that Team Mueller's enablers, starting with Rod Rosenstein, will be under the gun, too.

As Trump said, that's gonna be very interesting.

UPDATED: Paul Sperry Gets It Right In Just Over 25 Words

Barely over 25 words. This is really what it was all about, IMO:

Paul Sperry‏ @paulsperry_

Mueller wasn't just investigating alleged espionage, he was investigating Trump's anti-globalist foreign policy, witnessed by Mueller's strange months-long probe of the Center for the National Interest, which advocates for a non-interventionist foreign policy based on realism

9:43 AM - 3 Jun 2019

UPDATE: Commenter HMH asks, "Where can I read more about this?" Here are some links that explain the Mueller focus on Center for the National Interest, run by Dmitri Simes. Yes, it really was a witchhunt. None of Hillary's many links to Russians and Ukrainians were examined:

Dimitri Simes flew too close to Trump, and his think tank got burned

As the Mueller report and various news reports have spelled out, Simes was engaging in activities that are both legal and widespread in Washington: back-channel communications with foreign officials, wielding influence on behalf of corporate interests and privately helping political campaigns while running a “nonpartisan” organization. However, those activities became a focus of federal and congressional investigations and tons of media scrutiny. Simes said he does not think he should be held responsible for any of it.

Russia-linked figures in Mueller's probe come in from the cold after report's release

Washington-based Russian expert Dimitri Simes, who appears to have had influence on Jared Kushner's foreign policy platform, based on the Mueller report, has made occasional appearances during the past two years – though more frequently in Russian media outlets.

The Mueller report says that during the 2016 campaign, Simes, who heads a think tank called the Center for the National Interest, prepared a "Russia Policy Memo" for Kushner.

In it, Simes described "a well-documented story of highly-questionable connections between Bill Clinton" and the Russian government. The memo was forwarded to senior Trump campaign officials, including then-Trump campaign Paul Manafort and deputy chairman Rick Gates.

Mueller's prosecutors described Simes in the report as personally having "many contacts with current and former Russian government officials," and cited his think tank's own description of itself as having "unparalleled access to Russian officials and politicians among Washington think tanks." According to the report, the center grew out of an organization founded by former President Richard Nixon.

According to the report, however, Simes had also previously advised Kushner that it was "bad optics" for the campaign to develop "hidden Russian contacts," and told Kushner to not "highlight Russia as an issue" and to handle any Russian contacts with care, according to the report.

The report also revealed that after the 2016 election, Simes was contacted by an associate working for Petr Aven, the head of Russia's biggest bank -- Alfa Bank -- to establish direct communication between the Trump administration and the Russian government. The report said he declined, saying he did not want to be seen as an intermediary between Trump world and Kremlin.

Mueller report reveals Kushner's contacts with a ‘pro-Kremlin’ campaign adviser

Dimitri Simes, who runs a Washington think tank, offered advice on Russia policy and even peddled rumors about the Clintons.

Standing Up For Realism

Trump, Declassification, Leverage

I think interested observers are now in a position to put the whole Russia Hoax in some sort of global perspective--quite literally, as we'll see, in important respects. Recent posts by bloggers who write from widely varying perspectives give us the ability to discern the current state of play.

Let's start with the domestic front of the Russia Hoax. Sundance at Conservative Tree House has an excellent post up: President Trump and DAG Rod Rosenstein – “No Collusion”, No Immediate Worries … The overall theme is one that's dear to sundance's heart: leverage. The state of play is this. Congressional investigation has progressed to the point that it's clear beyond cavil that the entire Russia narrative is, in fact, a hoax and a fraud--both on the American people in general but also on our legal system. Which is to say, that real criminal liability exists for the key players who developed the plot against Trump. John Solomon summarizes what Congress has discovered in succinct fashion:

There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party's duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election.

And when, nine months later, the FBI could not prove the allegation of collusion between Trump and Russia, unverified evidence was leaked to the media to try to sustain public support for a continued investigation.

But sundance spells out very specifically where the greatest risk--and therefore the greatest leverage--lies:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein created the special counsel under fraudulent pretense.  That origination material (Ohr 302’s, FISA pages, origination EC, and Page/Strzok messages) is now a risk to the Deputy AG.

UPDATED: It's James Baker's Turn To Throw Rosenstein Under A Bus

Not long ago I did a blog with the title: Dems Throw Wray And Rosenstein Under The Bus. John Solomon is now reporting that, according to James Baker in his recent House testimony, that business about Rosenstein maybe wearing a wire against Trump was no joke--or at least not from the perspective of the FBI--Former FBI lawyer: Plot to record, remove Trump not a joke:

Baker told lawmakers he wasn’t in the meeting that McCabe had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in which the subject came up. But he did have firsthand conversations with McCabe and the FBI lawyer assigned to McCabe, Lisa Page, about the issue.

“As far as Baker was concerned, this was a real plan being discussed,” said a source directly familiar with the congressional investigation. “It was no laughing matter for the FBI.”

Solomon is properly circumspect about what might be behind Baker's statements--after all, this could be simple truth-telling, or it could be payback for Rosenstein's cooperation with Trump in recent weeks? It remains possible, even likely, that Rosenstein wanted nothing to do with McCabe's idea of recording President Trump and seeking to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, no matter what his personal views on Trump. On the other hand, the FBI leadership--knowing what their criminal jeopardy was should Trump become aware of their shenanigans during the 2016 election--doubtless saw this as a life and death matter. For them. It wouldn't be for Rosenstein, although Rosenstein went on to create his own problems for himself--appointing the Special Counsel, approving the final FISA, all on fraudulent grounds. Solomon rightly stresses the extraordinary implications of all this:

Is Cardinal Dolan Signalling a Sea Change in the American Catholic Church?

Last Thursday Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York penned an essay in the WSJ. The title of the essay, and it's subtitle, tells you pretty much all you need to know if you don't subscribe: The Democrats Abandon Catholics: If you value religious education or life’s sanctity, you’re not welcome in the party.

This is a far more political statement, in an overtly partisan way, than we're used to seeing from the US Catholic bishops. It also has broader implications for the Church generally and for politics generally, so what's going on here?

For starters it's helpful to ask: Who would have been pleased by this essay, and who would have been, well, let's say, displeased?

Let's see--displeased? The Democrat Party--that's a no brainer. They just lost a presidential election because they lost the heavily Catholic Reagan Democrats in the Midwest. This won't help--not in 2018, not in 2020.

How about the Bergoglio Vatican? Displeased? You'd better believe it. It's a given that Bergoglio personally has no use for the USA, and all you have to do to remind yourself just how virulent that dislike is, is reprise the article by Antonio Spadaro, the Jesuit editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, a journal that is reported to be personally vetted by Bergoglio himself. The article is titled Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism, and you can find an analysis of it by Sam Gregg here. The long and the short of it is that Spadaro--and presumably Bergoglio--are disturbed by the ecumenical cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals. Why? Because they fear the rise of a "theocracy." Here's how Gregg puts it: