Thursday, October 31, 2019

Returning to Russiagate: The Impeachment Follies

Well, they went and done it. WaPoo, A divided House backs impeachment probe of Trump
A divided House approved a resolution Thursday formally authorizing and articulating guidelines for the next phase of its impeachment inquiry, a move that signaled Democrats are on course to bring charges against President Trump later this year.

The 232-to-196 vote, which hewed closely to party lines, was expected to fuel the partisan fighting that has accompanied every stage of the impeachment probe and much of the Trump presidency. Nearly all Democrats backed the resolution, and House Republicans, who spent weeks clamoring for such a vote, opposed it.
AmThink, Cracks in the impeachment wall,  Alhouse, 2 Democrats voted "no" on the Democrats impeachment-legitimatizing effort, and no Republicans voted "yes."
Thanks to those 2, but who were they and why did they do it? I'll read "2 Democratic defectors join GOP in voting against Trump impeachment resolution/Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the unusual step of presiding over the House during the vote, which passed largely along party lines." (NBC) Largely along party lines... ha ha. It was completely along party lines... except for those 2 guys — both Democrats.

There's Jeff Van Drew, who represents New Jersey's 2nd congressional district, which is southern New Jersey. His district went for Trump in 2016 and for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Van Drew won that seat after a 12-term Republican retired. There was a 10-term Democrat before that Republican.
. . .
Then there's Collin Peterson, who represents a district in Minnesota that Trump won by 30 points, making him the Democratic congressman whose district is the most Trump-favoring in the whole country. Unlike Van Drew, who's a congressional newcomer, Peterson is an old timer. He has held his seat since 1990.
Stacy McCain, Party-Line Impeachment Vote "Our latter-day sans-culottes don’t care much for evidence. They are running this impeachment to satisfy the media wing of their party."

NR, House Formalizes Impeachment Inquiry in Party-Line Vote, Ace, Democrats Vote "Rules" for Fake Impeachment "Probe;" Two Democrats Vote "No," and Former Republican/Fake Libertarian Justin Amash Votes "Yes"
One of the most absurdly unfair parts of these "rules" is that only Democrats can call witnesses. Republicans can call them -- with Democrats' permission.

And Republicans can only ask questions that Democrats allow.
Ahead of the vote, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana ripped into the resolution. "It gives veto authority by the chair to literally reject any witness that is brought forward by the minority,"
Scalise said, standing next to a sign held by a staffer that said "37 days of Soviet-Style impeachment proceedings." "This is Soviet-Style rules. Maybe in the Soviet Union you do things like this where only you make the rules, where you reject the ability for the person you’re accusing to even be in the room, to question what's going on."
The "rules" make Adam Schiff -- nonpartisan, fair-minded, not-at-all crank conspiracy theorist Adam Schiff -- a bizarre level of control over the kangaroo court.

Sundance reposted his post on the rules (and what they mean) REPOST: Details of House “Impeachment Inquiry” Resolution…. At Ace's the Morning Rant's gorilla has thoughts on the rules too:
"But getting back to my main point what this vote actually does, Pelosi says it merely "formalizes" the inquiry. Oh, OK. Not sure why you need to do it. The Democrats control all of the committees, seems to me they can just conduct any proceedings they damn well feel like.

"But I think Nancy is deliberately slow-walking this thing. The last thing she wants is an impeachment vote. Because not only will it fail (and I think she knows this), but Republicans will then be able to take advantage of the due process rules and start submitting evidence and calling witnesses and when that process starts, a bunch of Democratic malfeasance is going to bubble up to the surface (cough)Hunter Biden(cough) and that's the last thing they want.

"So they're just going to put up some resolution to consider to discuss the possibility of talking about a plan to move forward with an investigation as to whether to proceed with the impeachment inquiry and nothing will happen, but it won't go away, and Pelosi is probably hoping to string this out past the election to see if they can pick up more seats in the House, or flip the Senate. If that fails, the 'investigation' will be continued in whichever way they think it will damage Trump the most."
Althouse,"The vote is on a resolution that would set rules for the public phase of an impeachment inquiry that has so far been conducted exclusively behind closed doors."
This is not the vote the Republicans have been demanding — that is not "a formal vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry," which is what happened in the cases of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. So the Democrats are doing some theater of voting out in the open today, but it's not the vote that accords with historical practice. It's not the vote the Republicans have been talking about. It's a vote about what the rules will be.
Breitbart, White House: Nancy Pelosi Impeachment Resolution ‘An Illegitimate Sham’ Obviously. Tom Lifson at AmGreat, Dan Crenshaw challenges entire premise of Ukraine impeachment efforts. Sundance, Lee Smith Discusses Impeachment and Connection to Ongoing Swamp Defense Efforts…, AmGreat, The Long Game on Impeachment
Look closely at the charges being leveled at the president. You see the conceit of the current impeachment outrage is that elected officials are merely window dressing for the permanent government.

How dare the president remove a diplomat!

How dare he use personal envoys and second-guess the Foreign Service!

It’s outrageous he overrides the decision made by the deputy assistant undersecretary of chair warming, in the Pentagon no less!
Michael Goodwin at NYPo, Goodwin: History will not be kind to Nancy Pelosi. But historians will, at least initially.

At AmGreat, How the Senate Should Handle Impeachment Tell 'em to stick it where the sun don't shine?
The Constitution is very clear. “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Any such trial shall be under “Oath and Affirmation.” If it involves the President, “the Chief Justice shall preside” and conviction requires 2/3 of the members present. That’s about it. The Constitution and existing law have precious little to say about the actual Senate trial, if and how it should take place.
From Da Caller, Lindsey Graham: ‘Not One Vote’ Among Senate Republicans To Remove Trump ‘Because He Did Nothing Wrong’

Adam Mill at AmGreat, Shock Poll Shows Weak Support for Impeachment "The USA Today/Suffolk University survey finds nearly 2-in-5 independent voters would prefer the House drop the inquiry entirely." Jazz Shaw, Hot Air, Poll: Country Not As Hopped Up For Impeachment As Democrats Seem To Believe

Clearly signaling that he intends to use impeachment as an excuse, Schumer: I Pray That Trump Doesn’t Shut Down The Government As A Diversion From Impeachment (AllahPundit at Hot Air). while From Roll Call, Impeachment on collision course with possible shutdown.

And on to the ridiculous, Rep. Ilhan Omar Tells Trump to ‘Stop Tweeting, Start Preparing Your Defense!’ and George Papadopoulos running for seat left vacant after Katie Hill resignation (WaEx). Good luck with that.

No comments:

Post a Comment