Tag Archives: impeachment

Pundit class weighs in on VP debate

kaine-pence

Some of the nation’s more well-known political pundits have weighed in on last night’s vice-presidential “debate.”

They’ve determined, I guess, that Republican nominee Mike Pence did himself more good than harm and that Democratic nominee Tim Kaine did more harm than good for his own future. Many of them seem to think Pence is a shoo-in to run for president in 2020.

I gleaned from most of the comments that the presidential candidates still must make their own way as they slog on through to Election Day.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/who-won-the-vp-debate-pundits-weigh-in/ar-BBx2cfz?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

I’ll offer this slightly different take, though, on what I heard Tuesday night.

Gov. Pence might have helped Donald Trump — if only slightly — by coming off as the more mature, reasonable, rational, nuanced, intelligent member of the GOP ticket.

Thus, he might have given Trump’s base of supporters hope that in the event of a Trump election — a thought that gives me the heebie-jeebies — that there will be a viable individual who’s able to step in once Congress impeaches and convicts the president of crimes that haven’t yet been defined.

Has the governor wooed any independent voters, or undecided Americans to the Trump-Pence ticket? I doubt it. These VP encounters generally don’t prove to be decisive. We still focus on the candidates at the top of their parties’ tickets.

However, given what we know about Trump’s utter lack of anything involving government or the limits of the office he seeks, I remain quite convinced that a President Trump would do something — maybe early in his administration — that would so anger legislators that he could become the target of a serious impeachment effort.

What might he do? Oh, let’s see. He could fire all the flag officers who would assist him in crafting a war strategy against the Islamic State; Trump could issue an unlawful order to his military, which then would be able to refuse to carry it out; he could impose that unconstitutional ban on Muslims entering the United States; he could forget about a business deal that profited from a government subsidy; he could issue any number of illegal executive orders.

The man is a walking, talking, breathing example of an ignoramus who doesn’t understand anything about government — and he intends to learn about it all while serving as head of state of the world’s most powerful nation.

Mike Pence has given a glimmer of hope to Trump’s followers that they would have a grownup ready to take command once the president is tossed out.

It doubt, though, it’s enough to win an election.

I mean, c’mon. Pence still has to find a way to defend Trump’s horrifying stump-speech pronouncements.

VP choice becomes a problem for GOP

Donald J. Trump stands poised to become the Republican Party’s next nominee for president of the United States.

Is there anyone out there who believes Trump’s nomination will be welcomed with a warm GOP embrace, that the party brass that’s now condemning the candidate will back him without objection?

This brings to mind the question that Politico is asking: Who is willing to become the vice-presidential nominee along with Trump? Who is going to hoist the candidate’s hand in the air from the convention podium in Cleveland? Who’s going to be willing to sing the praises of the candidate who’s insulted just about every voting bloc he’s going to need to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-vice-president-224488

Prominent GOP officeholders have drawn the barbs from Trump.

What about the women of the party? New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez? She’s out. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley? No can do. U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa? Forget about it.

Hispanics? U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida? Hardly. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas? Pfftt!

Anglo males? Trump might have some takers among that group. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey comes to mind. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he’s interested. Some buzz is mentioning former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

This is a half-serious suggestion for why someone might accept a veep nomination from Trump. It has to do with what might occur on the remotest of remote chances that Trump gets elected president in November.

Perhaps the No. 2 man/woman could see a clear path to the presidency in the hope — or perhaps the expectation — that Trump commits an impeachable offense.

Look at it this way: Trump would have few friends and allies in the House of Representatives, which could actually impeach him. He also would have few friends in the Senate, which would actually try him. And the Senate, given the responsibility to consider whatever charges would be brought against Trump, might be inclined to convict him on the promise of getting someone better able to govern.

What might a “President Trump” do to compel an impeachment?

He’s spoken freely and loosely about all the things he would do as president, ignoring the fact that the president shares power with Congress and the federal judiciary. He doesn’t understand how government works.

Might he then to try some kind of end-around on a policy that requires congressional approval?

As we saw during the 1990s, members of Congress need little provocation to file charges and to deliver an impeachment.

I’d be inclined to say the selection would be difficult to make. Then I read this in the Politico piece:

“Ironically, the presumptive nominee’s own toxicity is making the job of finding a vice presidential nominee that much easier, because the short list is so short.”

Lawless? Unconstitutional? Why no impeachment?

impeach

The Republican field of candidates — even when it comprised 17 members — has been using some highly charged language to describe the twice-elected administration of President Barack Obama.

They call his actions “lawless.” They say his executive orders are “unconstitutional.”

Thus, they are accusing the president of two things: of breaking the law and of failing to uphold the oath he took twice when he was sworn in by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

That makes me ask out loud, right here: Why haven’t the Republicans in the House of Representatives impeached the president?

If you really and truly think he’s broken the law or signed unconstitutional executive orders, then you have political recourse. Isn’t that correct?

It’s impeachment.

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached over the course of the nation’s history.

President Andrew Johnson fired his secretary of war without notifying the Senate and got impeached; he came within a single vote of conviction during a Senate trial. President Bill Clinton got impeached for lying to a grand jury about a tawdry relationship he had with a White House intern; the Senate acquitted him on three counts. A third president, Richard Nixon came within a whisker of being impeached because he blocked an investigation into the Watergate scandal; the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment, but the president quit his office.

These days, candidates for president keep tossing out verbiage that would suggest — if you are to believe it — that the current president has committed a whole array of impeachable offenses. Indeed, when you accuse a president of doing something “unconstitutional,” that by itself implies malfeasance.

Me? I don’t believe it.

I get that it’s campaign rhetoric. Therefore, perhaps they don’t really mean what they’re saying out there — on the stump or on those debate stages.

So, how about saying what you mean, fellas?

Is Bill Clinton on the ’16 ballot?

hillary clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton says Donald Trump reveals a sexist attitude toward women.

Trump responds by saying that Clinton’s husband, the 42nd president of the United States, has demonstrated an equally horrible attitude toward women.

So …

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump might be facing each other in the 2016 general election, which makes Trump’s view of women relevant.

Trump’s retort about Bill Clinton? Well, is that relevant? It would be if the former president was on the ballot. He’s not.

And that begs the question. Why is Trump bringing up the former president’s well-chronicled, heavily reported, much-discussed and debated inappropriate relationship with that young White House intern?

In my view, it’s an attempt at political diversion from the issue at hand, which is whether the current leading Republican presidential candidate really holds sexist views.

I am fully aware of former President Clinton’s history. Yes, I also know of the allegations of other extramarital relationships.

However, the man ain’t on the ballot.

His wife wants to be the next president.

Furthermore, his wife has raised the issue of a potential opponent’s fitness for the job they both want.

 

Sex takes center stage in Hastert drama

Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News — no fan of conservatives, to be sure — has identified, I think, the reason that sex has become the No. 1 media issue in the Dennis Hastert controversy/scandal.

Hastert, the former speaker of the U.S. House, has been indicted on a felony charge of making illegal hush money payments to someone.

It’s the reason for the hush money that’s become the focus here, not the charges spelled out in the indictment, according to Carlson.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-04/hastert-joins-crowded-ranks-of-fallen-moralists

Hastert allegedly sexually abused at least one young man when he was a teacher and coach in Yorkville, Ill. There could be more, the late victim’s sister alleges.

Why the keen interest?

It’s the context of how Hastert became speaker of the House.

He succeeded a serial adulterer, Newt Gingrich, who had to quit his position after admitting to an affair with a staffer — all while he was ranting, raving and railing against President Clinton’s indiscretions with a White House intern.

Then came Bob Livingston, another Republican from Louisiana. Livingston was supposed to succeed Gingrich as speaker. Oops! He, too, fooled around with women other than his wife. Multiple times. One of his paramours was a lobbyist. He was out.

The House then looked for a Boy Scout, a man whose reputation was beyond reproach. Poof! There was Hastert. Hey, he’s as clean as they get.

Except that he wasn’t.

Hastert didn’t make a big show of his reputedly upstanding past. He didn’t prance around proclaiming himself to be without sin. He allowed others to say it.

Carlson, though, does say that Hastert proved to be as duplicitous about morality as Gingrich and others in Congress: (H)e followed in the hypocritical footsteps of his predecessors, devoting much energy to shaming others about their sexual behavior. He advanced the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act through the House and proposed a constitutional amendment to annul same-sex unions in states that allowed them.”

Therein, throughout all of this, likely lies the reason for the fixation on the sex and not the money.

 

Hastert scandal drips with irony

If you think for a moment about the scandal involving former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, you come away scratching your head at the incredible irony.

A grand jury has indicted Hastert on charges that he spent money illegally to keep someone quiet about an alleged sexual encounter between Hastert and the then-student at the high school where Hastert was a teacher and a coach.

That part of it is weird enough.

But consider the context of the time he was selected to become speaker of the House of Representatives.

* The House had impeached President Clinton for lying to a federal grand jury about an extramarital dalliance he was having with a White House intern.

* The then-speaker, Newt Gingrich, who railed incessantly against the president for his moral failings, resigned from public office after it was revealed that he, too, was fooling around with a woman who wasn’t his wife.

* Up stepped Rep. Bob Livingston, who was set to become speaker. But oops! He dropped the effort because he also was involved in an extramarital affair.

Man, sex was in the air.

Then came the Boy Scout, Denny Hastert. He was chosen to become speaker — and the first person, after the vice president, in line of succession to the presidency of the United States of America.

I guess they didn’t vet him at all, let alone thoroughly.

Thus, the irony.

Fibs = lies? Sometimes

Someone asked me the other day if I could explain the difference between a “fib” and a “lie.”

My quick answer to him was that I “like the word ‘fib’ better.”

“Fib” has a less-damaging ring to it than “lie.”

I’ve given some further thought to the question, which actually is a pretty good one.

Here’s my more thoughtful answer: A fib is meant to describe a false statement that doesn’t carry as much consequence as a lie.

I used the term “fib” to describe, in this latest instance, what NBC reporter/news anchor Brian Williams had said about being shot down in Iraq. He fibbed about it. He wasn’t shot down. He was riding in a helicopter that accompanied the ship that actually was shot down.

Why is that a “fib” and not a “lie”? Because all it means is that one man’s career is likely ruined. The rest of us will carry on.

What, then, constitutes a lie?

Let’s try this one: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” That came from President Bill Clinton as he wagged his finger at the American public and told a lie about what he did with the White House intern. All by itself, that shouldn’t constitute a lie. Except that the result of that untrue statement — which he also made to a federal grand jury — resulted in his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives.

I suppose I could go on with more actual lies, such as when the Bush administration kept telling us about Saddam Hussein’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 attacks. We all know where those lies led us.

It’s one thing to fib about a personal experience and another thing to lie when it involves the future of the country.

Awww, what the heck. I still like the sound of the word “fib” better.

 

Hit the road, Gov. Kitzhaber

It’s looking like lights out for Oregon’s embattled governor.

John Kitzhaber is now getting the word from top state Democrats — his own partisans — that it’s time for him to go. A growing ethics scandal involving his fiancĂ©e, Cylvia Hayes, is now threatening to overwhelm his ability to govern his state — my home state.

It’s not looking good for the governor. He can’t possibly hang on.

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-governor-planned-quit-changed-mind-074856606.html

His fiancĂ©e has been implicated in a scheme in which she funneled state business to her lobbying firm, allegedly using her connections as the state’s de facto first lady to fatten her wallet/purse.

As for Kitzhaber’s role in this, well, he is the governor and his fiancĂ©e allegedly was acting as the state’s agent.

It’s bad, man. Real bad.

As for state Democrats telling the governor it’s time for him to quit, this has a Watergate-ish ring to it.

Flash back to 1974. President Richard Nixon was in deep doo-doo over the Watergate scandal. It was revealed that he had told the FBI to back off its investigation of whether the president’s re-election committee was complicit in the break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate office complex.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee then approved articles of impeachment against the president.

It was then that none other than Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater led a GOP delegation to the White House to inform the Republican president that he was toast, that he couldn’t be acquitted in a Senate trial. “You have to quit, Mr. President,” Goldwater said.

Nixon did resign a few days later.

History is sounding as if it’s repeating itself in the Oregon State Capitol Building.

You have to quit, Gov. Kitzhaber.

 

Thanks, Sen. Sessions, for taking impeachment away

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says the Senate won’t impeach President Obama over his use of executive authority.

That’s awfully big of the senator.

Except for one thing: Impeachment doesn’t originate in the Senate.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-senator-doesnt-plan-to-impeach-obama/ar-BBf7jQk

Impeachment begins in the House of Representatives. If the loons in the House have their way, the Senate gets to put the president on trial for whatever charges the House decides to bring against the president.

The Huffington Post reported Sessions’s remarks this way: “No, we’re not going to impeach President Obama. Or have a move to impeach,’ Sessions said at a Heritage Foundation event and then added, ‘The president has certain powers and we truly believe — and I think it’s accurate to say that he abused those powers.'”

Clear as mud, yes?

Actually, the president didn’t “abuse” his power as chief executive of the federal government. He acted within his constitutional authority. He merely riled his Republican “friends” to the point of apoplexy — which isn’t all that surprising, given the political climate that hovers over the nation’s capital.

I hope the idiotic fringe element of the House of Reps — along with their allies in the conservative mainstream media — takes Sessions’s declaration seriously and ends this nonsensical talk about impeachment. The new majority in both houses of Congress needs to demonstrate an ability to govern.

Remember?

 

GOP adults start to tamp down 'I-word' talk

Yes, the Republican Party has some actual grownups in its midst.

Some of them are beginning to speak up against the rough talk of the kids within the party about impeaching President Obama if — and when — he issues that executive order on immigration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/republicans-immigration-impeachment-113027.html?hp=c1_3

Frankly, I don’t quite know how to respond to that tamping down of a possible rebellion.

The president is expected Thursday to issue an order that delays deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants. Congressional GOP leaders have threatened all kinds of mayhem if/when he goes through with it. Some of those threats include impeachment — which is about as stupid an idea as anything I’ve heard in years.

One of the grownups, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said this: “Impeachment and shutting the entire government down takes the focus away from him to us, There are some people in the conferences that will have their 15 minutes of fame over this. But the rest of us want a Republican Party that can compete across the board in 2016.”

Another of them, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, said this: “Nobody’s talking about the ‘I’ word like the White House and others. They would love for us to take the bait. We’re not going to take the bait.”

Actually, I should point out that some of the young Turks within the GOP caucus have said it, too, along with their friends in the conservative mainstream media, such as columnist/Fox News talking head Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

This is nonsense, but it does give Democrats and other friends of President Obama some ammo to shoot back at the GOP chuckleheads.

Therein lies the source of my mixed feelings.