Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Friday, May 11, 2018

Thoughts on Impeachment

by digby

My Salon column today on the "I" word:

In Thursday night in Indiana, President Trump made another one of his "jokes" about extending his presidency beyond eight years. He was talking about how he had wanted to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and was told that might take 10 years.

It's not the first time he has alluded to staying in office past 2024. (It goes without saying, in his world, that he will be re-elected in 2020.) Speaking before a group of GOP donors last March he talked about Chinese president Xi Jinping saying, "He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll give that a shot someday."

It's always hard to know how to take Trump's "jokes," since he really doesn't have a sense of humor beyond making fun of others. So these little quips feel freighted with more meaning than your average throwaway line. He's not exactly serious, but it reveals his mindset. He may understand that "extending the presidency" isn't in the cards but it's pretty obvious he wishes it were.

Perhaps it's the usual Trumpish upside-down logic at play, since he and the Republicans are actually running on the idea that he may not even finish out his first term if they don't hold their congressional majority in November. He didn't mention that in Indiana, but he's made it clear in earlier rallies:

Last month Jonathan Martin of the New York Times reported that Trump's advisers had finally gotten through to him that the House was in serious jeopardy of falling into Democratic hands in the midterms -- and that impeachment was on the table, which would naturally galvanize him since the only thing that matters to Trump is Trump. But the strategy is really about motivating Republicans who have been showing less enthusiasm for the election throughout the first year of the administration.

The thinking goes that if Trump is threatened the party will rally to save him, because he's much more popular than the GOP leaders in Congress. Midterm elections are always seen as a referendum on the president these days anyway, so Republicans are counting on their rabid Trump base to come out and support their man.

This exhortation from NRA TV makes the point clearly:

Maybe that "extending the term" thing isn't so fanciful after all. And to think the NRA used to carry on about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of tyrants.

But the problem for the Republicans in November isn't the loyal Trump cavaliers who are ready to die for their king. If they want to win legitimately, they need to persuade reluctant Trump voters who held their noses in 2016 to contemplate two years of impeachment drama and then come out and vote for him all over again rather than go through all that.

The argument that we wouldn't want to distract the nation with an impeachment inquiry rings just a little hollow, however, amid the 24/7 reality show and tweet pageant we're already witnessing. Those reluctant Trump voters know that's not going to change as long as he's in office. If anything, the shift of focus to the Congress might seem like a welcome change of the channel.

NeverTrumper David Frum made an interesting observation in the Atlantic about this strategy, which sounds plausible to me:

To survive, President Trump needs more than Republican votes, more than a Republican hold on one chamber or the other. He needs active Republican complicity in his future efforts to deflect investigations, whatever they may pursue. As his legal situation deteriorates, some Republicans from marginal seats may be tempted to drift away, to let justice take its course — possibly even to say or do something if justice is obstructed. Trump needs all of them bolted down, and the surest way to bolt them down is to force all Congress members to commit themselves early and fully to his protection. 
Removal from office requires 67 votes in the Senate — and a broad consensus in the country that the president must go. It cannot effectively be carried out on a party-line basis, as Republicans painfully discovered during the Clinton presidency. By forcing Republicans to disavow impeachment now, Trump narrows the risks of defection later. It’s not just about the midterm results. It’s about press-ganging every last Republican, down to the most reluctant, aboard Trump’s voyage of the damned.
But what of the Democrats in all this? It's true that Rep. Maxine Waters of California, and a few others in the House, are calling for impeachment. That's not surprising. Recall that during the early stages of the Whitewater investigation, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., introduced a resolution directing the House Judiciary Committee "to undertake an inquiry into whether grounds exist to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, the President of the United States." That was months before the Lewinsky affair became public knowledge. But even when the Lewinsky story was all over the media, House Republicans were reluctant to back Barr's resolution. The Washington Post reported in February of 1998:

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) said "I don't think we have the kind of evidentiary basis to be talking about impeachment at this time. I don't really think you should, when it's such an important matter and it's frankly still in the abstract."
"An impeachment proceeding must be bipartisan in the final analysis. ... It can't be seen as a purely political, vindictive, partisan exercise," says House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who opposes Barr's resolution as "premature" until independent counsel Kenneth Starr comes up with hard evidence. "There's no need to leap before we know where we're jumping."

A few months later, Hyde was running the impeachment investigation.

The Democratic leadership is following the same playbook with Trump. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., published an op-ed in the New York Times last weekend that made almost exactly the same points. By all accounts, very few Democratic candidates in the midterms are featuring impeachment as a prominent campaign issue. So far, the only people bringing up the "I word" are Republicans.

Nonetheless, Democrats would be foolish to try to pretend that Donald Trump's metastasizing scandals don't exist at all. They have voters too -- who are motivated and energized in opposition to everything Trump is and everything he does. They've taken to the streets in massive numbers. They've organized grassroots groups all over the country. They've run for office. They've and created and enlarged mass movements around progressive issues. Indeed, they've done everything citizens can do short of revolution to oppose this president. The Democrats will have to respond in some way to this demand that Trump be opposed rather than appeased.

But they don't need to run on impeachment. They can simply address the fact that the Republican leadership in Congress is refusing to exercise its constitutional duty of oversight, and promise that they will hold public hearings and get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. In other words, they should promise to do the job they are signing up for -- and promise to let the chips fall where they may.