Tag Archives: impeachment

Nancy, Beware Vicious!

Image result for pelosi vs trump

Dear Rep. Pelosi,

Longtime caller, first-time listener.

First off, as Class President of the high school musical we call Congress, congratulation on a stellar freshman crew. The representatives that won elections in 2018 turned the House Democrat, flipped red states blue and were part of more than 400 bills that passed the House, from climate change to gun control, according to the D.C. publication The Hill. (That the Senate did nothing with most of them is not your cross to bear.) They also coalesced to produce the first Impeachment Inquiry of a first-term president. Bravo!

Now please call them off.

On Wednesday, the House will vote on two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. This is hardly a fitting gift for the holiday season, I understand. And I also realize the impossible position you’re in: You are the parent of a petulant toddler who has disobeyed house rules — in front of dinner guests, no less! To not take action would be to tacitly endorse the little shit’s behavior.

We could see you at the dinner table, trying to keep it together. Through pussy-grabbing, porn mistresses and charity scams, you were as patient as humanly possible. And when you finally did announce the discipline — an Impeachment Inquiry — you were somehow both remarkably reserved and remorseful.

Now please use that skill to talk your underlings off the ledge. Here’s why:

Impeachment will fail. Already, the narrative is forming: a unified GOP vs. divided Dems. Two House Democrats — Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Collin Peterson of Minnesota — opposed the resolution formalizing the impeachment inquiry and are expected to vote no on the articles of impeachment. No Republican has strayed, nor will they, despite MSNBC’s quaint hopes. Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell have already announced they do not plan to call witnesses during the impeachment and estimate it will take 7-10 days. Just in time, the GOP shall trumpet, for Christmas. At what cost asterisk?Image result for Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Collin Peterson of Minnesota

The Democratic winning streak will snap. Around next November. When Trump emerges victorious from the trial, he and his loyal sidekicks will ride the same wave that boosted Bill Clinton’s approval rating after his affair. When it come to jury trials, America loves stories of white men evading justice. Perhaps that’s because it’s America’s story, too. Image result for clinton lewinsky

Justice can still be meted. Trump’s most aggravating personal trait is that he’s never paid for a thing — physically,emotionally, financially — in his life. We used to think Reagan was Teflon. Donnie makes him look like fucking Velcro. But with a little patience, karma may finally pay a visit to Pennsylvania Avenue, which leads us to the good news…Image result for reagan trump teflon

There’s an artful way out of this loss. It’s Trumpian, so I know you’re going to say no. But just hear me out.

Come Wednesday, announce that you are not going to impeach the president. Instead, take back the Xmas present Republicans are trying to make of the impeachment and make it your own. Go vengeful Santa on their asses.

Consider how Americans would take the following press conference, made in the same solemn tone as the inquiry:

“To all Americans, I’d like to announce that the House of Representatives has decided not to move forward on the impeachment of Donald Trump.

“My colleagues and I feel that bringing impeachment charges before a Republican-run Senate would be tantamount to bringing a case before a rigged jury that works at the behest of a judge in on the fix. Despite our 658-page House Judiciary Committee report, which detailed the president’s abuse of power and obstruction of justice, it’s clear that our counterparts across the aisle have divorced themselves from fact as much as the president.

“During the inquiry, we brought a parade of credible, expert witnesses — Bill Taylor, a former Ukraine ambassador; Fiona Hill, former director for Europe and Russia at the NSC; Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman; even EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a Trump appointee. All testified to abhorrent behavior from the top office of the United States: Do us political favors for military protection. Yet not one Republican believes this action to be unacceptable.Image result for lt. col. vindman testifies

“So, instead, we make our case to you, the American people. You will have the opportunity to be the jury AND judge on November 3. If you found Mr. Trump’s behavior as unacceptable as we did, you can render your verdict at the ballot box.”

“This wasn’t an easy decision, and there was much debate in the House about the appropriate measures to take. Ultimately, we decided to follow the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution. Just as our government is designed to be by, for and of the people, so too should its most important legal decision.

“The American people have been through enough. They have seen the evidence. They have heard the testimony. They, like we, want to move past the endless bickering and get back to work on getting this country back on track.

“Thank you. And happy holidays.”

 

The I.I. Word

Image result for mueller press conference

There were three epiphanies in last week’s testimony from Special Counsel Robert Mueller regarding his investigation of the president:

  1.  Journalistically is the clearest way to write, hands down.
  2.  Robert Mueller is not a good writer.
  3. Congress has a workaround the “I word,” as Donnie has begun calling it, and it’s pretty simple.

First, the hearing validated journalistic writing. Take your legal, medical, academic and technical literacy jargon and stick ’em in a book somewhere to sell em to your students. Why do you think Mueller’s press conference grabbed so much more attention than his two years’ of research? Because he had to speak succinctly, plainly and clearly, which is isn’t the first rule of journalism; it’s the only rule. There’s a reason America’s greatest writers — Hemingway, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Salinger, Vonnegut — employed  the style.Image result for Hemingway, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Salinger, Vonnegut

Second, Bob could have really used a good copy editor. There’s no arguing the investigation was an opus of thorough legalese: 2 years’ investigation, three dozen indictments, hundreds of witnesses and not one leak. It’s 448 pages of legal prowess. Yet what’s the one line you remember from the entire affair? “If there was evidence exonerating the president, we would have said so.” Again, it came from the press conference. But more importantly, why not write that in the report, first page? In fact, go a step further: The first page of the tome should have been a journalistically-penned synopsis, summarizing the Russian hacking, the 5 specific incidents of obstruction and that Trump was not out of the woods; far from it.

Mueller also could have used a memorable conclusion, essential in solid writing. Here’s where a journalistic final page would have come in handy, when Mueller could explain that he’s not prosecuting Trump, but simply gathering facts for a grand jury. And Congress is the grand jury. Write that! Again, a bulleted, numbered list parenthetically enclosing the gist of the case would have dictated the narrative, instead of relying on two impromptu press conferences to clarify findings that Trump’s lackeys intentionally muddied.Image result for bob barr funny

And finally, the talk that’s dominated the post-Mueller conference has been impeachment. Rightfully, it’s a sticky wicket for the 237 presidential candidates. Trump seems to want one (it would provide his base the red meat of a new “witch hunt”), and Pelosi (who saw Bill Clinton’s post-impeachment surge in popularity polls) knows the gesture would die in the Senate before it passed even one of the flaps of Mitch McConnell’s neck.Image result for pelosi

But there’s a clear third option: impeachment inquiry. In that outdated relic we call the U.S. Constitution is a little loophole that allows the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment inquiry against any president. According to federal law, the House Judiciary Committee first can hold hearings to investigate whether impeachment is warranted. This can include calling witnesses, collecting documents and debating whether the behavior in question constitutes an impeachable offense, which the Constitution only ambiguously defines. The inquiry would culminate in the panel either voting to recommend that the full House approve one or more articles of impeachment, or deciding not to make any such recommendation. It’s been launched twice, against Nixon and Clinton, and is precisely the tool to use on Trump.

What a gift horse Dems seemed determined to look in the mouth. This middle ground would allow Dems on the fence to stay perched there while aggressive Dems subpoena the shit out of the president and his cronies. And there’s no timetable for when the Judiciary Committee has to take a vote. So take your time. If the GOP can string along Merrick Garland for a year without a Supreme Court vote, surely the Dems can take two on a matter exponentially more important. Strategically, it could be politically astute: You couldn’t buy as much negative advertisement as you’d get from seeing Trump’s slackwits sweat it out in a courtroom. PLUS: You get to dismiss any Trump assertion by simply pointing out ‘This from the guy under investigation for impeachment,” a tag that could stick well into 2020 Sure it’s vague. But it’s accurate.

So why the hesitancy to move for inquiry? In short, guts. It died with John McCain.  But I find these questions best addressed in reverse order. If this doesn’t qualify for an impeachment inquiry, what would? Buck up, wingers. You may have expected Mueller to trot Trump out of the White House in handcuffs. But he’s done something nearly as effective: He’s deputized you.