The move toward impeachment seems odd since we only have about a year before the next election. Even if the House were to vote articles of impeachment, Mitch McConnell could give them the “Merrick Garland” treatment, and say the voters should decide. However, he is already on record as saying if the House votes to impeach, the Senate will have “no choice” but to move immediately to a trial, according to Fox.
Nobody reasonably thinks the Republican Senate would throw Trump under the bus, even if it meant elevating Mike Pence, with whom they are more comfortable, to the Oval Office. In fact, many remember that the public soon tired of the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, and in an almost unprecedented move, gave Clinton more seats in the House in off-year 1998. They feel that impeachment is political suicide for the party that uses it.
It would not be a mistake if the Senate were to go along with the House, but that would require Republicans to turn on Trump—who has between 70 and 90% GOP support, depending on the poll you read. So the question might be, is the conservative Washington Examiner turning on Trump—or trying to “sucker” Dems into a big mistake?
The headline is “Trump’s Corruption is Obvious,” and features the cartoon at the top of our article. It notes that even respected conservative publications, such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review, are criticizing the defenses of Trump.
With so many ludicrously conflicting conspiracy theories being spread by all sides in the Trump-Ukraine controversy, we should at least be able to agree that the Wall Street Journal news section is a generally neutral, careful, fair-minded source. It doesn’t have the conservative, increasingly Trump-apologist bent of the paper’s editorial page. It doesn’t have the crusading liberal reputation of the New York Times. The Journal is generally sober, reliable, and trustworthy. . .
Reasonable conservatives and respected newsmen are finally making their voices heard. National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, friendly enough to some of Trump’s views that Trump seriously considered appointing him to the Federal Reserve Board, dispassionately analyzed the Ukraine case for Bloomberg and carefully picked apart the “flawed arguments in defense of Trump.” He wrote that it takes “willful naiveté” to deny that Trump was pushing a quid pro quo.
The article also quotes “Conservative policy wonk Yuval Levin” calling Trump’s mind an “incoherent jumble,” and that his behavior seems “corrupt on its face.” Meanwhile, “Conservative legal favorite Paul Rosenzweig,” says, “Instead of being able to say ‘No collusion,’ he now has to say, ‘Yes collusion. Why does it matter?’
Lately, Trump has been dumping on Fox, and the feeling is apparently mutual, as Chris Wallace is incredulous on Fox News.
Fox News’ host Chris Wallace called the “spinning” being done by supporters of President Trump “astonishing” and “deeply misleading” following the release of the whistleblower complaint.
However, the Associated Press has a commentary about the fact that Republicans will not stand up to Trump as long as they think there is something to be gained from having him in office.
The thing to remember about Richard Nixon’s situation, as well as Bill Clintons’s, is that it was the attempt to cover up their actions that actually brought them down—not the “Third Rate Burglary,” or “the dalliance among consenting adults.” And that’s what The American Conservative worries about, in a story headlined, “Trump IS the Deep State.”
There is no doubt now that this must be investigated thoroughly by Congress. . .
Wouldn’t it be a terrible abuse of its power if the Deep State tried to strongarm a foreign head of state to use his power to interfere in the US presidential election to favor a particular candidate? Let’s say agents of the Deep State attempted to extort a favor from a foreign leader, tying much-needed US assistance to his willingness to launch an investigation into Donald Trump’s business dealings. Wouldn’t we all know how dirty that was? Wouldn’t Republicans be baying at the moon for justice?
Of course. Don’t lie to yourself. Of course we on the Right would be doing that — and we would be correct to! . . .
If conservatives are willing to overlook this behavior in Trump, and, if it is substantiated, not deliver any serious consequences for it, then we really will have unleashed him in a second term to be as reckless as he wants to be. What will he do with that power?
Trump likes nothing better than fighting. And he will go to any lengths to win, regardless of consequences. He is now saying there will be civil war if he is removed from office, and that was too much for one Republican congressman.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a former Air Force pilot who represents an Illinois district Trump won in 2016, tweeted Sunday, “I have visited nations ravaged by civil war. … I have never imagined such a quote to be repeated by a President. This is beyond repugnant.”
But one Democrat went on Fox to speak against impeachment.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., said Wednesday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight”. . .voters are only a year away from being able to have their say again on Trump, which is a better remedy than an impeachment proceeding.
“Why don’t we let the people do the impeachment through the electoral process the way we usually do?”
The risk is real. The National Review says it could cost Dems the House next year. But FiveThirtyEight argues that impeachment would hurt Dems in the short term, but that polls that show impeachment is unpopular are changing, and the more people know, the more likely they will agree with the action.
However, Vice says, “Democrats Should Stay the Hell Away from Impeaching Trump.”
In all likelihood, an impeachment hearing would cause the right to rise up in unified opposition and accuse the Democrats of overreaching and dividing the country and lying and probably even treason. Debates over whether Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”—the constitutional requirement for impeachment—will dominate cable news and social media. Trump will tweet non-stop. Congress, which will already likely be deadlocked because of divided party rule, will grind to an even more dramatic halt. If you think that the media is too obsessed by Trump now, impeachment will have you longing to escape to an island so remote wi-fi can’t reach you. And in all likelihood, all of that sound and fury won’t come to anything when the Senate votes against taking Trump out—handing the president a victory that will probably come around the time of his 2020 reelection campaign.
The bottom line is that the next few months will be pretty much unbearable for all of us, and it’s not at all clear where all of this will lead.
