Yesterday, the House Republican crack impeachment team marched their Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate for the trial of Department of Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas.
This is one of the stupidest things the MAGOP can do, and it’s my understanding that many Senate Republicans wish this would go away so that they don’t have to vote on it. If they vote “Yes,” they look like idiots, but if they vote “No,” they risk offending the MAGOP base. It’s stupid for many reasons. Impeachment is required to charge someone for high crimes and misdemeanors. None were presented in the investigation of Secretary Mayorkas. Yes, MAGOPs on the committee insist there are, but it’s all just over disagreement on policy decisions. As one analyst said, if the standard of impeachment was policy disagreement, not only would you get few people wanting to work in government, but nothing would get done. Another reason, as a codicil of sorts to this, is that this is the first impeachment of a cabinet secretary in 150 years. And that impeachment was over bribery and kick-backs. Not "We don't agree with the way you're doing your job." A further reason is that this is clearly a desperate effort by House MAGOPs upset that they haven’t been able to find anything to impeach President Biden over, so this is the next best thing they can come up with to placate the disappointed extreme right members to “make good.” Also, the public has shown it hates impeachments of a president over no reason – Bill Clinton’s approval skyrocketed after his impeachment. And while this now is not a presidential impeachment, it’s one of his cabinet members, and an impeachment of the president by proxy. Additionally, it’s stupid because there is zero chance of conviction in the Senate. It needs a two-thirds vote for that – and Democrats control the Senate, so it won’t even get a majority. And may even get a lot of Republican votes. Of course, “having no chance” is not a reason not to impeach someone – though when you have no actual high crimes and misdemeanors to charge Secretary Mayorkas with, and the public hates meaningless impeachment, it makes “zero chance” a huge red flag warning. And even more, an impeachment of the Department of Homeland Security head for not doing his job the way the MAGOP want only serves to shine a bright light on the reality that as loud as the House Republicans cry out about border security, they are who blocked a bipartisan border bill from passing. But most of all, the most stupid thing about this upcoming Senate trial is that the House has made Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), one of the more deeply ignorant members of the House who seems bewildered by facts, reality and Jewish Space Lasers, one of the impeachment managers. In fact, this is all so stupid – and problematic for the Republican Party – that word is both Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate are working to see if they can find a way to make this go away as quickly as possible. Perhaps table it, perhaps set up rules so that it can be handled speedily. While that’s understandable, and probably for the best, there’s a side of me that would like to see it go to trial. Though with specific reasons on how that would work. For instance, one hope is that Democrats let House Republicans have all the time they need, especially so that Marjorie Taylor Greene can speak and make a whiney, annoying fool of herself as much as possible – and then when it’s the Democrats’ turn, they don’t even put up a defense and just call the vote, defeat it, and move on. I think it would be a pointed embarrassment to MAGOPs. Somewhat similarly, another tactic I’d like to see is that whenever it’s the Democratic time to speak, their defense team gets up and says, “This is really stupid” and then sits down. And then let Republicans and Ms. Greene yammer on. A codicil to this gambit is to let someone like Jamie Raskin speak each time Democrats have the floor(though it could be split up among other eloquent speakers like Dan Goldman, Jasmine Crockett, and Eric Swalwell), and rather than defend Secretary Mayorkas, they instead use their time to lambast all the transgressions of Republicans that the MAGOP are letting slide without investigation. Above all, the last thing I want to see Democrats do is use their time to actually defend Secretary Mayorkas, because that would give credibility to the trial. And there is no credibility to the trial. But mainly, the top reason that a side of me sort of wants to see the Senate trial go forth is because I want to see Marjorie Taylor Greene -- the Georgia Impeach -- speak as much as possible and humiliate herself and the party. And I feel confident that would happen, because I’ve seen her speak a lot on really simple things, and she has not yet failed to make a fool of herself. And an impeachment is not a “really simple thing,” but substantive. And she would taint the full party by association. Yes, I’m sure there are many on the extreme right to whom she is “heroic.” But that doesn’t make her heroic, and it doesn’t mean the other 80% of Americans see her that way. She has not only proven her incompetence time after time, but this impeachment is not only a substantive matter, as I said – but there is no material or evidence for even a scholar to make a case with. So, yes, that side of my does sort of hope she gets a chance to demean herself on such a prominent stage. Though above all, I’d be fine if this impeachment trial withers and disappears by a joint effort of Senate Democrats and Republicans alike. Because it’s stupid.
0 Comments
If you didn't see Jon Stewart's day hosting The Daily Show, here's the opening segment. He covers Iran, Israel and Trump's election interference trial -- along with a debate of which of Trump's claims that he's more like Nelson Mandela or Jesus is the most accurate. It's thoughtful, pointed and very funny. One of the great myths being presented by Trump and perpetuated by the media is that all of these trials against Trump are unprecedented. Now, yes, of course, if he (and they) are referring to a former president being indicted, absolutely. That’s unprecedented – although, of course, the reason no former president has ever been indicted isn’t because they were former presidents, but because none of them committed felonies or federal crimes or raped anyone. But to think that it’s unprecedented for former president Trump to be indicted, sued, taken to court – that’s closing your eyes to history and reality. Trump has even bragged about how often he’s been sued, and how he always settles his cases out of court. I just did a quick search, using the search phrase, “How many times has Trump been sued in his life,” and the first response said – “From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes.” In a little over 40 years, he was sued over 4,000 times. To put that in perspective, it means he averages being sued 100 times every year – or twice a week! Every week. For 40 years. (The first, or most notable lawsuit, was in 1973, he and his father were sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination – for not renting apartments in one of his buildings to black people. Quite an auspicious beginning.) In fact, there’s even a book about this all – though it gives the number slightly lower. Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits by James D. Ziirin. From the book’s description – “Unlike all previous presidents who held distinguished positions in government or the military prior to entering office, Donald Trump's political worldview was molded in the courtroom. He sees law not as a system of rules to be obeyed and ethical ideals to be respected, but as a weapon to be used against his adversaries or a hurdle to be sidestepped when it gets in his way. He has weaponized the justice system throughout his career, and he has continued to use these backhanded tactics as Plaintiff in Chief. “In this book, distinguished New York attorney James D. Zirin presents Trump's lengthy litigation history as an indication of his character and morality, and his findings are chilling: if you partner with Donald Trump, you will probably wind up litigating with him. If you enroll in his university or buy one of his apartments, chances are you will want your money back. If you are a woman and you get too close to him, you may need to watch your back. If you try to sue him, he's likely to defame you. If you make a deal with him, you had better get it in writing. If you are a lawyer, an architect, or even his dentist, you'd better get paid up front. If you venture an opinion that publicly criticizes him, you may be sued for libel.” So, to think it is unprecedented for Trump to be in a courtroom, and that only the federal government or Biden Administration would go after Trump as a political maneuver is to be willfully ignorant of Trump’s life. Far from being “unprecedented,” the only thing that would be actually unprecedented – to the point of earth-shattering shocking – is if Trump wasn’t being sued and in a courtroom. Trump is in courtrooms more often than many other people shower. Or go to church. Seriously. Twice a week, every week, for 40 years. You could almost argue that court is Trump’s place of worship. In fact, to only be involved in a mere seven lawsuits since leaving office three years ago – his four indictments plus the two suits by E. Jean Carroll where he was found liable for defamation and the equivalence of rape, as well as the Trump Company fraud trial, where he was found guilty and fined $455 million – is significantly below average for him. By comparison, for Trump this is the equivalent of being on good behavior. (That’s seven trials at the moment, because there are also threats of a lawsuit by his partners in their joint social media company, and a lawsuit making its way through the court system filed by Eric Swalwell.) Let's put it this way: anyone who is surprised to see Trump sued and in court after he got out of office to live the rest of his life has an incredibly low bar for surprise. In fact, to think it's shocking Trump would actually be in court just because he left the White House and that this is all just political, ignores reality. So, no, it is not unprecedented that Trump is on trial now. Or has three other indictments facing him. Or was found liable for the equivalence of rape. Or was found guilty of fraud. That’s who Trump is. That's what Trump does. That's how Trump operates. Twice a week. Every week. For 40 years. Over 4,000 times. This may be among their least-known, most improbable, and yet still funny material. Probably in the late-1950s, as their comedy career was booming, Mike Nichols and Elaine May took on a major challenge – make funny Public Service Announcements on behalf of national CPA Associations to remind people to file their taxes on time. In honor of Tax Day today, here are three of them. Hey, they took on death, in their classic and hilarious $65 funeral sketch here, so why not taxes?! (NOTE: Despite how the screen shot looks below, if you click on it, the video should run properly.) We're going to turn this morning's effort over to Jimmy Kimmel for 90 seconds. This video isn't current, but something he did five years ago. It's a comparison to how President Obama and Trump announced somewhat similar breaking-news items. It is very funny, but only if you can put aside that he could be elected president again. And it's substantive, as well, even though five years old, because there's much here that relates to Trump today -- but only tangentially. I say "tangentially" because while "Trump today" has the same level of ego and lack of understanding as here in 2019, he is also far more rambling and experts say showing more signs of early dementia. From the archives. We have a recent repeat this week, with contestant is Claire Nalven from Waltham, Massachusetts. This is a very florid piece, and the song is extremely well-hidden – and to my shock, I got it. And while I came close on the composer style, it was two people I find similar, and I guessed the wrong one.
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|