The Case for Patience

In August of 1867, President Andrew Johnson fired Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson was a terrible President and had been in conflict with Congress for a long time. They began working on impeachment almost immediately but it dragged out until, nine months later, the Senate acquitted him.

On June 17, 1972, four men were discovered breaking into the DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. It took over two years for the scandal to grind through an opposing Congress until Nixon resigned. Had he fought impeachment, it might have dragged out even longer.

From November of 1995 to March 1997, Monica Lewinsky had a series of encounters will Bill Clinton. The coverup began later that year and the scandal broke on January 17 of 1998. It took almost a year for the scandal to develop until a hostile Congress voted on impeachment that December. And this was really the culmination of years of scandal with the Clintons.

Why do I bring these up? To remind everyone that we have only turned to impeachment three times in our nation’s history. In each case, the President faced a hostile Congress. In each case, there was specific law-breaking. In each case, it was the culmination of years of conflict. And in each case it took months or years to resolve.

So why are all of the sudden in such a rush to impeach Donald Trump?

Look, Donald Trump has had a poor four months. His Muslim ban was rolled out with all the skill of the Marx brothers. His budget went nowhere. His healthcare imploded. He hired Mike Flynn — a man compromised by multiple foreign entanglements — and then fired him reluctantly. He fired the FBI director because he didn’t him poking around his Russia ties. He has serious conflict of interest and infuriating temperament problems. I’ll be second to few in my criticism of him.

But it is way too early be talking impeachment and way too early to be calling Congress — held by his party — “cowards” and “partisans” for not beginning impeachment proceedings immediately.

Let’s look at some facts here:

  • There is zero evidence, at this point, that Donald Trump directly collaborated with the Russians to win the election.
  • There is zero evidence that anyone in his campaign did. There are some indications that some of them had worked for Russia and one may have contacted the DNC hacker. But there’s no smoking gun yet. Not even on Michael Flynn.
  • Even if someone did work with the Russians, this is not “treason” in any legal sense. Treason is defined very narrowly in our laws to avoid it being used to go after political opponents. We’re not at war with Russia.
  • It is highly questionable whether Trump’s business interests violate the law. They’re slimy, sure. But corruption? No proof yet.
  • Firing the FBI director is not illegal nor is it obstruction of justice. Firing Sally Yates is not illegal nor is it obstruction of justice. Firing Preet Bharara is not illegal not is it obstruction of justice. Asking Comey to lay off Flynn is not illegal nor is it obstruction of justice. These things may be part of a pattern of behavior that could be said to constitute obstruction. You would introduce these as elements of a crime. But none of them are crimes in and of themselves.
  • (And while we’re on the subject, why the hell are the liberals making a hero of that overzealous Constitution-shredding prosecutor Bharara? He is no friend of theirs. His “resistance” to Donald Trump has consisted entirely of refusing a perfectly legal and routine request to resign because … he didn’t want to. Bharara is only in this for himself.
  • Trump’s executive orders are not illegal. In fact, the precedent for most of what he’s done was set by … Barack Obama.

Look, I’m not saying there will never be a case to impeach Donald Trump. I’m just saying that case does not exist yet and may not for years. People who are talking impeachment — or worse using the 25th Amendment — are way ahead of themselves. Hell, let’s be honest. Some of them were talking about impeachment the day he won the election.

Let’s all take a deep breath here. Donald Trump is President of the United States. I’m not fond of that fact but he is. Screaming impeachment every time he swats a fly is not going to get us anywhere. And frankly, it make the “resistance”, after all of four months, sound more insane than the worst Tea Partiers ever did. For four months, the courts, the Congress and the media have held Trump in check. Concentrate your efforts there. And when he does do something right, admit he’s done something right.

Post Scriptum

For the record, I think it’s likely that Donald Trump will not finish his first term. But I don’t think it will have anything to do with Russia and I don’t think he will be impeached. My opinion is that while Russia tried to influence the election, their contacts with the Trump campaign were limited at best. And Trump’s behavior does not cross me as someone trying to cover up a huge scandal. It crosses me as the behavior of a petty inexperienced man who is convinced the Russia thing is a bunch of garbage and wants to end it, not understanding the political ramifications. This is Trump’s inexperience showing — a smart man would let the Democrats gasbag themselves to death over it. But we’ll see what comes out of the investigation.

If Trump quits early it will be because he’s frustrated with the limit on the office and wants to do something else. I don’t think he ever really wanted to be President. And while I think he enjoys talking to crowds and sparring with the media, I don’t think he likes the slowly frustrating hamstrung grind of the office itself.

Post-post Scriptum

Note that with impeachment on the brain, a lot of Democrats are unveiling their, “actually Pence is worse” lines of BSery. The line of thought is that Pence is less personally obnoxious and could therefore get a lot more of his agenda through. Well, that and that Pence is such a religious maniac, he’s going to turn the country in the The Handmaid’s Tale.

In unveiling this argument, the Left is revealing that a huge fraction of their opposition to Trump is pure partisanship. You can’t make the argument that Trump is uniquely unsuited to the office and then claim that Pence (or Ryan) is worse. That’s just foolishness as well as an abuse of the English language.

The other argument is that they want Trump to be truly awful and, thus, destroy the Republican Party. Apart from the reality that truly awful candidates never wreck a party, this is putting politics ahead of country. Are you seriously hoping that Trump wrecks the country so that Democrats get to power? Is that really what this is all about?

Then don’t call yourself “the resistance”. You’re not resistance. You’re just wearing a different shade of uniform.

Comments are closed.

  1. Iconoclast

    But corruption? No proof yet.

    Well hell’s bells, that’s pretty much what I said a few days ago, but you responded by telling me I was drinking Trump kool-aid, FFS.

    I made a similar bullet-list of issues, just like you did. Only difference is that yours worked while mine didn’t. So my statements sort of ran together.

    F*ck all.

    Thumb up 1

  2. AlexInCT

    Look, I’m not saying there will never be a case to impeach Donald Trump. I’m just saying that case does not exist yet and may not for years. 

    And since this will never happens – as should be the case since the only problem with Trump really is that he is dismantling the left’s framework, and for that they despise him, and are desperate to stop him – anyone pining for this deserves the butthurt that follows.

    You lost an election. Telling us that you will not accept the results of a vote where the plebes have turned on the credentialed top men and will make the country ungovernable, has served to basically put us all on notice that these people can’t be compromised with. They need to be done away with.

    We need a nation of rules and laws, not of top men that think they know what’s best, and the laws should mot apply to the top men – especially the democrats – but are there for the deplorable people these top men look down on.

    Fuck your tantrum.

    Thumb up 0

  3. West Virginia Rebel

    Yes, most of it is sour grapes and so far the Democrats are not letting up in their insanity. If they keep it up they can forget about winning in 2020, whether it’s Trump or Acting President Pence.

    Trump’s problem is mainly his own sense of importance and ego. It always has been, and it does make you wonder why a guy like him would want to be President. So far, he seems to at least be trying to do the job, gaffes and goofs aside. All of his firings may indeed be legal, but at some point he should realize when they don’t look right, either due to timing or circumstances. There’s a find line between what’s legal and what’s inappropriate, and Trump has come awfully close to crossing it.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    But he never will, that’s safe to say.
    As for him at least trying to do the job – surely if you’re really trying, when it’s clear you’re so ignorant in every part of it, is to not play golf 21 times in your first 4 months (especially after having so heavily criticised the last guy for playing golf, when that guy wasn’t nearly as ignorant)? I’m sure there’s a ‘fine line’ on that too though, and while Obama certainly crossed it, Trump will never quite do so.

    Thumb up 0

  5. stogy

     is to not play golf 21 times in your first 4 months (especially after having so heavily criticised the last guy for playing golf, 

    Or his wife for not wearing a headscarf when doing the rounds in Saudi Arabia…

    Thumb up 2

  6. stogy

    I suspect that you and your fellow leftists are far more offended than the Saudis themselves are

    Not at all offended. I am very happy they didn’t wear headscarves. However, I am constantly amused by Trump’s complete hypocrisy and incompetence. New gems appear on an almost daily basis. Just compare what he said in the campaign to what he is saying on his travels. He’s like a joyous little leaf in a tornado of advisers opinions. I would hate to see it end before its time.

    But I am betting the GOP will pull the plug on the entertainment once it begins to look like they’re gonna lose both houses in the mid-terms.

    I’ll have to go back to Netflix then.

    Thumb up 2

  7. Iconoclast

    But I am betting the GOP will pull the plug on the entertainment once it begins to look like they’re gonna lose both houses in the mid-terms.

    Hmm, wasn’t Trump supposed to sink the GOP once he was nominated? I was led to believe his nomination would be catastrophic to all down-ballot GOP races nationwide, and that at least one house of Congress would go back to the Dems.

    Oh, and wasn’t Hillary destined to win the general election?

    Thumb up 2

  8. CM

    I can hear “LOCK HER UP, LOCK HER UP!” chanting in the background when I read that.

    It all depends on how long he can keep the con going. And he’s a vastly experienced conman.

    Thumb up 1

  9. stogy

    He promised great health coverage, and that everyone would be covered, and that it would cost less. Nothing in the health care bill does any of that – it just costs less for billionaires. Again, regardless of whether you agree with the policy or not, it is exactly not what he promised to do.

    How long do you think it will be before most of those who voted for him realise that they’ve been sold swamp land in er… Florida?

    Thumb up 2

  10. CM

    But we ARE talking about people were able to be so obviously conned to start with, and some of them will never believe it. A con-man finds ways of continuing the con as long as possible, and then has expertise in placing the blame on others, often having laid the groundwork to do so. Watch them lap it up.

    I think the negative consequences of Trump (to the GOP) might be longer-term:

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/17/poll-nearly-quarter-young-people-left-republican-party-over-past-year/22095930/

    Thumb up 1

  11. CM

    Also, remember, people like Iconoclast believe that until it actually happens it doesn’t matter if Trump makes moves to backtrack on absolutely every one of his campaign promises. Like not cutting Social Security for example, that would be a new one.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Iconoclast

    Also, remember, people like Iconoclast believe that until it actually happens it doesn’t matter if Trump makes moves to backtrack on absolutely every one of his campaign promises. 

    You’re right, because, aside from SCOTUS appointments, I never placed much stock in any of his promises, and he’s already come through on the one that mattered (SCOTUS).

    As I’ve said before, I would much rather have Trump fail to keep his campaign promises than to have Hillary succeed in keeping hers.

    But you still won’t get it.

    You may resume your circle jerk……

    Thumb up 0

  13. Iconoclast

    But we ARE talking about people were able to be so obviously conned to start with, and some of them will never believe it.

    Yeah, preach it, brother!

    Then again, there are people who knew damned well that anyone running for POTUS is a con artist to some degree, and Hillary was no different. So, conning aside, the real reason to vote for Trump was because he was Not Hillary. No “conning” required for that one.

    But again, you won’t get it.

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT

    Oh he got it. But he will never admit that he worships at the altar of a deluded quasi-religious movement that thrives on envy and duplicitous cunts that have become rich milking the productive to buy votes from the envious idiots that actually, despite the fact that all they produce is failure, death, and horror, think they are the only ones that know what’s best, and reality be damned.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Iconoclast

    Also, remember, people like Iconoclast believe that until it actually happens it doesn’t matter if Trump makes moves to backtrack on absolutely every one of his campaign promises.

    “Absolutely every one”????  I need only point to Gorsuch to refute that asinine claim.

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT

    Indeed, congrats on that. What a victory.

    In the fight against the tyranical psuedo-marxist global cabal’s march to rob us of our freedoms and money? Absolutely CM.

    Thumb up 0

  17. Iconoclast

    Indeed, congrats on that. What a victory.

    For the average American working stiff, it is indeed a victory, your pathetic sarcasm notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    For the average American working stiff, it is indeed a victory, your pathetic sarcasm notwithstanding.

    How so? The US still operates on Planet Earth. Trump’s ongoing isolationism and ceding leadership on issue after issue won’t assist at all in providing the US with high-paying jobs. You’ve simply been conned by the most obvious con-man of all time.

    By all means though, you should keep trying to polish that poo. Keep Trumpsplainin’ how great it is for the average American stiff that you’ve again shown the world that the US is no longer relevant, no longer important, and no longer worth partnering with. As far as entertainment goes, it’s right up there. Maybe give us another round of how unborn generations can’t tell us what to do! (unless they are past a certain arbitary point, and then they have more rights than fully formed humans).

    Thumb up 0

  19. Iconoclast

    Wow, your breakdowns are truly things to behold! But yeah, keep pretending you’re being “entertained” as you keep entertaining.

    Thumb up 0

  20. Iconoclast

    The mere fact that leftists the world over are foaming at the mouth over it pretty much indicates that it was the right thing to do.

    Maybe leadership doesn’t necessarily mean doing what’s globally popular.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Iconoclast

    Maybe give us another round of how unborn generations can’t tell us what to do! (unless they are past a certain arbitary point, and then they have more rights than fully formed humans).

    Well, since you brought it up…..

    The “arbitrary” point I choose is that the unborn child actually exists in its mother’s womb, not some truly arbitrary hypothetical unborn person years or generations into the future.

    And this “more rights than fully formed humans” nonsense is just more typical foaming-at-the-mouth hyperbole. The full formed human in question has every right to prevent the pregnancy from happening in the first place, but as things currently stand, an existing, living unborn child has no rights whatsoever. Saying that they should have the right to live is not taking away any of the mother’s rights, unless you claim that she does indeed have the right to kill another human being as long as it resides inside of her. That seems rather arbitrary to me.

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT

    The mere fact that leftists the world over are foaming at the mouth over it pretty much indicates that it was the right thing to do.

    Remember when Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire and the left lost its shit then? Same thing here. They are pissed because Obama fucked the US over in favor of the global cabal, and Trump undid that massive shafting.

    The day that I see these cultist demand and force us to build nuclear reactors to produce energy everywhere, is the day I believe there actually might be a problem. As long as the answer is this green energy shit and more socialism, I will fight this crap with tooth an nail.

    If this is apocalypse they peddle really is as horrible as they pretend it is, the solution is not a marxist wealth distribution scheme, but an engineering one. And the only source of energy that can replace our dependency on fossil fuels without destroying the modern world is nuclear: that green shit is never going to do it. Never. You can’t break the laws of physics and chemistry.

    I will say so again: they are angry we called them on their bullshit.

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    “No, YOU are” says Iconoclast. And then once again tells us that the true test of good public policy is that it annoys libtards. LOL. Brilliant.

    So what arbitrary point does a human start then in your opinion Icon? Because this is the issue – whatever you choose will be arbitrary. And yes, forcing a woman to carry and have a child is absolutely taking away her rights. We just arbitrarily decide when to start infringing them. You obviously believe a potential human has more rights than an actual human and so therefore are happy to infringe her rights early on. How early on?

    Your ‘starters’ link appears to be from a hyper-partisan source and is a long way from demonstrating what you claim.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_for_Capital_Formation

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    Ah now I realise you’re just straight-out and blindly regurgitating the man-child’s own bullshit:

    ““Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord … could cost Americans as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025,” Trump said. “The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lowered GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and in many cases, much worse than that.”

    To support these ludicrous assertions, Trump cited a study (progress, I suppose!) from National Economic Research Associates. The study was commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation and the US Chamber of Commerce, two longstanding corporate anti-tax lobbying groups. To help with their lobbying, they needed a study that showed Paris targets would cost a bazillion dollars. So they ordered one from NERA, and NERA, as per its reputation, delivered.

    Rachel Becker at the Verge has a great post looking at some of the study’s assumptions. (Washington Post’s FactCheck also has some good stuff on it.) Suffice to say, it’s a model rigged to show high costs. It doesn’t count the value of avoided emissions; tech innovation slows for no apparent reason; businesses do not innovate to avoid costs, they just absorb them. It flies in the face not only of most other models, but of recent experience, in which growth in advanced energy has outpaced even the most optimistic forecasts. The sector is now adding jobs at a faster clip than virtually any other economic sector.

    As Yale economist Kenneth Gillingham told Becker, “It’s not something you can cite in a presidential speech with a straight face.” (Gillingham underestimates tribal epistemology.)”

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/2/15727984/deceptions-trump-paris-speech

    But obviously you’d much rather just believe whatever Trump tells you.

    Thumb up 0

  25. Iconoclast

     And then once again tells us that the true test of good public policy is that it annoys libtards. LOL. Brilliant.

    Well, I said “leftists”, not “libtards”, but otherwise, yeah, it is a good litmus test, whether you like it or not. After all, the various leftists policies Obama put in place were quite annoying to conservatives, but, interestingly, you didn’t seem so concerned about that.

    And yes, forcing a woman to carry and have a child is absolutely taking away her rights.

    This is an epic fail on at least a couple of levels.  First of all, no, I don’t recognize the “right” of a woman to kill her unborn child. Calling it a “right” doesn’t make it so. Therefore, no rights are being taken away, since they don’t even exist in the first place.

    Second, saying “forcing a woman to carry and have a child” is about as monumentally stupid as saying “forcing a person to digest the food they ate”. Both are natural, biological functions that don’t require any “force” at all, at least not in any meaningful sense. On the contrary, force is required to intervene.

    You obviously believe a potential human has more rights than an actual human and so therefore are happy to infringe her rights early on.

    “Potential” human? Your fascism is showing CM. An unborn child is an actual human being, whether you like it or not. Your use of “fully-formed” is arbitrary, as it is apparently based on birth. But a newborn baby still isn’t “fully formed”. Typically, a newborn lacks teeth. Not fully formed.

    Then there is the loss of teeth, and replacement by adult teeth, so again, not “fully formed” even with baby teeth.

    Then there’s puberty, when the reproductive systems fully develop. So again, prior to that, the child is again not “fully formed”.

    So, at what point does a human being become an “actual” one? The question is rhetorical, because the answer is at conception and viability.

    Thumb up 0

  26. AlexInCT

    Oh thank God – can we stop having this tedious fucking debate now?

    No Cress, because I actually expect them to build these things first. Not just say they will -like Obama did – then do what Germany and France are doing, which is decommission plants, or do nothing, like Obama did.

    Thumb up 0

  27. AlexInCT

    But as you’ve got zero interest in anything objective, this is obviously meaningless.

    Yeah, that’s the problem: that I actually want the scientific process to be followed and I call your side theatrics and marxist purpose out. How totally unobjective of me not to simply accept the consensus from my betters.

    I wouldn’t be very objective if Charles Manson tried to tell me I had to come to his way of thinking either, because I know better than to stoop to that level of idiocy, but by your logic the fault is mine for not wanting to accept a false and flawed premise. There is no objectivity to be had with people that are using a lie to peddle evil. The only thing to do is to tell them to fuck off, because they are nothing but slavers.

    Thumb up 0