The Erosion of the Republican Party & Impeachment Lite
From The New Yorker;In response to:
Trump’s Impeachment and “Impeachment Lite”
By David Remnick
9:13 A.M.
As the House approved two articles of impeachment against him, Donald Trump pretended as if none of what was happening in Washington mattered.
Photograph by Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty
The shock of Donald Trump’s election, in November, 2016, obscured a tragedy of equal moment—the eclipse of reason, fact, and ethical judgment in the Republican Party.
Twenty-one years ago, during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, there were numerous Democratic lawmakers who lambasted him for his trespasses; five voted against him. Clinton, for his part, apologized to the American people before the House voted on his fate. “What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds,” he said. “I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame.”
Clinton had lied about sex. That was the root of the accusations against him. Trump, with the help of Rudy Giuliani and others, attempted to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine, an ally under assault from Russia, as a way to extract a crude and distinctly personal political favor. Was this not a far graver offense? And yet everyone knew that there was never the remotest chance of hearing a word of contrition from Trump—and that from the Republican Party there would be no self-questioning, no doubt. Tribalism—and the demands of Trumpism—would not permit it.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Lindsey Graham recognized, and said publicly, that Trump was “unfit for office”—and when Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, and so many other Republicans in Congress recognized Trump for the moral vacuum that he is. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, once called Trump “a terrible human being.” Rick Perry, his Secretary of Energy, saw him as a “barking carnival act” and deemed his candidacy “a cancer on conservatism.” Ted Cruz called him a “pathological liar” and “utterly immoral.” They used to care. But things have changed.
At the same time, nearly every loyalist who leaves the Trump White House—James Mattis, Gary Cohn, H. R. McMaster, John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, et al.—comes clean, on or off the record, about despising Trump. They describe in detail the President’s countless acts of duplicity and incompetence. Only fearful, humiliated ex-Trumpers in need of campaign support, such as Jeff Sessions, who is again running for the Senate in Alabama, abase themselves and speak of his virtue. Nikki Haley, who seems intent on being Trump’s successor (or perhaps Mike Pence’s replacement on the ticket), refers to Trump as “great to work with” and “truthful”; in 2016, she said that he was “everything a governor doesn’t want in a President.”
In other words, when it comes to Trump, everyone knows. As the Republican caucus members fell into line on Wednesday, they revealed themselves. No one defended Trump on the merits, on the facts—not with any conviction or coherence. Who came to praise his character or values? No one. Instead, there were only counter-accusations, smoke-bomb diversions about procedure, ill will, and even talk of the President’s martyrdom. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican with a name fit for Mencken, was distinguished in his metaphors, yet hardly eccentric among his caucus, when he said, “Before you take this historic vote today, one week before Christmas, keep this in mind: when Jesus was falsely accused of treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than Democrats have afforded this President in this process.” Democrats, in fact, had offered the President the chance to defend himself, but he had declined to do so....
Trump’s Impeachment and “Impeachment Lite”
By David Remnick
9:13 A.M.
As the House approved two articles of impeachment against him, Donald Trump pretended as if none of what was happening in Washington mattered.
Photograph by Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty
The shock of Donald Trump’s election, in November, 2016, obscured a tragedy of equal moment—the eclipse of reason, fact, and ethical judgment in the Republican Party.
Twenty-one years ago, during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, there were numerous Democratic lawmakers who lambasted him for his trespasses; five voted against him. Clinton, for his part, apologized to the American people before the House voted on his fate. “What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds,” he said. “I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame.”
Clinton had lied about sex. That was the root of the accusations against him. Trump, with the help of Rudy Giuliani and others, attempted to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine, an ally under assault from Russia, as a way to extract a crude and distinctly personal political favor. Was this not a far graver offense? And yet everyone knew that there was never the remotest chance of hearing a word of contrition from Trump—and that from the Republican Party there would be no self-questioning, no doubt. Tribalism—and the demands of Trumpism—would not permit it.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Lindsey Graham recognized, and said publicly, that Trump was “unfit for office”—and when Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, and so many other Republicans in Congress recognized Trump for the moral vacuum that he is. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, once called Trump “a terrible human being.” Rick Perry, his Secretary of Energy, saw him as a “barking carnival act” and deemed his candidacy “a cancer on conservatism.” Ted Cruz called him a “pathological liar” and “utterly immoral.” They used to care. But things have changed.
At the same time, nearly every loyalist who leaves the Trump White House—James Mattis, Gary Cohn, H. R. McMaster, John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, et al.—comes clean, on or off the record, about despising Trump. They describe in detail the President’s countless acts of duplicity and incompetence. Only fearful, humiliated ex-Trumpers in need of campaign support, such as Jeff Sessions, who is again running for the Senate in Alabama, abase themselves and speak of his virtue. Nikki Haley, who seems intent on being Trump’s successor (or perhaps Mike Pence’s replacement on the ticket), refers to Trump as “great to work with” and “truthful”; in 2016, she said that he was “everything a governor doesn’t want in a President.”
In other words, when it comes to Trump, everyone knows. As the Republican caucus members fell into line on Wednesday, they revealed themselves. No one defended Trump on the merits, on the facts—not with any conviction or coherence. Who came to praise his character or values? No one. Instead, there were only counter-accusations, smoke-bomb diversions about procedure, ill will, and even talk of the President’s martyrdom. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican with a name fit for Mencken, was distinguished in his metaphors, yet hardly eccentric among his caucus, when he said, “Before you take this historic vote today, one week before Christmas, keep this in mind: when Jesus was falsely accused of treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than Democrats have afforded this President in this process.” Democrats, in fact, had offered the President the chance to defend himself, but he had declined to do so....
(continued below)
Comments (23)
It wouldn't take much. We'll even throw in his copy of 'Mein Kampf'
(the attorney for his first ex-wife states that he keeps a copy on his nightstand).
However, far worse, as he also involves foreign nations against our own.
That is at least somewhat treasonous too.
Regardless, I am not on here to win votes, no matter how many or few might change. I am on here to spread the truth for those intelligent enough to embrace it.
I have witnessed lots of intentionally misleading posts, that are full of lies and half truths.
My political blogs are for balance. Once Trump, the Russian asset, is out of office they will likely decrease and I will return to more humor & photography blogs. Even some of the political blogs I've posted contain humor. My blogs are not for everyone and I am totally OK with that.
That's A Fact
BTW - 'Crats didn't invent this tactic in '16.
McCain essentially locked up the 'Publican nomination early in the '08 Primaries.
'Publicans in remaining open primary states were encouraged to cross over & vote for Barry O as he was perceived to be the weakest of 'Crat contenders in the general election.
The tactic didn't work any better for 'Publicans than it did for 'Crats.
One might question whether Open Primaries are a good method of selecting a Head Of State
Throughout the investigation, at least nine witnesses testified that claims of Ukrainian meddling were not fabricated by the Russians or unsupported by the evidence.
Do you really think they don't know this ?
The part you skimmed over in the article you posted;
The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.
Well before November.
"An actual lawyer" Oh, I am so impressed.
There are currently 61 US Senators with a law degree. 31 of these are Republicans. In the House of Representatives, there are 169 members with law degrees and 78 are Republicans.
The 116th Congress will boast the most educated Congress in history with 72 percent of the House having earned a graduate degree.
Suffice it to say, that there's no shortage of lawyers in Congress.
Interesting prospect, ML. I'd not considered it.
Searched the possibility.
Presumably on the onion skin thin chance that The Don will be removed from office, these folks ...
... give Ivanka a 0.2% chance of becoming Prez THIS Year.
Which, BTW, is much(!) better than the 0.05% chance given her Dad four years ago.
A $1,000 bet placed on The Don then would've paid off $1/2 Million.
1st Woman Prez -
As of now, I'd guess eventually Tulsi Gabbard for the 'Crats or Nikki Haley for the 'Publicans ... either one possibly as early as '24.
IF The Don replaces Pence on the ticket with Haley, she'd be well positioned for a Prez run in '24.
IMO
"What an ACTUAL strong woman looks like rather than a screeching Twitter child."
(AOChh)
the republicans were heavily silenced on any actual questioning.
Schiff didn't allow witnesses other then his own.