You might remember last month I practically begged Democrats to file articles of impeachment against President Trump:

The fact is President Trump is much more like Tip than he is like Nixon, he has finger on the pulse of the working class of the nation and knows that an impeachment resolution would energize his base to no end, furthermore such a resolution would expose every Democrat in the place as the radical leftist they are and would have laudable effects on election 2018.

I cited the example of Tip O’Neill during watergate and further noted that such a resolution brought up for a vote at once would have a laudable effect on House RINOS.

Furthermore an impeachment vote now would put any republican in the house who might consider for one moment to vote for it on the spot.  Such a pro-impeach vote would guarantee a pro-trump primary challenge that would likely not end well for the sitting congressman, after all consider what Robert Costa discovered about GOP voters when he left his bubble.

I even dared Maxine Waters to get such a resolution submitted.

Well fortunately for this administration Democrats neither know history or read this blog so guess what a California Democrat just did:

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) on Wednesday officially introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump on the grounds of obstructing justice.

“Recent disclosures by Donald Trump Jr. indicate that Trump’s campaign was eager to receive assistance from Russia,” he said in a statement.

“It now seems likely that the President had something to hide when he tried to curtail the investigation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the wider Russia probe,” Sherman added. “I believe his conversations with, and subsequent firing of, FBI Director James Comey constitute Obstruction of Justice.”

“I am introducing Articles of Impeachment to begin a long process to protect our country from abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and impulsive, ignorant incompetence.”

Tip O’Neill noted in his book an Impeachment resolution is privileged meaning any house member can bring it up at any time for an immediate vote.

As the Hill reports even Democrats have questioned if this is a good idea:

This is the first time a lawmaker has offered an impeachment article against Trump, and it comes as Democrats have debated whether it is politically wise to press the case for impeachment at this time.

They’re right, it’s a trap and Representative Sherman has obligingly walked into it.

If I’m the Trump administration I’d demand a vote immediately!  I’d coordinate with the House leadership to have it done at once.

Let’s the Democrats be forced to take a vote when they have no evidence to support impeachment, a vote they know will hurt them on a subject that they admit is a losing issue for them.  Make those house members decide if they want to risk a primary challenger from the left if they vote while hurting them nationally if they vote yes.  Put every Senate Democrat running in a red state in 2018 in a position where they HAVE to have a position on impeachment that will either cost them their seat in a primary or cost them their seat in the general and put every house RINO on the spot where they have to choose if they want a primary challenge by a Pro-Trump candidate.

As far as I’m concerning the time for such a vote is NOW!  Sherman has led the Democrat caucus into the snare.  It only remains to be seen if the administration and the GOP have the brains and the guts to spring it on them.


This blog is a venture in capitalism which depends primarily on readers to pay me and my writers. You so you can help finance this by picking up my new book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer is now available at Amazon

A portion of every sale will go to WQPH 89.3 Catholic Radio) or show your approval by Hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

and if you really want to help for the long term consider subscribing and get my book as a premium


Choose a Subscription level



And as I’ve said before if you can’t spare the cash we will be happy to accept your prayers.

As you might have heard Democrat Rep Maxine Waters had a town hall in her district that surprise, surprise included a chant calling for Donald Trump’s impeachment

She led her supporters in a chant to “Impeach 45,” repeating it over and over

Now there was a lot of pushback to Congresswoman Waters at that event that you can read about here here and here but while the counter protestors are fun I have a more basic question for the California rep who is anxious to see President Donald Trump impeached.

Where is YOUR impeachment resolution?

You have been calling for Donald Trump impeachment since practically the day he was sworn in, you have also been a member of congress since 1991. Surely a woman with 27 years of experience in the house is capable of writing and presenting a resolution of impeachment without waiting on anyone else.

Furthermore if the American People are dislike President Trump as much as you and the media insist (Chuck Todd kept bandying around a 38% support figure) such a resolution should not only be greeted with joy by Democrats, but with 2018 coming up and Democrats and the media allies insisting that the midterms are a disaster waiting to happen for the GOP thanks to Trump surely a person as eloquent and experienced as you can bring them around if not by the merits but by the potential political consequences?

And just think if you can get the votes, the trail in the Senate would not only help the Democrat Senate efforts in 2018 but then you can make the case that is so clear to you and your supporters to the entire world, namely that Donald Trump is unfit to be President of the United States of America.

Now I know some people like myself have suggested that such a move would end in disaster to the left, that the lack of actual evidence of impeachable offenses would rapidly become apparent and that rather than a chance to demonstrate Democrat power, it would be a trap of your making that would shatter your party even further.

But what do I know? I’m just a conservative writer and blogger and you’ve been in congress longer than my children have been alive.

Show the world how much better you know than me, introduce a resolution of Impeachment into the congress and reap the praise of progressives everywhere.

I dare you.

Lt. Tom Keefer: Can’t you see what he’s doing? He’s re-enacting his big triumph, the cheese investigation. He wants to be as hot as the young Ensign Queeg.

The Caine Mutiny 1954

Norma Desmond:  All right,Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my closeup.”

Sunset Boulavard 1950

One of the advantages of age is perspective of having gone through things and having the experience of living through events. It’s even better when you study history is you get the perspective of people who have been dead for years, decades or even centuries because in the end, there really is nothing new under the sun.

That’s one of the reasons why the offensive against President Trump doesn’t surprise me, anyone who lived through that era would know the media had the same hatred and contempt for Ronald Reagan. I remember being in college and having my own history professor speak of his fears of Ronald Reagan. The main difference being in those days being that there was no conservative media to push back.  That’s why if you think that the disaster of the Comey hearing for the left would have humbled them, you’d think wrong as Byron York explains:

Fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee marked the full shift of the Trump-Russia investigation from a probe dedicated to discovering collusion to a probe dedicated to proving the president obstructed justice. (See “At this rate, it won’t matter if Trump colluded with Russia.”) Democrats at the Comey hearing barely touched on collusion, which appears to have turned out to be a dry hole. When it did come up in Comey’s appearance, it was during questioning from Republicans, who wanted to highlight their point that collusion — the core of the case and the reason everybody got so excited in the first place — has so far turned out to be nothing.

 

To Democrats, that no longer matters. Now, it’s all about obstruction of justice, or alleged obstruction of justice, or fantasized obstruction of justice, depending on your partisan perspective. Senate Democrats focused almost exclusively on obstruction in their questioning of Comey, and their House counterparts are sure to do the same. As far as the Justice Department investigation of the president is concerned, we know that as of the time Comey was fired on May 9, there was no investigation of the president concerning collusion, which strongly suggests that after 10 months of probing, authorities had nothing against him on that issue. Now, however, after the Comey memos and the Comey firing, it seems safe to predict that special counsel Robert Mueller will investigate Trump for obstruction. So it is a new game, even if Republicans keep trying to play the old one.

When I see the Democrats and their media allies going all Watergate on Trump that I see get what’s goign on.  I know and perhaps they know there is no there there, but it’s not about that,  to some degree it isnt’ even about power.

It’s about glory days., those wonderful days of yesteryear when the Democrats and the media were at their apex of respect and presteege in the eyes of the public, a press that spoke with only one liberal voice supporting a Democrat party that in congress was  practically unchallenged.

Unfortunately for the left the lessons of Watergate don’t apply mainly due the admidded lack of evidence of any crime, which is not a big surprise as there is also the lack of an actual crime to have evidence of unless of course you’re counting, as Don Surber puts it :  “James Comey’s multiple ethics and likely legal violations.”

But all that doesn’t matter, to paraphrase River Song, the Democrats/Media will believe any story that they are the hero of and no matter what the reality, in their minds, they are the heros, as brave or braver than those who marched in Selma or fought in the getto of Warsaw.

After all they don’t call themsevles the resistance for nothing.

 

By Steve Eggleston

Earlier this week, former Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin declared that it was time to impeach Barack Obama. Predictably, the establishment Republicans immediately and unequivocably distanced themselves from the idea because they fear a repeat of 1998/1999, even as they continue to engineer a repeat of that electoral failure through a comprehensive disassociation from what they sure seem to consider their former base. Surprisingly, a fair number of said former base, conservatives, agree for the same reason.

I’m of a more-cynical mind. Given the Democrats have shown again and again they care not at all for the rule of law, there is no immediately positive point in pursuing the impeachment of Obama. However, that is not to say it shouldn’t be pursued. Eventually, there will be a non-Democrat President elected (do note I didn’t say Republican). If the Democrats have the majority in the House at any point in that administration, they will pursue impeachment because that will be deemed necessary under the “by any means necessary” principle…regardless of whether impeachment charges are pursued against Obama or not. It would be better to have on the record that no high crime or misdemeanor is convictable in the Senate.

Instead of the Constutionally-prescribed method of restraining a rogue President, House Speaker John Boehner (“R”-OH) is setting off on a very foolhardy plan to sue the President over non-enforcement of an existing law. It had been expected that the suit would be based on Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration law, but that might have resulted in the enforcement of the southwest border, and the Big Business cronies that took over the GOP want none of that. They’re planning on going after Obama on the non-enforcement of the employer health-insurance mandate that is part of PlaceboCare.

The likely suit may as well have the Chamber of Commerce as the lead plaintiff instead of the House GOP. Assuming the suit isn’t thrown out (which it will be; see below), should the plaintiffs be successful, said employer mandate will already be in effect on the Big Businesses that the Chamber repesents. A “victory” would only serve to crush the medium-sized businesses competitors to Big Business that are less able to absorb the cost, not remove the employer mandate for all businesses.

Of course, that presumes the suit wouldn’t be thrown out. It almost certainly will be tossed because the Republicans don’t have standing to sue. There is no case law stating that Congressmen have any standing to challenge the enforcement or non-enforcement of a law that does not directly affect said Congressman’s non-legislative interests. While there is limited case law saying that can be done by a state or local member of a legislative body, there are only two instances where said member has standing – (a) the member is part of the voting bloc that expressly and successfully blocked (or but for a tiebreaking procedure on a constitutional amendment, would have successfully blocked) enactment of a piece of legislation, yet provisions of that legislation were implemented anyway, or (b) the member is part of the voting block that voted for a duly-enacted piece of legislation, yet provisions of said legislation were not implemented.

The Republicans didn’t have the votes to stop the enactment of PlaceboCare in 2010, when both the original bill and the amending bill were before the House. So, what’s their argument? That given another bite at the apple, they would vote for PlaceboCare? Given their actions of the last 2 years, from the nomination of the godfather of PlaceboCare as their 2012 Presidential nominee to the quiet replacement of “repeal and replace ObamaCare” by “‘substantially’ fix ObamaCare”, one can reasonably conclude that the one-word message from the GOP to those who supported them because of their earlier stated opposition to PlaceboCare is the same one being given to those who supported the GOP because the party claimed to be conservative or because the party claimed to care about the rule of law instead of the rule of tyrants – “SUCKERS!”

Robin: Those I kill die from misusing the trust that Richard left with them. And the worst of these is Richard’s own brother.

King Richard (in disguise): Oh! Then you blame Prince John.

Robin: No, I blame Richard.

The Adventures of Robin Hood 1938

But I want to say one thing to the American people, I want you to listen to me, I’m going to say this again.  I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss. Lewinsky.  I never told anyone to lie, not a single time, ever.  These allegations are false and  I need to go back to work for the American People.  Thank you!

President Bill Clinton

Yesterday on DaTechGuy on DaRadio during Da Magnificent Panel we were (surprise, surprise) discussing Chris Christie and the bridge business. The subject of the neverending press conference came up and the question became what this the right move.  It created an incredible contrast to the president so much so that Media Matters literally argued that the GOP would use that contrast to attack the president, which by an odd coincidence is exactly what I had already advised them to do.

The consensus was that politically Christie did what he had to do. A strong denial and  answering questions to the point where no member of the press could pretend he was ducking.

 

In the middle of the discussion a terrible thought occurred to me. What Christie did was clearly the right political move if he was wasn’t involved, but what if he was up to it to his neck?

What if Christie is just a self centered bastard who only wants to save his job and his possible prospects for a White House bid at all costs?  If that was the case and his goal then politically, what is the right move?

I asked the question and the general agreement was the right political move was exactly what he did..

The move would be to do what he did, use the power of his office to delay any disclosure, insist he already answered all the questions (and point to the length of the press conference in his case to back it up) and count on any party officials who know otherwise to keep silent and aides to do so to on the theory that pols don’t hire people who sell them.

Now there was a time when such a brazen dishonorable calculation was extremely rare.   James Curley for example used that calculation to keep Tip O’Neill quiet after stealing a party election from him.  That silence paid off for Tip.  It launched O’Neill rise in leadership first in Massachusetts, turning it blue and then in the House leading to his speakership.

But even in Curley’s case his actions (he arranged for the numbers in a party election to be transposed so O’Neills results were reported as Curley’s & vice versa) wasn’t public knowledge, O’Neill dropped the fight before it became public knowledge, Curley was never put in the position to lie directly to the general public over his acts.

Instead of grand denials those under suspicion tended to keep silent to see if the evidence would come out or a party leaders or big donors would approach the person privately  and say something like:

“Listen you can’t take the party down with you, make your apologies, resign and at best we can slowly rehabilitate you and at worse will take care of you.”

Maybe that conversation would come at the start of the scandal if the party knew there was some there there, maybe it would come father down the road when it became clear that the press or investigator would find the truth or,  maybe like with Nixon when the smoking guns proving direct lies to the people came out backers would approach him and say bluntly:  Sorry we just can’t back you up anymore …

…then came Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton for those too young used an impressionable young intern for sex in the white house abusing his position as president (what in the private sector would be considered sexual harassment).  When it came out he lied directly to the American people, lied under oath in court and even lied to his advisers (if you believe his advisers that is).  When Kenneth Starr was appointed to investigate his and his advisers obstructed the investigation at every turn the party energized activists to defend him (That where Move on.org came from) and you actually had the Newsweek blog (sorry I mean magazine, it wasn’t just online then) sitting on evidence that was eventually leaked to Drudge.

Yet when the Starr Report came out and the vote for impeachment was coming, while republican after republicans took the time to read the report and the evidence that was submitted to them but not the public at the time,  not a single democrat in the house did the same.  They didn’t want to know.

And when the impeachment vote came and went against him in the house ( coincidentally the president decided that was a perfect time to launch a missile strike on Iraq)  Democrats en masse lined up behind Bill Clinton as Al Gore pronounced him “One of our greatest presidents” in a press event at the while house.

The party didn’t tell him to leave, the Democrats many still in congress didn’t reject him and he not only survived his trial in the Senate but is still celebrated by the left and the media to this day.

Remember this was the president.  If sexual harassment in the White House lying to the American people’s face and doing the same under oath to a grand jury doesn’t disqualify you from the White House or the support of your party & activists why would any such behavior disqualify a person from any lesser office.

And people wonder why folks like Filner & Weiner figured they could get away with it and why the occupant of this White House doesn’t worry about the scandals from Benghazi to the IRS?

I don’t know if Chris Christie was directly involved in those lane closures in New Jersey.  His decision to fire principles involved rather than like Nixon in Watergate becoming involved via a coverup  would suggest otherwise.

But if he was involved, and got up and lied through is teeth to the American people and you wonder why he thought he could get away with it, you need to look no father than President Bill Clinton and all those who enabled him, including the American People.

Update:  The video for those too young to remember:

********************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Sunday, a new week which is a good thing because the last two weeks have not been very successful.

Well that’s not entirely true, we’ve had fair traffic but not only have we failed to make goal to secure the mortgage and pay DaMagnificent Seven plus our new villager the first two weeks combined didn’t manage to come up to a single week’s goal

But we’re back again, with a $345 goal for the week to try and start to move the ball forward toward getting the mortgage and the writers paid this month.

Olimometer 2.52

Once we manage that then we’ll worry about catching up on the ground we’re behind.

Of course if we can get 58 1/4 more subscribers @ at $20 a month the bills will be paid every week and the problem will be solved on a more permanent basis.

What do you say?




We interrupt my coverage of the RNC in Boston to bring you this Bob Filner blast from the past Dec 18, 1998.

If anyone wonders why Bob Filner doesn’t resign from office, wonder no more. Bob Filner picked a side in the war on Women a long time ago.

**********************************

Olimometer 2.52

If sticking this video in the face of Democrats who are shocked SHOCKED by Bob Filner’s refusal to resign as mayor of SD isn’t worth the $209 left for this week’s paycheck I’d like to know what is?

.

FRIAR LAURENCE Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast.

Romeo & Juliet Act 2 Scene 4

Lt. Kaffee: It’s doesn’t matter what I believe it only matters what I can prove

A Few Good Men 1992

9th Doctor: People have died, Cassandra. You murdered them.
Cassandra: It depends on your definition of ‘people’. And that’s enough of a technicality to keep your lawyers dizzy for centuries.

 Doctor Who The End of the World 2005

One of the greatest and most common misconceptions about events is history is the aura of inevitability.

People reading about the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Space Race, The Yankees during the 50’s all tend to naturally feel it was inevitable that these events would turn out as they did.  We see a lot of this in revisionist history where people critique decisions made not based on the knowledge the people had but on the “facts” they come up with decades later.

Back during the Nixon era while I was still a pre-teen infatuated with history and had not yet discovered a certain scarf wearing Madman in a box I would rush home from school and watch the Watergate hearings wondering what might happen next.  Like the people who today think of Watergate as something that was practically destined to be I didn’t understand how many things took place behind the scenes that facilitated Nixon downfall particularly the skilled moves by the Democrats in the house.

Fortunately for people interested in these things Tip O’Neill included an informative chapter in his autobiography Man of the House that detailed not only the twists and turns that led lead him as Democrat Majority Leader at the time, to suspect that the Nixon administration was up to no good in terms of political intimidation but of the right decisions made by the congress and the wrong decisions by the administration that led to their own downfall.

It is almost a handbook as to what to do and what to avoid in a similar situation…

…and that brings us to the Obama administration and the IRS.

As a criminal investigation begins we’ve seen some  the “I” word, Impeachment thrown about.

Now a lot of that is on twitter, but that’s no big deal, a lot of words are thrown about on twitter, but some of it has been thrown around in the press.

The funny thing is a lot of the people doing so are of the left,

This is not an accident, the left understand that talk of impeachment now would be a disaster, not to the president, but to those building the case against him.

As Tip O’Neill notes public opinion led the congress on impeachment.  Democrats were hesitant to move forward until polls showed otherwise.

Now we of course have a different environment today.  Instead of a Republican president attacked by a democrat press and generally friendly to the Democrat majority,  you have a Democrat press who has traditionally defended Barack Obama that dislikes the GOP majority in the house.

This is all the more reason to let the public get there first.  The congress HAS to be perceived as investigating facts.  If the facts continue to go where the evidence seems to be pointing the public will demand action.

A great example of the danger of moving early was Fr. Robert Drinan (D-Mass) who introduced a resolution of impeachment on the last day of July in 1973 over the Bombing of Cambodia.  As O’Neill writes it almost blew the game:

politically , he damn near blew it, for if Drinan’s resolution  had come up for a vote it would have been overwhelming defeated by something like 400-30.  With so many members already on record as having voted once  against impeachment it would have been extremely difficult to get the to change their minds later one.

meanwhile if a vote came up and failed, Republicans, who at the time were not convinced that there was any “there there” would have said when a later resolution came up:

“Why bother?  We’ve already been through this.”

As Drinan refused to withdraw his resolution and all resolutions on impeachment are privileged the leadership O’Neill took extraordinary measures to make sure the resolution was not called up keeping one of the leadership ready  on the floor 24/7 ready to table such a resolution.  Because he didn’t want to give them the idea to move Drinan’s resolution forward.  After a long time of this he finally approached Jerry Ford who told them bluntly the White House had rejected the idea.  As O’Neill wrote:

By not forcing an early vote on impeachment, Nixon’s allies made a tremendous mistake.  In addition to winning the vote, the Republicans could have turned impeachment into a party issue which might have allowed Nixon to remain in office and blame the Democrats for harassing him, But in the summer of 1973 the White House couldn’t imagine that Watergate would end in the downfall of the president.

And that is the trap.

I’ll wager not too may members of the Tea Party have read O’Neill’s book, nor GOP members of congress but I’ll wager plenty of people on the left have.  They understand that if the GOP moves early, before democrats are on board, it becomes a party issue so they are going to do their best to force our hand before the facts are in evidence.

I suspect the facts on this case are going to be damning to this administration.  The best thing the congress can do is to investigate and let these facts come out to the American people and watch the administration stall and cover up.  The press already finds themselves split on this issue, only the most partisan seem willing to defend the IRS without question.

This morning Politico yes POLITICO reported in disbelief on MSNBC on the data being asked of TeaParty groups.  As long as the conversation is about what the IRS did and if the White House co-operated public opinion will move.  Right now that’s where the conversation needs to be.

The White House and their allies will do their best to wave the red flag in the hope we charge, instead we should sit back and let this scandal and the investigation cook.

And when it is ready the evidence presented the people and the votes will be there for the next step.

Update: You can get Tip O’Neill’s Man of the House at Amazon for .01 plus $3.99 shipping all over Amazon. Buy it, you’ll need it soon.

Update 2: “Led” instead of “lead” corrected

****************************************

Olimometer 2.52

Taking my own advice the weekly paycheck is slowly marching, after a quick start forward. 6 more readers kicking in $20 will make this weeks pay a reality, that’s less than two a day.

If you would like to help move it forward consider hitting DaTipJar below.

I actually watched all the Clinton Hearings and fully supported and still support the impeachment of Bill Clinton, I trace the decline in democratic honor from the moment of the disgraceful press conference after the initial vote.

That being said, Tancredo’s case for impeachment of president Obama is just off, it has no more justification than the left’s nonsense of the same toward George W. Bush.

I think this president has been disastrous domestically and adequate at best on defense (which was way ahead of my expectations for him) but certainly not impeachable. Most of what this president has done is bad policy, bad decisions, based on a bad philosophy but you don’t impeach that. (The virtual ceding of parts of Arizona to the Mexican Cartels has potential in that direction but we are nowhere near there yet).

Clinton directly lied to a grand jury, this is an actual crime, and he used the power of the presidency to cover that, he was disbarred for this.

There is nothing that Barack Obama has done to this point that rises to that level, being wrong or mistaken is not an impeachable offense and both legally and politically we waste our time going in that direction.

Memeorandum thread here.

Oh and one note, I’m not arguing that Clinton was a worse president than our current one or was worse for the country, I’m arguing the legalities and the purpose of impeachment as a constitutional tool. It should be used sparingly for actual crimes not as a political club.

Update: And of course here are the democrats also talking smack in the other direction, pure hogwash.