Dec 192019

Saul Leiter Harlem 1960


Lots of news outlets labeled yesterday’s House vote to impeach President Trump “historic”. It was. But what was historic about it was not that Donald Trump became the third president to be impeached. What was historic was the way it was done. That was a first.

Because it was not the House that impeached President Donald Trump, it was the Democratic Party. Which just happened to have the majority in the House. They appear to think that this is all that’s needed, which is a big mistake and an even bigger gamble. A gamble on the value and future of the US Constitution and the entire political system.

In an exercise in sanctimonious rhetoric, Nancy Pelosi and several other Democratic House members claim they are the only ones upholding the Constitution, and they’re the only ones who know what America’s Founding Fathers had in mind while writing the Constitution, and what they wrote about impeachment. Maybe someone should point out -again- that the Constitution is a document written by slaveholders. See how that flies with their black constituency.

Then again, none of this is really much different from what their witnesses in the past weeks had to say about Trump’s phone call with Ukraine president Zelensky, the one and only issue that impeachment eventually came to rely on, after years of trying to find something “impeachable”. That is, it’s not about facts, it’s about opinion and interpretation.

Trump asked Zelensky to look into a number of issues. But never said he wanted him to do that in order to elevate his chances in an election which was at that point a year and a half away, and in which Joe Biden’s role was not then, nor is it now, anywhere near assured. While there are many lingering questions surrounding the roles of both Joe and Hunter Biden.

For most of the witnesses called by the Democrats, including 3 “legal experts”, it was for some reason clear what Trump meant even though he never said it. That is a mighty slippery slope. That all three were donors to various Democrats is just icing on the slippery cake. But what remains most important is these were opinions, and they were not based on facts.


And we should at least be able to agree that facts are undoubtedly what the Founders meant for impeachment to be based on. They were wary enough of the instrument to set it up the way they did, with the role of the House and the separate role of the Senate, where a 2/3 vote is required. They did not want it based on hearsay and personal bias.

What they did not foresee was what has happened now, they trusted both the system and future politicians to safeguard themselves against using impeachment as a partisan political tool. They were wrong.

Well into this year, 2019, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi still emphasized the need for impeachment proceedings to be bipartisan. In March she said: “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path..”

And on June 16, a full two months after the Mueller report came out: “I don’t think there’s anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a president of the United States, and so you have to handle it with great care..”

By September 24, however, again two full months after the Trump-Zelensky call, she abandoned that principle, and it’s not fully clear why, other than “unverified claims of an anonymous whistleblower”. She insisted it was because of the Zelensky call, but we’ve all been able to read there was not enough in that call for either her change of mind or, for that matter, impeachment itself.


Nancy Pelosi now hints she will delay sending articles of impeachment to the Senate because she wants to make sure the process is bipartisan. But does anyone want to claim that what happened in the House was bipartisan? If so, pray tell how we can tell it was.

Adam Schiff, like Nancy, questions if there will be a fair trial in the Senate. Does he mean like the one he presided over in the House, with behind closed doors testimony, no witnesses for the other side, and a committee chairman who constantly interrupts representatives from the other side? He may well get exactly that, just from a very different angle.

Schiff and his Democrats have been after Trump since before the 2016 elections, and the number of times they have uttered terms like “overwhelming” and “uncontested evidence” are impossible to count. But the “evidence” never was uncontested. And it isn’t to this day.

Something I don’t quite understand is that everybody knows Trump knew the call was recorded, and many people were listening in on it while it took place, so the entire interpretation of contents of the call as impeachable -he didn’t say it but he meant to- must be based on the idea that Trump is incredibly dumb – or evil?! Even if he would have wanted dirt on Joe Biden because of 2020, he could have gone about it in less “evident” ways than a semi-public phone call.


A house divided cannot stand. Yet the Democrats use their majority in the House to de facto say they ARE the House and thereby divide it. Unfortunately for them, this House too, cannot stand divided. It will crumble.

If one values the Constitution, the House, the Senate and the Office of President of the United States, one must treat all of these with the utmost care and respect. Which means you cannot get rid of a president just because you don’t like him or her, because if you do, you open the floodgates and you might as well throw everything America’s politics is based upon, out the window.

You can’t impeach a president based on hearsay, opinions, conjecture or personal interpretations of words s/he said. But that’s all I’ve seen and read and heard.

The Democrats are confident they can come out of this in one piece, and many even think as winners. Donald Trump doesn’t feel much of a threat, and why should he, but it’s been three years of great nuisance that now culminate in Pelosi not even having the courage to go to the Senate with her cherished impeachment articles.

Meanwhile though, the divisions in America have grown so deep it feels like Moses himself created them. And that is the real damage done. You can’t attack the political system, and the presidency, with anything but solid evidence, without doing real damage. Well, it has been done.

If Trump gets re-elected, and I would wager he will be after all the circus, the Dems can only start the wheel again. If a miracle Democrat gets the nod, the Republicans will initiate the same treatment Trump has received during his entire presidency. And so on and so forth until death do us part.


PS I stole the title from Michael Goodwin, who used it as his closing line.

PS2 I know there are not really two political parties in the US, but the growing gaping divide between the people is very real



Include the Automatic Earth in your Christmas charity list. Support us on Paypal and Patreon.

Top of the page, left and right sidebars. Thank you.




Home Forums Only The Damage To America Is Real

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • #52234

    Saul Leiter Harlem 1960   Lots of news outlets labeled yesterday’s House vote to impeach President Trump “historic”. It was. But what was histori
    [See the full post at: Only The Damage To America Is Real]


    it was not the House that impeached President Donald Trump, it was the Democratic Party.

    the Constitution is a document written by slaveholders.
    edit: add (elite, powerful, rich, white, men)

    Nancy Pelosi now hints she will delay sending articles of impeachment to the Senate

    If Trump gets re-elected, and I would wager he will be after all the circus, the Dems can only start the wheel again.
    edit: add (if the social/economic system has not collapsed)


    This is what you get when communists hijacked the Democratic party. Their goal is to destroy the existing order so they can seize power. Lenin and Stalin would be proud.

    They hate the fact President Trump is standing in their way of seizing power from the American people. They hate that their efforts to disarm the American people is being blunted.
    Their hatred of free people justifies their efforts to imprison the American people.
    Their hatred justifies attacking and destroying everyone with different beliefs than their own.
    Their hatred justifies destroying all institutions of a civilized society.
    Their hatred blinds them to reality.
    Their hatred requires them to ignore certain inconvenient truths.
    Their hatred justifies their behavior.
    Their hatred justifies killing all their perceived opponents.
    Their hatred justifies all they do.

    Rafal Granowicz: A Polish mercenary. Was asked what it was like to take human life? “I wouldn’t know, I have only killed communists.”


    @ WES
    I”ll answer with a quote from Raúl
    “PS2 I know there are not really two political parties in the US”

    Dr. D

    “If one values the Constitution, the House, the Senate and the Office of President of the United States…”

    Ah, but they don’t. As clear from their impeachment actions, but also their daily actions and continuous, unrelenting contempt for the entire Bill of Rights, especially the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, but also the entire federal register and the U.N. treaty on human rights. The whole POINT is to remove the Constitution and therefore the rule of law, and make it a rule of power. If you’re opposed to, and are selectively interpreting and enforcing every law in the book, including the very first ones written, what other interpretation is there? I mean, beyond that they openly SAY so, on camera, in a campaign, while actively trying to catch the ear of the whole U.S. population, as Beto has done.

    So just start from they DON’T care. They most earnestly DESIRE this thing. But that leaves the question, if it’s not about law, rule, office, or tradition, then what is it about?

    Since the consequences of “Opening the floodgates” and “Throwing out everything American politics is based on” is very obvious and made additionally clear in Virginia this week, the only conclusion that can be made is that they WANT to “Fundamentally change America” by “throwing everything out”, including the Constitution. And since our nation is somewhat odd in being founded on contract law and not a locality or ethnicity, they are therefore utterly destroying and erasing the United States, forever. …But again, it’s not like they haven’t said this a thousand times in their speeches and papers. They are wildly open about it. It’s just that, like everything else, no one believes them. Like Mein Kampf, no one believes when they read this is the specific plan, with specific strategy and specific goals, that they actually MEAN it. Why would you think that? Why would a person who spends their career writing papers and speeches about something not actually mean it? Because you yourself have goodwill and mean or believe or intend otherwise?

    For the present case, I feel they should immediately start impeachment proceedings against Pelosi for obstruction of Congress. In any case, it won’t matter, I don’t see a winning move here, nor a zugzwang. The Supreme Court may weigh in as to whether it’s even possible to withhold the documents, or whether the act takes form the second the vote is tallied. The Senate can hold a trial anyway, with the attempted withholding being a legal footnote. They can also hold an independent investigation and trial that they advertise is not a consequence of the House vote. They can also sit around, appoint another 500 judges and win the election.

    This is just what you call “muddying the waters” which seems to be a poor and desperate defense, a reckless bid for a few more days for something, anything, to come up and save them from themselves while a few more courts meet and a few more idiots experts weigh in.

    Even so, this isn’t the end, as the troubles in Virginia demonstrate. Obviously the response here is to get an informant imbedded into the ‘militia’ and open fire on someone, then like Ohio, get a police or Guardsman to fire back, etc, blah blah. The cultural difference and outlook on the rights of man are too different, or rather, they are too mind-bendingly intolerant to just leave other cultures, other peoples, such as farmers in Western Virginia and any rural person on the face of the earth, alone. Like always. But they write about all this, they planned all this, and as their much-loved thought leader Alinsky said, they expected and planned to kill at least 10% of the holdouts – 30 million people – since the 70’s. Gotta crack a few eggs. And why not? That’s what “revolution” and being a “revolutionary” means. What else could it mean? That’s what the democratic socialists have always written and always done, everywhere in time, and are very open about their heroes and their heroes’ tactics. Why would anyone think otherwise now that we’re here?

    So we roll ever on.

    Maxwell Quest

    Many thanks, Ilargi, for your voice of sanity in an insane world.

    I wonder who it was that rattled Speaker Pelosi’s cage back in September that prompted her quick about-face? She is obviously not a person driven by fundamental core principles, the common good, law, or the constitution. As with all agents, some handler reached out and jerked her chain. Someone who wants The Donald politically disabled, maimed, or just plain coerced. I can’t help wondering if this impeachment is being used to hold hostage Rudy’s findings from his Ukraine visit? (I believe Dr. D. implied this recently) Or is more pressure needed to get Trump behind the war machine’s next victim, Iran?


    Tulsi Gabbard is the only one who has the best approach. Shun the “debates”, speaks out for reconciliation and for peace. For me Tulsi and Bernie would be a fine team to run for election. She knows foreign policy and he cares for helping the poor and the 99%. Health care should be medicare for all with single payer and also choice of private expensive insurance.


    Since we are speaking of the Constitution, and it’s assorted components, the 2nd amendment comes to mind. You know, the one that guarantees all the others? Ultimately, and unfortunately, if unchecked, the ever accelerating political dissonance in this Constitutional Republic will reach such a crescendo, that last resort attempts at solutions will be directed toward the true intent of said amendment, that of protecting the people from the injustices imposed upon them by an errant government, all other options having been exhausted.

    Humm,,,maybe those ‘ol’ boys were smarter than some people give them credit?

    Kevin Bahm

    There are many issues bedeviling the Democrats impeachment crusade, and Raul’s point on the partisan nature of the House vote and what that means should give everyone pause. But to suggest that no impeachable offense has occurred is to either ignore the clear implications of the president’s words and actions or to willfully misrepresent that evidence by parroting Trumpist propaganda. If a gangster says “nice little shop you have here, hate to see something bad happen to it…” he has communicated a threat. There is no requirement in the law to spell it out as if speaking to a child, saying instead “if you don’t pay me I will personally come down here tonight and burn down your store.”

    The transcript of the call concurrent with Trump’s directive to withhold funds establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of bribery was committed by the president. This crime is framed as “abuse of authority”, and his subsequent documented attempts to stymie the investigation resulted in the second charge of obstruction. It seems probable that senate Republicans will eventually acquit Trump with or without a fair trial, but some conservative voices supporting impeachment are coming forward now so we could see some of Trump’s lapdogs in congress turn on their master.

    The Case for Impeachment Is Overwhelming

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.