Connect with us

The Swamp

How The Democrats Think They Will Impeach Trump

Published

on

Andrew McCarthy says that the Southern District of New York (SDNY) will indict Donald Trump on a campaign finance violation. Don’t forget, this same crowd put Dinesh D’Souza in jail on such a charge.

While there is an assumption that no one can indict a president, the point of this is not to indict Trump but to offer a flimsy grounds for impeachment that the rabid House Democrats can run with. Keep in mind that impeachment is not a criminal trial but entirely a political trial. If Trump is an “unindicted co-conspirator,” I think the House will move to impeach him at their earliest opportunity.

It is useful to look at the two previous impeachments in American history to appreciate this. In 1868 the House impeached President Andrew Johnson on eleven articles, but most notably his violation of the Tenure of Office Act. This was key, because Johnson not only violated the act, he did so enthusiastically and openly. Johnson viewed it as unconstitutional, but rather than go through the court system, he provoked an impeachment trial. The House impeached him on 11 articles, but the Senate failed to convict him on the first two articles they advanced, and the trial was adjourned.

Trending: Female Christian ‘Pastor’ Rejects the Truth of Christ, Says It is ‘Holy’ to Sell Porn Pics on OnlyFans

With Bill Clinton in 1998, the House again passed articles of impeachment (two) and the Senate again could not get a conviction on either (55 voted not guilty on the perjury charge, 50 on the obstruction of justice charge, or well short of the 67 needed for removal).

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In both impeachments, the Senate acted well outside its authority by determining in its “not guilty” arguments not that neither Johnson or Clinton had committed the act (the Senate’s only constitutional charge), but that in neither case did the acts reach the level of “high crimes.”

This was not within the Senate’s constitutional authority.

The Senate was to be limited to determining if the president had committed the act, not whether the act rose to the level of impeachment—the House’s job.

For Donald Trump, the likelihood is that if matters get that far, the Senate will behave as it always has, taking unto itself powers the Constitution does not allow. The reason is simple: Senators are power-hungry, and cannot resist going beyond their mandate when they can get away with it. This works strongly to Trump’s benefit.

If the impeachment charges were campaign finance violations, and if the House said those rose to the level of an impeachable offense, then according the Constitution the Senate’s only question would be “Did Trump or did he not make the payoffs through Cohen to Stormy Daniels and/or her attorney?”

What is much more likely is that, as before, the U.S. Senate will debate whether or not such payoffs rose to the level of an impeachable offense. If that’s the argument, Trump will be acquitted.

By my calculations, Trump has about 39-40 solid votes in the Senate—already enough to defeat the 67 vote threshold. In addition to these stalwarts (bolstered in January by the addition of Blackburn, Braun, Cramer, Hyde-Smith, and Scott). This significantly buttresses the Trump coalition and greatly dilutes the RINO contingent. In addition to the 39-40, there are another six or seven “squishes” that include Senators such as Marco Rubio, Jodi Ernst, Deb Fischer, and others. Finally, there are the “Sinister Six” of neverTrumpers whom Trump cannot count on in almost any circumstance. These include Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, and Richard Burr.

While Trump should be safe, it is crucial that he not alienate any of the squishes, and one of the key areas that would influence their thinking is the nature of the charges. It is my contention that if the charges are on campaign finance and payoffs, the “squishy seven” will acquit. But if Trump declassifies the FISA information, most—if not all—of the “squishy seven” would have a (in their minds) “real issue of concern.”

I have thought for some time Trump has delayed declassifying the FISA information for this very reason: he may need those seven votes for margin. Those calling for him to “burn it all down” need to realize that Trump knows his room for error in alienating Senators is small. He will have their support on a goofball charge like campaign finance violation. But on something people like Rubio or Sasse would see as an element of “national security,” all seven would most likely take that opportunity to bail. That would put Trump’s acquittal margin at three or four, and at that point, anything can happen.

The Swamp

Swamp Bureaucrats Try to Oust America First USAID appointee

Disgruntled bureaucrats.

Published

on

Bureaucrats at a division of the U.S. Agency for International Development that focuses on conflict prevention are fuming about their new boss.

In fact, they’re so angry that they drafted a lengthy memo detailing their grievances with the aim of getting the Trump administration to take action on their behalf, according to a report by Politico.

The disgruntled officials’ 13-page memo singles out Pete Marocco, the head of USAID’s Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization.

A USAID official stated that a small group of veteran staffers drafted the memo in the bureau’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI). Marocco has voiced his skepticism towards a lot of programs this division runs, which is in line with the America First reluctance of embracing foreign aid programs.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The memo portrays Marocco as a micromanager who has thrown several wrenches into the bureau’s operations. In addition, the memo accuses Marocco of marginalizing employees and being vague about his orders that are allegedly difficult to implement. According to the complaint, “thousands of hours of staff time” have been “spent unnecessarily and unproductively.”

Furthermore, the complaint alleged that Marocco “has leveraged once-routine administrative processes to reopen previously-approved plans, interrogate and redirect country programs, halt movement on programs, procurements, and people, and inject uncertainty into daily operations and office planning.“ In addition, it contended that Marocco “has eschewed providing direction in writing or through other formal channels, and rarely sent guidance to teams directly implicated. Instead, he has conveyed orders and decisions, sometimes only orally, to individual staff … who then must attempt to relay this information as best they can to colleagues. This has inevitably generated significant confusion over intent and expectations, and made it difficult to confirm decisions or maintain adequate records.”

One of the more unheralded aspects of President Donald Trump’s ascendancy into the White House has been his skepticism towards the efficacy of foreign aid, which has traditionally been plagued with corruption. According to the Brookings Institute, the U.S. government spent roughly $39.2 billion on foreign aid in 2019, with very little results to show for it.

Overall, officials like Marcocco were appointed with the task of re-orienting USAID’s priorities, which ruffled many feathers.

For example, Marocco was against a $2 million extension of an OTI program in Ukraine that senior USAID and State Department officials werenin favor of. The proposal to extend the program has been sitting on Marocco’s desk waiting for the greenlight since he assumed the position in July, according to the complaint. On two occasions he has called for canceling this program and made a request to find out how much the cancellation process would cost. Politco reported that Marocco “hasn’t said what he would want to do instead with the money besides “do something ‘important’ like train and equip the military or police, or work on security sector reform,” according to the memo, which notes that the first suggestion is prohibited by law, while the second is not a USAID priority in Ukraine.”

It’s clear that Marocco is no swamp creature and does not believe in just doling out money to corrupt countries. An America First foreign aid policy would be one of minimal to no foreign aid, and people like Marocco make it easier for us to achieve that goal.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending