On MSM outlets retreating from impeachment

PAUL MIRENGOFF:

“…In both its news and opinion sections, the Washington Post has been beating the drum for impeaching President Trump. However, two op-eds in today’s paper, both by writers with a strong aversion to Trump, are unimpressed with the case for impeachment. The op-eds are good evidence that the impeachment process isn’t playing out the way Democrats had hoped it would.

Kathleen Parker, a moderate, argues with “disappointment” that the case for impeachment simply isn’t there. David Von Drehle, a liberal, doesn’t take a position on the merits. His concern is with the futility of impeachment proceedings, which he seems to believe will redound to President Trump’s advantage.

Von Drehle is critical of both Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. He complains that Schiff, in his rush to impeach, hasn’t done enough to develop the evidence in favor of this measure. For example, Schiff has been unwilling to use the courts.

Nadler draws fire from Von Drehle for using law professors to try to advance the impeachment ball — a move that he says cannot have changed a single American mind. Von Drehle ridicules, as I did, professor Michael Gerhardt’s claim that “if what we’re talking about is not impeachable, nothing is impeachable.”

Nothing?

This offense that House Democrats can’t be bothered to fully investigate, can’t be troubled to thoroughly document, can’t discipline themselves to coil into a mortal blow — this is the very worst thing any president could conceivably do? No crime will ever be impeachable unless this halfhearted mess is seen through to defeat?

Gerhardt’s statement is the sort of vacuous hyperbole people fall back on to prepare themselves for a wasteful gesture. We must do this thing because really, we have no choice. The sacrifice will be rewarded in the sweet by and by. You either nod along, or you think critically; you can’t do both. And once you’ve accepted the professor’s assertion that Schiff’s committee has fully nailed down the most egregious crime any president could commit, the rest is fated. Like a soldier in the trenches of World War I, you just hope your death is made more glorious by its tragic inevitability.

I disagree with Von Drehle to the extent he thinks that the impeachment proceedings are playing into Trump’s hands. My view has been that impeachment will either have no impact on the election or will have a slightly negative effect on Trump’s prospects.

But after listening to the law professors last week, I can understand why Von Drehle, from his anti-Trump perspective, is worried…”

Original

On Horowitz and his upcoming report

SHARYL ATTKISSON:

“…My own take is that both parties don’t know exactly what to make of Horowitz. Depending on who’s the target of his scrutiny, one side likes him because, often, he doesn’t entirely let the bad guys off the hook. The other side likes him because, often, he doesn’t go too far or too high up in assigning blame. From a political standpoint, that’s a win-win. People are sort of held accountable — but not too accountable. It’s pretty safe…”

Original

Low-Bar Impeachment

A good summary of the impeachment farce and historical precedents. Worth clicking over.

Victor Davis Hanson:

“…From now on, impeachment can be used against any first-term president with a record of success. It will be used solely as a political strategy by the opposition party that controls the House to weaken a president’s reelection chances. That’s the Democratic Party’s legacy and Democrats will live to rue it…”

Original

Tightening the screws

“…US President Donald Trump on Friday (Dec 6) called for the World Bank to stop loaning money to China, one day after the institution adopted a lending plan to Beijing over Washington’s objections.

The World Bank on Thursday adopted a plan to aid China with US$1 billion (S$1.36 billion) to US$1.5 billion in low-interest loans annually through June 2025. The plan calls for lending to “gradually decline” from the previous five-year average of US$1.8 billion.

“Why is the World Bank loaning money to China? Can this be possible? China has plenty of money, and if they don’t, they create it. STOP!” Trump wrote in a post on Twitter.

“World Bank lending to China has fallen sharply and will continue to reduce as part of our agreement with all our shareholders including the United States,” the World Bank said in an e-mailed statement to Reuters.

“We eliminate lending as countries get richer.”…”

Original

Maybe Democrats don’t want an impeachment

Don Surber:

“…The big news on Friday evening is that Democrat leaders are not pushing House members to vote for impeachment.

Now it could be Nancy has the 218 votes she needs and is allowing some congressmen in tough races next fall to punt.

But I don’t see it. I do not see Democrats being suicidal over President Donald John Trump. Plus Clyburn’s words undercut the Democrats’ self-righteous call to impeach.

Clyburn told CNN, “This is a vote of conscience. I do believe that when it comes to something as divisive as impeachment, we have to leave members up to their own consciences, their own constituents, and what they think is in the best interest of their love for country.

“And so, I think it would be a bit unseemly for us to go out whipping up a vote on something like this. This is too serious, this is too much about preserving this great Republic.”

But if it is “about preserving this great Republic,” then Clyburn is under a moral obligation to press for Democrats to toe the line.

Does he not care enough “about preserving this great Republic” to lobby for impeachment?

Clyburn said, “If we cannot vote to impeach with what we had in testimonies last week and what we’ve seen in news reports this week, then we ought to just modify the Constitution and get rid of impeachment altogether.”

That may not be such a bad idea.

Or at least preserve impeachment for an actual crime.

Conventional wisdom in DC is Democrats will impeach and Republicans will acquit.

But Clyburn does not think it is important enough to twist arms to get it to pass. At best that is a mixed message…”

Original

Get Ready for a Contested Democrat Convention

Karl Rove:

“…There’s growing concern among Democrats that their July 2020 convention in Milwaukee could open without a candidate who receives a majority of the vote on the first ballot. The last time that happened to the Democrats was 1952…

…Going into the Super Tuesday contests on March 3, Mr. Biden would have 61 delegates, Ms. Warren 37, Mr. Sanders 31 and Mr. Buttigieg 26…

…Strange things happen at contested conventions. At the last such Democratic confab in 1952, the nominee was neither the front-runner, Sen. Estes Kefauver, nor Vice President Alben Barkley, ostensibly supported by President Harry S. Truman. Instead, on the third ballot, Democrats nominated Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson II.

Party elders felt that only Stevenson could keep Northern and Southern Democrats united, and had tried unsuccessfully to draft him to run. Only after a platform fight about civil rights; a disastrous meeting between Mr. Barkley and labor leaders; and wrangling over a loyalty oath aimed at Southern Democrats that threatened to fracture the party, as happened in 1948, did Stevenson reluctantly agree to run. Truman then arrived in Chicago and ordered some of the candidates out of the contest and favorite-son delegations to swing to the Illinois governor. The party left largely unified and mostly happy.

It is hard to see any of the Democratic ex-presidents playing Truman’s calming role in 2020. Instead, Democrats could be in for a rocky convention, featuring back-room deals and horse trades that anger and fracture the party…”

Original

Doug Santo