You have a renegade president on your hands. He won't respect anything or anyone. The only two things that matter to him are first, if he can do what he wants to do; and second, if anyone doesn't like it and is willing to say so. The first he attacks with his lawyers, the second with his tweets and his obnoxiously big, lying mouth. The only thing the two of you have in common is that you both have five kids; you by a single husband, he by three wives, all of whom he has betrayed.
You find him horrible, reprehensible, and simply revolting. Beyond that, his policies border on consistently, cold-bloodedly inhumane and amoral. He is an intimidating bully to boot.
In the meantime, an independent report, as restricted as it was, has still unearthed considerable evidence that The Renegade has broken the law--not once, but at least ten times. Beyond all his other awful attributes, he is now, in all likelihood, a criminal in plain sight.
You know this. You are challenged daily by it--by the mere presence of someone so powerful but so irresponsible and simply childish. He not only doesn't represent what the overwhelming majority of Americans want in a president, he also represents all that they don't want. And now you're challenged by your fellow Democrats in the House, who know this and want action.
The 2018 election has put them back in control. The House has the responsibility to begin impeachment proceedings if it wants to. And that phrase belongs solely to you. You are the person who can pull that trigger or keep that weapon in the vault permanently. Your position, right this minute, is to wait to see what kind of evidence will develop and where "the facts will lead."
But this president is standing there, daring you. You know very well that an impeachment charge or charges will go wanting in the Republican-controlled Senate; no hopes or logic, however legally procured, will change that simple fact. The Senate Republicans are tied by politics alone, for any consideration of legality would have removed this monster already. So it's politics and not law that chains the Senate to its seats. But there it is.
You have other considerations. The 2018 mid-terms caused a rumbling in the force of our politics. Americans elected Democrats in places nobody has heard about for quite some time: Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah. They have elected Muslims in Minnesota and Michigan. They have elected a Democrat in Orange County, a bastion of rock-ribbed Reaganites. They have elected an outspoken socialist from New York City who has emerged as an articulate, if controversial, spokesperson for millennials weary of the same-old, same-old.
Your job, in a sense, is to bring home this same majority, if not an even better one, in 2020, when the next national set of showdowns takes place--including the presidential election, which looms but is still too far away to say that the current day's politics have a salient effect. An unsuccessful, or even ineffective, impeachment proceeding might have devastating effects on that majority. On the other hand, failure to act decisively might keep loyal Democrats from showing up in 2020--exactly the thing, for whatever reasons, that defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 and brought on this awful person.
You had an internal challenge from white males who believed it was time for a change to more assertiveness, and had to compromise with them and agree to step down as Speaker in 2022 at the latest. You'll be 82 then, and ready to go, in all likelihood.
But here you are, on the hot seat. The thing is now. What do you say while this unravels? How do you keep the various forces at bay, loyal for now but increasingly riled up? They're like gnats swarming around your face; you can step away from them for a minute, but every day you walk the same path, and there they are, making you crazy. Too.
Here's what we can gather, in order in which they've been said by Pelosi, along with speculative interpretation according to my own intra-union political experience, because half of politics is what is said and the other half always lingers--the part that isn't said:
- He's not worth the trouble. Would that we could. He might go away soon, after all. Let's not poke the bear. He's being so ridiculous that he'll be brought down.
- He's committed impeachable offenses. I don't want to say that I agree or approve or wish to ignore this very bad person, though. Let's make that clear. But this is only how I feel.
- He should be referred to someone. Maybe his family could look into it. The man's really unhinged. His frustration is boiling over. I won't do what he wants, and I'm a woman. He can't deal with that reality.
- I don't want him impeached, I want him in prison. I know you're mad at me. I know you think I'm dithering. But I want justice for us and for him. This may be one of the best ways to do it. The Southern District of New York has a boatload of stuff on him, and he can't pardon himself for whatever the State of New York has in its own basement. Yes, he might wreck all kinds of stuff in the meantime, but we're still here and can block and harass him. For now.
- I don't want to talk about him. Beyond everything else, he's tried to intimidate me and insult my intelligence and sanity. That's beneath my consideration, period. The man is disgusting. He's pushing my buttons, but not in the way he thinks he is. Someone has to stay in control here. In the meantime, we all know he's a little off.
- Impeachment inquiry is not off the table. Notice that I said inquiry. I did not say proceedings. The two aren't the same. But this won't go away, ever. Too much is being revealed by both Mueller and, to come, Jerrold Nadler. Inquiry need not lead to proceedings. Yet they did with Nixon, who quit just before the latter were about to begin, but only because political friends approached him with unbeatable numbers. This guy won't because the numbers lean his way. He'll forestall and challenge with lawyers, claiming victory either way. How will that look on the other side of this mess?
Seems to me that there's an acceleration building here, an acknowledgement that is simply undeniable. We have to get the goods on him, she keeps saying in so many words, except nobody has yet asked: What the hell do 'the goods' need to be? We don't have enough? Really?
Her patience, I believe, is about institutional relevance and its imprimatur. If the House should actually impeach this president, it will be after fact-finding that would be considered suitable by at least the Democratic faithful (though none of it would ever be considered adequate by Republican sounding boards like Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan) and anyone else in the mainstream media who are watching with decent consideration. The Democrats in Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and Orange County, clinging to slim majorities, and the Muslim women against whom vindictiveness, rational or not, will be unleashed upon impeachment proceedings, will be watching. She needs 218 votes, but Democratic defections will weaken the effort. She can't have that.
But that, too, rolls onward with the passage of time. Nadler, now on fire for impeachment, is collecting information with the thoroughness of a White House groundskeeper. He, Adam Schiff, and Elijah Cummings, other House committee chairs with their feet in the impeachment possibility pool, have been turned loose to 'get the goods.' I believe it will be a consensus of the three of them, and not just Nadler, that will force Pelosi's hand. But it will also give her sufficient force of investigative weight. But just. Don't. Hurry. It.
Risk is the wild card of politics, especially in this world of fierce polarization. Savvy pols avoid it at nearly all costs. Sometimes waiting takes care of it, sometimes backroom compromises by plausibly deniable envoys sent for that purpose. But how long will it be until deliberation becomes capitulation? Can our system endure that? If he doesn't deserve impeachment, who ever would? What would any legal proceeding mean to anyone, anywhere, if this one can't apply? Can the Constitution get slapped around like this and return somehow to a modicum of respect?
Those gnats, too, buzz around Nancy Pelosi's head. "Impeachment is a very ugly word," 45 keeps saying, preparing his minions for a showdown.
Yes, it is. And it should be applied only to a very ugly president. Nancy Pelosi knows that, too. There he is, standing right in front of her.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment