Noonan: The Impeachment Needle May Move Soon

[Jazzhead]

The columnist I most admire,  Peggy Noonan of the WSJ,  lends a sober analysis to the predicament that President Trump faces:

The Impeachment Needle May Move Soon

Here are three reasons to think the situation is more fluid than we realize.

First, the president, confident of acquittal, has chosen this moment to let his inner crazy flourish daily and dramatically—the fights and meltdowns, the insults, the Erdogan letter. Just when the president needs to be enacting a certain stability he enacts its opposite. It is possible he doesn’t appreciate the jeopardy he’s in with impeachment bearing down; it is possible he knows and what behavioral discipline he has is wearing down.

The second is that the Republican leader of the Senate,Mitch McConnell,told his caucus this week to be prepared for a trial that will go six days a week and could last six to eight weeks. In September there had been talk the Senate might receive articles of impeachment and execute a quick, brief response—a short trial, or maybe a motion to dismiss. Mr. McConnell told CNBC then that the Senate would have “no choice” but to take up impeachment, but “how long you are on it is a different matter.” Now he sees the need for a major and lengthy undertaking. Part of the reason would be practical: He is blunting attack lines that the Republicans arrogantly refused to give impeachment the time it deserves. But his decision also gives room for the unexpected—big and serious charges that sweep public opinion and change senators’ votes. “There is a mood change in terms of how much they can tolerate,” said a former high Senate staffer. Senators never know day to day how bad things will get.

The third reason is the number of foreign-policy professionals who are not ducking testimony in the House but plan to testify or have already. Suppressed opposition to President Trump among foreign-service officers and others is busting out.

The president is daily eroding his position. His Syria decision was followed by wholly predictable tragedy; it may or may not have been eased by the announcement Thursday of a five-day cease-fire. Before that the House voted 354-60, including 129 Republicans, to rebuke the president. There was the crazy letter to Turkish PresidentRecep Tayyip Erdogan,which was alternately pleading (“You can make a great deal. . . . I will call you later”) and threatening (“I don’t want to be responsible for destroying the Turkish economy—and I will”).

There was the Cabinet Room meeting with congressional leaders, the insults hurled and the wildness of the photo that said it all—the angry president;Nancy Pelosi,the speaker of the House, standing and pointing at him; and the head ofGen. Mark Milley,the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bowed in—embarrassment? Horror? His was not the only bowed head.

In speaking to folks whose opinions I value this weekend,  the most startling event of the past week may well have been Trump's letter to Turkish leader Erdogan,  which the administration released to the public apparently in order to show how tough the President is.   But it's an almost juvenile-sounding compendium of schoolyard taunts,  and shocking evidence that there may no longer be adults in the room to help the President recognize and temper his most impulsive inclinations.   As I noted last week the most important question we should be asking ourselves is just who will want to work for this President?   If it's down to yes-men and relatives,  we are in for a wild ride as Trump decides to be an aerialist without a net.     

[Right_in_Virginia]

In speaking to folks whose opinions I value this weekend, 

Why are you asking folks to be concerned with what your butcher and proctologist think?

Get a life, Jazz.

[PeteS in CA]

So Noonan thinks impeachment is viable despite an utter lack of a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"? That tells me what I need to know about her credibility. Did she in 2015 or 2016 also pontificate that Trump was unelectable and would bring electoral disaster on the Rs if nominated?

[skeeter]

All one needs to know about Noonan's political literacy is she gave Barack Obama her full throated support in 2008.

She may make a great literature professor but otherwise she has no idea whats politically going on in this country. Plus she's insufferably pompous.

[Jazzhead]

Ostriches with heads in the sand,  I see.   Anyone care to address the message rather than castigating the messenger?   

[XenaLee]

So Noonan thinks impeachment is viable despite an utter lack of a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"? That tells me what I need to know about her credibility. Did she in 2015 or 2016 also pontificate that Trump was unelectable and would bring electoral disaster on the Rs if nominated?

Exactly.    And these same morons screeching for Trump's impeachment for "trumped up" charges.... were all silent as death when it came to demanding justice when Hillary committed several crimes (600 security violations) over those emails (obstruction of justice to the nth).   The hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the idiot left are, as usual, stunning.

[OfTheCross]

So Noonan thinks impeachment is viable despite an utter lack of a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"? That tells me what I need to know about her credibility. Did she in 2015 or 2016 also pontificate that Trump was unelectable and would bring electoral disaster on the Rs if nominated?

Criminal behaviour/activity is not necessary for impeachment. Read and Learn.


http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,379806.0.html

[OfTheCross]

Exactly.    And these same morons screeching for Trump's impeachment for "trumped up" charges.... were all silent as death when it came to demanding justice when Hillary committed several crimes (600 security violations) over those emails (obstruction of justice to the nth).   The hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the idiot left are, as usual, stunning.

Criminal behaviour/activity is not necessary for impeachment. Read and Learn.


http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,379806.0.html

[XenaLee]

Ostriches with heads in the sand,  I see.   Anyone care to address the message rather than castigating the messenger?   

Nah.   We'd much rather pick on you.... our favorite ROLCON.     

[skeeter]

Ostriches with heads in the sand,  I see.   Anyone care to address the message rather than castigating the messenger?   

No need - it's an opinion. I don't respect Noonan's political opinion and I explained why.

[XenaLee]

Criminal behaviour/activity is not necessary for impeachment. Read and Learn.


http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,379806.0.html

How about you read and learn, Mr./Ms. know it all.  The DemocRats can Impeach over any number of fantasies in their pea brains.... but they will never be able to remove Trump from the WH, especially since the backlash from any such bogus Impeachment will mean a Trump landslide next year.
 
Straight from the US Constitution re: removal from office:

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Further to that, regarding Impeachment and the requirements for an ethical process of Impeachment:

An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

[skeeter]

How about you read and learn, Mr./Ms. know it all.  The DemocRats can Impeach over any number of fantasies in their pea brains.... but they will never be able to remove Trump from the WH, especially since the backlash from any such bogus Impeachment will mean a Trump landslide next year.
 
Straight from the US Constitution re: removal from office:

Further to that, regarding Impeachment and the requirements for an ethical process of Impeachment:

And it's all moot anyway, as the Constitution lays out a defined process for impeachment which is not being followed by Pelosi's house.

[Snarknado]

Impeachment will happen - how could the dems possibly walk it back now? It would be a disaster for them. But no way conviction happens based on anything we know now. McConnell can turn the trial into a circus, and in the end repub senators have an easy out - with a fast-approaching election, common sense dictates that Trump's fate should be left to the voters.

The argument that impeachment doesn't require a crime is totally irrelevant. No party would ever remove their own president without hard evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Even then, Clinton did commit the actual crime of perjury yet no dem senator voted for conviction.

[Jazzhead]

How about you read and learn, Mr./Ms. know it all.  The DemocRats can Impeach over any number of fantasies in their pea brains.... but they will never be able to remove Trump from the WH, especially since the backlash from any such bogus Impeachment will mean a Trump landslide next year.
 

"Never"?  I admire your confidence,  but don't allow yourself to be willfully blind.   

That's why I urge you to read Noonan's column.   The Senate dam is showing signs of breaking.   Dismiss her column if you will,  but Trump's strategy of doubling down on the craziness is going to influence the jurors in the Senate, who will in turn be considering the testimony of foreign service professionals who are not resisting Dem subpoenas.   

[XenaLee]

And it's all moot anyway, as the Constitution lays out a defined process for impeachment which is not being followed by Pelosi's house.

Of course it's not being followed.   Because... you know.... the DemocRats are such special people...

that rules, laws, processes, precedents don't apply to them.   They're allowed to just make stuff up as they go along... and change the rules mid-game.  And cheat.

[XenaLee]

"Never"?  I admire your confidence,  but don't allow yourself to be willfully blind.   

That's why I urge you to read Noonan's column.   The Senate dam is showing signs of breaking.   Dismiss her column if you will,  but Trump's strategy of doubling down on the craziness is going to influence the jurors in the Senate, who will in turn be considering the testimony of foreign service professionals who are not resisting Dem subpoenas.

Then again, considering the ongoing, 24/7 harassment and attacks Trump has endured for the past three plus years..... one could say that he is handling it better than anyone else ever could handle it.   In fact.... I posit that a lot of folks will say exactly that.... with their vote....next year...

for Trump!

[skeeter]

Of course it's not being followed.   Because... you know.... the DemocRats are such special people...

that rules, laws, processes, precedents don't apply to them.   They're allowed to just make stuff up as they go along... and change the rules mid-game.  And cheat.

The rats & their enablers are desperate to convey the 'grave' consequences of this farce. Of course they'd like everyone to accept their context. They'll worry about where they'll find actual substance later.

But it is all just that - a political farce.

[XenaLee]

Impeachment will happen - how could the dems possibly walk it back now? It would be a disaster for them. But no way conviction happens based on anything we know now. McConnell can turn the trial into a circus, and in the end repub senators have an easy out - with a fast-approaching election, common sense dictates that Trump's fate should be left to the voters.

The argument that impeachment doesn't require a crime is totally irrelevant. No party would ever remove their own president without hard evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Even then, Clinton did commit the actual crime of perjury yet no dem senator voted for conviction.

Yeah, well....  with what we know now.... about that previously unknown taxpayer-paid 'fund' for paying out claims against Congress critters, including sexual abuse/harassment claims.... they probably figured they couldn't throw stones.... considering they were equally immoral and dishonest.

[Victoria33]

Ostriches with heads in the sand,  I see.   Anyone care to address the message rather than castigating the messenger?   

@Jazzhead

Jazz, some people here say there is no evidence to impeach the president.  We don't know what evidence the three committees investigating this have.  We will all know when they present the evidence to the full House.  Until then, it is all supposition to say there is, or is not, evidence.

[skeeter]

@Jazzhead

Jazz, some people here say there is no evidence to impeach the president.  We don't know what evidence the three committees investigating this have.  We will all know when they present the evidence to the full House.  Until then, it is all supposition to say there is, or is not, evidence.

True enough. But personally I suspect there is nothing more in regards to 'evidence' than what we already know. If there was a) it certainly would've been leaked by Schiff's office already, and b) Pelosi wouldn't be so reticent to hold a vote in the House in the manner proscribed by the Constitution.

[XenaLee]

True enough. But personally I suspect there is nothing more in regards to 'evidence' than what we already know. If there was a) it certainly would've been leaked by Schiff's office already, and b) Pelosi wouldn't be so reticent to hold a vote in the House in the manner proscribed by the Constitution.

Exactly!   

[Cyber Liberty]

Noonan is a freakin' airhead.  She's like David Frum, she fancies herself Reagan's brain because he used to read her words in his speeches.  Frum made the same claims about GWB, that all brilliant thoughts were really Frum's.  Noonan's been riding this hobby horse for decades now because it feeds the narrative that Reagan was a moron who's only good attribute was his speech writers.

Of all political commentators, I rank her very near the bottom, way down in Paul Krugman territory.  Calling her a POS would be an insult to POSs everywhere.

[skeeter]

Noonan is a freakin' airhead.  She's like David Frum, she fancies herself Reagan's brain because he used to read her words in his speeches.  Frum made the same claims about GWB, that all brilliant thoughts were really Frum's.  Noonan's been riding this hobby horse for decades now because it feeds the narrative that Reagan was a moron who's only good attribute was his speech writers.

Of all political commentators, I rank her very near the bottom, way down in Paul Krugman territory.  Calling her a POS would be an insult to POSs everywhere.

She's a fatuous phony. This was made painfully obvious to me when she delivered a eulogy at Reagan's funeral. She made it all about her.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead

Jazz, some people here say there is no evidence to impeach the president.  We don't know what evidence the three committees investigating this have.  We will all know when they present the evidence to the full House.  Until then, it is all supposition to say there is, or is not, evidence.

It would not be entirely accurate to say we don't know anything about the evidence.  Schiff's been supplying the press with a steady diet of leaked "evidence" engineered to smear Trump and his administration since he was first elected.  What we don't have is any of the exculpatory evidence that exists, because it doesn't get leaked or reported by the WaPo and NYT.

Deciding if Trump is guilty should not depend solely upon cherry-picked data supplied by the hyper-partisan Chairman of a Committee who spent the entire duration of the Mueller investigation claiming he had iron-clad evidence Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election.  Schiff had no such evidence.  Even the equally partisan Mueller could not make that claim in his "report," which was itself the product of a lot of cherry-picking.

[Cyber Liberty]

She's a fatuous phony. This was made painfully obvious to me when she delivered a eulogy at Reagan's funeral. She made it all about her.

Of course she did.  She really believes that she was the brain behind the Affable Dunce Ronald Reagan.