not wanting my comments to devolve into my own version of a trumpian tweet-rant filled with insults and name-calling, but with many more obscenities, i felt i had to refrain from posting after last friday's vote, so i'll pick up pretty much where i left off.
while the vote itself ended up as expected (no surprise there), hope remained that somehow those moderate republicans would regain at least a modicum of sanity and reason and agree to allow new documents and witnesses, but unfortunately it was not to be. within hours of the final 51- 49 vote, the department of justice revealed that it had withheld two dozen emails from a period between june and september of 2019 that showed the president's direct knowledge of the 'scope, duration and purpose' of the hold placed on the military funding meant for the ukraine, emails that hit at the very heart of the accusations of a quid pro quo and the main reason for the subsequent decision to impeach. but with the vote already held, it was too little, too late.
after the vote, it seemed that some honesty began to dribble out of the mouths of some of the president's defenders as they started to indicate they felt he actually might have done something wrong.
starting with one of the moderates the democrats had hoped would vote for witnesses, LAMAR ALEXANDER, the retiring senator from tennessee, said witnesses like john bolton weren't necessary since "There is no need for more evidence to conclude the president withheld united states aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the house managers have proved that with what they call 'a mountain of overwhelming evidence'." so, no new evidence was warranted because the house had already proven it's case? he, however, dismisses the obstruction charge as "frivolous". LINDSEY GRAHAM, one of donald's fiercest defenders, golfing buddy and primary butt-kisser (sorry junior) gave a rather mixed bag of reactions to alexander's comments, claiming he "most likely expressed the sentiments of the country as a whole as well as any senator possibly could.", and at the same time saying "Senator Alexander rightly rejected their arguments." i'm sorry, didn't he just say the house had proven their case with their "mountain of overwhelming evidence"? i wouldn't call that 'rejecting their evidence'. but lindsey also slipped in a slight dis of his best bud by insinuating the assertion that the oft referenced 'perfect call' was anything but.
another former critic of the president who fell in line once he felt his re-election was dependent on doing so, BEN SASSE of nebraska said "let me be clear. lamar speaks for lots and lots of us." however, when asked if he felt the president acted inappropriately, he refused to answer.
MARCO RUBIO, a frequent target of insults and name calling during his brief run for the repubican nomination who became a big defender of the administration, had this to say in defense of his 'no' vote: "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment, does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office." note he doesn't say 'supposedly...' or 'maybe meet the standard for impeachment', he's indirectly saying they do, but removing this president would be viewed as an illegitimate and partisan process by half the country so therefore it shouldn't be done. he however misses the fact that he's ignoring the other half of the country who feel it should be done. i'm guessing they don't matter since they don't agree with him. he also said, "I also disagree with the house managers' argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the president leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive." but like all the others who even hint at the possibility the president may done something, anything wrong none can offer a way other than impeachment to hold any president accountable.
finally, LISA MURKOWSKI of alaska offered her explanation saying "Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, i have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the senate,...".
NO SHIT!! i suppose it couldn't have had anything to do with mcturtle saying from the very beginning that he wasn't going to make it a fair trial? or maybe you just decided to make it appear you were going to sit on the fence until he came up with a better offer to insure your vote.
oops, almost forgot SUSAN COLLINS of maine, though she says he was wrong to ask ukraine to investigate the bidens feels that mr. 'i did nothing wrong' will feel reprimanded just knowing he was impeached and she will not vote to remove him simply because he exhibited "bad judgement", as did bill clinton, another president she voted not to remove. sorry, but don corleoning a foreign president to investigate a political rival is nowhere close to being in the same category of 'bad judgement' as lying about a blow-job between consenting adults. and if she really believes he will 'feel reprimanded', thus making it more likely he would adjust any bad behaviors toward the more positive, pollyanna better take off those rose-colored glasses and prepare to be bitch-slapped back into reality.
i honestly can't remember if anything happened on saturday but i do know they were off on sunday so we'll skip to monday, the day of the final arguments which, i'll admit, i didn't watch. i anticipated more of the same from both sides, the house managers reiterating all the reasons for impeachment and the emperor's men proclaiming he has such beautiful new clothes and 'did nothing wrong'. other than another of adam schiff's epic smack-downs of the other side, their obliviousness and utter devotion to a serial liar and his clown posse laughingly called his expert team of lawyers, it appears to have been a snoozefest.
fast jump to tuesday and it started off with statements from all 100 of the senators who, until now, have been forced to sit, silent, since the trial began. while both sides feel they have something important to say after being silent for 8 - 10 hours per day, it's the minions lord orange who feel most deprived, only being allowed to rant and posture while entering and leaving under the glare of camera lights, answer, or for the shier among them, run away from questions lobbed by reporters (otherwise known as the enemies of the state and agents of fake news), sucking up the attention they've been denied for those ungodly, boring hours, listening to useless blather when their minds are already made up.
when they're done and hopefully with enough time to pretty up, it'll be time for the third (and hopefully final) state of the union address. you must remember, the first one he delivered was only weeks after he'd been sworn in and to comment on the state of the union would have meant he'd have to have given credit to the guy before him for how well we were actually doing and that, for the guy who claimed he was the 'only one' who could fix whatever was wrong (and what was wrong was whatever he said it was, i.e. blame it on the black guy) would have been impossible. the circumstances of this sotu speech are quite dis-similar to the one delivered by clinton in 1999 in that it was delivered the same day his lawyers had begun presenting his defense and not the day before the final vote on whether or not to remove him from office. also, bill was warmly greeted by the senate. in his introduction, Dennis Hastert, republican speaker of the house, said "Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States." somehow i can't imagine nancy saying anything quite so gracious. other areas in which there are differences: clinton had a record high job approval rating, the economy was booming (though you know the same could and will be claimed today) and, the biggie, the budget deficit had been erased. this boon would be passed on to bush 2 but, well, let's just say it didn't last long. and in the whole hour-long speech the impeachment was never mentioned. it's being said that those close this president are advising him not to bring it up and concentrate on 'the good stuff, his accomplishments', in other words stick to the script. but knowing his seeming fondness for going off on tangents and riffing on whatever comes to mind added to the fact he'll have nancy right over his shoulder while facing schumer, nadler and every democratic member of the chamber that voted for his impeachment, the only inducement i can see for me to watch the speech is the possibility that he simply won't be able to control himself and let it rip. however, i don't have enough popcorn for that 'must see t.v.' moment, so i'll pass. besides, i'm thinking his advisers will resort to medication in his big mac and let the sniffling and the late night comics be damned. whatever happens i'm sure i'll catch it on good morning america. yet even if he's able to stick to the script, it's his other fondness for make false or misleading statements, otherwise known simply as lying, and it's not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. bookies are saying he won't be able to go 45 seconds between lies and there's no chance of him going the entire speech without making at east one false claim wit those odds set at 100:1. bets are even being taken on if and how many times he'll actually claim he's exonerated during the speech, even though the final vote (for acquittal, not exoneration) won't be until wednesday, but, hey, don't we always get claims like that with such a 'fair trial'.
that leads us to that final vote, and anyone who says it's the result of that 'fair trial' is lying on par with the guy that's on trial. either that or they're naive, stupid or both. in the end it can justifiably be assumed this will not be the end, not in the traditional sense. like the crap about the withheld emails coming out only hours after the first vote, there will be more. i'm reasonably sure they'll try to hide much and succeed with some thanks to barr and his cronies. then there's bolton's book. sure, they'll try to get that quashed on the grounds it compromises national security, but since he worked with things concerning national security, you can't tell me he didn't know what he could or could not talk about. then again, we've got a chief executive who thinks that what he says goes, so he can classify whatever he wants in whatever way he wants. 'what time's the sun come up? ooooo, that's essential to national security, can't tell you.' 'is water wet? sorry, national security.'
so, speech tonight but i'll wait for the summaries and soundbites. vote on wednesday? sorry, but thinking one won't know the outcome of this is like believing you won't know the ending of a movie you've seen 100 times.
in the meantime i'm sure i have something more important to do. i'm sure there's something...laundry, count the tiles on the bathroom floor?
i'll think of something.
No comments:
Post a Comment