Impeachment Light (100% fact free!)

September 14, 2023

          There were many important stories on Wednesday, but no dominant theme. The story most likely to affect our lives over the next several months is the GOP dysfunction in the House. Let’s start there. (Sorry for the delay in sending today’s newsletter. It has been sitting in the draft folder since last evening—for no good reason!)

          Kevin McCarthy does not have the votes to open an impeachment inquiry into President Biden’s non-existent corruption. But—according to Lauren Boebert—McCarthy agreed to hold a vote to open impeachment proceedings against Biden. So, with a gun to his head but not enough votes to open an inquiry, McCarthy instructed the GOP chairs of three House committees to conduct toothless impeachment inquiries in the absence of an authorizing resolution—the “Bud Light” of impeachment proceedings.

          Readers should not worry about the Impeachment Light proceedings in the House. The GOP has been conducting those inquiries over the last six months and came up empty-handed. They played their strongest hand—testimony from an IRS “whistleblower” and Hunter Biden’s business partner (Devon Archer)—and got nothing. If Republicans had any evidence, they would have eagerly presented that evidence at the first opportunity. They didn’t, which means they don’t have the evidence. Rebranding those failed hearings as “impeachment inquiries” won’t change the result—or the lack of evidence.

          McCarthy’s sop did not fool the Maga extremists feasting at the trough of McCarthy’s debasement. Matt Gaetz went ballistic, claiming that McCarthy was “in breach of his agreement” and threatened to move to “vacate the chair”—i.e., hold a no-confidence vote on McCarthy. Lauren Boebert demanded an “up or down vote” on an impeachment inquiry “like the Speaker promised that there would be.”

The House Freedom Caucus held a press conference on Wednesday saying that the impeachment inquiry “changes nothing” about their demands to cut spending significantly in the 2024 budget. See Vanity Fair, Kevin McCarthy’s Impeachment Push Isn’t Going to Satisfy House Republicans.

          In other words, McCarthy gave up a lot and got nothing in exchange.

          Why should we care about McCarthy’s internal struggles to maintain his Speakership? If McCarthy is removed during the fight to pass the 2024 budget, it is not clear whether anyone could be elected Speaker to succeed McCarthy—a recipe for chaos at a moment when discipline and leadership are critical.

The situation is so bad that Matt Gaetz has been wooing Democrats to oust McCarthy and appoint a replacement. See Business Insider, Matt Gaetz can count on some progressives' support as he threatens to force a vote on ousting Kevin McCarthy.

          Gaetz ratcheted up the brinksmanship on the budget battle by saying that a motion for a “continuing resolution”—a temporary stopgap to keep the government open—would result in a motion to vacate in the House every day after the opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance. Oh, swell! Doesn’t that sound delightful?

          The situation is designed to torture Kevin McCarthy—and the American people. Kevin McCarthy’s continued service as Speaker is inextricably bound to the passage of a budget in the House that is doomed to fail in the Senate.

          The obvious way out of this mess is for McCarthy and a handful of GOP representatives to find the courage to stand up to Gaetz, Boebert, and the rest of the Freedom Caucus. But revelations from Mitt Romney’s forthcoming biography on Wednesday remind us that when Republicans are faced with the choice of doing the right thing or taking the coward’s way out, it is not a close question.

Mitt Romney says he will not seek re-election in 2024.

          Mitt Romney said on Wednesday that he would not seek reelection in 2024. The announcement coincided with the release of the first chapter of his biography. See The Atlantic, What Mitt Romney Saw in the Senate.

          There are many disturbing details in the excerpt, but the most disturbing is the fact that Republicans in the House and Senate said they would not vote to impeach or convict Trump because they feared violent retribution from Trump's followers.

          As reported in The Atlantic, Romney had conversations with Republican members of Congress in connection with the second impeachment of Trump. Per The Atlantic,

One Republican congressman confided to Romney that he wanted to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, but chose not to out of fear for his family’s safety. The congressman reasoned that Trump would be impeached by House Democrats with or without him—why put his wife and children at risk if it wouldn’t change the outcome?

Later, during the Senate trial, Romney heard the same calculation while talking with a small group of Republican colleagues. When one senator, a member of leadership, said he was leaning toward voting to convict, the others urged him to reconsider. “You can’t do that,” Romney recalled someone saying. “Think of your personal safety,” said another. “Think of your children.” The senator eventually decided they were right.

          So, there you have it. The violent attack on the Capitol on January 6 had its intended effect—at least in part. Trump's followers managed to intimidate the Republican members of Congress to prevent his conviction in the Senate. And Trump is using the same tactics today—with success in the GOP. Indeed, as I noted yesterday, Trump has been quietly meeting with House Republicans to advise them on the impeachment inquiry, which is a losing proposition for House Republicans. Still, none of them are willing to speak the truth.

          Romney’s story about the second impeachment is a bad omen for the upcoming budget fight. Kevin McCarthy is an inveterate liar and spineless coward. Hoping that he will finally stand up to the Freedom Caucus to pass a budget is not realistic.

          How, then, will we escape from the corner into which McCarthy has painted himself? Like all things, it will come down to pressure from the American people. Even the most rabid political extremists know how to determine which way the wind is blowing. Read on!

Did Wisconsin Republicans just blink?

          It is too early to declare victory, but the overwhelming support for Justice Janet Protasiewicz may have given Wisconsin Republicans pause. Although they had hoped to move quickly to remove Protasiewicz from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, calls from constituents and an advertising campaign by the Wisconsin Democratic Party have rallied public opinion in support of Justice Protasiewicz and against the impeachment strategy. See A Better Way,  Poll Finds Wisconsin Voters Overwhelmingly Oppose Unconstitutional Impeachment | A Better Wisconsin Together

          The poll found the following:

• Nearly twice as many oppose impeachment (47%) as support it (24%). In fact, a plurality of voters (39%) strongly opposes impeachment and independents oppose impeachment by a larger 27-point margin.

• A majority (51%) of voters disapprove of the Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature (41% approve).

          Faced with widespread public opposition, the Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, Robin Vos, appointed a panel of three former Wisconsin Supreme Court justices to review the issues before Republicans proceed any further. Vos said,

They're making it seem like I’m foaming at the mouth to have an impeachment process. But that is the last thing I want to have happen which is why we have taken what I would say is a pretty radical step to offer a different path.

See Wisconsin State Journal, Wisconsin Republican leader asks former state Supreme Court justices to review impeachment.

          It could be that Wisconsin Republicans are looking for political cover for the plan to impeach Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Or it could be that they hear the footsteps of angry constituents upset that the GOP plans to nullify an election in which the people of Wisconsin made their voices heard. Stay tuned.

Judge Aileen Cannon rules in favor of DOJ in defense secrets case—finally.

          Judge Aileen Cannon granted the government’s motion for a protective order regarding the handling of confidential information. See Lawfare, Judge Cannon Enters Protective Order in Trump Mar-a-Lago Case. The order is here: Protective Order Pertaining to Classified Information.

          The order ignored—and therefore rejected—a bizarre request to designate a room at Mar-a-Lago as a “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).” If Judge Cannon had granted that request, she would have effectively returned to Trump the defense secrets he is accused of illegally removing from the White House when he left office.

          The order also contains standard language that is unfavorable to Trump. For example, per The Hill,

The order largely used standard language included in protective orders in classified cases, noting in a line echoing the subject of the case itself that “any unauthorized disclosure or mishandling of classified information may constitute violations of federal criminal law.”

It also bars Trump from making public comments about classified evidence in the case, noting that even classified information that “appears in the public domain” is not fair game to discuss unless it has been released as part of an official government statement.

          All of the above is encouraging. But it is discouraging that Judge Cannon took three months to issue the standard protective order. Indeed, Judge Cannon issued the order only after major media outlets began commenting on the long delay in granting the motion and the strategic advantage that the delay gifted to Trump. See The Hill, Federal judge sidesteps Trump request to view classified info at Mar-a-Lago in protective order.  

          But in another order issued on Wednesday, Judge Cannon noted that the volume of classified documents subject to the order is 3,500 pages—approximately one “banker’s box” of documents. Reviewing that volume of classified documents should not give Trump grounds for delay. Any competent law firm could thoroughly review 3,500 pages in two days (or less). See Raw Story, Judge Cannon just quietly revealed why Trump can't delay longer: legal expert.

Join me at a States Project/Giving Circle on Thursday.

          The States Project Giving Circle program is a great way for people to come together to learn about and support swing elections in state legislatures. On Thursday, September 14, from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Pacific, I will be speaking at a Giving Circle event to help Virginia Democrats hold their State Senate majority and retake the State House. The meeting is both informational and fundraising, so if you want to learn more about the Virginia elections, please feel free to join me! This Zoom Event is sponsored by Potlucks and Politics, which operates as a local branch of The States Project

The States Project uses smart strategies to direct our modest donations in order to maximize their impact on electoral politics at the state level. Shifting the balance of power in Virginia to Democratic majorities will protect democracy and will benefit people in Virginia and nationally.

          Click here to RSVP: Giving Circle Event for Virginia with Robert Hubbell.

Concluding Thoughts.

          David Ignatius dominated the morning news cycle with an op-ed in the Washington Post titled, “Biden shouldn’t run again in 2024.” Ignatius had nothing new to say. Indeed, his op-ed was half-baked; he acknowledges there is no “obvious” choice to replace Biden—a fact that would trigger chaos if Biden withdraws only months before a primary season for which no Democrat has built a campaign infrastructure. And that is a good idea because . . . ? Ignatius also proposes that Biden should drop Kamala Harris but then recants because “breaking up the ticket would be a free-for-all that could alienate Black women, a key constituency. Biden might end up more vulnerable.” What?!

          In short, there is no reason to read the op-ed by Ignatius. But the response by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo is worth reading. See TPM, Get Real and Get Focused. Marshall reviews the reasons why keeping Biden is a good idea, including the following:

One of the paradoxical triumphs of Biden’s presidency is the way he has been able to hold these factions pretty much united — a fact that most of his career would have given little indication of.

He’s largely done this through a mix of his personal and instinctive conventionality mixed with the fact that he has governed to a great degree with the issue agenda of the progressive left, especially on fiscal policy.

Throwing this debate wide open again with no warning would be about the best way imaginable to wrongfoot the party going into a general election and greatly increase the chances of defeat. 

          Marshall punctuates the above observation with this closing line:

So, everyone who wants to beat Trump needs to absorb that, stop whining and buck up.

          If we grant that David Ignatius acted with good intentions (and it appears that he did), he must understand that adding to the constant drumbeat about Biden’s age hurts Biden and helps Trump. We do not owe Biden absolute, unreasoned loyalty. But neither should we amplify a narrative that exaggerates a distinction that is not a difference between the candidates. The differences between the candidates could not be greater. Age is not one of them.

          Talk to you tomorrow!