↓
 
Home » And then there’s Hillary Clinton: on impeachment, Watergate, and Whistlegate

And then there’s Hillary Clinton: on impeachment, Watergate, and Whistlegate

The New Neo Posted on by

Interesting that Barbara Jordan said that way back in 1974, isn’t it? The context was Watergate, in which the call for investigation and then impeachment as well as conviction was strongly bipartisan (unlike only slight bipartisanship with Bill Clinton in the 90s or no bipartisanship now with Trump). Therefore Nixon resigned rather than put the country and himself through it.

But there’s more to what Jordan said. Here’s some of the context, the text of Jordan’s entire speech. Some excerpts [emphasis mine]:

My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution…

The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: “We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other.”

The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term “high crime[s] and misdemeanors.” Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that “Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can.”

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty…

…the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder!

So in essence, Jordan’s speech was a defense of the Constitution – although you’d never know it from Hillary’s oh-so-clever excerpt – and of the gravity of impeachment and the necessity for “high crimes and misdemeanors” to justify it. Jordan’s speech occurred on July 25, 1974, about two weeks before Nixon’s resignation. Unlike the situation now, it was preceded by an extremely lengthy bipartisan process that involved a roll call vote in the Senate [77-0] to establish an investigatory committee. The committee was bipartisan as well (I remember particularly Sam Ervin the Democrat and Howard Baker the Republican, but there were others), and there were numerous counsels involved who were also bipartisan.

The difference between the process then and the process now is extreme. During Watergate, Congress was reacting to an event, and launched a bipartisan investigation. Now, one party is using the intelligence corps to create the appearance of an event, with the long-stated goal – one made clear even before Donald Trump became president – of removing this president from office.

One constant, though, has been Hillary Clinton:

In 1974, she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., and advised the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard W. Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for it.

Hillary’ trajectory is a sad one. She and her fellow Democrats are now doing exactly what Jordan warned against: engaging in the process for petty, political, partisan reasons. And she is quoting Jordan in order to defend it.

Comments

And then there’s Hillary Clinton: on impeachment, Watergate, and Whistlegate — 54 Comments

  2. Hillary’ trajectory is a sad one. S

    It has been noted that the man who was chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee over a period of 14 years dismissed her for cause in 1974. He subsequently said that over those 14 years, he employed just three attorneys for whom he would never give a reference. She was one of the three. She had considerable difficulty finding employment in law after that. She landed a position at the Rose firm in Little Rock after Bilge was elected state attorney-general.

    Her trajectory has been to expand the scale and the number of venues for her megalomania and her cupidity to manifest itself.

  3. I maintain you can draw a straight line from Bill Clinton being allowed to get away with it in 1998 to the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Maybe there’s not quite a straight line but I think it’s hard to argue the former didn’t help set the stage for the latter.

    What do they think the bogus impeachment of Donald Trump will summon up somewhere down the line?

    Mike

  4. Also worth remembering were Barbara Jordan’s words on immigration and “Americanization” — especially her opinion piece in the NYTimes.

    “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.” — Rep. Barbara Jordan.

  5. Barbara Jordan was from an era when many democrats actually loved America as founded. Can anyone name a democrat today who actually wants a republic instead of a pure democracy ending in a dictatorship?

  6. Anyone supporting Democrats today is supporting pigs that should have been turned into bacon long ago.
    Neo has made it clear numerous times that she has “liberal” friends with whom she politically disagrees. With whom she does not dare to discuss politics.
    But politics and our division over them are the very heart of the matter. At some point it must be said (by Dems, often): If you are not with us, then you are against us.
    There is no point in having a ballerina as a friend when she opposes, out of ignorance, apathy or belief, all that ballerina’s friend holds dear in the political sense. One must choose! To be either moral or immoral. To hold the American Republic dear, or not. Many have given their lives in the struggle.

  8. Cicero, I’m sure you’re mostly wrong about only “with us” or “against us”. Those who vote Dem are evil, or stupidly ignorant, or both — yet being ignorant, even willfully ignorant, doesn’t make you a bad person.

    It makes you somebody who supports bad policy, and often bad people as politicians. Most of my Trump-hating friends are very nice people.

    I don’t know how to reach them, but it’s silly to let different choices in politics overwhelm the reality of how nice and basically good are most Americans. That’s the genius of actual tolerance — agreement to disagree. And try to find other fun things to do, possibly including arguments over some policy but quite possibly not even talking about it.

    So many smart folk so stupid tho, it’s so sad.

  10. Cicero:

    I have some friends who disagree with my politics and yet we can discuss them.

    As for the others (and some are relatives not just friends, and people very near and dear to me) it’s not that I don’t “dare” to discuss politics. I have discussed politics with them and it’s a waste of time plus being contentious. Why do something that is a waste of time? And yet I value these relationships very much and do not demonize them.

    None of them are “ballerinas”, by the way.

  12. Well, the democrats managed to get rid of Nixon, with republican help. That’s why the republicans are known as the stupid party. This time it doesn’t look like the republicans are going to be so stupid.
    You might find this book interesting. https://geoffshepard.com/

  13. I had 2 friends that I have entirely cut out of my life because they are deeply into TDS. They have divorced themselves from reality. Their emotional obsession is sad to behold.

    They have stopped being nice people. Ever since Trump’s victory they became angry, hateful people. Those 2 friends and I shared a decades long love of baseball. Come spring training in 2017 they even made discussing baseball impossible because any discussion became a discussion about orange man bad, and Russia, Russia, Russia helped Trump steal the election.

    I don’t do crazy and those 2 guys are fricking crazy

  14. “being ignorant, even willfully ignorant, doesn’t make you a bad person. It makes you somebody who supports bad policy, and often bad people as politicians. Most of my Trump-hating friends are very nice people.” Tom Grey

    I must take issue with this Tom.

    If the Left takes over, how many of your friends who are very nice people will stand up against the loading of our fellow ‘deplorables’ onto the cattle cars? Not that they themselves will load the deplorables onto cattle cars but will they refuse to accept it? You being sent to the reeducation camps they may well object to but those who they do not know but who share your political POV?

    BTW, that’s what even today drives modern Germany’s guilt, most of the German people knew (people talk and gossip) and in their silence, condoned it.

    Their willful ‘blindness’ is demonstrable proof that the ‘principle of the thing’ is not a concern. If push came to shove, how many of those ‘nice people’ would prove to be modern examples of the “Righteous (Gentiles) Among the Nations”?

    When not talking about politics is the only way to maintain their civility, when reason, logic and fact are continually dismissed, its proof positive that actual tolerance is absent and that, in their heart of hearts they are unwilling to “agree to disagree”.

    The simple truth of the matter is that willful blindness is demonstrable proof of not being “a good person” because when push comes to shove, truly good people do the right thing because they cannot imagine doing anything else.

    50+ MILLION murdered babies demonstrate that the left supports evil. And their silence in the face of infanticide confirms it.

    Support for the left is now support for evil. Truly, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should (say and) do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    And, when our friends blindly repeat the left’s lies and we say nothing, we are doing nothing.

  15. Well, the democrats managed to get rid of Nixon, with republican help. That’s why the republicans are known as the stupid party.

    Nixon and his minions were guilty of actual crimes.

    No use investing in Nixon. He was an intelligent man and inventive on certain occasions, but his Administration was a stew of cock-ups and, yes, crimes.

  16. and Russia, Russia, Russia helped Trump steal the election.

    I’ve found Trump’s vociferous detractors look inside themselves and nowhere else. A more intense version of the hatred directed at Sarah Palin.

  17. Art Deco,

    By my definition of “crazy” they are crazy in that their emotional state is divorced from reality. I don’t care if they are fixated on their navels. They wish everybody who does not share their obsession dead or at a minimum ‘reeducated’ aka brainwashed.

    I don’t do crazy. Don’t wish them dead, but willing to if they start a hot cival war, which I deem unlikely.

  18. Not sure why Hillary would bother using the conditional clause.

    Feeding the 18th-century Constitution into a 20th-century shredder has been her goal all along.

  19. If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder!

    Still and all, I’d rather Jordan hadn’t used this as her conclusion, in which the Constitution is judged by a one-time failure of one facet of the Constitution.

    It’s clear that had today’s Democrats been 1974’s Republicans, Nixon with a D would have served out his term, through no fault of the Constitution.

  20. Geoffrey Britain:
    Read one of my favorite historians, John Lukacs, on Hitler and Germans. One nice read is “The Duel”. It is a myth that many (or a majority) of Germans were neutral or were passively anti-Hitler, just like the myth that Hitler was a deranged, ignorant man who somehow took over Germany. The majority of Germans were pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler, until things started going south.

    Tom Grey:
    being willfully ignorant on matters of material substance that affect the polis, and voting despite that ignorance, is a profound moral lapse. It is surely a waypoint on the road to evil.

  22. Hillary is running. She wants to be the nominee of a deadlocked Dem convention.

    I know one thing: none of the current candidates will be the nominee. It will be Hillary, Howard Schultz, Bob Iger or Michael Bloomberg. Michelle is a long shot. Too much of a pay cut.

    Iger just wrote a book. That’s a requirement.

    The patriot riding in at the last minute to save the country is a great dramatic device. Schultz and Iger are both blank slates. Schultz is my favorite and I predicted that he would be a strong candidate here.

  24. I know one thing: none of the current candidates will be the nominee. It will be Hillary, Howard Schultz, Bob Iger or Michael Bloomberg. Michelle is a long shot. Too much of a pay cut.

    Cornhead: While Michelle probably doesn’t want to run, I think we can all agree that Hillary would jump on the opportunity in a heartbeat, if it should present.

    A Hillary-Warren primary contest would be interesting — between the Warren-is-too-radical and the OMG-not-Hillary-again factions.

  25. I recall a Christopher Hitchens interview in 2008 when he was discounting an Obama victory in the primaries because, he said, the Clintons never ever give up, they will always be the last people in meeting still at the table, still pushing their agenda after nearly everyone else has gone home.

    I can’t find that quote, but this will do, from March 5, 2008, after Hillary claimed she had won the Florida and Michigan primaries, when actually those primaries had been disallowed by the DNC for rule-breaking:

    It means that she’s like a wounded puma, going to fight to the very end for the last delegate, even in states that have been written off for that purpose….

    So all the — anyone who, like me, when they think about the Clintons thinks about zombies, thinks about the undead, thinks about stakes through the heart, silver bullets and so on, has just received confirmation. It’s as bad as we thought it was going to be.

    https://www.mediamatters.org/barack-obama/hitchens-attacked-obamas-dumb-nasty-racist-church-compared-clintons-zombies-vampires

  26. “I know one thing: none of the current candidates will be the nominee. It will be Hillary, Howard Schultz, Bob Iger or Michael Bloomberg.”

    I would just about bet everything I own that a super-rich white guy is NOT going to be given the nomination at a contested Democratic convention.

    Mike

  27. I’m with Gerard on this one, Hillary is vile and criminal. I would add an enemy of the people of the US – for her own enrichment, of course. We may be sad at her continued appearance, and self insertion, in public, but sad is too kind a description of her and her actions. Her husband’s and daughter’s too.

  28. Cornhead,

    I think you may be right about the unelectibility of the present clowns contesting to be who is the most hard left, are not going to be viable against the orange man bad. IF I was a democrat I would be supporting Gabbard. She is more moderate, photogenic, and lively on her feet. Her contrasts with djt are obvivous. She is female, of mixed ancestry, young, and articulate. If she comes out as lesbian she would be the obvious nominee.

  30. Hillary is running. She wants to be the nominee of a deadlocked Dem convention. I know one thing: none of the current candidates will be the nominee. It will be Hillary, Howard Schultz, Bob Iger or Michael Bloomberg. Michelle is a long shot. Too much of a pay cut.

    No, you don’t know that, because it isn’t happening. You’ve had two deadlocked conventions in the Democratic Party’s history, each of which occurred under a delegate selection regime entirely unlike that which is present today. You have not, in the last 40 years had any competitive candidates who formally entered the race less than a year before the general election. Michelle Obama has not only made it plain she’s not interested, she has never in her life taken much of an interest in professional development of any kind and as late as 2000 wanted her husband out of electoral politics.

    Unless they’re all run over by a truck, you’ve a choice of some subset of five: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Booty-gig.

  31. There are over 4000 federal felonies so we all commit an estimated 3 federal felonies a day.

    I’m afraid burgling someone’s office and tapping their phone is a crime under both federal and state law. And not an obscure one. So is arranging payoffs to persuade people to not co-operate with federal investigators.

  32. This is from Geoff Shepard’s website.
    The prosecutors clamed that Nixon had personally approved the payment of blackmail to Howard Hunt after learning of his demands from John Dean on the morning of March 21, 1973. They reached this conclusion solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence – since, indeed, the last Hunt payment was made that very night. No witness, then or in the ensuing forty-five years, has come forward to support this claim; everyone involved has continued to deny it ever occurred.
    The prosecutors’ allegations, however, were made in total secrecy – so Nixon’s defense team not only were unaware of the accusation, but never called upon to refute it. Had they known, they could have; had Nixon known that this was the basis for the prosecutors’ actions against him, he would never have resigned – since he would have known the accusation to be untrue.

  33. 78-year old Sanders, now a week after a heart attack (not mentioned for 3 days by his campaign?), is out or is going to be out. His supporters might well be mostly going to Warren.

    I strongly doubt that power decision making Dems will want to give Hillary a third chance to be a lousy, easily attacked candidate. Tho I remain a NeverHillary. I don’t believe it will be a deadlocked convention, tho it might not have a single front runner win on the first ballot. There might really be some convention “election” (likelihood 30%) Most likely, soon after the early primaries, many drop out and two clear front-runners emerge, one of whom seems likely to be Warren. So my guess is that it’s Warren or the one who competes best against her in the voting primaries. And then loses to Trump in Nov, still 13 months away.

    On willful ignorance –
    The educated/ indoctrinated Dems, and their hatred of Reps (like Bush, Palin, Kavanaugh, Reagan), is why I say they suffer from Democrat Derangement Syndrome. It was first called Bush DS (BDS coined by Krauthammer, around 2003/4), but was seen even earlier in the Reagan-hate, Nixon-hate, and even Goldwater-hate. Dems telling personal lies, smearing the particular Rep target. As they did to McCain & Romney too.

    Those who want to understand how the “nice Germans” could support Jew-hate should be studying this more. Accept lies, accept discrimination, use lies to justify demonization, increase demonization into violence. Germans did it against Jews. Democrats are trying to do it against Republicans.

    I’m pretty sure the Hutus did it against the Tutsis, tho when I was in Rwanda the Rwandan people were very careful in talking about it.

    Commies under Pol Pot did it against educated Cambodians.

    It’s a form of human nature. It’s scary.

    Maybe it’s primate nature, I’ve read of chimpanzee tribes that get too big, and one group splits off — then the larger group goes and kills all of the splitters.

    voting despite that ignorance, is a profound moral lapse. It is surely a waypoint on the road to evil. Very much yes — a waypoint on the road to evil, and a moral lapse. Like cheating on your wife, as did Trump, Clinton, ML King, Kennedy, Johnson; so many rich or famous or influential guys. (Maybe leaders cheating on women confirms their influence and power to their followers?)

    But love of these wayward Democrats, not demonization, is the most likely way to change their minds. One at a time. Slowly, over time. Helping them gain doubt about their positions and opening themselves up to facts they’ve been denying, so that they can change their own minds, is one of the key ways to help them. I think, and am acting on. Has not yet worked much, but haven’t heard of anything that does. (AA most often fails to save alcoholics, but nothing else works better.)

    Winning elections, with Reps who get good policy, becomes crucially important to save America. We need to tell funnier jokes about the Dems; I’m not so good at that, either.

    Most Dem policies are terrible, and Hillary plus many Dem politicians have done/ ordered terrible things. How to hate the sin but love the sinner? Always the toughest political question for Christians.

  34. You say Russia-gate, I say Whistle-gate… (let’s call the whole thing an obamanation).

    Daniel Greenfield with an over-arching, in-depth analysis of the Unicorn’s efforts (from Oct. 2012) to ensure that Democratic Party’s is the party of the future (and all time—given how obvious is the “arc of history”), even if (especially if?) the result of such maneuvering is the evisceration of the nation they insist they love (H/T Instapundit):
    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/impeachment-built-trap-obama-created-romney-daniel-greenfield/

  37. “…worth remembering…”

    Well the cat’s out of the bag. If this keeps up it seems it’s only a matter of time before AOC (& Co.) declares Barbara Jordan to be a White Supremacist.

  38. I’ve never thought of democrats as bad people but as people who have been brainwashed by the progressive education establishment, the popular media and the news media. Republicans, for the most part, have either resisted that brainwashing or have recovered from it.

    We need to reform or at least neuter the institutions doing the brainwashing starting with the education establishment. Shut down the Department of Education and get the federal government completely out of it. Devolve the decision-making down to the state and local school board level the way they were when the education system was improving every year.

    Putting children into the public education system should qualify as child abuse, especially in the larger cities.

  42. In the lead-up to the election, once Trump was the nominee, there were still many conservatives that were debating whether to vote for him or not. In one of my comments here, explaining my resolve to vote for him and do so without equivocation because of his list of supreme court nominees, I stated that if his actions as President were such that concerned many, a good that could come out of it is the possibility for impeachment and thereby people would be educated with regard to our great Constitution. I have shaken my head many times over these last many months, in disbelief of the hash that the Democrats have made regarding impeachment. Dennis Prager has stated that everything the left touches, it destroys. Case in point.

  44. Why not begin impeachment inquiries into Ruth Ginsburg? Stephen Breyer? Sotomayor and Kagan? And whatever Democrat objects, begin an ethics investigation into him or her. Mitch McConnell should initiate ethics investigations into Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, John Warner, Patty Murray and Sen. Blobuchar. Cut their allocation for staff by 75%. Subpoena the DNC regarding the servers. Subpoena Hillary and Mrs. Weener. Have the CIA count off by 3s and fire every #3.

    For starters.

  45. Nixon and his minions were guilty of actual crimes.

    No use investing in Nixon. He was an intelligent man and inventive on certain occasions, but his Administration was a stew of cock-ups and, yes, crimes.

    It’s useful to contrast and compare the “crimes” people committed, based on what the DS thinks.

    In the early 1970s, Felt had supervised Operation COINTELPRO, initiated by Hoover in the 1950s. This period of FBI history has generated great controversy for its abuses of private citizens’ rights. The FBI was pursuing leftist groups, such as the Weather Underground, which had planted bombs at the Capitol, the Pentagon, and the State Department building. Felt, along with Edward S. Miller, authorized FBI agents to break into homes secretly in 1972 and 1973, without a search warrant, on nine separate occasions. These kinds of FBI operations were known as “black bag jobs.” The break-ins occurred at five addresses in New York and New Jersey, at the homes of relatives and acquaintances of Weather Underground members. They did not contribute to the capture of any fugitives. The use of “black bag jobs” by the FBI was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the Plamondon case, 407 U.S. 297 (1972).

    The Church Committee of Congress revealed the FBI’s illegal activities, and many agents were investigated. In 1976, Felt publicly stated he had ordered break-ins, and recommended against punishment of individual agents who had carried out orders. Felt also stated that Patrick Gray had also authorized the break-ins, but Gray denied this. Felt said on the CBS television program Face the Nation he would probably be a “scapegoat” for the Bureau’s work.[55] “I think this is justified and I’d do it again tomorrow,” he said on the program. While admitting the break-ins were “extralegal”, he justified them as protecting the “greater good.” Felt said:

    To not take action against these people and know of a bombing in advance would simply be to stick your fingers in your ears and protect your eardrums when the explosion went off and then start the investigation.

    ———–That American memory problem that starts and begins with AP and the national media propaganda arms.

    In June 1973, Ruckelshaus received a call from someone claiming to be a New York Times reporter, telling him that Felt was the source of this information.[54] On June 21, Ruckelshaus met privately with Felt and accused him of leaking information to The New York Times, a charge that Felt adamantly denied.[46] Ruckelshaus told Felt to “sleep on it” and let him know the next day what he wanted to do. Felt resigned from the Bureau the next day, June 22, 1973, ending his thirty-one year career.

    In a 2013 interview, Ruckelshaus noted the possibility that the original caller was a hoax. He said that he considered Felt’s resignation “an admission of guilt” anyway.[54]

    —–Don’t worry, spying on Americans is only a crime when it is Democrats doing it to their enemies and not the other way around.

    President Ronald Reagan pardoned Felt and Miller.
    In a phone call on January 30, 1981, Edwin Meese encouraged President Ronald Reagan to issue a pardon. After further encouragement from Felt’s former colleagues, President Reagan pardoned Felt and Miller. The pardon was signed on March 26, but was not announced to the public until April 15, 1981.

    In the pardon, Reagan wrote:

    During their long careers, Mark Felt and Edward Miller served the Federal Bureau of Investigation and our nation with great distinction. To punish them further—after 3 years of criminal prosecution proceedings—would not serve the ends of justice.
    Their convictions in the U.S. District Court, on appeal at the time I signed the pardons, grew out of their good-faith belief that their actions were necessary to preserve the security interests of our country. The record demonstrates that they acted not with criminal intent, but in the belief that they had grants of authority reaching to the highest levels of government.[64]

    ———–The FBI determines which US Presidents gets to spy on which political parties and citizens.

    So in retrospec, what is a crime for Nixon’s pipeworkers, was called “patriotism” by Reagan, and many more were pardoned than Nixon was pardoned by the VP.

    Things like that is why people think there is no Rule of Law in the USA. There is only the rule of the Deep State, and their American slaves/serfs that think themselves free citizens.

  46. Support for the left is now support for evil. Truly, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    That eventually morphs to “those that disagree with our plan to fight the Left are traitors/cucks that need to be purged, as the anti Left is the only true revolution”.

    Human ego shenanigans and tribal wars eventually devolve to that level.

    If support for the Leftist alliance is evil, then what about people who oppose Trum? Trum is fighting the Leftist alliance so since the Leftists are evil, by definition anyone against Trum is evil.

    The good intentions of fighting the Left, thus results in people becoming the Left.

  47. The difference between the process then and the process now is extreme. During Watergate, Congress was reacting to an event, and launched a bipartisan investigation. Now, one party is using the intelligence corps to create the appearance of an event, with the long-stated goal – one made clear even before Donald Trump became president – of removing this president from office.

    From my intuition and intel assessment/research, there’s not a whole lot different between the past coup de tat and the current coup de tat (attempted).

    The previous one was the intelligence corps, in the form of Mark felt and other factions, using Americans gullible as they are, to get rid of Nixon.

    The current one is still about the same.

    But who is behind the intelligence corps? It’s not the Constitution. It’s not Congress. It’s not the President. It’s the Deep State. And who is behind or rather what is the Deep State?

    Have Americans figured this one out yet…

  50. The Blue Bubble is impenetrable from the inside, they really have no idea how far their opinions are from those outside it. Read the NYT any morning, the outer world is invisible to them.

    Inside that bubble, Hillary is a victim and an heroic figure. By the time the Convention rolls around praise of her will be the only politically correct position. She will never enter any primaries but IMO will take the convention.

    This may be necessary for a much larger series of events to manifest. To reform DC, discussion of specific goals must become part of the public debate. (Public debate in the non-TDS world).

    Trump will take both houses in 2020 with a clear Swamp Draining agenda, and will enact it. 2020 will also destroy what I call the Boomer Democrat Party, which has become so casually and totally corrupt that it cannot be reformed.

    The early 2020’s will probably be recession years, as well as years where technological disruption as described by Yang becomes obvious. Swamp draining will provide work for the legislature but economic recovery will be difficult.

    An event that has been missed by most is the total takeover of all GOP Party positions, from precinct committee persons to all state level positions, by single issue pro-lifers. It is no longer the small government free market party. Those now running it want to outlaw sin. They have no intellectual convictions about small government or free market principles. They are willing to embrace any Democrat position if they think it will attract Democrat voters to overturn Roe.

    They have zero chance of doing this and are as divorced from reality as the Blue Bubble people, just on different issues. When the Texas GOP goes soft on guns and government spending, as it did in the last session, it is obvious that something has changed.

    A notable GOP development in the last cycle was the ejection of campaign volunteers who were not pro-life enough. Anyone volunteering was immediately queried about their position on Life, and if not suitably devoted was attacked and driven out, often in a way to provide points among the believers to the person doing the driving out.

    I think this will result in another major realignment. The retirement of large numbers of traditional GOP legislators will open the door to a new crop of hard core social conservative candidates in 2022. They will make finally ending Roe their dominant issue, and will fail.

    A new Democratic Party led by people like Yang and McCready will take both houses in 2022. Trump will work well with them.

  51. She will never enter any primaries but IMO will take the convention.

    I’m fascinated to know your understanding of the mechanics of this. Hubert Humphrey managed that, but at that time, few delegates were allocated in primaries and competitive caucuses weren’t omnipresent either. Most were slated in occult ways by local political bosses. About 1/3 of the delegates to the 1968 convention had been selected the previous year. It’s nothing like that anymore. It’s a completely candidate-centered process and (except when you have an uncontested incumbent) a highly competitive process. You’re expecting just what, that Warren and Buttigieg win a boatload of delegates after barnstorming the country for a year and a half and then just evaporate? When has that ever happened?

  52. A new Democratic Party led by people like Yang and McCready will take both houses in 2022. Trump will work well with them.

    Mr. Yang is currently polling at about 3%. Whatever partisan Democrats want, it’s not him.

  54. Art Deco: When it comes to seeing the future I am a Stable Genius.

    IOW, you haven’t a clue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑