Posted on

A Nothingburger

I know. I know.  The title engages a noun that has entered cliché territory.  Still, it applies to Mueller’s tome after an expedition of the likes of Alexander the Great’s invasion of Persia to the ends of the world.  In the end, after $40 million and almost 2 years, all Mueller got was indictments of a bunch of foreigners who’ll never face an American judge and questionable actions against bit players for after-the-fact infractions/crimes.  The whole rectal exam was about “collusion” – even the “obstruction” barking – and, in the end, there’s no there, there.

The brouhaha proved an old axiom that if you intensely look long enough, you’ll find something – even if that something amounts to … nothing.  Turn a building inspector loose on my property for 2 years and he’ll find “something”.  How many violations of law did you commit after waking up (maybe before), knowingly or unknowingly?  We live in a world of a straightjacket of laws and regulations.

Bottom line: no collusion, and the charge of “obstruction” is silly – so says both Barr AND Rosenstein.  The point raised by Barr before his elevation to AG is dispositive.  If there’s no crime, for what reason could Trump be obstructing?  Key to obstruction is evil intent, something deep within a person’s mind.  If there’s no outward sign of it, and if there’s no reason for doing it, why put credence in it?

The reason for the Dem death grip on “obstruction” is politics.  The Dems want Trump’s scalp at any price.  They’ll pour over the encyclopedia-length full report to stitch together an impeachment indictment.  They’ll hang onto any language in the report to keep the issue alive.  “Do not exonerate” (in the Mueller summary) is an example.  “Exonerate” is a measly word when an investigator does not exonerate.  Either they recommend charges or they don’t.  To pass the buck to Barr as if there’s a hint of a case, in spite of the lack of evidence and sound Constitutional reasons to reject it, will stoke the Dems’ impeachment fire.

Adam Schiff and Andy Kaufman. Any similarities?

In the end, we went to the Mueller café and got … nothing.  It’s the equivalent of an air-burger on an empty plate.

RogerG

Posted on

On Impeachment

Elections have consequences.  Yep, they do.  So, thanks go to the suburban voters in suburban districts (and a few elsewhere) for handing the House majority to a party intent on raining totalitarian environmentalism (the Green New Deal), various versions of socialism (#1 and #2 are synonymous), and impeachment on the country for the next 2 years.  Regardless of what D-candidates said while campaigning, the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Jerry Nadler were swept into power.  Again, thanks for the next couple of years of social/political/economic poison.  Assisted suicide appears to be in vogue.

The doctors ready to administer the poison pill: Maxine Waters (D. Ca.) and Jerry Nadler (D, MY).

A public, said to be deeply concerned about “dysfunction” in DC, curiously voted for more of it.  The slide into governing incontinence could be accelerated by a much-heralded romp through impeachment land, in addition to the profusion of “investigations” into matters as worrisome as the president’s dental care habits.

I’ve refrained from commenting on Mueller, choosing to wait for his report.  Right now, of greater concern is the public’s perceptions about impeachment.  There’s a good chance that no matter what Mueller writes it will be culled for articles of impeachment.  The Mueller report and their own inquisitions will be the vehicle to hang Trump for his style and policies.  Since its coming down, it would be nice to know what the public and even our own politicos know of the subject.

I don’t think that I would be too far off when I say, Not much.  It’s a product of poor schooling and pop media.  First, impeachment – the indictment phase of the process for removal – is a political act and the grounds for it hinge on “high crimes and misdemeanors” (HCM).  What does HCM mean?  It doesn’t for the most part refer to statutory crimes, even though they might be included if serious enough.  It centers on what Andrew C. McCarthy (and Cass Sunstein) calls “truly egregious instances of maladministration”.

The unease about maladministration goes back to British and colonial experience.  Legislatures wanted to control their royally appointed governors and judges.  It’s not likely that Trump’s habit of name-calling qualifies (“low IQ Maxine Waters”, even though “foolish” would be more accurate).  It’s more probable that the Dems will hang their hat on business/financial dealings and the Trump’s campaign efforts to do what Hillary’s succeeded at doing: namely, get the Russians to give them dirt on their opponent.  The Steele dossier anyone?

All the bellowing about “they stole our elections in collusion with Trump” is simply carnival barking.  The Dems will use whatever they and Mueller dig up to essentially go after Trump for his coarse style, a tactic which they patented years back – remember, “Bush lied, people died”.

Also, he’s a miscreant for not being politically correct.  The Dems would like to censor all immigration policy options outside open borders.

Whether any charges are merited is beside the point.  The sole goal is to get Trump. For the Dem caucus, “maladministration” really means to disagree with them.

So, suburban voters who voted to flip actually chose “maladministration” in order to maladministrate – i.e., we’ll be embroiled in impeachment wars for about 700 days.  And be prepared for Ocasio-Cortez to be a euphemism for the Dems’ policy preferences coming out of the House.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

RogerG