Matt Gaetz on Impeachment

 

A Gaffe That Will Be Hard For Schumer To Live Down

 

During his first days as the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), preened over his newfound power to set the agenda.  But Schumer's smarmy remarks about the snap Second Impeachment of Donald Trump will be hard to live down.

 

 Smooth move Chuck. Are you vying to replace President Biden as a walking gaffe machine?

Considering the Consequence of the Snap Second Trump Impeachment

 

On January 13th, 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump for a second time in a mostly party line vote 232 to 197 (with ten Republican voting aye).  This second Snap Impeachment in H. Res. 24 (117th Congress)  was on a single charge of “Incitement of Insurrection”, predicated on remarks made at a political rally at the Ellipse on January 6th, 2021 as Congress was set to certify the Electoral College results for the Presidential Election.   

After certification of the November 3rd election results, President Trump’s term ends on January 20th, meaning that the snap Impeachment, which only acts as a judicial equivalent of an indictment, was in the last seven days of President Trump’s term of office.  The Senate was not scheduled be in session until January 19th and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was unwilling to convene in emergency session, so the earliest that the Senate could take up an Article of Impeachment (presuming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promptly send it over this time) is 1 p.m. on January 20th, one hour after newly inaugurated President Joe Biden takes his oath of office. 

Any astute political observers understand that this Second Impeachment was not meant to evict Mr. Trump out of the Oval Office but to besmirch his place in history and seek him from exercising any political power after January 20th.  Unfortunately, this political stunt has some serious repercussions for the polity, the rule of law and even the Constitution.

Firstly, there was a rush to remove President Trump.  When the Capitol Siege occurred on January 6th, Trump was only going to be in office for less than two weeks.  When the Snap Impeachment was passed, the 45th President would leave office in seven days. But that perspective only looks towards part of the consequences and not the cause.  Facts about the violence on Capitol Hill have been fluid.  Vital questions such as who were the instigators of the insurrection and why a couple hundred agitators were allowed inside the Capitol.  Thus is seems unwise to rush to judgment, but that did not deter Nancy Pelosi’s drive to impeach Trump again.

A day before the Impeachment vote in the House, the House passed a Resolution (on a purely party line vote) which implored Vice President Pence and the Trump Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, which would (temporarily) remove President Trump and make Pence Acting President pending Congressional assent.   The 25th Amendment was intended for instances when the Chief Executive was incapacitated, not for policy disagreements or “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. 

 The proper Congressional role in the 25th Amendment is to ratify the Acting President, not to instigate his or her installation.  This Resolution abrogates the Separation of Powers, namely having part of the Legislative Branch leveraging the Vice President with a threat of an Impeachment vote unless Mr. Pence invoked the 25th Amendment.  That kind of sounds like Speaker Pelosi was drunk on power for countenancing that Constitutional breach. 

The Snap Impeachment of 2021 was done at super speed in less than seven days from the Capitol Siege to passing the Article of Impeachment.  The charge “Inciting an Insurrection” is a serious charge, verging on treason, thus one might try to justify an accelerated procedure.  But it that were the case, then why didn’t the House stay in session to actuate the Impeachment.  Instead, the House took the weekend off. The Impeachment was delayed by a voice vote on Monday January 11th rejecting the 25th Amendment Resolution and then passage of the unconstitutional 25th Amendment Resolution on January 12th before proceeding to the Snap Impeachment on January 13th.

 In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee labored seven months drafting the first Article of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon (who resigned before any final Congressional vote). The Impeachment process of President Bill Clinton lasted four months.  Even President Trump’s first Impeachment took three months.  Yet, the slim Democrat majority in the House lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi managed to pass an Article of Impeachment with three HOURS of floor “debate” and no committee work. 

Unlike in the Impeachment of 2020 when some of President Trump’s staff were allowed to offer some positive input, there was no fact finding or committee hearings before the Impeachment Debate. So the Snap Impeachment ignored precedent.

 It can be argued that an impeachment is like an indictment. Some cynically say that a Prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich with a Grand Jury, as the defendant is not entitled to counsel in that forum.  

But at least in a Grand Jury there is fact presentation rather than ramrodding a predetermined outcome. No fact finding and just a three our debate?  So much for Due Process.

Part of the animus against President Trump is for his brusque manner which agitates people.  The Article of Impeachment which passed cited “Inciting an Insurrection” and pointed to Mr. Trump’s rhetoric as part of the charge.  With that in mind, it was curious that the rules for debate on the 25th Amendment and Impeachment resolution lifted decorum prohibitions.  This allowed members like freshman Representative Cori Bush (D-MO 1st) slanderously referred to the gathering on the Ellipse to the White Supremicist-in-chief addressing White Supremicists (sic).  Not surprisingly, this comes from the same Member who proposed expelling any Congressmen who voted against certifying electors (N.B. bill was dropped on January 5th, the day before the ruckus). With actions and language like Rep. Bush, one wonders who is inciting unrest.

One of the things that were done on the first day of the 117th Congress was rules in the House which barred Members from using gender specific language in legislative business.  Yet when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th) gave a rare floor speech in favor of the snap Impeachment, she proclaimed  “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter...” 

Guess that rules are only intended to be applied for peasants or the opposition, even silly ones.

Even though the Snap Impeachment was done in an expedited fashion, it was not immediately walked over to the Senate.  While Impeachment Managers were named, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA 15th) who was recently exposed as having involvement with Chinese spy Fang Fang, the Article was not conveyed to the Upper Chamber for trial. It is unclear when Speaker Pelosi will send over the Article of Impeachment.  For the 2020 Impeachment, Pelosi held the Articles of Impeachment for a month before sending them to the Senate.  So much for a supposed clear and present danger.

With these facts in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that essentially this was not a second impeachment of  impeachment of Donald Trump but more of a show trial, Soviet style which gave the illusion of some system of justice but had a predetermined outcome dictated by the ruling House legislative majority.  Aside from exercising its rightful impeachment power, there were attempts at Congressional dominance over the Executive branch and eschewed principles of due process which have influenced America’s common law heritage. 

But that is only considering the ramifications from one chamber of Congress.  The Senate is where the Impeachment Trial occurs.  This will be made complicated due to timing.  Again, it is unclear when the Article of Impeachment will be transmitted.  If the House Majority truly wanted to eject President Trump from office, it would be immediately sent. The snag with that is the Constitution requires that the Senate immediately take up the Impeachment and can conduct no other legislative business.

The Senate is not scheduled to reconvene until January 19th, and won’t be put into emergency session sooner.  Current Senate Majority Leader McConnell is circulating a draft rule which requires unanimous consent to doing business aside from Impeachment. It is improbable that in such a contentious environment that all 100 Senators grant such a deviation from customary procedure.  So when the Impeachment Article is conveyed, it will dominate Senate business. 

It is conceivable that if House Impeachment Managers present themselves with House Res. 24 to the Senate on January 19th, that McConnell could press the Senate to immediately consider a Motion to Dismiss which could pass by simple majority vote.  Looking at it politically, Democrats can crow that Trump was impeached twice and Republicans are forced to indicate if they still support a besmirched President Trump.  But it is unclear if the Republican caucus in the Senate could hold firm to dismiss. If it is a razor thin vote, it might require current Vice President Mike Pence to break the tie.  If the motion fails, then the Senate would immediately be broiled into an Impeachment trial.

When the inauguration occurs on January 20th, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) will become Vice President and surrender her seat in the Senate, but constitutionally she will become President of the Senate.  This role will allow her to break tie votes, which will be crucial in a 50–50 split Senate, thereby giving Democrats the majority.  This means that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) becomes Senate Majority Leader and will call the tunes for the Impeachment trial, but changing the operational rules again could be a sticking point.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC 6th) has suggested that the Impeachment trial be delayed to give President Biden his 100 day honeymoon.  That won’t be possible if the House rushes the Article of Impeachment, but that is unlikely.  Presuming the Impeachment is held until May, it will hang over the new President’s head and may well force involvement, either to allay the situation or verbally stumble into taking a stance.

There is a significant Constitutional question as to the propriety of the Impeachment of a President after he or she has left office.  Impeachment is a process in which the legislature brings charges against a civil officer of the government.  Well, after Noon on January 20th 2021, Donald Trump becomes a private citizen again.  It is moot as to whether it would be proper for the Senate to try a private citizen.  Prominent contemporary legal scholars like Cass Sunstein, Alan Dershewitz and Jonathan Turley argue against impeachment of an ex President.  But there is a little historical precedence for it. 

In 1876, there is the example of Secretary of War William Belknap who was investigated by the House for corruption.  But minutes before the Impeachment occurred, Belknap submitted his resignation to President Ulysses S. Grant.  However, the House impeached him anyways and the Senate tried him but failed to get the 2/3ds majority. This issue is not clear cut and would probably prompt judicial consideration which will likely be rejected as a political issue. Then again, it might force Chief Justice John Roberts to consider a difficult issue while proceeding over a Senate trial.

 Why would Democrats go through all of the trouble to impeach a President who was essentially a short timer anyways?  Aside from trying to blot out a Trump presidency either with black marks or essentially cancel him, it would seem that they are scared about his future viability.  Post Presidency Impeachment may not be able to remove Trump but would also barr him from ever holding federal office again.  Considering the 74 million plus supporters who seem undeterred by bad press or even a snap impeachment, Democrats do not want strong opposition in 2024 to a weak Biden Administration featuring Kamala Harris.  Some establishment Republicans would feel safer if the Populist America First movement goes away with Donald Trump. Thus they might encourage impeachment to dampen his pull on the party and they can continue unimpeded in their quintessential District of Calamity (sic) cocktail party.

There is a practical political consideration about a Senate Impeachment trial.  Namely, are there the votes?  Unlike procedural issues, the Senate is required by the Constitution to garner a 2/3rds majority to succeed.  While there may be a few Republicans who despise Trump enough to vote for Impeachment, it would be hard to win 17 GOP votes. Even if Senate Democrats abolish the filibuster and push through Puerto Rican and Douglass Commonwealth (a.k.a. DC)  statehood, they would still have to sway 15 Republicans.

Turncoat Republicans had better hope for success, because an enraged and engaged MAGA wing will primary those who vote for a snap impeachment of Donald Trump.

Then there are the procedural problems with Trump’s second impeachment.  There is only one Article, and that cites “Inciting an Insurrection”. Aside from the plain language of Trump’s Ellipse speech which never incited his audience, it can be shown that trouble was occurring 1 ½ miles away on Capitol Hill before the President finished his speech.  Furthermore, facts from the FBI and mainstream media sources reveal that some agitators who have radical BLM and Antifa connections had been planning for trouble prior to the Capitol Siege.  This information will have to be fleshed out in a fair trial.

Moreover, the Resolution’s language points to Trump’s citation of false information about winning the election. Of course, all Americans (even a President) have the Freedom of Speech, even if it is demonstrably wrong. But by citing Trump's prior speeches and claims, that opens the door for Trump’s defense team to further expose and substantiate all of the election irregularities that state courts, Article III courts and the Supreme Court declined to hear on their cases merits.   That may take a long time and could upset the apple cart about the 2020 elections, further throwing doubt into the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency.  

Then there is the matter of Big Tech.  Social Media giants like Twitter and Facebook censored President Trump when questioning the election.  To add injury to insult (sic), these Social Media Cyber Nannies banned President Trump from even making statements to tell his supporters to go home peacefully.  That may open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020.  

As the Article of Impeachment proof texts Trump’s remarks to find the most inflammatory takes, context might examine social media’s role in the matter.  That avenue of defense open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020. If incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer resists allowing the Trump team a vigorous defense, it will become clear that it is a show trial worthy of a Soviet state or a banana republic (not the kind selling safari clothing).

Since the first FDR term, Presidents have been historically measured by their accomplishments during their honeymoon period (i.e. the first 100 days).  If the second Trump impeachment goes to a real Senate trial, it will overshadow everything.  Thus the Biden honeymood will be like looking at a postcard of Niagra Falls and wondering: "If only..."

However, if some wild cards come up during the trial, such as obvious election fraud or collusion, some may prefer visit Niagra Falls over a barrel, with or without Dr. Jill.

Just as the Biden campaign was not about him but all about Donald Trump, the second impeachment trial of Trump may well overshadow the early Biden presidency.  While the will to get Trump might be widely held among Democrats (and some establishment Republicans), actuating this animus may well impede the ambitions of “The Great Reset”.

Matt Gaetz on a Snap Second Trump Impeachment

 

Mazie Hirono on Due Process and Impeachment

Lisa Murkowski on Impeachment

During the Impeachment Trial, House Managers have vociferously argued for the need of more witnesses to try to convict President Trump.  Democrats had hoped to gain the support of four maverick liberal Republican Senators to take control of the Impeachment process to continue to search for the silver bullet that would compel removal of the President.

With that dynamic in mind, it is curious how Democrats have conducted themselves during the Impeachment Trial.  On the opening day, when deliberations went past 2 a.m., House Managers asserted that their rushed Impeachment put the Senate on trial along with the President.  Perhaps they should have consulted Dale Carnagie on "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

As House Managers closed their arguments, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA 28th) implied that President Trump told wavering Republicans that if they voted incorrectly then their heads would be put on pikes.  That charge was so outrageous that Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who was one of the supposed persuadable Republicans, exclaimed: "That's not true."

During the Question Time, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who is currently running for President, submits a query which drew Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts into the political fray, wondering if this contributes to the public's lack of confidence in the system.  

Aside from Chief Justice Roberts death stare, one wonders what the Democrats were thinking?

 Maybe Warren gets her name in the news for a "tough question" before the crucial Iowa Caucuses.  However, this veiled attack further politicizes the process.  And it was aimed at Chief Justice Roberts, who had twice helped Democrats out by not allowing Senator Rand Paul's (R-KY) incisive question about the so called "Whistle Blower".

Further fallout from attacking Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote on witnesses.  The question was going to be a close vote.  But Murkowski was so offended by this tactic of sullying the Chief Justice that they lost her support, dooming the call for witnesses. 

While conservative commentators are wont to think that Democrats had weak Articles Impeachment which were rushed through the House, the way Democrats comported themselves during the trial, they seemed like they just wanted political wedge issues rather than trying to remove the Chief Executive. 

Nancy Pelosi on Impeachment

Needless to say, Speaker Pelosi's assessment has not been universally accepted, much less respected.

"President Bolton" Gets a Nasty Gram Via Social Media

Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton has been the focus of question day at the Impeachment Trial. Democrats have claimed that Bolton must testify, but they never bothered to subpoena his testimony before the House voted to impeach the 45th President.

After the first day of the Trump Defense team presenting their case before the Senate, there was a convenient 11th hour leak from Bolton's political kiss and tell memoirs, which were being vetted by the NSC ethic office for classified clearance.  The leak of the salient snippets from Bolton coincidentally broke on the first day of pre-sales for Bolton's book, which is due to be released in March.

John Bolton had earned a sobriquet of "President Bolton" due to his penchant for autonomy, did nothing to quell the controversy, particularly since it shed favorable light from an establishment who often railed against him.  Moreover, the calls for him to testify probably boosted book sales.

President Trump, who is renowned for punching back and using social media to express his animus, seems to have gotten fed up with his former advisor and sent him a nasty gram via Twitter. 

On the Boons and Banes of Choreographed News

Some political junkies who sought answers during the Impeachment Trial question time got frustrated on social media because the first day of question time seemed so choreographed, particularly by Democrats.  Impeachment Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY 10th) clearly was reading note cards when answering the supposedly spontaneous questions.  There were many instances in which Impeachment Managers had graphic readily available to buttress their arguments.

This situation is a reminder to savvy civic observers that many political events are choreographed.  

Astute impeachment observers have noted how the lessons of the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation appear to be echoed by those seeking to remove President Donald Trump from office.  For a controversial hearing, anonymous allegations are made during the process, there is a call for additional witnesses without much vetting and organized protests on Capitol Hill.  Coverage by the mainstream media is skewed that one party is hiding something and won't allow the truth to come out.  

One presumes this is intended to create a groundswell to quash the target.  People who don't prioritize following the news can be led down a primrose path to progressive conclusions.

This might lead one to believe that choreographed news is always objectionable.  Populist supporters of President Trump might deride it as "Fake News". However, there are instances when it can be quite satisfying and iconic.

On January 31, 2020, The United Kingdom will finally be leaving the European Union, (a.k.a Brexit) upholding the wishes of British voters as expressed in a referendum in 2016.  Nigel Farange is a Member of the European Parliament who was the vanguard of Brexit.  Mr. Farange gave his final remarks speech before the European Parliament, in which he gave a barn burner speech reveling in Brexit and shaking off membership in the European Union.




As part of his schtick, Farange led the British contingent to wave the Union Jack flag and walk out of the chamber in Brussels.   This not so fond farewell was certainly pre-planned and coordinated.  Farange's views were not novel, but his choreographed send off was iconic. 

  

Elizabeth Warren on Impeachment and Criminal Law

Alan Dershowitz on Impeachment Criteria

Kenneth Starr on the Age of Impeachment

Rudy Giuliani on Impeachment

Senator Mike Lee on Impeachment Trial

Pelosi's Procedural Ploys on Impeachment

The Democrat led House of Representatives broke light speed records in order to vote to impeach President Donald Trump before Christmas.  Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA12th) has refused to name impeachment managers and send the Impeachment Resolution to the Senate. Inquiring minds seek to know why.

As the final impeachment vote was taken on December 18th, 2019, perhaps Pelosi hoped that it would dominate holiday conversations while the House was adjourned. This tactic did not achieve the tsunami of support for removing President Trump.  In fact, polling show that Mr. Trump increased his favorability ratings.  After the vote was taken, it was difficult for the mainstream media to keep up the clamor about impeachment, especially as it is procedurally stalled. 

Officially, Pelosi has proffered the rationale that she was withholding the Articles of Impeachment from a Senate to ensure a fair trial.  This is laughable considering how the Democrat majority ignored its own precedents on impeachment, ditched due process and achieved passage on a partisan nearly party line vote, with Democrat Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbord (D-HI 2nd) voting present and three House Democrats voting “nay”, including Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ 2nd) who switched parties after the vote.



Pelosi reportedly got the idea to stall sending the Impeachment Resolution to the Senate based upon a suggestion from Nixon White House counsel and MSNBC contributor John Dean. This may be a ruse to allow the leftist firebrands of the party to claim victory for getting Mr. Trump impeached without going through the formality of a trial which is destined to fail as it can not achieve 67 votes.  Or it may have been a delay tactic to try to tack on more articles of impeachment to accompany the rather weak tea “Obstruction of Congress” and “Abuse of Power” allegations.  However, the taking down of Iranian terror leader Solemani did not lead to an undeclared war, so that charge was for naught.

Surely the Speaker’s staff knows that having an outsider dictate how the Senate will take up an impeachment trial is unconstitutional. Article I Section 3 Clause 6 of the Constitution stipulates that:  “The Senate has to sole Power to try all Impeachments”.  

Of course, constitutional considerations might not prevent some grandstanding in a power play over the Christmas holidays.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had pencilled in a light legislative schedule for January 2020 in anticipation of an impeachment trial.  With Speaker Pelosi’s incalcitrance on sending the Senate the Articles of Impeachment, Leader McConnell proposed that the Senate might well take up the Impeachment even if the House fails to name Impeachment Managers, which would effectively dismiss the charges.  This move prompted Ms. Pelosi to indicate that she may take steps to move the resolution forward next week.

The reasons for holding the Articles of Impeachment from the Senate might been more political.  Former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy suggested on Fox News that holding the Impeachment into the primary season might have caused tough votes for vulnerable Republican freshman Senators Martha Mc Sally (R-AZ) Corey Gardiner (R-CO) and Joni Ernst (R-IA).  That may be true but the politics may well have been more intermural. 

Democrats are engaged in an uncertain Presidential primary process with no clear leader before the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary.  Several leading candidates (and a few also rans still in the race) are still in the Senate.  Impeachment trial rules require all Senate participants to attend all of the trial in order to vote, which effectively would take Senators Sanders (Socialist/Democrat-VT), Warren (D-MA), Klobachar (D-MN) and Booker (D-NJ) off of the campaign trial or reveal them as slackers of the current elective office.  Had the Articles of Impeachment been immediately been sent to the Senate in December, it is likely that it would have impeded the January 14th debate, which is the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses. 

Democrat Impeachment backers have argued for an expanded trial, which would include public witnesses which go beyond the nearly non-existent fact witnesses during the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-CA 28th) Show and House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY 10th) proceedings.  But if the witness list is opened up to President Trump’s defense, former Vice President and presidential candidate Joe Biden (D-DE) and his controversial son Hunter Biden may be compelled to testify, which could be messy and take a favorite of establishment Washington Democrats off the hustings and into the fire of tough invigilation.

Presuming that Pelosi is being procedurally political and tipping the scale to favor the only establishment candidate who consistently has a chance to beat President Trump,  it would be prudent for the Speaker to prompt a floor vote on Thursday January 16th and then adjourn for the Martin Luther King Holiday (oh, that’s right, District Work Sessions) and it would not be picked up until January 28th.  Even if House Judiciary Chair Nadler worked expeditiously in sending things to the Senate, it might not be received until the eve of the Iowa Caucus.  

That sort of scheduling would require Senators to be present in Washington and not canvass in the final days of the New Hampshire primary, which would give Joe Biden and South Bend “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg a leg up on the competition during opening arguments which may last about a week.    The next week is the South Carolina primary where (if polling is accurate), Biden has a commanding lead and Mayor Pete is quite weak.  That might give Biden the mojo to become the front runner. 

While it is highly unlikely that the Senate will muster the 2/3rds Super-majority to remove President Trump, the case may not be dismissed in a summary judgment like vote after opening argument.  In the even that Biden is requested to testify by the Senate, he may be able to stall until after Super Tuesday March 3rd, when he would either be the odds on favorite or an oddball also ran.

So Pelosi’s slow roll of advancing the Articles of Impeachment presumably are political but may well be partisan in inter-Democrat politics along with trying to take the Senate back into Democrat hands in the 117th Congress. 

Nancy Pelosi on Vulgar Calls for Impeaching President Trump

Newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to tamp down the controversy  created by freshman Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib's vulgar call to impeach President Trump.

Pelosi dismissed criticism of Tlaib's vow to impeach the "motherf*cker as being "No big deal" as it was free speech from an individual and is just the way people talk




However, Pelosi proclaimed that President Trump's rhetoric mattered as his words have a direct impact on people. Huh? Hypocrisy much?  

Perhaps Pelosi ought to consider the context of Rashida Tlaib's crude call for impeachment.  Even though Tlaib doubled down on her remarks as speaking truth to power, the reality was that her crude comment was directed to her young son.   So such free speech has no impact "on the children"?  Sure. 

h/t: MRC

"Young Turk" Rep. Rashida Tlaib Ready to Rumble in the House

Rashida Tlaib heckling Trump in 2016

First term Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI 13th) rose to prominence being the first Muslim woman in the Michigan legislature.  She first achieved national notoriety for heckling candidate Donald Trump at a Detroit Economic Club luncheon in August 2016.  Tlaib parlayed that protest into winning the 2018 House Democrat primary in a crowded race for a seat that represents Dearborn, Michigan in a crowded primary , which has a large Muslim population.

Tlaib ran unopposed in the 2018 general election and was one of two Muslim women elected to the House. Tlaib was sworn in on President Thomas Jefferson's Quran. As Rep. Tlaib was sworn in, her brother spoke to CSPAN to say that he was proud of her being a fighter despite the fact the he was a Trump conservative. 




Tlaib certainly lived up to that young turk reputation on her first day in office.  While Tlaib did vote for Speaker Pelosi (despite what she said on the stump),  Tlaib did make waves by modifying her House provided world map by inserting Palestine, backing her position for a one state solution.

Later that day, Tlaib made headlines at a Move On.org  reception when she called for President Trump's impeachment by a profanity laced ejaculation.  Tlaib lived up to her reputation for cursing like a trucker. But Tlaib should only metaphorically be labeled a young Turk as she proudly professes her Palestinian identity.

Most politicos expected the 116th Congress to be totally focused on the upcoming 2020 Presidential election, full of investigations and efforts to oust President Trump. Democrats seem to be obsessed by Trump Derangement Syndrome.  The hope is to persuade enough establishment Republicans who are offended by Trump's abrasive style and perceived lack of comity to limit Trump's term as chief executive.

Establishment Democrats may try to tamp down impeachment efforts, as the chances to force Mr. Trump from the Oval Office with a 2/3rds Senate majority seem slim.  It is reasonable to presume that their game will be to continue to drive down President Trump's favorability numbers and to pressure those close to him that he will throw in the towel.  Alas that strategy will not satisfy radicals like Rashida Tlaib.

The problem that young turks like Tlaib pose is their persistent in your face vulgar approach is great for generating headlines (much the same for their nemesis Donald Trump).  But that turns off independents and establishment Republicans who embrace civility.  Ironically, Democrats condemned Republicans about their supposed lack of civility in the wake of the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ 8th).

Moreover, the more prominence that  Democrat Socialist radicals like Tlaib and Rep. Ocasio Cortez (D-NY 14th) are given, it is likely that the Democrats will be driven to the left, which will produce a presidential nominee who who the base loves but alienates any remaining Blue Dog Democrats and fails to win back "The Great Revolt" Trump voters and loses in a landslide, much like McGovern lost to the great silent majority in 1972.