Some consider the Nation’s Capital as “Fantasyland on the Potomac”. Other outsiders are “Fed Up” with the Federal City. It's better to consider D.C. as “the District of Calamity” (sic).
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.
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.
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).
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”.
In response to COVID 19, much of America practically shut down for much of 2020. Many Americans lost their jobs, particularly in the hospitality and restaurant industries. Congress passed a few bills intending to funnel stimulus money as a lifeline to these economically vulnerable Americans. But as the second wave of extreme closures hit parts of America during the holiday season, such payments from Uncle Sam to stem the financial pain are critical.
The fourth COVID stimulus were held up by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for admittedly partisan reasons. Prior to the election, Pelosi demanded $2.5 trillion legislation, which included bailouts of states with underfunded extravagant public pensions. The Trump White House proposed a $1.6 trillion plan but was willing to increase it to $2 trillion to meet Democrats half way. Still, Pelosi was intransigent until it appeared that Joe Biden (D-DE) was the presumptive President-elect. So Congressional Democrats only got serious about another COVID stimulus bill until the December rush from Capitol Hill to be home for Christmas
Lame Duck Congress sessions after an election often take a devil may care attitude since the scrutiny of the ballot box won't happen for another two years and some members are not returning to Capitol Hill.
The Lame Duck 116th Congress was tasked with passing tardy spending bills which were supposed to have been finalized by the end of the Fiscal Year (September 30th). It seems that the plan from leadership of both parties was to pass a couple of stop gap Federal Spending Bills to buy time from a government shutdown, then rush to pass an $2.3 Trillion Omnibus Appropriation Bill that is a Christmas Tree, meaning that there were all sorts of decoration of ancillary legislation which becomes a must pass bill.
To add to the Slapdash Santa spirit, the powers that be agreed to pass a "skinny" COVID stimulus bill of ONLY $900 million of deficit spending, which earmarked a $600 check to Americans earning less than $75,000. Considering the financial insecurity of many Americans due to COVID, the Christmas rush when it was expected that people would not focus on the goings of Swamp City and the desire for President Trump to mitigate damage to his legacy, this must pass bill was expected to go through..
There were two flaws to this legislative strategy. While Congress only had a few hours to review a five thousand page bit of legislation before passage, the details started to leak out. Social media balked when it was discovered that only $190 million the the $900 million is set to go to needy Americans. The rest of it was a pork Christmas tree, with expenditures for earmarks like $25 million to Pakistan for gender studies, funding for an American Womens' History Museum and an American Latino Museum on the National Mall, and nearly $90 million for Senate building maintenance. This raised the rankles of an already agitated American public. The House passed the combined COVID Relief package and Consolidated Appropriations measure (HR 133) by a 359-53 margin and the Senate passed the measure 92-6
The other thing impeding the typical jamming through pork barrel at the end of the year when people won't notice involves the 45th President. President Donald Trump deems himself a disruptor from the swampy ways of the Deep State. Even though the mainstream media has been parsing precious little time to President Trump since after the election, the Disrupter -in-Chief leveraged his social media skills to distribute a viral video.
President Trump demanded that every American ought to get a $2,000 stimulus check and the bill sent to him should be stripped of the other pork barrel legislation. Trump intimated that he may not sign the tripe bill that was sent to him. Since Congress procrastinated to nearly the end of the 116th Congress, the President could have a pocket veto--meaning that by doing nothing (keeping it in his pocket) that the legislation fails.
This puts Congress in a perilous situation. They recognize that there constituents are really hurting and they will lose confidence in them if they fail on a stimulus, especially when their prior bill was laden with wasteful pork barrel projects that have nothing to do with COVID. While the Comprehensive COVID Stimulus and Appropriations legislation passed by veto proof majorities, a pocket veto does not require resubmission to Congress. They let legislative time effectively run out for the customary rule of legislation.
The second problem is timing. The Continuing Resolution only funds the government until December 28th. So if President Trump fails to sign HR 133 and uses a pocket veto, then there will be a government shutdown. Congress may well get the blame for pushing pork barrel pet projects and giving taxpayers a pittance whereas the President wants to give every American adult $2,000. To avoid a pocket-veto, they would have to stay in session during the week between Christmas and New Years Day. And they could not easily do pro forma sessions because the Spending Continuing Resolution expires on December 28th.
A third issue is populist agitation. When the 117th Congress convenes on January 6th, they are supposed to certify the Electoral College results. Since President Trump is positioning his Congressional forces to contest some of the election irregularities in several battleground states. In conjunction with the Congressional vote, President Trump has called for a rally which he promised will be wild. Imagine the animus of a large group of "deplorables" against elected officials who won't "Stop the Steal", but due to their greed and indolence are holding back significant COVID relief packages for ordinary Americans.
It is unclear if and when additional COVID relief payments are doled out, as well as the fate of contested election. But because of lame ducks, Christmas trees and pocket vetoes, the next few weeks in Washington won't be as the Establishment had planned.
For many Christians, Advent is a a time anticipation for our ultimate salvation via the incarnation of our Messiah Jesus the Christ. To get to that point, the faithful are asked to prepare by contemplating the end times and final judgment. That is why the liturgical readings are prophetical and often tinged with a sense of calamity. This preparation exposes hard ultimate truth and raises questions as to how we comport ourselves in the here and now.
In our culture we prefer the unbridled joy of Christmas Carols rather than the brooding meditations of Advent hymns, like "Wake, Oh Wake" and "Veni Emmanuel". One of the new contributions to the Advent repertoire is "Mary Did You Know?", a Protestant carol written by Mark Lowry 1984 and later set to music in 1991 by Buddy Green of the Gaither Vocal Band. The lyric were written as reflections between acts of a Christmas play which posed hard questions as to whether the Blessed Virgin Mary understood everything that would be implicated by her fiat, her assent to what God asked for in the Annunciation.
In the wake of the instances of election irregularities and accusations of coordinated voter fraud in Election 2020, Eric Metaxas did a a filk written by by John Zimrak and produced by Chris Hines of the contemporary Christmas-tide classic in "Biden Did You Know?
This video could be dismissed as a piece of propaganda from a Trump supporter blowing off steam at the victory of his opponent former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE). More sympathetic listeners might find it hard to hear as Mr. Metaxas is not a natural soloist. But the video raises some uncomfortable questions that the presumed President Elect must address as nearly half of Americans are under the impression that Election 2020 was stolen. Metaxas combined pop cultural film references, graphics which illustrated his points along with video evidence indicated election night Malarkey (sic), such as the Fulton County Georgia suitcase of hidden ballots, the Detroit TCF Cobo Center hidden vote count center and CNN's chyron of over a hundred thousand ballots instantly switching columns.
Even though Election 2020 was conducted during the COVID19 pandemic, the Biden presidential campaign was conducted in an extremely unorthodox fashion. During the General Election campaign, Biden basically hid in his basement with a message of defeating Trump and COVID19 using a wholesale campaign strategy. Biden ads ran heavily, along with allies like the Lincoln Project. Other campaign events included poorly attended Zoom calls and scripted "interviews" with friendly media (and Biden reading off a teleprompter or being corrected by his wife DOCTOR Jill Biden--sic).
During the normally intense two months before the November 3rd vote, the Biden campaign called "lids" (no news today) at nine am for a fortnight. Biden's running mate, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) did not try to outshine the top of the ticket on the hustings. When Joe Biden deigned to be seen in public, he mostly appeared in Delaware or within even driving distance of Philadelphia. Such "rallies" were more media events, with basely a score of attendings sitting in COVID correct socially distanced circles.
This Biden/Harris unorthodox campaign conduct sharply contrasted with President Trump, who help scores of rallies which attracted tens of thousands of attendees per event, many unruly off the cuff pressers. Donald Trump definitely won 10 million votes more than 2016, with marked increases of support from African American and Hispanic voters. Trump had coat tails, with Republicans winning 27 of 27 key House races and the GOP only losing two Senate seats when they had 23 races to defend. Trump won 18 of 19 bellwether counties. Yet supposedly Trump lost by six million Popular Votes and lost several battleground states by small margins bolstered by midnight ballot drops thusJoe Biden wins 306 Electoral Votes. In the abstract, that doesn't make sense, but these facts may be derided as sour grapes.
In retrospect, there were several odd remarks from Democrats about the Biden campaign the post election aftermath that when they are juxtaposed with the election anomalies that give a skeptical body politic cause for pause as to "Biden did you know?".
One of Joe Biden's persistent traits is being a gaffe maker So often, his off the cuff remarks seem blunderously off-message, wrongfully boastful, and actually quite odd (e.g. "Corn Pop"). I was willing to consider those moments as being the Biden gaffe machine, which has been heighted due to obvious cognitive challenges and overplaying his "aw-shucks Uncle Joe" persona. But sometimes these gaffes reveal uncomfortable truths, albeit in a clumsy manner. A pithy maxim in the District of Calamity is that a gaffe is a politician telling the truth. Joe Biden has said: "A gaffe in Washington is someone telling the truth and telling the truth has never hurt me." OK, let's test that premise.
One of the most striking verbal blunders was when Joe Biden actually said that [Democrats] had put together the biggest and most extensive voter fraud organization in history. Wow, what a gaffe!
Perhaps he meant to say "Get Out the Vote" organization. But let's examine this gaffe with the facts. In the 116th Congress of 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi put forth HR1, which was a measure that sought to imposes mail in voting nationwide. Note this was a year BEFORE the Wuhan Flu reached the shores of America. When that measure did not pass, a couple of COVID relief bills were held up in reconciliation bills because Speaker Pelosi insisted that liberal mail in voting laws be imposed nationwide. The Democrat National Committee spent considerable resources shepherding mail in voting laws in the states, despite the fact that the Carter/Baker Commission concluded in 2004 that mail in voting was prone to fraud. So was it a Biden gaffe or Joe telling an inconvenient truth?
Prior to November 3rd, there were warnings from Democrats and the media that because of COVID19 that we would not know the results of the election immediately. In fact, I recall some Democrats warning that it might appear that they would be down but in the end they would be victorious. Former Democrat Presidential candidate First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton implored Joe Biden not concede if the election is close, perhaps ruing her concession which complicated "The Resistance" after the 2016 Trump victory.
What is more likely is that Democrat leaders realized that when then Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. conceded and then retracted the concession after the 2000 election that they lost some of the narrative which impeded their victory in the contested election coverage. I believe that there was so much pressure on President Trump to promise to abide by the election results, and after November 3rd to extract a concession is to give the psychological impression that the cake is baked and to normalize the presumptive Biden/Harris Presidency. But true to character, President Trump is a fighter and chooses to brawl in the legal system for what he believes was a wrong result due to illegitimate votes.
Three days before the election, in a prominent rally in the Motor City along with Barack Obama, Joe Biden said something truly strange: "I don't need you to get me elected, I need you once I'm elected...". Sure, a candidate might long for support for his policies (whatever the actually are) once in office, but at a Get Out The Vote Rally affirmatively saying "I don't need you to get me elected"--Huh? It's hard to explain that away as a simple verbal blunder.
One other rhetorical oddity which makes one wonder "Biden did you know?" is how readily Biden publicly sees his departure from the Oval Office. Quite understandably, it is prudent for a frail, gaffe prone 78 year old to announce that he was chary about running for a second term. But towards the end of the campaign in Tampa, Biden referred to the Harris/Biden Administration. Politicians tend to be ego driven so juxtaposing your running mate as top of the ticket might be telling the public something. That theme was echoed by Kamala Harris proclaiming "The Harris Administration under Joe Biden as President." It's it's kind of presumptive or is it a plan. Then there was a the post election Biden/Harris CNN interview when Joe claimed that if we ever really disagree, then I'll develop a disease and resign.
;
Biden was comparing his relationship with President Biden and applying it to the Harris Administration with President Biden (sic). One would expect such action with a subordinate. But isn't Biden supposed to be Chief Executive of the United States? In and of itself, this might have been another one of Joe being Joe. Yet a month before Election 2020, Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill to create a commission to study applying the 25th Amendment to Presidents unable to carry out their duties? Coincidence or messaging?
Advent carols are all about anticipation of a messiah as an ultimate truth. Thus we ought apply Advent principles to our own age. The truth is that regardless of who prevails in the Election 2020 overtime, certainly we won't find a messiah.
I may be more like in Monty Python's Life of Brian: "There's a mess here alright but there's no messiah."
Alas, to shift pop metaphors, I fear that it may be more of a dark winter and winter is coming.
 |
| Rashida Tlaib heckling Trump in 2016 |
Detractors of the rising Democrat Socialist star have derided her as Occasional Cortez, who they believe is not bright nor schooled in the political process. However, the wording of her "too broke to move" sob story hint that it is contrived political posturing.
Ocasio Cortez comes from the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party (despite the fact that Sanders actually is no longer a member of the party). Aside from her chops of being a community organizer, Ocasio Cortez tries to conjure the mien of being considered a working class hero. What better way to identify with voters who live paycheck to paycheck to play up this wage gap before taking office?