1- Thread on definition & history of Presidential impeachment. I am writing this to post now, but also for future ref in responses to other tweets/threads. Why? Because it's clear that many people don't understand impeachment, including blue checkmarks. So here we go (cont).
2- Impeachment is covered in both Article 1 (Legislative Branch) & Article 2 (Executive Branch) of the Constitution. Let's start with the Executive Branch.
3- Here is the infamous Article 2 clause. It's vague. "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". The key phrase is "and Misdemeanors". What the %!@$ does that mean? In short, it can be whatever Congress wants it to be (cont).
4- Historically, it has generally been accepted that the "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes" part set a high bar. In fact, Joe Biden babbled endlessly about this in his statement defending his Bill Clinton acquittal vote.
5- The U.S. House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, This is made clear in Article 1.
6- One giant misconception; however, is "impeachment" means removing someone from office. That is not the case. An impeachment is a formal charge. Think of it like an indictment. The House is akin to a Grand Jury. A prosecutor still has to secure a conviction.
7- And that prosecutor, in the case of Presidential impeachment, is the Senate. Only the Senate can convict, based on a trial that is presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States. And it takes a 2/3rd majority to do so, not a simple majority (another misconception).
8- I often wonder how much the far Left actually understands this. I think many of them believe that the House can impeach, and that's it. Or that all it takes then is a simple Senate majority, and they think that just means flipping a few Senators.
9- Some short history first. The first President ever impeached was Andrew Johnson. Basically, Congress didn't like his leniency towards the South after the Civil War. The whole impeachment is well-summarized here 👇
10- Andrew Johnon ended up being aquitted by one vote. As an aside, the "Tenure of Office Act", which was Congressional overreach (sound familiar?) and likely would have been deemed Unconstitutional, was repealed in 1887.
11- The only other impeachment was of Bill Clinton. I am not going to go deep on that here. The bottom line was Clinton 1) perjured himself and 2) suborned perjury from Monical Lewinsky. Unlike with Trump, these crimes were vitually undenialbe. Key timeline elements here 👇
12- The charges aganist Clinton were largely the result of a long-running special counsel investigation into the Whitewater real estate deal. Ken Starr headed the investigation for most of this period. The SC overreached imho, just like Mueller. Another thread for another day.
13- The Senate acquitted Clinton, largely along party lines. Interesting to note is that Clinton's approval ratings increased significantly during this process, & the GOP lost House control in the 1998 midterms. This is what Nancy Pelosi is worried about (rightfully).
14- It is a common misconcpetion that Richard Nixon was impeached, He was not. The House had only drafted Articles of Impeachment when Nixon resigned. Nixon almost certainly would have been impeached, as many Republicans had turned against him, e.g. Howard Baker.
15- Nixon, unlike Johnson or Clinton, committed serious crimes. In short, he authorized hush money payments from a secret slush fund, to silence the original Watergate burglars. Then he truly obstructed the investigation, beyond anything Clinton did.
16- Bill Clinton was acquitted because even lying about the Lewinsky scandal - and asking her to lie - did not amount to "Treason" or "other High Crimes" in the minds of the Senate & the American public.
'
17- And Trump has done way less than Clinton. He was unequivocally cleared of "collusion". The obstruction case was also absurd, something only the likes of Andrew Wiessmann could have crafted. And even Mueller knew it was a bridge too far. More here 👇
18- So this is what impeachment is. And why Nancy Pelosi is (rightfully) worried about the backlash effect. It's a long, drawn out affair, and the country would get sick of it, espeically as it becomes more apparent the real crime here was DoJ/FBI abuse.
19- And there is no way 2/3 of the Senate (67 Senators) would vote to convict. Not on something this idiotic. Everyone knows that. So ultimately it would be a political stunt. A stunt that would cheapen the Constiution, and that the country would hate.
/end of rant
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1- “Biden didn’t leave (for the debate) until 27 minutes later, arriving at the studio with less than 30 minutes to spare. He never learned where to look on the split screen when his opponent spoke.”
Inexcusable.
2- “Biden was so confident, he called for a June debate quoting Clint Eastwood — “Make my day, pal,” he told Trump.”
This was in response to Trump baiting Biden - a move that will go down as one of the smartest maneuvers in political history.
3- “After the debate, Trump was thinking about going to the spin room, but decided against it because Biden did so poorly.”
1- Defending democracy is manifesting itself in strange ways in Ukraine:
“A Ukrainian reporter who revealed that a state news agency tried to bar interviews with opposition politicians said he received a draft notification the next day.”
“Ukraine’s domestic spy agency spied on staff members of an investigative news outlet through peepholes in their hotel rooms.”
“Journalists and groups monitoring press freedoms are raising alarms over what they say are increasing restrictions and pressures on the media in Ukraine under the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky that go well beyond the country’s wartime needs.”
But wait, there’s more.
2- “They (Ukrainian journalists) have also acknowledged some self-censorship, holding back on critical coverage of the government to avoid undermining morale or to prevent reports of corruption from dissuading foreign partners from approving aid.”
Heaven forbid we report on corruption; otherwise, all those members of U.S. Congress flying Ukraine flags after lighting $60B on fire might look ridiculous.
3- “Self-censorship in Ukraine is a feature of wartime,” said Serhii Sydorenko, editor at European Truth, an independent online news outlet. The situation was “not a problem” and unavoidable during the war, he added, noting that he expected a return to normal when the fighting eventually stops.”
“We can’t do objective journalism until the war ends” is a sure way to lose a war.
1- So many things wrong in just the first 2 paragraphs (and then it gets worse):
“Amid signs that Americans are tiring of sending weapons to Ukraine after two years of war, President Joe Biden this week will huddle with other world leaders in search of new ways to get aid to the country as it struggles to fend off Russia’s invasion.”
“Biden will participate in a three-day meeting in Apulia, Italy, of the Group of Seven, or G7, the organization formed by the world's largest industrialized nations, where a major topic will be tapping $300 billion worth of frozen Russian assets to strengthen Ukraine on the battlefield, according to the White House.”
1- If Americans (and Europeans) are tiring of funding an unwinnable war, why are their *leaders so hell bent to continue? The answer unlocks so many other revelations.
2- The “search for new ways” to fund Ukraine includes potentially stealing $300B of money that isn’t theirs. This would be suicidal to credibility of the western banking system but these lunatics are desperate.
3- They also want to funnel Ukraine money through NATO so the next American president cannot defund it without defunding NATO. That’s what they mean by “Trump-proofing” the aid.
2- “The Biden administration had wanted to use both principal and interest from Russia’s assets to help pay for the war, while European nations had favored using only the interest, …”
That’s because the Europeans know stealing that money would cause a run on western banking systems by countries all over the world.
Team Biden as usual is completely off the reservation.
3- “One option under consideration is for the G7 nations — the others are France, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany — to provide Ukraine with about $50 billion up front and then recoup the money in interest income (from Russian assets) over the next 10 years.”
Insane. 100 different things could go wrong with this and the West is left eating another $50B.
“What to do with the Russian central bank reserves frozen in response to the invasion of Ukraine is at the top of the agenda as finance officials from the Group of Seven rich democracies meet Thursday through Saturday in Stresa, Italy, on the shores of scenic Lago Maggiore.”
Translation: “Rich democracies meet in posh Italian resort to finalize plan to illegally steal money to finance their beloved war.”
2- “The debate over the Russian assets is being revived after President Joe Biden in April signed into law the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act, which allows the administration to seize the roughly $5 billion in Russian state assets located in the U.S. The law was included in the U.S. aid package for Ukraine and other nations, which includes roughly $61 billion for Ukraine’s defense.”
Amazing how they just slip this stuff in there, isn’t it?
3- “Exactly what the income from Russian assets would be spent on remains open, but one key focus is Kyiv’s state budget. Ukraine spends almost the entirety of its tax revenue on the military and needs another $40 billion a year to continue paying old-age pensions and the salaries of doctors, nurses and teachers…”
In other words, we’re funding the entire existence of Ukraine.
1- “…the foreign aid bill following months of partisan gridlock was a victory for President Biden. The sprawling legislation includes $61 billion to fuel Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invading forces.”
Yeah, let’s see how much of a *victory it is in 3 months when Ukraine’s Donbas region defense has collapsed.
2- “President Volodymyr Zelensky characterized the long-delayed American aid as a lifeline, but stressed that the promised resupply must arrive quickly. “We will have a chance for victory if Ukraine really gets the weapon system which we need so much,” he told NBC News last weekend. Zelensky’s office did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment for this report, but has acknowledged the challenges Ukraine’s military faces.”
Zelensky is high on something. Ukraine has no chance for victory. The only question is how long before they lose.
3- “More than two years after President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainian forces have lost their early battlefield momentum…”
They never had battlefield momentum. All they had was an ill-conceived, much ballyhooed counteroffensive that sacrificed their best units and otherwise achieved nothing.