The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

So a new guy (communications director Scaramucci) comes in and, without apparent consequence to himself, quickly starts a public feud with the chief of staff (Priebus).

Can you think of a parallel situation in any organization of any kind (government, business, non-profit service, social group, homeowner association, military, church, etc.) where such behavior would be tolerated?

As an organizational entity, the Trump White House is as dysfunctional as they come.

Fine-tuned machine? Apparently not.

 

[ATeam]

I said above that impeachment is fundamentally a political act. It will only happen if the political will for it develops in congress. How might that happen? Consider this:

A report surfaced today in the Alaska Dispatch News (see this) that "... each of Alaska's two Republican senators had received a phone call from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke letting them know [their no vote on healthcare] had put Alaska's future with the administration in jeopardy."

Put yourself in their shoes. You're a Republican senator who worked very hard to get elected and you value your seat. The administration has just indicated their willingness to, in a retaliatory act, harm your constituents and degrade your ability to bring home the bacon for them. And it so happens that you will continue to serve for some time before you are up for reelection.

It later develops that the House impeaches Trump and it now falls to the Senate to hear and vote on the matter. In that circumstance, Senator, what's the easiest and fastest way for you to be done with your Trump problem forever?

With former legislative colleague Pence waiting in the wings, how likely are you to fear a retaliatory act from him later of the kind Trump wants you to fear now? Given the threat you received yesterday, how much more willing might you be to vote to convict Trump than you might have been a couple weeks ago?

While it is true that Trump is being Trump, it is not true this is a wise strategy to follow when you are the President of the United States.

If impeachment comes to a vote in the Senate, there are 51 Republican votes (50 if Pence recuses himself, as he likely would). By issuing this retaliatory threat, the Trump administration just increased the likelihood the two Republican senators from Alaska would vote to convict.

If all Democrats vote to convict, that would be 52-48. That's not the two-thirds vote required (67), but give it time. Trump seems to be working hard to get them there.

Continuing the count; God-fearing Cruz has a natural affinity with God-fearing Pence. If given the chance who do you think he would pick in an impeachment hearing? God-fearing Pence or "pathalogical liar" and "serial philanderer" Trump (Cruz's words)? Lindsey Graham is already a fierce Trump critic. What about the two senators from Alabama, a state in which then Senator Jeff Sessions got far more votes than Trump?

Counting those, the vote goes to 56-42.

Tick-tock, tweet. Tick-tock tweet.

 

[Turtle]

The various laws created by the Legislative branch have permited or instructed the Attorney General of the Executive branch, not Congress itself, to select and deploy an independent prosecutor.

OK. I get your point. Congress passes laws. The executive branch enforces them.

That said, Congress also has the power to investigate, as is demonstrated right now by the various congressional investigations that are underway.

Congress does indeed have the power to investigate. That power isn't explicit in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court said, "They have to be able to conduct investigations in order to create laws, duh!"
(not an actual quote)

They have the power to investigate and gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches, and to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. They do not have criminal investigatory powers, though. If they find in their investigations evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they refer that to the DOJ of the Executive branch for potential criminal investigation and prosecution.

Even in a case of Contempt of Congress, a subcommittee votes and passes contempt of congress resolution, which then gets debated and voted on by the full Senate, and if approved gets forwarded to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia who would then be the one to pursue the case, assuming his boss (Attorney General) or his boss's boss (the President) doesn't decide not to bring the case to trial. That's what happened when Eric Holder was found in contempt of congress. The case was turned over to the DC Attorney for prosecution, and Obama said, "Newp, not gonna happen, executive privilege and all that."
(also not an actual quote)

 

[ATeam]

... They have the power to investigate ... to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings.

That's my key point.

 

[Turtle]

By issuing this retaliatory threat, the Trump administration just increased the likelihood the two senators from Alaska would vote to convict.

That's Politics 101. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Refuse to scratch my back, and I'll claw yours.

 

[Turtle]

... They have the power to investigate ... to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings.

That's my key point.

But they cannot name and install their own criminal investigation special prosecutor, as claimed.

 

[ATeam]

But they cannot name and install their own criminal investigation special prosecutor, as claimed.

Understood

 

[Turtle]

So a new guy (communications director Scaramucci) comes in and, without apparent consequence to himself, quickly starts a public feud with the chief of staff (Priebus).

Can you think of a parallel situation in any organization of any kind (government, business, non-profit service, social group, homeowner association, military, church, etc.) where such behavior would be tolerated?

Sure. If the head of said organization brought someone in specifically to shake things up, such behavior would not only be tolerated, but expected.

 

[ATeam]

Sure. If the head of said organization brought someone in specifically to shake things up, such behavior would not only be tolerated, but expected.

Only if the leader was too incompetent or too fearful to exercise the power he already has. Or, only if the leader is a super-narcissist who thrives on chaos and creates it for its own sake. Or only if the leader is a truly cruel man who enjoys seeing people who offend him twist in the wind.

This is different than bringing someone in to do something like clean up the VA. This is intra-team conflict among people who report directly to the president.

 

[Turtle]

Incidentally, Senator Murkowski said that while it "was a difficult conversation," she doesn't think characterizing it as a "threat" is appropriate.

 

[Turtle]

Only if the leader was too incompetent or too fearful to exercise the power he already has. Or, only if the leader is a super-narcissist who thrives on chaos and creates it for its own sake. Or only if the leader is a truly cruel man who enjoys seeing people who offend him twist in the wind.

Wow. How many "onlys" can you come up with? It could also be, or only, that the leader doesn't want to focus his own time and energies on the shakeup to shakeout leakers and would prefer to focus on his agenda rather than a distraction.

 

[ATeam]

Only if the leader was too incompetent or too fearful to exercise the power he already has. Or, only if the leader is a super-narcissist who thrives on chaos and creates it for its own sake. Or only if the leader is a truly cruel man who enjoys seeing people who offend him twist in the wind.

Wow. How many "onlys" can you come up with? It could also be, or only, that the leader doesn't want to focus his own time and energies on the shakeup to shakeout leakers and would prefer to focus on his agenda rather than a distraction.

I don't want to get too deeply into this. Discussing the dynamics of a dysfunctional entity can itself become dysfunctional. Suffice it to say the Trump team in the White House is dysfunctional in several ways and that dysfunction is rooted in the context set by the leader.

 

[ATeam]

Incidentally, Senator Murkowski said that while it "was a difficult conversation," she doesn't think characterizing it as a "threat" is appropriate.

Noted. However that phone call is characterized or not characterized, I believe it will figure into Murkowski's calculation if senators are asked to vote in an impeachment proceeding.

 

[Turtle]

My point wasn't disfunctional or not. They say that about every White House (they also say, "No, really, this White House really is disfunctional!") . My point was that since "only" means solely or exclusively, well, you know.

 

[davekc]

Does seem to be some dysfunction today. lol

 

[muttly]

Good bye Reince. Things like this aren't usually smoothed over and repaired. Looks like Trump has the ear for Scaramucci right now. One has got to go, which means Priebus is gone. The Velvet Hammer stays.

 

[Turtle]

Does seem to be some dysfunction today. lol

Running like a well-oiled machine.

Unfortunately, it's a Rube Goldberg Machine.

 

[muttly]

Good bye Reince. Things like this aren't usually smoothed over and repaired. Looks like Trump has the ear for Scaramucci right now. One has got to go, which means Priebus is gone. The Velvet Hammer stays.

Then again maybe the Velvet Hammer should go.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Scaramucci acting like a NY thug...talks like Tony Soprano...he needs to go as well...what a foul mouth!!

 

[Turtle]