Congressman Jim Himes, who represents Fairfield County, has publicly requested that an impeachment inquiry begin on President Trump. This is an obvious scam, since the Democrats have no intention of impeaching the President. They are merely trying to mollify their rabid base to avoid primary challenges.
According to Congressman Himes: “The time has come for the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. From the moment of his inauguration, this President has shown contempt for the truth, has attacked our institutions, and has ignored the Constitution he swore to defend. He has refused the oversight which is Congress’ long-established right and duty. In recent weeks, he has refused to comply with subpoenas, he has ordered administration officials to refuse to testify, and he has asserted executive privilege of unprecedented scope with respect to attempts to alter the census.
The President attacks our free press, threatens to jail his political opponents and attacks courts and judges when they challenge his unprecedented behavior.”
But where’s the crime? After two years, $40,000,000 of tax payer money, the hiring of 19 lawyers, 500 witnesses, 800 search warrants, 2,800 subpoenas and Gestapo-like home invasions; the Mueller report refused to indict President Trump for collusion with Russia. The report was somewhat vague as to whether the President obstructed justice, but as one Wyoming rancher put it: “We know that old boy [President Trump] didn’t actually steal any horses, but he’s obviously guilty of trying to avoid being hanged for it.”
Two factors account for Himes’ action: the success of young aggressive liberals especially Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Tea Party. Both of these groups have resurrected what our complacent politicians in safe gerrymandered districts fear the most – a primary. The Tea Party pioneered this in 2010, when some establishment Republicans refused to challenge President Obama and found themselves unemployed. But it was the charismatic Ocasio-Cortez who sent shock waves through the political class when she upset Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley – who had raised $3.1 million – in his Bronx district.
Thus, we see Jim Himes going through the motions since a Bernie Sanders supporting group called Roots Action targeted him for a primary defeat. We see similar behavior by judiciary chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, who represents the liberal west side of Manhattan. If Nadler were to state there was not enough evidence to impeach the President, he would soon be out of a job.
But Himes and Nadler know better to impeach the President as this requires a Senate trial in order to remove him from office. This Republican chamber would call the first witness, former First Lady Hillary Clinton and Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina would ask in a sweet Southern drawl, “Were you aware that a surveillance operation was launched by the CIA and FBI on the Trump campaign?”
To which the former First Lady will reply, “Under the advice of counsel I am exercising my Fifth Amendment right to not answer that question.” Thus, locking Donald Trump for reelection.
But there are scandals for Himes to pursue. Maybe he should revisit the bail out of Goldman Sachs after the financial crisis in 2008. Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks sold collateralized mortgages – packages of home loans – to investors while fully aware that they were risky. To protect themselves, they insured this financial product with a company call AIG (American International Group) with what were called “Credit Default Swaps.”
The problem is that AIG was insufficiently capitalized to cover the cost when these collateralized mortgages lost value. Then Goldman Sachs did what is does best – whine for a taxpayer bailout. Fortunately for them, a corrupt Goldman Sachs billionaire, Henry Paulson, was the Treasury Secretary of the United States. He remained a billionaire while our grandchildren received the bill to keep him a billionaire.
Or perhaps Congressman Himes, the great defender of illegal immigrants, would like to revisit how Goldman Sachs crashed the Mexican economy. In 1994, the Mexican government suckered Wall Street into buying bonds that paid inordinately high interest rates while promising not to devalue the peso – even though they had done this regularly for decades. When they reneged, Goldman Sachs went into action and demanded a bailout.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont encapsulated the consensus of the average voter when he told the chairman of Goldman Sachs: “Go back to your Wall Street friends [and] tell them to take the risk and not ask the American taxpayers.”
But Sanders lost as President Clinton, who was bought and paid for by Wall Street, used a special fund to keep Goldman Sachs cronies in Hampton homes and chic Manhattan apartments.
The Mexican peasant did not fare as well. The peso lost 40 percent of its value. Unemployment skyrocketed and businesses closed in droves. Housing payments soared and many Mexicans lost their homes. Thus, they crossed into our country looking for work to support their families.
Another side effect was that farmers could not pay back their loans forcing them to convert to lucrative crops – specifically cocaine and marijuana. The distribution of these drugs led to the rise of brutal and violent gangs. This unleashed vicious drug wars in which tens of thousands of Mexicans were slaughtered.
But Congressman Himes will never bring this up because he too is a Goldman Sachs crony. He knows that if it were not for these bail outs, he would be waiting on tables rather than living in a nice house in Greenwich. As Will Rogers put it, “We have the best politicians money can buy.”
Joe Bentivegna is an ophthalmologist in Rocky Hill.
CTViewpoints welcomes rebuttal or opposing views to this and all its commentaries. Read our guidelines and submit your commentary here.
The author is probably right that Democrats calling for impeachment are “trying to mollify their rabid base”. But certainly Republicans — and most definitely, most especially Trump — are also playing to their rabid base. So with both sides caring only about their respective “rabid bases”, what about the rest of us who don’t fit into anybody’s base? When are Trump and congressional representatives and senators going to care about the country as a whole? When do WE count? I am so sick to death of all of them. Once, just once, I would like to vote for a candidate (representative, senator, president) without having to hold my nose and pick whoever is the lesser of evils.
Now, having said that, I would address the author’s criticisms of the Mueller report. But first, a disclaimer: I detest Trump. I can’t stand that he’s president of this country. I would love to see him lose the next election, but I don’t like any of his potential opponents, either. Anyway, the author wrote: “the Mueller report refused to indict President Trump for collusion with Russia. The report was somewhat vague as to whether the President obstructed justice….”. Mueller’s report stated that, “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Leaving aside for a moment that Mueller was operating under DOJ guidance which stated that a sitting president cannot be indicted, that right there is a pretty clear indication of why Mueller “refused to indict President Trump for collusion with Russia”. He didn’t find evidence that Trump or his campaign actively conspired or coordinated with Russia. And as for obstruction of justice, I believe that Mueller felt he had no choice but to be “vague”. While there was enough evidence such that he could not unequivocally state that Trump did not obstruct justice, again, he was of the opinion that he could not indict a sitting president. And it would be unethical and a breach of justice for a prosecutor to say, “hey, we think he did it or we’re pretty sure he did it or we know he did it, but we’re not gonna indict him”. If it was not going to lead to a trial, Trump would be denied the opportunity to face his accusers and make the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And that would be very, very bad. We are, or are supposed to be, a nation of laws. And as much as I detest Trump, I would object strenuously to his being denied his Constitutional rights. So prosecution isn’t an option, but impeachment is. And that’s why it’s now up to Congress, that wonderful body of bipartisanship, ethics and a sense of responsibility to do the right thing. How lucky can we get?
We welcome your comments but please note that our guidelines require that comments be limited to 1,000 characters. We will not be able to approve comments that exceed that limit going forward.
An impeachment vote by the House of Representatives is simply an indictment. It is like a Grand Jury finding or District Attorney filing. The person so indicted must then be tried and according to our Constitution the jury would be the Senate. With the Republicans controlling the Senate, we all know the outcome before it even starts. But the show must go on, or in this case, the trial. The presiding “judge” at the trial would be the Chief Justice of the United States. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, is simply one of 100 “jurors.”
With the decked stacked against a conviction (which requires a two-third vote), why have a trial? Simply, the impeachment trial would let the House of Representatives lay out their case and ask questions. And, finally, we may learn what Trump is hiding, and why is he hiding it.