Coup coup ca choo

The ongoing coup has moved into its next stage: live hearings before the House Intelligence Committee overseen by Democrat Adam Schiff. Of course these are sham hearings, with Schiff having already interviewed witnesses behind closed doors in order to determine who would and would not be testifying in the public hearings. This is underscored by the fact that George Stephanopoulos of ABC News was able to give a summary of the upcoming testimony of particular witnesses.

     The Democrats control the House of Representatives, so it is almost a given that the House will pass articles of impeachment. The real issue is the Senate which would have to conduct a trial and then vote whether to remove the President. Charlie Martin, writing at PJ Media, has concluded that the Democrats can't afford to impeach the President because of the Senate trial. He explains:

      They have to go to trial in the Republican-dominated Senate. Where Eric Ciaramella can be called for public testimony under oath. Where Alex Vindman can be challenged by a former JAG about his violations of the UCMJ. Where people can be called to testify in public what they've said in the Star Chamber: that Ukraine never knew about aid being suspended, and that the president of Ukraine denies any pressure. And where House Members can't be threatened with ethics complaints for asking inconvenient questions.

      Where what already looks like a shady investigation of a made-up crime can't be controlled.

But what if it could be controlled? The wealthy and powerful elite have invested hundreds of millions to removing Trump, so they must think it is possible. (See also, "The curious timeline for taking down Trump").

     One idea being kicked around is to allow Senators to secretly vote on impeachment. Juleanna Glover, a former political adviser to the likes of John McCain and Jeb Bush, writes:

      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will immediately move to hold a trial to adjudicate the articles of impeachment if and when the Senate receives them from the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution does not set many parameters for the trial, except to say that “the Chief Justice shall preside,” and “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” That means the Senate has sole authority to draft its own rules for the impeachment trial, without judicial or executive branch oversight.

       During the last impeachment of a president, Bill Clinton, the rules were hammered out by Democrats and Republicans in a collaborative process, as then Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle recently pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed. The rules passed unanimously. That’s unlikely this time, given the polarization that now defines our politics. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are much more likely to dictate the rules with little input from Democrats.

      But, according to current Senate procedure, McConnell will still need a simple majority—51 of the 53 Senate Republicans—to support any resolution outlining rules governing the trial. That means that if only three Republican senators were to break from the caucus, they could block any rule they didn’t like. (Vice President Mike Pence can’t break ties in impeachment matters.) Those three senators, in turn, could demand a secret ballot and condition their approval of the rest of the rules on getting one.

 She adds:

There’s already been some public speculation that, should the Senate choose to proceed with a secret ballot, Trump would be found guilty. GOP strategist Mike Murphy said recently that a sitting Republican senator had told him 30 of his colleagues would vote to convict Trump if the ballot were secret. Former Senator Jeff Flake topped that, saying he thought 35 Republican senators would vote that way.

You get the drift here. There are Senators that are afraid to openly go against their constituents wishes, but would do so if there was plausible deniability. Which is not an unfounded threat: Newsweek, for instance, reports that, according to new polls, the impeachment inquiry isn't huring Donald Trump's approval rating. And so, to these three senators, Glover writes:

A secret ballot might get Trump out of office sooner than everyone expects: The sooner any three Republican senators make clear that they will support nothing short of a secret ballot, the sooner Trump realizes his best course could be to cut a deal, trading his office for a get-out-of-jail-free card—a clean slate from prosecutors—just as Vice President Spiro Agnew did. And if Trump were to leave office before the end of the year, there might even be enough time for Republicans to have a vibrant primary fight, resulting in a principled Republican as the nominee.

      Jim Gerachty notes, however, that "A Secret Ballot for Impeachment Would Be a Terrible Idea." His focus is on the lack of accountability for the Senators. Glenn Reynolds raises the more important point, however, which is:

But why should Trump supporters accept an impeachment based on such a procedural travesty? And if they resort to violence, well, we’ve already been told that violence is fine when your opponents are really bad. You know, by the people who care about stability and democracy and stuff.

At American Partisan, an author going under the nom-de-plume, Jesse James, discusses the impact of an impeachment proceeding whether successful or not:

      The most obvious implication would be that of a complete and utter destruction from even the most facile appearances of a federal system of government. Post-impeachment, the real source of power in D.C. would be those who control the intelligence agencies, or have access to privileged personal and metadata through corporate sources. ... Once naked force is an acceptable form of politics, violence is but one small step away.

Another implication would be that the will of the people, according to existing federal law, was rejected. ...What is the point of voting if the results can be rewritten? If the vote is no longer of any import, then what incentive is there to participate in the franchise? Trump may not have gotten the popular vote, but 50M voters represent a sizable population to completely disenfranchise. What exactly will those voters do when they arrive at the conclusion a handful of people 3,000 miles away have removed them entirely from the equation?

I don't know if a successful impeachment would result in a widespread outbreak of violence. And even if it did, spontaneous revolts--that is, revolts without leadership and coordination--are easily put down. But it would certainly give a boost to secessionist movements, and engender much greater contempt for the law and those that presume to enforce it. You see, law enforcement relies on people cooperating with the government and agreeing on laws. There are too many people to effectively "enforce" a law otherwise.

     Case in point are gun control laws that are increasingly being ignored. The Truth About Guns just ran a story with the title, "Law? What Law? ‘High Capacity’ Magazines Still Widely Available In Colorado." From the article:

      Denver’s KUSA TV sent a reporter with a hidden camera around to gun stores around Colorado and found that so-called high capacity magazines are still widely available in the state. Some are sold as kits to take advantage of the law’s vague wording. And some are sold complete, in clear violation of the law.

      What’s more, local law enforcement seems to have no interest in pressing the issue. Virtually the only time individuals are charged under the law is in combination with other, more serious offenses.

      In the mean time, Coloradans who want 30-round (or more) magazines don’t seem have any problem getting them. ...

In other states, we are seeing towns and counties declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. More broadly, "Jesse James", again writing at American Partisan, observes:

One of the most insufferable side effects of this ‘vote harder’ fad is the impression that somehow one is obligated to listen to the oppressors. To get mildly academic for a minute, the act of voting does not imply the rule of recognition for the local, state and federal officials. It certainly does not require it. People can talk and pass laws until they are blue in the face and demand my respect and obedience, but to what end? The political will to do me harm must be there as well as the mechanism, and the entire premise hangs on my unwillingness to accept the manifest consequences of that political will. The reason nine robed geriatrics have any power to decide anything is people are afraid of the masked men from three-letter-agencies coming to their door. That power ceases to exist the moment you start accepting that you’re already a dead man walking.