zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » More to the somewhat right, Zenpundit

More to the somewhat right, Zenpundit

[ by Charles Cameron — second of two posts ]

And here’s the second of two posts, one from myself and one from Zen, both about today’s Comey testimony — in an initial attempt at balance in response to our friend Scott observing:

This blog has been getting a little partisan since November…can we go back to being a little more objective?

I don’t suppose Zen will mind my making a post of it here, since he posted it en plein air / en clair on FaceBook himself:


The Comey testimony is amazing on a number of levels.

My initial read is that the President didn’t obstruct justice in a legal sense but his actions in attempting to influence the investigation of General Flynn provide more than a theoretical ground for an article of impeachment.

Historically that is not going to get you a conviction in the Senate by itself. Not even in a Democratic Senate, without other articles and clear evidence supporting them. Which is why Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton finished their terms after being impeached and Richard Nixon resigned even before articles could be voted upon.

The GOP has a POTUS who is out of control in the sense that he won’t accept normal staff assistance and advice to avoid transgressing obvious red lines in the daily conduct of his office.

The last administration inappropriately tried to influence Comey in an investigation too – but note that the President personally didn’t wheedle him. There’s good reasons he didn’t. While the type of convo between Comey and Trump was common with J. Edgar Hoover and US Presidents, ever since Watergate this has been understood to be suspect behavior at best and a red line to be avoided.

If Trump continues as he has done he will soon be in dire straits and all the complaints about hyper partisan media and Never Trump/Obama mole leakers will not matter, no matter how accurate

9 Responses to “More to the somewhat right, Zenpundit”

  1. carl Says:

    I think attempting to impeach based upon something so thin coming from somebody as slimy as Mr. Comey won’t sit well with the tens of millions who voted for Mr. Trump. Those tens of millions are likely to take it very badly.

  2. Charles Cameron Says:

    Hi Caro:
    You don’t like Clapper, olay — but you find Comey slimy? I thought he was crisp and to the point. Between the two perspectives, quite a study in cognition..

  3. carl Says:

    Mr. Comey decided to use a cutout to spread the contents of his “memo” in order to, as he admitted, manipulate the political system. We still don’t know who the cutout was nor have we seen the “memo”. These are not the actions of a stand up guy. All of his behavior concerning Mrs. Clinton’s reeks of a man for whom duty ranks a far distant second to retaining his personal position of power. Mr. Comey presided over an FBI that had at least one agent (perhaps many more than one, since undercover agents don’t go out by themselves) within feet of the Garland jihadi killers as they began their attempt at mass murder, an agent (agents) who did nothing to try to stop them except attempt to flee the area. He also presided over an FBI that made definitive pronouncements about who monkeyed with the DNC’s computers without the FBI ever actually examining said computers. Neither one of those things could happen without an ok from the top.
    So yes, thinking of just those few things cited, I think Mr. Comey is slimy. I also think he is very talented at inside the beltway machinations, part of which is looking and playing the part well. Right up there with Fred Thompson as an actor he is. But would I want him to cover my own personal six in a tight spot where I would have to trust him to do the right thing immediately and instinctively? Nope.

  4. Charles Cameron Says:

    The cutout was Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman:
    I’m not sure why “memo” deserves inverted commas, but I begin to see why you characterize Comey as slimy — I don’t know enough about the instances you cite to hav an opinion on them.

  5. Grurray Says:

    With all due respect to our Zen Master, the out-of-control Trump tripe as well as the imbecilic-man-child Trump talk are attempts by the bureaucrats to subordinate the president to their whims so he doesn’t cut their budgets.
    The highly credentialed DC Beltway Experts have had their days in the sun, and they’ve squandered it all. I’m frankly delighted he doesn’t listen to them and hope he never fills all those empty staff positions.

  6. zen Says:

    Grurray – the job of the WH Staff – that is his own handpicked people, not the bureaucracy – is to 1) make the POTUS look good and act effectively to advance his agenda and 2) save the POTUS from his own defects, whether this is his being overly trusting (Reagan), micromanaging (Obama, Carter) or reckless (Clinton, Trump, LBJ, JFK). They are failing to serve the president well or are the wrong people to serve this POTUS.
    Things are not going well. Yes the media complex and Democrats are in hysterical collusion against Trump – let’s state that’s a fact – but they aren’t running the White House press office, the morning meeting, the talking points, the NSC. We need at a minimum, a new Chief of staff that can be a H.R. Haldeman for Trump and not a Mack McClarty

  7. Dave Schuler Says:

    A factor that readers here, especially non-American readers, may not appreciate is that despite the legalistic “high crimes and misdemeanors” language in the U. S. Constitution, impeachment is not a legal act but a political one. As long as Mr. Trump’s approval rating remains at around 39% (including a majority of Republicans) and the Republicans hold the House, he’s in no danger of impeachment.

  8. Charles Cameron Says:

    Isn’t impeachment the equivalent of indictment, a precursor to trial?

  9. Grurray Says:

    Impeachment has legalistic type procedures in the House and Senate. The procedures are for determining removal from office, so I think it’s fair to say it’s a political trial. Impeachment is not eligible for judicial review, so it’s strictly a matter of the legislative branch exercising authority over the executive.
    After the Comey testimony it now looks like chances of any treasonous smoking gun are remote. The only hope for La Résistance now is the Special Counsel will conduct an ongoing Grand Inquest and observe some political jaywalking that could somehow be conflated into a high crime or misdemeanor. Removal of office will probably never result, but it would put in place the Rehnquistian sword of Damocles to give the Deep State veto power over the presidential agenda.

Switch to our mobile site