Kevin McCarthy Goes Fishing

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

41 Responses

  1. DensityDuck says:

    people: “Impeaching Trump based on We Think He’s A Big Meanie With A Big Dumb Fat Face That Smells Stupid will just turn impeachment into a vote-of-no-confidence move, it won’t be useful as a tool for the checks and balances that supposedly make American governance work”
    Democrats: “No we can really do this, we can really make this happen, we have genuine incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing, this is definitely going to result in removing TrumWE HATES IT! WE HATES IT FOREVER! Excuse me, we mean, this is not going to result in impeachment becoming just something that happens for every President and means nothing!”

    (impeachment becomes a vote-of-no-confidence move that just happens for every President and means nothing.)

    Democrats: “Clearly this is all Republicans’ fault.”Report

  2. InMD says:

    I don’t see any upside to the GOP for doing this, and I didn’t think there was any upside to the Democrats doing it in Trump impeachment 1. Trump impeachment 2 obviously had to happen.Report

    • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

      The upside to the GOP is inside the GOP – this distracts their base from the forthcoming trials of TFG, and allows the GOP to keep a perception of power. It also allows Kevin McCarthy to keep his coveted gavel, which is more important to him then anything.Report

      • InMD in reply to Philip H says:

        That’s fair, and is certainly part and parcel with the Republicans’ drift away from interest in any sort of policy making wins.Report

        • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

          They can’t have policy making wins because their stated policies are unpopular, even with their own base. close to 70% of the electorate wants abortion in the first trimester, and you have Freedom caucus members floating national bans. And on and on.

          So the GOP has to consolidate power in some fashion permanently, and feeding these cakes to the crowds as they starve seems to be the way they want to do it.Report

    • North in reply to InMD says:

      Electorally the GOP has far less here than they even had on Clinton in the 90’s and the public punished them sharply for impeaching Clinton in the following elections.Report

      • InMD in reply to North says:

        Yea, it’s another symptom of how the Republicans have just ceased to be a political party in the traditional sense of creating a coalition based on issues, trying to win elections, and advance policy goals.Report

        • North in reply to InMD says:

          Indeed, it’ll be odd and interesting to see how long it can go on like this or, alternately, if the Dems degrade into a similar state.Report

          • InMD in reply to North says:

            My concerns about our team are less loss of desire to govern and more perpetual neutering due to inability to coalesce around clear priorities and control against ongoing self inflicted culture war wounds right wing media is only too happy to inflate. The D gerontocracy has been able to navigate those tensions reasonably well but I fear for the next generation.Report

            • North in reply to InMD says:

              In normal circumstances I would be entirely sanguine about the matter and would say “Whelp, the kids will figure it out or else the political wilderness will figure it out for them.” but, man, the GOP really doesn’t look like it’s in any state to hold down the fort for a cycle.

              But I remain optimistic. Joe wasn’t the only moderate in the race. Amy or Pete were relatively fine over all.
              To be slightly uncharitable- I don’t think our gerentocratic leadership is quite as indispensable as they find it convenient to claim.Report

              • InMD in reply to North says:

                Hey I’ll take a shot of that optimism and make it a double! There are definitely plausible, serious Democratic leaders that are up and coming, and the old people are certainly becoming less inspired by the day.

                If I had to pinpoint the root of the fear it’s the damage the GOP’s plunge does to the two party system as a whole. It certainly hurts the Republicans more than it hurts the Democrats but it hurts them nonetheless by distorting incentives and perceptions of what is and isn’t important. The Republicans are in a deep, deep abyss due to Trump, but we are worse for the experience as well.Report

              • North in reply to InMD says:

                On that we are both in agreement. Having been raised in Canada originally, I recall the conservative party there plunging into an abyss when the liberals under Cretchein did a Clinton style co-opting of several of their ideas. In the 90’s and Aughts there were simply alternative parties to fill in for the Conservatives while they flopped around and rediscovered themselves. In the American duopoly there just… isn’t. It’s an older and, in some ways, cruder system.Report

              • Philip H in reply to North says:

                I’ve said for year that the GOP missed a huge opportunity by not taking a victory lap after the ACA was passed what with all the Heritage Foundation Ideas in there. Of course by then it was already clear they didn’t really want to govern.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                The Heritage Foundation supported state-based insurance exchanges, not federal-based. To a federalist, the difference between 50 laboratories that Americans can relocate to and a national policy is huge, both in theory and in practice. Heritage had also endorsed individual mandates at times, but it was a debated position (as most things are in think tanks). Neither idea originated at Heritage.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

      Concurrence:
      T-Imp 1 bears similarity to B-Imp 1 in that they are/were fishing expeditions on things that seem like they should be true based on scant but salacious material.

      T-Imp 2 was justified on [narrow] grounds that Exec Branch incited Riot against Legislative Branch.

      Read some conservative inside baseball stuff a couple weeks ago on possible impeachment and their take was that the investigation is peeling back some leads to follow, but premature to impeach. Ironically they gave McCarthy high marks for restraint. The loons forcing McCarthy’s hand is par for the course.

      For full disclosure, my trending opinion is that the influence peddling by Hunter (and his Uncle as a family business) was indeed ‘supported’ by Joe. My hunch (hope?) was that the quid-pro-quo never quite materialized because the goal was the retainer(s), not the pay-off. The illusion of influence was valuable in itself. Now, a little favor here or there to keep the sparkle on the illusion? What’s a quick passport renewal or an H1B going to the top of the line (for example) in the grand scheme of things? Feels very old-school like Joe. Letter of the law with low security plausible deniability approach. Nothing fancy like a Global Foundation. Impeachable? Not without an actual quid-pro-quo … this is the level of corruption we want: petty personal enrichment for small personal favors.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine says:

        Frankly if we are goin to impeach for that then Democrats would have done well to go after Trump for Jared and Ivanka’s actions while actual White House Advisors – which Hunter is not. I also don’t see the Trump DoJ ever prosecuting any Trump kid for anything, while the DoJ under Biden is in fact trying Hunter.Report

      • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

        Yea, one of the ongoing errors of opposition to Trump was failing to distinguish between the truly material and the splitting of hairs. Which isn’t to say the hairsplitting stuff is right on its own merits, but it’s always so convoluted and legalistic that the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze. Everyone knows that’s the case and so everyone gets away with it. I’ve always said if you can’t explain it in one concise, shocking sentence (like ‘[he] incited a riot against the Legislative branch’) it isn’t worth impeachment.

        There are aspects of Trump I-1 that reminded me of the Republican approach to Bill Clinton, which as North mentioned ultimately backfired. Now Trump is no Clinton in terms of political skills nor were we in a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity so he didn’t survive anyway but I always had this feeling it was helping Trump a lot more than hurting him.Report

        • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

          Trump I-1: He should be impeached because he tried to tank the election by attempting to bribe a foreign president to lie about his opponent.

          Trump I-2: He should be impeached because he incited a riot against the Legislative Branch to stop the election of that opponent.

          They both seem worth the squeeze to me, even if the GOP Senate disagreed.Report

      • DavidTC in reply to Marchmaine says:

        T-Imp 1 bears similarity to B-Imp 1 in that they are/were fishing expeditions on things that seem like they should be true based on scant but salacious material.

        Everything alleged in Trump’s first impeachment not only happened but the fact it happened was pretty obvious and not all in dispute by the time impeachment started. Call that what you will, even think it wasn’t impeachable, but it wasn’t a fishing expedition….Trump really did illegally hold up foreign aid because he was trying to get a political favor.

        Likewise, in a technical sense, the Bill Clinton impeachment was not a fishing expedition…it was the _end result_ of a fishing expedition that had basically searched everything he had every done and managed to find an affair he lied about, but the _impeachment_ didn’t start until that was known.

        Democrats did not think the first was impeachable, and the public agrees. Republicans did not think the second was impeachable, and…the public mostly agreed at the time, although that entire thing has been memory-holed with the extremely blatant illegality that prompted the _second_ impeachment of them.

        What happened this week is the first time we’ve had someone say ‘We are going to impeach the president without there being an obvious crime that either the legal system has found (Clinton) or the president openly confessed to (Trump 1) or just did in front of everyone (Trump 2)’Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to DavidTC says:

          You know, you’re right. I’ve elided Russia/Mueller/Obstruction/Ukraine/Obstruction/Impeachment in my head. So many attempts.

          The parallel follows more of a Steele Dossier / Hunter Dossier / Special Counsel / Impeachment for anything that looks plausible model. My mistake.Report

        • Pinky in reply to DavidTC says:

          “Trump really did illegally hold up foreign aid because he was trying to get a political favor.”

          Only if you interpret the conversation in a certain way.

          “What happened this week is the first time we’ve had someone say ‘We are going to impeach the president…'”

          Nope.Report

          • DavidTC in reply to Pinky says:

            Only if you interpret the conversation in a certain way.

            Yes, because the conversation is the only evidence we have of that and not the actual holding up of the aid for literally no reason or justification, even after the rest of the government said to release it.

            ‘What if a guy commits a very obvious crime but we only have evidence that _might_ be him confessing to it?’Report

      • Brent F in reply to Marchmaine says:

        This sounds mostly like wish casting for what you want to be true rather than reality. It seems a lot more plausible that Hunter was defrauding shady dudes with the implications that he had influence in order to fund an epic hookers and blow bender.Report

  3. CJColucci says:

    Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.Report

  4. Pinky says:

    My problem here is that I don’t see indication of Biden’s corruption as president. VP doesn’t do it for me.Report