*The Impeachers*

This fun book, by Brenda Wineapple, has the subtitle The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation.  Excerpt:

“The long haired men and cadaverous females of New England think you are horrid,” Johnson’s secretary reported to him.  “I had a conversation with an antique female last night, in the course of which she declared that she hoped you would be impeached.  Said I ‘Why should he be impeached — what has he done that he should be impeached?’ ‘ Well,’ replied she, ‘he hasn’t done anything yet, but I hope to God he will.'”

You can order the book here.

Comments

‘Well,’ replied she, ‘he hasn’t done anything yet, but I hope to God he will.'

And to think that observation applies as well to Clinton's impeachment as Johnson's.

At least we got the Starr Report and its entertaining, taxpayer funded tales out of the second attempt to find a reason to impeach a president.

Nixon, of course, bowed out before becoming the first president to not only be impeached, but removed from office as a consequence. Someone else, likely with less well honed political instincts, will earn that honor.

Didn't Clinton lie on oath on a sexual harassment charge? How is that not doing anything?

Lying under oath is almost beside the point. If it happened today, Clinton would be removed from office on #MeToo grounds alone. Every single Republican would vote in favor and there would be no problem finding enough Democratic votes.

I wonder then why the Starr Report hasn't been rehabilitated. Probably it simply presented the case through the wrong lens.

Trump and Clinton were born six weeks apart (with G W Bush inbetween, all in June, July and August 1946). If Trump had become President in 1992 he would have been the fresh face of a new and liberated generation; if Bill Clinton had been elected in 2016 he would have been a creepy old lecher.

Yeah, if Clinton had half the stones of Trump he would have just refused to testify or allow anyone else to do so either.

A precedent set by Barry the Lightbringer himself.

As with many things, Obama lowered the bar, and Trump crawled over it.

'Didn't Clinton lie on oath on a sexual harassment charge?'

Interestingly, though, the Starr investigation started 4 years before that lie of Clinton's. Which fits this quote perfectly - '‘Well,’ replied she, ‘he hasn’t done anything yet, but I hope to God he will.''

Clinton was charged with three felonies in office. He should have been impeached and the only reason he was no so found by congress was a political decision and not a legal one.

'He should have been impeached'

And he was, of course. And impeachment is always a political decision taken by Congress, and not a judicial one. (The idea that the courts have any role in impeachment at all is laughable, at least if one is able to read the Constitution.)

And technically, he was not 'charged' with any felonies, since impeachment is not a court indictment (the only 'penalty' that impeachment entails is removal from office) , and he was never indicted on any felony charges by a prosecutor.

Clock - I think you're missing the real point - "Anon" is spouting the very "fake news" sort of diatribe that has come to dominate our politics. All to justify the agenda of a minority who are now dismantling our democracy, bit by bit, and doing so successfully, unfortunately.

Not fake news, real felonies.

But "dismantling our democracy"!! Do tell.

Well, not 'real felonies' in the sense of ever being indicted by a prosecutor.

Though if you have a link, please do share - there is so much that remains absolutely hidden about Clinton. For example, the Starr Report does not mention the brand of cigar, I believe.

The cigar was less interesting than was the humidor. It could only hold one cigar but it held it very very well. But in case you had two cigars there was a second humidor available in the same unit.

What's with the string of book releases here lately?

Long-haired men and cadaverous females.

The men are sissies and the women are ugly.

The right apparently haven't come up with new insults in 150 years!

My good man, maybe instead of essentializing “the right” as some unchanging entity, consider it along the lines of a modest, organically changing raft rebuilt at sea by pragmatic people every few decades?

'of a modest, organically changing raft rebuilt at sea by pragmatic people every few decades'

So, where does Trump fit into this? More along the lines of the wreck of the Medusa, or of the wave?

The spectacle of the progressives of the day seeking to overturn an election for nakedly political reasons obviously resonates as to the Trump administration. I'm a little surprised to see Tyler taking the professional risk of highlighting the comparison so openly.

The emoluments case continues to march full steam ahead. That's a big Constitutional issue that Trump has no idea what to do. Or is strictly interpreting the Constitution considered a progressive activity now? Justin Amash, the libertarian GOP member who openly supports impeachment, doesn't strike me as progressive. Neither does Comey or Mueller. Trump's rating sits at 43% while impeachment sits at 41%. You don't get those numbers on progressive outrage alone.

Those numbers mostly reflect the systematic, one might say hysterical, anti-Trump bias of the media.

It’s interesting to look at the coverage of Mrs Obama vs Mrs Trump as an indicator of this bias. If Mrs Trump was the wife of a Democrat, the media would treat her as another Jacky Kennedy.

Mrs. Trump is no Jackie Kennedy*, and the Trump White House is no Camelot

*for all we know mrs trump is a lovely woman merely trapped in a trophy marriage gone terribly horribly off the rails, but shes still no jackie. or michele for that matter

No, she's successful in her own right, speaks 5 languages, and is not the least bit cadaverous. She's no Michele. Nor Hillary.

Actually, she is a litlte bit cadaverous.

And anyone who would marry Donald Trump just isn't quite right. Just sayin'

Engineer, I knew Jackie Kennedy biblically. Jackie Kennedy was a wife of mine. Engineer, Mrs. Trump is no Jackie Kennedy.

if by "organically changing raft" you mean "rolling dumpster fire of contrived grievances, tribal outrage, and tantrums" we are in agreement.

Those insults sound like Trump found a time machine.

They make it sound like progressives haven't changed a bit.

Or maybe that human nature hasn't changed a bit.

It's always nice to be reminded that uncivility is a timeless feature of politics, and not some uniquely new feature sprung out of social media.

I mean, congressmen used to get into physical fights on the floor of the Senate and a vice president killed a former Treasury Secretary and then CONTINUED HIS TERM.

Of course we should be better and all that, but I'll settle for not worse.

When Burr, Hamilton, or Jackson disagreed with the other guy's politics, they shot at them. America was built by real men not sissies who fall apart at the sight of milkshakes.

You're not proving the point you think you are.

indeed politics was never tiddlywinks

frankly compared to then i wish we had more duels. despite the putative drama, or pols still manage to get together and act all loveydovey when wall street or a war shows up

Andrew Johnson, a Southerner (born in North Carolina but whose political career was in Tennessee), believed there were "very fine people on both sides" of the civil war, that the fine white people who led the rebellion in the South should be returned to power, and that the former slaves should be denied citizenship and civil liberties. Johnson even had an attorney general who opined that military officers, led by Sec. of War Stanton, did not have authority to override the white rebels who had returned themselves to positions of power.

Johnson was then emboldened to suspend Stanton when voters in Ohio elected Democrats to the majority, thereby resulting in the defeat of one of Johnson's strongest opponents in the Senate (at the time, Senators where chosen by the state legislatures), and voters in Ohio, Connecticut, and Minnesota defeated proposals that would have granted blacks the right to vote. Johnson removed Stanton, Grant (his temporary replacement) stepped aside, Congress reinstated Stanton, Johnson again removed Stanton in defiance of an Act of Congress, and Stanton refused to leave his office, triggering the impeachment. By making numerous deals with many in Congress, Johnson avoided conviction in the Senate. If he had been convicted and removed from office, his successor would have been the lame duck Senator from Ohio (he was the president pro tempore of the Senate), who was opposed by many Senators as being too radical - he supported women's suffrage among other "radical" proposals - thus providing more reason for the Senate to vote for acquittal. The failure to convict Johnson meant the "fine (white) people" in the South regained political power, adopting the racist policies that even today persist in much of the South.

The failure to remove Johnson didn't cause the failure of Reconstruction; that only happened in 1876 with the deal that gave Rutherford Hayes the Presidency. In the meantime, Grant served two terms and largely aligned himself with the Radical Republican agenda (that term meant something very different in those days!)

If anything, Johnson's recalcitrance actually spurred Congressional defiance and greater efforts in implementing Reconstruction.

In modern terminology, the Union won the war but "lost" the post-war insurgency. They gave up on nation building and went home, leaving a beleaguered population to its fate at the hands of not-so-fine people. What is currently unfolding in Afghanistan, in other words. Some things never change...

This sounds to be a good book,i will definitely get it.

Does Tyler get a cut of books sold via this blog?

Yes, I would assume so. If you buy via his link.

Impeachment talk is now standard politics in the USA. Bush and Obama were not impeached, but there was a lot of talk. Get used to it.

Right. The unhinged lunacy of the last three years of the left, during which "impeachment talks" began before the President was even sworn in, is really just "standard."

Nothing to see here, folks! Move along!

"Impeachment talk is now standard politics in the USA. "

There was talk and an attempt to impeach Reagan over the Iran Contra affair. However, to TPM's point, impeachment talks before the President is even sworn in are probably a new low. And in Trump's case, there were talks of impeachment before he won the Republican nomination.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-impeachment-213817

Trump is the definition of sui generis. Not surprised political norms are breaking left and right since he arrived. Wasn't that his appeal? Being very different from the usual politics? Immediate impeachment talk goes with that.

True, I agree with what you wrote.

'impeachment talks before the President is even sworn in'

Well, Roy Moore managed to set that bar lower, by having Republicans say that they would expel him from the Senate, without even bothering to impeach him, before he was even elected. Some background here -

Comments for this post are closed