Monday, January 11, 2021

Salvaging Some POTUS Positivity

 I'd like to talk today about an American president who was not voted into office with a majority of his countryman's votes. He was a one-term president who was impeached. He sympathized with white supremacists and liked to hold rallies during which public frenzy, hatred and violence against his opponents was incited. He refused to go to the inauguration of his successor. He sought to systematically "make America great again" by sabotaging his county's efforts to put an end to black disenfranchisement. His every utterance and act seemed to undermine the constitution he'd sworn to uphold. He was paranoid about preserving his post, removing opponents from government and replacing them with loyal minions. He believed that equality discriminated against white people and had an open hostility to democratic ideals. 

Who's that you say? Donald who? No, I'm not talking about that assclown, I'm talking about Andrew Johnson. 

He became president in 1865 because he was Lincoln's vice, and we know what happened to Honest Abe. From what I've read, Andrew Johnson got the vice presidency largely on his (fake) concern for the suffering of black people in America at the time. He hadn't been honest with old Honest Abe to be sure! But he wasn't the first and certainly not the last scumbag to lie his way right into office. 

Lincoln was barely in the ground when Johnson began implementing his plans to reconstruct the defeated south by granting almost total immunity to ex-confederates and instituting "Black Codes," which basically preserved slavery in every way but name. He also started stacking his cabinet and governmental bureaucracies with people who were of the same mind. 

Congress recognized his chicanery and in 1867 passed the Tenure of Office Act, which prevented the prez from removing officials confirmed by the senate and replacing them with his own flunkies. Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton was replaced by Ulysses S. Grant immediately, as if to test the act, but Grant returned the office to Stanton after the senate passed a measure in protest. 

Then on Feb. 21, 1868, Johnson appointed General Lorenzo Thomas, a guy who Stanton absolutely hated, to the position of Secretary of War, and this is what precipitated his impeachment. 


A political cartoon of the day shows Stanton pointing the cannon of congress at Johnson and Thomas. The cannon had been loaded, then tamped with a rammer marked, "Tenure of Office Bill." The cannonballs have the word "justice" on them and one of the men to the left of Stanton is Ulysses S. Grant. 

Interestingly, articles of impeachment were PASSED only three days later on Feb. 24th. 

From March 13 to May 26 the impeachment trial was held in the senate and largely due to passionate pleas by Thomas in defense of Johnson, the impeachment fell one vote short of conviction. They had a large majority, but not the two thirds needed. So, like Trump (the first time), Johnson was impeached, but not removed from office.

This brings us to the second time. 


Do you suppose congress could match the alacrity with which Andrew Johnson's impeachment was obtained? It'd be nice since time is of the essence here. My concern is not with embarrassing Trump any further, good Lord he tossed out his last shred of dignity a LONG time ago, what I am concerned with is any future assaults he might mount on the presidency. Johnson's narrow escape from impeachment conviction allowed him to seek a second term (unsuccessfully). You're not going to believe this but, he tried to run again with the Democrats this time, who were the party most opposed to ending slavery in those days. Their slogan? "This is a white man's party; Let the white man rule."  

Would anybody really be shocked if Trump mounted a campaign under the same slogan? Really? But a 2/3 majority in favour of his second impeachment would result in a conviction that precludes him from ever running again. I think. And this brings me to my next point: why the hell are so many things in the U.S. government "not clearly defined?" 

Remember at the beginning of "THE GREATEST FIRST TERM EVER" when Trump didn't divest himself of all business interests that could cause conflict of interest? Remember talk of "emoluments clauses" and the like? Well that just went away and his presidency has been his best business ever! Probably his only successful one! He makes money golfing at his own courses while his entourage also stays there; foreign dignitaries stay in the penthouse at Trump Towers if they are in economic negotiations with the U.S.; China offers billion-dollar perfume or fashion contracts to Ivanka and huge loans to Don Jr.; hell, the fraudulent fleecing of Trumpies to support his ludicrous campaign to change the election results will probably be used to pay lawyers to postpone trials indefinitely once he is no longer in office and once again becomes prosecutable. There are countless examples of conflict of interest that have been ignored over the past 4 years! Why? "Well, this was never really clearly defined..."

Remember Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett being fast-tracked into place after Ruth Bader Ginsberg died? Obama had 11 months left in his term and his nomination of Merrick Garland was not accepted by the Republican heavy senate. Yet, with the election 45 days away, that same hypocritical, Republican senate rammed Amy Coney Barrett down America's throats. That's TWO lifetime appointments Republicans "won." Why? Well the rules on that were never really clearly defined.."

It is expected that the current ReTrumplican government is going to launch into a veritable orgy of pardoning of the guilty Trump family, of guilty Trump enablers and of Trump himself. The word "pardon" implies guilt. Why the fuck any president has the ability to just wipe away guilt is anyone's guess. But it's never been clearly defined... For the Thanksgiving turkey, okay, but anyone else, your laws are undermining themselves FFS!

And the piece de resistance, the "self-pardon," which may be Trump's final act, what possible scenario could exist in which an innocent person could require and/or use a self-pardon? If my Mother came at me with a wooden spoon and I said, "Wait a minute, Mom... I invoke my self-pardon rights," I'd get it WORSE because then she'd be absolutely SURE I deserved it, if she wasn't already. But, as this horseshit is being considered, we're coming to that familiar Trumpian impasse: "Well the laws and rules on this have never really been clearly defined..." 

You can probably think of many holes in American law, security and culture that have been exposed by Trump as well. These are but a few. How about Capitol security? Eh? 

Folks, it's time to impeach this shit stain because when January 20th rolls around and the insurrection is not quite as nice, and much more ARMED, it'll be too late to do so. Impeach his fucking ass and plug the holes he's exposed. It's the only possible way you can salvage anything positive from his presidency.

No comments:

Post a Comment