To impeach or not to impeach?

Some liberal pundits have suggested that the minute President Trump took office, at noon on Jan. 20, he was immediately in violation of the Constitution via the Emoluments Clause. Even if true, it’s mostly innocuous, at least in terms of impeachment.

Impeachment is a term you’ve heard a lot in the last week or so, ever since Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and in the aftermath of this decision. It’s a Congressional maneuver reserved for the most serious offenses — “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the common phrase associated with it — committed by a high government official. Upon conviction of impeachment, the offending official is removed from his or her position.

Impeachment is a serious charge that doesn’t happen overnight. In U.S. history, Congress has only heard 19 total impeachment proceedings, including eight convictions. Only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have been impeached as president, and both were acquitted by the Senate. President Nixon surely would have been impeached also had he not resigned first.

But if true, intentionally disclosing classified information, especially to Russia, is a serious offense. A former aid to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said if deliberate, Trump has committed treason, which is punishable by death.

A seemingly non-stop stream of breaking news has followed Comey’s ouster. There’s the leak of Trump’s memo to Comey asking for the Michael Flynn investigation to be dropped and the leak of Trump’s in-person disclosure of classified information to visiting Russian officials. It’s brought about Nixonesque Watergate claims — and not just from the so-called fake, liberally-biased press. That reference was made this week by former Republican presidential nominee and current Arizona Senator John McCain.

Earlier this week, the Justice Department named former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia’s meddling into the 2016 election and any possible collusion the Trump campaign may have had with the Russians. It’s worth noting that while Mueller will do the investigating, he has no power in the impeachment process. All he can do is make recommendations to Congress, who has the sole power to impeach and convict or acquit.

The first official move to impeach Trump, from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), hit Congress on Wednesday. This brings two questions:

First: Is impeachment/conviction likely to pass with Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate? The quick, obvious answer is no. If the 115th Congress has shown anything in four months, it’s that its majority members lack a spine in dealing with Trump and put party ahead of country. Though in the last week, the natives have grown a little restless, it will take a lot of help. Democrats would need a minimum of 22 Republican House members (depending on vacancies) to flip to pass impeachment and 19 Republican Senators for a 2/3 majority to convict and remove Trump from office. This is why it’s imperative for Democrats to take back the House in 2018.

Never mind that while Green brought his voice to the floor, as CNN notes, Rep. Adam Schiff, the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee, has no evidence of alleged crimes worthy of impeachment. And that’s just where impeachment begins. The CNN link outlines the steps needed to bring about impeachment.

Question two is this: For argument’s sake, suppose conviction were feasible. Should Democrats really root for this scenario, elevating Vice President Pence to the presidency? This Observer piece suggests Democrats should be careful what they wish for. It really comes down to who you’d rather have running the country, Trump or Pence. Pence is known as anti-woman’s rights and anti-LGBTQ. With a Republican-dominated Congress, he’s likely to sign some reprehensible stuff. I understand why many wouldn’t want to see him anywhere near the Oval Office.

But if Democrats can win back the House in 2018 — again, top priority — it creates a divided Congress, and Pence isn’t as likely to succeed. Trump goes against everything I stand for — as a progressive Democrat and as a human being. So yes, I’d like to see Trump convicted of impeachment, as unlikely as that is with what we know now. At least Pence, in a moment of crisis, is more likely to react with a level head.

• The next presidential election cycle is already here — 129 people have already filed to run for president in 2020, including, yes, Donald John Trump. According to the link, his campaign already has a reelection ad out, focusing on his first 100 days.

• In a move straight out of “1984,” the Trump administration has ordered all TVs at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research permanently display Fox News.

• NASA and the University of Oklahoma are teaming to launch a satellite that can watch Earth breathe from space. The satellite will give real-time data on carbon as it flows through Earth and will help scientists track how humans are affecting the planet.

On a lighter note, some beer news:

• A team of Chinese archeologists found the relics of what they believe to be man’s first brewery, dating back 5,000 years.

• Here’s an analysis of the science behind IBUs in craft beer. I’m a malt guy at heart. I used to look at IBU numbers as gospel. Anything above 50, and I wouldn’t even try it. Then a few years ago on a blue moon (literally — July 31, 2015) I had a sip of my wife’s Rhinegeist Truth — an excellent IPA, so good it was named one of the world’s best 100 beers in 2014 — and it was a game-changer. I love a good stout — always have. And the Oktoberfests and pumpkin beers are also tasty. But now I also enjoy IPAs. It pays to know your hops. For me, Citra hops are tops.

How do Democrats find their way?

Six months after Hillary Clinton’s crushing general election defeat, Democrats are still out in the wilderness a bit. In fact, literally and metaphorically, they’re fighting over the map.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), who caucuses with Democrats and ran against Clinton a year ago for the Democratic presidential nominee, recently did some touring with newly-elected Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez. As CNN’s headline suggests, the tour got off to a rocky start.

Further, Sanders wasn’t impressed with Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate in Georgia’s 6th congressional district who just missed winning the special election there outright with 48.1 percent of the vote. Ossoff will go head-to-head with Karen Handel in a runoff election on June 20. “He’s not a progressive,” Sanders said of Ossoff in the Washington Post.

The Clinton-Sanders rift that developed during the primaries doesn’t show signs of letting up. Perez is seen as an extension of Clinton. It’s no secret Sanders wanted Keith Ellison for the position. And the fight has trickled down to Ossoff, who has a realistic chance of claiming a House seat that once belonged to Newt Gingrich. A New Republic analysis shows Ossoff’s campaign is much like Clinton’s — without the e-mails, of course.

There’s got to be a middle ground with candidates somewhere. Sanders has earned his right to *in part* script the progressive platform. But to reject a candidate who doesn’t align perfectly with Sanders won’t get us very far. Great case in point is Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. New Republic offers Brown as a good middle ground between the two camps. But it also suggests that because Brown declared support for Clinton early last year, that alone could be a deal-breaker among Sanders people. Why should this be the case?

Full disclosure: After voting to nominate Obama in 2008, I voted to nominate Clinton in 2016. Sanders was not a bad candidate. There’s a lot to like about him — especially the federal legalization of marijuana and making Election Day a federal holiday. I also liked his stance and minimum wage and making public college free — which New York and public universities around the country are starting to do already if certain financial conditions are met. But to me, Sanders was trying to go too fast with his ideas — likely unrealistic in a Congress well-populated with Republicans. Clinton had very similar ideas but wanted to go about it incrementally, which was more practical.

Sanders has earned his voice in the progressive platform, even as he reminds us he’s an Independent, not a Democrat. He ran an impressive campaign, and the movement he created is certainly not to be taken lightly. But is he our progressive future? If not, who is? Do we even know his or her name? If we travel back to 2004, we find ourselves in a similar situation.

An unpopular President Bush in the midst of an unpopular war, had just won re-election over Democratic challenger John Kerry. Many on the right declared a permanent supermajority. It was a kick to the teeth. The party was doing the same soul-searching then that it is now. In the 2006 midterms, Democrats took back both houses of Congress. Then in 2008, the party nominated a black man from Chicago in his rookie term as a U.S. Senator named Barack Hussein Obama. Hardly a traditional choice. The rest of the country followed, electing and re-electing him president.

Democrats will win elections again. It potentially starts with Ossoff next month. Though not a pure Sanders progressive, he’s somebody to build the midterm fight on. The next Barack Obama is out there. We might not even know who that person is yet. The key is finding him. Or her.

Countless Americans are seeking to run for office in all kinds of positions — especially women. The best thing to happen out of Nov. 8, 2016, is that the events from that day awoke a nation. This was never more evident than the women’s march on Jan. 21. This movement we’ve seen the last few months is promising. Really, it’s stunning.

It might seem overwhelming, and the biggest victories won’t be won overnight. In fact, just yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act with their own version. But remember it must also pass the Senate before it becomes law. The Senate will likely make changes, which the House also must approve. So don’t get too discouraged yet. House Republicans might still be giving each other high fives today, but nothing’s final yet.

With Trump, there’s so much to consume and fight. Find what’s most important to you, and do something about it. What’s most important to me is climate change and reducing our carbon footprint. I’ve been told I’m a decent writer, and I have a journalism degree, so that’s my “do something” — I want to write and inform, though that’s not the only way I fight.

You don’t have to attend every march or rally — I sure don’t. You don’t have to call your Congressman on every issue — but it’s extra useful on the big issues like fighting to keep the Affordable Care Act. If you live in Ohio, Sen. Rob Portman is against the version passed by the House. Brown is against the idea altogether.

Life balance is key. Your first priority should be making sure your own house is in order. Family first — I tell myself that every day. My wife and 4-year-old daughter will always come first. Do what you can when you can.

Remember Obama’s farewell address, especially this line: “I am asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about change – but in yours.”