Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Consider the consequences of a Trump resignation

Published

on

Let’s be realistic: Trump will never be impeached. That’s not to say he doesn’t deserve it — there could be an argument worth discussing — but a Republican Congress will never do it, and the GOP will be hard-pressed to give up its majority in 2018.

The Constitution permits impeachment proceedings on the grounds of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” but as I’ve previously written, the term “misdemeanors” refers not only to legal infraction but, as Michael Stokes Paulsen describes, to “the broader sense of misconduct or misbehavior — literally of not demeaning oneself properly (‘misdemeaning’) in the exercise of an official capacity or position.” Or, as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist 65, “the misconduct of public men, or…the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Trump’s opponents could easily present an argument that the president has abused or violated the public trust at least once.

In other words, Trump could be impeached, but he won’t be.

The only other options, then, are that 1) Trump completes his first term, 2) Trump is assassinated, or 3) Trump resigns. Trump won’t be assassinated — I’m sure many a lunatic has attempted to murder every president in modern history, but Secret Service is too competent to allow that to happen, I think. On the other hand, Trump may very well finish his term, but I don’t know if the country can handle this kind of strain for three and a half more years.

All that said, we at least have to consider the possibility that Trump resigns. There’s plenty to be said about the potential causes: frustration with low approval, discouragement about not getting anything done, conclusion that it’s the moral thing to do for the country’s sake (that’s never going to happen), or discovery that the presidency isn’t as much fun as he’d anticipated. The list goes on. But I’m not as concerned with exploring what would cause Trump to resign; plenty have done so already. Instead, I want to consider the consequences should his resignation occur.

These consequences will occur in the form of three C’s: Cabinet, Congress, and Culture.

Cabinet:

If Donald Trump resigned today, Mike Pence would become the 46th president of the United States. I’ll save my predictions for how the country would react to this transition for the cultural discussion, but I think it’s safe to say that a Pence presidency would be far more stable and secure than the current Trump regime.

Among other things, we could expect a reduction in the quantity of tweets coupled with an increase in quality. In all likelihood, Pence would carefully craft prepared statements before addressing the public on major events, and he would stick to his notes. Trump’s ad-libbing has gotten him into trouble in the past, but he can’t seem to quit. Furthermore, rather than just announce policy ideas to the Twitter-verse without any follow-up or forewarning, Pence would implement changes through the proper channels with the approval of corresponding cabinet officials. The travel ban, Comey firing, and transgender military ban all suffered from Trump’s dismal implementation.

I believe Pence would put an end to the White House leaks. Trump’s cabinet is still riddled with Obama-era staffers whom Trump will never fire because he agrees with them on policy. Trump has always been a big government guy; his only problem with Obamacare, for instance, is the name “Obama.” He openly supports single-payer and countless liberal platform points. Pence doesn’t. He would oust the Obama holdovers and establish a uniform cabinet.

As for Pence’s potential vice president, it wouldn’t be a popularity contest for reasons I’ll explain under Culture, so you could expect to see a somewhat principled conservative like Pence as first mate. I doubt we’d see Cruz, Lee, or Sasse abandon their valuable Senate influence, but you never know. Honestly, I don’t think it would really matter. I foresee that should Trump resign, Pence would set up a strong cabinet and a mature presidency. Think what you will about whether he’d be a successful president — we should at least be able to acknowledge that his persona would be far more presidential than the man-child in chief.

Congress:

What happens to Congress, specifically in regards to the 2018 election, depends greatly on the timing of this hypothetical resignation. If Trump follows the Nixon route and steps down three months before the ballots begin, we could see a Democratic upset à la 1974, in which Democrats picked up 48 formerly Republican seats in the House, extending their majority from 242 -192 to 291-144. But if Trump resigns tomorrow, such a turnaround would be unlikely, as there would be enough time for Pence to establish himself as president before voters instinctively lashed out against the establishment. There’s still a chance he could be unpopular, but the vote would be about Pence and Congress itself, not anger at Trump.

Back to impeachment briefly: if Democrats had a majority, impeachment might be plausible. But since the only way they’d obtain a majority is through Trump’s poorly timed resignation, that’s a moot point.

Pence would pursue conservative policy (as he did as governor of Indiana) and most likely put more pressure on Congress to pass more/better legislation. And if they didn’t listen, he could reasonably claim that he had done what he could and shift the public’s blame to Congress.

Culture:

The previous two points have been largely positive; I think Pence would make a comparatively tremendous president after Trump — almost any conservative would. But this is where things get dicey: I know we’re already in a volatile situation, but I’m not sure if Trump’s resignation would make matters better or worse.

According to a recent poll, 24% of Americans claim that absolutely nothing imaginable could cause them to disapprove of Trump’s presidency. So if Trump resigns, no matter who succeeds him, at least a quarter of the country will be unhappy.

On the flip side, 28% said in the same poll that Trump couldn’t do absolutely anything imaginable to make them approve of his actions, “other than resign.” So would that 28% be happy about a Trump resignation? Maybe for a few days. But they wouldn’t like Pence any more than they like Trump, and Trump actually agrees with the Left on a number of policies. Pence doesn’t. If the Left can despise the first presidential candidate in history to openly support same-sex marriage, imagine how much rage they would direct at the man who won’t eat dinner alone with a woman who’s not his wife.

By that same token, it wouldn’t matter to the Left whom Pence chose as VP; they would hate them anyway, unless it were a Democrat or a RINO, which simply isn’t going to happen. And Trump stumpers wouldn’t be satisfied by any VP pick either, since they’d be too upset by the loss of Trump. As it stands, if Trump stays in office, 28% of the country is guaranteed to be unhappy. If he resigns, 52% will be.

But let’s be honest: the solution to our cultural polarization has little to do with the president, whomever it is. Trump has legitimized the Alt-Right just as Obama validated Black Lives Matter. But I don’t care how we got here; we’re here now. People are angry, riots are happening, and the president alone can’t put an end to the inevitable clash, neither Trump nor Pence.

That said, the chaos will be inestimably worse if Democrats are in control, pledging to rescind our basic freedoms and demonizing the very institutions which protect us. If Trump resigns next year, momentum could dramatically swing in the Left’s favor. If Trump resigns within the year, we could almost certainly recover from the initial blowback in time to preserve a congressional majority. We might even be better off.

Mr. President, if you can get your act together and ride out this term, creating actual solutions and improving the political climate, that would be wonderful. But if you can’t, and if you’re planning to resign, please, Mr. President, do it soon.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Advertisement
6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Z. Little

    August 19, 2017 at 8:45 am

    We have a long history of truly dumb Presidents so what’s to remove or impeach over? Being stupid doesn’t disqualify one from government service for if it did, we wouldn’t have a government. If we learn two things in life it should be: never shop while hungry or vote when your mad.

  2. Shirley

    August 19, 2017 at 8:55 am

    Interesting ideas. The one thing I’ve noticed that the author hasn’t mentioned is the despicable action of people like Obama, Hillary, Soros, Schumer, who actively and with money are fighting Trump on everything. They take anything the President does and make it controversial. I believe they will continue doing that to Pence and with the media regurgitating the talking points of the left day in and day out, he has no chance either. At what point does all this opposition become treason? I am not a “Trump supporter”. I am a constitutional conservative trying to give the President a chance to govern without constantly criticizing him. He was dually elected by the people.

  3. Rick

    August 19, 2017 at 9:56 am

    All presidents are dually elected. This one, like the one before him, are total morons lacking moral charachter and the slightest concern for the future of anyone but themselves and their brand. Trump’s biggest obstacle is Trump. Don’t blame liberals for Trump. Hypocritical repubs are to blame, which includes evangelicals. You sold out and deserve what you have. When will we learn. Dems are whack in terms of ideas and Repubs are dishonest hypocrites. Thank you Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., and those who blindly follow.

  4. arasaid

    August 20, 2017 at 5:46 am

    Yes, there will always be division, but a good leader can influence and explain WHY his policies would be good for the country. Many people settle down once they hear good reasoning and not just platitudes. Pence is very capable of being a good leader, if he chose to do that rather than the “politician talk” he sometimes uses.

  5. Donald Mack Flippin

    August 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    Mister Angel, you misspoke while writing your article. I will absolutely guarantee that the Democrats WILL NOT extend their majority next year, sir. That cannot happen because the Democrats are not presently in a majority, in neither chamber of Congress.

  6. Richie Angel

    August 20, 2017 at 8:44 pm

    Mr. Flippin, don’t misunderstand — I stated that the GOP would be “hard-pressed to give up its majority in 2018,” and my comment of Democrats extending their majority referred to the 1974 election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

CNN does 67 updates for Sri Lanka story with ZERO mentions blaming Islamic terrorists

Published

on

CNN does 67 updates for Sri Lanka story with ZERO mentions blaming Islamic terrorists

The narrative has already been set by American mainstream media on how they’re supposed to handle the Sri Lanka terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday. There are certain things that can be said and others that must be avoided at all costs. With reporting that has spanned nearly 24 hours and included 67 updates to the story, guess how many times CNN blamed Islamic terrorists for the attack.

If you guessed anything higher than zero, you gave CNN way too much credit.

I scanned the entire series of live updates they’ve been doing since the news broke. It’s all within one long story, making it easy to search for individual words, so I did. The results were depressing but expected. Even at this late hour, they still have not acknowledged the possibility that the act was committed by Islamic terrorists.

The closest they came to blaming radical Islamic terrorists in their primary coverage story was a mention in a quote by Diplomatic editor Nic Robertson in which he notes the obvious – that it has the “hallmarks” of Islamic terrorism – but then quickly notes that there are no known radical Islamic terrorist groups in the area.

“It is a very confused picture in terms of who may or may not be responsible. The Sri Lankan civil war ended 10 years ago, a 25 year long civil war, and the Tamil separatists there were a secular group. It would be very, very unlike them and their tactics ever to attack churches and particularly on such a holy day.”

“It has the hallmarks — or is intended to have the hallmarks — of Islamic extremists. But, again, these kinds of groups are unknown in Sri Lanka.”

This last notion is absolutely untrue, of course, as we now know the Chief of Police in Sri Lanka issued a warning about the Nations Thawahid Jaman (NTJ), an Islamist group led by Mohomad Saharan.

The CNN report mentioned the word “Muslim” four times: twice to note the percentage of the population of Sri Lanka that is Muslim, once to warn against reprisals against Muslims, and another to note there have been attacks against Muslims by Buddhist groups. Not once was it even speculated the attacks were carried out by Muslims.

The leftist narrative must be maintained and CNN will not break their allegiances. This was just some people that did something. It may look like an apple, but CNN will scream “banana, banana, banana” for as long as they can.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Since leftist media won’t say it: Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

Published

on

Since leftist media wont say it Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

Update: CNN still hasn’t acknowledge the possibility it was Islamic terrorism after 67 updates over the last 24 hours.

Original Story:

The dramatic shift in how mainstream media characterizes terrorist attacks over the years reached what I hope is the pinnacle of their obfuscation today. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka against Christian churches and areas where Christians were likely to gather were committed on Easter Sunday by Muslims in a city known for radicalization. This was a clear and unambiguous attack by radical Islamic terrorists specifically targeting Christians.

But you’ll have a hard time coming to that conclusion if all you’re reading or watching is leftist mainstream media.

The reporting today has been in stark contrast to the immediate labeling and narrative-building surrounding the terrorist attacks in New Zealand mosques last month. There was zero doubt based on media reporting that the attacks were targeting Muslims. But today, it’s hard to even find the word “Christian” in any of the posts or news reports. On top of that, there’s a stark difference when reading the Tweets of condolences from leftists who refuse to acknowledge this as an attack against Christianity despite the immediate and crystal clear labeling of the New Zealand mosque incidents as attacks targeting Muslims.

Some of this was noted by Brittany Pettibone:

OAN’s Jack Posobiec added that a new phrase has been coined by the media regarding the Notre-Dame fire:

Was this the same response they were giving following the Christchurch attacks? No. As Imam Mohamad Tawhidi noted, the differences were very clear.

Why do the media and leftist politicians do this? Why are they quick to label attacks against any other religious group exactly as they appear, but they’re so unwilling to call out any attacks against Christians as attacks against Christians?

This is the time we’re in, folks. The left has a narrative they want jammed into our heads and that narrative has no room for acknowledging violence and persecution is committed against Christians. The only stories that fit their narratives are stories that can blame Christians for wrongdoing. In those cases, the perpetrators’ status as Christians is broadcast loud and clear. But if Christians are victims, the left will go to extreme lengths to negate that fact from the record.

Of all the major news outlets, I was only able to find one that didn’t shy away from the truth. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stands alone in declaring the intended victims of this attack as who they are and why they were targeted.

WSJ Editorial Board

The intentional suppression of what happened, who committed it, and who was targeted is beyond insulting. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka are being framed by the media as some people did something.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Romans 8:18 – ‘sufferings of this present time’

Published

on

Romans 8:18 sufferings of this present time

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. – Romans 8:18 (KJV)

There has been suffering around the world since the fall of man to sin. While this suffering will persist until the second coming of Christ, we are to remember that it our suffering is not to be regarded as important. It doesn’t matter what hardships face us. The reward at the end is so much greater than anything we can be put through in this life.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report