Oh, be quiet, J.B. You're confusing us!

All the more reason we ought to hear less chatter from officials about presidential impeachment who aren’t directly involved in the process. Because it all too often seems like they don’t have any comprehension what it is they’re talking about.

Everybody has opinion on Trump outcome, … 

Take the case of Illinois’ governor, J.B. Pritzker, who back in April engaged in rhetoric that tried to make it seem as though he has long been a supporter of those people who want Donald Trump removed from office by force of Congress.

BUT THEN LAST week, the Politico newspaper published a Pritzker interview in which it seemed our governor was not quiet as hard-line on the impeachment issue. Perhaps he’d rather see Trump lose the 2020 general election and be removed from office that way.

But now, the Capitol Fax newsletter points out that J.B. may be backing away from that stance. Or as the Springfield-based newsletter phrased it, he’s “backing away from backing away.”

As the newsletter quotes the governor, “I think he should be out of office as soon as humanly possible. The only question to me is, is that gonna happen with an impeachment process or is that gonna happen with an election?”

Huh?!?

IT SEEMS TO me that Pritzker wants to be in the camp of people who don’t think much of Donald Trump (which according to the most-recent Gallup Organization poll includes 51 percent of the country). But the ranks of people who think it a national embarrassment that The Donald was ever permitted to occupy the Oval Office are split on this issue.

Pritzker not being able to take a definitive stance on presidential impeachment does nothing more than clutter the public discourse with more vague pronouncements that don’t do a thing to make the issue more clear to the public.

Personally, I’m amongst the ranks of people who’d see the impeachment process as a complete waste of time – largely because even if the House of Representatives with its Democratic Party majority votes to impeach the man, he’d still have to go on trial before the Senate.

… but does Pritzker know enough for it to matter?

Which has a Republican Party majority loaded with officials who are determined to protect the presidential reputation no matter how stupid he gets.

I REALIZE THAT the pro-impeachment types argue they’re making a political statement and that they want to be on the record as wanting to Dump Trump from the White House. They talk of putting the Senate on the record as being for The Donald, because they want to believe it will hold the GOP up to shame and ridicule.

Which, if you want to be honest, is nonsense. Largely because I’m convinced the Trump political backers have no shame. They’re also more than willing to spin the process into a claim that Trump has been vindicated – a word they’d prefer to use over “acquitted.”

Which they’ll hate to use because it would imply there was legitimacy to the charges against Trump to begin with.

Pushing for impeachment could do little more than create a lengthy process that ends with Trump remaining in office – and further motivating the ideologues into thinking they’re morally superior for backing Trump to begin with.

IF ANYTHING, IT’S going to take an outright electoral defeat to actually get Trump out of office (although it wouldn’t shock me if Trump backers were to think in terms of a coup ‘d etat to remain in office beyond January 2021, regardless of what the people say).

Yes, these are irrational political times, and we have to think in such terms, which are appalling but honest and truthful.

So Pritzker might have been right when he told Politico that there might not be enough time to work our way through the impeachment process and actually remove Trump from office. It doesn’t help matters if his stance keeps switching on the issue.

Could Trump return just like Smith did?

But if we look at Illinois political history, there’s an even more-embarrassing scenario – take the case of former state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, who was expelled from the Illinois House in August 2012 following a criminal indictment. Only to get re-elected in the November election that year. Don’t put it past the Trump-ites to vote for the man out of spite to any impeachment attempt!

  -30-

So is this now the Denny Hastert law?

J. Dennis Hastert of Yorkville used to be thought of as one of the few Illinoisans to ever rise all the way to the rank of Speaker of the House of Representatives, and is actually the longest-serving Republican to ever hold that all-powerful political position.

HASTERT: Is this now lis legacy?

One that actually puts its occupant in line for the U.S. presidency in the event of an emergency that takes down both the president and vice-president.

BUT JUST AS Dan Rostenkowski fell from grace and the notion he was the all-powerful chairman of House ways and means, Hastert also took a plunge in reputation.

To the point where he probably has experienced an even bigger fall. Which is illustrated by the new law in Illinois approved by Gov. J.B. Pritzker that relates to statute of limitations for people to be charged with sex crimes.

It now seems that aggravated criminal sexual assault and abuse are now the equivalent of murder – as in there’s no amount of time that can pass without someone running the risk of criminal prosecution.

Come Jan. 1, anybody facing criminal suspicion can face prosecution if state’s attorney officials somewhere are capable of putting together a criminal case. Whereas it used to be that prosecutors had 10 years to put together a criminal case – AND the case had to be reported to police within three years of the alleged incident’s occurrence.

THIS LAW WAS enacted because of political people who wanted to appear to be doing something significant in response to the predicament caused by Hastert – who once was a high school teacher and wrestling coach who later in life had some of his former students claim he took liberties with them of a sexual nature.

The incidents supposedly occurred back when Hastert was their teacher and coach in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but it wasn’t until the mid-2010s that the allegations became public.

Which meant that even if sufficient evidence could be procured, so much time had passed that Hastert was never in danger of criminal prosecution.

PRITZKER: Signed the measure into law

But it was because of actions that Hastert took to try to keep people from talking about things that eventually resulted in J. Dennis being found guilty of something criminal – which resulted in him getting a prison term (he’s been free for a couple of years now) and becoming the highest-ranking government official to ever have to serve time for a crime. While also proving the notion that it's the cover-up, and not the crime itself, that gets you in the most trouble!

WHICH HAVE SOME people convinced that something wasn’t fair. Which also is what motivated legislators of both Republican and Democratic partisan leanings to sponsor the bill that passed overwhelmingly this spring before getting Pritzker’s approval last week.

So now, theoretically, we could have prosecuted Hastert for the crime, instead of the technicality. Although I have to admit to being a bit wary of such incidents.

Usually because the passage of so much time means the actual evidence becomes weaker, more heresay, to be honest.

To be honest, the strongest criminal cases are the ones whose defendants literally are caught in the act right at the time of their alleged criminal occurrence.

WHICH IS THE point of statute of limitations laws – acknowledging that there are some instances where it is not practical to punish someone for something that happened many years ago and where people might have been too ashamed to talk about it at the time of occurrence.

Although some see that as a good thing (it means sexual predators cannot escape their actions ever) and a bad (people may wind up getting prosecuted and convicted based on testimony from people whose memories may not be quite as accurate as they once were due to the passage of time).

Not that I don’t doubt some people aren’t going to let that possibility concern them – they may want more prosecution, regardless of how solid the charges may be.

And Hastert’s contribution to our public discourse may well be something he did long before his 8 years as House Speaker (and 20 years in Congress overall) back in the days when he was a nobody to the masses – and “coach” to a select few individuals living out in what some of us would have dismissed as “the boonies” of the Chicago area.

  -30-

A Rauner-like re-do come 2020?

Those of us paying attention will remember the Republican primary for governor in 2018 – the one where incumbent Bruce Rauner narrowly defeated his challenger, state Sen. Jeanne Ives of Wheaton, but was left so weakened that Democrat J.B. Pritzker easily cleaned his clock come the general election.

RAUNER: Will we relive 2018 GOP primary?

Well, guess what! It seems we’re going to get a replay, of sorts, come 2020. Or at least those people who live in the Illinois 6^th Congressional district will.

THOSE ARE THE people of suburban DuPage County who for many years were represented in Congress by Henry Hyde, and whose district was considered the very base of the Republican Party in Illinois.

But as one of the ultimate bits of evidence that the Illinois GOP is not really the “Party of Lincoln” of tradition any longer, the district picked Sean Casten, a Democrat, to be their Congressman in last year’s election.

Which means Republicans are viewing dumping Casten from office as one of their political priorities, and the list of people willing to use the Republican banner to campaign on is developing.

Rauner’s lieutenant governor running mate, Evelyn Sanguinetti, already has expressed interest in the post. She’s a Wheaton native who once served on the City Council, prior to Rauner tapping her as his potential backup – had something happened to him while in office.

IVES: Rehashing Rauner trashing?

WHICH COULD TURN out to be the campaign where Sanguinetti goes out of her way to claim that Rauner was never fully appreciated by Illinoisans – and how her political victory could be a sign of redemption.

So perhaps it is all too appropriate that Sanguinetti has a primary election challenger she will have to beat before she can get to campaigning against Casten.

It’s none other than Jeanne Ives herself – the woman who repeatedly bashed about Rauner and claimed he was way too liberal for Illinois. Even though the bulk of Illinois voters ultimately voted for governor in ways indicating hey thought she was too conservative for our state.

Does this mean the congressional primary next year will wind up as a replay of the Republican gubernatorial primary? Even though now Ives’ operatives are circulating a poll trying to figure out how she’d stand up against Casten in a general election.

SANGUINETTI: Defending her former superior?

ARE WE GOING to hear a defense of The Rauner Years from Sanguinetti, countered with constant repeats of the Rauner bashing that Ives engaged in last year – with constant reminders that Sanguinetti is little more than a Rauner lackey?

Will Ives think that using the 2020 primary to try to beat Rauner’s running mate is a way of rewriting history – creating the perception that SHE was the real winner in the long run?

I’m sure Sanguinetti backers (are their any?) will try to claim she’s an independent persona in her own right. But her lieutenant governorship was very low key – as are most lieutenant governors. She’s not going to have a lot of independent government achievements to tout.

Making it far too easy for her to be dubbed as Rauner-lite by Ives. Who herself will easily be tagged with a label of just another ideological loon who can’t accept the fact that the majority of Illinois thinks she’s wrong!

THERE IS ONE positive to the idea of a Sanguinetti/Ives matchup in the Illinois 6^th Republican primary – this will be limited to the land of DuPage, rather than the entirety of Illinois as was last year’s gubernatorial primary.

CASTEN: An easier-than-expected re-election in 2020?

We won’t all be subjected to the rounds of nonsense rhetoric a second time. Then again, I suspect the overwhelming majority of Cook County (which accounts for nearly half of Illinois’ population) voters focused on the Democratic primary and didn’t pay much attention to Rauner/Ives to begin with.

Which could make Sean Casten, a resident of suburban Downers Grove, the ultimate winner.

The Sanguinetti/Ives primary could get so vicious rhetorically that they beat each other silly. Leaving each other all bloodied politically to the point that Casten doesn’t get anywhere near as intense a challenge for his re-election as Republican political operatives dream of giving him next year.

  -30-

Newman for Congress – trying to get a head start? Or an act of desperation?

We’re almost a full year away from the 2020 election cycle primaries. We haven’t even inaugurated the new mayor that a third of Chicagoans voted into office.

NEWMAN: Will her 'time' finally arrive in 2020?

Yet Marie Newman is already thinking in terms of wanting to be like Mr. Smith and go to Washington – where her goal remains the same as it was in 2018. She wants to dump decade-long incumbent Dan Lipinski from his post on Capitol Hill.

NEWMAN, WHO LOST to Lipinski by a narrow margin last year, has already begun her active campaigning for office on the grounds that Lipinski is far too ideologically conservative to represent a part of Chicago and surrounding suburbs in Congress.

It was the same strategy she tried employing the last election cycle – only to have it fall short as long-time Chicagoans who remember back when Lipinski’s father, Bill, was their representation in Congress stood fast and firm behind the Family Lipinski.

He won, no matter how much Newman reminded us over and over how Dan was amongst the most conservative of Democrats in Congress. An abortion opponent, not a backer of measures meant to reduce gun violence by restricting firearms access, and the kind of guy inclined to think that focusing attention on protecting the rights of gay people is a waste of everybody’s time.

About the only thing that makes Lipinski line up with Democrats, rather than just switch political party alliances, is that he can side with much of organized labor and unions – at least up to the point when they start getting all floofy on social issues.

IT’S OBVIOUS THAT Newman plans to run her same campaign strategy, while hoping she can make up the few votes she would have needed in the 2018 Democratic primary so as to put her ahead – where she likely would have walloped Republican (alleged, that is) Art Jones just as bad as Lipinski did in last year’s general election.

Hence, the fact that Newman felt compelled to inform us Monday of all the endorsements her second-chance campaign of 2020 has received.

EMILY’S List (female candidates), Move On, NARAL (abortion), Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. It’s almost like an All Star team of sorts of political activists who’d be inclined to oppose anything ideologically conservative.

LIPINSKI: Is the 'old' Chicago alive?

For all I know, this puts the Newman campaign on an enemies’ list put together by those people inclined to support this Age of Trump our society is now in. But also on the side of those people who were in the majority who voted against Trump in 2016 but could not generate enough of the Electoral College vote to defeat him.

BUT UNLIKE THE presidency, there is no Electoral College for members of Congress. Newman will have to gain a majority of the vote in the Illinois 3^rd Congressional District come March of 2020 – if she’s to prevail at having a shot at the Congressional seat.

And seeing her endorsement activity, she’s certainly hoping that getting such an early campaign start well before anybody is seriously thinking about the congressional seats will give her the electoral advantage towards victory.

There is just one thing – some people are inclined to think that Newman was a “sore loser” when she was defeated by Lipinski. Or else they’re the ones ideologically inclined to think that Danny is a remnant of the old days of the “Chicago Machine” that made sense to their way of thinking.

Will Newman give us material for 21st Century sequel?

Will the thought of all these endorsements with liberal leaning (take Move On, a group created in the wake of the Bill Clinton impeachment efforts by those who opposed that political exercise), it makes me wonder how many people will now regard a vote against Newman as a vote for political sanity!

CAN LIPINSKI CONVINCE a majority of the congressional district’s electorate that he’s still more aligned with their views – that he’s not too extreme to call himself a Chicago congressman (even though he lives in suburban Western Springs)?

Or has even the Chicago Sout’ Side that still worships the memory of Hizzoner himself Mayor Daley (the elder) progressed enough on social issues that Newman’s “time” has come for “Mrs. Newman goes to Washington” to become a reality!

  -30-

Will Fighting Irish kicker of some three decades ago have a chance at Congress?

It shouldn’t be perceived as a surprise that Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., is going to face some serious competition if she wants to keep her Congressional post beyond 2020.

The political establishment is going to be determined to think that a young, black woman managed to win a DuPage County-based House seat only as a total fluke – and that it will be time for the natural order of things to be restored by dumping her from office.

IT’S NOT EVEN odd that one of the potential Republican replacements for Underwood has plans to significantly play up the fact that he has athletic accomplishments.

For people who think that politics is dull or boring or confusing or irrelevant to their lives, it may well be easier to comprehend old football footage than any attempt to get at the issues confronting our society.

So the political aspirations of Ted Gradel shouldn’t be dismissed out-of-hand.

Gradel played big-time college football (Notre Dame, class of 1987), before going into business and establishing a life for himself out around the Land of DuPage. Now, the Naperville resident thinks it’s time for him to serve in Congress.

WHICH MAKES HIM one of three people saying they will run for the Republication nomination to challenge Underwood in next year’s election cycle – Jim Oberweis and Allen Skillicorn are the other two, as of now.

But Gradel, who admits he has no political experience and thinks we ought to view that as a “positive in my book,” has, according to the Capitol Fax newsletter, hired a political consultant and has already put together his first campaign at touting himself.

UNDERWOOD: Can she win re-election?

That ad features one-time Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz touting just how wonderful a football place kicker Gradel was – and is loaded with footage of Gradel playing for the Fighting Irish.

In short, a perfect spot to appeal to people who otherwise wouldn’t want to bother thinking about politics.

THERE’S JUST ONE thing that could wind up hurting Gradel – the fact that by so strongly reminding people he played football for Notre Dame, he’s going to stir up the resentment and hostility of all those sports fans who like to denigrate Notre Dame every single chance they get.

HARRIS: Former gridder now in politics

The ones who think that anything that was ever special about Notre Dame football was long ago in the past, and they seem to get upset any time anyone includes the Fighting Irish amongst the ranks of the best college football programs in the country.

Will Underwood’s re-election bid wind up gaining the support of every single person who feels compelled to trash-talk Notre Dame every chance they get?

For that matter, Gradel includes footage of a field goal he kicked against Alabama all those decades ago. Will all the fans of the Crimson Tide (a school that has made increasing efforts to recruit for students throughout the Midwest – including Illinois) become instantly appalled with the Gradel campaign so as to disregard it from its opening moments?

IT MAY SOUND irrational, bordering in crazy and downright nuts!

FLANAGAN: Is he Underwood equivalent?

But then again, it wouldn’t be the stupidest thing that ever happened on the political scene – particularly if someone is being asked to base the casting of a ballot on the fact that someone once played a sport at a highly-competitive level.

So it will be interesting to see if Gradel can manage to beat out a pair of business executives who, at the very least, have gained a little bit of political experience serving in the Illinois General Assembly.

Or more importantly, was Underwood’s 2018 electoral victory over incumbent Congressman Randy Hultgren just a political fluke – something along the lines of back in 1994 when Michael P. Flanagan managed to win a Congressional post for two years as a Republican from Chicago!

  -30-

We need to make up our collective minds about Trump impeachment

As much as I’d thoroughly enjoy the concept of Donald Trump going into the history books as the first president to actually be removed from office through the concept of impeachment, I’m realistic enough to know that thinking about it is really nothing more than a complete waste of time.

Not likely to get past coloring book stage

The release of a redacted version of the Mueller report about the Russian government interfering with the 2016 election process to benefit Trump may well have come up with nothing that would warrant a straightforward criminal charge against The Donald himself.

BUT IT REALLY is a complete lie to say that Trump was vindicated in any way by the report. There are enough details to make Trump look like a buffoon in ways that some members of Congress would like to use as justification to proceed with impeachment.

Which is a concept I don’t think much of because I think the ultimate failure would be twisted by Trump as further evidence that he was “vindicated” – which would be a total lie.

Yes, the Democratic majority that controls the House of Representatives does have enough people that they could go ahead and approve articles of impeachment. They could say they “impeached” Trump the same way that Republican ideologues always like to say they “impeached” former President Bill Clinton.

Tickets bearing admission to Johnson, Clinton … 

But to actually remove a sitting president requires a trial before the full Senate – with the Supreme Court chief justice presiding. It would require a supermajority of support to convict and remove him from office.

THERE’S NO WAY the current Republican-leaning Senate would even come close to doing any such thing.

Republican partisans wound up making fools of themselves back in 1998 when they persisted in trying to remove Clinton from office – unable to create a bipartisan movement that actually believed there were legitimate grounds the president needed to be ejected from office.

Do we really need to see the same happen, in reverse?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she’s not inclined to support actions toward impeachment because she agrees it would be a waste of time. Republican ideologues are determined to support Trump no matter how clueless and ignorant he gets.

… impeachment proceedings. Will Trump be next?

BUT THEN THERE is the view of House Intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who told the ABC “This Week” program, “Impeachment is likely to be unsuccessful. It may be that we undertake an impeachment nonetheless.”

So maybe it seems some people are determined to play out the same ignorance of some two decades ago – only to see the incumbent remain in office.

There is one point we ought to keep in mind in coming months as some people continue to tout the “I” word as the only fate that Trump ought to have to endure.

“Impeachment” is a political process – NOT a legal one. Which is very well why it may be possible that Trump didn’t do anything in conjunction with Russian government officials that would be worthy of criminal prosecution, but where his behavior would have crossed over so many ethical lines of appropriateness that officials could talk seriously about removing him from office.

NONETHELESS, I BELIEVE that people interested in removing Trump from the White House ought to focus their efforts and attention on the 2020 election cycle – come up with a candidate who can put together a credible vision for our society that would bring this Age of Trump to an end!

Not as 'final' an act as some might think

Something that, as of now, may not happen – as we seem to have so many politicos determined to think that anybody can beat up on Trump without having a proper vision for our society that they can offer. Which is a formula for failure.

As in we could well get the “four more years” that Republican ideologues will fantasize about and chant for often in coming months by people determined to vote for Trump solely because he offends the vast majority of us.

And all the talk about “impeachment” that some people seem determined to engage in now will turn out to be a complete waste of time!

  -30-

Encore, encore?!?

Did Marie Newman really behave in such a tacky, offensive manner on primary Election Night 2018 that she has killed off any future chances she has to win electoral office?

It certainly seems that Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., and his backers are counting on such a strategy in order to win office again. Which makes us wonder – did Newman really misbehave? Or is Lipinski truly fearful of the candidate whom he barely beat last year?

FOR THOSE OF you with short attention spans, Newman was the suburban woman who challenged Lipinski on the notion that he’s too conservative on social issues to be allowed to think of himself as a Democrat in good standing.

Lipinski managed to prevail in the Democratic primary – winning 51 percent to 49 percent. Largely because the Illinois 3^rd Congressional district consists largely of Chicago’s Southwest Side neighborhoods, where many voters look upon it as a plus that Lipinski’s father is former Congressman and Alderman Bill Lipinski.

He also represents that segment of the populace that thinks Democrats ought to be a blue-collar political party that ought not be too concerned with the social issues such as abortion (of which Lipinski is solidly in opposition).

There were those people who think that’s not what the Democrats ought to be about any longer, and they did try to use Newman to dump Dan from office – falling just short of a primary victory.

NEWMAN APPARENTLY IS thinking along the lines of, “I came close to winning last time, this time will be the charm.”

NEWMAN: Trying again in 2020

That led her to saying on Tuesday she’s running again for Congress. She’ll challenge Lipinski once again – and hopes she can find another 2 percent of voter support to give her a victory this time. While another person, Abe Matthew of Chicago’s Bridgeport neighborhood, says he’ll also run – thereby clogging up the political mechanisms.

Personally, I always get skeptical of candidates who come close to winning, but fail. Political history is filled with many such tales of people who tried again – only to wind up falling short by nowhere near as small a voter margin as they lost by the first time.

LIPINSKI: Can he fight her off again?

Remember H. Ross Perot – who in 1992 ran an independent political campaign that managed to take 19 percent of the overall vote and was a factor in incumbent President George Bush’s failure to beat Democrat Bill Clinton?

THAT LED THE Texas billionaire to think he had potential for a significant political movement, and he tried again in 1996. Only to fall so far short (8 percent overall) that I suspect most people these days have forgotten he ever existed politically.

Could Newman wind up embarrassing herself in a similar manner?

Lipinski himself told the Chicago Sun-Times, “I would be surprised if Marie Newman runs again after her angry, mean-spirited speech on TV on Election Night.” Looking around the Internet, various people commented she was “downright bitter” and “didn’t concede with any class.”

Did Newman really manage to create a lasting image at the end of her last campaign that kills off any hopes for a political future? Or is this merely wishful thinking on the part of Lipinski that he won’t have to seriously campaign for re-election in 2020?

MY OWN CHECK of the Internet for Election Night video unveiled a snippet of Newman saying, “I would like for Mr. Lipinski to have a very painful evening,” while refusing to admit political defeat. While Rich Miller of the Capitol Fax newsletter said of Newman’s behavior, “I’ve seen much worse.”

PEROT '96: A long-forgotten campaign

It probably helps that many have let the Lipinski/Newman primary slip into the crevasses of their minds – remembering more clearly the general election campaign against Art Jones – a political activist with past ties to neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations.

Which meant the Republican Party had to go out of its way to dissociate themselves from him. The real question for 2020 may be to see if the Illinois GOP remains so weak and unorganized that it won’t be able to put up a legitimate challenger to Lipinski as what happened in 2018?

As opposed to whether Newman can hold together all the people eager to see a less-ideologically-motivated person than Lipinski represent them in Congress – while figuring out a way to get 2 percent more voter support for herself.

  -30-

Trump talk of “punishing” U.S. w/ foreigners shows ideologues know little

President Donald Trump’s latest trash-talk of taking all the people trying to come to this country and deliberately sending them to the big cities – particularly those cities that have enacted “sanctuary city” policies that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials and policies – show just how little he and his ideologue backers comprehend reality.

Not just Noo Yawk feels this way

Trump’s rhetoric from late last week further indicated his nonsensical beliefs that these non-Anglo, non-U.S.-born people are the dregs of humanity.

SO HE’S GOING to punish those of us who refuse to go along with his xenophobic-motivated immigration policies by flooding us with foreigners. That’ll show us, he likely thinks!

The problem with such a line of reasoning is that many of those municipalities already are foreigner-friendly, and the existence of those ethnic enclaves within the cities is a significant part of their character.

If anything, they make the municipalities places where upper-scale people might themselves want to locate. Even if they don’t live in the same neighborhoods right next to each other, they give the upper-scale individuals the ability to say they live in varied communities.

Compared to some of those rural places that are so overwhelmingly white and un-ethnic that they appear to be unfriendly to anyone who didn’t actually grow up there – and also often take on such a character that many of their younger, more-motivated residents feel the need to go away to college and find someplace else to live their adult lives.

I DON’T DOUBT that the people living in the rural, white parts of the country would find Trump’s nonsense-talk all the more appealing because it would reinforce their thoughts that they’re the only people who ought to matter.

But if it really happened, it would also further enhance the notion that these rural communities would become further isolated from the masses who are the real tone of our society.

If Trump really were to try to enact his suggestion, he’d be doing so much long-term damage to the areas where the people who like the Age of Trump we’re now in. The harm would be so long-lasting and permanent.

Would plans actually hurt rural Illinois political interests?

Which is why even Trump’s allies are pointing out the flaws of his idea, and are hoping that this is all just another example of Trump Talk – rancid ramblings meant to do nothing more than get the idiotic ideologues all worked up into a rage on the president’s behalf.

PERSONALLY, I’D THINK the idea would be reprehensible to Illinois politicos of the Republican persuasion – because adding to the Chicago population would do little more than further enhance the urban leanings that already work to the detriment of rural Illinois.

As in the one that ensures Illinois’ congressional delegation is 13 Democrats and five Republicans. With the likelihood that the next reapportionment of Congressional districts after 2020 will cost Illinois a seat, you have to wonder if those rural, isolationist-minded people realize that seat likely will come from their portion of the state.

Then again, there’s no accounting for sense when it comes to politicos.

Take the measure now pending in the Illinois General Assembly, where state Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer, R-Jacksonville, wants his colleagues to pass a resolution that urges Congress to break Chicago away from Illinois.

Trump and Davidsmeyer (below) … 

HE TOLD THE State Journal-Register newspaper of Springfield that rural people are losing their chances to make Illinois more like rural Missouri or Indiana because Chicago, by its very nature, is in competition with places like New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

I’ll agree that people have a right to live off in isolation, if that’s really all they want out of life, even though I can’t comprehend why they’d want to.

… both don't comprehend consequences

But I definitely don’t think those people have a right to dictate to tell the rest of us we have to live like them.

So if Trump thinks he’s punishing places like Chicago, I’d say we’ll take these newcomers – who would not only boost the city’s population count to our political advantage, it would also give us a slew of newcomers eager to work hard for better lives – unlike those who want to live in isolation and on the decline.

  -30-

Pelosi correct – Trump impeachment proceedings would be a waste of time

I have always thought that Donald Trump was completely unfit to hold political office – and there hasn’t been a thing that has happened during the past two-plus years to make me think I was wrong.

PELOSI: Trump not worth her time

His continued hold on the presidency is a true embarrassment to our society – particularly those people who seem determined to support him no matter what he says or does.

YET THE FACT remains that Trump does have that hold on roughly one-third of the public – and they would react very badly if any effort was undertaken to remove him prior to the 2020 election cycle.

For that matter, they’re the ones who would probably support a Trumpian coup d’etat if his reaction to a 2020 electoral defeat was to decide to simply refuse to leave the White House and claim the presidency as being his post for the remainder of his life.

The fact being that Hillary Clinton back in 2016 was merely telling the truth when she made her now-infamous “basket of deplorables” comment about Trump supporters. No matter how much some want to say it was a Clinton mis-step that cost her any chance at the presidency, the reality is that rationality and reason don’t rule these days.

That is why I think those individuals who went through the 2018 election cycle thinking that voting for a Democrat in Congress was done with the purpose of setting the stage for Donald Trump’s impeachment and removal from office were seriously delusional.

TRUMP: Probably offended Pelosi thinks that

IF ANYTHING, EVEN more delusional than those people who will persist in claiming that that Trump has a clue about what he’s doing while in political office.

So here’s thinking that it’s a good thing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is coming out and publicly saying she has no intention of letting those people in her congressional caucus move forward with impeachment talk.

As Pelosi puts it, Trump, “is just not worth it.”

Not worth the procedural hassles you’d have to undertake to hold impeachment hearings by the House of Representatives – or the inevitable trial to be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, with the Senate sitting as jurors.

HILLARY: Wasn't lying about 'deplorables'

THE REALITY IS that the Democratic-leaning House would be inclined to approve articles of impeachment claiming Trump’s incompetence while in office. But then, the Senate with its Republican-leaning majority would ultimately vote to acquit him.

Which, by the way, was the same outcome of some two decades ago when Congress tried to force the removal of Bill Clinton from the White House.

Republican ideologues will forever say that Clinton as president was impeached. That’s true!

But the Senate sure didn’t remove him from office. Clinton finished out his second term as president. The general reaction from the public back then was that the whole process devolved into petty partisan political bickering. Republican ideologues shamefully used the impeachment process to try to achieve an outcome they never were able to reach on an Election Day.

THE SAME THING would wind up happening again if anyone seriously tried to push for Trump’s removal from office. Trying to get a Supreme Court justice to essentially sign off on a coup d’ etat, rather than defeating him at the polling place!

CLINTON: Impeached, but acquitted

Those of us eager to see Trump go down to defeat need to put our efforts into beating “the Donald” on Election Day. Both Trump himself, or on the off chance that he doesn’t run for re-election but touts someone else in his image, his replacement.

While I’m sure ideologue political operatives are counting on the ongoing confusion amongst Democrats and inability to reach a consensus on who would challenge him as their strongest hand in terms of retaining control of the White House.

Focusing on the electoral process IS the way to go about removing Trump. So that if he really does live down to our worst expectations and refuse to leaves office on Jan. 20, 2021, we can send the Secret Service into the White House and have the man arrested, at the very least, for criminal trespass.

  -30-

Similar actions, differing outcomes, for former Congressmen Jackson, Schock

Both of them were once up-and-comers within the Illinois delegation of Congress who had the potential to rise to positions of great authority within our local political scene.

SCHOCK: Has a chance at life after politics

They both wound up being found using money donated to their campaign funds to do some redecoration of their official government offices in their own style.

BOTH WOUND UP facing the wrath of federal prosecutors who were inclined to believe that actions previously considered legitimate were actually criminal in nature.

But that is where the similarities end between Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Aaron Schock.

The former House of Representatives member from the South Shore neighborhood wound up facing the prosecutorial pressure and pleaded guilty – ultimately getting a 30-month prison term and doing his time, in part because prosecutors also went after his wife, Sandi, to tighten the screws even further.

Jackson is now free from prison, but will go through the rest of his life with a criminal record. Something that thoroughly satisfies those people who enjoy saying that the namesake son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson is nothing but a convicted felon.

BUT AS FOR Schock, the former House member from Peoria will face a different fate.

JACKSON: Would he have liked a Schock deal?

For federal prosecutors this week reached an agreement by which they’ll drop the criminal charges that Schock faced for using the campaign funds to decorate his congressional office in the style of the British television series “Downton Abbey,” along with using money to pay for a flight back to Chicago so he could attend a Chicago Bears football game.

There might be some people, myself included, who’d say that Schock and Jackson were similar.

Remember that Jesse Jr. used the campaign funds to purchase items of memorabilia that he intended to use to give his congressional office a colorful touch. Such as a fedora once belonging to singer Michael Jackson, and boxing gloves once used by prize fighter Muhammad Ali.

BUT JESSE GOT the intense pressure that ultimately led to his guilty plea – in part to reduce the amount of time that prosecutors would seek to have his wife serve.

SANDI: Feds took her down too

For Sandi Jackson herself faced an indictment – mostly because as his spouse, she co-signed the tax returns that the congressman used to try to claim that his use of the money for the purchases was legal.

Of course, the fact that Sandi Jackson was an alderman from the South Shore neighborhood at the time meant prosecutors got a “double” out of that case. A corrupt congressman AND Chicago alderman. Somebody got two notches on their career belt out of the Jacksons.

Could it be the fact that Schock gave up his own congressional seat from central Illinois so willingly meant he was no longer a prosecutorial prize for some attorney trying to build up his career record?

Would Mayor Emanuel and Gov. Rauner have occurred … 

AS THINGS TURNED out, a “guilty” plea was entered this week against Schock’s campaign committee – a misdemeanor offense that he didn’t properly report his expenses.

But if Schock is not running for future office, that isn’t much of a penalty. Schock himself had all the criminal charges dropped against him – provided he repays $68,000 to the campaign fund and $42,000 to the Internal Revenue Service.

… if Jackson, Schock had been politically viable?

Schock won’t be doing prison time. He won’t have a criminal record. A deal that I’m sure Jesse, Jr., would love to have been offered all those years ago. But wasn’t, because there was no way anyone bearing the moniker “Jesse Jackson, Jr.” could be offered anything resembling a prosecutorial deal that would have been sensible.

And there’s one other thing the two have in common – they both are stories of what “might have been” in Illinois politics; with Jackson as the mayor Chicago never got and Schock being the governor who might have spared our state the levels of partisan political nonsense it endured during the Bruce Rauner years.

  -30-