IMPEACHMENT

Shame is the new inflation superseding guilt by freeing rage to fuel and animate relevance, the internal combustion engine and cash register of the contemporaneous Internet.

Alleging shame is easier than proving guilt.
 

Whistleblower is a misnomer. An individual, who witnesses a wrong-doing and comes forward to enable a system to self-correct, is a whistleblower.
 

Partisan informant is a more accurate characterization. The informant was not a witness and remained anonymous. Many believed that President Trump was correcting, not corrupting, the system.
 

Due to these infirmities, impeachment suffered fatal flaws (no eye witness; two participants, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and Foreign Minister Vadym Prystiako, confirming President Trump’s account; informant anonymity beclouding authenticity; conflation of hearsay and supposition as evidence; forestallment of judiciary evaluation of the President’s executive branch claims; unauthorized subpoenas,  articles inflating policy disagreements between the president and advisors as abuse of power (article 1) and legislative branch authority (article 2).
 

Nonetheless, House Democrats achieved a lot.
 

Nancy Pelosi employs impeachment to sway middle class, suburban women with rhetoric celebrating the moral authority of mothers raising children. 

Any Trump pardon or reprieve would now seem to be litigable. Either by stealth or unwittingly, House Democrats may have curtailed President Trump’s executive authority granting pardons and reprieves.
 

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution suggests no less: “The President… shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
 

House Democrats insinuated parliamentary government and diminished the presidential system, Article 2 of the Constitution, by inflating a policy dispute among the president and his advisers into a constitutional crisis.
 

By branding the president with impeachment, shame powered relevance.
 

Nancy Pelosi represents San Francisco, the center of finance capital for networked communications industries, social media and information innovation. Adam Schiff represents Hollywood, the center for entertainment industries producing content for theater, broadcast, cable and wireline and wireless distributed networks. Jerrold Nadler represents the Financial District, West Side Manhattan, Greenwich Village and Tribeca, centers of investment, publishing, broadcasting, creative content and marketing. Their districts are home to some of the wealthiest individuals and enterprises, the 1%, whose wealth accumulates and derives from relevance.
 

Shame protracts wealth inequality. The 1% enhances oligopoly positions in finance capital, distributed networks, social media and content enterprises when shame is accentuated in public life due to greater demand for communications goods and services. For the bottom 50%, shame creates opportunities to participate in public life and civic affairs enabling individuals to feel a bit more consequential, as if his or her voice and perspective does matter. Shame affords self-regulation by the 50% through choice of their compliance with and accommodation to their exploitation. The broader dynamics of wealth inequality will continue as shame supersedes guilt as long as present conditions persist.
 

It is a reasonable question why shaming the president with impeachment animated such partisan exertion amid vibrant capital markets and rising wages.
 

Impeachment emerged as a defensive course of action by to sustain tactical relevance servicing the administrative state and liberal internationalism as Donald Trump leads a strategic shift to national populism and bi-and-tri-lateral trade and commerce portending their political irrelevancy defining public policy and dispensing patronage and as an expression of resentment.
 

Adam Schiff triumphed as new Nixon.