November 22, 2019

Quick. Find an absolutely clear, 1-paragraph, just-the-facts summary of exactly what Trump did that warrants impeachment.

Right now, as Democrats are deciding whether to plunge into impeachment, they need to check in with reality.

I'm begging you, Democrats: Assume you are talking to an ordinary American, someone who hasn't been sitting around watching hearings, who doesn't have the time or patience to listen to elaborate explanations, and who isn't just already on your team.

Imagine this person saying to you:
I'm very busy. I'm going to vote next year, but I'm seeing this impeachment business, and I don't have time to do all the homework. I don't trust any of you politicos, and I don't want to try to figure out who among all you characters is more honest and patriotic than the others. I'd like to wait for the election and hash it all out next year in the normal way, but you're talking about immersing us in all this crazy stuff about who said what to whom and what was in Trump's head. You need the support of the people — normal people, like me — and you need to tell me clearly, factually, what the hell you are talking about. If you say 100 words without pulling it together and making sense to me, you need to shut up and leave me alone. I hate you.
The reason for impeaching should be very clear and not dependent on a predisposition to make leaps of inference or the belief that Trump is a terrible President.

Democrats, if you can't do this, you need to step back from the precipice.

361 comments:

1 – 200 of 361   Newer›   Newest»
John henry said...

Amen.

Very well put, Ann.

John Henry

tim in vermont said...

Can’t. Let. Trump. Win.

Quaestor said...

Lemmings don't do the step-back.

Karen of Texas said...

They can't do it. Further, they don't have to do it because they believe there are enough Orange Man Bad partisans or LIVs or buy me off already types to just possibly pull this off.

rhhardin said...

You're not a normal person. You're a woman and think like one. Systems don't matter, feelings do.

Nicholas said...

I'll rise to the challenge: Orange Man Bad.

Jeff Brokaw said...

“I hate you” LOL!

Perfect.

rhhardin said...

Being a guy, complicated is fine for me, but it has to relate to principles that make the system stable in the face of bad people.

Wilbur said...

A neutral post.

But cruelly so. Or some might say.

It cuts to the nub of this whole mess. Blessedly.

rhhardin said...

Women's question is only does Trump mean well. The dems are attacking the idea that he does. So it's a mind-reading indictment, whatever else it is.

Mind reading is what women do. They don't do it well, but they do it habitually.

rhhardin said...

Mind reading is how women choose a mate that will take care of them. It gives them confidence even if they're wrong. The point is to get pregnant with support, as far as evolution is concerned.

The guy may get tired of her mind reading mistakes and leave but that takes a few years.

Mr. D said...

Trump does not respect the authority, credentials, and self-regard of his betters. He does not accept the premise that his betters are his betters. He encourages the deplorables who share his views. He must be punished. Thoughtcrime.

Charlie Eklund said...

Step back from the precipice? It’s interesting how folks can have such a differing views of the same scene. From where I sit, it appears to me that the Democrats have already not only arrived at the precipice but have in fact already thrown themselves right off.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Dems have purposely been winding round and round, obfuscating, so as to avoid that very question ever being asked.

tim in vermont said...

There is a book “The Power of Habit” that has a section on politics, and emphasizes the imperative that you give your followers “small victories” and the obvious inference to be made from this is that you must deny your opponents even small victories. This is why Pelosi is refusing to ratify the trade deal with Canada and Mexico, and the same with the deal with China. It sounds so nice when it is presented in the book, as a way of running your organization for optimum results and happiness of your workers, but when applied as defense, it’s an evil philosophy. It boils down to “Give them absolutely nothing and demoralize them!”

How’s that?

rhhardin said...

The hook in soap opera is that mind reading works.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Purposefully

tim in vermont said...

If they queer the China deal, then they can knock down the DOW and use their press to blame it on Trump.

rhhardin said...

Romcoms are based on revised mind reading. The guy isn't such a rat as she first thought. But he has to apologize so as to confirm both mind readings.

Molly said...

I do not favor impeachment, and am very likely to vote Republican right down the ballot to express my unhappiness with how the Democrats have acted. But I'm going to take up the challenge to make the best case for impeachment in a succinct way.

Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office because he attempted to use (with what success remains to be seen) the instruments of government to influence electoral outcome in his favor. He used US gov't aid to the Ukrainians and US govt employees in the diplomatic corps (instruments of gov't) to persuade the Ukrainian gov't to find information that would cast discredit on Biden (influencing an electoral outcome in Trump's favor). In this respect it is similar to the actions of Nixon that were widely accepted as worthy of impeachment and removal: Nixon attempted to use the CIA (instruments of gov't) to persuade the FBI to back off of an investigation into the Watergate burglary (influencing an electoral outcome in Nixon's favor).

Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office for impeding the Congressional investigation into impeachable acts 1. by withholding from Congress documents and testimony by executive branch officials, and 2. by influencing or attempting to influence testimony given to the Congressional investigation.

tim in vermont said...

“He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.” - Muad'Dib

rhhardin said...

to persuade the Ukrainian gov't to find information that would cast discredit on Biden

mind reading.

How about getting to the bottom of the Russia hoax and who did it. It would be okay for private citizens but not officials of the CIA or FBI. There's a treaty with Ukraine to let him ask for help with that.

Chris of Rights said...

None of the witnesses testified to any knowledge of an impeachable offense. There were lots of suppositions, but that doesn't matter. You might think Trump did something bad. Maybe even I think that. But unless you know it, you could be just projecting. You can't impeach a President based on what you believe about him, only what you can prove.

If you vote for impeachment after the witnesses we say this week, then not only should you not be an elected official, you shouldn't be allowed to go outside without adult supervision.

rhhardin said...

Trump does not need help against Biden. Everything Biden tried against Trump would backfire on Biden.

rehajm said...

Step back from the precipice of inference is absolutely right but I think they believe they can pull off what they've been getting away with before- the 'second order' type language, where they ignore the proving part and talk like the thing they didn't prove like it's already been proven and accepted.

What? You're asking for proof? Where have you been! No reasonable person still believes we haven't proven it to be so! Do I sound like Peggy Noonan?

Ann Althouse said...

"You're not a normal person...."

And you?

Karen of Texas said...

They also have precedent. How many people have expressed the sentiment that they held their nose and voted for Hillary/Trump because omg, the alternative, Hillary/Trump was unthinkable.

I have a blue voting - but willing to vote red and has on very spare occasions - Wisconsin friend who thinks this is an utter travesty. A shit show. That Trump is a narcissistic, bombastic, ignorant asshole - who is "...starting to suffer from dementia or has just completely lost his shit" - but impeachment over this is beyond stupid; that the Democrats have lost their minds over this; that Warren lives in fantasy land with her plans. Bernie, too. She's asking how you pay for it. She thinks the party should shoot anyone over 70 or under 45 who is running for office because they "...are blinded by stereotypes and hatred and reverse bigotry with a sense of entitlement and emotional regulation ability that rivals most toddlers'."

I didn't ask, but I would bet money she will still hold her nose and vote against Trump.

AllenS said...

Sorry, Molly, but you're making shit up. Facts not in evidence.

rhhardin said...

If you vote for impeachment after the witnesses we say this week, then not only should you not be an elected official, you shouldn't be allowed to go outside without adult supervision.

The two sexes don't see it the same way. The problem isn't that that happens but that women vote that way. It's okay that they think that way, part of the charm.

Meade said...

Stop normalizing rhhardin!!!

rehajm said...

I thought Congressman Whatsisname's five minute takedown of Severus Snape was pretty good...

rhhardin said...

"You're not a normal person...."

And you?


I'm a guy. Stabillity is my priority in government, feelings are yours.

Long live the difference, except that the bridge collapses.

DrSquid said...

For Christ's sake, Joe Biden did the very thing that the democrats are accusing Trump of doing. Biden then bragged about it in a public forum, and for anyone with eyes to see he did this mis-deed for the sake of his son whom the Ukrainian corruptocrats hired as a means of buying influence with the vice-president.

Does that not justify an investigation?

Lincolntf said...

Oh, for crying out loud. The Democrats have been demanding Trump's impeachment literally since his Inauguration. Anyone who doesn't recognize this garbage performance art for what it is is a naive buffoon or a willfully ignorant partisan.

iowan2 said...

Amen.

I kept asking the question during Mueller. Name one action that triggered an FBI counter intelligence investigation into a candidate running for President. I rarely found anyone willing to engage, and if someone did, their information was wrong, and easily proven wrong by using reporting from NYT, WaPo, CNN and other MSM. There was never any actions that could have triggered such a violation of privacy.

This is a great idea, Explain concisely why a President needs to be removed just months prior to an election. The people are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. I for one don't believe at face value, anything a politician of any stripe utters. Not without confirmation.
Magnify that through the insanity that is the HPSCI, and Schiff. Nope.

Monk said...

"Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office for impeding the Congressional investigation into impeachable acts 1. by withholding from Congress documents and testimony by executive branch officials, and 2. by influencing or attempting to influence testimony given to the Congressional investigation."

Trump deserves...Says it all.

Mr. Forward said...

It was Hillary's turn.

rhhardin said...

He who revises history is doomed to repeat it.

Matt Sablan said...

Trump can withhold documents though. We know this because he has done the same as past administrations. Why was Obama not impeached if those things are illegal interference?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Peggy Noonan said ...
"Look, the case has been made. Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain.

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?"

rehajm said...

You're not a normal person. You're a woman and think like one. Systems don't matter, feelings do.

This is fucked up. Your whole shtick is that women make decisions based on their feelings but when a woman does that, they aren't 'normal'?

Go get on your crocs and walk the dog or something...

Wilbur said...

ARM, thanks for proving the point. No facts, no evidence, just conclusions drawn from animus, not facts.

Todd said...

Democrats, if you can't do this, you need to step back from the precipice.

You would have better odds of success telling a crack-head to put down the pipe...

Phil 314 said...

Core rationale:

“Donald Trump is despicable AND a Republican “

rehajm said...

I'm staring at a naked guy and they're telling me I'm a rube for not appreciating his taste in clothes.

tim in vermont said...

Where does Peggy Noonan address the issue that Ukraine worked with Democrats to smear Trump, that Ukrainian politicians smeared Trump in the press in 2016?

rehajm said...

Thanks, ARM. Even Peggy Noonan sounds like Peggy Noonan...

Lincolntf said...

I take it that rhhardin has had "woman trouble" in his life, and is projecting his own experience in that regard on to every woman in the world. Let me assure you, rh, my wife and countless other women I know are perfectly capable of logic and unemotional decision making. It's called being an adult, and both sexes can do it.

Matt Sablan said...

Also remember Obama fired an IG and lied to the public about that person's mental abilities. So. Attacking witnesses is also not impeachable. One set of rules.

stevew said...

They would if they could, they can't so they won't.

Matt Sablan said...

What witness has claimed a clear linkage not based on hearsay or inadmissible speculation?

Another old lawyer said...

They need an elevator pitch, and a follow-up, paragraph-long response to "OK, you have my attention. Tell me more."

They have neither.

Mike Sylwester said...

I always enjoy reading rhhardin's comments -- especially today.

David Begley said...

Trump was mean to some bureaucrats and did stuff they didn’t like.

rhhardin said...

These words having been said, the messenger left. - probably a translation from Latin. Sounds like Cicero.

Temujin said...

Their friends agree with them. They've got the NY Times and WaPo with them. They've got ABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNN with them. In their world that IS the world. They will continue to move forward. It'll go to the Senate where the Republicans will get to question people Schiff would not allow be be questioned in the House version. It won't be what the Dems want out in public. It will get ugly, and then...the Senate will dismiss the entire thing.

After the Russia/Mueller thing, the Kavanaugh thing, the disaster that is our schools, the huge rise in health care costs to go with lesser health care services, and this impeachment thing- there should not be another Democrat elected to office for two generations.

It'll take us that long to clean up this country.

tim in vermont said...

" just conclusions drawn from animus, not facts.”

ARM’s hero Aristotle wrote a lot about logic. He is the one who described the logical principle in his famous work Prior Analytics that it is not necessary to consider all of the facts in a case if you hate somebody, in order to prove them guilty of whatsoever you may accuse them. In fact, the proof is stronger if you preclude any evidence not supporting your accusation.

Crimso said...

"persuade the Ukrainian gov't to find information that would cast discredit on Biden (influencing an electoral outcome in Trump's favor)"

Except Trump is not in an electoral contest with Biden, and Biden has openly admitted doing what Trump allegedly did; should that not be investigated? Epstein was a fool for killing himself. All he had to do was declare as a Dem candidate for POTUS.

'no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.'

Of course, we can only speculate about that, since no witnesses for the "defense" were allowed.

iowan2 said...

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said

When Trump does or says nothing to impeach him, the fall back position is words NOT uttered. Got it!
(pro tip, Character witnesses are the salvation of guilty people)

tim in vermont said...

"I take it that rhhardin has had "woman trouble" in his life, and is projecting his own experience in that regard on to every woman in the world.”

Or... Or.... You can’t say it because you think you can’t get laid if you don’t kowtow before the alter of femininity, can you?

Michael K said...

Blogger rhhardin said...

"You're not a normal person...."

And you?

I'm a guy. Stabillity is my priority in government, feelings are yours.

Long live the difference, except that the bridge collapses.


Pretty much what I think. It gets back to the cartoon of the couple in bed. She is thinking "He's thinking about that woman." He's thinking, "I wonder if my truck needs new tires? Do I need more ammunition?"

Todd said...

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?"


As someone said up-stream, the Dems and NTs are jumping the shark and acting like he has already been convicted of crimes TWICE so lets get on with the lynching already!

Part of her argument is [AND she thinks it is valid] basically, "when did you stop beating your wife?". He is NOT defending himself and no one else is so EVERYONE thinks he WOULD do it so clearly he DID do it!

I am re-astounded daily on the levels of stupidity and willful ignorance displayed by "our betters".

tim in vermont said...

"Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?”

tl;dr: “Orange man bad!”

“That’s just like him!” is not a proof, it’s an utterance one might make on hearing actual proof.

Michael K said...

When the indictments start to come down, women who think like Molly will start to think about the facts. Actually, Molly is getting a bum rap. She was just describing how people like ARM think.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

And quick, do it before all the witnesses have testified.

David Begley said...

This is a GREAT post by Ann. This is what a good lawyer must do in a jury trial.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Rush talked about this today.

Tank said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jersey Fled said...

Molly states the case that Democrats would have to make if they were responsible people trying to do what is right for the country.

Two problems:

1. They have not been even close to making that case. We heard this week from what I presume are their best witnesses, in a process that could not have been more rigged against Trump, and they fell far short.

2. They are not reasonable people and they do not have the best interests of the country at heart.

Tank said...

The Left/Dems: Trump offered Ukraine a billion dollars to dig up some dirt on Joe Biden.

That's it.

It's not true, but that wouldn't make any difference to the Left/Dems.

Laslo Spatula said...

To riff on an old South Park meme:

1. Trump.
2. Stealing underwear?
3. Impeach.

I am Laslo.

The Elder said...

Great post!

tim in vermont said...

"And quick, do it before all the witnesses have testified.”

I thought they wrapped up their inquiry yesterday. It’s that why Schiff was all verklempt?

Listen to Nancy Pelosi explain how smears work. She is accusing Republicans of it, but I don’t see how Republicans could ever get that kind of press cooperation, and her use of the term “wrap up smear” like a mechanic might use the term “radiator” is also a tell.

https://twitter.com/grindingdude/status/1197526595961020416

Another old lawyer said...

I realize that impeachment and conviction is a political act, irrespective of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard and that the courts would (almost certainly) find any removal to be nonjudiciable. But words have meaning, or at least should, esp. in the removal of a president.

You can conclude that Trump acted inappropriately (if you believe the Democrats narrative in its fullest), but are you sure you want every subsequent president to be subject to removal under like circumstances and timing?

Paul Snively said...

The striking thing to me is: when the Republicans complained about the radical Democratic break with the precedent of the Nixon and Clinton processes with their closed-door star chamber hearings, the Democrats were forced to let the cat out of the bag: "This isn't a legal proceeding with its rules regarding due process. It's a political process."

Well, thanks, chief. Wake me up when you get one Republican who will commit to--dare I say, "make a public announcement of"--voting to impeach. Meanwhile, how about muzzling Schiff so he doesn't read false variants of the key transcript into the record?

If you want to convince me--a Rand Paul guy who's no fan of Trump the person--start by not literally making shit up. Follow up by acknowledging that the Steele dossier was funded by the HRC campaign and the FISA warrants launching the Mueller probe were fraudulent, so Trump has good reasons to look into their origins--and hey, how about those criminal referrals from Barr's office? Finally, offer a clear acknowledgement that the President determines US foreign policy and any "interagency consensus" is not merely irrelevant but underscores in bold red ink the concerns many have about--whatever. The "deep state," "alphabet agencies," "unelected bureaucracy," "career civil servants," I don't care what you call them. They do not set foreign policy.

In other words, if you want to argue we have a constitutional crisis, you need to persuade me you're operating and interpreting within the framework of the constitution. After RussiaGate, I have no reason to believe the Democrats are capable of that.

Karen of Texas said...

I fear that the well has been contaminated and so thoroughly saturated with poison by mis- and disinformation that no amount of remediation will work to recover even some dregs of common ground that would allow the country to begin to come back together and move forward.

Thanks to partisan hacks and haters in the MSM, the intelligence services, the diplomatic core, and BOTH parties the country is left fractured, deeply divided, split into tribes that only care about advancing their agenda.  We really are all watching a different movie on the same screen. It's astonishing, really. Peggy Noonan's claptrap, pushed by ARM, and Molly's valiant attempt, make that abundantly obvious. We have real issues that need attention. But go ahead and burn it all down. Idiots.

tim in vermont said...

There is more evidence that the Obama Administration pressured Ukraine for dirt on Trump. They are protected by Omerta, and they are busy attempting to tear down the journalist who uncovered it.

Birches said...

Yep. If Trump actually did something terrible, bring on Pence, but this seems to be based on the first principle of Orange Man Bad. And because Orange Man Bad permeates everything I can't even bring myself to say what Trump did was I'll advised.

Mike Sylwester said...

Peggy Noonan:
President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain

It seems to me that the Democrats' main idea is that the only possible motive for an investigation of the Ukranians' bribing of Vice President Joe Biden, through his son Hunter, is Donald Trump's political gain.

However, a foreign entity's bribing of a US Vice President should be a matter of common concern.

One problem in this situation was that the US Embassy in Kyiv never would effectively investigate the bribing of the Bidens. Never, ever.

The US Embassy in Kyiv was complicit, especially in the persecution and firing of General-Prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

In 2010 Viktor Yanukovych won the Ukrainian Presidential election. He won fairly, according to the European Union's election observers. After that Ukrainian election, the US State Department, in particular the US Embassy in Kyiv, proceeded to undermine Yanukovych.

The US State Department's relentless undermining of Ukraine's elected President was similar to the US Intelligence Community's relentless undermining of the USA's elected President since our own 2016 election.

The incident where Biden compelled the firing of Shokin was just one small incident in the US State Department's -- in particular, the US Embassy's -- campaign to govern Ukraine's politics. This campaign began no later than the Ukrainian Presidential election of 2010.

When Biden -- the Obama Administration's "point-man on Ukraine -- bragged about the firing of Ukraine's General-Prosecutor Shokin, Biden opened a door that allowed the US public to glimpse that campaign.

Since the US Embassy in Kyiv would stifle any investigation, President Trump had to send an independent investigator -- Rudy Giuliani.

----

Until Biden applied his pressure, Shokin enjoyed the confidence of Ukraine's President and Parliament. Shokin has not been charged -- much less tried and convicted -- for any corruption.

What investigation did Shokin corruptly prevent?

What investigation has been initiated because Shokin has been removed?

What's the evidence that Shokin was corrupt?

Laslo Spatula said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birches said...

Ill advised.

Laslo Spatula said...

Trump has had no witnesses in his defense allowed: none.

Trump's defense is unable to pursue any questioning the prosecutors deem problematic to them.

But Noonan feels we have seen enough from the prosecution's witnesses to convict without looking further.

Which only confirms rhhardin's thesis on women voting (whether in an election or on a jury).

And shows that highly educated women are the most willfully obtuse.

I am Laslo.

Kevin said...

I realize that impeachment and conviction is a political act,

Which requires a clear supermajority of the electorate to go along with it by design.

The desired wave of Republican defections has not materialized and Pelosi needs to accept that her gambit failed.

tim in vermont said...

Putin really couldn’t have asked for better minions than Schiff and Pelosi.

Mr. Forward said...

"Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether someone else's traits might suit him better. The more definitely his own a man's character is, the better it fits." Cicero

"The man who backbites an absent friend, nay, who does not stand up for him when another blames him, the man who angles for bursts of laughter and for the repute of a wit, who can invent what he never saw, who cannot keep a secret - that man is black at heart: mark and avoid him." Cicero

"When you wish to instruct, be brief; that men's minds take in quickly what you say, learn its lesson, and retain it faithfully. Every word that is unnecessary only pours over the side of a brimming mind." Cicero

"Epstein didn't kill himself." Cicero

Quaestor said...

This is why Pelosi is refusing to ratify the trade deal with Canada and Mexico...

And I thought ratification of treaties was the Senate's prerogative...

AllenS said...

Michael K said...
It gets back to the cartoon of the couple in bed. She is thinking "He's thinking about that woman." He's thinking, "I wonder if my truck needs new tires? Do I need more ammunition?"

A big YES.

tim in vermont said...

"President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain”

Obama on a hot mic, caught begging Putin for help getting re-elected so that he could sell out Easter Europe “after the election” Not problematic to these people whatsoever. Obama should have been impeached and removed for that, by these standards. A trial would have been a formality, since all of the evidence was right there.

Jeff Brokaw said...

Assuming that Peggy Noonan quote is accurate, every thinking person with two eyes and two ears can officially disregard every single word she writes forevermore.

What an airhead.

AllenS said...

And shows that highly educated women are the most willfully obtuse.

I am Laslo.


Two thumbs up.

tim in vermont said...

"And I thought ratification of treaties was the Senate's prerogative...”

Do a little research on these trade deals, which are not treaties.

Lincolntf said...

Oh geez, rhhardin, you need to get out into the world, you'll find that women aren't nearly as scary as you make them out to be.

Tank said...

One of the best things about Trump is that he causes people like Noonan to out themselves.

Michael said...

They can’t step back from the precipice, they are in mid air. Like the Golden Gate Bridge jumpers they probably regret letting go.

Kevin said...

We all know Trump is guilty of something.

This is something.

-- The Democrats

tim in vermont said...

"Oh geez, rhhardin, you need to get out into the world, you'll find that women aren't nearly as scary as you make them out to be.”

Or, just possibly, they aren’t nearly as scary as YOU make them out to be. I know that’s kind of subtle and I don’t expect you to get it.

Chuck said...

Not only has Althouse’s request already been fulfilled; I emailed it to her a day ago.

It can be found in a great many places but particularly in a series of Tweets from conservative appellate lawyer Bryan Gividen. Here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/BryanGividen

The Independent found his series of Tweets on “Why conservatives should support the impeachment of Trump,” they asked him to turn them into a column that is no longer than many Althouse blog posts. Here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-impeachment-ukraine-texas-conservative-pro-life-abortion-a9211561.html

Lincolntf said...

Yeah, skylark, that's a real puzzler. Grow up, twit.

Anonymous said...

Neocon scum ARM parodies himself by citing a factless bunch of opinions--love that use of "clearly"--by a leading neocon shitbag. Waving around the name of the very relevant Peggy Noonan no doubt convinces his fellow bunch of status-seeking permastate-loving warmongers who like to use titles but that's not what Althouse requested.

Francisco D said...

Lat's put this impeachment drive into a different perspective.

You are an oil executive who the Sanders Administration wants to punish. They hold a sham trial in Federal Court with Adam Schiff as the prosecutor. The charges are vague and all the evidence is hearsay and supposition.

The jury has been conditioned by the Media to believe you are guilty. Despite no concrete evidence, you are convicted and sent to prison. Your life is ruined. Your family is ruined. The Democrats and their Media acolytes rejoice because their sense of justice is served.

Chairman and Madame Mao would be proud.

In a generation or so, there will be concentration camps.

Aren't you proud of your sense of justice ?

Rusty said...

Nobody with half a brain, listening to this impeachment 'trial' can come away with anything but; WTF? have the democrats lost their minds or do they think that the public is really that dumb.
And then the lefty co-workers show up; "They got him now!"
So now I know who has less than half a brain.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

It's all been very dumb and destructive but on the bright side, Dem support is collapsing in Wisconsin. New polls from other states are confirming the shift as well. There may be some hope for this country after all.

Anonymous said...

Chuck lost another dogcatcher election so he has time for the Althouse comment section again.

tim in vermont said...

" New polls from other states are confirming the shift as well. “

Well that would explain why Schiff seems to have gotten the hook, when a few days ago, Pelosi was telling us she had no idea how long this would go on.

exhelodrvr1 said...

They are losing independents and blacks and Hispanics, and it doesn't take many to turn a close election into a landslide.

Michael K said...

Blogger Skylark said...

Putin really couldn’t have asked for better minions than Schiff and Pelosi.


Yes, if the Russians tried to interfere to reduce confidence in elections, Putin could not have better allies than the Democrats,

tim in vermont said...

"Yeah, skylark, that's a real puzzler. Grow up, twit.”

I’m not the one afraid of women.

Anonymous said...

Just dying to know how the Burisma indictments yesterday actually strengthen the case against Trump! Get out the Lacan dictionary and look up "point de capiton" for more tips!

exhelodrvr1 said...

What is especially striking, and indicative of how full of bullshit the Demos and the NeverTrumpers who support impeachment are, is how well this process has gone for Trump considering that the Republicans have such minimal input in calling witnesses and asking questions.

rhhardin said...

The point of the other woman/truck cartoon is that the guy is in trouble and won't have any idea why. It sort of mimics Trump's position, except Trump enjoys the resulting opportunity to troll, owing to a sense of humor.

Laslo Spatula said...

Althouse's post is good writing, but it is built on a flimsy foundation.

When we are this far along in the debacle (that is doubling down on the Mueller debacle) without such a concise explanation, it is time to look at the motive for NOT providing that concise explanation.

And when so many words have been spent, and yet there is no factual coherence to be found, you either realize that you are the mark in an epic shell game, or you are supporting it by letting your good will be played against you.

It makes me think of the unaired SNL O'Donoghue sketch "The Good Excuse".

From Wiki:

"In the sketch, a captured German officer berated by his captors for Nazi war crimes explains that he had a good excuse, which he whispers into their ears, inaudible to the viewers. His captors are quickly persuaded that the unheard excuse was, in fact, an acceptable reason for the crimes of the Third Reich."

I am Laslo.

Beasts of England said...

Here’s a sample from Chuck’s link:

’The President used hundreds of millions of dollars of US taxpayer money as a bargaining chip to make a foreign country investigate his political opponents.

Trump didn’t make the Ukraine do a damned thing, and Biden is not his political opponent.

Meade said...

“Why was Obama not impeached if those things are illegal interference?”

Because House Republicans led by Mr. Gingrich learned, the hard way, the lesson today’s House Democrats don’t seem to want to learn the easy way.

Kevin said...

Ambassador Sondland's testimony today and the summary of President Trump's call with Volodymyr Zelensky show that President Trump withheld security funding to Ukraine so Ukraine would investigate the Bidens.

No they don't.

Democrats are going to make their case. They're going to say, "A is clearly true" and then argue it must follow that impeachment is the remedy, arguments against impeachment are weak, and not impeach is to ignore the facts.

It's all a misdirection designed to move the discussion away from the fact they didn't get the goods.

Jeff Brokaw said...

Unless people like Noonan choose to consider and comment on the corruption charges just out of Ukraine implicating Americans and American companies in a kickback scheme, their credibility on the Trump impeachment charade is less than zero. Way, way less.

This concern trolling about corruption, bribery, and whatever else the focus groups told the Dems to focus on is ridiculous hyperbole, oversold by liars and criminals and we can all see it. Just stop, the more you talk about it, the stupider you look.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian-indictment-reveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp
Ukrainian MP Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million

Sebastian said...

"Democrats, if you can't do this, you need to step back from the precipice."

Althouse, at long last, give it up.

They are Dems. They have been trying to stage a coup since before day 1. They despise Trump and us and you. They will do what they damn well please. They don't need no reason. They are progs. They want power. By any means necessary.

If they think impeachment can be one of those means, they will do it. Even if not, they may be willing to gamble, focusing on their rabid base. Just as they are willing to gamble that they no longer need nice moderately liberal women.

And by the way, all Dem candidates happily announced their desire to jump off the precipice. Do you denounce them all or, like a nice sorta-Dem, do you once again keep your options open?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Corruptocrats are intimidating Sondland's wife.

Witness intimidation.

Why are the Biden-Clinton-Kerry cabal of government whores allowed to walk free?

Iman said...

To quote the Pantsuited Pantload Grifter, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

It’s a done deal in the House, it’ll die in the Senate.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The democrats are taking this as far as they can., They have their corrupt alphabet channel corruption assholes to carry the sounds bites and lies over the finish line.

I do hope it makes it to the senate.

David Begley said...

The House Dems in Trump districts won’t vote to impeach.

tim in vermont said...

I don't think ARM is a neocon. I just think he doesn’t understand the implications of quoting neocon warmongers who had the sads that Hillary lost are.

iowan2 said...

On a weak moment, I followed the link to a concise explanation to impeachment.

I got dueling talking points.

I knew before I started what it would look like.

Not an explanation of impeachment, but rather an attempt to answer the facts revealed during 5 days of testimony.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Noonan must watch and buy CNN's bull.

rehajm said...

Unless people like Noonan choose to consider and comment on the corruption charges just out of Ukraine implicating Americans and American companies in a kickback scheme, their credibility on the Trump impeachment charade is less than zero. Way, way less.

Amen to that. There's also little consideration about the consequences of this new you can't investigate a political opponent statute we're supposed to accept.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Boyd said...

Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump!

rehajm said...

On a weak moment, I followed the link to a concise explanation to impeachment.

Me, too. No explanation just 'testimony showed...the facts are undeniable!'

Just another Peggy Noonan.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Sorry Ann, It's illegal to look into Biden family international pay to play governmetn money whoring and it's illegal to look into the same about the corrupt Clintons and even the Kerry family.
so - Trump must pay.

Susan said...

I have been watching the impeachment inquiry and everything that has led up to it. I will attempt to sum up.

The Democrats believe that using the power of the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, the IRS, the NSC, House of Representative committees and various whistleblowers or other informants and leakers is perfectly fine and legitimate if they do it in an election year because Donald Trump is a very bad person and so are his family, his team and everyone who has ever voted for or supported him in any way.

Meanwhile, he is not allowed to talk to or request the support of any human foreign or domestic or order his employees to do their jobs because if he does it is proof positive he is using his office for personal gain.

There is also unveiling of corruption amongst the various factions involving sums of money that would boggle the mind of the average taxpayer. But looking into all of that in an election year is right out. Too bad call years are election years these days. Ah well what ya gonna do?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The Clintonopolis media are furious the American people didn't dutifully select the candidate who keeps the wheels on the big government grift machine for media donors and deep state Brennan money whores.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Iman said...

Schiff continually pisses on American’s collective leg and tells us it’s raining.

May he get the treatment he so richly deserves. If it were my decision, he’d be fed to a gathering of Nile Crocodiles.

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows the purpose of US foreign policy is to let unelected officials like Vindman and frauds like Hill make policy to ensure access to the gravy train for them, idiot sons of vice-presidents and hacks like Noonan. (Neocon true believers like ARM will work for free to help.) To do anything other than praise and protect that is impeachable and downright unAmerican.

Skeptical Voter said...

Adam Pencil Necked Geek Pompous Pustulent Prevaricating Prima Donna Schiff is the lead lemming, leading the gang on. Go Adam! It's gonna hurt when you hit the bottom of the cliff. Couldn't happen to a nicer geek.

Both the lead lemming and impeachment will be DOA politically when the hot mess hits the Senate.

Leland said...

Molly, I think it was a valiant attempt. The issue is that despite claims of people like Noonan, the only thing clear is that career bureaucrats disagreed with the President's direction. The notion of anything being done for political gain is impeachable means every politician needs to be put in jail. If that's the new rules, then get ready for Dunham.

The other thing clear is that Obama did more to punish Ukraine than did Trump. And what Obama did was advantageous to Putin.

Anonymous said...

rh: You're not a normal person. You're a woman and think like one. Systems don't matter, feelings do.

rh, babe, you can't even follow the logic of your own system here, the salient feature of which is that these abnormal people are irrational political actors, whose participation in politics has bad results.

But abnormal people make up the majority of the electorate, and they tend to vote, iirc, in higher percentages than the normal people. IOW, they control the system, or rather, the people who know how to manipulate them control the system. You do seem to grasp this (dimly), but nothing you have to say on the subject follows logically from that. Instead, you bang on repetitively for decades (literally) with the same dumb admonitions about how the abnormal people need to start thinking like the normal people, as if that were useful advice, which somehow just hasn't sunk in after a thousand repetitions, so repeating it again will work.

This is crazy-talk, even within your own system. You indulge in the same faulty "reasoning" on other subjects, too.

tim in vermont said...

"The House Dems in Trump districts won’t vote to impeach.”

They will, and they will be promised to be taken care of, Clinton Foundation sinecures and the like if (when) they lose, IF Pelosi really wants to push all the chips on the table and call the bet. Look at that video of Pelosi describing poltical tactics I posted upthread if you doubt that she can bring them to heel.

Todd said...

I have said it elsewhere, the Senate should announce that they have heard enough and will immediately start an impeachment trial and actually start. Get this train moving! Start with Biden and Shift at the top of the witness list! Let Gowdy question them under oath on national TV!

The Senate can easily say reason for not waiting until congress is done with their circus is that this is a constitutional crisis and we can not afford to wait any longer!

Anonymous said...

That said, that quote from Peggy Noonan provided by ARM is a beauteous rhhardin-vindication quote.

iowan2 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Iman said...

Just another Peggy Noonan bromide
Flies so lightly off the page
Walk the old gal off the stage

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Still waiting for Adam Schitt(D-liar) to keep his promise about the whistle-blower offical testimony.

iowan2 said...

" New polls from other states are confirming the shift as well. “

Well that would explain why Schiff seems to have gotten the hook, when a few days ago, Pelosi was telling us she had no idea how long this would go on.


I was wondering why I felt so wierd when I heard Schiff gavel the circus closed. You have reminded me that I never thought Schiff was really done. I predicted a second whistle blower would drop. But Barr has shut down the pathway through the IC IG's. I'm sure the DOJ counsels office put out a plainly worded memo about IC whistle blower complaints will involve IC people or IC operations, or criminal prosecutions await any IG failing to meet that low standard.
But I can see that it is very likely Pelosi pulled the plug on this abortion of an impeachment before the damage gets worse. Pelosi will NOT put articles of impeachment up for a vote until some Republicans sign on. (Republicans being the squishes they are, could concede to go along, not understanding that if they just unite, the show is over, and a vote is never taken.) Pelosi is supposed to be the smartest speaker ever, for her to take a 100% partisan impeachment vote, seems a very stupid legacy to leave behind.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gspencer said...

This one's about 70 words,

"Cuz we Democrats can't win elections if we're honest with the voters as to our real intentions once we're in office. Therefore, we cheat. We'll do anything, anything, to win an election, even if necessary, murder. We know Trump has been good for the country but we can't admit it publicly. We know he'll be re-elected unless we impeach him, get a conviction, and punish him by banishing him from public office."

Birches said...

I have a friend who I still talk politics with when she asks. She's probably a McMuffin voter in 2016. I can't imagine her voting for Trump in 2020, but she understands why people would. We were talking about impeachment and she said that she didn't understand why the media would clearly lie about Mick Mulvaney saying there was quid pro quo. She watched the entire press conference and knew it was a lie.

Yes, why indeed? Perhaps because they're lying about it all? Perhaps.

Jerry said...

It boils down to one thing, and one thing only.

Making sure that NOBODY who isn't a career politician, who hasn't spent a lifetime working their up through the Party, who isn't corrupt in known ways, who isn't CONTROLLED and ALLOWED by the Party to run EVER has the chance to get within sniffing distance of running for the Presidency again.

Trump's an anomaly that's proved our political elite aren't in the job for the good of the peo0ple, but their own profit. You can't tell me that Biden isn't corrupt when we've got him on flippin' VIDEO bragging about a quid-pro-quo arrangement with the Ukraine STOPPING an investigation into corruption, and his son was getting shitloads of money for a no-show job in a company that was already under investigation for corruption.

We have a political 'elite' who forgot the first rule of being a parasite - 'DON'T KILL THE HOST'. And they're doing their damndest to leech out everything they can from the country, regardless of the wreckage it leaves behind.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I wonder when Peter STrozk will be indicted?

Ann Althouse said...

"You're not a normal person...."/"And you?"/"I'm a guy. Stabillity is my priority in government, feelings are yours. Long live the difference, except that the bridge collapses."

The question was are you a normal person. You could have said yes or no. What caused there to be no straightforward answer if not emotion?

Prioritizing stability is an emotional thing to do. Everyone wants order but only up to a point and everyone is risk averse but only up to a point. Your balance is yours and it has something to do with your body and your nervous system and hormones and so forth, so there's a male/female aspect to it.

In the current controversy over impeachment, both sides are making claims to preserving order, so the big abstraction won't determine which side you are on.

I don't support impeachment, so I don't know what you're trying to say about me. I think the way the impeachment works out in practice, the support of a strong majority of the people matters. My post is about the pro-impeachment side needing, this week, to make an easy-to-understand case to the people. Something fact based. Otherwise you just have 2 giant factions, revved up by the media into a ridiculous hysteria. If, in those circumstances, the Democrats impeach just because they have the votes in the House, I hope things go very badly for them.

MayBee said...

It's really interesting to watch how even the most mid level bureaucrat thinks their job is telling the president what to do, and outing him to the world if he doesn't do it.

Are any Democrats concerned about the way once-secret methods of communication have been turned into open political warfare? It started with sources "outing" Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador- openly admitting we bug the Ambassadors's conversations. Then POTUS's Oval Office visits, then his conversations with world leaders. Talk about destroying all our nation's craft in service of embarrassing POTUS. Can they put this genie back in the bottle? Will Biden's arguments with world leaders be splashed all over the from page by some mid level bureaucrat seeking revenge?

DanTheMan said...

The Bidens took millions in bribes from the Ukraine. Trumps crime is suggesting someone take a look at that.

DanTheMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

Dems talking: “Trump used the levers of government power to investigate the potential wrongs of a political opponent. It was never about finding wrongdoing for the sake of the rule of law.”

Dems doing: using the levers of government power to investigate the potential wrongs of a political opponent. It isn’t about finding wrongdoing for the sake of the rule of law.

My take:
One of the benefits of a two party or multi party political system is that you better not do wrong or your political opponents will seize on the matter and you be punished. So let’s start with the Biden facts and if is probable case to investigate that there was wrong doing or kickbacks or conflicts of interest, Trump gets a gold star. if not - of no probable cause - we move on to the Trump abuse of power facts.

Seems like probable cause exists to look closely at the Biden’s.

The argument that Biden is presently Trump’s political rival is at this time more tenuous. Biden, after all, isn’t running against Trump at the present.

Fernandinande said...

"He's doing the 'squid pro quote' which reminds me of Silence of teh Lambs so it's bad."

rhhardin said...

The question was are you a normal person. You could have said yes or no. What caused there to be no straightforward answer if not emotion?

There's normal guy and normal woman. They're not the same. They optimize different things.

What women optimize results in unstable systems because they don't go deep before emoting out. Good for neighborhoods and bad for nations.

tim in vermont said...

I always wonder whether the Republicans in the Senate would have gone to talk to Nixon if the House hadn’t given him due process.

I think it was a fundamental mistake, but they knew they didn’t have a case that could stand up to a real defense.

MAJMike said...

"Orange man bad, says mean things!!" -- DemCong Spokescritter

Seeing Red said...

Blogger Skylark said...

Putin really couldn’t have asked for better minions than Schiff and Pelosi.

Yes, if the Russians tried to interfere to reduce confidence in elections, Putin could not have better allies than the Democrats,

They’ve been the commie’s mouthpiece for decades—since I was a child.. Why stop now?

Those who didn’t live thru it don’t get it.

Amadeus 48 said...

Peggy Noonan gives us the view from the fur-lined redoubts of the haute bourgeoisie in Manhattan.

She doesn't like that Trump fellow. He is a wrong 'un. Her friends have children who work in the State Department, and they all think Trump's a stinker.

Noonan needs to put herself out to pasture.




Quayle said...

Also Dems talking:

1. The permanent foreign service folks didn’t agree with trumps direction with Ukraine so they did their patriotic duty and tried to slow it down or block it.

2. Trump brought in his own loyalists to establish a private channel to Ukraine; how dare he! It must have been nefarious.

(Gee, I wonder why Trump did that....)

Chuck said...

...
"The House Dems in Trump districts won’t vote to impeach.”


All but two of them voted for the impeachment inquiry.

Now it may be argued; an inquiry is not removal, or even impeachment. But that just makes it look all the worse for the House Republicans who voted against the mere inquiry, doesn’t it? To not even have an official inquiry on the record? How heavy was that pressure from the House GOP leadership?

Quayle said...

Final point:

If modern realpolitik foreign relations don’t use forms of bribery and quid pro quo, than what exactly does it do? Sharing of feelings?

Charlie said...

I can do it in 3 words: "Orange Man Bad".

Shouting Thomas said...

The Democrats tried to rig the 2016 presidential election and, failing that, have waged incessant lawfare against President Trump.

The Democrats are trying to poison the 2020 presidential elections with this fake impeachment, which is just the next step in the three year long campaign of lawfare.

In league with the intelligence agencies, the Democrats are denying the people the right to vote as they see fit.

I don’t see any other issue here.

Seeing Red said...

As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?"

Then she should have spent a few sentences spelling it out.

SPELL IT OUT ARM.

In simple words.

Trump’s icky is not an impeachable offense.

rhhardin said...

Armstrong and Getty is on KGO so I take it there's no hearings today. Either that or falling audience ratings have kicked in.

MayBee said...

Now it may be argued; an inquiry is not removal, or even impeachment. But that just makes it look all the worse for the House Republicans who voted against the mere inquiry, doesn’t it? To not even have an official inquiry on the record?

Was there an official impeachment inquiry of Obama on the record? I mean, is this something that must not be on the records for presidents?

gilbar said...

<p
Trump has the audacity to take the republican nomination from the appointed heir (Jebster Bushy). Then, he compounded that crime by Successfully campaigning, in a way that made the hoi polloi get uppity, and feel that They had a say. Upon somehow Winning the Presidency, he refused to Do As He Was Told. EACH of these offenses are Impeachable.
</p

rhhardin said...

I remember when grab them by the pussy was the last straw for women.

Curious George said...

"Not only has Althouse’s request already been fulfilled; I emailed it to her a day ago."

You go straight to a SPAM folder named Titty Twister.

Amadeus 48 said...

Meade at 7:24--That is a profound analysis in a few words. I am fascinated by both parties' unwillingness to learn from recent history.



Francisco D said...

It's really interesting to watch how even the most mid level bureaucrat thinks their job is telling the president what to do, and outing him to the world if he doesn't do it.

I suspect that most Democrat Presidents have let the bureaucrats run things because they are fellow party members with similar views. Most Republican Presidents probably took the path of least resistance when faced with an entrenched bureaucracy.

However, this fellow Trump is different. As Chief Executive Officer of the US, he has the audacity to think that he makes the decisions. This impudence cannot allowed.

IMPEACH

MayBee said...

I keep thinking about the guy who says he heard Trumps phone call (although he turned into a ball of blabbering mess when he was asked to recall further details). He promptly went back to the embassy and told everyone about it (except his boss) and even called someone else in Sweden to gossip about it (or report it?).
The good Lt Col who called his brother (who I think is an investment banker or something) and a friend.

Fiona Hill and her people who get in an argument about it in front of the Ukrainians.

These people can't keep their mouths shut. But we are supposed to trust them.

gilbar said...

rhhardin again shows a COMPLETE Ignorance of math, saying...
You're not a normal person. You're a woman and think like one.


The MAJORITY of PEOPLE ARE WOMEN. The fact that you just said that The Majority of People are Not Normal shows you need to sit in a corner and DO SOME STUDYING

Quayle said...

Let me answer my own question, “what is foreign relations?”

Sending pallets of cash to another country. That must be what it’s about.

There certainly can be no quid pro quo associated with that.

tim in vermont said...

"But that just makes it look all the worse for the House Republicans who voted against the mere inquiry, doesn’t it? “

This was a sham in which Trump was not afforded the due process that the BIll of Rights guarantees. Surely the Bill of Rights counts as a ‘penumbra’ at a minimum.

But leave it to Cuck to excoriate Republicans for not caving to the most unreasonable Democrat demands.

John Borell said...

Molly is getting unfairly whacked by some commenters.

She said:

I do not favor impeachment, and am very likely to vote Republican right down the ballot to express my unhappiness with how the Democrats have acted. But I'm going to take up the challenge to make the best case for impeachment in a succinct way.

She did not say she believes her case, just that she was taking up the challenge to make the best case one could make. This is like a debate club - you don't have to believe your premises, but you still have to argue it.

So let's not beat up on Molly.

Or, alternatively, make a different case, even if you don't believe it.

As for me, I'm voting for Trump. If he did anything "bad" it was no worse than anything Biden or Obama or Hillary did in 2016.

iowan2 said...

All but two of them voted for the impeachment inquiry.f

Well, this is very informative of this whole thread. Two sides looking at facts, and reaching different conclusions.

There as NEVER been a Pelosi lead vote for an impeachment inquiry. Speaker Pelosi is very adamant, about that. The vote was to approve the rules, hearings would be conducted under. Pelosi is very clear about that simple fact.
Now maybe the quote I highlighted was just a small, poor choice of words, but I know lawyers consider every word, and even punctuation, with a professional eye to accuracy. So I'm forced to conclude ignorance of facts leads to faulty unfounded positions.

And so, we arrive here.

Anonymous said...

As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?"

That must be why Schiff doesn’t allow the republicans to call witnesses or cross-examine “whistle-blowers.” It’s just too clear so it’s not necessary. What could they say, wonders neocon Noonan—I mean it’s not like anyone lied during her Iraq War is cheerleading days.

rcocean said...

"Look, the case has been made. Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain."

And? There's no law against the President "muscling" another country. We want the POTUS to "Muscle" other countries - its called diplomacy. As for political gain, that's what Politicians do. If Trump can do something in the interests of the USA, that is investigate possible corruption by Ukrainian officials and the former VP of the USA, that's in our countries interest. If Joe and Hunter were up to no good, we need that looked into. That it helps Trump somehow politically is irrelevant.

Krumhorn said...

Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office because he attempted to use (with what success remains to be seen) the instruments of government to influence electoral outcome in his favor.

Assuming that every factual assertion has been proven as true, what is the high crime? Politicians use instruments of government every day to influence electoral outcomes. When taxes are raised to pay for roads and bridges (and free cell phones), the entire purpose of the exercise is to win votes. The leftie contestants for the nomination are arguing to use march in rights to essentially void pharma patents in order to lower drug prices to influence votes.

If The Orangeman diddled a foreign leader to cause a leftie contestant harm, where is the impeachable offense? I would call taking the property rights of a drug company nothing short of a mugging...but it’s not impeachment material.

- Krumhorn

Megthered said...

Ann, this is the party you voted for. These are the people you chose to put into office. Deep inside, you knew they were corrupt and worked only for themselves. I have no sympathy for any of them. I would hope they all end up in jail, I don't care whether it's here or in the Ukraine or Iran. They all need to be paraded in front of the American people and laughed at, publicly. We out here in flyover country are laughing at them daily.

MayBee said...

I suspect that most Democrat Presidents have let the bureaucrats run things because they are fellow party members with similar views. Most Republican Presidents probably took the path of least resistance when faced with an entrenched bureaucracy.

However, this fellow Trump is different. As Chief Executive Officer of the US, he has the audacity to think that he makes the decisions. This impudence cannot allowed.


Well put and I totally agree. I suspect Obama just let them do whatever they want, aside from Iran. I still try to imagine how that all went- how he managed to subvert our banking laws and come up with some hokey idea a court was going to order us to pay it, and then send a plane with billions to someone who was actively killing our soldiers. I suspect Brennan has something going on and as long as Obama didn't get in his way, Obama was allowed to be POTUS.

I wonder if Trump even guessed how much bureaucracy there was in being president.

rcocean said...

VP Joe Biden "Muscling" Ukraine = Good
POTUS Trump "Muscling" Ukraine = Bad.

D's investigating Trump corruption = Good
Trump Investigating D corruption = Bad.

rhhardin said...

Ukraine is just a target of opportunity. If it wasn't that it would be something else.

Like Media Matters seizing on Imus saying nappy headed ho on the day after he refused to put Hillary on the air (against Obama) because she's an awful person. Whatever he said the next day was going to be the cause for news trucks lining up outside.

(Curiously, Trump was Hillary's advocate in this, and reported back that Imus wasn't going to put her on.)

traditionalguy said...

It seems that the Mind of Althouse perceives the insanity of Dems pushing this Sham Impeachment.

It also confirms that the corrupt to the hilt Dems and RINOs do not dare let Trump take out their Ukraine slush fund base by flipping the Ukraine Government that has the records. So like the Japs on Saipan, they will simple have to fight Trump to the death. Either that or the Deepstate maybe does another Regime change there that puts James Comey in as President of Ukraine.

Saipan was the Japs final stronghold in their ring that kept the B-29s out of range. So they ordered all their remaining carriers into a final battle. And they lost them all, together with 600 barely trained pilots. And the Jap Army on Saipan banzai charged to the very end while they had their civilians suicide themselves from cliffs.

rcocean said...

No R Congress would act this way with a D President. This is unheard of. Impeachment used to be a serious process. Its only been done 3 times in our History (Nixon's was cut short by his resignation). Now, the D's are going to pass it with a party line vote and a 20 member majority. iRC, its 235-200 in the House, and Impeachment will pass with only a few votes.

They've made a mockery of what is supposed to be a serious constitutional remedy for a POTUS abuse of power.

pacwest said...

Unless you make the assumption that 'it is not ok to investigate someone running for office no matter what evidence they are crooked exists', the entire reason for impeachment in this instance falls apart. This is in evidence in both Noonan's piece and Chuck's link. It speaks volumes towards the problems we are having that neither Chuck nor Noonan are able to question this single assumption that is basic to their case. Lock them up.

MayBee said...

Assuming that every factual assertion has been proven as true, what is the high crime? Politicians use instruments of government every day to influence electoral outcomes. When taxes are raised to pay for roads and bridges (and free cell phones), the entire purpose of the exercise is to win votes.

Exactly, though in this case it's supposed to be the idea that he asked a foreign government to investigate a rival. Never mind that the rival was VP at the time. I could almost stomach it if they were willing to look into the idea that Biden and Kerry's kids were making millions while their fathers made laws, but of course they all want that door open for their kids.

So the moral of the story becomes - shake down foreign governments to the benefit of your kids, not to the detriment of a political oppnonet.

Ryan said...

With Watergate, Nixon (or his people) broke into a building to steal stuff. Burglary: everyone knows what it is and understands that it's wrong.

Here, Trump was talking on the phone. That's not wrong. So what did he actually DO to deserve impeachment. Explain it like I am five years old.

rcocean said...

As others have stated, Ukraine is just the excuse. They made up their minds to Impeach Trump the day they took over the House. Jan 2019.

BADuBois said...

Orange Man Bad.

The Vault Dweller said...

I wonder if the Dems want to impeach trump, even if it will fail, just so they can say he was impeached. Just like the republicans can always say Clinton was impeached. I think it vexes lots of people on the left that you can not say that Nixon was impeached, and if you look up the last president who was impeached it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

Chuck said...

I am breaking my new goal of just one comment per Althouse post here. So this will be my last comment on this one.

Althouse, this post of yours has now elicited a full page of comments that demonstrate how craven, how cultish, and how dumb the Trump base really is. The foreign policy equivalent of Trump’s shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.

rcocean said...

IT was supposed to be Mueller Report, then impeachment. But Mueller let them down So, they created this fake Ukraine "Crime". So, they can use this. Its insane. That old lady Noonan is going along with it, just shows she's always been a FAKE CON.

rcocean said...

The entire stupidity of the D's case encapsulated:

If Biden had dropped out of the race in June 2019, there would be no "crime".

Todd said...

Chuck said...

Now it may be argued; an inquiry is not removal, or even impeachment.


Chuck stumbles upon the truth.

But that just makes it look all the worse for the House Republicans who voted against the mere inquiry, doesn’t it?

And then looses his way again.

So it looks BAD for the Republicans to not support a sham? A non-impeachment event that is all sound and furry, signifying nothing.

I prefer the actual rule of law and adhering to precedent [unless justified] but you do you.

Dave Begley said...

Warren Buffett's BRK annual report is a model of clarity. He's publicly said that he writes it with his Aunt Alice in mind. A smart woman - with no experience in business - who taught school and had money in Warren's company.

Lucid-Ideas said...

The democratic subconscious hive-mind response:

Dear ordinary citizen,

Once upon a time our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. But fuck all that. See, what they really wanted was a nation and laws that stifled the ability of a cocooned and incestuous nobility to seize and keep control, like we had back in the old world. This is going to hurt - meritocracies don't matter. Ever heard the phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know?" Yep. It's real. See, we're not the brightest people, or the most virtuous, or the most successful, or even the best born, but we're the best. And from the get go we infiltrated some early but later-to-be highly elite institutions like: The original Ivy league; Central Banks and Customs Houses; Newspapers; and the entire state and city of New York. These things are like petri dishes...but we're getting off track...we probably lost you in the first sentence you're that dumb. Trump and you made the mistake of attacking our status and our authority in the way a peon during a revolt attacks his liege-lord or king. You have some legitimate gripes, but you're nobody. You suck and we hate you. Despite some of you being really really smart your parents didn't have enough money to pay consultants to bribe Stanford to get you into their Arts & Sciences Department.

So there. A long paragraph but a truthful one. Trump has to go. We're not actually after him, we're after you. He's just in the way.

Michael K said...

Amadeus 48 said...
Peggy Noonan gives us the view from the fur-lined redoubts of the haute bourgeoisie in Manhattan.

She doesn't like that Trump fellow. He is a wrong 'un. Her friends have children who work in the State Department, and they all think Trump's a stinker.

Noonan needs to put herself out to pasture.


She hated Sarah Palin too. That is the indicator of where she is. Pauline Kael had nothing on Peggy.

rcocean said...

IF you're a Democrat Congressman and you think the FBI/DOJ might investigate some of your crimes, just RUN FOR PRESIDENT. And then, Trump can't go after you, cause he'd be using the FBI/DOJ to "destroy a political opponent".

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 361   Newer› Newest»