December 11, 2019

"Pelosi promised a narrow, expedited impeachment, and that’s what the House will deliver: a targeted effort centered on a single act of malfeasance."

"It’s been a fast-paced process meant to satisfy liberal activists without alienating moderate members worried about support from swing voters. Once it’s completed, Pelosi can say that Democrats ran a sober investigation and found definitive evidence of wrongdoing. She can even say that this wasn’t an obstacle to getting things done — it was hardly an accident that after announcing the articles of impeachment, Pelosi also announced that the House would vote to approve the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, President Trump’s renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Pelosi wants to get to the bottom of the president’s wrongdoing and she wants to protect her moderate members. But a quick, narrow impeachment isn’t the way to go.... Individual Democrats might have run on health care in 2018 and other 'kitchen table' issues, but it was anti-Trump energy that put these districts within reach, and it will be anti-Trump energy that drives the outcome next year. If the president is unpopular — if he’s mired in controversy — Democrats will likely win. If it’s the reverse, if Trump can overcome scandal and recover ground with some voters, he’ll win re-election. And those vulnerable House Democrats? They’ll lose, along with the party’s nominee. The quick impeachment... hands the process to the Republican Senate and its majority leader, Mitch McConnell... The better alternative — the stronger alternative — is to wait.... If Democrats aren’t compelled by the reality of broad, pervasive corruption, then they should be compelled by the politics of a longer, more deliberate impeachment process."

Writes Jamelle Bouie — in "Two Articles of Impeachment for Trump Are Nowhere Near Enough/The House should take its own sweet time and investigate many more aspects of the president’s perfidious behavior" — openly discussing the impeachment in terms of electoral politics.

If the President's alleged action — pushing Ukraine to investigate Biden solely for his own political advantage — is "perfidious," then the House Democrats' political calculations around impeachment are perfidious.

I guess Bouie assumes only Trump haters will read his column, because it just doesn't make sense for anyone considering believing the Democrats' assertions about their channeling somber values from the Framers and earnestly striving to save the Republic.

Bouie goes on to say "There’s no reason for Democrats to end things now. They have enough material to keep the pressure through the new year." But the whole point of using impeachment rather than allowing normal electoral politics to play out over the course of next year is that it's intolerable to allow this dangerous, harmful President to remain in power. He's abusing his power, and the abuse must stop. If that's not true, and the Democrats are using the impeachment power to inflict political damage on the President, then the Democrats are themselves abusing power. Bouie seems to be advising the Democrats to lean into abusing power and get the most out of it.

Here's Bouie's last paragraph:
Democrats, in other words, can use the power of impeachment to set the terms of the next election — to shape the national political landscape in their favor. In a political culture governed by negative partisanship and hyperpolarization, restraint won’t save the Democratic majority. But a relentless anti-Trump posture — including comprehensive investigations and additional articles of impeachment — might just do the trick.
Does he not hear what he is saying?! He's telling Democrats to drop the pretense of principle and patriotism and go all out for political advantage.

ADDED: 2 afterthoughts:

1. Writing "advising the Democrats to lean into abusing power and get the most out of it" made me think of the famous Patrick Henry line: "If this be treason, make the most of it." Impeachment enthusiasts can say: If this be abuse of power, make the most of it. Speaking of channeling the giants of the Framer generation. But Henry was not one of the Constitution's Framers. He was their opponent. He thought they were up to perfidy.

2. "Perfidy" means "Deceitfulness, untrustworthiness; breach of faith or of a promise; betrayal of trust; treachery" (OED). Notice the syllable "fi" — Latin for "faith." What is the faith here that is being broken? Everything about electoral politics is antithetical to faith. Where is the faith? I think in many Americans there is faith. We saw it in the Tea Party movement, and Trump absorbed and echoed that faith. In his time, before the emergence of the Tea Party, Obama expressed that faith...



The last 2 winners of the Presidency understood and repurposed the people's faith. If they'd done anything more profoundly sincere, they would have been too naive to be President, but if they'd done anything less, they would not have won.

80 comments:

Annie C. said...

Not surprised at the concept of Dems using impeachment for political gain. Quit surprised at the open admission.

I keep hearing that impeachment is not a legal process, but a political one. So they're going for broke.

Bob Smith said...

So which incompetent and dishonest generation does this clown belong to?

rhhardin said...

It's not a real pretense. They're acting that too. It's a message.

TheThinMan said...

You didn’t say it was from the NYT so I had to give them a click to find out. That the “paper of record” published this means their transformation to the DNC’s newsletter is complete.

rehajm said...

When politicians are guilty of crimes the best strategy is to accuse your opponent of committing your crimes and mount your high horse so you look like a judge instead of the perp you are.

rhhardin said...

Women's faith takes the form of thinking he means well. Men's faith looks at the system and whether it will work or make things worse.

They don't vote for the same things. Women are easier to trick. Estrogen filled rallies, like with Obama. Trump ran into rogue judges, which he in fact obeyed. Which one was the patriot.

rhhardin said...

Fid[e] in perfidy. Perfidy would be a good name for a cat. Fido for dogs.

rhhardin said...

A boss had a boat named Trepid.

Original Mike said...

"Once it’s completed, Pelosi can say that Democrats ran a sober investigation and found definitive evidence of wrongdoing."

She can also say that pigs fly.

rhhardin said...

Trump always ssems to be on the side of upholding the stability of the system, where the dems undermine it. Going for the men's and women's vote respectively.

rhhardin said...

The flag is a symbol of unity flown at half staff when a prominent dem politician dies.

Bob Loblaw said...

I'm sure the Democrats would have stretched it out quite a bit longer but for the fact the effort seems to be hurting Democrats in opinion polls, particularly Democrats in swing states. Now Pelosi just wants it over with so voters have time to forget before the election.

Voters aren't as dumb as Pelosi and Schiff think - they recognize a Seinfeld impeachment when they see it.

gilbar said...

prediction!
Donald Trump will become the first (but probably not the last) President to impeached Multiple times. The stupid demo's won't learn, and within a year; will try again

Clyde said...

Althouse said...
"Does he not hear what he is saying?! He's telling Democrats to drop the pretense of principle and patriotism and go all out for political advantage."


Exactly. This is the problem that the Democrats have: That the entire televised Congressional investigation hearings were run in such a clearly partisan and unfair manner by the Democrats that anyone who was not a partisan Democrat was repulsed by what was evident on their screens. The Democrats have ALREADY dropped any pretense of principle and patriotism. Had they not done so, they might have been able to generate some public support among those few independents who had not already made up their minds. Instead, they have been exposed for what they are, and the poll numbers for impeachment continue to drop. They have already lost this battle for hearts and minds, and have gained nothing in their battle for the 2020 presidential election.

gilbar said...

prediction Already Fullfilled?
Democrat Karen Bass says she's open to impeach Trump again if he gets reelected in 2020

Shouting Thomas said...

The impeachment scam was timed to offset the IG Report.

What does that tell you?

stevew said...

All they need is one "high crime and misdemeanor", any more than that is just piling on, insult throwing.

tim maguire said...

“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

― Albert Einstein

rhhardin said...

wealthy women in pink pussy hats

Rush always calls them vagina hats, avoiding the bad word. But the hats in fact represented cat ears, only by allusion a defiant reference to grab them by the pussy.

Architectural chaos in female genitals has made that not obvious, though. Any shape will do if it's pink.

rhhardin said...

To be fair, some listener sent Rush some vagina cookies, and staff told him he was holding it upside down.

Rick said...

Obama expressed that faith...

This is only what you want to believe. Here's the reality:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

rhhardin said...

Faith is a side-effect of love, in any case. Not primary.

Bay Area Guy said...

Jamelle Bouie is a perfidious moron.

What he and his political ilk fail to recognize is that their vocal leftism helped elect Trump in 2016, and will help cause his reelection in 2020.

Roy Lofquist said...

Blogger rhhardin said...
To be fair, some listener sent Rush some vagina cookies, and staff told him he was holding it upside down.

Are we talking missionary position here as opposed to the trapeze thingy?

Leland said...

The Democrats haven't explained the danger. They broadly claim support for Russia, but Trump provided missile defense to both Poland and Ukraine, something Obama denied. But even if Trump was helping one country over other, say Iran over Israel, such was not historically impeachable. So what other immediate dangers are Americans in? Too much of a robust economy? A poor trade deal that Democrats just agreed?

BADuBois said...

Oh yes, do it. Do it... impeachment 24/7....

Because I really miss Reagan-era electoral blowouts.

Roy Lofquist said...

Bouie goes on to say "There’s no reason for Democrats to end things now. They have enough material to keep the pressure through the new year."

Except the elections are at the end of next year. Did anyone catch AG Barr's statement that Durham would conclude his work in late spring or early summer? The only question is how many indictments. Splat (shat?) right about convention time. Multiple Democrats facing trials in 2021 at the earliest. Happy campaigning! Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. Don't tug on Superman's cape.

Sebastian said...

"Pelosi can say that Democrats ran a sober investigation"

Huh? Who are these people?

"then the House Democrats' political calculations around impeachment are perfidious"

There you go again, Althouse. It's getting a little old. Dems don't do foolish consistency.

"Does he not hear what he is saying?! He's telling Democrats to drop the pretense of principle and patriotism and go all out for political advantage."

It is a little inconvenient, isn't it, for the Dems to drop all pretense, as if they had any to drop, and thereby make it harder for "moderates" to keep up their pretense of cruel neutrality and waiting to "see what happens."

Since the scum are revealing themselves as scum even to such moderates, at some point the Althouses of America will need to answer the question: does abortion matter so much to me that I will put up with this scum?

michaele said...

Wow, thanks for the walk down memory lane with the Yes, We Can video. Pretty amazing and nauseating to think of all the propaganda that was put out on Obama's behalf. All the more remarkable that Trump accomplished what he did without all the gagging glitter of celebrities.

Kevin said...

The Dems rehearsed all weekend for the impeachment announcement.

It’s really, really hard for them to talk about the Constitution and solemn oaths without breaking character.

iowan2 said...

To be fair, some listener sent Rush some vagina cookies, and staff told him he was holding it upside down.

If you believe there is an Up, or Down, involved, your not having near enough fun (well, your partner)

Francisco D said...

Does he not hear what he is saying?! He's telling Democrats to drop the pretense of principle and patriotism and go all out for political advantage.

You sound surprised, Althouse.

gilbar said...

Where is the faith? Here's Your Faith!
I Pledge, to be a servant to our President
Young children singing praise to Barack Obama
young boy praising O'Bama

dbp said...

The problem the Democrats have is that the longer they draw-out the process, the more it looks like they are meddling with the 2020 election. But, once they vote for impeachment, all control goes to the Republicans in the Senate. They can drag it out right through election day, acquit on day 1 or do something in the middle. I would suggest they call every witness the House Republicans wanted, but were denied by House Democrats.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Pelosi can say that Democrats ran a sober investigation and found definitive evidence of wrongdoing. She can even say that this wasn’t an obstacle to getting things done...

And, thanks to Botox, she can say all that with a straight face.

Michael K said...

"All they have to do is not act crazy and they can't even do that."

The TV hearings were a disaster. The only people who watched were those like Chuck who get off on TDS.

Pelosi now tries to take credit for the trade deal because she needs something other than Nadler and Schiff and Maxine 24/7.

tim in vermont said...

"They are who we thought they were."

Browndog said...

-Impeachment is a political process! Impeachment is whatever the House says it is!

(insert Impeachment charges)

-Impeachment is a very, very serious legal process afforded to Congress by the Founders to save the Republic from a President that committed crimes so dangerous to the nation it may collapse!

...same people.

Swede said...

Should the president get impeached by the House, Cocaine Mitch can call for an immediate vote in the Senate.

Could you imagine that? Like, 5 minutes after receiving anything from the house, just call for an immediate vote.

The look on Dems faces would be worth listening to the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from them.

Unfortunately, I think censure is becoming more palatable to certain Dems that want to keep their jobs and will be the likely outcome.

wildswan said...

JB is thinking of impeachment as a writer as if it were a TV series or material for opinion columns - "enough material to keep going through the new year." But impeachment wasn't what it was to a writer at the NYT who fears he won't have easy column material if impeachment goes away. Impeachment was what the House of Representatives was doing with its time - and what the House was doing always was "nothing" because impeachment was always going to fail in the Senate. But lately impeachment was showing up as worse than nothing, namely, danger to re-election. Trump's numbers were rising. House members in Trump districts were being shown up as liars who spent time on impeachment though they said they wouldn't. Hunter Biden's father was looking more malarkey every day. ("I don't come to a question session to be asked a lot of questions. You better just hope I don't decide to beat you up like CornPop, you damnfool, fatass ex-marine.") Hillary was tensing to spring on the Dem party process. ("I like men - for breakfast on my toast. Epstein jam - sooo good.") So, rush impeachment through, declare a victory, go home for the holidays. But by doing that you look weak and silly which JB and Althouse are seeing from different angles.

Chris said...

So The democrats are accusing trump of meddling in an election, but they are doing exactly that with shampeachment.

Krumhorn said...

Somehow, the lefties are going to do whatever it takes to resist at any cost, and the electoral outcome is reasonably assured. There is no way out for them on this. It is more interesting to me to dope out the strategy in the Senate. Yesterday, Lindsey Graham was arguing for an immediate vote. No witnesses. No dog and pony show by House prosecutors. Just take a vote, wipe their collectives asses, and move on to normal order.

The other choice is to make a fine circus out of it, but apparently there are a few Chucks in the Senate who won’t vote yes to subpoena FatNadler and ShittySchiff and the “whistleblower” in order to steamroller the Dem mouth breathers. Where do these RINO clowns come from? Seriously! It’s war! The lefties are trying to eat our lunch.

-Krumhorn

Mike Sylwester said...

You didn’t say it was from the NYT so I had to give them a click to find out.

Yes, please identify the source.

Some websites provide a few free visits a month, so I want to know whether I am wasting a free visit.

Matt said...

Jamelle Bouie is not to be trusted. His take on Trump's nomination speech was from another dimension and didn't approach the ballpark of reality.

Enough with unserious people being treated as legitimate commentators.

Wince said...

Seems to me the Democrats have shot their impeachment wad like they shot their independent counsel wad.

The Republicans will control the impeachment narrative soon. If they can keep it interesting and damaging to Trump's accusers, they can run up the attention ratings right until Durham releases his report and/or brings charges, which in turn likely take us through the conventions.

Seeing Red said...

Obama certainly repurposed my faith. But I knew what he was and voted against him.

We are still paying for Obamacare.

Equipment Maintenance said...

If there is an actual impeachment, that means there is going to be some pre-arranged chicanery in the Senate trial. No way can they allow Trump to start revealing all the corruption in both parties, in both houses of congress.

Michael K said...

The Republicans will control the impeachment narrative soon. If they can keep it interesting and damaging to Trump's accusers, they can run up the attention ratings right until Durham releases his report and/or brings charges, which in turn likely take us through the conventions.

I agree but Mitch probably has some plans we don't know about. He is deeply in bed with the Chamber of Commerce, no friend of Trump.

He is also involved with China, although China is in financial trouble with the trade war. Their exports to the US are down 23% and the yuan devaluation has cut cash flow 30%. They have stopped building the South China Sea islands and the air craft carriers they have been building.

mccullough said...

McConnell makes as much as Biden in the foreign graft racket.

The Swamp is really stupid to have an idiot like Cokehead Son be one of the bagmen.

McConnell has an arranged marriage. It was arranged by China. He’s a scumbag.

So is Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.

Look into their families finances. Follow the money.

It explains US policy

gilbar said...

new Quinnipiac Poll shows Nancy's strategy working PERFECTLY!!!

slightly more than half of all registered voters, 51 percent, think that President Trump should not be impeached and removed from office, while 45 percent say he should be impeached and removed. This compares to a November 26 poll in which 48 percent of voters said the president should not be impeached, while 45 percent said he should be.
Today's poll is the first time since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry
that more than half of voters say that Trump should not be impeached.

Michael said...

Since when has any of this been about principle? As opposed to sore-losership. Now they are not even bothering about appearances.

Robert Cook said...

In retrospect, we can look at Obama's campaign slogan and amend it to say:

"We Could Have, But I Didn't."

Howard said...

Nancy punts.

Drago said...

Equipment Maintenance: "If there is an actual impeachment, that means there is going to be some pre-arranged chicanery in the Senate trial. No way can they allow Trump to start revealing all the
corruption in both parties, in both houses of congress."

This.

TJM said...

Only the evil or stupid vote Dem

gilbar said...

House Dems Unveil Surefire Plan To Get Trump Reelected

Some questioned if this was the best strategy, but Democrats pointed out that with four more years of Trump, they will be able to generate far more outrage than if they took back the White House. "It's a lot more fun to be extremists and scream at the sky for years and years instead of proposing policies that most Americans support and actually win elections."

robother said...

The Left obviously believes faith is for suckers, whether its that of their own useful idiots or of the deplorables on the other side.

Bay Area Guy said...

Article 2: Obstruction of Congress

Obstruction of Congress?!!? That's a bad thing? Are they kidding....

rcocean said...

The D's are using impeachment as political weapon and they don't care about the precedent or the irresponsibility. People need to understand, that if the D's ever get control of Congress and the Presidency again, they are going to get rid of the filibuster, pack the SCOTUS, change the election laws to legalize fraud, and get rid of the Electoral College. They want to win - forever. And they don't care about "The Constitution" or being "fair".

rcocean said...

This whole thing is a clown show, and McConnell is just helping the D's and hurting Trump by giving it Credibility.

Chuck said...

Please.

What Jamelle Bouie suggested in his column, and what Althouse criticizes, IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT DO!

They aren’t waiting. They aren’t going to delay by expanding the impeachment inquiry. So they aren’t using their impeachment power to drag things further into an election season.

So go ahead and criticize Jamelle Bouie’s thinking. It isn’t what is happening. The Democrats determined not to let the process play out any longer, and they said very clearly why they were talking action now. Nothing at all like the Jamelle Bouie column.

narayanan said...

get rid of the Electoral College.
_____&&&&&&^^^^^

will need amendment to Constitution.
As long as there are 17 or 18 RED states cannot be done

Scott M said...

But a relentless anti-Trump posture — including comprehensive investigations and additional articles of impeachment — might just do the trick.

Pattern recognition isn't his bag, baby. We've only had a couple weeks of highly partisan public hearings and the polls are already swinging against the entire endeavor. A year of this nonsense will make the rubble bounce.

Doug said...

Democrat Karen Bass says she's open to impeach Trump again if he gets reelected in 2020

That presumes the dems still control the House. Not sure that's a safe bet.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

You can see this a mile away.
the democrats do not want this in the senate. They want to torture the nation and Trump as long as possible. with lies.

narciso said...

the horowitz hearing, that I linked in the other thread, shows this investigation was bupkis, from the getgo,

TreeJoe said...

I work in a communications role in many ways and one of the things I've learned is that you don't lie: to yourself or your audience. You identify your strengths and weaknesses and you play them each up in a way. Acknowledging a weakness builds trust in an audience, for example.

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and other key democrats have pivoted their message so many times because they are trying to message to polls rather than leading. Their recent messaging on how this impeachment isn't political is just an obvious lie. It's therefore a stupid lie. It lessens trust in the speaker while doing nothing positive.

They should have said "Trump is of course our political enemy as he has been for 3 years. And of course we are politically motivated to remove him from office. Our intention had been to do that through normal electoral means in November 2020....but this Ukraine call went way too far and we can no longer allow the president to continue. When a President takes congressionally approved funding and offers it as a bribe to a foreign country in exchange for that country launching a public investigation into a political rival, awaiting an election is no longer the right course of action. The Constitution tells us to impeach in that situation, and that is what we are doing. He is our political enemy, but now he's become America's enemy too."

That would have actually been an appropriate messaging strategy. Instead Pelosi yet again shows why Democrats win representative seats but not executive seats given their current lack-of-leadership essence.

readering said...

I think AA got perfidious wrong on her SAT verbal test.

readering said...

Have to admit, POTUS easily tortured.

rehajm said...

You can see this a mile away. the democrats do not want this in the senate.

Yes- commenters here have been talking about that for weeks. Lefties lose the ability to control the narrative and stonewalling a Senate trial won't be an option. Maybe there's a deal with the GOP for a quick dismissal but what would the GOP get in return? A Republican fail...wouldn't be the first time they screwed up royally...

TwoAndAHalfCents said...

Great point, TreeJoe. My hunch is they were simply too far in when they realized that a bit of honesty would help their argument.

Drago said...

readering: "Have to admit, POTUS easily tortured."

LOL

Once again, the precise opposite is true.

Char Char Binks said...

And now I know my love is not for you.
And so I take it back with a sigh
Perfidious one, goodbye!

rehajm said...

Robert Cook said...
In retrospect, we can look at Obama's campaign slogan and amend it to say:

"We Could Have, But I Didn't."


One thing Peggy Noonan got right is amending Obama's slogan to I Made It Worse.

Stephen said...

If the President's alleged action — pushing Ukraine to investigate Biden solely for his own political advantage — is "perfidious," then the House Democrats' political calculations around impeachment are perfidious.

Provocative, but again, on the basis of the available evidence, a false equivalence.

Perfidious, in this context, means in bad faith, or in violation of trust. Bad faith, however is not shown by evidence that an actor considered the political impact of his or her actions, provided that there is a good faith basis for believing those actions serve a broader public purpose.

Congress is taking action on the basis of a strong and basically uncontested record showing that Trump used public resources to involve a foreign power in slandering his leading political opponent. If that evidence is credited, it is precisely the kind of abuse of power that the framers were concerned about. Thee facts give rise to a serious argument that Trump's removal from office is warranted and in the national interest. A trial is warranted.

Trump purports to have acted on the basis of evidence suggesting that his conduct would serve the national interest. But the witnesses who have testified have been clear that he had no basis for that view. Other public evidence, including fulsome praise for Joe Biden's ethics from folks like McConnell and Graham--praise uttered when the facts about Hunter Biden were already public knowledge--points the same way. Trump himself has refused to produce any of the documents under his control which might prove otherwise, which supports an inference that they would not support his defense. The fact that Giuliani is running around the Ukraine trying to gather proof of good faith many months after the fact, while Trump refuses to produce any thing predating his decision, is telling.

Further proof of the difference between Congressional good faith and Trump's bad faith is the fact that Congress is acting in broad daylight. Conversely, Trump operated in secrecy and when the whistle was blown, he promptly abandoned his scheme.

So the cases are not equivalent--there is a strong basis for believing that impeachment is warranted and that a trial would serve the public interest; there is no similar basis that would justify Trump's actions. And so its hard to sustain the claim that the two sets of actions are equally perfidious, at least without much more of an effort to engage with the evidence.

Kirk Parker said...

Mike Sylwester,

Surely your browser has an incognito mode and/or a way to view the link address before you click on it.

bagoh20 said...

It's like the Democrats are reincarnated founders of the nation, true patriots through and through, soldiering on and sacrificing for the principles of this great nation.

Because that's what they always do.

Seriously, there are people who believe that shit. They swallowed the media telling them for 2 years that Trump was a Russian agent and the dossier was not important to the investigation nor bought and provided by the DNC. They listened over and over and they believed. Now they have no choice but to keep up the charade or admit to being complete fools and suckers. So now they are fools and suckers who are also liars, because at this point, they know the truth.

bagoh20 said...

History shows that few things are as unlikely as the Republicans dragging the Dems over the hot coals of truth via a Senate trial exposing the vile traitors and crooks. They are worthless at bringing anyone to justice. The whole system is incapable. It can accuse and even convict minor nobodies or the innocent, but it never gets it fangs into the real meat of corruption.

bagoh20 said...

Steven, Nearly everything you wrote is bullshit.

Schiff lied openly to the American public for 2 years from a trusted position at the head of the intelligence committee about Trump's aledged guilt. He lied right to your face and to all of us. He had direct involvement with creating and building the complaint from the "whistle-blower". They had no crime in the beginning, the middle, or now at the end, despite changing the charges numerous times when they failed to fit the evidence. They had a target, and they kept throwing charges at him. They didn't have a crime first and then find the culprit. They are still looking for the crime, and they will still be looking for it till 2024

The proof of Trump's supposed latest crime is nothing but opinion based on assumptions that no witness could admit was anything more than that. Who had real evidence? Because they all admitted it was just their opinion. Biden and his family have the money, we have their words and actions that got them that money. There is no alternative explanation for what they got from foreign sources.

Trump has a clear alternative explanation for what he did: it was his job, we have a treaty agreeing to it, it's clearly withing his authority, done all the time, and Biden actually did the deed of using his position to enrich his family. One simple question: Why was Hunter Biden given that money and those gigs in foreign nations? Luck?

The fact that the Democrats have a corrupt candidate does not change the duty, latitude, or authority of the executive branch. In what kind of system do you impeach the guy shining light on corruption so you can give the crook his job?

Stephen said...

bagoh20 writes: Steven, Nearly everything you wrote is bullshit.

bagoh20: I am many things but not a bullshitter. The heart of your argument is that because Hunter Biden took a job that he should not have taken and got for the wrong reasons that Vice President Biden is a crook and Trump's conduct in seeking the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation is just fine.

Short response:

1. Yes, Hunter Biden got that job for the wrong reasons and should not have taken it.

2. No, there is no evidence that this makes Biden a crook. The uncontested evidence to date is that Vice President Biden executed the policy of the US and its allies, without regard to Hunter's interests. If there is proof to the contrary, it lies in the archives of the Executive Branch and the State Department, and is fully available to Trump and his allies in the Republican controlled Senate. Why hasn't Trump made that evidence available?

3. No, getting evidence of Biden's guilt was never Trump's intention. He wanted the Ukraine to announce an investigation, not to actually conduct one. If he had wanted a real investigation of Biden's conduct, and had believed it would yield anything meaningful, he would have relied on US resources, including the massive amount of evidence under his control and his minion Bill Barr. Why didn't Trump go that route?

4. No, a high crime or misdemeanor does not have to be a statute crime. Using public resources and power to gin up a fake investigation in a foreign nation aimed at tarring the reputation of the leading opposition candidate seems to fit pretty well with what the framers had in mind. The notion that people do this all the time is crap. To my knowledge, no one has pointed to any similar past conduct by a sitting President.

5. No, the proof of Trump's misconduct is not based on opinion. The witnesses testified on the basis of personal knowledge, including personal knowledge of the phone call and of other direct communications involving the President. It is also based on admissions, including those by Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney. And it is based on inferences, including notably the inference that is properly drawn from Trump's refusal to produce any evidence in response to subpoenas. Why do you suppose that Trump has refused to produce it?

6. Your comments on Adam Schiff are both incorrect and irrelevant. Schiff did not lie to the American public. He did not run the Mueller investigation. He certainly did not know in advance how it would conclude on the issue of conspiracy. Neither did Mueller or Rosenstein, the Republicans who ran it, or the many Republican Senators who urged its continuation. The non-partisan Inspector General's report found a sufficient basis for the commencement and continuation of the investigation. Why do you reject that finding?

Schiff denies having created the whistleblower's complaint, and the whistleblower's lawyer agrees. You may not believe that, but suppose your suspicion is right. That would not change the fact that Trump dropped his plan in response to news of the whistleblower's complaint. Nor would it change the testimony of the witnesses, or the fact that Trump is refusing to make available to Congress evidence which it is clearly entitled to, and which, if it favored Trump, he would surely be eager to produce.

Enough for now.