Writes Senator Rob Portman in "Why I’m Voting to Acquit President Trump/Impeachment will end in the Senate. It’s time to take up consensus issues" (NYT). Portman is a Republican from Ohio.
The comments over there are very skeptical of Portman's asserted reasons. Example:
Maybe your rationalization helps you sleep at night, Mr. Portman. The only reason this was the only purely partisan impeachment in history is because Republicans refused to do their job, refused to be impartial despite an oath to do so, and declined to allow evidence and witnesses despite overwhelming probably cause to do so....That reminds me... I think the #1 lesson of this impeachment is that there should never be another impeachment without bipartisan support in the House. With the 2/3 majority requirement in the Senate, it was easy to see that the vote to convict would not materialize and that therefore the vote to impeach was for show.
Maybe the show was exciting for House Democrats at one point, but what an awful ordeal for the country, and now here they are complaining that acquittal will further empower the President to do — as the phrase goes — "whatever he wants."
Are you lying about the effect of acquittal now? Are you denying that you foresaw this effect all along? Or do you really believe acquittal empowers the President to do whatever he wants and you knew that would be the end result and you chose to impeach him anyway? All the options are incompetent!
Posts
108 comments:
Dems have been short sighted on this all along. They rush to whatever action they believe will make Trump mad right now, never thinking about longer term consequences -- even, as here, consequences that are harmful to Dems and helpful to Trump. If the action provokes an angry tweet from DJT, then the action is deemed a success.
Incompetent irrelevant and immaterial your honor.
The comments over there are very skeptical of Portman's asserted reasons.
No shit. It's the New York Times. I would expect nothing less from them and their readers.
The real problem is that there was no impeachable offense.
’The only reason this was the only purely partisan impeachment in history is because Republicans refused to do their job...’
There was bipartisan opposition to impeachment in the House.
The only hope for any reasonable governance in Trump's 2nd term is if the Republicans take the House.
TDS seems to cause Democrats to do whatever makes them feel good in the moment without regard to the long term consequences. That is, it seems to make them act like 2-year-olds. I'm sure tearing up Trump's State of the Union speech made Pelosi feel better, but does she think her actions will help elect more Democrats this Fall?
Comments of NYT readers are even less connected to reality than the content of the NYT.
Republicans didn't call witnesses or allow testimony? What does that moron think the House did? Put aside for the moment that the House did its job poorly -- which was entirely the fault of the Dems. There were witnesses, there was testimony, there was investigation. What there wasn't was any evidence of actual wrongdoing by the president. Just partisan vitriol.
Impeachment should be done on a bipartisan basis and only in the case of egregious misconduct.
Clinton, for example, should have been forced to resign by his own party for disgracing the White House and perjury. It was a political error and probably a governing error for the GOP to try to impeach him without significant Democrat support. It was also a political error by the Dems not to push out Clinton. They would have had Al Gore in office for two years, and he probably would have won re-election easily in 2000.
It wasn't that horrible. The sides are so far apart politically it's not like the productive legislation they we're going to do was denied or delayed.
A big meh is what it deserves.
Both legally and politically impeachment was a bad idea. And the Dems are going to be crushed at the polls in November for it.
Funny what short memories Lefties have. How many Democrats voted to impeach Clinton? But this one is "the only purely partisan impeachment in history... because Republicans refused to do their job".
Or as Mamet said, in order to be a liberal,you have to pretend not to know alot of stuff.
Half the country is either having a tantrum or stepping on their own anatomy attempting a coup de bureaucracy. Neither is a good look.
The party isn’t done yet so I can’t use the word culmination.
That Party wants America gone. That Party wants me gone. Since I was a child. Guilty as Sin-Free as a bird-Friend of Obama-kids kill your parents to jumpstart the REVOLUTION Bill Ayers. I remember talking about that on TV when I was in grade school.
Magic Cap John Kerry was a part of all that shit.
Now the hatred is really flowing and they’re finally exposing themselves because it’s safer to do so.
Supporting the party of death. That is what communists are, they haven’t changed, and now the communist party of China just might have a hand in global death.
Jay Sekulow hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that this rush to impeach on unsupported accusation alone was Nancy's trick to control the Senate that the GOP now controls. The reasoned contribution from Professor Dershowitz was crucial in exposing that trick.
Goodby, Alaska!
Portman is another team player. He works for Mitch.
Pelosi isn’t the only one in DC who can make her loyalists wealthy. Plus, Mitch has fewer mouths to feed.
The real problem is that there was no impeachable offense
When you get right down to it, Trump's "offense" was winning. They wanted him gonzo from day one.
The Senate didn't stop random impeachments, just proved that you want to control the Senate as well as the House to make it work.
Otherwise all restraints are off now.
The real news out of Iowa is the very low turnout for the Democrat side. And it will get worse.
I think there is a very good ad from last night.
Youth unemployment down.
African American employment up.
Wages are up.
Hispanic employment up.
...
rip
...
The Democrats in Congress really don't like you doing well, and will do everything in their power to stop it.
The problem for Democrats is that all their fuss and bother is about them. The fight of their life is within the party over it's direction. They are climbing all over each other to get a nod from MSNBC and CNN, which almost no one watches. They get insulted by Trump and the little scratch becomes the defining issue of the century.
Lot of people won't vote for Trump or the Republicans. But come time they simply will stay home.
My prediction. When Trump gets 35-40% of the african american vote in a low turnout election, some Democrat will use the N word. It might even be Pelosi.
As often noted by right thinking people here, the only bipartisan votes in this whole process were against impeachment and for witnesses. The final acquittal will also be bipartisan but the NYT and lefty’s here and their LLR enablers will all continue to ignore the bipartisanship right in front of them. Like tearing up a speech it is not a good look and voters are paying attention.
Ann, you are absolutely correct when you said "I think the #1 lesson of this impeachment is that there should never be another impeachment without bipartisan support in the House."
The structure of an impeachment inquiry in the house needs to be revamped. If and when Repubs can take over the house, this would be a good thing. For both parties. Or...as may be the case soon, for all 3 parties.
Because if you think Bernie will not be on the docket for impeachment...
lol, Obama allowed the invasion of Ukraine, trump provided weapons to it, not #hashtags,
The Senate didn’t expel Bob Menendez either.
It’s a club. There are rules.
"...here they are complaining that acquittal will further empower the President to do — as the phrase goes — "whatever he wants."
Another lie by serial liar Adam Schiff and his crew. Trump WANTED to repeal Obamacare, but McCain voted against it, and the effort failed. Trump WANTED to build the wall, but 37 different lawsuits slowed down the process.
He does not do "whatever he wants." He is checked, lawfully, by Congress and the Courts. That's how our Constitutional Republic works. Calling him a "Fascist" means you're an idiot.
True, he often "says" whatever he wants on Twitter, but so what, don't read it.
There was never a lesson to learn, really. Impeachment is a very serious matter and has to be handled in a very serious way. What we have seen from the Democrats in the House is, frankly, ridiculous. The "star" witnesses had no direct knowledge of the issues at hand and were mainly complaining that Trump ignored them, one witness gave an absolutely surreal testimony and then questioned the next witness, one of the lead representatives lied about what Trump said and then later claimed it was "parody," they voted for impeachment and then sat on it for a month then when they brought it to the Senate they insisted that the Senate wait for more witnesses and evidence that they refused to wait for, and in the closing arguments we heard, in all seriousness, that Trump was going to give Alaska to the Russians.
These are not the sorts of people who learn lessons or learn anything. These are the sorts of people who end up in positions of power just before everything goes badly.
If regular everyday situations were conducted the same way as the House "impeachment" investigation and trial were conducted, what kind of world would we be living in?
The only reason this was the only purely partisan impeachment in history is because Republicans refused to do their job, refused to be impartial despite an oath to do so, and declined to allow evidence and witnesses despite overwhelming probably cause to do so
I don't know if this commenter is being dishonest or is simply dense. They seem to be able to string a series of coherent sentences together, so I'm opting for the former. What "probably" cause is there to continue this circus? Rumors and hearsay from leaks of passages from a book by a disgruntled former underling? Good grief, why do we have to constantly entertain the delusions and fantasies of the permanently unhappy? And for what, TV ratings? This has been going on for almost 4 years straight for crying out loud. If the collective left spent even a fraction of the energy that they have dedicated to removing this president on something actually productive and worthwhile who knows how much better off we'd all be?
Cocaine Mitch will dispose of this impeachment farce, and, if the Dems have any sanity, they will restrain themselves from trying it again.
"We need to impeach him or he will be re-elected!"
"With the 2/3 majority requirement in the Senate, it was easy to see that the vote to convict would not materialize...."
They only have to catch fire with something for a moment, then they can stampede the other side to do what they want. Any attack is justified, because it might theoretically lead to that spark. Only conciliation is to be discouraged.
I looked at the missing handshake. I don't think Trump saw it. He was already turning back to face the crowd, and he didn't shake hands with Pence.
Portman called the House Articles “half baked.” Well now, they are going to get fully baked. More subpoenas; more litigation of those subpoenas. More disclosures from ongoing FOIAs. Appellate litigation of Trump’s claims of privileges and exceptions. More hearings.
Aimed not only at embarrassing Trump, but also every Republican who voted against the witnesses who will slowly but surely be exposed.
Browndog said...
"The Senate obstructed justice."
You know you're going to hear it before the day is out.
I imagine that it would take far less than Trump giving Alaska to Putin to result in a bipartisan impeachment.
I don't believe that the anti-Trump Left realizes that they are insane.
The real danger is the House has so politicized impeachment that it will no longer be something to fear.
They made an impeachment out of virtually nothing, because the far left base wanted it so badly. Maybe this will just be something we do now.
As for Trump....he didn't do anything new to try to fight Congress on this. They fought subpoenas in the courts, as every other president has done.
More subpoenas; more litigation of those subpoenas. More disclosures from ongoing FOIAs. Appellate litigation of Trump’s claims of privileges and exceptions. More hearings.
And for what?
’Aimed not only at embarrassing Trump, but also every Republican who voted against the witnesses who will slowly but surely be exposed.’
You go, girl!!
When all your media idols are encouraging and validating your derangement, it's easy to lose your grip on common sense.
The Senate didn’t expel Bob Menendez either.
The TV camera zoomed in on him when Trump talked about exposing prices in healthcare.
Menendez made his money getting paid by an ophthalmologist in Miami who charges huge prices for treatment of macular degeneration. The TV producer seems to have known that.
Blogger Francisco D said...
If regular everyday situations were conducted the same way as the House "impeachment" investigation and trial were conducted, what kind of world would we be living in?
If all of government operated the way that the Trump Administration did, we’d have no effective FOIA, no oversight, no disclosure, no accountability.
Good points by Portman. They're having one been 2 impeached Presidents. Both committed crimes. Both had bi-partisan support. This one should have been dismissed out of the box, it was so absurd, vague, and partisan. Instead the Rino_sisters, mitt, and Lamar forced a trial which proved nothing and wasted everyone's time.
Portman called the House Articles “half baked.” Well now, they are going to get fully baked. More subpoenas; more litigation of those subpoenas. More disclosures from ongoing FOIAs. Appellate litigation of Trump’s claims of privileges and exceptions. More hearings.
Aimed not only at embarrassing Trump, but also every Republican who voted against the witnesses who will slowly but surely be exposed.
And this is the kind of simple thinking that will guarantee a Trump win next November.
Bob Menendez is a crook, who got off on some technicality. Of course, the D party supported him 100% and later nominated him for Senate. No crime will ever get you barred from the D party. If you are useful to them. Morality is for Republicans.
When the R's controlled Congress, Gowdy and Ryan didn't want to do nothin' about nothin'. Just "reach across the aisle".
The minute Pelosi takes over its no-stop attacks on the R's - 24/7.
I can’t find it now, but someone had a photoshopped picture of Schiff with the caption along the lines of “we are impeaching you because you won’t cooperate in our attempts to frame you.” Pretty accurate.
The D's have no mavericks. They ones that don't toe the party line are told to get lost. The R's cherish theirs. You'd be forgiven for thinking Collins, Mittens, and Murkowski were running the Senate trial.
Angelo Codevilla finally gets there. He eviserates John Roberts.
I was struck at the low intelligence and overall weirdness of the House managers of impeachment. some of them were clearly out of their league in terms of public speaking.
Gee. Lil' Chuckles sure does not sound like a LLR today. He sounds like a Life Long Leftist (LLL).
Does that mean he has been lying to us all this time?
And the topper is Trump is not going to be humble or even the least bit contrite after this ordeal. Well I NEVER!
The democrats will try to pull something before the gavel strikes ending impeachment this afternoon, don't they?
I mean, that's who they are, and what they do.
The Snake
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
More subpoenas; more litigation of those subpoenas. More disclosures from ongoing FOIAs. Appellate litigation of Trump’s claims of privileges and exceptions. More hearings.
And for what?
To expose the truth.
To put out a national warning about the Current Occupant.
To expose the truth.
To embarrass vulnerable Republicans who blocked a meaningful trial.
To expose the truth.
To hurt Devin Nunes in every way that public disclosures can hurt a member of congress.
To investigate whether Pat Cipplone should be subject to bar discipline.
To see if further articles of impeachment need to be brought.
To expose the truth.
It was Republicans who insisted Nancy send the articles over to the Senate for trial (acquittal). Maybe the House should be allowed to hold onto their articles when they don’t think they can garner two-thirds in the Senate. Would that be less awful for you?
It is a question of what standard a President should be held too. The result of the Clinton and Trump impeachment acquittals is that the standard of conduct expected of a President has been set fairly low. Those of us who think both should have been removed from office have not been proved wrong by the partisan votes on these two impeachments. And refraining from impeaching Trump would hardly have left the standard of conduct at a higher level.
Now it won’t be fair to remove a President for lying under oath or an egregious abuse of power, as they are not on notice that such conduct could be judged a high crime or misdemeanor. But if that’s the standard that the American people want, don’t you see that the Democrats and the Republicans each have to have a partisan impeachment in order to establish the Constitutional principle? One was not enough. It was useful that the Republican side was forced to admit that the Democratic Senators were right on the Clinton impeachment.
That said, there is clearly another developing idea that the House can impeach and the Senate acquit, and the fact of impeachment still serves as a official rebuke of the President. But the process has to be awful for the President for it to have a deterrent effect. Presidents should want to avoid getting impeached.
I was fully prepare for actual evidence, as opposed to presumptions and accusations, to show Trump may have done impeachable things.
Those that agree with Democrats simply cannot fathom that the case is weak and the prosecutors are lying about the actual evidence.
The refusal to openly name the main "whistleblower" is simply a non-starter with me. Using secret witnesses to indict your opposition is what totalitarians do. Same with using intelligence services to fabricate evidence and lie to get warrants to spy on your opponents. Anyone who is cool with that cannot be trusted to wield power.
’To expose the truth.’
I agree that we need Eric Ciaramella under oath.
Why haven't we heard from MIttens? Is he grandstanding, or are they going by seniority?
If we’re not impeaching presidents over illegal wars that kill women and children, I don’t think we should impeach the president over a phone call that may or may have been referring to a legitimate corruption concern.
Can’t wait to find out what Rudy digs up next.
Left Bank of the Charles: "It was Republicans who insisted Nancy send the articles over to the Senate for trial (acquittal). Maybe the House should be allowed to hold onto their articles when they don’t think they can garner two-thirds in the Senate. Would that be less awful for you?"
LOLOLOLOLOL
McConnell repeatedly said he was perfectly okay with the dems holding onto the impeachment articles forever and never sending them to the Senate.
This is from Dec 19, The Hill:
"“It’s beyond me how the Speaker and Democratic leader in the Senate think withholding the articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage,” McConnell told reporters after criticizing the House impeachment effort in a lengthy floor speech.
“Frankly, I’m not anxious to have the trial. If she thinks her case is so weak she doesn’t want to send it over, throw me into that briar patch,” McConnell added."
Left Bank, its never a good idea to go Full Far Left Lunatic Moron LLR-lefty Chuck-mode.
The D's NEVER had a case. Trump broke no law. They were upset Trump tried to delay Ukraine aid for a couple weeks to put pressure on Ukraine. SO what? If you're not Ukrainian who gives a fuck?
This was such a nothing burger. Its why most people found the whole "Trial" such a fucking bore. Its also why we didn't need to hear from Bolton. But all the D's (except maybe fake moderate Joe) will vote to convict. Voting in lockstep, just like they did in '98 when they all voted CLinton not guilty.
Mitch McConnell is better at The Game than Pelosi.
Its not the job of the Senate to call witnesses to support the articles of impeachment. The only reason to call witnesses is to provide information the Senators require to clarify their understanding of the facts and reach a decision. As proven by their votes, NO witness could have said ANYTHING that would have changed a single D vote. They were all going to vote Trump Guilty - no matter what. Yet they all demanded witnesses. Obviously, their desire to prolong the trial had ZERO to do with needing more facts.
The impeachment served as an unprecedented cover-up of progressive corruption in the last administration, the present congress, the journolistic press, and a persistent bureaucracy that, in theory, acts as a smoothing function, but instead indulged in liberal license for their own special, peculiar, and politically congruent causes.
—Morality is for Republicans.—
No. Morality is to be used against Republicans. Red Diaper Baby Buttigieg is the latest in the line to pull that tsk tsk crap.
You have to have the ability to adjust your plans on the fly. The real mistake was made the very day Trump released the transcript of the call. That morning, the news was all over the Trump/Zelenskii phone call with rumors and lies about what was in it, and Pelosi scheduled a press conference knowing Trump had announced the transcript would be released. Rather than wait for the transcript, Pelosi decided to announce the impeachment inquiry first. The rest, as they say, is history.
Of course, Pelosi had chances afterward to end this sham impeachment- she could have bailed out before Thanksgiving with a censure resolution- she might have even gotten a handful of Republicans to vote for that- but, no, she decided to impeach in early October, and she wasn't going to back down off the ledge.
You've lost the plot, Chuck.
They couldn't even demonstrate probable cause, but rather indulged liberal license, and inferred from suspicions without foundation, and, worse, cover-ups of known quid pro Joes and Bos. The multitrimester witch hunts and warlock trials further undermined their credibility, and the fact that they persisted from before birth ("inauguration"), all the way to conception ("announcement"), was purely deplorable. The climax with Pelosi's temper tantrum was a poetic conclusion to a process that strutted and fretted its hour upon the stage and represented nothing (h/t Shakespeare).
"...but what an awful ordeal for the country."
For the Talking Heads on the losing side maybe. The Peasants I know hardly gave it a passing thought. There were other things on TV.
It's like the Chick-fil-a cows are running the House.
THIS IS A SUPPEEENA GIV ME YUR BANK INFO OR ELS YUR IN CONTEMT OF CONGRISS!!
The pall of failure is hanging over the democrats now. My liberal friends are now directing their anger towards Pelosi for gross impeachment mismanagement on what should have been an easy "slam dunk" in their minds. (I shit you not!) This coming on the heels of the debacle in Iowa, is beginning to tarnish the branding of the party as complete losers. What do they do with themselves now?
If the Democrats were interested in the truth, they'd allow all witnesses.
Political show trials aren't about the truth.
Just heard on the radio that Romney and Doug Jones are going to vote to convict.
rcocean: "They were upset Trump tried to delay Ukraine aid for a couple weeks to put pressure on Ukraine."
Incorrect.
The dems needed a replacement reason to launch into their already established impeachment pipeline after the Mueller frame up was shut down by Barr.
The clearly purposely configured abuse of power rationale and theory, manufactured by Lawfare and the dems, was the mechanism chosen in desperation to use as the weapon to remove Trump now since the dem candidate field is pathetic.
There has been discussion that Biden's entry into the race was itself part of this ploy since the dems needed the subject of the needed Ukrainian investigation to be an actual candidate to further the narrative of Trump corruption.
There has also been discussion that now, after Biden has been exposed anyway and sham-peachment has failed and Biden is an astoundingly weak candidate, the dems would simply cut him loose and insert a different establishment "moderate" to take his place.
Events and dem/lefty/LLR-lefty commentary over the last several days certainly fits that fact pattern, but who knows?
In any event Biden is sinking like the rock that he is.
Browndog: "Just heard on the radio that Romney and Doug Jones are going to vote to convict."
Of course Romney is going to vote to convict.
That is precisely why he ran for the Senate seat to begin with.
All as predicted long ago.
And Doug Jones is going to lose no matter how he votes here, so naturally he will stick with the dems on this.
Again, as predicted long ago.
Romney needs to stripped of any committee assignments and kicked out of the republican caucus. Fuck him. He's dead to me.
Of course Romney is going to vote to convict.
I didn't think he would in the end.
Makes me want to cut off my arm that held the hand that checked the box giving him my vote.
I really don't understand Romney.
"what an awful ordeal for the country"
And still Althouse says she hasn't made up her mind about whom she'll vote for, still she appears to be waiting to "see what happens."
Romney types think Conservative means conserving the status quo.
Romney was always going to vote to convict- the charges' weakness or strength never mattered. He only ran for the Senate because he wanted to be the Republican who got to march over to the White House to tell Trump he had to resign or face conviction in the Senate in his impeachment for the Russian Collusion investigation. I mean, this should have been obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature in Celsius. The man hols a grudge against Trump for having the audacity to win the presidency after Romney played Chuck for the Republican Party all through 2015 and 2016.
I wouldn't kick him out of the caucus, but I think it likely he will switch parties anyway. He isn't going to run again in 2024, so he will switch parties while proclaiming, "From Hell's heart I stab at thee!"
Dr. Althouse: Are you lying about the effect of acquittal now? Are you denying that you foresaw this effect all along? Or do you really believe acquittal empowers the President to do whatever he wants and you knew that would be the end result and you chose to impeach him anyway? All the options are incompetent!
The single most depressing aspect of politics is how often the answer to the age-old question "Knave or fool?" is "Embrace the healing power of 'and.'"
"I really don't understand Romney""
He is petty in all the wrong ways. Like Chuck did here in the comments threads, Romney spent all his political capital in 2015 and 2016 warning the Republican voters that a vote for Trump guaranteed an electoral disaster in the 2016 election. Romney planned to spend all of 2017 and 2018 going on his "I told you so" concert tour. Being denied that opportunity of rubbing Trump's voters' noses in their defeat hurt Romney badly, just like it did Chuck. Like Chuck, Romney then redirected his attacks on Trump's supporters to the Russian Collusion Hoax, promising anyone that listened that it was only a matter of time before Trump resigned due to the investigation. This induced Romney to run for a safe Senate seat in Utah- just so he could lead the impeachment of Trump in the Senate. This has now failed through two different hoaxes. All Romney has left at this point is to switch parties, just like Bill Kristol did this past weekend.
LBotC: It was Republicans who insisted Nancy send the articles over to the Senate for trial (acquittal). Maybe the House should be allowed to hold onto their articles when they don’t think they can garner two-thirds in the Senate. Would that be less awful for you?
Very imaginative recollection of the course of events you have there.
The impression of sharp psychotic-break running through current Dem and Dem-defending public discourse is fascinating stuff. But guys, coming across to voters like one of those unfortunate brain-damaged fabulists in an Oliver Sack's anthology is not a winning strategy. Just sayin'.
Just to make the point- I guarantee you that Mitch McConnell doesn't like Trump at all, and this feeling is surely not uncommon in the Republican caucus in the Senate. However, all but Romney seem to be able to put their personal animus to the side for their own political benefit. To doubly make the point, I will remind people that Bill Clinton was not particularly popular with the Democrats in the Senate during the 1998-99 impeachment investigation and trial- Clinton had decided to cooperate to a great extent with the Republicans who had won control of Congress in 1994. However, the Democrats didn't let that distaste for Clinton cause them act against their own self-interest.
"He isn't going to run again in 2024,"
I hadn't heard that. Do we know this? Or is it speculation?
Phil, he will be 77 years old in 2024, and the Senate isn't a place where people of Romney's personality really want to be in the first place. Governor is more the kind of office he would lean towards- the Senate is just a bad fit for him and always was.
For Romney's type of politician, the Senate is viewed as a stepping stone up, which is kind of hilarious given how few Senators have made the step up to president.
I see Doug Jones is trending No.1 on twitter.
I didn't think that many people cared.
Maybe Romney will just retire and have the governor appoint his replacement? I agree with Yancy, Mittens planned to be the Goldwater of the senate to meet with Trump and tell him it was all over. Now what does this Quisling do? He's a junior senator making a punk gesture and Trump is not going anywhere.
It's always funny to see the ass covering over something that was a fait accompli.
Really hard to take these arguments about impeachment seriously after the Clinton impeachment.
Are you lying about the effect of acquittal now? Are you denying that you foresaw this effect all along? Or do you really believe acquittal empowers the President to do whatever he wants and you knew that would be the end result and you chose to impeach him anyway? All the options are incompetent!
The sad thing is, the Democrat politicians aren't incompetent. but their base is insane.
Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, because she knew it would blow up in the Democrats faces. But, to obtain recent victories, and because their emotionally fragile and injured base demanded it, the Democrats have been pushing a lot of BS about Trump. The end result being that, once they got control of the House, they had no real option other than to impeach Trump for winning the 2016 election.
So they did.
Because, they're riding a tiger, and they can't get off.
Now, you could argue that they're incompetent, for getting on the tiger in the first place. There I would disagree with you.
The are power mad, corrupt, and evil, which is why they're Left wing politicians, pushing policies that never make the world a better place for anyone but the connected. Which is why they want to be "the connected."
That's wrong of them, but it's not incompetent
Congress impeached its integrity.
Nothing is real.
Congress impeached its integrity.
Nothing is real.
According to the Twilight Amendment, everyone has a right to define the mystery and nuance of reality. And so they established the Pro-Choioe religion, not limited to selective and cannibalized/recycled-child (a.k.a. "Planned Parenthood"), but inclusive of other selective, opportunistic, politically congruent interests and constructs.
Did acquitting Clinton mean that every president after that could do whatever he wanted?
I would say no, but it led to another impeachment quickly. Remember back when you couldn't be on the Supreme Court if you admitted to once smoking weed? And then it became no big deal and you could be President if you admitted to smoking a lot of weed and occasional coke? That's what impeaching like this will do to impeachment. Just a thing you do for political reasons and everyone understands it has no meaning anymore.
Purpose of Impeachment:
To expose the truth.
To put out a national warning about the Current Occupant.
To expose the truth.
To embarrass vulnerable Republicans who blocked a meaningful trial.
To expose the truth.
You want the answers?
I think I'm entitled to them
You want ANSWERS?
I want the TRUTH?
[Everybody -- YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!]
Here is a coincidence. On July 24, Bob Mueller testified in the House, where he showed himself to be relatively senile, and almost assuredly not in charge of his SC investigation. By that evening, it was clear that the House Dems couldn’t directly use anything from his investigation in the pending impeachment, as well as that Judiciary Chairman Wadler was too incompetent to run an impeachment. That meant that HPSCI chair Schifty would have to run the impeachment, and that meant that the IC would have to be involved, because that is where he has Oversight Authority. The next day, on July 25, President Trump had his infamous phone call with the Ukrainian President, and a number of IC employees, temporarily assigned to the NSC, were listening in on the call. Was this coincidence, or causation?
One of my questions is whether there was a competition between Schifty and the other committee chairs for the impeachment, after Wadler so beclowned himself on July 24, whether Palsi just told Schifty it was his, or whether Schifty realized that this was his big chance, ran with it, and presented Palsi with a fleshed out impeachment investigation in late August or early September, ready to go. That would be my guess. Schifty is ambitious enough to want to run an impeachment, and bright (and unscrupulous) enough to pull one together in short order to get the whole thing done before the end of the year.
One theory is that in late July, after Nadler had beclowned himself running the Mueller hearing, Schifty’s staffers, several having been hired specifically for the possibility of an impeachment, were brainstorming how to put together an impeachment within the limitations of Schifty’s Oversight authority being limited to the IC. Several had previously been NSC staffers forwarded from the CIA, and I think that they realized that was their most likely avenue to fabricating a plausible impeachment. And one of them mentioned that Eric (Ciaramella) had just mentioned having heard about Trump talking to the Ukranian President from one of his old NSC buddies. Ciaramella probably wouldn’t have thought anything about the call, except that mention had been made of investigating Slo Joe Biden (and his surviving son, Hunter), And Ciaramella owed a lot of loyalty to Biden for his bureaucratic success. I think that initially it was more Ciaramella trying to protect his mentor, than that Biden was running for President. That came later, when Schifty and his staff fabricated the impeachment story. Schifty’s staff may have reached out to Ciaramella, or they may all have been part of the same grapevine of #Resistance NSC staffers and former staffers, Who talk frequently on the phone, drink together, etc.
And I think that this is why Schifty worked so hard to keep Ciaramella‘s name secret, and didn’t submit the transcript of his 18th witness, that of IC IG Atkinson, to the Senate, because I think it likely that Atkinson knew at least some, if not most, of the backstory.
What is going to be very interesting is that some Republican Senators have indicated that they will have hearings in order to query both of them, Ciaramella and Atkinson. And if they do, it will likely be in late spring, just in time for the Presidential election to go into full swing.
Both legally and politically impeachment was a bad idea. And the Dems are going to be crushed at the polls in November for it.
That's not what a certain political expert on these pages thinks. In fact, the 2018 election is going to look good for Trump compared to what's coming this November.
Referendum!!!!!
Really hard to take these arguments about impeachment seriously after the Clinton impeachment.
Clinton committed actual crimes. Trump has not.
You really need to take a break today. Go outside and rip up some paper. Ease your mind.
Three impeachments. Romney will be the first to vote to convict president of his own party. That's not nothing.
When the House impeaches Mr Trump again in six or eight weeks, will the Senate vote to dismiss the impeachment out of hand, as I saw folks suggest might happen this time? I never quite understood how the Senate was supposed to be able to do that but the next times I'm pretty sure it'll be justified, if it can be done.
It's time for a constitutional amendment specifying in crystal clear terms what may and may not be considered as impeachable offenses, and requiring a 2/3 vote of the House to advance articles to the Senate.
Does anyone think impeachment would have ever gotten out of the house if the media wasn't completely a tool of the DNC? I have scoured the interwebs and watched a few of the typical sunday shows and never saw any substantial pushback on Schiff or Nadler for glarying problems with their impeachment case. Impeachment will become the rare creature it once was once the prevailing media is bankrupt and scattered to the 4 winds.
Readering said...
Romney will be the first to vote to convict president of his own party.
Not so
Mitt belongs to the Party of Mitt, not the Republican Party
Post a Comment