11 thoughts on “Impeachment”

  1. The other day I saw a poll that said a slight majority of Americans are in favor of impeachment. I wondered what that really measures because I’m wildly in favor of impeachment because it’s going to assure Trump’s re-election and probably hand the House back to the Republicans. Heck, most of the people favoring impeachment might be hard core Republicans who the Democrats to smoke an exploding cigar.

  2. A Republican Senate will not convict Trump, so it’s pointless. But a Senate trial will bring out all the political garbage both sides can muster. Biden also has a lot to lose in an impeachment trial.
    I believe it was Guiliani who convinced Trump to get the transcript out there ASAP to deflate any potential conspiracy/cover-up theories. Of course some will claim the transcript is phony, but without clear evidence, they will be marginalized. This is looking more and more like a political coup designed to kill off the only moderate Democratic front runner leaving the electorate a choice next November of either Trump or a radical left agenda. It’s a bold ploy by the Republicans. But maybe Trump forced their hand? His recidivist impudence as political brass if not gold?

  3. The Democrats called an Impeachment Inquiry, then recessed for two weeks.

    This is about fundraising and nothing more.

    1. There was Watergate, where persons in question did something illegal to investigate the Democrats to the partisan-political benefit of President Nixon’s reelection campaign?

      So now it is impeachable, to do something legal, namely, to enlist Ukrainian Leader Guy, a foreign ally, by whatever legal means a president has to persuade leaders of a foreign power to cooperate with a U.S. president, to investigate a Democrat because it could help President Trump’s reelection campaign.

      Is this one of these purity-of-his-heart legal tests? President Trump’s Day One immigration ban was perfectly within Executive Powers as delegated by an Act of Congress, but Mr. Trump had an impure motive of rejecting immigrants based on their religion, purportedly supported by statements he made in is election campaign, making the Executive Order illegal? Or until he was able to get Mitch McConnell to nuke part of the filibuster and get two justices on the Supreme Court, that later ruled the order was legal after all?

      Does this mean that Congress will have a Ring camera installed in the Oval Office to pipe in a feed of every phone call made by the president to a foreign leader, and that a House Committee will rule on whether the president asked a favor of a foreign leader for legitimate public purposes or instead for venal, corrupt purposes of reelection?

      1. I am beginning to think asking about the quid for the pro quo is stoopid.

        What got Mr. Nixon in trouble over Watergate, which also got Mr. Clinton in trouble over the Paula Jones civil case, was offering potential witnesses cash money (Nixon) or a preferential job placement (Clinton’s friend Vernon Jordan attempting to bribe Monica Lewinsky with a job at Revlon). In other words, witness tampering.

        I guess with Watergate, the burglars didn’t have a direct connection implicating Mr. Nixon, or at least that we know about, and the effort to pay off the burglars after they were caught with reelection campaign money had some tenuous link, but Mr. Nixon was caught on the “smoking gun” tape talking about wanting to talk to the FBI director to “back off” investigating the payoff link?

        Influencing leaders of a foreign government through offering aid or withholding aid within powers held by the Executive as authorized by Congress is perfectly legal, isn’t it? I hear Joe Biden’s son Hunter is a “colorful” person, but Vice President Joe Biden didn’t violate the law trying to influence Ukraine, either? There weren’t any back-door private-money cash payments to anyone?

        Suppose there was no quid? A U.S. president (or vice president) has considerable prestige and influence with any foreign leader, friend or not so friendly, by the power of their office along with the vast power of the U.S. to apply economic as well as military pressure throughout the world. If a president or vice president asks anything of a foreign leader, their doesn’t need to be a (legal) statement of such power because it is always implied?

        I mean, President Trump using quiet diplomacy with Mexico and Central American countries to offer “third-country refuge” to take pressure off our southern border, isn’t that something advancing his reelection campaign, that he fulfilled his “Build the Wall” promise by building a virtual wall of international cooperation on persons wanting to enter the U.S.?

        OK, this is “different” because Joe Biden is a presidential candidate and Donald Trump was using the power of his office to “get dirt” on a direct political rival. This is “unprecedented” and “unheard” of in American history and political tradition — citation please?

        So does choosing to run for president give Mr. Biden a kind of immunity, say, like the immunity Mr. Trump was never offered for his alleged prior corrupt, criminal acts or offenses against good taste when running for president?

        Or that was OK because then President Obama was not on record directing the release of the Access Hollywood tapes?

  4. “The Democrats have been tearing America apart for some time.”

    Some time, is actually forever.
    One should keep in mind that Dem want to tear the country apart.
    But they want to tear it apart, in order to win, and it is less unifying among Dems if losing is involved.
    Or there some dem who simply
    want to tear the country apart {because America is evil} but not
    many of them. But the few, can be big problem for the Dem; because even a fake Impeachment {and that is the plan} will empower the hard left {America is Evil of the world} idiots.

    It might reasonable plan if whole idea is get rid of the hard Left in the Dem party. If Dems just want to get rid of the “glasses of water with “D” on it {or dead weight} within certain voting districts, this fake impeachment, could even make these clowns lose an election.

    1. A failed impeachment will energize Republicans while demoralizing Democrats. A successful impeachment will turn the heat up a few notches in the cold civil war. If Trump was actually to be deposed, that cold civil war would probably boil over.

      I just don’t see any way in which it can help the Democrats.

      1. –Edward M. Grant
        September 29, 2019 At 8:32 PM
        A failed impeachment will energize Republicans while demoralizing Democrats. A successful impeachment will turn the heat up a few notches in the cold civil war. If Trump was actually to be deposed, that cold civil war would probably boil over.–

        If Trump deposed, Pence becomes President. Trump can campaign for Pence.
        Trump is unshackled, he becomes THE OUTSIDER who can **effectively** run and is president, forever {if his lifetime can be extended}.
        Dems worst nightmare.
        They can’t control Trump. The people control this country.
        Rep have all the guns. Lefties are gunless minority- which are also stupid enough to want the Green New Deal.
        So, with Trump they have to beat him in an election- or he stays forever.
        But of course the Senate will not vote to remove Trump, and all Dem doing is proving that Trump is the true, Outsider.
        The guy that the public voted for.

        Also Trump is currently on fire, he is stronger and smarter than he ever was, the Dem are feeding him energy- he might live forever, simply from this energy.
        All praise the Destructor!!
        And we will NEVER get tired of winning!!

  5. If you want impeachment, find a quid for the pro quo.

    That’s why you elect a billionaire to the office. The quid bar is too high. Therefore one would hope the pro quo is honestus.

  6. TheSchiff/Pelosi coup unravels bit by bit every day.

    We are very lucky that the Democrat conspiracists are TERRIBLE criminals.

Comments are closed.