Pathetic (With February 6 Addendum)

Demagoguery:

SUPERCUT!

Trump's inevitable acquittal is not going over well pic.twitter.com/Ut7LnKkTYp

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 31, 2020

"Metric tons of our viewers"? Sheesh.

ADDENDUM (hat tip to Franco Aragosta):

Read and watch: Nadler Nearly Runs Over Schiff Trying to Get to the Podium for Last Impeachment Question.

Impeachment Wrap-up

Silverfiddle Rant!

Well folks, it's all over but the pussyhat screaming.  The Democrat impeachment scheme has collapsed.  Time to move on.  The "Crime" was in plain sight and agreed upon by all, including the suspect.

President Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Burisma and the Bidens' role in its known corruption.  "...for purposes of foreign influence in the 2020 election" was always a tacked-on, ridiculously unprovable assertion.

(Many believe this was actually about the 2016 election)

Democrat strategerists robed their partisan attacks in the gravity of decades-old impeachment tropes that just don't resonate anymore.  They larded their hyperbolic attacks with adjectives, adverbs and histrionic outrage in an attempt to drive voters to demand President Trump's ouster.  They failed. Bigly.  And this bodes ill for Democrats in Election 2020.  The President's approval ratings have risen, and its pretty much a tie ballgame on impeachment, trending against impeachment and removal.

Senator Lamar Alexander provided some timely candor:

“There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander said in a statement, arguing that while Trump had taken “actions that are inappropriate,” they did not merit his removal from office." 

 Senator Murkowski of Alaska summed it up nicely:

"The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.

"Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.

[…]

"We are sadly at a low point of division in this country.

Finally, Jeremy Lott offers reasons why America yawned at this partisan circus...

The idea that the president is being impeached because of a temporary delay of U.S. aid to the government of Ukraine is literally too distant an issue to rile up many people.

Furthermore, to the extent that Americans are following the details of these foreign dealings and think Trump did something improper here, there’s little to suggest they see it as far outside of normal Washington corruption. The charge is that he tried to game the system to get a foreign government to look into … another American politician’s alleged corrupt gaming of the system in a foreign country.

What say you?

Related: Top 8 Reasons Trump Already Won Impeachment

Humor Break

Hat tip to Powerline Blog:

I love Politizoid's take on this impeachment pageant:

More Politizoid HERE.

And one more video, for good measure:

Did You Watch The Engrossment Ceremony?

I did, cringed, and came to some of the same conclusions as Greg Gutfeld ("like spackling a turd with gold paint"):

Peach Mints

Silverfiddle Rant!

What do you think?

A Beautiful, Perfect Letter

Silverfiddle Rant!

President Trump's letter to Speaker Pelosi was a work of rhetorical beauty.  It cogently and comprehensively hit all the notes in the Democrats' discordant three-year Opera of the Grotesque.

The letter is a thing of beauty, professionally stated but still in the President's own voice.  Clearly, this was not fired off, tweet-like while sitting on the toilet.  Some professional staff work went into it.

This on the heels of IG Horowitz's stinging rebuke of FBI procedures, and Comey's admission that he was wrong and "there was real sloppiness." It vindicated Rep Nunes and shows Adam Schiff to be a liar. Mr. Horowitz confirmed significant FISA abuse and concluded the salacious and unverified dossier played a “central and essential role” in the bureau’s decision to seek a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Now comes Senate Leader McConnell rightly telling Democrats the Senate impeachment trial will not be turned into an ad hoc fishing expedition.  The Senate will try the case as the Democrats bring it to them.

The Democrat ship is sinking... and it's on fire... in shark-infested waters. My Prediction: Democrats will do what they always do when caught with their pants down:  They will scream louder into their media megaphone.

Please go read the letter and tell us what you think.

The Bombshell That Wasn't

Spot on!

Yet, we have this above-the-fold banner headline in today's Washington Post:

"Diplomat acknowledges 'quid pro quo'." Pffffft (short video)!

By way of review (spew alert):

Dear members of the media, if you want to understand why no one cares about impeachment and minds are not being changed, watch this and understand. pic.twitter.com/TmMKLddr0k

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) November 21, 2019

Ludicrosity rules the day.

Meanwhile, Trump is remaking the federal judiciary system.

"IMPEACH! IMPEACH!" (With Addendum)

But why?

Here's the reason...

The Disturbing Reason Why the Dems Really Want to Impeach Trump: Why they want to impeach even if it means losing in 2020 by Daniel Greenfield (aka Sultan Knish). One paragraph therefrom:

Lefties have made it very clear that they would rather, practically or symbolically, reverse the results of the 2016 election than focus on winning in 2020 because of the larger principle at stake. The second part of the principle appears in every media piece pushing impeachment. It hinges on President Trump’s alleged unfitness for office. The first part of the principle is the unfitness of the voters to choose leaders.

ADDENDUM

From Adam Schiff should be forced to take oath before every hearing:

For three years now, Democrats have threatened to impeach President Trump for not taking seriously enough the efforts by foreign governments to meddle in our 2016 elections.

Then evidence surfaces revealing Mr. Trump’s earnest effort to confront a foreign government and pressure them to investigate and turn over information about their meddling in the 2016 elections.

Now Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump for that.

In other words, Democrats today want to impeach Mr. Trump for doing what they say they have wanted him to do for three years.

[...]

The whole thing quickly devolved into another comical farce when Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat and “intelligence” chairman, kicked off the hearing by setting aside the just-released transcript of the telephone call between Mr. Trump and the president of Ukraine. He chose instead to read an entirely made up, fraudulent and fabricated transcript of a call that never occurred....

Read the rest HERE.

Summing Up — Thus Far

A follow-on to Silverfiddle's blog post Howls of the DC Damned:

Then, again, we have what Robert Mueller said yesterday, May 29, 2018, in his statement, which has again ramped up calls for impeachment:

... [I]f we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so....

Full statement HERE, which some interpret as goading Congress to act and which some interpret as muddying the waters for the 2020 General Election.

Additional reading: Bob Mueller Runs and Hides in Eight Minutes to Avoid Having to Answer One Key Question by Roger L. Simon:

...When did you know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

If the answer, as many, including Andrew C. McCarthy [See THIS], are indicating, is somewhere in Fall 2017, what in the Sam Hill was Mueller doing putting the country through two years of prolonged agony? It's not likely he did all this to prop up CNN's faltering ratings.

Was it, just by chance, to induce obstruction from one Donald J. Trump who -- like a relatively normal person but with a shorter fuse than most, justifiable in this case -- would react like a stuck pig to being falsely charged for so long? That would have been essentially entrapment....

Apocryphal Chinese curse:

Presidential Impeachment

Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, and …

by Sam Huntington

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government. It consists of four sections, the last one addresses the subject of impeachment.  There may not be a better example of checks and balances than this article.  In Section 4: Impeachment, the Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Any official impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office.  The Senate may also bar this individual from holding any future federal office.  No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to impeachment proceedings.

The words “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” come to us from English common law; in US law, they refer to criminal actions, as well as any serious misuse or abuse of office, ranging from tax evasion to obstruction of justice.  

The ultimate authority for determining whether an offense constitutes grounds for impeachment rests with the US Congress.  The House of Representatives serves the same function as a grand jury, rendering an indictment, while the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United States, serves as judge and jury.  

One note of possible interest, in the drafting of Section 4, the word “maladministration” was specifically rejected by the founding fathers because the word is too vague and susceptible to political abuse —which brings us to an examination of presidents who were, or might have been, or could be, impeached.

Maxine Waters Hotly Rejects Reporter's Question

At Los Angeles March for Truth on June 3, 2017, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the Democratic Party's Representative for the 43rd District of California, once again declares her mission to impeach President Trump because of his supposed collusion with Russia to undermine our elections.

Same old, same old.  Yawn.

What is interesting in the video below, however, is Congresswoman Waters's reaction to the reporter's question about President Obama's policy with regard to Russia (about time marker 1:04ff):


The Washington Post's article about the above-mentioned portion — and much more — below the fold.

Impeachment?

All the chattering and nattering about impeaching President Trump!  Some — Left, Right, and Center — are openly longing for his impeachment.

To a great extent, some news networks (MSNBC and CNN, for example) are speaking as if impeachment and removal from office are a foregone conclusion.

Related reading...

(1) Impeach Trump Now (web site)

(2) Pat Buchanan: It Isn’t Watergate Yet, But How Long Can This Sustain?

Three questions:

1. What, specifically, are President Trump's impeachable offenses?

2. What might be the consequences, short term and long term, of such an impeachment?

3. What might be the consequences, short term and long term, if Robert Mueller, appointed as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice to oversee the investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, finds no cause for impeachment?