With Impeachment…

Since its impeachment all the time on the airwaves and in print we don’t want to add to the noise and will limit what and how often we say it.

So let me start with this. In introducing the “inquiry” Nancy Pelosi said this:
“This is a very sad time for our country. There is no joy in this,” said Nancy Pelosi Saturday. “We must be somber. We must be prayerful. … I’m heartbroken about it.”
Does anyone join me in doubting the sincerity of that statement?

My next question is this:
So now we all agree it’s okay for AG Barr to be seeking information since he is assisting the prosecutor (Durham) on gathering information, so impeachment is all about getting Rudy Giuliani involved? Are they going to vote impeachment on that? Really?
What if Rudy says I was the President’s lawyer and congress was trying to impeach him and I was investigating how the charges started, because I saw an issue?

Then there is no direct link to holding funds tied to the request. If you see that in the transcript you see something I didn’t read.

I did hear VP Biden say he did that. Does it matter to anyone?
By the way, Biden is done. He was done before this, but this finishes him.
I bet Obama is really angry. He is being dragged into this and took pride in “no scandals” during his time. Hmm.

Is there a difference between the President asking the Ukraine President to investigate something than the three Democratic senators asking them to do the same, or face possible financial implications? I know the MSM said there is but I wonder. Here’s what was in their letter:
“Ukrainian efforts abetted by a U.S. political party to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored,” the senators wrote. “Such allegations of corruption deserve due scrutiny, and the American people have a right to know when foreign forces attempted to undermine our Democrat processes.”
How come now that the Mueller probe (which that was about) is over, that now understanding what Democrats might have done in that same election is not important?

Why the haste of this investigation? Is there a connection here to the I.G. and Durham reports about what happened in 2016 are coming out soon? Is this a cover for that? Might they be connected?

Are we rushing this because the first primaries are in four months and they don’t want people asking “why are we doing this for in an election year?”

What about business for the good of the nation? This AM:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is sending a letter to all House members urging the prompt approval of the deal, known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. “While many parts of the economy are strong, such as employment and wage growth, others are weakening, such as manufacturing and business investment,” the letter reads. “To keep our economy growing it is imperative that our nation’s elected leaders take steps to restore certainty and boost business confidence.”
Might be a good idea to take time out of impeachment I would think.

Finally today the impeachment mess is taking away from a great story out there. This week John Bolton spoke publicly for the first time. We all know he did not see eye to eye with the President and he made that clear. Here’s what he said about North Korea:
“It seems to be clear that the DPRK has not made a strategic decision to give up its nuclear weapons. In fact, I think the contrary is true. I think the strategic decision that Kim Jong Un is operating through is he will do whatever he can to keep a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.”
He outlined some possible approaches but did appear confident that North Korea would never comply. He closed with these words:
“If you believe … that it is unacceptable for North Korea to have nuclear weapons, at some point military force has to be an option.” 

His speech should have been big news, but impeachment is all we hear.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *