impeach
You can’t turn on any news outlet without the headline being impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. It’s a frenzy and you can sense the excitement in many over it. So what’s the real story?
Well if you’re confused you’re not alone. Everyone is, I think even those leading the charge for and against it are. The facts as best as I can simplify are these:
After the failed Mueller probe on collusion the immediate movement was to the other facet of Mueller’s report that were obstruction discussions he did not address. You remember the Nadler hearings day after day? What happened to that? We were told that all those obstructions were impeachable after the no collusion.
While that was hot and heavy came this “whistleblower” saying that the President had committed an impeachable act in a call with the Ukraine President. They said he used “quid pro quo” to hold up payments for an investigation on his potential 2020 opponent. That was impeachable.
Well then the administration released the call transcript and you can read it for yourself. I did not see the “quid pro quo”. I think the accusers agree now because they are not talking “quid pro quo” in the call anymore. Now it’s in the request and actions taken.
They then begin hearings to get the evidence they need and the secrecy becomes an issue. You have defenders saying this is a kangaroo court and we can’t call witnesses.
Now we are moving to the next step. A vote tomorrow on Halloween. A vote on impeachment? No. It will be a vote to do the inquiry they are doing now. I think the media confused a lot of people with this vote.
Follow all that? First it was impeach (for three years) on collusion, then for a month and half on obstruction, followed immediately by a quid pro quo, that has become “based upon his words and actions”. You might get the impression from this that it is all about impeach for any reason.
Where are we ending up? Well the vote will be completely on party lines and the hearing will go forward albeit more in public. Other than that not much will change. You hear that Republicans can now call witnesses, and Adam Schiff will be one. That’s not true. You see, witnesses called must be voted upon by the committee. His fellow Democrats will not allow him to be called and they have the majority.
Bottom line then is where does it go? I can only guess:
I see the Democrats are determined to vote to impeach. They are passionate and focused on this.
I don’t see any way based upon the current evidence the Senate convicts.
So who wins and loses in that scenario?
The President gets the stain of impeachment on his record and that hurts him forever. His own mannerisms created this.
The house will look very prejudicial and will put some of them in jeopardy in 2020. A non senate conviction will make them look zealous and hurt many.
The MSM will decry the Republican Senate and blame them, unable to separate their personal feelings from what they see as the evidence.
Respect for our institutions will decline. Future generations suffer for this.
Is there a way out?
The only way I see is what we reported at the outset of this. The hearings lengthen and finally the house leaders say “with the 2020 election upon us let the American people decide”.
They can save face, and run on the position that the President is a loose cannon and not fit for the role.
If they go to a vote and get ridiculed in the senate they can be hurt.
some other quick news thoughts
Susan Rice, she of the Benghazi video tape lie, said yesterday that Donald Trump was wrong not to inform President Obama of the Baghdadi killing.
Haven’t the Democrats found every which way to Sunday to attack the President on the attack and success of it?
Joe Biden said this about the President and Syria: (Washington Post)
“Biden lamented that Trump’s own friends and officials have essentially tricked him into leaving some troops in Syria by telling him he could control the oil there and referred to a U.S. official telling The Post: “This is like feeding a baby its medicine in yogurt or applesauce. It’s like dealing not with a commander in chief, but a whiner in chief,” said Biden. “It’s bizarre.”
Speaking of Biden. I know the NYT this AM said he and his son did nothing wrong in the Ukraine, but since the House is investigating that country why not include what happened with them? Oh, outside impeachment, we don’t want any other facts, I see.
As for the NYT they didn’t say why Hunter got paid hundreds of thousands and never had to attend a meeting, do anything or represent the company anywhere. I guess if he did nothing the NYT thinks there’s nothing to investigate or see. I wonder what Pelosi and Schiff think.