Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Democrats Impeaching Trump Because Orange Man Bad

 

Donald Trump’s haters have been demanding his impeachment since the day of his inauguration. To that end they have cast about wildly for any reason imaginable. And in the process they have attempted to criminalize the normal actions of the president.

They just don’t like Trump. The Democrats, of course, but also the NeverTrumpers, just want him gone. There have been so many attempts that it is almost too hard to list them all. The Mueller investigation, of course. Remember how Trump was going to be impeached because of the Mueller report? Remember that the next time you hear a news report about a poll showing how the number of Americans who support impeaching the president has supposedly increased since six months ago. All that means is that some Americans, otherwise known as Democrats, wanted to impeach Trump for Russian Collusion before and now want to impeach Trump for Ukrainian…something. They want to impeach Trump no matter the reason and no matter the facts.

Congressional Democrats held a vote on impeachment earlier this year because Trump tweeted about Alexandria Occasional-Cortex, Ilhan Whosemyhusband, Rashida Tableface, and the other one that no one cares about. (Spoiler alert: tweeting is not a high Crime and Misdemeanor).

The current impeachment frenzy was set off when a so-called “whistleblower” ratted on Trump to the intelligence community inspector general over a phone call with the president of Ukraine. The weird thing is, though, that the intelligence community inspector general doesn’t outrank the president of the United States. In fact, the intelligence community whistleblower protection act does not apply to the president. Furthermore, the “whistleblower,” who ReaClearInvestigations and others have identified as an Obama holdover named Eric Ciaramella, had no first-hand knowledge of the phone call. (He’s also suspected by some of being the leaker of parts of the transcripts of Trump’s conversations with the prime minister of Australia and the president of Mexico.)

But when President Trump released the official transcript of the phone call, the claims made by Ciaramella were shown to be false. We can all read the transcript of the call and the “whistleblower” complaint ourselves. Those of us who have read the phone transcript have more first-hand knowledge than Ciaramella did.

How many transcripts of presidential phone calls have you ever read? I’ve read one. This one. When people criticize the call, I roll my eyes. What do they know? Nothing. They have nothing to compare the call to. If they say the call was bad, all that means is they don’t like Trump. And by the way, it’s fine to not like Trump. This is America! However, not liking the president is not a reason to impeach him. I didn’t like Obama. That wasn’t a reason to impeach him.

Even when Obama made foreign policy decisions that I disagreed with, that still wasn’t a reason to impeach him. And there were a lot of those: the apology tour, cancelling missile defense to Poland, Libya, Syria, sending billions of dollars to Iran. And, by the way, Obama withheld military aid to Ukraine. The very thing Trump is accused of — withholding aid to Ukraine — Obama did. And, Actually, Trump sent lethal weapons to Ukraine in 2017. (Something the “Trump’s Putin’s puppet” people never managed to process.)

There was nothing wrong with Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian President, but Democrats don’t like him so they’re trying to impeach him.

There are 104 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member

    They should have just run it through an ordinary committee and then censored Trump instead of this abomination. Really what this is about is, he lacks civic skill and knowledge. Easy win. 

    Except that is not big enough to fight what’s coming out from Durham. 

    • #61
    • November 14, 2019, at 5:13 PM PST
    • Like
  2. Jager Coolidge
    JagerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I also associate myself with David French of The Dispatch. His comments are at https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwGBmpKNlKnpppdBmXKFZWxnCxK

    Jager (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Zoomie93 (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Y’all are doing a great job of convincing yourselves.

    This is not going to end well for those Republicans who are defending Trump.

    The defeats in 2020 will make 2018 look like child’s play.

    Trump really has no clothes.

    Peter Robinson mentioned you by name recently in one of his podcasts. I expected a little more substance from you to Max’s post. Is this it?

    I came across an article that I fully agree with about the first day of the Impeachment Hearings by Charlie Sykes. He has ten points, and one to five paragraphs backing up each point. His ten points are as follows:

    (1) It went badly for Trump.

     

    Regarding Elise Sefanik. Eli Lake at Bloomberg, Brett Baier the best straight news guy at Fox, John Harwood of CNBC and formerly of the New York Times and Obama’s Ambassador to Russia have all come out stating that Ms. Sefanik was the best of the GOP.

    Of course she was unacceptable to the Bulwark because she did not attack Trump. If you are not attacking Trump the Bulwark considers you a half-bright sellout.

    Here is what was said in the article about Elise Sefanik:

    (6) Elise Stefanik is no Margaret Chase Smith. We’re used to disappointment, so it probably should not have come as a particular surprise when the young New York congresswoman decided that she would take Nikki Haley’s line on impeachment. “For the million of Americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following,” she said. “Number one, Ukraine received the aid. Number two, there was in fact no investigation of the Bidens.”

    They ought to have given her better talking points.

    As we now know, the aid was released only after the administration had been busted by the whistleblower and President Zelensky was making plans to publicly announce the investigations when the story blew up.

    I would have wished that Ms. Stefanik had followed the lead of Mike Conaway and Will Hurd of the Intelligence Committee and not that of Jim Jordan.

    I see this as just proof that Sykes is not interested in being a fair actor. He is simply engaging in tribal politics. His tribe is anti-trump. He complains not just about the pro-trump people but anyone who is not anti-trump. 

    In comment 46 @petty shows that it is possible to dislike Trump and not unnecessarily attack Republicans. 

    You don’t have to go left of center in your talking points to be anti-trump. Especially not if you are claiming to be a conservative website. 

    • #62
    • November 14, 2019, at 6:00 PM PST
    • 1 like
  3. Franco Inactive
    FrancoJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Jeff Hawkins (View Comment):

    (6) Elise Stefanik is no Margaret Chase Smith.

    And Charlie Sykes doesn’t have the depth of Victor Davis Hanson. Seems more misogyny to me, Charlie now wants to stick it to fairminded Republicans who came to their own conclusion about this process in addition to the pro-Trump.

    To me, the worst thing that happened this week was the tarnishing of the reputations of Haley and Stefanik. ETTD.

    Boy that is the truth. I am quite disappointed in Haley.

    There must be many, many people you are disappointed in. Must be so…. disappointing! 

    • #63
    • November 14, 2019, at 6:09 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  4. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux

    • #64
    • November 14, 2019, at 7:04 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  5. Gary Robbins Reagan

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Let me give you my quick and dirty way to think about impeachment.

    It can’t be for maladministration. It has to be for something that corrodes the constitution.

    To quote Dana Milbank the case against Trump can be summed up in 7 words: “He abused presidential powers for personal advantage.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/12/case-against-trump-seven-words/

     

    If you can’t get 2/3 of the Senate it’s an abuse of the process. This is simply about affecting the next election.

    When the impeachment process started in 1973 after the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon was quite secure. It was only after he had the support of less than 1/3 of the Senate did he resign.

    • #65
    • November 14, 2019, at 8:13 PM PST
    • Like
  6. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    (6) Elise Stefanik is no Margaret Chase Smith. We’re used to disappointment, so it probably should not have come as a particular surprise when the young New York congresswoman decided that she would take Nikki Haley’s line on impeachment. “For the million of Americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following,” she said. “Number one, Ukraine received the aid. Number two, there was in fact no investigation of the Bidens.”

    They ought to have given her better talking points.

    As we now know, the aid was released only after the administration had been busted by the whistleblower and President Zelensky was making plans to publicly announce the investigations when the story blew up.

    If it makes you feel any better, I do t like her either.

    Max, I respect you. You do your job with favor or disfavor and play it straight. If you don’t like her, this is relevant to me.

    • #66
    • November 14, 2019, at 8:15 PM PST
    • Like
  7. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux

    I don’t trust Haley. I think she’d stab Trump in the back if it suited her. She’s not a great ally, saying that asking a foreign country to investigate a n American citizen is never ok. That’s absurd. Of course we ask other governments for assistance all the time. Why do we have FBI offices all over the world? And why did she go on liberal CBS News to launch her book? Mark Levin said he reached out to her to give her an hour on Life, Liberty & Levin and also radio and she declined. Also she’s pretty boring. She’s not good at public speaking and her writing (op-eds, I have not read her book) are boring and cautious. She’s too much of a politician for me. 

    • #67
    • November 14, 2019, at 8:24 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  8. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noDJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    To quote Dana Milbank the case against Trump can be summed up in 7 words: “He abused presidential powers for personal advantage.”

    That only works if you redefine “personal advantage” as “doing an excellent job as president and investigating corruption”. And that’s “personal” because it would help in his reelection.

    “Personal advantage” actually means receiving money. Or gifts. Directly, or indirectly. Through contributions to a “foundation”. Or as a no-show $1 million / year job for a family member.

    How crazy with the language do you have to be to even consider such a thing? It only works in a parallel universe where you redefine “up” as “down”.

    • #68
    • November 14, 2019, at 10:25 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  9. RufusRJones Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Let me give you my quick and dirty way to think about impeachment.

    It can’t be for maladministration. It has to be for something that corrodes the constitution.

    To quote Dana Milbank the case against Trump can be summed up in 7 words: “He abused presidential powers for personal advantage.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/12/case-against-trump-seven-words/

     

    If you can’t get 2/3 of the Senate it’s an abuse of the process. This is simply about affecting the next election.

    When the impeachment process started in 1973 after the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon was quite secure. It was only after he had the support of less than 1/3 of the Senate did he resign.

    My point is there was a discrete known crime that everyone wanted to investigate. It was bipartisan.

    • #69
    • November 15, 2019, at 12:02 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  10. RufusRJones Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Let me give you my quick and dirty way to think about impeachment.

    It can’t be for maladministration. It has to be for something that corrodes the constitution. Banana republic type stuff. You have to have the whole bipartisan electorate behind it enough to get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for it.

    This doesn’t even come close. Pelosi couldn’t handle The Squad. That’s why we are here.

    Also, you ought to be talking about something that was really clearly wrong on the face of it, otherwise what you’re doing is really oversight, instead of just voting on impeachment.

    There is no excuse to run this through the intelligence committee and with secret hearings. There is no way in hell Gary can justify that even with his training.

    This is a political scam because Durham is going to uncover the greatest political scandal in U.S. history. Executed by Democrats including Obama.

    I left one thing out. You aren’t supposed to use it to override elections. 

    • #70
    • November 15, 2019, at 1:48 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  11. RufusRJones Member

    I highly recommend Sebastian Gorka’s breakdown of Rep. John Radcliffe’s questions and his interview of Matthew Boyle if you want some excellent analysis of the impeachment. It’s all free, but I think it’s better accessed on the podcast sites because his YouTube account is a little bit screwed up right now. Thursday show.

    • #71
    • November 15, 2019, at 3:47 AM PST
    • 1 like
  12. RufusRJones Member

     

     

     

    • #72
    • November 15, 2019, at 4:06 AM PST
    • 1 like
  13. RufusRJones Member

    If you get Sirius XM, listen to Joel Pollack on Breitbart News from last night. Really excellent on impeachment. He made two major points. It’s not supposed to be political. It should be an offense against society. Supposedly he got that from Alexander Hamilton. If Trump is ragging on Ukraine to go after corruption efficiently with our money, it’s not an offense against society.

    • #73
    • November 15, 2019, at 4:59 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  14. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    To quote Dana Milbank the case against Trump can be summed up in 7 words: “He abused presidential powers for personal advantage.”

    Nobody who quotes Dana Milbank should be taken seriously.

    • #74
    • November 15, 2019, at 6:24 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. RufusRJones Member

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    To quote Dana Milbank the case against Trump can be summed up in 7 words: “He abused presidential powers for personal advantage.”

    Nobody who quotes Dana Milbank should be taken seriously.

    I didn’t fully remember who this was, initially. Thank you. 

    • #75
    • November 15, 2019, at 6:34 AM PST
    • Like
  16. Stad Coolidge

    Jager (View Comment):
    I am glad you liked it. I try to get my news and opinion pieces from more Objective, less biased sources. Jeffery Toobin the CNN Legal corespondent admitted on the air that the “hearsay” stuff was very problematic. 

    I think it was Taylor himself who said he heard everything he knows.

    • #76
    • November 15, 2019, at 6:39 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  17. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Coolidge

    Democrats are impeaching Trump based on . . . what polls best. Neat.

     

    • #77
    • November 15, 2019, at 6:46 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. RufusRJones Member

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    Democrats are impeaching Trump based on . . . what polls best. Neat.

     

    It’s so obvious that they aren’t following the Founder’s intent. It just takes a little research. 

    • #78
    • November 15, 2019, at 6:59 AM PST
    • 1 like
  19. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    President Trump agrees to meet Ukraine’s Zelenskyy without preconditions, White House transcript shows

    President Trump in April agreed to meet with Ukraine’s president-elect — without preconditions – in the first official phone call between the two leaders, according to a White House transcript released Friday morning.

     

    • #79
    • November 15, 2019, at 7:13 AM PST
    • 1 like
  20. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    Democrats are impeaching Trump based on . . . what polls best. Neat.

     

    It’s so obvious that they aren’t following the Founder’s intent. It just takes a little research.

    They have really done a number on the Republic since about 2004.

    • #80
    • November 15, 2019, at 7:15 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  21. RufusRJones Member

     

     

    • #81
    • November 15, 2019, at 7:57 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  22. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Coolidge

    The video clip here is something to see. Schiff refusing to let Republicans ask questions, or even speak.

    Listen to the end for Jim Jordan’s “Holy cow!”

    • #82
    • November 15, 2019, at 8:02 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  23. Jeff Hawkins Coolidge

    It’s not a trial, so the President isn’t entitled to due process, fine

    You can’t turn around and say witness intimidation when there’s no trial and Schiff’s doing the intimidating

    • #83
    • November 15, 2019, at 10:30 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  24. RufusRJones Member

    Mair is an anti-Trump Republican campaign consultant and lawyer. 

     

     

     

    • #84
    • November 15, 2019, at 10:38 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  25. RufusRJones Member

    Chip Roy is insanely smart. 

     

     

     

    • #85
    • November 15, 2019, at 11:32 AM PST
    • 1 like
  26. Gary Robbins Reagan

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Chip Roy is insanely smart.

    The phrase “quid pro quo” is not in the Constitution as a grounds for impeachment. However, “bribery” is a ground for impeachment.

    • #86
    • November 15, 2019, at 11:58 AM PST
    • Like
  27. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Chip Roy is insanely smart.

    The phrase “quid pro quo” is not in the Constitution as a grounds for impeachment. However, “bribery” is a ground for impeachment.

    Yes, this is now impeachment by what polls best for Democrats.

    • #87
    • November 15, 2019, at 12:03 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  28. RufusRJones Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Chip Roy is insanely smart.

    The phrase “quid pro quo” is not in the Constitution as a grounds for impeachment. However, “bribery” is a ground for impeachment.

    Why do they keep changing it? All they have to do is sell the public on what he actually did as damaging the country. It’s patently disingenuous. 

    • #88
    • November 15, 2019, at 12:04 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  29. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Coolidge

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Chip Roy is insanely smart.

    The phrase “quid pro quo” is not in the Constitution as a grounds for impeachment. However, “bribery” is a ground for impeachment.

    Why do they keep changing it? All they have to do is sell the public on what he actually did as damaging the country. It’s patently disingenuous.

    They still haven’t found an actual crime.

    • #89
    • November 15, 2019, at 12:07 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  30. Seawriter Contributor

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The phrase “quid pro quo” is not in the Constitution as a grounds for impeachment. However, “bribery” is a ground for impeachment.

    Is that why the Schiff Committee is now pretending Trump offered / accepted a bribe? Because they finally realized firing an ambassador and trying to get the State Department to follow Presidential directives on diplomacy was within the powers of the Presidency and not impeachable as a high crime or misdemeanor?

    Wow. Maybe they are capable of figuring out something. But nah. They still have not figured out a pretend crime is not a real one.

    • #90
    • November 15, 2019, at 12:07 PM PST
    • 2 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.