Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Democrats Have Wanted to Impeach Trump Since Day One

 
President Donald Trump / Shutterstock.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her committee chairmen have put forward articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump since the first day of his presidency (and before) and are trying for the fourth time now in the House.

On the day of Trump’s inauguration, January 20, 2017, the Washington Post’s “investigations editor,” Matea Gold, authored an article titled “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.” The article was published online at 12:17 PM EST, approximately the same time that Trump was raising his hand and swearing the presidential oath of office.

On December 6, 2017, 58 Democrats voted to impeach Trump for the “high crime” of stating his opinion on Twitter about NFL players who knelt during the national anthem. Trump thought these players should be fired. Maybe you disagree with him, but is it a “high crime” for the president to engage in constitutionally protected speech?

On January 19, 2018, 66 Democrats voted to impeach Trump for the “high crime” of allegedly referring to certain Caribbean and African countries using an expletive, during a closed door meeting in the Oval Office. The allegation was made anonymously by persons who acknowledged they were not in the room at the time of the alleged statement. Multiple United States Senators, who were present in the room, stated on the record that the allegation was false. But even if it was true that he said it, was it a “high crime”?

On July 17, 2019, 95 Democrats voted to impeach Trump for the “high crime” of insulting “the Squad” on Twitter. If you don’t know, “the Squad” is made up of ultra-Left freshmen Democrat Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ihlan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and the other one whose name no one can ever remember. Tlaib, you may remember, gained national fame back in January by proclaiming to supporters the day she was sworn in to office that she had told her son she was going to Washington to “impeach the motherf—er.” Ocasio-Cortez is famous for wanting to ban cow farts in her “Green New Deal” legislation. Trump suggested that the “Squad” should go back to their home districts (NYC, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Boston), fix the problems there and then show the rest of us how it’s done. This is a “high crime”?

Democrats have settled on “Abuse of Power” and “Contempt of Congress” after their previous failures. The abuse of power charge comes from a phone conversation that Trump had with the president of Ukraine, Volodomyr Zelensky, in July. Democrats allege that on the call Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, in a corrupt “quid pro quo.”

However, Trump released the official White House transcript of the call, which shows no such pressure. Zelensky has stated he felt no pressure. Democrats that tried to allege that the transcript was incomplete. However, their own star witness, Alex Vindman, testified that the transcript was complete and had no substantive omissions.

Despite months of talk about “quid pro quo,” Democrats have abandoned that line of argument due to lack of evidence. They also briefly flirted with impeaching Trump for “Bribery” because bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an impeachable act and because reportedly focus groups found that the word “bribery” polled better than “quid pro quo.”

However, since there’s no evidence of bribery, the Democrats have been reduced to vague accusations of “abuse of power,” a meaningless term that really just means that Trump is using his Constitutional authority as president in ways that Democrats don’t like. The “contempt of Congress” charge amounts to Trump refusing to help Democrats impeach him for no reason. A recent Economist/YouGov poll shows just 16% job approval among registered voters for Congress. Perhaps Congress should file articles of impeachment for contempt of congress against the 63% of voters who disapprove of Congress in the same poll.

It’s OK for Democrats to not like Trump and to disagree with his policy agenda. However, impeachment is not the answer to simple political disagreements.

And that’s really the issue here: Democrats don’t like Trump and don’t want him to be president. Conveniently, there’s a presidential election next year in which Democrats will have the opportunity to defeat Trump at the ballot box. So why aren’t Democrats focusing their energy on that?

On May 4, 2019, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) told MSNBC, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 23 comments.

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

    They know impeachment does’t guarantee removal from office. Why do they think it means defeat in an election? That doesn’t have any record to go on. What I think it may come down to for the average voter (who will render judgement in 2020) is simpler than all the political arguments. It is just….would I as an individual in filling my own job, want to be treated like the Dems and media have treated DT? At least I hope a majority are that basically decent.

    • #1
    • December 10, 2019, at 10:56 AM PST
    • 1 like
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Isn’t it kind of awkward to charge him with abuse of power because he allegedly tried to pressure Zelensky, when Zelensky says it didn’t happen? They try to claim that Zelensky has to say that, but he doesn’t. He got his funding without doing anything. It’s going to be very weird. . .

    • #2
    • December 10, 2019, at 11:20 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  3. Judge Mental Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Isn’t it kind of awkward to charge him with abuse of power because he allegedly tried to pressure Zelensky, when Zelensky says it didn’t happen? They try to claim that Zelensky has to say that, but he doesn’t. He got his funding without doing anything. It’s going to be very weird. . .

    The really awkward part is that no one can figure out with what, exactly, they are charging him. It all rests on a very particular interpretation of events, for which they have no evidence whatsoever, except that which is exculpatory.

    Joe Biden and his crooked son, on the other hand… everybody understands that.

    • #3
    • December 10, 2019, at 11:25 AM PST
    • 10 likes
  4. Richard Easton Member

    • #4
    • December 10, 2019, at 12:06 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  5. Bishop Wash Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Isn’t it kind of awkward to charge him with abuse of power because he allegedly tried to pressure Zelensky, when Zelensky says it didn’t happen? They try to claim that Zelensky has to say that, but he doesn’t. He got his funding without doing anything. It’s going to be very weird. . .

    The really awkward part is that no one can figure out with what, exactly, they are charging him. It all rests on a very particular interpretation of events, for which they have no evidence whatsoever, except that which is exculpatory.

    Joe Biden and his crooked son, on the other hand… everybody understands that.

    Ace distilled their charges. 

    1) OrangeManBad was elected in 2016.

    2) OrangeManBad will get reelected in 2020.

    • #5
    • December 10, 2019, at 12:20 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  6. Eridemus Coolidge

    @susanquinn

    They try to claim that Zelensky has to say that, but he doesn’t.

    Agreed, unless he has a crystal ball for future American elections and wants to stay in tight with another Trump term. But he could as easily speculate that he should play up to Democrats if an impeachment sounds as ominous as the foreign press might make it out to be.

    • #6
    • December 10, 2019, at 12:31 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  7. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux

    Eridemus (View Comment):

    @susanquinn

    They try to claim that Zelensky has to say that, but he doesn’t.

    Agreed, unless he has a crystal ball for future American elections and wants to stay in tight with another Trump term. But he could as easily speculate that he should play up to Democrats if an impeachment sounds as ominous as the foreign press might make it out to be.

    Well, then, if he agreed with Democrats wouldn’t he, by their definition, be interfering in our Democracy to subvert the 2020 election in favor of the Democrats?

    • #7
    • December 10, 2019, at 12:38 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  8. Judge Mental Member

    The bar is so ridiculously low on both these articles, that if enforced on everyone they would completely paralyze the operation of government. You can’t use government power to do anything that might help you get reelected? That would include everything except screwing up.

    And the obstruction charge is a free pass to impeach anyone. Send them hundreds of subpoenas with which you know they can’t or won’t comply, and when they inevitably refuse, impeach without bothering to go to court.

    • #8
    • December 10, 2019, at 12:49 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  9. Hartmann von Aue Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Isn’t it kind of awkward to charge him with abuse of power because he allegedly tried to pressure Zelensky, when Zelensky says it didn’t happen? They try to claim that Zelensky has to say that, but he doesn’t. He got his funding without doing anything. It’s going to be very weird. . .

    The campaign ad for Trump here should hammer the fact that everyone who says there was a quid pro quo is lying since the alleged target of the quid pro quo demand says it was never made. 

    • #9
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:03 PM PST
    • 1 like
  10. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Here are the actual Articles of Impeachment without any editorial comment.

    https://ricochet.com/704124/source-document-the-articles-of-impeachment/

    • #10
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:07 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Judge Mental Member

    I think this is the day that the GOP took back the House. Those moderate Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. If they vote yes, the Trump-supporting independents who elected them will turn, and if they vote no about half of the Democrats will, or they’ll be primaried, or both.

    • #11
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:09 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  12. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    I think this is the day that the GOP took back the House. Those moderate Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. If they vote yes, the Trump-supporting independents who elected them will turn, and if they vote no about half of the Democrats will, or they’ll be primaried, or both.

    And this may be the point where the GOP lost the Senate. We really don’t know.

    • #12
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:13 PM PST
    • Like
  13. Hugh Member

    I think Judge is on firmer ground than Gary.

    Wonder how I know? Here’s a Link:

    • #13
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:24 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  14. Stad Thatcher

    Who was the Democrat (either elected or a pundit) the day after the election who said something like, “We have to start impeachment now.”?

    • #14
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:31 PM PST
    • Like
  15. Kozak Member
    Kozak Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    I think this is the day that the GOP took back the House. Those moderate Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. If they vote yes, the Trump-supporting independents who elected them will turn, and if they vote no about half of the Democrats will, or they’ll be primaried, or both.

    And this may be the point where the GOP lost the Senate. We really don’t know.

    LOL.

    Looks like another investment gone bad for you….

    • #15
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:39 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  16. Kozak Member
    Kozak Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    The bar is so ridiculously low on both these articles, that if enforced on everyone they would completely paralyze the operation of government. You can’t use government power to do anything that might help you get reelected? That would include everything except screwing up.

    And the obstruction charge is a free pass to impeach anyone. Send them hundreds of subpoenas with which you know they can’t or won’t comply, and when they inevitably refuse, impeach without bothering to go to court.

    What they are doing is incredibly dangerous. The bar for impeachment is now “we hate the guy”.

    • #16
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:42 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  17. Kozak Member
    Kozak Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Isn’t it kind of awkward to charge him with abuse of power because he allegedly tried to pressure Zelensky, when Zelensky says it didn’t happen? They try to claim that Zelensky has to say that, but he doesn’t. He got his funding without doing anything. It’s going to be very weird. . .

    The campaign ad for Trump here should hammer the fact that everyone who says there was a quid pro quo is lying since the alleged target of the quid pro quo demand says it was never made.

    And then show them the video of Biden bragging about withholding money to show them an actual quid pro quo.

    • #17
    • December 10, 2019, at 1:44 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. Manny Member

    This fiasco the Democrats have put the country through is a complete disgrace. They did all this on NOTHING. Hearsay. And hearsay from people who had had no objectivity at all. How outrageous.

    • #18
    • December 10, 2019, at 8:12 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  19. Randy Webster Member

    Max Ledoux: On January 19, 2018, 66 Democrats voted to impeach Trump for the “high crime” of allegedly referring to certain Caribbean and African countries using an expletive

    In slander and libel cases truth is a defense. Is that not true in cases of impeachment?

    • #19
    • December 10, 2019, at 8:36 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  20. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    This is of a piece with the move to eliminate the Electoral College. It is about an unwritten change to the Constitution, making our system into a de facto parliamentary system, with votes of no confidence and legislative supremacy. Why? Because their dream of demographically determined destiny has not played out so well, yet. It is all about permanent power, by whatever means necessary.

    • #20
    • December 10, 2019, at 9:07 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  21. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux

    Stad (View Comment):

    Who was the Democrat (either elected or a pundit) the day after the election who said something like, “We have to start impeachment now.”?

    Whoopi?

    • #21
    • December 11, 2019, at 8:02 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  22. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux

    The obstruction of congress article is particularly absurd. It cannot be obstruction for the president to utilize executive privilege. Take this for an example: say I was called to testify to Congress for some reason. I exercised my fifth amendment right not to testify then Congress (or the DOJ) would not be able to charge me with “Obstruction of Congress.” It cannot be a crime to exercise a Constitutional Right.

    • #22
    • December 11, 2019, at 8:06 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  23. MISTER BITCOIN Member

    contempt of the House of Rep is not impeachable.

    it’s called separation of powers.

    Your last paragraph is an admission of weakness by Democrats.

    They have to impeach because they don’t think they can win in November.

    Of course, what’s the point of impeachment when you have no chance of conviction.

    20 gop senators are not going to vote to remove Trump.

    Maybe 0.3% and I’m being generous

     

    • #23
    • December 14, 2019, at 6:58 PM PST
    • 2 likes