You knew this was going to happen.
The New York Times, second to none in its hatred of Donald Trump, has an opinion piece today – written by Ian Prasad Philbrick, a member of its own editorial staff – detailing the articles of impeachment that could be drawn for him.
If you’ve got the intestinal fortitude, you can read the entire piece by clicking here.
But, for the the moment, here are its first three paragraphs – in rust, with my comments in blue.
Calls for President Trump’s impeachment are getting louder. Since the release of Robert Mueller’s report, White House stonewalling of congressional subpoenas and Mr. Mueller’s first public comments, almost 60 House Democrats, a quarter of the caucus, have said they support an impeachment inquiry. Calls are getting louder? From whom? From a few more Democrat congresspeople being pressured by the party’s left wing hardliners? Based on the polling I’ve seen, “calls for President Trump’s impeachment” among the general public are, if anything, down rather than up…which means that the entire premise of this hit piece is BS.
If Democrats do move to impeach Mr. Trump, the articles of impeachment drafted against past presidents will probably guide them. The Constitution leaves “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the term that describes impeachable offenses, vague, notes the historian Timothy Naftali, a co-writer of a recent book on impeachment. “So if you are doing your constitutional duty as an elected member of Congress, how do you define high crimes and misdemeanors?” he asked. “One of the ways you do it is by looking at past practice.” That’s nice. Now tell us what “high crimes and misdemeanors” you’ve got to work with, since the two-year mueller investigation, conducted by a nothing-but-Democrats staff (which I never saw The Times complain about even once), cleared him of collusion and couldn’t find sufficient evidence for even one charge of obstruction.
What might impeachment articles against Mr. Trump look like? To find out, we reviewed the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Then we edited them — by removing and adding passages — to match the president’s conduct as described in the Mueller report and elsewhere. Uh….another reminder: the mueller report – put together by a Star Chamber-quality staff and headed by an overt Trump hater – could not find either collusion or obstruction. You are, therefore, basing your entire hit piece on a report that says there is no impeachable offense. Have you lost your mind?
Ok, enough. This is too ridiculous to continue with and I don’t think my stomach can take it.
In the immortal words of Popeye The Sailor Man, “that’s all I can stand, I can’t stands no more”.
Please feel free to use the link I’ve provided and, if you care to, continue the analysis based on your own opinions.
Me? I’m going to the cabinet for an antacid.
1. The In-Peach-Pie saga has been chewed and swallowed.
imho, Trump handled the unfolding nonsense masterfully:
– – – – – Did NOT withhold anything relevant.
– – – – – Directed his staff to cooperate.
– – – – – At this point, the country is totally fatigued by the baseless bickering.
– – – – – Where’s the beef? What exactly is he accused of ? *crickets*
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Richard Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox.
The outcry was: . . . Impeach the Cox-Sacker !