The Democrats who have spent this past year (past three years, actually) pushing to impeach President Trump and remove him from office, have a bit of a problem, which I will describe in the form of a question.
What, exactly, would Donald Trump be impeached for?
Let’s go over the possibilities:
-Because some people hate his guts? Nope, that’s true of every president (though Trump seems to generate stronger feelings – in both directions – than most).
-Because he threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine until it dug up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden? Nope. There is no record of any threat, and the aid in question, while held up for a short period of time (which is not uncommon – a little fact most media somehow neglect to mention) was sent without any investigation taking place.
-Because he demanded a “quid pro quo”: conduct the investigations or no money? Nope, for the reasons outlined in the last paragraph.
-Because, well, that telephone transcript, written by Trump people, was probably doctored to change the real wording and leave out the incriminating parts? Nope. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, the other party on the call, has stated publicly the transcript is accurate, he was not threatened and he felt no pressure to do anything.
So – asking again – what, exactly, would Donald Trump be impeached for?
Since, as shown above, the answer is that there isn’t anything, the premise that there is something impeachable has to be created, in a way that seems credible enough for the public to buy into.
Remember when it was collusion? You don’t hear that anymore, do you? Not after the Mueller investigation – conducted by a staff comprised entirely of Democrats and a few unaffiliated members/no Republicans at all – concluded there wasn’t any.
Remember when it was obstruction? You don’t hear that anymore either – not after the Mueller investigation said there was not even one instance with sufficient evidence to make such a charge.
Remember when it was the “quid pro quo”? That, as shown earlier in this blog, is non-existent. But, in the absence of any actual evidence, they tried to sell it anyway. And – based on focus groups, we are told – have found out that the terminology is not moving public opinion.
So now it is “bribery”; the claim that Trump demanded dirt on the Bidens in exchange for aid. And we have another nope, since it is an easily verifiable fact that the aid was forwarded without any investigation taking place. But those focus groups indicated the word is much easier to digest than “quid pro quo”, so maybe enough of the public will buy in.
This what Democrats are reduced to. Figuring out a bad enough sounding word for the public to ignore the fact that there is nothing impeachable here.
And it, of course, is before we discuss the fact that the Bidens…
…specifically Hunter Biden’s phony-baloney no-show job at Burisma, where he got millions to do nothing except be Vice President Biden’s son…
…and the fact – on video tape for anyone to see – that daddy threatened Ukraine with the loss of aid unless the then-President fired a prosecutor looking into Burisma – exactly, precisely what Trump is accused of…
…damn well should be investigated.
As I typed this, I heard a news report on the Today Show talking about the “big week” coming up with more people testifying before adam schiff’s impeachment inquiry farce.
We have heard this for the past several weeks, in virtually the same words. And, so far, there has been absolutely nothing. No evidence of any wrongdoing by the President, and no actual accusations that he did anything wrong by the witnesses.
Why should we expect anything different this week?
The farce continues.