Democrats should fear the fact that if there is no law, there is no law.
When the tipping point comes, their lawyers will have no value even if they are still alive
Posted on 11/06/2019 3:39:15 AM PST by MarvinStinson
Inside of newsrooms, broadcast studios, and Twitter, impeachment is going according to plan. Outside of those bubbles, it's not.
Impeachment is going so poorly for the media and other Democrats that “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd was forced to broadcast false information to support it.
A graphic was posted on Sunday’s show that purported to identify how many people in the president’s party voted in support of an impeachment inquiry in the cases of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. It accurately noted that 31 Democrats voted in favor of impeachment proceedings for Clinton. But it inaccurately claimed that a single Republican had voted in favor of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment rules last week.
There are multiple problems with this graphic. For one thing, zero Republicans voted with House Democrats last week. Zero point zero. Zilch. Nada. None. For another, Todd’s team is hiding the bipartisan nature of the opposition to the vote last week. Not only did not a single Republican vote with Democrats, two Democrats voted with Republicans in opposition.
Todd knows that no Republicans voted for impeachment, despite the graphic he put up on national television. In fact, he said during the show, “I have one with an asterisk here. I don’t know what you do with Justin Amash. It’s not a zero. At the same time, he’s not a Republican anymore.”
I know what you do with that, Chuck. You don’t lie and call him a Republican. Todd himself gave Amash national media attention for leaving the Republican Party in dramatic fashion, interviewing him two weeks prior. In the first six seconds of the interview, he noted twice that Amash was not a Republican.
The impeachment inquiry, such as it is, has tremendous struggles. It’s been conducted in secret, with heavy control from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the man who falsely claimed for years he had evidence of Trump’s treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election. The inquiry is being handled by him because the more appropriate committee chair, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., made a mess of the previous impeachment efforts by mismanaging his hearings with Robert Mueller, John Dean, and Corey Lewandowski. In fact, the Mueller hearing was such a disaster for impeachment efforts that it more or less killed a multi-year effort put in place by Resistance bureaucrats and their supporters.
Schiff has told witnesses not to answer questions when those questions would help Trump, and has badgered witnesses who were deemed insufficiently supportive of his efforts to undo the 2016 election. He and the whistleblower both lied about their coordination prior to the complaint being filed. And while he originally demanded the whistleblower’s testimony, after that coordination was revealed, he has attempted to prevent the testimony during which difficult questions would be asked.
Worse, the witnesses thus far can not point to a single crime, much less a high crime, for which to impeach the president. Instead, the witnesses either broadly support the president’s handling of foreign policy or are livid with rage over his disagreement with their foreign policy views.
While the losing faction in 2016 has great trouble with Trump’s less interventionist foreign policy, it is not actually grounds for impeachment. Even if one were to take issue with that foreign policy, nobody has been able to point to a single crime that took place in any interaction with Ukraine, much less one committed by the president, which is a serious barrier for an impeachment inquiry.
Also, unlike the Russia collusion hoax, Republican politicians aren’t falling for it at all. For impeachment to have even a scintilla of legitimacy, it must be broadly bipartisan. That’s not my opinion, it was the standard Democrats held until moments ago.
In March, Pelosi told the Washington Post, “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” A year earlier she said, “Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens, it has to be a bipartisan initiative.”
Years prior, Nadler himself said, “There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”
The only Republican to be broadly supportive of the latest anti-Trump effort is Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, a man whose opposition to Trump is seen as more ego-based than principled. In fact, a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of Americans showed that only 2 percent of Americans view Romney “very favorably,” and only 18 percent view him favorably at all.
Polls that were working very hard to show growing support for impeachment have seen decreased support as Americans learn more about the probe, settling into a proxy for questions of Trump’s approval or favorability. National Review editor Rich Lowry noted in that “Meet the Press” panel that even in a poll that showed a slight majority of Americans favoring impeachment, a larger majority opposed removal in favor of waiting to see election results in 2020.
Polls also show that impeachment is disfavored in critical battleground states. And according to the latest Fox News poll, only 38 percent of independents favored impeachment. With Republicans and Democrats mirror images of each other on the issue, that’s a huge problem for Democrats and the media.
Inside of newsrooms, broadcast studios, and Twitter, impeachment is going according to plan. Outside of those bubbles, it’s not. Republicans are handling efforts to unseat Trump much in the way that Democrats would handle efforts to unseat Barack Obama or Republicans would handle efforts to unseat George W. Bush. They’re not finding them remotely compelling. And until they do, even the more feckless Republican politicians aren’t going to fall for impeachment unless they’re heavily incentivized to do so by outside interests.
The Senate Republicans could end this impeachment farce in two minutes if they had the backbone. However...
There are tens of millions of rifles that say Trump is staying right where he is.
Things are not always as they appear, especially when dealing with socialist.
At this point in time the Democrats are not expecting to remove President Trump from office (nor do I expect them to actually vote on article of impeachments).
The left have gone back to the 1970s Nixon years and hope to have a nightly news leak that will hurt President Trump in the 2020 election.
It worked for them in the 1970s because they were the gatekeeper of news. There was no real outlet for anyone that supported Nixon.
But this is not the 1970s, and while it is true they control major media outlets, they have two problems with this tactic. First, there are many more outlets for supporters to voice their support for the President, and second Trump is not Nixon, he will and does enter the trenches and fights back.
I actually see support of the President growing each day.
Keep in mind, the President has not unleashed the hounds from hell on the Democrats...yet.
Glass half empty. The way I see it goes like this. This current government of the USA cannot address any of the multiple, country killing problems that face us. The Rats and the Brown Shirt Media have seen to that. For decades we have all seen this coming and done all we could to “turn the tide”. We have fought as hard as we could and essentially lost a War of Attrition. All of the “bread and circuses” you mention are true and relevant but as Ferfal demonstrated in his book it takes only 60 minutes for all that to be wiped away. There is an “inflection point” coming. I see it as “glass half full”. Why continue to try to win a losing battle? Lose it as quickly as possible and use that loss to set the stage for a “New Free Republic of America”.
Democrats should fear the fact that if there is no law, there is no law.
When the tipping point comes, their lawyers will have no value even if they are still alive
Keep in mind, the President has not unleashed the hounds from hell on the Democrats...yet.
Will he ever? That should have been job one.
Not without thorough investigation. With any luck, many will turn on others to save their own hides.
So far not a peep from Trump’s legal team on defense strategy. They could easily cross examine Nadler and shif and ciaramella.
Democrats are liars, cheats & grifters.
Will he ever? That should have been job one.
Do you know anything about war?
After Pearl Harbor it was six months before the US could even attempt to do battle with Japan.
How long did it take for the Allies to build a force in England before D Day?
Timing is everything. President Trump came into office a relative unknown with no accomplishments. The Democrats and the media began attacking him 24/7 from day one (election) and has not stopped.
We now know that the DOJ, CIA, FBI and even White House staff were all working to undermine him.
So when and how was he to respond?
Three years in and President Trump can point to an improve economy, much improvement on our southern border, tax cuts as well as successes in foreign policy.
The Russian Hoax has been exposed, the Mueller report was a dud, this current Ukraine impeachment hoax is going to fail.
So while his enemies have grown weaker, the President has grown stronger. When the groundwork has been completed and the American people have been prepared for the truth about the conspiracy to overthrow our government, he will unleash the dogs from hell on them and they will have no defense.
Keep in mind, the President has not unleashed the hounds from hell on the Democrats...yet.
* * *
An upbeat shot in the arm. Thanks, CIB.
So far not a peep from Trump’s legal team on defense strategy. They could easily cross examine Nadler and shif and ciaramella.
* * *
Which means Trump is satisfied to be persecuted. It fuels his supporters. It’s a chess match and drama in one. One helluva a reality show.
How so? The House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment against Nixon. He resigned before those articles were debated and voted on in the full House. They would have passed. There were no "leaks" because the process was all out in in the open. It was 1974, Nixon had won re-election in 1972 (by a landslide) and was not up for another election. Without Watergate, Ford would have run, but it's not known if he would have received the nomination.
Wrong. Read the Constitution. It says the House shall initiate impeachment, not the Speaker of the House. In order for the House to decide if impeachment is appropriate it must take a vote. This was not done. Pelosi unilaterally appointed Schiff in the House Intelligence Committee (instead of Nadler in the Judiciary Committee by House rules) to investigate Trump and then, after opposition, doubled down by voting to continue the unconstitutional process. If there is any doubt about the illegitimacy of this process why are those who have refused “subpoenas” not being referred to a Federal Court to compel appearance?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.