Poll: Support For Trump Impeachment Drops Significantly

Despite the unrelenting bad press and worse news for President Donald Trump from the allegations of Michael Cohen to the sentencing of Paul Manafort, a new  SSRS poll has found a sharp drop in support for his impeachment including among Democrats. Overall support for impeachment dropped from 43 percent in December to 36 percent today. This would help explain why Nancy Pelosi is saying that Trump has committed impeachable offenses but impeachment is not part of the Democratic agenda. While I do not see a current basis for impeachment on the public evidence, I disagree with the position of the Democratic leadership. Putting aside the bait-and-switch from the midterm elections, members should feel compelled to seek impeachment if they believe impeachable offenses have been committed regardless of what they think the other house or other members might do in fulfillment of their own constitutional oaths. Notably, while Pelosi does not think the Senate will overturn Trump’s veto over the wall emergency declaration, she still wants to do so in the House.

The change is most remarkable among Democratic voters who previously favored impeachment by 80 percent but now only support it by 68 percent. That 12 percent drop is astonishing given the importance of the impeachment issue to the midterm elections. The drop is even more pronounced among Democratic college graduates who favored impeachment by 50 percent in December and now only support it by 35 percent.

With the Mueller report expected soon, the polling could reinforce the position for Trump, particularly if Mueller finds no collusion.

170 thoughts on “Poll: Support For Trump Impeachment Drops Significantly”

  1. Given the fact that the Speaker has already taken impeachment off or until overwhelming evidence comes forward, and given the fact that Trump could pick off people with a AK-47 and be filmed doing it, McConnell still would not go forward with proceedings. So JT cherry picking a poll now is well just pure BS from ole JT.

  2. UKRANIAN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE COLLUSION TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON

    As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges
    After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats.

    Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    The leak of the so-called black ledger files to U.S. media prompted Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.

    Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian’s release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton’s campaign.

    The parliamentarian also secured a court ruling that the leak amounted to “an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign,” Lutsenko told me. Lutsenko said the tape recording is a serious enough allegation to warrant opening a probe, and one of his concerns is that the Ukrainian law enforcement agency involved had frequent contact with the Obama administration’s U.S. Embassy in Kiev at the time.

    “Today we will launch a criminal investigation about this and we will give legal assessment of this information,” Lutsenko told me.

    Lutsenko, before becoming prosecutor general, was a major activist against Russia’s influence in his country during the tenure of Moscow-allied former President Viktor Yanukovych. He became chief prosecutor in 2016 as part of anti-corruption reforms instituted by current President Petro Poroshenko, an ally of the U.S. and Western countries.

    Unlike the breathless start to the Russia collusion allegations — in which politicians and news media alike declared a Watergate-sized crisis before the evidence was fully investigated — the Ukraine revelations deserve to be investigated before being accepted.

    After all, Ukraine is dogged by rampant corruption. It is a frequent target of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dirty tricks. And it is a country that, just last year, faked a journalist’s death for one day, reportedly to thwart an assassination plot.

    But the chief prosecutor, a member of parliament and a court seemingly have enough weight to warrant serious scrutiny of their allegations and an analysis of the audio tape.

    Furthermore, the mystery of how the Manafort black ledger files got leaked to American media has never been solved. They surfaced two years after the FBI investigated Manafort over his Ukraine business activities but declined to move forward in 2014 for lack of evidence.

    We now have strong evidence that retired British spy Christopher Steele began his quest in what ultimately became the infamous Russia collusion dossier with a series of conversations with top Justice Department official Bruce Ohr between December 2015 and February 2016 about securing evidence against Manafort.

    We know the FBI set up shop in the U.S. embassy in Kiev to assist its Ukraine–Manafort inquiry — a common practice on foreign-based probes — while using Steele as an informant at the start of its Russia probe. And we know Clinton’s campaign was using a law firm to pay an opposition research firm for Steele’s work in an effort to stop Trump from winning the presidency, at the same time Steele was aiding the FBI.

    Those intersections, coupled with the new allegations by Ukraine’s top prosecutor, are reason enough to warrant a serious, thorough investigation.

    If Ukraine law enforcement figures who worked frequently with the U.S. Embassy did leak the Manafort documents in an effort to influence the American election for Clinton, the public deserves to know who knew what, and when.

    Lutsenko’s interview with Hill.TV raises another troubling dynamic: The U.S. Embassy and the chief Ukrainian prosecutor, who America entrusts with fighting corruption inside an allied country, currently have a dysfunctional relationship.

    In our interview, Lutsenko accused the Obama-era U.S. Embassy in 2016 of interfering in his ability to prosecute corruption cases, saying the U.S. ambassador gave him a list of defendants that he would not be allowed to pursue and then refused to cooperate in an early investigation into the alleged misappropriation of U.S. aid in Ukraine.

    Lutsenko provided me with a letter from the embassy, supporting part of his story by showing that a U.S. official did in fact ask him to stand down on the misappropriation-of-funds case. “We are gravely concerned about this investigation for which we see no basis,” an embassy official named George Kent wrote to the prosecutor’s office.

    The State Department on Wednesday issued a statement declaring that it no longer financially supports Lutsenko’s office in its anti-corruption mission and considers his allegation about the do-not-prosecute list “an outright fabrication.”

    My reporting, however, indicates Lutsenko isn’t the only person complaining about the U.S. Embassy in Kiev.

    Last year, when he served as House Rules Committee chairman, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) wrote a private letter asking Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to recall the current U.S. ambassador, alleging that she made disparaging statements about President Trump.

    The ambassador “has spoken privately and repeatedly about her disdain for the current administration in a way that might call for the expulsion” of America’s top diplomat in Ukraine, Sessions wrote.

    Such dysfunction does not benefit either country, especially when Russia is lurking around the corner, hoping to regain its influence in the former Soviet republic.

    Investigating what’s going on in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and whether elements in Ukraine tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election to help Clinton, are essential steps to rebooting a key relationship.

        1. Why would anyone read a long unattributed article posted on the internet?

          Never mind, I guess anyone stupid enough to still be supporting Trump, including wanting to pay for his vanity wall would.

          1. “Why would anyone read a long unattributed article posted on the internet?”

            You read the Washington Post don’t you? …And when their source is “anonymous” you don’t seem to worry about attribution, do you? ,,,And when their anonymous source is proven wrong you still consider the news from the Washington Post to be steller. If you want to think about stupidity as you did above, look in a mirror.

            John Solomon who wrote the above piece is an award winning investigative journalist. That piece was written for the Hill.

              1. “….That same month, Erik Wemple of The Washington Post said that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon’s reporting for the publication.[25] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon’s reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill’s reputation.[25] They also expressed concerns over Solomon’s close relationship with Sean Hannity, whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.[25]…”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon

                1. “That same month, Erik Wemple of The Washington Post said that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon’s reporting for the publication.[25] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon’s reporting as having a conservative bias”

                  The left can’t stand diversity of thought. So far none of those experts you talk about can find anything significant in Solomon’s reporting that needs to be retracted. Plenty from the Washington Post having been proven wrong needs to be retracted.

                  What in the article don’t you believe. The investigation is going on in another country but if Hillary is put in a bad light to you no matter what is found it can’t be true. Tell us the inaccuracies. You can’t.

                  Yes, Solomon goes on Hannity’s show because the MSM won’t permit him on their shows to provide the data he has discovered. That is because there is a lack of diversity in the other main media outlets. Only one deviates from the rest and the left can’t stand any diversity because it places a light on their dirty dealings.

                  Why don’t you tell us anything you think is wrong in what Solomon says. You can’t because he is mostly correct and to be honest Hannity’s remarks on the subject of Trump have been mostly correct as well.

                  Anon, it is OK that you like the Fake News of the Washington Post which is quite similar to pornography, made up.

                  I note how you had to look up who John Solomon was. That demonstrates a degree of ignorance. The Hill is not right wing.

                    1. Firstly I don’t care if you read what I write or not. Secondly as is obvious the link wasn’t necessary for you to espouse your opinion. All you needed to know was that the left doesn’t like Solomon’s opinion so you can instantaneously reject what he says even though it is carefully researched and likely true. That is the sign of an ideologue who has never taken the blinders off. That is OK doing construction where the costs of material may amount to $800,000 a year. One doesn’t need much of a strategy at that level. One only needs a bit of physical ability and a good engineer.

                      I like to use my brain so if your abilities were as good as you feel they are I could probably add one or two zero’s at the end of your number. That is the difference in one that focuses on the nail and one that focuses on something larger than the nail.

                    2. “I don’t read “news reporting” by left or right wing columnists.”

                      Anon, you most certainly do at least from the left as you have either copied or paraphrased what those leftists said even though you might not realize it. Your compass needs an adjustment for your center is quite far left.

                      If you wish to get back to a more centrist position use JFK as the center or center left since he was a Democrat. Today he would be run out of the Democratic party if he could run fast enough.

                    3. I don’t quote columnists at all for news reporting and rely on reputable sources for news. Allan is confused about the function of reporters and editorial page writers.

                    4. “I don’t quote columnists at all for news reporting and rely on reputable sources for news. Allan is confused about the function of reporters and editorial page writers.”

                      No Anon, your news sources are confused unintentionally or intentionally as to what is news and what is opinion. What you write frequently is based on opinion that is based on other opinion considered fact by those you listen to. The problem is that the footprint for much of this garbage was built out of garbage and you are left with a crappy building on an even crappier footing. Such a structure does not survive except in the minds of those that remain ignorant to the facts letting others tell them what to think rather than thinking for themselves.

          2. Soloman is John Soloman, currently employed at The Hill, but previously employed at the Wall Street Journal, from which he was fired (along with a few others) for stories he refused to write despite the fact that Soloman (and others) had already written his fair share of stories that had almost certainly planted by Rudy Giuliani and The New York Office of the FBI for the express purpose of harming Andrew McCabe and Hillary Clinton. IOW, having carried water for Murdoch and Trump, Soloman finally drew the line and said that he would not carry any more water for Murdoch and Trump. So Murdoch fired him. And now Soloman carries water for Trump, alone, over at The HIll.

            1. Solomon doesn’t work for Trump and refused to alter his findings for anyone. That should make one less likely to question his credentials.

              Solomon’s reporting is open to anyone that wishes to show his reporting to be false, but being unable to do that they engage in character assassination. That is a main objective of our Stalinist red diaper baby Diane.

              If you would trust Stalin then you can trust Diane.

              If you think Stalin was a liar and a killer stay far away from Diane.

              1. I would modify your suggestion, Allan.
                Regardless of what one might think of Stalin, stay far away from Diane.😄
                There’s a crazy street preacher near my old neighborhoodthat used to ( may still) rant and rave at passers-by…..I’d give people the same advice to steer clear of him ( irrespective of their political idealology).

            2. Did you say, “Employed at the Wall Street Journal?”

              Joseph Rago was, “Employed at the Wall Street Journal”

              and a funny thing happened on his way to expose Hillary, Abbott Labs and a Russian drug factory. Joseph Rago did not

              have “Sarcoidosis” until he mysteriously and suddenly died of it.
              _____________________________________________

              “VEROPHARM”

              Joseph Rago –

              “Wall Street Journal Reporter Asks Russia For “Clinton Information” —-Turns Up DEAD 2 Days Later”

              “A Wall Street Journal Editor who was investigating how a Russian
              Pharmaceutical firm could have been purchased in 2014 by an American
              Pharmaceutical firm while Sanctions against Russia existed against such
              business transactions, has been found dead in his New York City
              apartment. The crux of the dead journalists investigation was how
              then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton influenced the transaction to be
              finalized, but only AFTER her husband Bill was paid $500,000 for giving
              a speech in Moscow.

              The Russia Consulate General’s office in New York City was contacted
              by Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Joseph Rago who requested a
              Thursday (20 July) in person interview with consular officials regarding
              an upcoming article he was preparing on Hillary Clinton and her links
              to Russia. Rago failed to attend the meeting and was later discovered
              dead in his apartment of as yet “unknown causes” just hours prior to
              this meeting occurring.”

              http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news/world-news/878-wall-street-journal-reporter-asks-russia-for-clinton-information-2-days-later-turns-up-dead

              1. FBI informant Hal Turner is not reliable.

                from rationalwiki:

                Evidence that Turner was a rat first surfaced in 2008,[10] when hackers posted emails that were allegedly of him corresponding with an FBI agent. It came out in full when he was arrested in 2009 for death threats he made against US officials.[11] Turner pleaded “not guilty” at his first trial, with his lawyer asserting in his defense that he was a trained FBI agent provocateur.[12] In August 2010, Turner was finally found guilty and was sentenced to 2 years and 9 months in prison on December 21, 2010.[13]

                Return
                Turner was released from prison on October 5, 2012.[14] After satisfying a court order to stay away from the internet and radio broadcasting, he started a new weekly radio show on October 7, 2015, on American shortwave station WBCQ.[15]

                note 12: “Lawyer: Man accused of judge threat was FBI source”. Associated Press. July 28, 2009.

            3. Oily Crepe. There are two Solomans. Jay Solomon who was fired from The WSJ. And John F. Solomon who contributes opinion editorials to The Hill. What’s going on? What going on?

              https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-wall-street-journal-jay-solomon-fired-20170621-story.html

              Jun 21, 2017 … The Wall Street Journal fired its chief foreign affairs correspondent after evidence … Jeff Horwitz, Jon Gambrell and Jack GillumAssociated Press … The reporter, Jay Solomon, was offered a 10 percent stake in a fledgling …

          3. Anon……….I’ll bet you lock your “vanity car ” and your “vanity front and back doors”.
            How an otherwise intelligent person has let a political party convince him that Article 2 of the Constitution is racist because it calls for our President to secure our borders and protect us! It’s one of the few things he acgually has to do.
            and your boy Barack and his Dems were all for it 5 years ago. 5 yrs ago!
            You people scare me…….and make me feel very unsafe in my own country.

            1. Cindy, I have no idea what you are talking about. What is a vanity car and vanity front door?

              By the way, like most Americans I fully support border security and like most Americans I don’t support Trump’s vanity wall and I question his seriousness about the issue. The people in the caravans are not looking to sneak in. They intend to apply for asylum, something the Trump wall – which would take years to construct and be a waste of money – would not address.

              1. Anon…….my god, son. Do have any original thoughts?
                Spouting that party line blather
                In 100 years….you would never understand why critical thinkers would support ANY candidate over someone who thinks like you.
                Dems killed progressivism with their intolerant, pushy bullying political correctness! Good decent people got tired of the Dems’ PC “our way or highway”. You all made Trump possible! So live with it!!

                1. Let me know when you have something substantive to say. Personal insults are a sign of a weak an uninteresting argument. Meanwhile, what is a vanity front door?.

                  1. Anon……I didn’t use a personal insult. Sorry if it seemed I did.
                    You spoke of a Trump wall as a vanity wall.
                    It seems important to you that you trivialize the safety of the children, and all citizens of this country. You’ve alresdy trivialized the ones in the womb, so what’s human life to you? An option.
                    The iilegals who sneak in and are ill, are overwhelming the health system and are being dumped into society carrying the diseases.with them. It’s at a critical level!! and Dems cheer the illegals on. This is good for NO one.
                    So what if it takes a while to finish the protective structure on our border. Anything will help.
                    But those illegal votes are just too tempting, aren’t they.? You should be ashamed for wanting to use illlegal people for political purposes. while not giving a damn about health risks to them and our own.
                    I don’t know how you sleep at night. Shame on you and your party.

                    1. Cindy, The phantom personal insult is a typical tactic used by lefties to divert as the merits of their far left positions/arguments collapse. The intent of this tactic is to distract and put the accused personal insulter on the defensive and focused on delivering a bullet-proof politically correct apology.

                    2. “Cindy, The phantom personal insult is a typical tactic used by lefties”

                      Bill, like the killing of babies, violence in the streets, violence in the universities along with destroying property and burning buildings, assaulting school children, etc. The lefties will go as far as they are permitted and so far have done so without much opposition.

                    3. Cindy, thanks for adding some content to the personal insults.

                      We share concern for those willing to walk a thousand miles across Mexico seeking asylum in the US but there is little evidence that Trump shares that concern. The “wall” – which will take years to build – obviously does not address their plight or have anything to with our processing of asylum requests. If the President did care about this issue as anything other than a political prop he had several opportunities to negotiate – it’s called a “deal” – with Congress led by Lindsay Graham on a larger immigration bill. Other tools available to the President include expanding our partnership with the Central American countries in combating the gangs and conditions – selling drugs to Americans – which fuel their power.

                      As to your assertion that I have trivialized life in the womb, I have argued for the ability of Americans to make among the most difficult decisions we can imagine with their doctors, but without your or my approval. If you want to continue that discussion, fire away. You did not respond to my last post on this issue.

                    4. ” little evidence that Trump shares that concern.”

                      Trump shares a lot more concern than you do. He is concerned with women and children being raped and dying in the deserts something you seem to have little concern over. He is concerned that they have illegal status when they get here. He is concerned for American citizens many of which came from the same places but don’t want them here illegally. He is concerned with the drugs and the violence. He is concerned for the jobs of Americans. He is concerned that our school systems and hospitals are not overrun.

                      You are only concerned with following the leftist leaders that are leading everyone to hell.

                      He will build a wall if permitted, but in the meantime the left and right should get together and not permit anyone to cross our borders illegally. If assylum is needed they can request assylum at the border check points. We have no obligation to give up our national soverignty.

                    5. PS Future votes are not part of my calculations on this issue, though they obviously are for you and the GOP. The long term demographics are very favorable for Democrats without new immigrants.

                    6. PS Cindy, you may want t consider this recent news:

                      “The commandant of the Marines has warned the Pentagon that deployments to the southwest border and funding transfers under the president’s emergency declaration, among other unexpected demands, have posed “unacceptable risk to Marine Corps combat readiness and solvency.”

                      In two internal memos, Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller said the “unplanned/unbudgeted” deployment along the border that President Trump ordered last fall, and shifts of other funds to support border security, had forced him to cancel or reduce planned military training in at least five countries, and delay urgent repairs at bases.

                      The Times obtained copies of the memos, dated Feb. 19 and March 18….”

                      https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-marine-corps-border-national-emergency-20190321-story.html

                    7. ““The commandant of the Marines has warned the Pentagon that deployments to the southwest border and funding transfers under the president’s emergency declaration, among other unexpected demands, have posed “unacceptable risk to Marine Corps combat readiness and solvency.”

                      We shouldn’t have to be deploying troops but the left has made that necessary to protect our borders. The far left would like to destroy America and some people just mindlessly follow along.

                    8. Allan fails to address any of my specific points and contents himself with yet more baseless attacks on my motivations – irrelevant – and a recitation of faith in the grand spirit and benevolence of his leader.

                    9. “Allan fails to address any of my specific points”

                      Anon, I dealt with your major point, the point about who really cares about the illegals and American citizens. You certainly don’t. When it comes to protecting American citizens you are too busy trying to destroy the nation. We shouldn’t be faced with these problems today. The illegal immigration problem was supposedly settled with the amnesty granted by Reagan but there are those like you on both sides of the aisle that refuse to deal honestly and have no concern for the American worker or the American family. You can protest all you want but we can look item by item and see that you neglect America for the sole purpose of mindlessly following the left and while doing so bash Trump.

                    10. Very enlightening Allan. If I had only known earlier that my changing my ways would solve immigration I would have acted sooner.

                      I’ll get right on it.

                    11. “If I had only known earlier that my changing my ways would solve immigration…”

                      Anon, you don’t really count as an individual. You are just part of a mass of mindless people that wish to destroy America to reach a state of being that has never existed and never will. You might get your way, but you won’t suffer, your grandchildren will.

                    12. anon makes you waste time and energy. ignore anon and her petty insults, and advance with your own thought provoking and informative content!

                    13. Kurtz, Anon serves as a platform to demonstrate how bad the ideas of the left are and to encourage people to increase the use of what they see rather than to listen to those on the left that promise everything and provide nothing. In that fashion Anon aids the cause of freedom loving Americans and demonstrates how the left attempts to utilize charges of racism where racism doesn’t exist in order to censor political speech.

                    14. Perhaps Kurtz could give an example of my “petty insults” and how they differ from the presumed genteel remarks of Allan, OKY, and other fellow travelers he prefers communicating with. One suspects he doesn’t like to argue with people who use facts and logic if they don’t toe the same line he does.

                    15. “my “petty insults” and how they differ from the presumed genteel remarks of Allan,”

                      Anon, I make rational sense based on fact. You don’t.

                    16. anon wants me to justify my opinion about anon.

                      watch me as I ignore anon, and move on to another topic.

                  2. Anon……..people walking 1000 miles for asylum? You are SO gullible!
                    Also, you say you honor any woman’s decision making…..yet if I want a “women only” public restroom,, I am labeled an intolerant homophobe!

                    1. Did I posts something about public restrooms?

                      You know, I am not a stand in for whatever grievances all you poor put upon Republicans are nursing grudges over. I’ll take responsibility for what I say here, but not what you all say I am thinking.

                  3. Anon……thank you for the news article…………unfortunately for Democrats, Gen Neller needs to focus on the nude photo scandals his Marines are involved with at La Jeune……and on the other sex abuse charges involving his Marines.
                    But a bigger, and more chilling problem is that I hear the echoes of times past, in the assessment of national crises from the cushy leather chairs of the Pentagon: hello Viet Nam!!!

  3. “This would help explain why Nancy Pelosi is saying that Trump has committed impeachable offenses but impeachment is not part of the Democratic agenda.”

    The statement itself proves one thing firmly and clearly Out of one side of her mouth Pelosi states one thing and that thing requires a follow up.

    If offenses are Constitutionally valid evading the responsibility to take the required legal action is not a choice but a duty.

    Evading that duty is addressed in the Oath of Office Pelosi took to attain her position. We’ve seen a number of those evasions not the least of which is allowing at least three members to be seated who refused to take the oath of office. We can add Pelosi’s name to the list as unqualified and unsuitable as a result.

    Pelosi goes on to say it doesn’t fit the Democratic Agenda thus proving she isi ipilacing politics ahead of the country, it’s citizens and The Constitution.

    Citizens don’t really care about her agenda nor that of her ‘outlaw’ party. Nor I suspect did many of her own party members. A case where they are clearly bound by their own Oath’s of office to remove Pelosi from her office, from her seat as a member and the party itself to remove her from party membership.

    Shouldn’t have to go so far as to involve the other side of the aisle. But to do nothing proves some things about that group. By doing nothing they cement themselves to the Pelosi anti Constitutional agenda.

    Can they really afford to do so?

    Not ‘May I’ but ‘Can We’ is the question

    To do nothing is proving unfitness ….that less than nothing is what will result from their party.

  4. The reason behind impeachment of this President is that the President’s opponents cannot accept losing and are throwing a temper tantrum instead of respecting the Constitution.

    1. Hillary Clinton
      ‏Verified account @HillaryClinton

      Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election. By doing that, he’s threatening our democracy.
      2:05 PM – 21 Oct 2016

      1. “President’s opponents cannot accept losing and are throwing a temper tantrum instead of respecting the Constitution.”
        ______________________________________________________________________________________________

        The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the “deep state” losing and throwing an ILLEGAL temper tantrum. Obama’s co-conspirators are:

        Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker,

        Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

        Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper,

        Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Sessions, Obama et al.

        1. And the problem here Mr. Kurtz is that it is almost so obvious, so bizarre and so widespread that it goes completely unnoticed by lefty loons and self-proclaimed “stewards of our democracy” i.e. lefty news outlets. Effing institutionalized corruption.

  5. Most people realize that unless there is undeniable proof of horrible wrongdoing the Republican Senate would never remove him. Better to win at the polls. Sadly he has managed to lower the standards for the Presidency to a very low level and tolerance for bad behavior has been strengthened

    1. Dear Martha, Is there any level lower than working the V of an intern with a cigar in the Oval Office and receiving BJ’s from young star-struck intern? Hmmm talk about “tolerance for bad behavior”. Do you really believe Trump’s behavior to be so bad, or are you simply engaging in hypocritical Loser Talk? The irony is that the cigar wielding per is no other than Madam Hilary Rodham Clinton – your candidate – and a lady who exercised more “tolerance for bad behavior” than any Dem congressmen – in exchange money and power. Oops, sorry to have pointed this all out. Hope I did not offend anybody, and if I did offend anybody – I apologize for my white privilege.

      1. If only all of Trump’s bad behavior was under his desk or in his washroom. We know he is also a slimey sleazeball c..z hound, but no one cares about that. Try to keep up BM.

        1. I believe everybody should care about BJ’s and cigar work on the V of a young star-struck intern in the OVAL OFFICE. But I guess I am just an old fuddy duddy who needs to “Try to keep up.”

        2. “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”

          “I did not rape Juanita Broaddrick.”

          – Bill Scamton

          “I did not take that bribe from Tyson Chicken as the Arkansas Governor’s wifey.”

          – Hillary Scamton

          “Please don’t ever check the books of the Clinton Foundation since inception.”

          – The Scamton Family

      2. Bill, I’m curious, can Donald Trump ever be discussed as a stand-alone subject?

        We’re now more than two years into Trump’s presidency and still Trump supporters answer every criticism with, “What about Hillary?”

        The fact that Trump supporters must ALWAYS resort to “What about Hillary?” illustrates how utterly lacking this president is. The idea seems to be that the prospect of Hillary was ‘so’ unspeakable that Trump, however rash and immature, was the only choice.

        1. P.Hill: To connect the dots, comparison started with Martha N comments earlier this morning…”he [Trump] has managed to lower the standards for the Presidency to a very low level and tolerance for bad behavior has been strengthened.” And then Anon asserted separately that Trump bimbo payments constitute impeachable offense. These anti-Trumpers cannot have it both ways. And in response to your question “…can Donald Trump ever be discussed as a stand-alone subject?” Can lefty loons ever discuss Trump without inference to impeachment mirage? Trump has kept or at least tried to keep to the conservative agenda he set forth during his campaign, and that is the “discussion” that resonates with Trump supporters.

          1. Bill, when Trump stood beside Putin and doubted U.S. intelligence agencies, that alone should have been the end of his presidency. At that point Trump forfeited any resin of legitimacy.

            And one should note that early in his presidency Trump invited the Russian Ambassador to the Oval Office to assure him James Comey was gone. Trump even staged that moment for TV cameras. For that alone Trump deserved the Mueller Probe (which he got).

            There have been so many moments that should have ended Trump’s presidency that’s it’s now challenging to name them all. In fact there were numerous moments that should have ended his campaign. With Donald Trump America has been deviating-down for 3 years straight. And this deviation has been largely facilitated by right-wing media.

            It was Trump himself who said he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it. How prophetic that was!

              1. Bill, explain how that moment affected our defensive strength.

                As Obama explained in response, he was only voicing a reality that was known to everyone: ‘his ability to negotiate was contingent on re-election’. And I don’t remember this as being a major scandal at the time. Did Republicans call for any hearings?

                One could point out that this moment occurred long before Russia invaded Crimea and Ukraine. Putin had not even assumed dictatorial powers yet. Whereas Trump had 20-20 hindsight on all those issues.

                  1. I have no problem with Obama’s comment there. It’s diplomacy. Let’s not get too ornery with the people who can utterly annihilate us with nuclear fire. I wish Democrats gunning for Trump today, were as smart as Obama was in that moment.

                    1. The problem here Mr. Kurtz is that if Trump were in a similar situation and uttered the same words then the lefty loons would scream Collusion!

                    2. exactly right bill but there are a lot of people left of Hillary that have said the same thing so it’s kind of not the entire Democrat party saying that, just the establishment. the other voters will have to decide come 2020 do they want to vote with the bellicose pro-war Democrat establishment that screws people like Bernie or do they want to take another chance with Trump who actually delivers on promises to disentangle from foreign wars

                      and I might add that Obama campaigned as a peace candidate, then they bullied him into being a war guy too. But, in a few discrete circumstances like this one, it emerged that in fact Obama was trying to make some modest diplomatic moves and not be too ornery. but he had Secretary of State Clinton out there ginning up all those conflicts whether he liked it or not. IMO he did better with Kerry than Clinton on that account.

                      So, it’s time for MORE democrats to wake up and smell the coffee about how damaging and belligerent Hillary was, and that’s why she was the darling of defense contractors making donations. Before they get the wool pulled over their eyes in another primary.

                      The Republicans have their MIC darlings too. Trump was NOT the favorite of the MIC. But, he has made a truce with them, as all presidents must. For my part I trust he will try and keep us at arms length from new useless wars.

                    3. Bernie was not “screwed” by the democrats. They let him run in their primaries when he was not a member where he got his clocked cleaned by Hillary worse than Trump did. 4 million votes, 55-42%.

                      Trump doesn’t have a foreign policy except kissing up to murdering dictators while running our country down and dissing our democratic allies.

                    4. “Trump doesn’t have a foreign policy…”

                      Anon, read Thucydides, Kissinger, Donal Kagan or any of the great people that have held vast stores of knowledge so you don’t sound like the idiot we see in YNOT.

                      Anon, have you ever heard the statement “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”? Think about it. What good does it do to start a war? How did Nixon and Kissinger open up China? Kissinger’s book “On China” is a fascinating read. Try it. I am not saying there is only one approach for there are many approaches, but they require thought and consistant policy. Fascinating as it may seem, Trump’s gut reactions are based on a world of experience and have mostly been correct.

        2. BM again makes up things I supposedly said. I remind him that:

          1. Clinton was impeached
          2. Getting BJs is not a criminal offense. Cohen is going to jail for conspiring with Individual #1 to avoid campaign finance laws.

          1. 1. Clinton impeached but not removed. Republicans paid the price.
            2.Cohen going to jail for more serious offenses, tossed in the campaign finance stuff to curry favor with persecutors. No allegation of crime committed by Trump. – Cohen was architect of payment scheme and that as a stand alone crime would likely not end up with his ass in prison. Tapes indicate that Cohen owned payment scheme.
            So easy.

            1. Thanks for confirming that Clinton BJ’s are irrelevant to discussions of Trump being impeached, and action I have already said I don’t favor.

              Thanks also for confirming that you’ll believe any nonsense you can grasp onto, like Cohen paid SD on his own and for his own purposes, and that regular checks from Trump, Trump, jr, were gifts …. or something, anything, other than their most obvious purpose. The SDNY awaits the end of Individual #1s immunity.

              1. So easy. You equate Trump bimbo payments to impeachment which begs for the comparison to the cigar wielding pervert in the white house. Trump never denied ultimately paying the bimbos. In tape Cohen can be heard saying “no,no,no” when Trump wanted to write check directly to bimbo. Cohen and Lanny Boy Davis threw in the copped plea to campaign finance violation to curry favor on sentencing for his real crimes including tax evasion pertaining to taxi cab medallions. Lefty loons like you are now moving from Muler hope and praise and pining your vindictive loser hopes on SDNY. So easy.

  6. Are they going to impeach him for his Tweets? Instead of comparing him to Tricky Dick they should compare him to Divine Interverntion. Where did this guy come from? A place in Hell? From Heaven? From New York? Which is worse? We do not want anyone from New York in the White House. Maybe in the Dark House. Maybe in the Green House. No Bernie. No Hillary. No Cuomo. Elect someone who lives West of the Mississippi and East of California. Someone not in Texas or Arkansas. No Georgian. No more Bushes, Carters, Clintons or Rayguns. Maybe Pence.

    Mister Pence: Build Up That Fence!

  7. The change is most remarkable among Democratic voters who previously favored impeachment by 80 percent but now only support it by 68 percent.

    Well, that tells you what is the share of partisan Democrats who do not understand what the purpose of impeachment as a political practice is (alongside the share who do not understand the purpose of the 25th Amendment).

    Or maybe they don’t understand what a high crime or misdemeanor is, and fancy you’ve committed one when you’re not deferential to one of their mascot groups or one of their shibboleths.

    1. When Trump loses the 2020 election, you’ll be the first one to demand a special counsel investigation of whichever Democrat becomes our next president. Trump will be the second person to demand a special counsel investigation of whichever Democrat becomes our next president. Unless Trump makes that demand before Trump loses the 2020 election. In which case, you might want to place your demand now for twenty or so special counsel investigations of all twenty or so Democrat candidates for president in 2020.

      1. Given L4B’s abysmal track record with her psychic predictions, Trump supporters should feel pretty good about her statement that Trump will lose in 2020.
        They’d need to worry if our resident seer predicted a 2020 Trump victory.😄

        1. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you are not making a prediction about the outcome of the 2020 election for president. You are. Aren’t you?

          1. I commented on L4B’s prediction that Trump would lose in 2020, and her track record of her pez dispenser forecasts.
            The Dianese gibberish above does not change what I said.

              1. Given any person whosoever votes for Trump in 2020, that person can’t tell the difference depicted in the linked video, either. Not even after they’ve already stepped in it.

                1. That is a variation of the “Basket of Deplorables” comment that served Hillary so well in 2016.
                  Old habits are hard to break, and I understand the tendency to stick with familar tactics….L4B and others need to continue rolling out other variations of the 2016 Deplorables comment.

                  1. I’m not disparaging Trump’s voters. I’m disparaging Trump. You do see the difference. Don’t you Ptom?

                    1. Hillary was dead-on with her “basket of deplorables” comment. She never should have apologized for that! She should have doubled-down instead. And that’s the problem with Democrats, they apologize for saying things that are totally dead-on.

          2. My prediction is, the mass media will continue its aggressive attacks on Trump, thus continuing to energize his base, who will turn out in lockstep, electing him to a second term.

            1. The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
              The stag in the forest runs free.
              But gather together to greet the storm.
              Tomorrow belongs to me.

    2. It looks like the Democratic leadership has made a political calculation that there is more bang for the buck by continuing with non-stop, wide-ranging supeonas/allegations/Adam Schiff TV serials, etc., rather than going for impeachment.
      Using House Committees for political opposition research for the 2020 campaign/ election is more cost-effective for the DNC and the Democratic nominee than hiring a Fusion GPS- Orbis-Christopher Steele to do hit jobs.
      House members like Mad Max, Wolfman Al Green, or Rapida Tlaib may continue to fire up that part of the Democratic base that needs to hear impeachment talk, but ultimately it seems to be just that….”talk” of impeachment.
      It remains to be seen if a series of wide ranging fishing expeditions, demanding documents from 80 (or maybe 800) Trump associates, etc. will work in favor of the Democrats, or backfire if the “Witch Hunt” accusation gains enough traction.
      Another “wild card” is a possible challenge to Trump for the 2020 GOP Nomination.
      There’s been some strong hints that Republicans like Jeff Flake, John Kasich, or even Mitt Romney might challenge Trump for the nomination….
      we should know pretty soon if anyone will step forward to mount a nomination challenge.

  8. Lefty loons like Late4Yoga & Anon, just want what they want right now! They want impeachment, they want the popular vote. All the while they don’t pay attention to the calendar and realize that there is an election next year. They become so irrational and so fixated with what they want (now!) that they develop no game. This creates openings for weak candidates like Beta O’Roark and Kristen G who run to the left and just wing it as they go. Lefty loons are like the little girl in Willy Wonka – they want an Ooompa Loompa, and they “want it now Daddy Daddy!”

      1. There has to be an impeachable offense before there is an impeachment trial. Personally, I would make the burden of proof the same as a jury trial–beyond a reasonable doubt. Although, technically, that is not the case with impeachment trials. As a practical matter, however, since the evidence against Trump would have to be strong enough at least potentially to convince twenty Republican Senators to convict, remove and disqualify Trump from office, we might as well pretend that the burden of proof for an impeachment trial is the same as a jury trial–beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be interesting to see if a president who had been acquitted at an impeachment trial could get re-elected to a second term of office. Now that truly would be a historic victory.

        1. “There has to be an impeachable offense before there is an impeachment trial.” That might be the first sentence of your’s that I have read that actually makes sense to me. The problem is that Fat Jerry Nadler, Shifty Schiff, et al are searching endlessly for an impeachable offense instead evaluating what to do with an impeachable offense.

          1. How else are they going to find an impeachable offense besides searching for one?

            No wonder you can’t make sense out of my sentences.

            1. So is that the standard operating procedure going forward? President gets elected and then opposition party spends years and million$ of taxpayer dollars looking for impeachable offense? OK that makes good sense….good old non-sense.

              1. The House Republicans blocked well nigh every subpoena the Democrats requested over the last two years. Now it’s up to Trump to stonewall Congressional oversight while running for re-election. Something tells me that there are 20 or so Democrats who will be a major campaign issue out of Trump’s thoroughly bogus assertions of executive privilege to save his own hide while running out the clock.

                1. The Trump Administration seems likely to adopt a “Fast and Furious” strategy of fighting scores of House supeonas.
                  The Mueller and SDNY supeonas are harder to dodge.
                  If the contenders for the Democratic nomination do make a major issue of resisting House Committee supoenas, the counter to that will be that scores of additional House supeonas are nothing more than political grandstanding for the 2020 campaign.
                  If that debate is a major feature of the Democratic nominee prospects, it’ll likely be a political “wash”, with neither Trump nor the Democratic contenders gaining or losing political scoring points.
                  Those already convinced that Trump is concealing incriminating evidence will merely become more convinced, and those who view these investigations as a fishing expedition or witch hunt will become more convinced of that.
                  I don’t see any gain of “converts” for either side.

                2. Late4Yoga – So you admit that it is an endless search for an impeachable offense. Interesting admission on your part.

    1. BM like Allan thinks you win arguments by making up stuff others supposedly said. He doesn’t know my position on impeaching Trump or what Dem candidates I like because I haven’t said anything about either.

      I’m against impeachment for political reasons, though I agree with JT that there may be a constitutional imperative – one which the Dems can ignore – for impeaching Individual #1.

      I don’t like either Gillibrant or Beto. I’m a pragmatic centrist Democrat and right now I prefer Amy Klobuchar.

      1. You like the lady candidate who eats carry-on airplane meals with her hair comb and asks staff to clean comb for her after devouring tasty meal. Amy K also likes to throw office objects at staff and blames her intense management style on stress caused by Putin. Same lady who bit on insane claims against Kavanough hook line and sinker. Anyway my point about Beta and Kristen G is that is those are the type of lousy candidate (add Amy K thank you) that are finding space to develop a campaign while Dumbocrats chase every shiny new object that gives them a sliver of hope for back-door presidential coup. #DemsGotNoGame

        1. BM apparently not only voted for Trump, but is still not disillusioned in his leader, thus disqualifying him from critical comments about any presidential candidates. Like his leader, he likes making up s..t about perceived enemies and is incapable of carrying on a serious discussion.

          1. “BM apparently not only voted for Trump, but is still not disillusioned in his leader, thus disqualifying him from critical comments about any presidential candidates.” Translation: If I am not disillusioned the way that you imagine that you are disillusioned, then I am disqualified from critical comments about any presidential candidates. The way you lay that out is amazing. If I do not agree with you and your ilk about A then I am disqualified from commenting on B. Sounds like what’s happening on Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. Sounds like the “F” word to me. Just saying. Others can judge for themselves.

            1. I am not disillusioned, though many Trump voters are, thus redeeming themselves.

              It is possible for me to disagree with people about many items while maintaining respect for them as aware, honest, and intelligent observers of the events and issues before us. It is not possible for me to maintain any respect for the continued loyalty of some to the biggest d..k and most ignorant lying braggart to ever hold national public office in my long lifetime. To maintain that position requires mental lapses of a sustained and serious nature which calls into question their ability to judge other humans, a necessary skill we as social animals must possess.

              1. Dear Ms. Anon: Sounds eerily like HRC’s “deplorables” comments and a clever attempt on your part to repackage. Wash, rinse, repeat.

  9. I get it. Trump is going to brag and boast about not having been impeached. Of course he will. What else is Trump going to brag and boast about? He has to brag and boast about something, anything.

    Trump campaigned hard in the mid-term Congressional elections last year on the dire warning to his base that Democrats would impeach him if they took control of The House. Trump’s dire warning failed to keep The House under Republican control. Ergo, the simple fact that Trump has not yet been impeached must mean that Trump has won another “historic victory.” Even though the Republicans lost The House. And even though the Democrats now have the subpoena power they need to investigate Trump relentlessly.

    Yep. It’s another historic victory for Trump alright. “Look Ma! They haven’t impeached me yet. I’m winning. I’m winning.”

  10. IMPEACHMENT IS POINTLESS THIS CLOSE TO ELECTION

    I am one of those Democrats who previously supported impeachment. But the presidential primaries are less than a year away. Therefore an impeachment drive would be a waste of time and energy.

    What’s more, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York will more than likely pick up where the Mueller Probe leaves off. Trump, in fact, could find himself with a whole new set of legal issues ‘before’ the next election. Conceivably Trump could forced to ‘do an LBJ’ and drop out of the race. I hope it comes to that.

    1. I’m waiting for Trump to demand his own impeachment in a timely manner. Gramma Nancy should make Trump beg for it. And the price Trump has to pay to be impeached in a timely manner is the timely production of documents and witnesses in response to each and every last subpoena from Nadler, Cummings and Schiff without any assertions of executive privilege gumming up the gear train. Then, and only then, can Trump demand his day in the court of The United States Senate. Till then, Trump will just have to keep on bragging and boasting that The Democrats haven’t impeached him yet.

    2. Yes, you are following the lead of MSNBC and CNN commentators who have pivoted from Muler, Muler, Muler! to SDNY, SDNY, SDNY! “Dont stop believing, hold onto that feeling”

      1. Lots of lawyer talk at the links below:

        https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/can-mueller-indict-trump-under-seal-avoid-statute-limitations-expiring-ncna956841
        Jan 9, 2019 … Can Mueller indict Trump under seal in case he wins in 2020 — and the … Image: President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn of the …

        Why Trump May Already Be Indicted Under Seal – Attorney IO

        https://www.attorneyio.com/trump-may-be-indicted/
        Jun 11, 2018 … There is perhaps no investigation more closely scrutinized than special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into President Donald Trump and his …

    3. You’ve been had Peter. It was all theatre from Democrat leadership from the start. They knew the clock would run out on it, and it was just a foil to razz up the troops. You have to admire their cleverness. Pelosi is ten times the politician Hillary ever was.

        1. I read it. I respect Dershowitz as a lawyer. Of course he is correct in that article that many Europeans shared bias against Jews then and many still do. I am not sure I agree with every conclusion he draws from that.

          I found Dershowitz’ book “the Vanishing Jew” very good and interesting. I have also enjoyed Finkelstein’s books. I have read a few articles by Gilad Atzmon. Because I am not a Jew, and not an Israeli, the intramural conflicts between Jews about Israel, do not disturb me too much. it seems to me, they are all entitled to an opinion, whether they are a Likudnik, or a haredim, or a Leftist.

          I claim a right to my opinion too, as an American. As an American, I feel like Israel is a firm strategic ally of the US in the Middle East. I understand that it is comparatively more similar to western societies than its neighbors. I like the very few Israeli people I have met. But, I like the Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians I have met too. I feel like it’s important for me not to get in between their ancient hostilities. The Jewish people have many holidays celebrating their ancient victories over their enemies, whether those were Babylonians and Persians (Purim) or Egyptians (Passover) or Greeks (Hannukah). They will never forgive the Romans I am sure and certainly not the Germans. That is fine– they are entitled to their free practice of religion, and my free practice is a Christian, which puts a value on forgiveness. They don’t. I can understand that, sometimes Christians forgive too much. But for me and I feel for America, we don’t need to make these feuds and ancient rivalries, our own.

          When it comes to American Jewish people, they’re entitled to an opinion too. I like many of those whom I have met, but having met a lot, there’s quite a few I don’t like too. I sometimes have opinions about groups of people that people don’t like. I have been called an antisemite a few times, but that was just a tactic to silence me at the time. In general, I like talking to Jewish people about the same sort of things we talk about here, because they are smart and subtle and well informed and well educated. So, even when i talk to a Jewish liberal, I can find common ground.

          It’s important for us to be forward looking on things that matter. We don’t want to forget but the details are not always in agreement. Now for example, If I were to split hairs about how many Armenians or Greeks died at the hand of Turks, very few people would care. But if I had an opinion about the Holocaust, I would be in big trouble if it did not comport to the orthodoxy of the moment. One thing I like about Jewish leftists like Finkelstein, is that they feel free to poke at some of the Jewish shibboleths. You rarely find that in a right wing American Jew, although there was an interesting fellow named David Cole who made a movie once about himself asking difficult questions at Osweicim, which did not make him any friends. Now he writes an article at Ron Unz’ website, another maverick right wing American Jew. Spas tells us that Unz is crazy. I don’t know Unz so we can just take Spas’ word for it. But when it comes to the whole H issue we are nearly 80 years on from that and it’s too long in the tooth for usage in every single debate. I find it useful for me, personally, best to try and focus on contemporary and forward looking areas of cooperation and mutual interest.

          By the way, did you know that Shibboleth is actually a Hebrew origin word?

          1. “But, I like the Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians I have met too.”

            As do I, but I do not refer negatively to the people who I used to deal with on a regular basis. I have problems with the trumped up anti-Semitism that exists and how people can show a blind eye to thousands of people being killed but suddenly become outraged at the death of a Palestinian attempting to kill women and children (… and frequently that death reported didn’t exist or was shown to be death that had nothing to do with violent intentions of the Palestinian.)

            Of course you have a right to your own opinion but one can only hope that your opinion is based on fact rather than the fiction that seems to exist all over the world. Remember, Iran is trying to place missiles and bases in Syria in order to attack Israel, and just a few days ago some of those missiles were launched at Israel.

            I’m not sure where you get the idea that Israel doesn’t place “value on forgiveness.” which is absolutely ridiculous and on a daily basis proven wrong.

            “how many Armenians or Greeks died at the hand of Turks, very few people would care.” They should care, but they don’t and when people of other nations kill large numbers of people very little effort is expended by the nations of the world unless that was a Palestinian who died trying to blow up an Israeli school bus. That lack of focus around the world you talk about and the incessant focus on the Palestinian is further evidence of anti-Semitism.

            “One thing I like about Jewish leftists like Finkelstein, is that they feel free to poke at some of the Jewish shibboleths.” That doesn’t say much for your integrity that I do not challenge. I say it because because saying things that are true are acceptable, but creating lies based on lies is not. Some of the people that do that and you might like collaborated with the Nazi’s or they might be promoting the myth ” that Jews may well have killed Christian children to use their blood to bake Passover matzah.” __Dershowitz).

            Of course, Kurtz, there is very little one can say to a person that believes “it’s “rational” to burn down synagogues. __Dershowitz. If that is the person that you trust for opinion then we do have an argument over your taste of who represents credible information.

            You are correct. A right wing Jew would not act in the fashion of Finkelstein and Atzmon nor would the normal left wing Jew. Does the right wing Jew criticize Israel for things that are bad? Of course they do but they don’t rely upon what liars and anti-Semites might say.

    1. Think of it as a Not-Quite-Enough-Yet-Burger that may or may not yet become a Just-Right-Burger–depending upon how many congressional subpoenas Trump can stonewall and how much of Mueller’s grand jury information can be sent up to Capitol Hill.

      Remember: It’s not a Nothing-Burger until Mueller says out loud in public that it’s a Nothing-Burger. When Trump says it, it’s literally unbelievable.

  11. More likely the polling followed the concerted push by Pelosi and other Democrat leaders to downplay Impeachment until the right time comes. I don’t think it’s yet time for Impeachment without the proof exposed for all to see, yet I’m certain he’s guilty of Impeachable offenses. Turley wants to spin it that fewer people want to see Trump Impeached which is possible but not likely. We just don’t want it to fail.

    1. ” … until the right time comes…”
      *****************

      Just hilarious. It’s been the “right time” for Dems since Hillarwitch refused to give her concession speech on the night of the election apparently more engrossed in developing her lamp tossing skills than bringing the country back together. I could buy Google and Amazon for cash if I had a video of that scene in the penthouse of The Peninsula Hotel in Manhattan.

      1. Keep thinking that time won’t be here soon and you’ll be laughing right through the second term of the Trump Administration. On a side note, I wouldn’t give odds on Acosta lasting another week. The Swamp is being drained, of all the creatures Trump brought with him.

        1. Trump is going to have to run for re-election while stonewalling every last subpoena from Cummings, Nadler and Schiff for Mueller’s grand jury information with thoroughly bogus assertions of executive privilege over “presidential communications” with people who never worked in Trump’s White House, let alone gotten themselves fired from Trump’s White House, but who had each entered into a JDA with the sole possessor of the pardon power, who had then had “presidential communications” with those potential codefendants about receiving pardons from Trump in exchange for strict adherence to the code of silence and non-cooperation known as Omerta.

          It should be a lively and spirited campaign.

    2. Enigma, Turley spins it like this: “The change is most remarkable among Democratic voters who previously favored impeachment by 80 percent but now only support it by 68 percent”.

      Normally 68% would be considered a significant ratio. But with Trump normal goes out the window.

      1. The 90 percent plus Republicans opposed to impeachment is also a significant number.
        The polls have shown decreased overall public support for impeachment for several months.

        1. The Easter-Island Monolith has not yet spoken aloud in public. Perhaps he never will. Or perchance he may. Either way, there are not very many people who are buying Trump’s repeated denials of everything. And I do mean everything all of the time. It’s incessant.

      2. You got that right. He’s an avatar. From Carl Jung:

        “In 1863 or 1864, in his poem TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, Nietzsche had written:

        I shall and will know thee, Unknown One,

        Who searchest out the depths of my soul,

        And blowest through my life like a storm,

        Ungraspable, and yet my kinsman!

        I shall and will know thee, and serve thee.

        Twenty years later, in his MISTRAL SONG, he wrote:

        Mistral wind, chaser of clouds,

        Killer of gloom, sweeper of the skies,

        Raging storm-wind, how I love thee!

        And we are not both the first-fruits

        Of the same womb, forever predestined

        To the same fate?

        In the dithyramb known as ARIADNE’S LAMENT, Nietzsche is completely the victim of the hunter-god:

        Stretched out, shuddering,

        Like a half-dead thing whose feet are warmed,

        Shaken by unknown fevers,

        Shivering with piercing icy frost arrows,

        Hunted by thee, O thought,

        Unutterable! Veiled! horrible one!

        Thou huntsman behind the cloud.

        Struck down by thy lightning bolt,

        Thou mocking eye that stares at me from the dark!

        Thus I lie.

        Writhing, twisting, tormented

        With all eternal tortures,

        Smitten

        By thee, cruel huntsman,

        Thou unknown — God!

        https://static.wixstatic.com/media/517a77_cee91772c2104d72b1eb22bb55835848~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_550,h_806,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/517a77_cee91772c2104d72b1eb22bb55835848~mv2.webp

    3. Yeah it’s a timing thing and you are certain he’s guilty of Impeachable offenses.” Are you really “certain” or “hopeful”. You want to believe that there is some strategy to the Pelosi comments instead of accepting that she is messaging to you all to drop it and get a life.

        1. No Ma’am that was a thrown in “admission” of guilt by Cohen to implicate president and divert from his real crimes to curry favor with sentencing judge and weak attempt to rehabilitate his public image. See news today – it was revealed that FBI was looking into Cohn’s non-Trump related crimes more than a year before the raid. Every day you lefty loons focus on impeachment mirage vs. 2020 is a good day for Trump – one step closer to re-election. “Debating” you and Late4Yoga is too easy – like shooting fish in a barrel. You both are easy outs. Next!

          1. BM’s conviction – unfortunate term – that Cohen paid off SD and was then personally reimbursed by Individual #1 for some purpose other than helping Trump cover up an embarrassing incident just before the election is duly noted.

            1. Ms. Anon, Let me “try to keep up”. BJ’s and cigar work on the V of young star-struck intern in OVAL OFFICE no big big deal for you, but bimbo payments for pre-election quickies not involving OVAL OFFICE should be considered impeachable offense? Thank you for revealing your side by side views on these matters.

          2. You neglected to mention that the FBI was investigating Cohen for being an unregistered agent of Russia while working for both the Trump Organization and as Trump’s personal lawyer, even while trading on access to the president, Trump. Think about that. An unregistered agent of Russia working as Trump’s personal lawyer, working for Trump’s company and trading on access to the president, Trump. No Golden Glove for the Ex-Yankees Manager.

            1. And of course, Cohen was the only one who thumbed his nose at the sporadically and selectively enforced FARA requirements.
              Non-enforcement of FARA stated requirements made FARA a joke among numerous non-compliant lobbyists, political profiteers, etc.

      1. Some observers have opined that Mueller has had to take preventive measures against Trump exercising the pardon power preemptively. Others have held that Mueller has had to backstop the special counsel’s investigation in the event that Trump fires Mueller. I have no idea whether AG Barr would allow sealed indictments to be brought against Trump, Trump Jr. or Kushner. I have no idea whether sealed indictments might have already been brought against Trump, Trump Jr. or Kushner before AG Barr was confirmed. I do know that AG Barr would not violate the court’s seal by telling Trump if he were under sealed indictment. I also know that there’s something not quite right about Trump being immune from indictment while in office without waiving his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; such that, the clock keeps running on the statute of limitations. How could the presidency be a grant of blanket immunity from prosecution? Something has to stop the clock on the statute of limitations.

        1. Late4Yoga, you have returned to your true form – chasing your tail. You put out a sentence today that actually seemed to make sense and then you followed up and spun that same sentence into non-sense. Now you take us back on magical roller coaster ride to your fantasy destination….
          “Some observers have opined..”
          “Others have held…”
          “I have no idea…”
          “I have no idea…”
          “I do know that…”
          “I also know that..”
          Next time please upload map with pins and yarn to illustrate your “point”.

            1. Dear Ms. Late4Yoga: “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullShiite.” ~ Anonymous

              1. There’s a chance that Trump may already be under a sealed indictment to stop the clock on the statute of limitations, to prevent Trump from pardoning himself, his son and his son-in-law preemptively, and to backstop the grand jury information in the event that Trump had fired the special counsel.

                If the president cannot be indicted while in office, then that immunity to indictment must waive the president’s right to a speedy trail or the indictment must be sealed so that the statute of limitations can be stayed.

              2. When all else fails, add more non-related WikiPedia excerpts.
                I think it is L4B’s intention to ultimately quote every word every written on WikiPedia in her daily columns here.

          1. And now for the completion of the previous sentence from the article linked above:

            Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don’t in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize

          2. Bill Martin,
            It’s “highly probable” that she did not actually “return to” her true form…..she never deviated from her Dianese and double-speak.
            She’s been consistent in that regard in her decades of comments that she’s posted here.

            1. TM: Earlier this morning Late4Yoga actually wrote: “There has to be an impeachable offense before there is an impeachment trial.” Then she immediately amended and returned to true form and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Perhaps muscle memory from a pre-indoctrination point in her life kicked in (maybe high school) resulting in a temporary logical thought. Maybe she had a good night sleep and woke up accidentally thinking rationally, then caught herself and course-corrected.

  12. “the people are nothing but a great beast…

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    _____

    Polls? Never did the American Founders intend for a one man, one vote democrazy.

    “We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin

    Franklin’s was a restricted-vote republic which required voters to be: Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. The Naturalization Act of 1790 also required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” which helped enormously with the voting restrictions – both of which constituted the original intent of the American Founders – “…to ourselves and our posterity,…”
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

    “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

    – Alexander Hamilton – The Farmer Refuted, 1775
    _______________________________________

    For the Founders, it went without saying that women had “duties” sufficient to keep them occupied making the nation.

    1. George says Blackstone says, “Wealth is will and will is wealth.” And rich people never buy the votes of our elected representatives or some such plutocratic chutzpah.

  13. After nonstop ranting and raving about Trump being just ahead of Caligula on the Insane Tyrant Scale and moreover representing a clear and present danger to the Republic for which they never stand, the Dems pull an Emily Litella and tell us “Never mind.” Thus they have relinquished any claim of being a serious political party and relegated themselves to the rank of conmen, crackpots and the Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party:

    1. mespo….Perfect!

      Yeah, the Dems are sending a search party into that Magician’s hat……The one that was supposed to have impeachable offenses pulled out of it. But so far, nothin’. No rabbit, no scarves, no collusion………
      Next!

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        That same month [August of 2016] there was a meeting that went to the “heart” of the Russia investigation, according to a Mueller prosecutor. It involved Manafort, and it remains an enigma, at least to the public.

        Court papers indicate Manafort had previously shared polling information related to the Trump campaign with Kilimnik, his old Russian pal. According to emails and court papers, Manafort — looking to make money from his Trump access — had also been in touch with Kilimnik about providing private briefings for the billionaire Deripaska. (There’s no evidence such briefings ever occurred).

        Meeting with Manafort and Gates at New York’s Grand Havana Room cigar bar on Aug. 2, 2016, Kilimnik brought up a possible peace plan for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. What happened at that meeting is in dispute and much of it remains redacted in court papers.

        But the Mueller prosecutor would note: The men left separately to avoid unwanted attention.

        [end excerpt]

        The Peace Plan for The Ukraine entailed sanctions relief for Russia. Trump’s campaign manager discussed sanctions relief for Russia with a Russian intelligence operative to whom Manafort also gave $767,000 worth of detailed, sophisticated in-house Trump polling data produced by Tony Fabrizio. The Russian intelligence operative forwarded the polling data to the Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, who is a close friend and ally of Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation.

    2. they’re serious alright. they’r serious about glomming together a motley crew of voters who will enable them to get paid and take stuff. the operative principle is gain, via the political system.

      it was ever thus

  14. Gallup poll: 20% rate immigration a major problem, 2% on climate change.

    While Orange Man campaigned today in Ohio, a must win State, every single Dem candidate screams and pounds their fist to “End the Electoral College NOW!!!”

    Remember when Progs screamed that Trump was “destroying our institutions!!!” Pot, meet kettle.

    Oh, and self proclaimed Demonrat “BOSS” AOC rates 30% approval/43% disapproval……..IN HER HOME PROGRESSIVE STATE of NY! And of course, if you disapprove of her, YOU’RE A RAY-sis!

    Please, Progs, continue status quo. YOU’RE DOING GREAT!!!

Leave a Reply to Thomas Johnson Cancel reply