Rep. Adam Schiff, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, maintained the curious line of the Democratic leadership this weekend in declaring Trump’s conduct as more serious than Nixon but trying to dampen demands for impeachment. I have written for the last year that the calls for impeachment leading to the midterm elections as a transparent bait-and-switch in the making. As made clear by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, impeachment is not on their “agenda.” Indeed, it is doubtful that the leadership ever wanted to impeach Trump. However, they must look like they want to impeach so Schiff and others are just blaming the expected opposition by Republicans as relieving them of the need to impeach. It doesn’t. While I think this would be a difficult impeachment case given the mixed and incomplete findings of Robert Mueller, that has nothing to do with Schiff and others fulfilling their oaths if they believe impeachable conduct has occurred. Nixon was certain to be impeached when he resigned and Schiff is saying that Trump’s conduct is “far worse.”
The line was apparent last night when Speaker Nancy Pelosi fought back members demanding impeachment proceedings and insisted that they would just continue to investigate out of fear of possible political backlash.
Schiff told host of ABC’s This Week, Martha Raddatz that “The obstruction of justice in particular this case is far worse than anything that Richard Nixon did … so yes, I would say in every way this is more significant than Watergate.”
Then however he relieved himself and the entire Democratic Party of acting on principle to vote on articles of impeachment. It is well known that the party is concerned that such an effort would backlash and a wounded Trump is much better for their political interests than a removed Trump. The solution? Blame the opposition and say that they would not fulfill their oaths:
“We are, unfortunately, in an environment today where the GOP leadership, people like [House Minority Leader] Kevin McCarthy, are willing to carry the president’s water no matter how corrupt or unethical or dishonest the president’s conduct may be. And in those kinds of circumstances, when [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell will not stand up to the president either, it means that an impeachment is likely to be unsuccessful.”
It is that easy. You get to continue to investigate and declare impeachable conduct without actually putting your name to an article of impeachment.
As I have previously written, members should not be able to avoid difficult votes by insisting that other members in the other chambers would likely not fulfill their own oaths. If leadership want to stand on principle in denouncing alleged impeachable offenses, they may want to honor the principles under Article I to declare and vote on such offenses.
The Dem Party has never been this weak intellectually and emotionally. Some strong figure who understands Civics 101 needs to explain how political problem-solving works to the unschooled masses on the left and their media surrogates.
There is this about Pelosi. If she pushes impeachment, she’ll be seen as a hypocrite because we’ll see all the YouTube arguments of her opposing impeachment in ’98 when Bill Clinton was on the docket. And maybe that’s the real issue with her and all the other Democrats who voted against his impeachment or removal.
No comparison but as for hypocritical if you believe Clinton should have been impeached why no concern for tRump.
Pbinga
I’ve often wondered how Hoover would have dealt with the Watergate investigation had he lived. He died a month or so before the break-in.
Herbert? Or J. Edgar? You know what? Never mind.
Nancy needs to posture as conveying a big tent but the animus and primary goal is what everyone has been saying for years: overturn Trump
The DNC plans were articulated succinctly by David Brock:
Confidential 49 Page Memo From David Brock Shows Plans To Attack Trump Including Plans For Impeachment
Plan A – Clinton wins and uses “Russian interference” to shield her from impeachment.
Plan B – Repackage “Russian interference” narrative to push impeach Trump movement. Gridlocking government so they can pick up where they left off after improving voter fraud efforts in 2020.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3440721/337535680-Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-on.pdf
Looking at the current political mess through these lenses (Brock’s plan) it all makes sense what they are doing
Watergate: The Committee to Reelect Nixon had a $3M cash fund to pay for dirty tricks. They attempted to bug the headquarters of the DNC, employing ex-CIA operatives. L. Patrick Gray, the FBI Director acted as a WH surrogate, using his power within the FBI to try to quash the investigation of the break-in. A couple of very brave women who worked for CREEP, and a couple of heroic FBI agents broke open the involvement of the WH, and W. Mark Felt, FBI Associate Director, leaked important details of the plot and coverup to the Wash Post in order to thwart Director Gray’s coverup plan within the FBI.
In terms of intent to cheat to steal an election, use of CIA-trained pros, and obstruction of an ongoing FBI investigation involving Dir. L. Patrick Gray and AG John Mitchell, there is no comparison to the Trump Campaign, but there may be a comparison to the Hillary Clinton Campaign’s use of the Dossier as a dirty trick involving Obama Admin officials.
Pbinca,
I know that L. Patrick Gray destroy documents from a White House safe right after the Watergate break-in.
John Dean and Hunt convinced him that these documents must never see the light of day and turned them over to Gray to destroy them.
Gray said he burned them in his fireplace, but I don’t remember what he clsimed were in those documents.
They’re gone, just like the 18 1/2 minutes of Nixon tapes that “accidently” got erased.
I don’t remember Gray going beyond that incident in an ongoing cover-up scheme.
Do you know if he conspired with the key Watergate figures beyond that initial destruction .of those documents?
Gray threatened disciplinary action against any agents that would not follow his lead on Watergate. My source is “Secrets of the FBI” by Ronald Kessler.
Pbinca,
Thanks….I need to refresh my memory on Gray’s time as director.
Mark Felt probably committed crimes by leaking grand jury, etc. info to Woodward and Bernstein.
When he came out as Deep Throat, it was long past the time he could be prosecuted.
But soon enough to cash in on his Deep Throat role, if that what part of the objective.
He was mad at Nixon for being past over as FBI Director, and that probably played a role in his decision to leak damaging info to the press.
He violated the law and took the risk for the greater goal of screwing over Nixon.
He was convicted in about 1980 for illegal wiretapping, I think. Ironically, Nixon testified on his behalf.
Again, what you’re not acknowledging is the motor of this. Democrats believe public offices are their property and that public discourse must proceed according to their rules. It’s a ‘high crime’ that Trump (1) holds office and (2) says what he thinks without regard to them wailing like banshees (3) prospers; cannot be compelled to back down or apologise when their media wing manufactures another phony sh!tstorm. And if you want proof that controversies are contrived by reporters and editors, just ask yourself what happened to the tripartite scandal engulfing all three statewide officials in Virginia. Once enforcing their pseudo-rules came to be severely inconvenient to the Democrats, the press stopped writing about it. NB, the WaPoo penned dozens of stories in 2006 about the supposed use of the term ‘macaca’ by George Allen. (It’s a slur that hardly anyone had ever heard before. At least the post said it was a slur).
Let’s have an investigation of Feinstein/Schiff involvement with Red China.
That are the solid facts for impeachment? The foo on the wall was flung by Nancy and others.
Many moons ago Pocahontas not want fight with white eyes. Now Pocahontas wants war with orange man. Others in tribe prophesied when Pocahontas drinks fire water becomes dirty nose.
Again – to impeach or not impeach. It’s a provocative drum beat. Again – it’s one that creates ambiguity. Democrats will exploit the ambiguity just as they are exploiting the ambiguity created by the Mueller Report. It might seem powerful today, but won’t be the winning hand in 2020. By then we may have more clarity around the subterfuge that was the genesis of this debacle.
From The Office of Legal Counsel:
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
From the Desk of Frame Substitution:
The Impeachment of a sitting President would permissibly (?) undermine (?) the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in accordance with the constitutional separation of powers?(??)
The Democrats are creating a non functional government in the hopes of gaining total control so they can change our body of law to suit their needs. They are fascists. Look at what the French are doing to freedom of speech (Turley’s earlier posting). The Democrats want to be able to abuse the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many of the leaders on the right are of the same persuasion. We should remember that some of the most beloved leaders in the English speaking world had great fondness for the fascists prior to WW2. That seems to be the nature of politicians that have been in office for a long time and wish to remain in office. People can be easily convinced to give up their liberty. Just look at the recent polls in Russia showing the public’s sentiment towards Stalin.
Democrats cannot be fascists, since one of the main defining characteristics of fascism is that it is a movement that occurs in reaction to the Left. There’s no such thing as left-wing fascism. Left wing fascism is called Communism and no one here is advocating that. You should study up on what fascism, as an ideology and movement are, before using the term as an insult. Fascists aren’t just people who are trying to make you do what you don’t want to do. They are an anti-Left movement, with (usually) an incoherent/situational ideology, the main focus of which is holding on to power and advancing the movement by ginning up people’s racial/religious prejudices in order to keep their followers energized as an “us” versus a (usually shifting or expanding) “them.”
Books are important. They teach us things. I have a few I could recommend on this subject, but I’d start with Robert Paxton’s “The Anatomy of Fascism.”
“Democrats cannot be fascists, since one of the main defining characteristics of fascism is that it is a movement that occurs in reaction to the Left.”
That is circular reasoning. Fascism, Communism, Socialism have a lot in common and move in similar directions. The intellectectual leaders came from the left. What you have seen is infighting for power among the leaders that had a similar direction but a slight difference in philosopy. Karl Marx greatly influenced Giovani Gentile who one might call the intellectual father of Italian fascism.
“You should study up on what fascism, as an ideology and movement are”
Take your own advice.
Re Paxton, look at theory rather than actions. What is a common denominator of all three though one theoetically ends without government? Increased state power. Be careful with your terms because the word conservative has different meanings based on context just like the commonly used world Liberal is based on context. Many confuse today’s Liberal with the liberal of earlier times also known as the classical liberal.
jkluvschachi, since you brought up Robert Paxton and his book I expected that you would be interested in exploring our differences but perhaps your interest was only fleeting and in promoting Democratic values, explaining why they cannot be Fascist when they can be. I think Paxton mentioned the KKK as a Fascist like instrument which at one time was a Democratic value.
Historically, I believe in 1833 Communist Party leaders requested the membership to get rid of Germany’s parliamentary run government and vote for the Nazi’s. Both groups were somewhat thuggish and the intellectuals behind the groups came predominantly from the Socialists.
However, forget this history and look at the theory behind both types of government (Fascism is ill defined and murky which is what seems to permit people to make all sorts of illogical claims.) What do Fascism and Socialism have in common? Dictatorship, statism and collectivism, and as Goebbels would say “sacrificing the individual to the whole.”
The above was Allan.
Again, stupidity transcends.
YNOT, if you haven’t noticed I take a position based on knowledge. One doesn’t have to agree or disagree. You keep demonstrating that you have the brain of a slug and are unable to deal with any topic.
Ah Mr um Djugashvili? lol. Every group uses “us” versus “them” certainly Marxists do it quite well. Or Democrats and Republicans. Something that is universal to all groups can’t distinguish them.
Try Roger Eatwell’s work instead
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199585977-e-009
abstract:
Although strands of proto-fascist thought can be identified before 1914, it was only after the First World War that a syncretic fascist ideology emerged. It is best understood within a matrix encompassing three core themes. The first is the quest for a ‘new man’, which required the creation of new forms of dynamic leadership. The second is the celebration of the holistic nation, though this did not necessarily mean militaristic expansionism outside states with major geopolitical aspirations. The final theme is the quest for a Third Way, which would inspire the community and promote economic prosperity. Within this matrix there were notable differences about issues such as the role of violence, biological racism, and the nature of the totalitarian state.
“Democrats cannot be fascists, since one of the main defining characteristics of fascism is that it is a movement that occurs in reaction to the Left.”
Where the hell do you get that? “Fascism,” as that word is commonly used, is devoid of defining characteristics. The observations of George Orwell, who wrote as sensibly on the subject as any other person, seem as apt today as when he wrote them in 1944:
“I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:
“Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.
“Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.
“Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.
“Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky’s own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.
“Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;
“War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.
“Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People’s Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.
“Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.
* * *
“It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
“Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
“But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.”
Sorry for the lengthy entry, which I hope can be excused by the fact that is mostly a long quotation from a more engaging writer than most of the people who comment on this blog.
The Democrats want to be able to abuse the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many of the leaders on the right are of the same persuasion.
Yup.
Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action, Kamala Harris
I don’t think Democrats are fascists per Roger Eatwell’s definition because they lack a palingenic aspect. They do not seek to create a “new man.” On the second factor, they certainly DO NOT celebrate a “holistic nation.” They are all about me, me, me. Essentially, in America at this time, they’re the party of more handouts.
At least socialists nominally care about the good of society: Democrats barely make a facade of that anymore.
what unites both Democrats and Republicans as “liberals” even in the classic sense is a shared norm of respect for individual rights. Though the particulars vary, a lot! Fascists seek to pursue as their chief norm the betterment of the people or state as such, clearly, willingly, and even enthusiastically, at the expense of individuals. In this Allan is right that they are similar in some sense to Communists of the old days.
Mr. Kurtz, I don’t know if this has been posted already, but this article seems to be a very good and objective explanation of fascism. There is a George Orwell link in there as well that also provides some clarity.
https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html?fbclid=IwAR3nMgoMD7So8T2FCnPnLJ5GEQeWiiE4Q_-AA6eI3QwP5ho5Tx7FXmrPkVg
I especially like his last paragraph:
Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
Olly, thank you for the 2017 article. He is right about trying to define Fascism and its use as a swearword which further complicates its meaning. As I alluded to earlier “Paxton, author of several books, including “The Anatomy of Fascism” (Vintage, 2005), said fascism is based more on feelings than philosophical ideas.” That is why I stated to jkluvschachi, “Re Paxton, look at theory rather than actions” and “(Fascism is ill defined and murky…)”
I was hoping someone would engage on Paxton to explain why as the expert he left the word so fluid and didn’t attempt to define it in a more limited fashion or based its definition on its essential philosophy. The word Fascist has frequently been placed on the right, but by who? The left has tried to mislabel the right though I admit it can exist on either side if one is supporting any type of statism or collectivism. I wonder where Paxton stands on the ideological spectrum?
When we look at today in this country one has to think who should be considered the Fascist? I lean more to the side of the classical liberal than to either of the two parties. When we think of organizations like Antifa (anti-Fascist we have to think of them as a modern day group of anti-democratic thugs that support the left.) When we think of statism and collectivism, those ideas come predominantly from the left in our country though it can come from almost all sides. Do we call the limitation of free speech on the campus’s right or left? Free speech on the campus’s today is being inhibited by the left and by Democrats. Isn’t that what the Nazi’s and Italian Fascists did? Isn’t that what Stalin and Lenin did? Isn’t larger government at the expense of individual freedom the direction the left and Democrats are taking today?
Finally I will repeat what Goebbels said: “sacrificing the individual to the whole.” and then when one looks carefully at intellectuals leading the Fascist movements of the mid 20th century one I believe would conclude Fascism is a sister to Socialism.
Thus I take strong exception to the words of jkluvschachi, “Democrats cannot be fascists, since one of the main defining characteristics of fascism is that it is a movement that occurs in reaction to the Left.” Democrats certainly can be and many have acted in that fashion.
Thus I take strong exception to the words of jkluvschachi, “Democrats cannot be fascists,
It was jkluvschachi’s comment that had me in search of an objective definition for Fascism. I didn’t care where it led me, I was just not adequately informed to argue his point one way or another.
It seems to boil down to this: Fascism has become the go to term to describe anyone threatening another’s worldview. So yes, that would mean if you’re a classical liberal, believing in a constitutionally-limited government, the rule of law and so on, then you’re a fascist. Those making those claims won’t see the irony, because it’s their worldview that is threatened.
Olly, the irony is noted by me. I look more towards the philosophic origins of the Fascist dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini and that of Stalin. All dictators, statists and anti-democratic. I hate the use of the word based on actions or insult.
It’s not up to the Democratic leadership to impeach, that is a decision of the States as the Union exclusively!
Just in case you didn’t know, the Union is the States, in Congress Assembled, which makes our Country the United States of America, Not The United Parties!
The simple fact that you are quite perfectly correct will never change the fact that our forebears fought a bloody civil war against one another without ever once having impeached a President until 1868–three years after that bloody civil war came to an end.
(P. S. I really, really, truly, truly wish that you were right about the whole lot of it.)
House Intelligence Committee. Now THERE’S an oxymoron for you. Speaking of Morons. did anyone see Toobin’s comments about Mueller’s ten points? He said while each point taken individually does bit mean anything all together they mean something. No. If each one is a zero , ten time zero is zero.
Turley wrote, “It is well known that the party is concerned that such an effort would backlash and a wounded Trump is much better for their political interests than a removed Trump. The solution? Blame the opposition and say that they would not fulfill their oaths:”
[Paraphrase] It is well known that the party would not vote to convict Trump of any offense whatsoever let alone an impeachable offense.
Huh? What? Which “party” is Turley not talking about now? It is confusing. Isn’t it? Democrats are expected to do their constitutional duty to trigger a backlash against Democrats and improve Trump’s chances of being re-elected. Republicans are expected to shirk their constitutional duty to trigger a backlash against Democrats and improve their very own chances of regaining a Majority in The House.
Huh? What? That’s right. If impeaching Trump triggers a backlash against Democrats that improves Trump’s chances of being reelected as well as Republicans’ chances of regaining a Majority in The House, then the Republicans should do their constitutional duty to Impeach Trump so that Trump’s chances of being reelected as well as Republican chances of regaining a Majority in The House would both be improved.
Is there a flaw in that logic? Let’s ask Professor Turley. But, but, but . . . [“They are Republicans”].
#1. Republican Party
#2.No, it isn’t confusing. But nice try at making it confusing.
#1. Constitutional duties are for Democrats, only, and never for Republicans.
#2. Furthering the political interests of the Republican Party is the only constitutional duty that The Democratic Party has.
Excerpted from Volume II, Page 1 (also page 214), of The Mueller Report:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution ofa sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework ofthe Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. this Office accepted legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2
[repeated for emphasis] ” . . . for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from constitutional view . . . [edit] . . . and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”
I think this should read Democrat Party Should Be Impeached……as soon as possible.
Go for it. Impeach the Democrats for refusing to Impeach Trump. Flaming Dipsticks with Broken-Off Tips.
It’s called sarcasm.
Sarcastically Flaming Dipsticks With Broken-Off Tips.
So … If we are to understand this correctly
President Trump is guilty of an Impeachable Crime because he exercised his 1st Amendment Rights to free speech on his tweets?
WoW … The Congressional DemoKKKrats have way too much free time on their hands
As dysfunctional as Mr Trump is, most people believe Mr Pence would be worse. Mr Pence is more seriously misguided ideologically while more mentally functional than Mr Trump.
Noam Chomsky: By Focusing on Russia, Democrats Handed Trump a “Huge Gift” & Possibly the 2020 Election
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/18/chomsky_by_focusing_on_russia_democrats
The Democrats invested everything in this issue. Well, turned out there was nothing much there. They gave Trump a huge gift. In fact, they may have handed him the next election. That’s just a—that’s a matter of being so unwilling to deal with fundamental issues, that they’re looking for something on the side that will somehow give political success. The real issues are different things. They’re things like climate change, like global warming, like the Nuclear Posture Review, deregulation. These are real issues. But the Democrats aren’t going after those. They’re looking for something else—the Democratic establishment.
“it is doubtful that the leadership ever wanted to impeach Trump. However, they must look like they want to impeach”
Dems stand for nothing other than “get Trump”, overthrowing the US Constitution.
Nothing new
Calls for impeaching Trump will certainly be used as political campaign ammunition from Republicans for painting the Dems as extremist radicals undermining the will of the people.
TDS in full swing