#IMPEACHMITTROMNEY: Trump Appears To Call For The Impeachment Of Mitt Romney In Tirade of Personal Attacks

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) recently stated what many have observed in the wake of the Ukraine call disclosures — the push by President Donald Trump for Ukraine (and now China) to investigate his political rivals is unacceptable. The response from President Trump was both personal and perplexing. He denounced Romney as a “pompous ass” and seemed to call for his impeachment — even though there is not only no impeachment provision for a sitting U.S. Senator and Utah does not even have a recall provision. Sen. Susan Collins (R, Maine) has also made measured but critical comments recently.

Trump tweeted that not only was Sen. Jeff Flake “better” than Romney but “I’m hearing that the Great People of Utah are considering their vote for their Pompous Senator, Mitt Romney, to be a big mistake. I agree! He is a fool who is playing right into the hands of the Do Nothing Democrats! #IMPEACHMITTROMNEY.”

It is certainly true that, according to a poll taken in July, Romney’s approval rate with Utahans is only 38% (the lowest on the delegation) with a 40% disapproval rate. However, President Trump’s disapproval rate remains over fifty percent.

None of that matters of course. A president should act with a modicum of decorum and dignity even in addressing political rivals. While one could give the President the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the impeachment talk as a joke, the personal attacks were not. Romney’s comments were reasonable and deliberative even if you disagreed with him. The name calling and unfounded talk of senatorial impeachments only make it harder for Republican senators to openly support the President. They also play into a narrative of the Democrats that Trump is wounded and unhinged. With the Senate now at risk in 2020, these Senators will be increasingly concerned about their future as a Senate impeachment trial looms. This is the not the way to assure them that the White House has a coherent and controlled strategy for navigating these increasingly dangerous waters.

The President has defenses to these charges but much will depend on intent and credibility. Neither is helped by these attacks on political rivals or fellow Republicans.

372 thoughts on “#IMPEACHMITTROMNEY: Trump Appears To Call For The Impeachment Of Mitt Romney In Tirade of Personal Attacks”

  1. NPR Today, GOP led Senate finds Russians did it to help Trump and harm Hillary.

    “Washington — A report released Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee warns that the Kremlin-backed information warfare efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election could evolve, intensify and inspire other actors to make similar attempts in 2020.

    The partially redacted, 85-page report is the product of two years of bipartisan, staff-led efforts, and offers a comprehensive look at Russian operatives’ activity surrounding the 2016 elections.

    Though President Trump continues to dismiss the idea that Russia tried to help his candidacy with its meddling, the panel’s report reinforces previous conclusions by the intelligence community about Russian operations in 2016 — including that they were designed to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of success while boosting Mr. Trump’s….”

  2. a real CIA whistleblower, John Kiriakou, who got locked up for it, says this phony whistleblower is fake, in so many words

    1. Of course it is ‘fake’ whistleblower. Someone should ask James Comey again: just what is your Higher Loyalty to? Trump is a White Knight compared to these corrupt swamp dwellers.

  3. An interesting paragraph from an op-ed:

    “He looks at the administration of George W. Bush and the war with Iraq, and sees the hand of deep state agents there as well. And guess what? He’s right. I wrote a book about that in 2007. It’s called Shadow Warriors, and it details how a cabal of Bush-hating, pro-Democrat State Department weenies and intelligence community weasels conspired to feed false intelligence on Iraqi WMD to the Bush White House, and then blasted Bush 43 for waging a “war for oil.””

    https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/why-syria-pullout-makes-sense-kenneth-r-timmerman

  4. Spot on

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeaching-trump-voters-11570487810

    Impeaching Trump Voters

    It’s revenge for 2016, and nervousness about Democratic prospects for 2020.

    William McGurn

    Oct. 7, 2019 6:36 pm ET

    Opinion: Impeaching the Deplorables

    For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Donald Trump is everything Democrats say he is: a president who abuses his national-security powers by siccing a foreign government on his political rival, a racist/bigot/nativist constantly using “dog whistles” to stoke division, a man uniquely unfit to sit in the Oval Office.

    Assume Mr. Trump is all these things. With an election scarcely a year away, the question then becomes: Why impeach him now? Surely a president as abominable as this ought to be easy to defeat at the polls. Mr. Trump would appear to be especially vulnerable, given that last time he lost the national popular vote and won several battleground states by razor-thin margins.

    The answer speaks as much to what Democrats think of Trump voters—they don’t trust them—as it does to what they think of Mr. Trump. In this sense, the push for impeachment now may reflect a lack of Democratic confidence that they can persuade enough of the voters who went for Mr. Trump last time to give them the margins they need for victory come November 2020.

    The lack of confidence extends to doubts about each of their leading candidates. It’s no secret that many Democrats worry Joe Biden isn’t up to the job of taking on Mr. Trump. So long as Ukraine is in the news, stories about Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal with a Ukrainian gas company will be in the news as well. Other Democrats, meanwhile, worry that Elizabeth Warren is too far left to win. And Bernie Sanders’s heart attack probably spells the end of any chance he might have had at the nomination.

    A year ago, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler told Roll Call that before using impeachment to overturn the results of the last election, Democrats would have to answer this question: “Do you think that the case is so stark, that the offenses are so terrible and the proof so clear, that once you’ve laid it all out you will have convinced an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for Trump, who like him, that you had no choice? That you had to do it?”

    We are nowhere close to meeting the Nadler standard. True, public support for impeachment is up since news of Mr. Trump’s phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart broke. A FiveThirtyEight.com average of all the impeachment polls finds 46.5% for and 44.8% against. More telling is the divide the numbers show when they are broken down by party. While 79.1% of Democrats want impeachment, the number drops to 41.3% for independents and only 12.5% for Republicans.

    So why the rush? Maybe because in addition to concerns about 2020, there’s an itch to punish Trump voters for what they did in 2016. In other words, it isn’t enough that Mr. Trump be defeated. His whole presidency must be delegitimized—along with the people who voted him in.

    In 2016 Hillary Clinton famously expressed this contempt for Trump voters when she told wealthy donors at a Manhattan fundraiser “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”

    She went on. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

    In “Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling,” reporter Amy Chozick confirms this was no one-off gaffe. Mrs. Clinton, she reports, used the line repeatedly to Democratic audiences she knew would appreciate the sentiment.

    “The Deplorables always got a laugh, over living-room chats in the Hamptons, at dinner parties under the stars on Martha’s Vineyard, over passed hors d’oeuvres in Beverly Hills, and during sunset cocktails in Silicon Valley,” wrote Ms. Chozick. The unspoken corollary is that only a morally debased citizenry could have freely chosen Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.

    Today few publicly call Trump voters “deplorable.” But the assumption remains. Remember that high-school kid from Covington, Ky., who was accosted by a Native American activist? Simply because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, the 16-year-old was instantly transformed into the face of white supremacy by a good part of the American media.

    When the facts finally emerged, of course, they told a much different story. But what happened to that Covington student could not have happened without many in positions of influence unthinkingly sharing the view that people who wear MAGA hats are what Mrs. Clinton says they are. Trump voters get this, while it doesn’t seem to occur to Democrats that the president’s supporters stick with him in part because they appreciate that the Trump hatred is directed at them as well.

    In a poem written after East German workers rose up against their communist overlords in 1953, the playwright Bertolt Brecht suggested that if the government was dissatisfied with the lack of appreciation from its countrymen, perhaps it ought to “dissolve the people and elect another.” He meant it as irony. Some of those pushing hardest for impeachment appear to be taking it more literally.

    Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

    1. I think many of us gave Hillary Clinton a bit more credit, but not much, than she deserved. Now I realize she really is a vile person. She makes David Brock look good.

    2. Estovir – that’s a good point. I wondered why the Democrats would keep bothering with the impeachment ploy, given that it’s the end of 2019. They must think they are at risk of losing the next election, so they are trying to take him out. Even if it’s not justified, they could be betting that it would poison the water for Trump. This would probably backfire, however. Even if they got enough never Trump Republicans to actually impeach him, Trump would call enough witnesses as to destroy the Democratic field of candidates, revealing the shenanigans of Democrat activists. That would leave Pence clear, or any Republican who wished to run, like Nikki Haley, and an enraged Republican voting block. If the impeachment vote did not pass, they would have damaged the Democrat party, and Trump would still run.

      Perhaps Democrats know this is just another unjustified ploy to try to unseat him, but don’t care because they are willing to do whatever it takes to get him out of office. When lawful elections don’t go their way, they must take drastic measures…

      I fondly remember the days when Democrat media fretted for weeks about the possibility that Trump voters might not accept his loss and resort to violence or attempts to overturn the election. Ironic.

      1. I fondly remember the days when Democrat media fretted for weeks about the possibility that Trump voters might not accept his loss and resort to violence or attempts to overturn the election.

        It is truly diabolical. Although Trump has no voters in our home, we are keenly aware that the Dems, since LBJ, never play by the rules. Theirs is a dictatorship of relativism, eg. Roe v Wade, Transgender-isms, identity politics, etc. Thus, in my mind, I think Trump does wisely to not cooperate with the US House. I am not an attorney but it seems to me the President is not being investigated by an Impeachment since one has not been declared. Anything the Inquiry requests should be ignored since the full House has not voted on it. In essence Pelosi is being a Dictator. The American MSM are worse than the former Soviet “Pravda” and Cuba’s ”Granma”

        For all the TDS hysteria the Left act when it comes to ridiculing conservative news sources, their sources are the lying ones. Been there, fled there, wont accept it in my new nation nor a Pelosi dictator.

  5. BOMBSHELL: Audio, Email Evidence Shows DNC Colluded With Ukraine To Boost Hillary By Harming Trump, Report Says
    By Ryan Saavedra

    The Blaze has released an audio recording that they recently obtained that appears to show Artem Sytnyk, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, admitting that he tried to boost the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton by sabotaging then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign.

    The connection between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Ukrainian government was veteran Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa, “who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration” and then “went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee,” Politico reported.

    Cont: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-audio-email-evidence-shows-dnc-colluded-with-ukraine-to-boost-hillary-by-harming-trump-report-says

  6. This is an article one might want to think about.
    ——–
    Impeachment is Built on a Trap That Obama Created for Romney

    A weapon against a Romney administration gets used against Trump.

    October 7, 2019
    Daniel Greenfield

    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

    The Whistleblower Protection Act was put into place for the stated purpose of fighting waste and mismanagement in the civil service. It’s a controversial piece of legislation, but its purpose is clear.

    As a Senate report on the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act put it, “What is needed is a means to protect the Pentagon employee who discloses billions of dollars in cost overruns, the GSA employee who discloses widespread fraud, and the nuclear engineer who questions the safety of certain nuclear plants. These conscientious civil servants deserve statutory protection rather than bureaucratic harassment and intimidation.” This does not cover a partisan effort to undermine the President of the United States.

    It does not mean a government employee taking issue with a president’s foreign policy.

    A whistleblower exposes structural waste, mismanagement and abuse within the civil service, among government contractors and in varied ways within the private sector. This is meant to protect employees who blow the whistle on misbehavior, not to serve as cover for assorted political agendas.

    In the Trump era, whistleblowing and partisan leaks to the media have been conflated by the media. Partisan government workers, some openly aligning with the “resistance” and participating in partisan groups within government agencies, have sought to undermine administration policies through leaks. These leaks were in turn meant to generate congressional investigations of cabinet officials.

    The impeachment effort against President Trump takes that ongoing tactic to the ultimate extreme.

    The politicization of the civil service is a deeply troubling phenomenon. Efforts by members of the civil service to undermine elected officials is a threat to our entire system of representative government.

    This problem goes beyond the ‘Deep State’ and has shown up in a wide variety of government agencies. But its appearance in national security agencies is deeply troubling because these agencies have the infrastructure to act as a police state. The existence of national security agencies in a free country is contingent on their subservience to elected officials. Anything else isn’t whistleblowing, it’s a coup.

    Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive 19 opened the door by expanding whistleblowing protection to members of the “intelligence community” and other personnel handling classified information.

    A few years earlier, Bradley Manning had ushered in a new era of espionage by enemy state actors using front groups to solicit spies as whistleblowers. While the court threw the book at Manning, Obama commuted his sentence. PPD19 was supposed to avoid another Manning case, which it utterly failed to do when Edward Snowden repeated Manning’s treason on a larger scale before escaping to Russia.

    But PPD19 was never really meant to help the likes of Manning and Snowden. Instead it was part of a larger pattern of politicizing national security organizations that led directly to the current crisis.

    While the Russians were soliciting whistleblowers from inside the national security sphere to act as spies, which was exactly what they had been doing throughout the Cold War, Obama’s people were building partisan networks within the national security infrastructure to act as their political agents.

    Both the Russians and the Democrats understood that whistleblowers were a strategic vulnerability. Whistleblowers were seen as sympathetic underdogs who were trying to do the right thing. That was the perfect camouflage for an enemy agent or the agent of a police state. Astroturfing, the practice of manufacturing grass roots efforts and building causes around individual protesters, like Greta Thunberg or David Hogg, had moved into the national security infrastructure before going off like a bomb.

    PPD19 was issued on October 10, 2012.

    The presidential debates were underway and the election was up in the air. In the weeks before PPD19, Mitt Romney had begun to lead in a number of polls. It is striking that PPD19 came out during the exact same period that Romney was leading in as many polls as he ever would in that election.

    On October 9, the day before PPD19, even a DailyKos/SEIU poll showed Romney in the lead. After Obama’s disastrous debate performance, his people had to be worried about the possibility of defeat.

    The real purpose of PPD19 was to aid Obama loyalists is undermining a Romney administration.

    The Obama administration would not have been too worried about Romney reversing its social policies. But Romney had run sharply against Obama on national security. And Obama’s cronies knew that there would be significant foreign policy differences there. PPD19 may have been their answer.

    Romney lost. PPD19 remained obscure.

    By the time Trump won, the weaponization of the national security infrastructure in national politics was complete with national security organs spying on Trump associates, investigating his campaign, entrapping his associates, leaking his phone calls, and now setting the stage for impeachment.

    The Russia conspiracy theory was not a counterintelligence investigation. And Ukraine impeachment isn’t whistleblowing. Investigating the domestic political opposition is only a counterintelligence investigation in China, Russia or Cuba. Launching such an effort is the hallmark of a police state.

    And whistleblowers don’t have partisan political agendas aimed at elected officials.

    Until now, the two worst cases of activists and spies pretending to be whistleblowers were Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. The Ukraine case has some similarities to the Pentagon Papers case, but there isn’t even the pretense that this fake whistleblowing is about anything other than going directly for the President of the United States, not indirectly through his policies, but directly aimed at him.

    Whistleblowers aren’t supposed to have any agenda except the law and organizational standards.

    And whistleblowing protections are absolutely not meant to serve as cover for partisan fights or assaults on elected officials. Whistleblowing protections are meant to protect government employees in the civil service from retaliation by their supervisors in the civil service when they report waste or abuse.

    They are not meant to allow an anonymous government employee to assist in a partisan campaign to remove the President of the United States as part of a ploy orchestrated by the opposition party.

    That is a breathtaking abuse that will damage whistleblower protections indefinitely.

    Whistleblower protections have traditionally been a bipartisan project. But courts have repeatedly limited the scope of how and what a whistleblower can disclose. It appears that they were wise to do so.

    The eavesdropping and entrapment of Trump allies in the last election was the ultimate nightmarish abuse of national security. The same folks who brought you that violation have now contrived to produce the worst possible abuse of whistleblower protections. The abuse of the NSA has dealt a fatal blow to Republican support for national security measures used to fight enemy nations and terrorists. The abuse of whistleblowing will lead to an identical loss of support for whistleblower protections.

    The Obama administration and its allies have tried to turn government agencies into bear traps, seeking to retain control of policymaking through a network of lefty loyalists in agencies and activist judges in the courts, and, beyond that, to force out Trump appointees and to even force out President Trump.

    At the heart of this crisis is the conflict between representative government and the infrastructure of government, between the will of the voters and the will of D.C., between the taxpayers and officials, that is the breaking point of any free country. Some countries lose their freedom through violent revolutions. Others ossify into an oligarchy of government officials and elites who call all the shots.

    This is not about the Ukraine. Just as it wasn’t about Russia. It’s about whether our governments are elected or selected.

    Elected government requires that government officials be neutral and non-partisan. When partisan factions use the machinery of government to wage war on their opponents, that’s a coup.

    A day after President Trump survived one coup, the deep state debuted a second coup.

    1. Allan, that is one of my favorite articles on activists attempting a coup by a thousand cuts under cover of whistleblower. The Left moves closer to dictatorship.

        1. I don’t think that came out the way you wanted it to come out, Anon1. It sounds as though, you, too, are drifting from reality.

          Why do you disagree with the article Allan posted?

              1. Prairie, I have zero interest in whatever the latest conspiracy theory is you all sign unto to somehow make Trump’s idiocy digestible and I definitely don’t waste time on frontpage.

                Anyone here want to talk intelligently about the impeachment, which depends on the evidence and not declaring new bogeymen while renewing curses on the old ones, I’m in.

                1. This is exactly what type of person we are dealing with. Anon doesn’t want to know the origins or the full statements of people. All he looks for are things that agree with him and based on that accuses people of drifting away from reality.

                  Reality to Anon is his dreams backed up by another person’s dreams. Nothing he says can be accepted as true.

                2. there’s hypotheses and there’s theories

                  the conspiracy hypothesis is that Trump did what what what, Russian spy etc. thin evidence, makes no sense, disproven hypothesis at best

                  the conspiracy theory which is actually supported by facts is that CIA schemers like John Brennan, rogue agents, and their handlers in the Democrat party are enacting a slow moving coup against a lawful POTUS

                  conspiracy facts are out there somewhere, and will emerge definitively when the next election vote is taken.

                  what other Democrat schemers have played too much footsie with CIA in the past? try LBJ thats who

                  1. Kurtz, did the conspiracy make Trump use the power of his office to force a foreign government to help his reelection?

                    The existing unchallenged evidence shows that’s what happened.

                    1. wrong, that’s just your interpretation of the information, colored by your own heart’s desires

                    2. “unchallenged evidence” by that do you mean the hidden CIA spy’s snooping on his boss and supplying the Democrats with whatever his CIA lawyer handpicked by the Dem establishment wanted him to say?

                      a little bit like when the cop writes out a “confession” for a “cooperating witness” and says “sign here” and the guy just learns the lines he is expected to recite in court. Lying snitch!

                    3. if the CIA can’t handle it’s mission, and can’t control its own rogue agents playing footsie with Congress to scheme to remove the POTUS like some kind of would be Praetorians, then we need to consider clipping their wings!

                      https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-vision-mission-values

                      Mission
                      Preempt threats and further US national security objectives by collecting intelligence that matters, producing objective all-source analysis, conducting effective covert action as directed by the President, and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe.

                      LET ME TRANSLATE THIS. THEY GIVE INFORMATION TO THE BOSS TO HELP THE NATION.

                      THEY ARE NOT THERE TO SCOLD THE BOSS AND TELL HIM WHAT TO SAY OR ELSE.

                      THEY THINK THEY ARE PRAETORIANS!

                3. Anon1,
                  I disagree quite a bit with Frontpage over their characterization of Edward Snowden, for instance. Why did you assume I agreed with it?

                  I linked it because you disagreed with Karen who said she agreed with the portion of that article that discussed how whistleblowing could be used to effect a coup.

                  Especially with the apparent change in the law, couldn’t that become a possibility? How does this law, its change, and corresponding impeachment proceedings affect the rule of law and elections, in general? For good? For ill?

                  1. Prairie, you can agree with some of front-page and disagree with other articles. That is because you know the difference between fact and opinion. That is Anon’s problem. Any opinion that agrees with him, he considers fact. Any fact that disagrees with Anon, he considers ludicrous opinion.

                  2. I didn’t read it Prairie. It’s irrelevant to the evidence and the facts of Trump’s impeachment. Once the evidence the WB brought to our attention is confirmed – it mostly has been – finding fault with him/her has no bearing on the larger issue, though it confirms the value of the law and their coming forward.

                    1. … finding fault with him/her has no bearing on the larger issue…

                      Thats exactly what Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton did when Bill was approached by all of the women that he raped. Thats because Hillary knew in her heart of hearts, God bless her, to believe all women. Bill of course knew to address the charges and nothing less

                      Yeah, besmirching people is a sleazy tactic

                      James Carville:

                      Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find

                    2. Yeah, Estovir, I understand you need to change the subject, but when St Peter meets you at the gates, telling him what I did won’t save your ass.

                  3. Prairie Rose,
                    Those are excellent questions that would be of interest to any objective observer. Presidents will come and go. They will govern in ways we support and ways we don’t support. Our federal agencies on the other hand develop cultures that will outlast any President. If they become weaponized to the point they function not to serve, but to be served, then our entire government is compromised to the will of the agencies. It’s at that point we lose the rule of law. And any security of our rights, due process, checks and balances, etc. will be controlled by that weaponized minority. We might as well turn out the lights.

                    1. Olly, the complaint had to be deemed “credible and urgent” by a Trump appointed inspector general before it moved along the chain of investigations. If it was or is weaponized BS it would have not likely passed that first test or later ones to come, though they will most likely be in the court of public opinion. Your problem is the evidence, not the WB.

                    2. I don’t consider who appointed whom relevant. That factoid is used by partisans as a replacement for critical-thing.

                    3. Anon1,
                      That would have some meaning if I had any respect for your opinion. The only reason I engage with you is because you have at times demonstrated some left-brain functionality. However, yuu’ve been on the wrong side of this 3 year soft coup and you know damn well the chickens are coming home to roost. Clapper just used the just following orders defense as he threw Obama under the bus. He will not be the only one. These idiots may think they’re playing musical chairs, but when the music stops, they will not find a safe seat.

                      P.S. It is not considered a weakness to admit you have been wrong. On the other hand, maintaining your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is classic denial of reality.

                    1. Amazing admission by Anon, He finds it perfectly acceptable for 1) the whistleblower statute to be changed within days of the whistleblowers filing his complaint and 2) then to still use the complaint when a transcript of the telephone conversation is available..

                      Let’s see how that works. I heard Anon raped a woman at work and file a complaint against Anon at the prosecutors office. He hates Anon so he will investigate Anon publically despite the fact that he has a transcripts of what actually transpired based on eye witnesses that disptute the complaint filed. This is what Anon finds to be reasonable justice. Welcome to the world of Stalin.

                    2. Evidence from trusted sources is acceptable for action in human enterprises and always has been. We all practice this. If it cannot be corroborated, it will not convict anyone. If it is corroborated – this one so far is – it has obvious value and legitimacy. Why wouldn’t it be acceptable to begin an inquiry?

                      By the way, I posted an article several days ago from Fox News stating the while not a 1st person witness to the “call”, he was a 1st person witness to other, at this time, unspecified evidence. The “call” was not the only event he reported.

                    3. Allen forgets that a Trump appointed inspector general had to find the complaint credible and urgent to trigger further processing including notification of the House and Senate.

                    4. “Allen forgets that a Trump appointed inspector general had to find the complaint credible ”

                      Anon, you apparently forgot the previous discussions. You better check on exactly what he said and the context of those words. You are not credible.

                    5. Whatever that means, something tells me I’d be reading it if it bore the weight Allen claims.

                    6. “Whatever that means, something tells me I’d be reading it if it bore the weight Allen claims.”

                      It was one of those things quoted on the blog and discussed that you chose to discard because it conflicted with what you wanted to believe.

                4. Anon1,
                  “Anyone here want to talk intelligently about the impeachment, which depends on the evidence and not declaring new bogeymen while renewing curses on the old ones, I’m in.”

                  Why are such things not pertinent? Isn’t the avoidance of a double-standard the goal, especially in regards to enforcement of the law?

                  1. Prairie Rose – I pointed out that this is the perhaps the dozenth accusation that there was reason to impeach Trump, none of which panned out. This makes it clear that this is political warfare. In addition, Trump has been repeatedly accused, and cleared, of what Democrats actually did, and got away with, without any charges.

                    This raises obvious questions about justice and abuse of authority.

                    Anon merely complains that it’s old news and will not address the facts. Perhaps his urge to insult people when presented with facts is an attempt to turn the conversation.

                    It is troubling to see Anon brush off your polite attempts to engage in a discussion, because it reflects society at large. One day, perhaps, people will get tired to trying to explain their position, and then everyone will be rude to everyone, and conservatives will join cancel culture offensives, too. I think civilization loses at that point.

                    1. I have been pointedly polite to Prairie in our discussion, though I take your concern with rudeness and the decline of civilization with all the seriousness one can muster when they are expressed by a fan of Donald Trump.

                    2. Karen,
                      “I pointed out that this is the perhaps the dozenth accusation that there was reason to impeach Trump, none of which panned out. This makes it clear that this is political warfare. In addition, Trump has been repeatedly accused, and cleared, of what Democrats actually did, and got away with, without any charges.”

                      I agree.

                      I think those are salient issues about the importance of equality before the law and the rule of law. Why for me but not for thee, O politicians and others “in the club”?

                    3. Anon1,
                      I appreciate the civil conversation we have been having, even though we are of different minds on the matter.

                    4. Karen,
                      “It is troubling to see Anon brush off your polite attempts to engage in a discussion, because it reflects society at large.”

                      Overall, I am happy with the conversation. It is sometimes difficult to achieve clarity on an issue, particularly when two people are of very different perspectives. I do not feel brushed off. 🙂 These are hard topics to discuss due to the often polarized viewpoints and the accompanying emotions that can be attached. So far so good.

                  2. Anon1,
                    That is not an answer to my questions.

                    “it confirms the value of the law and their coming forward.”
                    Evidence does not confirm the ‘value’ of the law. Laws have to do with justice being served. Dictators holding sham trials make sure evidence is found to find the accused guilty of violating their laws–but that does not confirm their value to anything remotely resembling justice.

                    Why is the following not pertinent?

                    “It was a foreign policy role Joseph R. Biden Jr. enthusiastically embraced during his vice presidency: browbeating Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt government to clean up its act. And one of his most memorable performances came on a trip to Kiev in March 2016, when he threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor, who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.

                    The pressure campaign worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was soon voted out by the Ukrainian Parliament.

                    Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.
                    Hunter Biden was a Yale-educated lawyer who had served on the boards of Amtrak and a number of nonprofit organizations and think tanks, but lacked any experience in Ukraine and just months earlier had been discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine. He would be paid as much as $50,000 per month in some months for his work for the company, Burisma Holdings.”

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html

                    How are Biden’s actions different from Trump’s?

                    Should a double-standard be avoided in the enforcement of laws?

                    1. Prairie I answered your question fully. There are checks and balances even in the WB law which requires that the complaint must be deemed “credible and urgent” by an inspector general, in this case a Trump appointee to move forward. The rule of law is not thereby threatened, though if you think so, explain specifically how.

                      The difference between the actions of Biden and Trump regarding Ukraine is the difference between acting in an official capacity of the US – and in Biden’s case, unofficially of the IMF, the EU, the UK, and the entire West – in the public and announced policy of cleaning up well known corruption which could damage promised investments by us and our allies, while Trump acted in secret to leverage the Ukraine to help him get reelected.

                      The facts of Biden’s actions have been investigated and found benign by the WSJ, Bllomberg, and the WaPo for specific reasons having to do with that US policy and the time frame of when he acted to pressure the Ukraine, and i have posted all those sources here, and I have also posted documents demonstrating that Biden’s action did represent US policy, not some personal action. In fact, it is unlikely that if his action was corrupt that he would be bragging about it a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group guaranteed to know where the Ukraine was on a map and what was going on there.

                      You may also want to know that the prosecutor he got fired is now working for a corrupt Ukrainian – Misfud? – being held in Austria for possible extradition to the US and that the Fox News legal pair – Genoves and what’s her name – are his lawyers here. The prosecutor’s “affadavit” produced by another Fox News contributor who has an anti-Hillary industry going – a once growth field losing market share – touted here by mespo and others was part of an effort to release MIsfud.

                      Small world, no?

                    2. Anon1,
                      “There are checks and balances even in the WB law which requires that the complaint must be deemed “credible and urgent” by an inspector general, in this case a Trump appointee to move forward. The rule of law is not thereby threatened, though if you think so, explain specifically how.”

                      I am glad there are checks and balances, which is probably why it isn’t coming down to a single person–the Acting Director of National Security also gets a say.

                      I do think the rule of law is threatened if most of what a whistleblower ‘exposes’ is based on hearsay or gossip from the office rather than first-hand information. Any move forward into an investigation on such things, particularly if there is animus, not just concern for wrongdoing, it becomes a ‘clique ouster’, and, a mismanagement, a frivolous waste of taxpayer monies. The presidency or any other office is not to be a won by a popularity contest but a competence contest. A good leader (whether president, senator, a secretary of a department, etc.) will not always be popular, and, thus, should not be threatened with removal via gossip or sketchy information.

                      I read the transcript of the telephone call and it does not match the insinuations of the whistleblower.

                      “The facts of Biden’s actions have been investigated and found benign by the WSJ, Bllomberg, and the WaPo”

                      Their investigation matters not. If Biden shut down an investigation by lawmakers in the Ukraine that matters. His actions should also be investigated by American lawmakers. Investigative journalism, while it has its place, does not constitute an actual investigation.

                    3. “I do think the rule of law is threatened if most of what a whistleblower ‘exposes’ is based on hearsay or gossip ”

                      Prairie, things become more suspicious when the rules for filing that previously required first hand-knowledge suddenly change to include second-hand knowledge just a short time before the second-hand whistleblower files his complaint.

                      This and potential prior knowledge of the complaint previously denied by Schiff along with several other occurences lead one to suspect collusion between Schiff and / or his staff and members of the CIA.

                    4. Anon1,
                      “The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a “discussion ongoing” with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials’ retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.[9]”

                      Sounds like it could be a canary trap.

                      “Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian officials—most notably, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko—made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian officials and current and formerofficials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:

                      that they possessed evidence that Ukrainian officials—namely, Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine Artem Sytnyk and Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko—had “interfered” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, allegedly in collaboration with the DNC and the S. Embassy in Kyiv;[v]

                      that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv—specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch , who had criticized Mr. Lutsenko’ s organization for its poor record on fighting corruption—had allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies’ pursuit of corruption cases, including by providing a “do not prosecute” list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their “evidence” about the 2016 U.S. election;[vi] and
                      that former Vice President Biden had pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 to fire then Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in order to quash a purported criminal probe into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company on whose board the former Vice President’s son, Hunter, [vii]

                      In several public comments,[viii] Mr. Lutsenko also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters.[ix][22]”

                      Sounds like legitimate things to investigate to me.

                      “During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to “play ball” on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. (Note: This was the general understanding of the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials from late May into early July. I do not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.)”

                      Again, sounds like a possible canary trap. Nothing in the memo indicates anybody has to ‘play ball’. Zelenskyy is also bothered by corruption in his country.

                      While Trump held up aid to Ukraine back in July, it sounds like it was fully paid prior to the phone call with the Ukrainian president.

                      I will try to look at and think about the complaint further. Today will be busy, so I may not have much time.

        2. “The Obama administration and its allies have tried to turn government agencies into bear traps, seeking to retain control of policymaking through a network of lefty loyalists in agencies and activist judges in the courts, and, beyond that, to force out Trump appointees and to even force out President Trump.

          At the heart of this crisis is the conflict between representative government and the infrastructure of government, between the will of the voters and the will of D.C., between the taxpayers and officials, that is the breaking point of any free country. Some countries lose their freedom through violent revolutions. Others ossify into an oligarchy of government officials and elites who call all the shots.

          This is not about the Ukraine. Just as it wasn’t about Russia. It’s about whether our governments are elected or selected.

          Elected government requires that government officials be neutral and non-partisan. When partisan factions use the machinery of government to wage war on their opponents, that’s a coup.

          A day after President Trump survived one coup, the deep state debuted a second coup.”

          1. “When partisan factions use the machinery of government to wage war on their opponents, that’s a coup.”

            See, “John Brennan”…

      1. repeal the stupid whistleblower law? oh, no Congress will ever do that again! even though it virtually guarantees the CIA will play this trick again on some other president.

        well i guess it beats what they “might have” done to JFK!

        “Robert Blakey“The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation,” says G. Robert Blakey, the former general counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which issued its report in 1979.

        “It is time that either Congress or the Justice Department conducts a real investigation of the CIA,” Blakey said at a conference last month. “Indeed, in my opinion, it is long past time.”

  7. Based on provable statements I find it entirely acceptable and activities of the regressive socialists more entirely unacceptable. The Regressive Socialists gave up their citizenship in Our Constitutional Republic when the gave their allegiance fo a foriegn ideology. That includes RINOs, DINOs and all who support them.

  8. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/22/behar_covington_catholic_incident_happened_because_were_desperate_to_get_trump_out_of_office.html

    “WHOOPI GOLDBERG, HOST: Many people admitted they made snap judgments before these other facts came in. But is it that we just instantly say that’s what it is based on what we see in that moment and then have to walk stuff back when it turns out we’re wrong? Why is that? Why do we keep making the same mistake?

    JOY BEHAR: Because we’re desperate to get Trump out of office. That’s why.”

    1. The ladies on The View spew imbecilic trash. No wonder they get viewers. No wonder it is the go to show for Democrats.

  9. Kurtz: I think you were partly engaged in a discussion of a two state solution for Israel somewhere in one of the threads. I thought you might be interested.

    “The policy of resistance and jihad is the genuine policy to liberate all Palestine, and the Palestinian people will not abandon this path. We will not accept any agreement that contradicts the project of jihad and liberation. Under no circumstances will we give up one inch of the land of Palestine.” — Senior Hamas official Salah Bardaweel.

    That type of thinking sort of ends any such discussion of a two state solution.

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14961/iran-friends-gaza

    1. That’s Hamas. They are jihaadists alright. As are their friends in Islamic Jihaad, described in your article. Yes, they would try and wipe us off the map too. Luckily they are mostly confined to Gaza. However, PLO accepted it. this is from wiki and in spite of the deteriorating quality of wiki especially on political subjects, I think this is factual and well supported:

      “The Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988, which referenced the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and “UN resolutions since 1947″ in general, was interpreted as an indirect recognition of the State of Israel, and support for a two-state solution. The Partition Plan was invoked to provide legitimacy to Palestinian statehood. Subsequent clarifications were taken to amount to the first explicit Palestinian recognition of Israel.[16][17]”

      I don’t think most Palestinians are as completely nuts as these factions make them seem. It’s just a guess however.

      1. Kurtz, in essence what you are saying is that those that wish to kill you twice are better than those that only wish to kill you once.

        Yes, the PLO has been more moderate in its words but its own initial charter, The Palestine National Charter 1968, denies the right of any part of Israel to exist where force should be used. Compromise was offered multiple times and totally rejected by the PLO and Arafat. Agreements have not been kept and I would say that the leadership of the PLO has acted in bad faith.

        I am not saying anything about the Palestinian People (the name though is a misnomer) though many have been taught to hate. The leadership has acted in their own behalf and not on the behalf of the people. Terrorism is a part of both Hamas and the PLO with payments to the terrorists where that money is essentially coming from western nations.

        Labelling Palestinians as refugees is false based on the rules of the UN even though they are called refugees. Take note of all the refugees around the world and none are labeled as refugees except for those older ones still surviving. Take note an almost equal number of Jews forced out of their homes in middle eastern nations under threat of their life with their personal property stolen are also not referred to as refugees unless they held initial refugee status at the time of their leaving their homes. That should tell you a lot about how what we read and assume to be true is often based on anti-Semitism.

        Add to Gaza (Hamas) on the south the PLO to the west and Hebollah (Iran) in the north surrounding a nation that 9 miles wide in its middle and one has a nation where one false step can cause its demise.

        1. yeah PLO are cretins too. but I take them as saner. what can i say, that’s my opinion.

          Israelis are tough, and need to be for sure. seems like right now they better figure out how to form a new government and not get too wound up over attacking Netanyahu for his alleged faults, and get moving on whatever comes next

  10. “The President has defenses to these charges but much will depend on intent and credibility.”

    Jonathan, will you please write something specific about what the “charges” might be? Please help us understand the law. Trump may be uncivil and may be violating “norms” but what law did he allegedly break if he asked any foreign power to look into corruption in general or that of Biden in particular?

    Thank you.

    1. Anonymous:
      There are no charges. There is no impeachment. All we have is a political charade called an inquiry. Welcome to the Left’s view of democracy. Read Alinsky. It’s all there.

      1. i took a look at headlines on drudgereport and to the various links he is promoting: all drama, lies, utterly worthless. I spent 5 mins that i will never get back and feel confident about the news media having less readers today than ever

        it is a brand new day awaiting great opportunities, reach closer to goals and be productive. The MSM can languish into oblivion without Americans caring

        have a great day Americans!

      2. So mespo, the President did not use the power of his office, including tax payer funded and congressionaly passed aid, to bully a sovereign leader into helping discredit a political opponent, or you think that is acceptable behavior for presidents now and in the future? That behavior by the president is established as fact, including by his admission. Beyond that we have the WH memo on the tape, the State Dept text messages, and the reporting by Sen Johnson of Wyoming, all of which confirm the WB complaint.

        1. The whistleblowers are passé and whatever statements made by them are meaningless since the President produced the transcript.

          The evidence that one or both Biden’s were involved in activity that should not have occurred is tremendous. That so many other bits of evidence exists only makes the former statement stronger. What is also amazing is that the press avoids the topic and avoids letters written by Congressional representative that did what the President was accused of doing.

          I am astounded that anyone feels our government should not be looking into what may be criminal activity and graft. What the President did constituted foreign policy that is mostly in the realm of the Presidency. I don’t think the Constitution mentions such a detalied a list of things permissible for the President to do when foreign policy is involved like it does for Congress.

          Democrats love to pick and choose what in the Constitution they like and want the ability to change their minds at will. The MSM laps up that type of autocracy.

          1. Allan, the cognitive dissonance on display here is so strange.

            Trump has repeatedly been accused of what some Democrats actually do. When anyone points this out, many Democrats just ignore it. It is so strange and off-putting.

            Papadapolous was accused of saying that the Russians had dirt on Hillary. It was Hillary and the DNC who paid a British spy to pay Russian spies for false dirt on Trump.

            Trump was derided as a lunatic for claiming the government spied on him. The government did spy on him and illegally unmasked people in his campaign.

            Trump was accused of strong arming Ukraine. The transcript showed nothing of the kind. A video shows Biden bragging about strong arming Ukraine to fire a prosecutor, saying he would leave the country in 6 hours and pull the deal unless the guy was fired.

            Trump was accused of being a Russian asset. Prominent Democrat academics work on Russian think tanks such as Dialouge of Nations to disseminate pro-Russian, anti-American propaganda.

            Trump was accused of being a racist. Democrat racism against whites and gender bias against men is clearly mainstreamed.

            Democrats said that Trump and his supporters would not accept defeat if he lost. Democrats have not accepted that they lost the election.

            Democrats said that Trump would undermine the constitution. Democrats have gone after freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and the electoral college.

            Democrats claimed that Trump was hiding transcripts on a secure server, which may be another grounds for impeachment. He actually provided the transcript upon request. Obama used the same server. Of course, it was Hillary who hid communications on a secret, illegal server, and who destroyed evidence under subpoena, deleting thousands of emails and smashing her phones and laptops with hammers.

            I mean, how far are they going to go with this? It’s like how the royal princeling has a whipping boy. The elites are whipping conservatives for their own crimes. I don’t think it’s possible to reason with people who act this way, because the media encourages this. it’s not like the mainstream media is going to urge caution or fairness, or list the wrongdoing of the Democrat Party.

            That’s why there are so many videos of men on the street asking people, do you think Trump should be impeached? Definitely. Why? Ummmmm, I don’t know. Were you aware that he accomplished A-Z? Ummmmmm, no. All they know is they’ve been told Trump is bad until it’s part of their psyche.

            1. Karen, whenever the clear and specific evidence on the impeachment case is discussed, you try to change the subject to past grievances. I

              1. Past grievances? Hardly. They are ever present and growing. Karen made a great case so you attack her instead. Typical dimocrap denial.

              2. There is no specific evidence. It amounts to a giant impression of some sort of wrongdoing that doesn’t exist. That is why a more concrete type of standard is required. Enter the prior Presidents and Obama. Did they do similar things? Worse things? Yes. By your standards for Trump Obama would be serving a life sentence if not executed multiple times.

                Trump’s actions have been transparent. The Democrats have threatened impeachment from day one with many causes, probably in the range of a dozen. It didn’t matter which road Trump took for according to the Democrats either road was a road to impeachment. They are using impeachment to obtain power and change the results of an election. That is what dictators do.

                Stalin: “”It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”

                Of course now you will change the subject to discuss if Stalin actually used those words. We don’t know but his actions just like your actions and the actions of the left tell the same story…abusive dictatorship.

              3. More irrelevancies from our challenged posters and none will discuss the evidence – I understand why – except mespo.

            2. Excellent, but this blog is dealing with people that follow the line of what I like to call Stalinists. That means they use force, lie and use the State to create laws to entrap their enemies. Those on this blog spouting that line think they are providing free thought but seldom do we hear anything that strays from their leader’s word and they will make an abrupt change in view the second their leaders communicate the change to them.

              1. well their problem is they have no such unity as the Stalinists did. they have one faction fighting another faction. but our two most prolific interlocutors here take orders from WAPO on the one hand and NYT on the other. they might as well be paper-boys. i question who are the supposed Dem party faithful. they’re all in it for themselves, one faction against another. these are the paper boys here.

                the Dem leadership are not their leadership, they are mostly selling mass media copy here more so than Democratic politics, unless it falls under the GET TRUMP section.

                i have broached numerous topics of interest here for debate, but if it didn’t have to do with attacking Trump, they soon lost interest.

                consider for example that Trumps trade war with China– something that should be praised by leftists and trade unions who USED TO BE angry about the lack of environmental protections in china, the lack of any lawful union organizing rights among chinese workers at all. this USED TO upset trade union democrats, ditto, Mayheeco. But not these guys.

                & we can see their interest in “climate change” for example rates low on the list compared to ORANGE MAN BAD priority. in spite of the supposed imminent roasting of the planet. i actually think there is a warming trend and we never got past “carbon tax” before they lost interest. see, it’s all about the spoils!

                here, good news guys. if you keep up on creating chaos, maybe there will be a nuclear exchange ,and then BOOM global winter, population dieoff, you get what you really sound like you want sometimes

                https://www.wired.com/story/even-a-small-nuclear-war-could-trigger-a-global-apocalypse/

                Trump deconflicts with Russia in Syria, and these guys go into a tizzy!

  11. The Dims and their Apparatchiks like Romney don’t care a wit about impeachment or the election in November they know full well is lost. Along with Pelosi, Schiff, Kerry, Biden and Obama they want to avoid the scrutiny for the millions and millions of dollars they’ve made by selling out the country to foreign governments. The money is laundered nicely through foundations or their kids with Hunter and Chelsea being just the biggest examples. It’s how official Washington commits unofficial treason (as in betrayal) and why Trump will win big. The public is tired of sleazeball pols trading on our name to get rich even as they sell our jobs, technology, national security and birthright to our adversaries. Damn these swamp things.

Leave a Reply