Donald Trump

Don't Rush to Impeachment

There's a reason it's supposed to be hard to remove the president.

|

Trump prostest
Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto/Sipa/Newscom

To everything there is a season, the Bible and Pete Seeger told us. The season to impeach Donald Trump may come, or it may not. Trying to do it now would be like harvesting sweet corn before it's ripe, yielding something stunted and indigestible.

Plenty of critics don't want to wait. "We're fiddling while Rome is burning," insists Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, agrees. "The mantra should be ITN—impeach Trump now," he says.

The liberal activist group MoveOn.org insists that the president "must be impeached immediately." J.B. Pritzker, a Democratic candidate for governor of Illinois, said, "We simply do not have the luxury of time to wait for months or years."

Anyone infuriated and exhausted by the chaos of the Trump administration can be forgiven for wishing it would end as soon as possible. But as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., noted the other day, a lot of Democrats "wanted the president gone on November the 10th of last year." They don't want to miss a chance to be rid of Trump.

Forcing a president from office is among the gravest tasks members of Congress can undertake, and they should refrain unless he gives them no choice. To attempt it with so many questions yet unanswered would look like partisan revenge—not just against Trump but against the people who voted for him.

Presidential impeachment is a club that has been taken out of the closet only three times—for Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Johnson and Clinton fought in the Senate and survived. Nixon resigned in the face of certain impeachment and removal. It's a last resort, and anyone who sees it as a first resort is not to be trusted.

Given that we have a president who campaigned as though he didn't want to win and governs as though he doesn't want to serve, the eagerness to evict is hardly surprising. No president has done so much so soon or so often to indicate he won't carry out his duties in a responsible and honest way. Trump gives the impression he is hellbent on self-destruction and won't rest until he achieves it.

But that's no reason for Congress to rush. Too much is still unknown about his campaign's connections with Russia and his conversations with James Comey concerning the FBI's investigation of those ties.

The independent counsel named on Wednesday will need months to gather evidence, interview witnesses and draw conclusions. Only then will the House have enough information to decide whether to take such a momentous and weighty step.

The framers of the Constitution were careful to limit the applicability of this drastic remedy. In considering what sort of conduct to cover, they rejected the terms "malpractice" and "maladministration" in favor of the narrower "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That formula was the work of James Madison, who didn't want the president to serve at the "pleasure of the Senate."

Impeachment is not a task for the impatient. More than two years passed after the Watergate break-in before the House Judiciary Committee voted against Nixon. The special prosecutor's investigation of Clinton began in January 1994, and the Monica Lewinsky affair came to light in January 1998. Not until December of that year did the House approve articles of impeachment.

Madison and company didn't want to make impeachment easy. They wanted to make it hard, and they succeeded.

Even if a majority could be assembled in the House to bring Trump to the bar of congressional justice, persuading 67 senators to convict would be a heavy lift, absent compelling proof of grave misconduct. After everything that came to light against Clinton, and with Republicans in control of the Senate, only 50 senators voted to find him guilty.

It's crucial for impeachment to reflect more than a campaign against a president by the opposition party. Effectively overturning the result of a democratic election demands a national consensus that the president is guilty of serious offenses. Abusing his powers, behaving corruptly or violating his oath of office qualify. Ineptitude, folly and malignance don't.

Under the best of circumstances, impeachment is a national trauma with lasting consequences, for good or ill. Trump made it to the White House because the nation was so divided. If he is removed, it should be because the nation is united.

© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Trump To Muslim World: Peace Only Possible "if your Nations Drive Out the Terrorists and Extremists"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Chapman is obviously a journalist who doesn’t want to write.

    1. Fits write in with the lefties who have zero control over any branch of the US government and are being taken seriously about impeachment.

      Oh that’s right, the media is carrying these impeachment stories like anyone other than lefties are still taking them seriously.

      1. They’re using the threat of impeachment to thwart him governing.

        There’s no grounds for impeachment no matter how hard they try.

      2. So far no actual crime (high or misdemeanor) has been mooted.

  2. What? The single biggest argument against impeachment is Mike Pence, who isn’t even mentioned in the whole article.

    1. Congress can continue to impeach until they get who they want.

    2. That’s because the unwashed masses believe that if Trump is impeached, then Hillary–the runner-up–gets the job. Like it was Miss America or something.

      1. Sadly this is true. Even among otherwise educated dumbocrats. The typical argument is not the impeachment itself, but the revelation by an impeachment that Russia did in fact manipulate the election, which would then be declared null and void. Hillary Clinton would then ushered in as the savioress of all peoplekind.

        1. I believe the number of Democrats who think Russia directly hacked voting machines to change the actual vote totals is similar to the number of Republicans who think Obama’s birth certificate is fake. I don’t know which is less plausible.

          1. I assume Obama was born in HI, but the argument that his released birth certificate is fake based on the background pattern appearing separately as a layer in the released computer file, seems to be valid. I’m open to someone correcting that assertion about the file, but I haven’t seen that done. Russians directly hacking voting machines, on the other hand, seems to have been impossible.

        2. The *only* place I’ve heard this argument is at Reason, in the comments, and it’s always framed as “something lefties believe.”

        3. I think most of them seem to think that once Trump is impeached, it means he is removed from office.

      2. “””unwashed masses”””

        Is this the new name of the DNC?

        1. No, but it could be a good band name.

        2. No, it was Chuck Schumer’s nickname in college.

          1. Are you implying he did not clean his undermoobs?

        3. Have you ever been surrounded by a bunch of lefties?

          1. Oh my god, when they’re all wearing that crystal deodorant that doesn’t work?

      3. Wait. Hitery was runner up? I thought she was “Miss Congeniality”?

  3. Impeach, don’t impeach. It doesn’t fucking matter. Congress can suck my dick. Trump live streamed his crime. We all heard it. We’ll hear more about it when Comey testifies under oath.

    1. Which crime was that, exactly?

      1. The crime of neglecting to immediately enable all of DTM self-serving fantasies – that is the new standard.

      2. For attempting to obstruct a federal investigation.

        1. “For attempting to obstruct a federal investigation.”

          The fantasies of the losers continue to be amusing.
          You lost, loser. Your candidate was so pathetic, she lost to TRUMP, for pete’s sake! And you’re still whining about it.
          Get over it and fuck off.

          1. Throat that thug!

            1. Gag that retard!

              1. Altogether now!

            2. “Throat that thug!”
              You lost, loser.

        2. Firing the FBI director does not obstruct any federal investigation. The men and women of the FBI who were doing the investigating do not stand down as a result. I don’t see any less investigation of this issue now that Comey is gone.

          Besides if Comey thought Tump was obstructing he had a responsibility under law to report it. Failure to do so is a crime. Comey would want immunity before testifying if that was true. Since Comey has already said Trump had the right to fire him for any reason or no reason, I doubt Comey testifying will give the left the meat they want.

          You know what is obstruction? Deleting Emails when you know an investigation is coming.

          1. “You know what is obstruction? Deleting Emails when you know an investigation is coming.”

            You mean like that hag did? The loser the rest of the losers are still whining about?
            I’d add treating classified material like it was a laundry list.

            1. I’d add treating classified material like it was a laundry list.

              No, that’s treason.

          2. You don’t understand….Comey had the keys to the FBI building….and Trump took those keys after he fired Comey!!!

            And now… The FBI guys can’t get their investigator stuff cause Trump won’t unlock the door!!!!!

            Can’t you see what’s happening, man??????

          3. Another pointless Clinton allusion. Yawn

        3. Yet he didn’t. And there is still zero evidence presented.

          The President needs no reason to fire the head of the FBI, hate to break it to you. If he said “Comey is just fucking weird”, that is reason enough.

          1. I can’t agree with you there. Trump has already admitted to essentially the same crime that Nixon was impeached for (and he made his admission on national television no less). He asked Comey to back down on two different investigations, Comey didn’t, and shortly after he fired Comey. That’s what Nixon did, and it’s a clear example of obstruction of justice.

            Saying “the president can dismiss the director at any time” is missing the point. A Trump associate could’ve also shot Comey in the head, and Trump could throw some pardons around – also perfectly legal. That doesn’t clear Trump of abuses of power though, which is the real heart of the matter.

            1. He asked Comey to back down on two different investigations, Comey didn’t, and shortly after he fired Comey.

              Except all we have to go on for this so far is a couple of supposed memos/notes that were read over the phone to a reporter, not anything official. At least the Pentagon Papers release had the actual Pentagon Papers.

              Until some real documentation is released on this, saying “what actually happened” is sheer speculation.

              1. If that’s what you want to hang your hat on, OK, I suppose you could. You should probably prepare yourself to be disappointed though. Any calculation of common sense, Occum’s Razor, etc., strongly suggests that Trump is a dingbat with no head for political strategy, and he’s finally stepped in something stinky enough to empty the room.

                The alternative, that Comey is making shit up, or ALL of the numerous stories of mishap are wrong, would be the inside straight of this scenario.

                Did you know that the notes taken by an FBI agent on their interactions with other parties are considered legal documents? If Comey has a detailed record of all the time Trump talk to him, it’s not like those notes are his personal diary. They’re legal documents that have been used to convict criminals before. It’s very serious, powerful evidence of wrongdoing.

                1. Now apply Occam’s Razor to why Hillary lost.

                  Because she sucked.

                  1. Yes, thank you. That wasn’t relevant to the discussion at hand, but it’s always good to hear other people’s opinions.

                2. The alternative, that Comey is making shit up

                  Except Comey hasn’t actually gone on record about any of this yet. And going off of Occam’s Razor, I have a difficult time believing that someone who was as compulsive about going by the book as Comey–to the point that he notified Congress about re-investigating Hillary’s emails a couple of weeks before the election–wouldn’t have immediately notified Congress of Trump possibly committing obstruction if he thought even a hint of such had taken place.

                  Did you know that the notes taken by an FBI agent on their interactions with other parties are considered legal documents?
                  Yes, I realize they are official records. That’s the whole point–why wouldn’t any reporter worth their salt demand at least a pdf copy of the memo in question rather than just accept someone reading it to them over the phone? If you’re talking about a bombshell of this magnitude, wouldn’t it be logical to demand an actual copy before going public with it? You’re basically arguing that we should simply take these leaks at their word because it’s somehow eminently reasonable that Comey would have kept this hidden in case he was fired, potentially putting himself in legal jeopardy as well.

                  1. More to the point, when Hillary claimed that having her private server was allowed, my first reaction was, “Well, show the Memo for Record that authorized it and you should be in the clear.” People saying “stuff happened”, especially over the phone without follow-up proof, may be enough to impeach Trump (and even that’s questionable), but it’s not going to be enough to kick him out of office.

                3. They may be “legal documents” – but so is an offer to mow your lawn for $50 written on toilet paper.

                  See hearsay.

                  The documents can be used to refresh Comey’s memory of an event, but any attempt to introduce them as “proof” is likely to fail.

                  In the end, is Comey’s recollection alone, aided by notes or not, sufficient to prove BRD that a crime has been committed?

                  Probably not.

            2. “””the same crime that Nixon was impeached for””

              Are you referring to the firing of the special prosecutor? Trump has not done that.

              1. Actually, Nixon’s failure was to attempt to cover up someone else’s crime.

                It’s interesting that Nixon faced the possibility of impeachment for that, while “Celibate Bill” was actually impeached, but not convicted – despite being responsible for the transfer of nuclear missile booster and guidance technology to the communist Chinese. (Guess that treason thing just runs in the family.) When Nixon tried “executive privilege” it didn’t fly.

                Fast forward to the Obozo regime and you see the Attorney General and the President conspiring to send 2000+ assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels… and Obozo gets away with asserting “executive privilege” to prevent Holder from ratting him out.

        4. Tell me about your childhood: is it true that it takes a village to raise an idiot?

          1. I love how they’re so thorough for something plenty of politicians have done and they certainly didn’t care much when Hillary was acting like a derelict.

            1. 5th Clinton comment and counting on this thread. You guys are obsessed. You do know she lost last November, right? I guess preparing 4 years of anger only to have the player swapped at the last minute has befuddled you, right?

              There must be some reason for the level of Clinton retardation on this website…

        5. Like no politician EVER did that, right?

          Man you lefties are something else.

        6. The President is head of the Executive Branch, As such, all investigations by the FBI are under his authority. Legally, he can direct them any way he wishes. The only remedy if you don’t like what he does in that regard is political, not legal. Further, even were he subject to legal sanction, you can’t have obstruction of justice without an underlying crime. In Nixon’s case there was a burglary executed by “The Plumbers”/CREEP. In Trump’s case…. nothing.

          “Trump live streamed his crime. We all heard it.” No, the videos in your head are pure derangement.

    2. The crime of attempting to roll back the Nanny-State after so many decades of lefties trying to destroy the Constitution and the United State of America.

      1. That’s… that’s not what Trump is doing, homey.

        1. I am pretty sure the swamp is in the process of being drained. I mean, there is no more Obamacare, the budget has been drastically reduced, we are no longer allowing terrorists into the country, we are out of NAFTA and NATO, and most importantly, Hillary will burn for Seth Rich.

          1. Something something giant sucking sound.

          2. In all fairness, Trump’s budget would have cut spending, and it was the “moderate” Republicans who thwarted any attempt at actually repealing Obamacare.

            1. Which budget was that? The one that took every penny of the money saved via cuts and dumped it into the military?

      2. Trump won’t touch Social Security or Medicare because those over 67 were a big part of his voting bloc. In terms of $$ that’s the biggest part of the Nanny-State.

  4. Only one of the uniquely American comedies we get to witness because of our archaic two-party government.

    1. Multi-party governments just have different sorts of comedies. Arguably more surreal.

      1. Yeah but I must say it’s fun actually voting for the party you want to.

        Plus you get some hilarious screwball coalitions. Once in Ireland we had the Progressive Democrats (Ireland’s Libertarian party) in bed with the Greens.

        Guess you had to be there…

      2. Cicciolina! Italiano for “Libertarian”!

        1. I liked her campaign promises.

  5. in favor of the narrower “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    Not at all narrow. “other” means anything the House will indict on. “High crimes and misdemeanors” just indicates misbehaving by politicians.

    So the democrats can indict him for being Trump. They just have to whistle up the votes to get it done. Minor detail.

    So far, the only proven connections (financial and political) between agents of the Russian government and a US politician, are with Hillary Clinton.

  6. Somebody please explain to the Democrat nitwits that if the Republicans shouldn’t have impeached Bubba Clinton for perjury and banging the help, they shouldn’t impeach Trump for being a jerk.

  7. Reasonable article, ergo, author must be a nazi bigot. Warren / Waters 2020!

    1. [vomits]

  8. Doesn’t there need to be some sort of crime before impeachment is even brought up?

    We don’t impeach presidents because ‘democrats don’t like who won the election’.

    1. Looks like we do now.

    2. We don’t impeach presidents because ‘democrats don’t like who won the election’.

      It’s not just that, apparently he’s a “big meanie” and a “fascist.”

      Wait, were we talking about Trump or Hill-dog? They both fit that description. I’m confused…

    3. Impeachment isn’t a criminal trial, so no, it doesn’t require proof of a crime.

      1. Impeachment is the indictment. I dare say you could impeach a ham sandwhich.

        Now getting the Senate to vote guilty, different story.

      2. Impeachment is the indictment. I dare say you could impeach a ham sandwhich.

        Now getting the Senate to vote guilty, different story.

  9. “Anyone infuriated and exhausted by the chaos of the Trump administration….”
    might consider taking a chill pill.

    1. Personally, i am entertained by the chaos. It’s the panic amongst my fellow civilians that threatens to become tiresome.

      1. It’s the panic amongst my fellow civilians that threatens to become tiresome.

        Agreed-I’m perplexed at how many seem to have nothing more important going on in their lives than Trump, Trump, Trump…I have no doubt though that Trump himself is getting off on their outrage, as are his supporters.

      2. It’s the panic/despair/depression/confusion/crying/rending of garments/tearing of hair among libtards that is the most entertaining!

    2. Or stop watching CNN. “The chaos” is about 90% speculative theatrical pearl-clutching, fake news and propaganda. If you weren’t talking about impeaching Obama over the pallet-load of cash shipped to Iran than I’m not interested in your talk about impeaching Trump until we’ve got tape of him snorting coke with Putin off an under-age hookers ass while they talk about assassinating Queen Elizabeth.

      1. I don’t watch CNN. It’s the nutters at NRO, Weekly Standard, Commentary, Ricochet, PJ Media, etc., etc. who are all agreed that the “chaos” is putting Trump on the edge of deserved impeachment that I find most tiresome.

        1. You forgot Reason, most of the time.

  10. My response to impeachment: “Oh, no. You’re not getting off that easy.” Trump is a walking, tweeting orange billboard advertising the failure of the two-party system. Maybe after four years of him, the idiots who voted for him will have learned a lesson. Probably not, but at least the fucktards who were talking shit during the 2016 Thanksgiving dinner will have to endure a much different conversation for the next few Turkey Days.

    1. My response to impeachment: “Oh, no. You’re not getting off that easy.” Trump is a walking, tweeting orange billboard advertising the failure of the two-party system. Maybe after four years of him, the idiots who voted for him will have learned a lesson. Probably not, but at least the fucktards who were talking shit during the 2016 Thanksgiving dinner will have to endure a much different conversation for the next few Turkey Days.

      Yes, it’s the two party system.

      Because the Greens and Libertarians nominated such intellectual heavyweights.

      You’re aware that the “independent” candidates were worse than the two alternatives.

      I wouldn’t trust Johnson to manage a bowel movement.

      1. You’re aware that the “independent” candidates were worse than the two alternatives.

        That’s not even within radio distance of true, guy.

      2. Yes, it’s the two party system.

        Because the Greens and Libertarians nominated such intellectual heavyweights.Because the Greens and Libertarians nominated such intellectual heavyweights.

        Even if they had nominated better candidates, there’s still the ballot access rules, the Presidential Debate Commission’s arbitrary 15% polling threshold just to get into the debates, the media’s tendency to ignore 3rd party candidates unless they do something stupid (like the infamous “Aleppo moment”), etc., etc.

        I wouldn’t trust Johnson to manage a bowel movement.

        Right, because the “suspected murderer” (you know that’s all the media would have talked about with him) John McAfee would have done so much better. Or how about the internet troll/ Seth McFarland look-a-like, Austin Petersen? Ooh, I know! The guy who did a strip tease at the LP convention! Surely he would have been able to overcome all of the aforementioned hurdles facing 3rd party candidates and won! /sarc

        I wasn’t a huge fan of Johnson, and especially not “Hillary’s bitch-boy” Weld by the end of the campaign, but God-damned, dude. It’s not like there were any good options on the table. Same goes for the Green Party, I’m sure.

        1. The Aleppo moment was a set up, not a coincidence. The interviewer was discussing domestic issues then abruptly switched to Syria.

          1. Are you seriously suggesting that Johnson would’ve handled that question with aplomb if only the interviewer had changed topics more slowly? Maybe with a trigger warning?

            1. He would have had a better chance, If they’d been talking about Syria or any foreign policy issue at the time. At least it wouldn’t look like a hit job.
              The media doesn’t treat the Right People like that in interviews.

              1. Hillary got the questions ahead of time. I’m sure that helps.

            2. I think even “Onto the situation in Syria,_______” would have been enough.

      3. I wouldn’t trust Johnson to manage a bowel movement.

        Then you’re a gullible fool.

        1. Johnson is the guy who wants the state to force bakers to decorate wedding cakes for homosexuals. Who knew that that’s what “Libertarian: means?

          Yeah, I wouldn’t trust him out and about without multiple layers of diaper.

      4. I wouldn’t trust Johnson to manage a bowel movement.

        Johnson was the only candidate who actually made something of himself, starting as a working-class tool-carrier and building a hugely successful company that he was able to retire from in early middle age.

        That the media seized the opportunity to make him look like a buffoon was predictable. That you bought it hook, line and sinker is indicative of the state of the American voter (and why we have President Trump now).

        1. If Trump survived the media trying to make him look like a buffoon, why did Johnson need a pass?

      5. Heh. Johnsons was waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy better than Hillary.

        Hillary as President would have been one gigantic money laundering scheme for Hillary Inc. and the expansion of the war machine Democrats are so good at.

        It blows my mind how anyone would consider that tired cunt.

        1. Well, I’m pissed that Hillary lost cause I was in negotiations for a job as “chief scooper” for the Hillary Clinton Slush Fund!!!!
          (I was gonna get to keep every 5th scoop).

        2. It blows my mind that people are still discussing her, ad nauseum, on every thread.

      6. I didn’t much care for Gary Johnson, especially after Weld came on board, but he was far superior to the ‘Big Two’ choices.

        I would have preferred Rand Paul over Gary Johnson, but that was taken care of well before the Texas primary so the choice was obvious.

        1. Hear hear. You have to have a lot of balls to call yourself a Libertarian and then sign every gun control law that gets in your inbox.

      7. I wouldn’t trust Johnson to manage a bowel movement.

        I would trust him to manage your bowel movement.

    2. “…Maybe after four years of him, the idiots who voted for him will have learned a lesson….”

      Those of us who didn’t vote for him have learned a lesson already: He’s better than the hag.

      1. Those of us who voted for him, primary and general, wish we had had a better choice, but it doesn’t change the fact that all the other choices were worse. No regrets, otherwise.

      2. Exactly. Trump is not as good as I’d hoped, not as bad as I’d feared.

    3. Still infinitely better than Hillary.

  11. There’s a reason it’s supposed to be hard to remove the president.

    Disagree.

  12. If this were a parliamentary system there would be no drama in removing such an unwanted, unpopular buffoon as head of government.

    People who want impeachment do so for noble reasons. They realize that they’d get the odious theocrat Pence in his place, but understand that at least he is a relatively sane human being. Anyone thinking about pure politics might want Trump to stay in place and drag his party down with him.

    1. People who want impeachment do so for noble reasons.

      That might be true of some of those who want impeachment. I suspect that many of the people calling for impeachment understand that it’s an extremely difficult plan to execute, and make the call solely to pander to their base.

      Anyone thinking about pure politics might want Trump to stay in place and drag his party down with him.

      It’s always weird to say this to you but this is a good point. Indeed, it’s the one thing that would induce Republicans to join in the impeachment party: “Dude, you’re not taking us down with you”.

      1. “…we’ll commit political suicide first.”

        If the GOPe/Never Trumpers think the GOP is anything other than a rump party after impeaching Trump they’re nuts.

    2. But is he really a “theocrat”? Pence’s social policies are remarkably different than most Democrats just 10 years ago. This notion that he is going to turn America into a land ruled by Christian sharia is absolutely fucking nonsense. He even says if he found out a business refused to serve gay people he would never go to that establishment. The number of people who think that he personally approved the electrocution of large numbers of gays is absolutely hilarious. The fear-mongering from the left about Republicans is even more insane, illogical, and hyperbolic than Trump’s talk of Muslims and Republicans fearng black men.

      There are many reasons to not want Pence as VP, but the ones his opponents typically bring up are absolute nonsense.

      It’s like how the Sessions thing went down. He has awful policies, but the Dems couldn’t do anything but shout “RACIST!!! RACIST!!” because he made a joke about the KKK 40 years ago. Meanwhile, Cory Booker thanked him for his work honoring black civil rights heroes just last year and he walked arm in arm with John fucking Lewis across the bridge in Selma in 2015. He is many things, but there is zero evidence he is racist. Even I started liking the guy because his opponents were so nonsensically moronic.

      1. Correction: “Pence’s social policies are NOT remarkably different than most Democrats just 10 years ago.”

    3. Do you even know ANYTHING about the parliamentary system?

      To the extent that there are parallels, the Speaker of the House would essentially be the Prime Minister who is the Head of the Government. Do you want to have “No-Confidence votes” all the time? Or how about the majority party schedules elections when they want? Do you want to have a system by which a party who barely gets enough votes to have a handful of seats gets power totally out of proportion to their representation due to coalition building?

      1. Tony doesn’t under Parliamentary politics.

        How am I not surprised?

        Like in Canada, it’s just loud mouth, sore loser progressives who are screaming like a bunch of irrational quacks in the USA.

        I wouldn’t want to see impeachment proceedings to commence because of pressure from the likes of CNN, Antifa and Schumer.

    4. Horse shit.

      When you boil all the impeachment talk down, it amounts to sour grapes. The libtards lost, the libtard press was flummoxed, and now they all hate Trump, not because of anything he’s done, but because he’s Trump and NOT Hitlery.

      I’ve long ago tuned out the lamestream media. The rabid denouncements of Trump for weak and specious reasons have proven to me that they are untrustworthy and not deserving of my attention.

      Anyone thinking Trump is deserving of impeachment at this juncture has fallen prey to Goebbel’s maxim regarding the big lie.

  13. Impeach Trump Now? ABSOLUTELY!!! Please impeach him, Pence, and Ryan, and all GOP congresspeople. Then crown Empress Hillary and let the dems have their own shitshow that they have been denied for far too long-(1)Abolish all religions and require mandatory “science and social justice” sermon attendance on Sunday mornings, (2)Abolish all sources of combustion and/or greenhouse gas emissions, including but not limited to flatulence (3) Assign all children born a gender-neutral identity and they must be called Xi; they will be allowed to chose a gender identity once they reach the age of 35-when they are no longer “children” according to the WHO.
    (4) Impose a 500% income tax on anyone who makes more than $100K/year-exempting CEOs of progressive NGOs, green energy companies, or major donors to the DNC.

  14. “Anyone infuriated and exhausted by the chaos of the Trump administration can be forgiven for wishing it would end as soon as possible. ”

    Ok, hold it. Has anyone seen evidence from a credible source (which excludes any Democrat paper) that Trump has done anything impeachable? Because I haven’t. I’ve heard a lot of hysteria from Democrats who were just fine with the bullshit Obumbles pulled. And I’m just not prepared too let the shithead Progressives pull down Trump, the way they pulled down Nixon (who I loathed) for doing things they thought were fine and dandy when being done by a Democrat.

    (Historical note; four years before Watergate, NBC broke in to some political headquarters, looking for much the same stuff the Plumbers were looking for. They got slapped on the wrist.)

    1. It’s an impeachable offense when Congress says so. Obstructing justice is an oldie but goodie, though most presidents are smart enough not to do it on national TV.

      What precisely do you see in Trump that makes you cry about people trying to take him down? You think he’s doing the world any good by staying in that office?

      Oh right, he makes proggies cry, and that’s the only fucking thing that matters to you nihilistic pricks anymore.

      1. Short version: you don’t really care if the charges are true or not.

        Is that one of those “noble reasons” you were referring to?

        1. Short version: you don’t really care if the charges are true or not.

          No, he does not. Proggies do not have principles other than the desire to rule over others.

          “noble reasons”

          As per usual proggies are continuing to destroy the language and change what words mean. “Noble” in this sense is just “we don’t like this guy”, not that he has or has stated an intention to do anything illegal.

          1. Speaking of changing words, Ars Technica has an article up today on what they call “gender confirmation” surgery. They mean “gender reassignment” but that term is apparently itself transphobic.

        2. Tony is a piece of lefty crap; if he doesn’t like what someone does, that someone should be arrested/impeached/etc.
          Lefties love guns, when the government is using them to enforce lefty theft.

          1. Obama never tried to obstruct justice.

            http://www.whitehousedossier.c…..t-justice/

      2. What precisely do you see in Trump that makes you cry about people trying to take him down?

        Not President Pence.

      3. Oh right, he makes proggies cry, and that’s the only fucking thing that matters to you nihilistic pricks anymore

        Guess you shitlib fuckwads shouldn’t have been turning politics into a zero-sum game going back to 1968 and making your political affiliation the equivalent of a religious denomination then, huh? Reap what you sow, asshole.

        1. Prog mind process:

          Democrat in power: Principles switch Off.
          Republican in power: Principles On.

          Dem in power: Justice switch Off.
          Rep in power: Justice switch On.

          Dem in power: Sleeping at the switch.
          Rep in power: Awake at the switch.

      4. Actually, breaking the mold is a laudable goal in its own right.

    2. (Historical note; four years before Watergate, NBC broke in to some political headquarters, looking for much the same stuff the Plumbers were looking for. They got slapped on the wrist.)

      Haven’t heard about that one but I’m not surprised-then again, its different I suppose when The President does it.

      A better example would be when Obama’s IRS targeted conservative groups for auditing. Even the proggy media acknowledged that, but there never were any consequences.

      1. It will be interesting to watch all the reactions from Flynn going the Full Lerner on the Senate’s subpoena.

      2. its different I suppose when The President does it.

        Except Nixon had nothing to do with the break in.

        His mistake was trying to cover it up.

  15. The liberal activist group MoveOn.org insists that the president “must be impeached immediately.” J.B. Pritzker, a Democratic candidate for governor of Illinois, said, “We simply do not have the luxury of time to wait for months or years.”

    For what? Being elected? Sounds like you guys need to move on.

    1. Sometimes i think it would be awesome to make a living doing bullshit political panic-based activism, but then i remember that i am capable of feeling shame.

      1. The DNC has classes for that – – – –

  16. RE: Don’t Rush to Impeachment
    There’s a reason it’s supposed to be hard to remove the president.

    There are practical reasons why impeaching Trump is a bad idea. First, the republicans are in the majority in both houses, so I don’t think party politics will allow Trump to be impeached. Secondly, why make this fool a martyr? Lastly, the oppositions’ party must have an excellent case for impeachment. As of this date, I don’t see any real concrete evidence to support his impeachment.

    1. It’s actually in the Democrats’ interest to drag this out as long as possible until the 18 midterms, and hope the outrage is still strong enough that they pick up both houses again. Then they can play the “do this or we’ll impeach you game.”

      Trying to impeach him this early into his Presidency is going to be a good recipe for some reactionary civil unrest, given that we already have Trump supporters and the Antifa fucks battling in the streets.

      1. And this just may work for Democrats.

        What a sad, pathetic party.

        1. It 2018, “collusion” is still an undefined term.. . and this wins the Dems the House and Senate? I don’t think so.

      2. That’s one theory.

        Another thought is that after two years of accusations and no evidence, the public will grow tired of the cry-baby libtards and drive a stake through their hearts once and for all.

  17. The sad thing is that there are a whole lot of people–intellectual science lovers all–who believe that once Trump is impeached Hillary will be president.

    1. Nope. No one believes that. The only people who believe that are the people like you who think OTHER people believe it. And I’d question whether that really counts.

      1. I’ll go along partially: I’d say most of the leftists simply wish that Hillary would get to be president if Trump were impeached but understand it doesn’t work that way.

        But I’d guess there are at least a few whose understanding of our government processes is very weak and who think it would work that way. It’s not too hard to find people who can’t name the three branches of the government, don’t know who their elected reps are, can’t place significant events in U.S. history in the correct century, etc.

        1. Agreed. My real point though is that it’s trivially easy to find some asshole doesn’t know anything who also calls themselves a member of whatever political party, and say that person is representative of EVERY person who votes for that party.

  18. Too much is still unknown about his campaign’s connections with Russia and his conversations with James Comey concerning the FBI’s investigation of those ties.

    Also, we don’t yet know what role the sasquatch, the tooth fairy, and the ghost of Alistair Crowley had, either.

  19. “We simply do not have the luxury of time to wait for months or years.”

    Oh fuck off already with the drama.

    They use the same hyperbole with climate change.

  20. The impeach talk now is being supported only by imbeciles. I’m fine with those that hate Trump or what he is or isn’t doing but the opposition is just pathetic.

    This country is in a battle. A battle of who is more stupid. Trump or the Trump opposition. On inauguration day, I would have never guessed that Trump would have competition in the battle for stupid. I really thought he would win hands down. But the democrats are outdoing themselves. Not only are they as stupid, they might be more stupid. Not only are they as dislikable, they might be more dislikable. The DNC needs to get a grip and get people like Maxine Waters out of the spotlight with her impeach 45 schtick.

    1. No, no NO!

      Keep Maxine and Schumer and Al Green front and center. Let them keep talking. Let all of the rational people of America hear them, and see them and learn to despise them and everything they stand for.

      The Demoncraps lost 1000 legislative seats during the Obozo years because the majority of Americans didn’t buy his crap. The Demoncraps need to keep blasting out their message, bring Hitery back to center stage and let her tell the “deplorables” the “real” reason she lost, until every thinking person in America is sick to death of their bilge and wants to kill them.

  21. Reading a Chapman article is

    like harvesting sweet corn before it’s ripe, yielding something stunted and indigestible.

  22. Anyone who takes that racist idiot Maxine Waters seriously has big problems to begin with. How voters could actually put someone in office as purely stupid as she is, along with that moron Georgia Congesssman who feared that Guam would “tip over” due to the weight of military personnel stationed there, is beyond my comprehension.

    1. I keep thinking he must have been kidding, but,,,, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.