Donald Trump

"He's Just Not Worth It"

Impeachment politics in an age of polarization


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has recently repeated her longstanding views regarding President Donald Trump and impeachments. Her bottom line: "I'm not for impeachment."

Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it.

She directed the attention of the Democrats to the 2020 election and to the coming months of aggressive congressional oversight of the administration, or as Trump would prefer to characterize it, "presidential harassment."

Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin countered, "The question is whether the republic is worth it and whether the public interest commands it and whether there are high crimes and misdemeanors." Raskin may eventually get his way since his sentiments are shared by many Democratic activists, but Pelosi is making some important points.

Pelosi is no doubt remembering the Clinton impeachment and how the Republicans wound up making the president into a sympathetic figure for much of the public. The political fortunes of the Democratic Party have seemingly been on the upswing since the 2016 elections, and Pelosi would prefer not to lose that momentum by getting too far ahead of public sentiment. Public support for impeachment has hardly budged over the course of Trump's presidency. The Democratic base was ready for impeachment on day one, but the advocates of impeachment have not managed to persuade many more to join that cause. Perhaps a steady diet of House oversight hearings will move the needle, but that remains to be seen. In the meantime, the Democrats can benefit from a weakened Republican incumbent.

Implicitly, Pelosi is rejecting the claim that Raskin wants to make. When Raskin says the "republic is worth it," he is asserting that the president is too dangerous to leave in power until 2021. When Pelosi says "he's just not worth it," she is implicitly saying that Trump in fact poses no real dangers to the republic. There is no crisis. There is no emergency. There is just an unpopular president of the other party. In effect, she thinks the activists don't need to do this, but they'd rather do it much faster.

That does not mean that Pelosi necessarily disagrees with Raskin's assessment that "there are high crimes and misdemeanors." The question is what follows from that assessment given present circumstances. Some think that such offenses are enough. Pelosi is effectively indicating that the presence of impeachable offenses is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for launching an impeachment. Pursuing those charges is not worth it in this case. There is too little to be gained.

Of course, one reason why there is too little to be gained is because the Democrats almost certainly do not have the necessary votes to convict the president in the Senate. Ezra Klein and Gene Healy have suggested that we should "normalize" presidential impeachments. The supermajority requirement for conviction in the Senate, however, means that normalizing impeachments in the current circumstances will generally mean futility in a Senate trial. As a practical matter, if the opposition party wants to remove a sitting president through the use of the impeachment power, it needs to be able to persuade at least a few senators from the president's own party to vote to convict him. If we were to "normalize" impeachments in the House, it is hard to imagine that we would be able to make it any easier to reach across the aisle in the Senate and persuade senators to vote against a president who remains popular among his own partisans.

So that leaves the question of whether there is any point to a presidential impeachment when it is a foregone conclusion that the result will not be the premature removal of the president from office. If Raskin or Tom Steyer think that impeachment is a good idea regardless of whether anyone other than Democrats are in favor it, then they need to answer the question of why it is worth impeaching a president even when removal is not on the table. The answer to that question cannot be that the president is too dangerous to tolerate in office, because futile impeachments will not change that situation one bit.

Such an impeachment might better be understood as a particularly strong form of a resolution of censure. It would express the sense of the House that the president has behaved very badly. There might well be reasons for sending such a message. The House might simply want to go on record stating that some of the actions they have observed are indeed impeachable, or should be regarded as impeachable if observed again during other presidencies in the future. Impeachments can be a useful vehicle for forcing a debate on how we expect government officials to conduct themselves in office and for changing our constitutional norms and practices. An impeachment can accomplish that result even if the impeached official in not removed.

But if norm-building is the point of an impeachment of Donald Trump, then Democrats would need to build that case. They would need to focus their attention not on the relatively arid question of whether the president has committed a high crime or misdemeanor, but on the more substantive question of how we expect presidents to behave in office and why. In discussing that question, Democrats may even find that impeachment is a counterproductive vehicle for developing a political consensus around a set of norms for future political behavior. They would need to make the debate less about Trump and more about the health of the constitutional order. But that might not be a debate that Democrats actually have any interest in pursuing.

NEXT: On the Biology of Sex, Sex Differentiation, and the Performance Gap

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Pelosi is playing it smart. If she commits to impeachment now, it’ll look like she had her mind made up before Mueller finished his investigation.

    I remain confident that by the end of the year, Mueller will definitively prove that (A) Drumpf colluded with a hostile foreign power to “win” a hacked election, and (B) Drumpf has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987. Once this has been established, Pelosi can say “I never supported impeachment for its own sake. But knowing what we know now, we really have no other choice.”

    1. In your drug-induced dreams!

      1. Did you just get hooked again?

      2. OBL is a parody account.

        1. And not a very good one. Just give it up already, OBL. It’s not working.

          1. To be fair to him . . . . it’s pretty difficult to parody Democrats these days. What he wrote above could easily be a comment on the Washington Post with 300 upvotes.

            1. Yes. It is convincing bait when there is an honest to goodness for realz MSNBC story in that link that does say Trump could be a Russian asset since 1987.

    2. Although you are a parody account, you are exactly right.

      If Mueller presents compelling evidence that Trump is a Russian asset, there will be more than enough GOP votes to convict him in the Senate. And the voters will thank the Senate for doing so. If Mueller fails to present such compelling evidence there’s no point in pursuing impeachment (a) because it won’t result in a conviction and (b) because the voters will punish the impeachers.

      Pelosi is on solid ground in holding her fire until the evidence is in, one way or the other.

      The seriously odd fellow is Schiff, who claims to be aware of compelling evdence that Trump is a Russian asset, but agrees with Pelosi that it’s not worth impeaching him.

      1. If Mueller presents compelling evidence that Trump is a Russian asset, there will be more than enough GOP votes to convict him in the Senate.

        That assertion is as unpersuasive as it is unqualified.

  2. Successfully bringing Articlesof Impeachment against Trump will so tilt the playing field in his direction the few remains adults in the Democratic Party are doing the best to resist internal mob rule.

    But mob rule IS the Democratic Socialist Party that exists today.

    I believe (hope) we are at peak craziness on this and that two more years of violence and intolerance by the fringe portion of the Left turns the tide against them keeps us from sliding into anarachy and facism.

    1. Nice of you to use ‘Democratic’ in Democratic Socialist Party.

      Also impressed by the innovative paring of ‘anarachy and facism.’

      1. If it keeps spiders from stomping on our faces, I for one am with him!

    2. “the few remains adults in the Democratic Party”

      They’re less like adults and more like moderately-intelligent older sisters trying to stop Little Johnny from playing with matches.

  3. Trump in power till 2021? Let’s Jan 20th, 2025.

  4. I tend to agree with Pelosi that if you come at the king, you best not miss. Impeachment is a political choice, not a Constitutional mandate. A impeachment without removal won’t deter this President or his party given it’s partisan narrative, nor would it really penetrate with independents given same. So while I love Raskin, I don’t kno that I agree with his formalist/symbolic requirement over looking for a functional benefit.

    As for the base, we’ll see if they are in the end satisfied by robust Congressional oversight – I’d wager many of them will be, at least through 2020.

    1. The impeachment push seems to me more theatrical than serious, much like the public congressional hearings that contain at least as much posing and speechmaking by senators and representatives as anything else. Democrats campaigned on containing the President, not removing him, and would be wise not to overplay their hand. Plus, it’s difficult to believe any of them would honestly prefer Pence in the Oval Office.

      1. Both your points make sense to me.

      2. Plus, it’s difficult to believe any of them would honestly prefer Pence in the Oval Office.

        Eh, when you strip away the grand-standing and look at the actual nitty-gritty of getting things done, President Trump is a disaster. Not because he says weird things, but because he has no real interest in policy or practice, no concern for being informed, no commitment to honor his word…

        For an example, look at the budget showdown last December. He initially gave support to the House’s plan, only to say he would veto it if it passed the Senate. You can’t even negotiate with that kind of nonsense because he doesn’t honor his own deals.

        So sure, Democrats might not like working with Pence, but I think many would be grateful just for having someone more consistent who actually takes the job seriously. That said, you gotta remember… if President Trump is forced to leave office early, Pence will be on short-notice. He would be a lame-duck president, not really in a position to do anything big.

        So I think you’d be surprised.

        1. That said, your earlier points are valid. I just think you overstate how undesirable Pence is.

        2. Them judges tho.

        3. Yes, I can see that his effectiveness in office could be good, or bad, or neutral from a Democratic perspective. Pence would be easier to reach compromises with, but also a more effective opponent on issues like entitlement clawbacks where they don’t want to compromise. Or, as you say, he might end up a placeholder.

          I think though that argument ignores the effect that Trump is having within the Republican party, creating divisions that Pence would be in a position to heal. So even if the effectiveness in office evaluation is a wash, Democrats might think it a smarter strategy for 2020 to handcuff Trump but otherwise leave him in place to continue doing what he has been doing. I don’t especially like this aspect, the country is better off if both conservative and liberal voices have effective advocates, but I’d expect it to figure into their thinking.

          1. The thing is, unless you had an iron clad reason to remove Trump, replacing him with Pence wouldn’t heal divisions, it would tear the party in half.

    2. “robust Congressional oversight”

      Yes, Dem voters are easily impressed by words and theatrics.

      Cummings and Nadler etc. all think they are Sam Ervin but in reality they are Lee Hamilton in Iran Contra and Trey Gowdy over the Benghazi incident.

      1. You could be right. Certainly theatrics via investigation is not a new thing in Congress (Check out Johnson’s Korean War oversight antics).

        The proof shall be in the pudding. At least for me. You, however, will be skeptical regardless of purported results, I’d wager.

        1. “You could be right.”

          Did the Cohen hearings move any poll numbers?

          “I’d wager”

          I shall not be skeptical. I will outright dismiss the results.

          1. Public hearings are not investigatory results; I concur with you that those are just for show, just about every time.

            As for preemptively dismissing any evidence the House provides, that’s just sad.

            1. Pence can’t win in 2020 IMHO, Trump might. The Dems are all various versions of disasters so I have to play the hand 2016 dealt.

              1. Ahh yes, being baldly unprincipled because nothing matters other than owning the libs.

                That is the Bob I know. You seemed to lose your nihilism for a bit there?

                1. “owning the libs”

                  No, what matters is wining elections so {some of } my preferences are supported.


                  My principle is winning the 2020 election.

                  1. So you’ve forgotten what principles even are.

                    Principles drive policy. But you’re not actually fighting for a policy, though, are you? You’re fighting against a party.

                    1. “You’re fighting against a party.”

                      Yes, a party which is pro-abortion, anti-gun and increasingly socialistic.

                      My principle is that I don’t want that party to win the White House.

                      Trump is dishonest and a liar but so was Bill Clinton and he got two terms. If people only voted for completely honest and truthful people, no one would ever win.

                    2. You’ve made it clear that evidence and law don’t matter to you, so I’d expect abortion, guns, socialism are negotiable as well.

                    3. Well, you’d be wrong.

                      But I know the allegations about Trump and I don’t care if all of them are true. Like in 1997 Dems did not care about Clinton.

                      Is Justin Fairfax still Lt Gov of Virginia and Gov. Blackface still governor? It seems you are the outlier, not me, about crimes [or sins] of politicians.

                    4. If you’re accepting every question of fact against Trump as proven, you don’t care about the republic at all.
                      May your chains rest lightly etc. etc.

                    5. The Republic is better off with Trump than, for instance, Sanders, admirer and supporter of the Soviet Union and the Sandinistas.

                      Trump has obeyed every adverse court decision. Some threat to the Republic.

                      Meanwhile: “Third Circuit now has a 7-6 majority of Republican appointees (with one pending vacancy). First court of appeals to flip from majority Dem appointees to majority R appointees during Trump presidency.” from twitter

                    6. I’m thinking specifically of the Trump is in Russia’s pocket line of thinking. By your summary judgement logic, that’s fine because Russian control is better than Sanders.

                      Maybe check yourself there, if you think a rival nation is better to turn to than Americans you disagree with.

    3. Ah, but symbolism is the coin of the political realm, and Trump is nearly as good as progressives in grand symbolic bloviation.

      1. Even if impeachment is a symbolic victory, at what practical cost would it come?

        (BTW some on the left are arguing this is Pelosi doubling down and making it extra big news if she decides to come out for impeachment. I think that’s wishful thinking.)

  5. Trump’s trump card in this will be that when the door hits Rosenstein in the behind on his way out next week the last cork will be out of the bottle on why and how the DOJ suppressed all the very real evidence that Hillary and the Clinton campaign was colluding with the Russians (not to mention the criminally cavalier attitude towards any government intelligence security violations or reporting requirements) but decided instead to go after Trump and all his associates hammer and tong ON THE BASIS OF A DOSSIER BOUGHT, PAID FOR, AND PROVIDED BY THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN.Yes, that will be interesting. Even with the Fake News all Pro-Democrat-Narratives-All-Of-The-Time legacy media fogging up the public mind, a glimmer of realization may finally shine through in some minds that Trump has somehow survived two years of the boldest, brazenest, filthiest coup attempt in American history.

    1. were for was first sentence

      1. I’ll meet you halfway, the 1st is, the 2nd isn’t, and 3rd is a matter of opinion. 🙂

    2. Those are some run-on sentences indeed. But to your point, I suspect if the Dems make a play for impeachment, the door will be opened on prosecutions for things like lying to a FISA court to obtain the warrant to spy on Trump Tower, etc. etc. It will get nasty, in a hurry.

      As it is, if they House committees are able to get traction on investigating decade+ old tax returns and business practices of the Trump business, I expect some of the same. However, there is a precedent for the administration stalling and ignoring congressional investigations *cough* Eric Holder *cough*, so I expect some serious slow-walking and nothing to come of it in the end.

      1. I’m afraid I don’t buy this, purely politically. The folk in the FBI and the Obama DoJ and CIA who may have been playing political games are not the folk that Trump will be running against in 2020. What has, say Kamala Harris got to do with FBI / DoJ abuses 2015-2019 ?

      2. “the door will be opened on prosecutions for things like lying to a FISA court to obtain the warrant to spy on Trump Tower, etc.”

        Yes . . . the impetus for the conspiracy theory hoax and investigation against Trump was probably more about covering their own asses more than it was a genuine hope for actually bringing him down.

        They just needed to create enough confusion by accusing the other side of some of the very things they were doing (colluding w/ Russia), and get a little bit of leverage with a special counsel, to keep any accountability at bay. Damaging Trump’s political capital and agenda was also a bonus.

    3. For you guys who think Trump is just holding back on evil Hillary-Obama conspiracies/scandals, do you really think Trump is the sort to hold back on damaging information about Democrats?

      Also, do you really think the same DoJ you apparently think is riven with Deep-State traitors will assist Trump in slow-walking anything?

      Your plot doesn’t make sense, but your theme of Trump always holding all the cards even in hypotheticals where it seems like he doesn’t is sure a doozy.

      1. Plot, no? It’s just rationalization and conjecture given incomplete data.

        Trump’s hand picked DoJ director will assist Trump over the Democrats. That’s obvious. How far he will go with prosecutions of those who lied to Congress and lied to the FISA court, I don’t know, but it’s fair guess that they will happen as tit-for-tat if the Dems go after some Trump bribe to a 3rd-world-istan official to build a hotel.

        Prosecution of Hillary or Obama themselves? She deserves it, but that’s your story. Regardless, it’s unlikely as Trump doesn’t want to set himself up for a post presidency attack.

        House investigations will be slow walked and stone-walled, they always are no matter the party.

        1. How far he will go? He’ll go nowhere, we’ll see just enough for Trump to emerge bloodied, embattled, and ready to give up on his immigration promises.

          My measuring stick is to look for when Jim Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan are all sentenced to prison time for lying to Congress. All of their lies to Congress were far more serious offenses to the American public than Michael Cohen’s (not to defend Cohen, who above all else is simply dumb as a box of rocks).

          1. There is the optimist in me, that at the very least that the immigration promises will be kept, they sorta are now at least. I realize that to half the country, those three folks are heroes (of a sort) and it would tear the country apart to prosecute them, and it may not be worth the fight.

            Still better than Hillary or Jeb.

            1. Are there really people to whom Comey, Clapper and Brennan are heroes? Really? Can’t be that many. Who finds it heroic to lie publicly under oath about unconstitutional mass surveillance programs? I agree it may not be a politically worthwhile thing to spend political capital on, but I was speaking more to my sense of whether in the end there’s any sort of fairness or evenly administered justice in this mess.

              1. The people who think they’re heroes mostly don’t know about that bit, only that they’ve criticized Trump.

                1. Fair enough. I guess it would be that small set of sad creatures who tune into MSNBC every night and hang on the words of their outrageous anti-Trump rants. Still not that many people.

      2. Did you not understand, “when the door hits Rosenstein in the behind on his way out”?

        The point is that Trump has never yet had functional control of the DOJ. He can’t play Samson in the temple while people like Rosenstein are still in a position to ignore his orders.

        But that is coming to an end.

        Now, despite all the Crooked Hillary talk, I suspect he entered office willing to let it slide. But the Democrats kind of blew that, didn’t they..

        1. By that logic, impeachment or no it won’t matter – soon all will be revealed about Hillary’s perfidy (that you’ve already figured out, natch).

          If Trump ever does get the DoJ to prosecute past Dems, I don’t think that will play well to the general public. If you want to argue that the main goal is justice, you and Raskin can share that in common.

          1. I did say “Samson in the temple”; I think Trump only goes after them like that if he figures he’s going down anyway, and might as well burn the whole rotten town to the ground on his way out.

            Pelosi won’t impeach unless she has evidence of real, offensive to people who don’t already want Trump removed, criminality, because too many people in DC are dirty to survive a President who doesn’t give a damn.

            1. I’m amused that you think Trump gives a damn.

              1. He doesn’t give a damn about what you think he should, obviously, but that’s not to say he doesn’t give a damn about ANYTHING.

                1. He’s not big on institutions, so I fail to see why you expect he’d hold back from the full-on legal press against Obama-era Dems he keeps tweeting about.

                  Unless you’re pre-setting your expectations…

                  1. I think he’d hold back because,

                    1) He’s got other things he wants to get done.
                    2) He hasn’t had nearly as much control over the DOJ as Presidents usually have, thanks to the “Resistance”.
                    3) Probably a justified reluctance to break the corrupt bargain that Ford started, that each President refrains from prosecuting the prior administration.

                    #2 is finally looking like it’s going to end. #1 and #3 would vanish if a serious effort was made to impeach him.

                    1. In fact, I’d say that, if he has any sense at all, he should realize by now that the Democrats have worked themselves into such a state that they can’t NOT prosecute him. If not at the federal level, at the state.

                    2. If you see Dem judges and prosecutors behind every investigation, then you would see it as a frenzy.

                      But that is, of course, tautological – the Dems gotta prosecute Trump because every investigation/prosecution of a Trump person is automatically by a Dem.

                    3. How can I not see Dem prosecutors behind every investigation, when that’s exactly who they are? Mueller is about the only Republican in his own team, (And if he didn’t arrange that deliberately in violation of DOJ regulations, it’s a wild coincidence.) and it certainly isn’t Republicans threatening to prosecute Trump in NY.

                      It’s not that, if you prosecute Trump, you’re automatically a Democrat, it’s that, if you’re in a position to prosecute Trump, and a Democrat, you’re facing almost irresistible pressure to do so, even if you wouldn’t have done so under normal circumstances. (Mueller’s got his own motives for going after Trump, and he’d have recused himself if he had more than pretend integrity.)

                      You can’t NOT treat “literally Hitler” like Hitler. You can’t tell your base for two years running that he’s an existential threat to the nation, and then be seen ignoring opportunities to take him down. The propaganda forces them to go after him.


  6. It’s very clear that OUR HEROIC AND NOBLE PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP is the cleanest person ever to serve as President; years of 44*’s spying and Herr M?ller’s “show me the man, and I’ll find the crime” so-called “investigation” has come up with an utter and complete nothingburger.

    If ever the democrat Party gets another President, then the Republicans should, but won’t, give her as thorough a colonoscopy.

    1. When you wish you were born during divine right of kings…

      1. Sarcastr0, your grip on reality is loosening. Not quite to an OBL or Kirkland level, but I urge you to seek help.

        1. Eh, you’re the one extolling the HEROIC AND NOBLE PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.
          Your side is having him sign the cover of Bibles.

          Weird stuff these days.

          1. Would you prefer the Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Beto O’Rourke prayer candle?

            We have Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Robert Francis O’Rourke votive candles being sold in Austin, and supporters of OUR HEROIC AND NOBLE PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP are the cultists?

            Second, what does “the divine right of kings” have to do with the calculated targeted persecution, harassment, and slow-motion coup d’etat against OUR HEROIC AND NOBLE PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP?

            Seek help, seriously.

            1. I’d roll my eyes at those folks too, if they posted here.

              Your cult-of-personality is unseemly in our secular republic.

              1. Boring, too.

      2. Speaking of the divine rights of kings, the 4th and 5th amendments aren’t to protect the guilty, much less the innocent, but rather to stop the king from harrassing his political opposition at will, or at all.

        This and the previous Clinton impeachment show how wise that was, and how it gets stretched to the breaking point anyway.

        When one is joyous at possible tit for tat collusion of some kind, so you can Get Him (Angry Face), for political reasons, something is wrong.

        1. The constable can be corrupt even if he doesn’t serve the king. Petty tyrants are nevertheless tyrants.

          Neither with Clinton nor with Trump are people out for tit-for-tat. Both sides think the other guy is/was legit guilty. Which is also bad, but I don’t see it as avoidable in today’s media environment.

  7. Translation: “He just didn’t do it”

    It was all just the biggest political media hoax of the century.

  8. In other words, she has no case, and no chance of conviction (assuming she could actually get a vote)

    1. That’s the way I read it, too: They haven’t got a case against him anyone who didn’t already hate Trump would take seriously, and don’t expect to.

    2. Having no chance of conviction in impeachment != not having a case.

      For better or worse, it’s not a trial; the result is not determined by questions of fact or law. It’s a political action. Pelosi understands that. As does the OP.

      Some here suddenly forget that.

      1. I didn’t say they didn’t have a case. I said they didn’t have one that would be taken seriously by anyone who didn’t already hate Trump.

        1. OK, got me there, Brett. I wasn’t exactly replying to you (the threading at reason needs some work), but I’ll admit I was considering you in that set.

          Still applicable wrt Flight-ER-Doc and M.L.

  9. There well might still be political hay to be made by the Democrats from a doomed impeachment. The charges that would be brought against Trump would be, regardless of their truth, far more serious than those brought against Clinton. The Democrats were able to effectively spin the charges against Clinton as, “He lied to hide an affair.”

    Most of the persuadable voters thought that the Republicans had made a mountain out of a molehill by impeaching Clinton. I think that will be much more difficult for Republicans to manage to pull off given the charges likely to be levied against Trump. Forcing Republican senators in purple or blue states to make a choice regarding convicting Trump could set the Democrats up with one or two more senators than they otherwise might get in 2020. And that could mean the difference between being in the majority or the minority.

    1. Delusional. The only thing they have on Trump is an alleged campaign finance violation based on convicted liar Cohen’s word about Trump’s motive for the payments to Stormy Daniels. That’s not even 1/10th as serious as the charges against Clinton.

      A more serious charge like conspiring with Russia against the U.S. will be even more of a hoot. This would be akin to Republicans impeaching Obama for being a secret Muslim and born in Kenya.

      I agree there’s political hay to be made in solidly blue districts, and that’s why it may still happen. But purple states? Lol, go ahead, carry on.

    2. Most of the persuadable voters thought that the Republicans had made a mountain out of a molehill by impeaching Clinton.

      Perjury is a very serious charge. It undermines the ability of a court system to function. Almost every working day, I draft something for myself or a client to certify to the court “under penalty or perjury.”

      I agree, though, this was poorly explained to the American public. It was not so complicated — he was being sued, and he lied under oath to get out of it.

      1. Of course it was poorly explained. After Starr handed over his report, and the House held that vote to take it seriously and impeach Clinton on any counts that could be proven, Livingston got destroyed by a release of blackmail info, to prove that Clinton was serious about not going quietly.

        And replaced by Denis Hastert, who was, amazingly, even more subject to being blackmailed.

        After that, the House managers were taking a dive to avoid being destroyed themselves. They were too dirty to survive provoking Clinton into releasing everything he had on them.

  10. Pelosi said something but what does the actual House leadership (Cortez, Omar) say?

    1. Yaaaarghll reeee ogl bogl! *crazy eyes widening*

  11. If you don’t have the votes to remove the President from office, then impeachment by the House is a useless gesture that only serves to consolidate the other side’s base against you AND rile up the people in the middle. I said at the time that the Republicans were making a mistake impeaching Bill Clinton, even though I believed that he committed perjury AND that it was a serious issue. But when you lose the removal, you look like political hacks who were just trying to score points. Even if your own base is temporarily happy, you lose more in the end.

  12. “…and I bet those grapes were sour!” she said to herself as she sulked away from the grapevine.

  13. In the meantime, back at the feet of the goddess of justice, now smothered in political pigeon dung, lie convicted and bankrupted Michael Flynn, Carter Page, a scumbag lawyer, the soon-to-be contrite Roger Stone, and guys I would really like to hear testify openly like Jerome Corsi and the judges who approved those FISA orders. Grand juries can indict sitting judges, certainly. Get it on!

    Paul Manafort (who deserved some legal attention, certainly, but my goodness) opens the doors to questions about Democrats who maybe should be looked at regarding registering as representing foreign interests.

    Say, for instance, Tony Podesta, brother of John my-password-is-password, and no, the FBI is not welcome to come look at our computer system after we were hacked.

    How about this name, Hunter Biden, whose dad is arguably No. 1 or 2 in the Dem polls at the moment? Hunter is on the board of Burisma, a natural gas company with offices in Cyprus and Kiev that exports a lot of gas profitably to Germany. Ostensibly this Burisma is controlled by “good” Ukrainians (like the ilk that donated so many tens of millions to the Clintons.)

    But who really controls Burisma? For that matter, Would you bet your life on where all of that gas originates? Would you bet Clapper’s, or Brennan’s, or Comey’s, or Britisher Michael Steele’s life? That last fellow, now he’s interesting. . .

  14. I hope Democrats vote to neither impeach nor convict Pres. Trump unless Republicans take the lead.

    Republicans deserve to sustain the consequences of the Trump presidency.

    I know Pres. Trump is hugely popular with the 6 a.m. coffee-and-chat crowd at Mabel’s Horseless Carriage Diner during a Fox & Friends on-location broadcast, but have any of you spoken with any young, educated, modern, successful Americans lately — the ones who are forming lifelong voting patterns, and will be voting decades after the blue-hairs (and, it appears, orange-hairs) have taken their stale thinking to the grave?

  15. I hope Democrats vote to neither impeach nor convict Pres. Trump unless Republicans take the lead.

    Republicans deserve to sustain the consequences of the Trump presidency.

    I know Pres. Trump is hugely popular with the 6 a.m. coffee-and-chat crowd at Mabel’s Horseless Carriage Diner during a Fox & Friends on-location broadcast, but have any of you spoken with any young, educated, modern, successful Americans lately — the ones who are forming lifelong voting patterns, and will be voting decades after the blue-hairs (and, it appears, orange-hairs) have taken their stale thinking to the grave?

    1. Great news, young people are more open to socialism than those icky, smelly old people.

      Your running-dog capitalist-roadism is dying off, Grandpa! Clear the road for the Red batallions!

      1. They may not love it as much when the re-education camps, gulags, and forced labor camps open. Thy might not even find it that great when they end up in a kangaroo court and are sentenced to death for speaking their mind, marched out the door and immediately executed in the yard. Ah, you can’t stop progress!


  16. “When Raskin says the “republic is worth it,” he is asserting that the president is too dangerous to leave in power until 2021.”

    Raskin is my congressman, and I’ve had the good fortune to talk with him a couple times, briefly. I don’t think that’s what he is asserting at all. I think he genuinely believes that if he is convinced the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, he has a constitutional duty to vote for and support impeachment, regardless of what he thinks will happen in the Senate. He really does not see it. as a political issue, but a constitutional one.

    Pelosi may have the better of the argument politically, but I think Raskin is right. I think if the Republicans who supported impeachment against Clinton were in good faith, they were right as well, even though they may have paid the price for it politically.

Please to post comments