Looking for Impeachable Offenses in All The Wrong Places

Seems like president can only get impeached for two things these days: sex or obstruction of justice. Too bad we can’t impeach them for the things that they all do.

15 Comments. Leave new

  • Which just goes to show that the «things that they all do» are accepted as necessary for the survival and prosperity of the Shining City on a Hill….


  • alex_the_tired
    June 10, 2019 10:50 AM

    Impeachment is rarely, if ever, instigated with the intention of removing a sitting president. Case in point? Donald Trump. The dem leadership could impeach Trump tomorrow–they might lose, sure, but we’re they not millionaire hypocrites it could be useful further down the line–but because they don’t want him out of office, they won’t. He’s far more useful to them as a griping point. The animated senile cadaver called Nancy Pelosi talks up a storm about how tough and savvy she is, continues to pull centrist trick after centrist trick, and cries “Donald Trump” as needed to distract the people who still think Hillary War Criminal Clinton won the election. (Do the math everyone. Clinton’s entire 3 million vote “victory” came from California. She won a deep blue state and lost several traditionally dem states; it was a push–her one win didn’t cover what she lost.)

  • Republicans must be awaiting the Democrats’ bite at the baited hook concealed in the low hanging fruit of impeachment for obstruction of justice and collusion with Putin.

    The Republican political counterattack to an obstruction of justice charge in a Senate trial will be an investigation into the origins of the “Trump is Putin’s puppet” hoax.

    Republican supporters of Trump will certainly answer with Yes, obstruction of justice IS a crime, but how can obstruction of a HOAX be a crime?

    Will the concepts of hoax and justice be as indistinguishable to Republicans as they are to Democrats? I think not.

    Democrat voters who have again campaigned and elected House members based on the promise of impeachment will certainly go into a depression after awakening to being duped once again by Pelosi’s disinclination to impeach, and find themselves to be too lethargic to go to the polls in 2020.

    I’m betting the Democrats would rather lose to Trump in 2020 than win by making appeals to the Deplorables and others of the 45% who find playing the election game unrewarding and beneath notice.

  • Big doings at the House Judiciary Committee.

    John Dean testified yesterday that the His Hairness administration is comparable to that of his former boss Nixon, in whose crimes Dean was entangled, ultimately confessing to obstruction of justice.

    Asked by (I think ) Adam “dumb as a pole & twice as dense” Schiff, how many US administrations Dean has been able to describe that way, Dean noted that he had written a book to do precisely that regarding the Cheney/Bush regime, entitled “WORSE Than Watergate” (my emphasis).

    It was published in 2004, two years, before Pelosi “pledged” to some media cretin that she would not impeach George the Profoundly Impaired nor his
    puppeteer “Full-Frontal Anti-Christ.”

  • It’s unlikely they’ll impeach a prez for anything their own side does, ‘cuz blowback.

  • Here, Ted, an example of one of the few things – perhaps the only thing – one can’t get away with, president or no….


    • Next the news must be scrubbed of anti-Semitic imagery such as racist Israeli attacks on unarmed Palestinian Semites.

    • Martin Rowson, the great Guardian cartoonist, has published an opinion piece in that journal regarding the New York Times‘ decision to cease publishing political cartoons in the internationa edition (the domestic edition ceased running them several years ago). Well worth a read, not least for the last paragraph :

      We [i e, political cartoonists] are, in short, expendable. Nonetheless, the New York Times’ decision is particularly irksome in its intoxicating combination of cowardice, pomposity, over-reaction and hypocrisy. As I observed at the beginning of this article, April is the cruellest month for the New York Times, as its much vaunted (and self-promoting) claim to be America’s “newspaper of record” was dealt an almost fatal blow when it was revealed in April 2003 that its star reporter Jayson Blair was a serial plagiarist who had fabricated many of his stories. You’ll note, however, that the paper did not stop using reporters altogether in order to rebuild its reputation. Nor did it issue a statement announcing that it would “continue investing in forms of news journalism, including textual journalism, that express nuance, complexity and strong voice from a diversity of viewpoints” and then fill its pages with copy from, say, accountants and astrologers. Although after the dumbness of this decision, just give it time.


      PS : António Moreira Antunes’ cartoon can be accessed here : i (dot) dailymail (dot) co.uk/1s/2019/04/27/22/12799786-6967539-image-m-4_1556401002278 (dot)jpg – no link to avoid Ted’s limit. Personally, I think Mr Rowson is a bit over the top when he compares it to those published in Der Sturmer (/ia600700 (dot) us (dot) archive (dot) org/23/items/AThousandCaricaturesFromTheStuermer192345/A%20thousand%20Caricatures%20From%20The%20Stuermer%201923-45 (dot) zip) back in the day….

  • If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
    (What if it is a Russian tree?)

    If an a president obstructs an investigation and no one gets around to what the underlying crime was, is it justice?

    Nixon’s had mafia goons raid Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office (but no one cared) and the Democratic establishment’s office (now they cared). Obstruction on all levels simply reinforced the impression that the guy was behaving like a mafia don. Even that might not have been enough had Nixon not been so stupid as to tape his rants.

    Clinton effectively lied under oath (depending on your definition of “sexual relations”, “depending”, “on”, “your”, and “definition”) – but he did so merely to cover up for a petty sex act with an employee. This in itself would not have registered as an impeachable offense (although MeToo may have refined our sensibilities in that regard).

    Where does Trump come in? Most people already knew that Trump forgot more about corrupt dealings in the last nano-second than ever got covered in the Mueller investigation. By now many people also know that obstruction of investigations is inherent in his business plans which predate his presidency. It seems wishful thinking that an obstruction charge alone would sink a president in the court of public opinion – especially if that president can make a case (with some actual merit) that the “deep state” is out to get him.

    • On the other side of the coin: Why would someone work so hard to obstruct justice, if said justice could only prove him innocent?

      • Good observation, CH.

        On the “third” (because reality is not binary) side of the coin: Why would Democrats work so hard to construct a hoax, if simple justice would prove Trump guilty?

        Why would the Democrats go after fake issues based on a hoax popular among True Believer Democratic fanatics when there are so many real substantive issues the Democrats could have pursued?

        But I think you have already answered that question here:

        “It’s unlikely they’ll impeach a prez for anything their own side does, ‘cuz blowback.”

        Right. The Nuremberg Defense. It’s not a Nazi crime if the Allies also did it.

        This system of the two parties finding justification for their mutual crimes in the crimes of the other does not serve the interests of the people.

      • > Why would Democrats work so hard to construct a hoax, if said justice could only prove him innocent?

        Good question – do you have a good answer?

        Especially considering that they didn’t need to construct a “hoax,” given that the Dastardly Russians really did try to affect our election.

        > “It’s unlikely they’ll impeach a prez for anything their own side does, ‘cuz blowback.”

        Yes, that’s referring to Ted’s cartoon, in which he lists several things that the D’s won’t impeach DJT for. War and poverty and stuffs. They’re undeniably guilty on those counts.

        However, we have no evidence whatsoever of D’s colluding, cooperating, or conspiring with Russia to throw the election. Nor are they guilty of obstructing that particular investigation. So, yeah, that thing is a different thing. A thing of which they are not guilty (so far as we know) and so it is something they could prosecute him for without risking blowback.

        I answered your questions – would you be so kind as to answer mine? Why would DJT work so hard to obstruct an investigation which could only prove him innocent?

      • My answer:

        True Believer Democratic fanatics.

        You can’t reason with crazy.

      • IOW: you have no answer. Faced with a simple, straightforward question, you reply with insults rather than to even attempt to answer.

        I assume this means you reject my offer of a truce.

        If you had an actual answer, you might stand a chance of winning the argument. Since you do not, you lose by forfeit. The End. Game Over. Case Closed. That’s all folks. Thanks for playing. Your participation trophy is in the mail.

  • And hot off the press, a new act which should render the perpetrators impeachable – and put them before a tribunal in Nürnberg – but as you noted, Ted, they all get away with it. Nobody was ever prosecuted for the Gulf Of Tonkin incident som 55 years ago either….

    Mondo cane….


You must be logged in to post a comment.