I’m watching the House debate on C-SPAN. It is both interesting and irritating. But certainly historic.
Interesting because of the too-often repeated arguments from both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are making certain their comments–all of which we have heard–are stated so they will become part of the Congressional Record for posterity and campaign purposes. I get that.
Irritating for the same reasons: We have heard them all before from members of the House Intelligence and House Judiciary Committees. The only new assertions are from previously unheard voices. But they, too, are familiar refrains from the same song book. And this agonizingly slow posturing only delays the inevitable.
Although one certainly can make a case for impeaching the president, it is bogus to hang it on the Ukraine allegations. Especially since Mr. Trump’s alleged quid pro quo is remarkably similar to the threat former Vice President Joe Biden boasted about in forcing the ouster of a Ukraine prosecutor in exchange for $1-billion in U.S. aide.
Thus we are impeaching a sitting president for an act that is virtually identical to an act by a former vice president who is a leading Democratic presidential candidate.
Many House democrats were pushing for impeachment from day one of their election and subsequent control of the lower chamber in January of this year.
This campaign including the notorious “We’re going to impeach the m….. f…..” promise by newly-elected Michigan Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib
The impeachment effort began months before the March 2019 Robert Mueller report on into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election or the whistleblower Ukraine memo was written on August 12.
Thus we have an instance of a campaign searching for a cause.
The justification for impeachment would have been stronger had the effort begun following the Robert Mueller report that concluded that although the president was not found to have committed crimes, the report said it could not exonerate him either.
The Mueller document was the result of a methodical investigation including numerous interviews, an examination of dozens of documents and lasting more than two years. It’s curious then why the House chose to embrace the whistleblower memo—-a much weaker claim that is largely secondhand hearsay from someone who concedes he/she wasn’t privy to the Ukraine telephone call.
Both the timeline of these proceedings and the evidence selected certainly give opponents reason to question the legitimacy of the process.
Likewise since the actions of both chambers are a foregone conclusion it seems a waste time.
Historic yes. But America will be better served by letting Americans decide the president’s fate next November.