Most Democrats, liberals in the media, swamp dwellers, and assorted other Trump-haters have been plotting against President Trump for two years. To this day, they simply cannot fathom how he was able to win the 2016 election. In their deranged minds it had to be the result of cheating; the election result, itself, should be deemed illegitimate, and he should be removed.
First, they asserted hacking; then, it was vote tampering; then, it was voter irregularities and/or suppression; then, it was collusion with Russia. Now, it appears to be campaign violations. For the past two years, in my opinion, the country has been subjected to the most intensive witch hunt against a sitting president ever (even worse than that against Bill Clinton).
I don’t want to get bogged down in a detailed discussion of the merits of the Muller investigation. We all have our own opinions on it. Personally, I am sick of it, as I’m sure many of you are. It seems to be never-ending. Suffice to say, to date, the investigation, which was authorized based on a false narrative to begin with (the phony, “Trump dossier”) has not turned up any violations or illegalities against Mr. Trump. All it has succeeded in accomplishing has been to waste time, distract the Administration and the Congress from governing the country, and waste millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money.
In January the Dems will assume control of the House of Representatives. There are many issues that voters want addressed. According to various polls two of the most exigent are healthcare and immigration. There are numerous other issues as well, such as infrastructure and climate change. Many of the newly elected representatives ran on those issues, and the voters who elected them expect them to take prompt action.
So, which issue will the Dems address first? Which is the most important in their minds? Healthcare? No. Border security? No. Immigration? Wrong, again. It is, all together now, ….. GET TRUMP. That’s right, with all the issues facing the US the first order of business for the Dems is GET TRUMP! Impeach him. Indict him. Whatever. Just get rid of him.
In a previous blog I denoted that the Dems would likely win control of one or both of the houses of Congress. Furthermore, I opined that if so, rather than being the party of “no,” they would be best served if they focused on governing. A conviction in the Senate would be very unlikely anyway since it would require a 2/3 vote and the GOP has a majority. Even the hated Andrew Johnson was not convicted. Yes, focusing on impeachment would be ill advised, indeed.
They would do well to remember that when the GOP impeached Bill Clinton the voters saw right through it, and his popularity went way up. I would expect the same to happen here. However, it appears that they will not be taking my advice.
Consider the following developments:
1. Nancy Pelosi, likely the new Speaker, has characterized a border wall as “immoral” and has rigorously stated she will oppose authorizing any funds to build it. President Trump will not agree to any immigration bill that does not include a wall, so that does not augur well for resolving the immigration issue.
2. The Dems and the liberal media have signaled that they are “all in” on impeaching Mr. Trump based on payments made to two women in 2016 with whom he had had affairs a decade or so earlier. Mr. Trump had authorized these payments, from his personal funds, to avoid embarrassment after these women had threatened to disclose the affairs to the public. The Dems are asserting that these payments violated campaign finance laws, because they were made “for the purpose of influencing an election” and were not disclosed. Rep Jerry Nadler, the incoming Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called the payments “impeachable offenses” and added that they “were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the [presidency].” Heck, by that ridiculous standard, a candidate should report funds spent to buy a new suit or get a manicure. Rep Adam Schiff, the incoming Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, went even further, stating that there is a “very real prospect” that Mr. Trump will be “indicted… upon leaving office.” Various commentators, with little knowledge of the facts and less common sense, have been spouting similar thoughts all over the news and twitter.
3. Over the weekend a NY Times Op-Ed piece by Michelle Goldberg concluded that Mr. Trump can only be spared an indictment by winning re-election in 2020 and, therefore, serving as president until the statute of limitations for his “crimes” runs out. She cited unnamed “federal prosecutors” and “lawyers from the justice department” as her sources, the old “anonymous” and “unnamed sources” trick that we have seen so much of the last two years.
Wow! How absurd. Apparently, the anti-Trump fever, or, if you prefer, the Trump derangement syndrome, has reached a new low. Where do I begin?
1. Daniels and McDougal sought to extort money from Mr. Trump, plain and simple. Essentially, they said, pay me or I will go public and embarrass you and, maybe, derail your campaign. (Incidentally, isn’t extortion illegal?) Trump has steadfastly asserted that he directed his lawyer to pay the women from his personal funds, and if Cohen used campaign funds, that’s his error.
2. If campaign funds were used in error and not disclosed, it is my understanding that oversights such as that are normally settled with a fine, not jail, and not impeachment. There have been several cases of this, including one involving Obama. Let’s use some common sense. Also, if the payments were required to be disclosed that would have obviated the purpose in paying them in the first place.
3. Mr. Trump was correct when he tweeted back in May that payments such as these are “very common among celebrities and people of wealth.” For example, Congress has a slush fund that is used to pay off paramours and such. To my knowledge, those payments have never been disclosed, nor should they be.
4. Senator Rand Paul, appearing on “Meet the Press” this past Sunday characterized this affair as a “miscarriage of justice.” Furthermore, he opined “if we’re gonna prosecute [and jail] people… for campaign finance violations, we’re gonna become a banana republic.”
5. Alan Dershowitz, noted liberal attorney and not a fan of Donald Trump’s, has characterized this as a clear case of extortion and a “danger to our system.” He called for Muller to investigate the extortion angle. Moreover, in his opinion, it is permissible to use personal funds, and campaign contributions are not even reportable until after the election anyway. He denoted we need a consistent standard to remove the politics. He feels that if, for example, Paula Jones had sought to extort Bill Clinton in the same manner, everyone’s position on the matter would be the reverse of what it is now. I would have to agree.
6. Senator Angus King (I – Maine) nailed it. On “Meet the Press” he denoted that if impeachment were to be commenced based on the current evidence “at least a third of the country would think it was just political revenge and a coup against the president….The best way to solve a problem like this, to me, is elections.”
Give that man a cigar!
Everybody take a deep breath and repeat after me. Donald Trump is our legitimate president. He won fair and square. You don’t have to like him. You didn’t vote for him based on his personal life. You didn’t elect a friend to hang out with; you elected a President who was NOT a politician and who would stand up for the country. You can dislike him but still like his politics. If you want to get rid of him vote him out in 2020.
You knew I couldn’t let this one go by, didn’t you!
“The Dems* are asserting that these payments [to the two women] violated campaign finance laws, because they were made ‘for the purpose of influencing an election’ “
* By Dems, in this instance, your source is the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, headed by Geoffrey Berman, a Jeff Sessions appointee during the Trump administration. The SDNY Michael Cohen sentencing memo (he’s already acceded to the violations) describes the crimes. Thus, we voters now know of two election violations that we didn’t know of pre-election 2016. Election still “fair and square?”
“by that [Nadler’s] ridiculous [impeachment] standard, a candidate should report funds spent to buy a new suit or get a manicure.” Sorry, Larry. Our election regulations are so annoyingly strait-laced! According to the Federal Election Commission (fec.gov): “The campaign cannot pay for attire for political functions (for example, a new tuxedo or dress).” Ridiculous? Or refreshingly ethical, I say.
“You didn’t vote for him based on his personal life.” Do voters not have a right to include character issues in our evaluation of candidates?
You compare the current legal travails to those of Clinton’s administration rather than to Nixon’s. Hmmm. As your hero might say, “We’ll see.”
Thanks for your comments. I always like to hear your point of view and respect it, even though it is far from mine. You usually single out a small part of my blog to critique, which is fair, but ignore the larger parts. My blog speaks for itself, especially the part about inconsistent, unfair and selective interpretation of the payments in question. Also, remember, even if one wants to deem them campaign contributions, which they’re not, they could not have affected the election since cc are not even reportable until afterwards. This is the wrong issue to try to “get Trump” on. You should especially be mindful of Dershowitz’s comments as he is a bona fide liberal and non supporter of Trump. Best to Rick.