Click the Pic
Support Free Republic.
Become a monthly donor today.
Posted on 11/25/2019 7:05:44 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
The history of impeachment proceedings in the modern era, from Nixon to Clinton to Trump, shows that a successful impeachment needs three things: it must be bipartisan, it must be about something Americans think is important, and Congress must strike while the iron is hot. In Trump’s case, Democrats have botched all three.
First, this impeachment inquiry is an entirely partisan affair. The public hearings of recent weeks have made this undeniable, but even before the hearings it was obvious that Democrats alone were going to conduct this impeachment. The House’s impeachment inquiry resolution passed last month without a single Republican vote, and in fact two Democrats joined GOP lawmakers in voting against the resolution, making opposition to the impeachment probe bipartisan.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Democrats have never learned anything from anything.
Their operative philosophy at any given moment in time is that they are ALWAYS the smartest people in any room. No need to learn nothin’ from nothin’.
Quite a quandary for the Democrats. If the full House does not vote on impeachment, their core base will be outraged and many will sit home and smoke come election day. If they do vote for impeachment, they get badly scorched in Senate testimony. The muddled middle will not support Democrats come election day.
The rotten, evil Rats and their Useful Idiots will never go away.
Democrats always use tried and true playbooks: Just like Nixon, they will slow leak whistle blowers all year (regardless of content) until an economic slowdown. Wear out RINOs and establishment Republicans until they cave.
They are trying to find a way to convict when the Senate is not in session. In other words, to propose it between sessions and find some ‘war time’ way to remove Trump. If they want “War”, war they shall have, and it will not go they way that they think. It makes you wonder if Schiff, Pelosi and the lot of them are not being directed by Moscow.
Impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee were perfunctory, but the floor debate was raucous. In the end, the House voted on four articles of impeachment, two of which passed on a bipartisan basis in December 1998 during Congress’s post-election lame duck session. Five Democrats joined 223 Republicans in voting for a charge of perjury, and five Democrats joined 216 Republicans in voting for a charge of obstruction of justice. A second perjury charge and an abuse of power charge failed.
But unlike the Trump impeachment inquiry now underway, Clinton’s impeachment was bipartisan and the charges against him were easy to understand.
The author has a valid point (that Pelosi couldn't get a single R vote in favor of her partisan "inquiry").
BUT that does not mean that every vote where you get just two votes from the opposing party is "bipartisan". Bipartisan means you have strong support from both sides, not monolithic support from one side and a few votes from the other.
By the author's own analysis, the vote AGAINST the Clinton impeachment was an order of magnitude more bipartisan than the vote against the Pelosi "inquiry".
Why is this significant? Because when we get to the Senate and Romney and Collins support conviction, the press should not be able to claim (as this author would suggest) that there was "bipartisan consensus for removal."
This article is a good example of an author who has a valid point, but twists history to make his valid point seem unassailable.
brilliant! where did you get that?
It was in pookie’s toons today. Always has a great batch to look at.
The author was probably using “bipartisan” somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It was a rhetorical device to simply contrast to the zero Republican support FOR impeachment.
It obviously is not truly bi-partisan because, as you point out, there was not strong support by both sides. But it is true that the “No” vote was more bipartisan than the “Yes” vote.
This time is different.
After all, they are trying to Impeach Hitler.
I don't agree. They've learned that socialism will always be popular as long as there are people who think they've can get something for nothing. It's all they got, but they're generating them by the thousands in schools and colleges everyday.
My personal theory of the House Impeachment effort is that it has nothing to do with a honest effort to remove Trump from office. House Democrats know they have no chance of removing Trump from office. They also believe that their friends in the Press can protect them from any bad consequences resulting from their impeachment efforts when re-election comes.
First of all it is an effort at a disinformation campaign to make it appear that Trump is trying to eliminate Joe Biden from the Presidential campaign line up rather than a criminal investigation of corruption in office by then Vice President Biden.
Second it is red meat for the rabid Left wing of the Democrat Party.
Third it is a campaign strategy. Democrats don’t have to talk about substantive issues when they can talk about impeaching Trump. If they send a bill of impeachment to the Senate at the hight of the re-election season it could keep Senate Republicans from campaigning and increase the chances of electing Democrats.
The reverberations of a partisan lie impeachment vote will go down for all
Of history. Way beyond this election
The demoncat party is destroying itself with lies. And I could not be happier
Democrats suffer from rectal births
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.