Click the Pic
Support Free Republic.
Become a monthly donor today.
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.
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.
This time is different.
After all, they are trying to Impeach Hitler.
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.
Democrats suffer from rectal births