Reality is relentless . . .

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/donald-trump-presidency-whos-in-charge-here/

Even the extremist right wingers at the National Review cannot keep up the pretense that somehow Trump is competent when he obviously is not. Although bundled with the usual “conservative” blather about President Obama, this article’s message is that Trump is essentially a clown.

Leaving Trump’s criminality and corruption out of the picture, it is clear that the vagueness of the Impeachment language in the Constitution was there to cover the sort of grotesque unsuitability that Mr. Trump has displayed.

19 thoughts on “Reality is relentless . . .

  1. I continue to be struck by the mental gymnastics being used in defense of the indefensible by those attempting to explain away the actions of the national embarrassment we’ve elected as President.

    Once upon a time the summary of the July 25th phone call would have been enough to remove ANY President from office. SMH….

    Liked by 3 people

    1. If the actions taken by Trump were taken by a man named Obama, Lindsay Graham Jim Jordan and McCarthy would have erected the gallows themselves, with Kentucky hardwood provided (at great personal profit) by Magic Mitch McConnell.

      This episode has been the greatest display of GOP hypocrisy in the history of the party. And the denials of it are absurd and proven wrong. Just check into Graham’s statements about Clinton. Bribery vs a stained blue dress?

      Liked by 4 people

  2. RE: “Although bundled with the usual ‘conservative’ blather about President Obama, this article’s message is that Trump is essentially a clown.”

    So what?

    NR has been “never Trump” since before the vote in 2016. Kevin Williamson especially so. This doesn’t tell us anything about Donald Trump or the impeachment circus.

    Besides, others at NR have opined at length that the impeachment inquiry is a prosecution in search of a crime. And that it shouldn’t be, under our Constitutional system.

    If you think otherwise, I challenge you to name the impeachable offense and state your reasons for believing it to be real.

    Like

    1. RE: “Change the name to Obama or Clinton and what say you?”

      Obama, through Biden, committed quid pro quo to get Ukrainian prosecutor Shorkin fired. I have never argued there was an impeachable offense in that. What’s your point?

      Like

      1. @Roberts

        re: “Obama, through Biden, committed quid pro quo . . .”

        Leaving aside the odd construction of “Obama committed quid pro quo,” making government to government demands in the furtherance of national security interests is in no way comparable to demanding personal political favors in exchange for the exercise of public duties. The former “quid pro quo” is routine and is the essence of deal making. The latter is BRIBERY and is an impeachable offense named in the Constitution.

        There is no non-silly way to claim that the demanded public declaration by the President of the Ukraine that he would open an investigation into the Bidens was a matter of American national security interest.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “making government to government demands in the furtherance of national security interests is in no way comparable to demanding personal political favors in exchange for the exercise of public duties.”

        Maybe not. Show us who and how made demands for “personal political favors in exchange for the exercise of public duties.”

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          1. Trump has a public duty to disperse funds for the purposes decided by Congress.
          2. Congress approved funds to help Ukraine resist armed aggression by Russia.

          3. Trump withheld those funds

          4. Trump made it clear to Ukraine that those funds would not be forthcoming until the President of that country made a public statement about investigating the Bidens.

          That demand was a “personal political favor” with no conceivable connection to the national security interests of the United States. That was demanding a bribe.

          From the U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials . . . any person

          “. . . (2) [Whoever] being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly DEMANDS, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

          (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; . . . shall be fined under this title . . . or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”

          Now it is time for “conservatives” to demonstrate their respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. !, 2, & 3 Trump also had the legal duty to be sure those funds would go to their intended purpose, and not disappear into a corrupt oligarchs accounts before dispersing them.

            Where, in any communication to the Ukrianians, was the requirement that the transfer was contingent on prosecution of the Bidens? The only requirement I am aware of a public commitment to follow through on promised anti-corruption reforms.

            Certainly, any thorough examination of corruption in Ukraine will expose the real quid pro quo of billions in aide going into the oligarchs pockets in return for Hunter Biden’s $83K/month no show job, but that’s hardly Trump’s fault.

            Joe Biden is not above the law.

            Like

          2. @Tabor

            You embarrass yourself with this nonsense. You really do. Your words are either dishonest or incredibly stupid. There is no other possibility.

            First of all you seem ignorant of the testimony from numerous people that the aid was not contingent on actual prosecution of the Bidens but ONLY that the President of Ukraine personally and publicly announce that the Bidens were under investigation. Dream up, why don’t you, how such an announcement was ANYTHING other than a political favor for Trump.

            Second, you seem ignorant of the fact that the aid approved by Congress and withheld by Trump was NOT billions but about $391 million and that it consisted – not of cash – but of sorely needed weapons, training and advisers. Hard to even imagine how such aid ends up in an oligarch’s pocket.

            Third, your paragraph beginning with “Certainly . . .” is simply hot air with ZERO substance. Egregiously dishonest hot air to boot. There is zero evidence of any wrong doing by Biden and zero evidence of American aid flowing to oligarchs. What, do you think we just send them money and hope for the best? Since the Russian invasion in 2014 we have provided $1.4 billion in aid with the bulk of it being in the form of military equipment and assistance.

            I agree that Joe Biden is not above the law. Now, you need to admit that neither is Mr. Trump. He has clearly demanded a personal political favor before fulfilling his duties. That is a crime. And even more egregious because while committing this crime he has jeopardized an important national security goal – protecting Europe from Putin’s attempts to reconstitute the USSR.

            Liked by 2 people

      3. Hypocrisy, thy name is the GOP.

        And Obama was actually working on real national security issues and not looking for a “favor”. Your definition of quid pro quo is lacking and that is why I believe you fail to see Trump’s actions as impeachable.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. So what?

    You can ask that about any opinion piece. Or, you could try to read and understand the points being made and the evidence being argued. Your choice.

    You wrap your “so whats” in accusations that the National Review has a history of being against Trump. Fair point. But should not that fact cause anyone who claims the role of “conservative” to think a little bit harder about being a Trump supporter?

    As for your “challenge” it borders on the absurd. I could name a dozen articles of impeachable offenses which are self-evident and/or proven. This proven bribery and extortion scheme versus the Bidens is only one. To save effort here is one of MANY lists compiled by others . . .

    https://rootsaction.org/trump-articles-of-impeachment

    And, for goo measure, just the other day in full view of the public Trump AGAIN tried to obstruct justice with his derogatory and intimidating tweets against witnesses AS THEY WERE TESTIFYING.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “But should not that fact cause anyone who claims the role of ‘conservative’ to think a little bit harder about being a Trump supporter?”

      No, it shouldn’t.

      RE: “I could name a dozen articles of impeachable offenses which are self-evident and/or proven.”

      A brave assertion, but laughably weak. The challenge is to “name the impeachable offense and state your reasons for believing it to be real.”

      Like

      1. @Roberts

        To be honest, I did not really expect you to stop and think. Never mind that NR has been at the forefront of American conservatism for at least five decades.

        As for “laughably weak” that would be someone who issues such a “challenge” and thinks they are making some sort of point.

        I provided a long list of very real impeachable offenses and I named his most recent. What more are you asking for? I believe this most recent one – witness intimidation – to be real because I can read.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “What more are you asking for?”

        For the third time, the challenge is to “name the impeachable offense and state your reasons for believing it to be real.” Let us see the quality of your thinking.

        I believe the quality of your thinking to be piss poor because, for example, your list of impeachable offenses includes the emoluments clause. That, however, has been tried in court, and failed. It also was rejected by Congress as a basis for an impeachment inquiry, if only because Congress chose something else.

        You give another example of piss poor thinking when you claim witness intimidation is a real impeachable offense, “because I can read.”

        But that’s OK. I hold you to no obligation to meet the challenge.

        Like

        1. @Roberts
          Speaking of “piss poor” thinking, you provide a prime example with your “argument” against violation of the emoluments clause being an impeachable offense because (1) a civil lawsuit based on it lost in court and (2) Congress has not acted on it. Uh, no. Both “arguments” show extremely “piss poor” thinking based on a “piss poor” understanding of what impeachment is all about. It is NOT a civil matter. It is NOT a criminal matter. It is a political matter. There is no need to prove a crime by the standards of criminal courts. Trump could easily argue in criminal court that he is innocent because of diminished capacity. In an impeachment process, that would be a compelling reason to convict.The phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” was deliberately vague and when the Constitution was written the word “misdemeanors” very literally meant “bad behavior.” Exactly what that bad behavior should consist of was left ENTIRELY to the House to decide and for the Senate to judge.

          As for meeting your “challenge” I have done so with each response. You are either too stupid or too stubborn to accept the simple truth – Trump has done MANY bad things. There is PLENTY of very credible evidence to make any rational person believe that he did them (often his own words).

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s