Conservative Commentator: Trump's Defenders Have No Defense

[SummerMadness]

Trump's Defenders Have No Defense

Look, the case has been made. Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain. The pending question is what precisely the House and its Democratic majority will decide to include in the articles of impeachment, what statutes or standards they will assert the president violated.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Only people with an account can read more than that. Do any sites that don't require one have the same, as in totally identical, story?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To anyone looking at it with an open mind and objective viewpoint, I think it should be obvious that his administration was making a thinly veiled attempt to derail a political opponent by dangling the carrot of aid to a nation that may have dirt they can reveal against said opponent.

The question will be, was his thinly veiled attempt "thin" enough that they'll be able to make something stick.

My gut feeling is no. I think they strategically played it so that they can make the claim that they were just encouraging Ukraine to "uncover and go after corruption, as a whole", which, in and of itself, isn't anything new or unique to this administration.

In terms of what I "think"...I think that was a convenient opportunity for the Trump administration to target Biden, by making it seem like it was simply a small part of a broader anti-corruption policy. But again, from the transcripts we've been exposed to thus far, it would seem that they chose their language and verbiage carefully enough to not explicitly expose that idea.

 

[JohnAshton]

. . . yet not thin enough to escape the mud themselves they were trying to spill on the Bidens.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Why were Presidential candidates children’s foreign business dealings in 2016 none of our business but now all of a sudden it is important?

 

[cow451]

Why were Presidential candidates children’s foreign business dealings in 2016 none of our business but now all of a sudden it is important?

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The Bob Dutko Show | WMUZ
Bob Dutko Show Summary – Thursday 11 – 21 – 19 – WMUZ

 

[GodLovesCats]

Why were Presidential candidates children’s foreign business dealings in 2016 none of our business but now all of a sudden it is important?

There are only three Clintons: Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea. Donald Trump could only attack Bill, not Chelsea, who never did anything suspicious as the First Daughter. Did any Republican primary candidates have kids breaking laws in other couuntires at the time?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

There are only three Clintons: Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea. Donald Trump could only attack Bill, not Chelsea, who never did anything suspicious as the First Daughter. Did any Republican primary candidates have kids breaking laws in other couuntires at the time?

Good lord NO! It is impossible for Republicans to break the law. They are God’s chosen to rule and are above all man’s laws!

 

[GodLovesCats]

Good Lord NO! It is impossible for Republicans to break the law. They are God’s chosen to rule and are above all man’s laws!

The American people choose who governs them.

 

[SummerMadness]

The American people choose who governs them.

And those who violate the Constitution while serving in office need to be impeached and removed.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Amen! I don't trust 20 Republican Senators to do the right thing, but if they put their Trump loyalties on the back porch, it will happen.

 

[Go Braves]

Trump's Defenders Have No Defense

 

[SimplyMe]

Only people with an account can read more than that. Do any sites that don't require one have the same, as in totally identical, story?

This appears to be the same editorial, posted on Fox News (not behind a paywall).

For those who don't know Peggy Noonan, she was Reagan's chief speechwriter.

 

[iluvatar5150]

This appears to be the same editorial, posted on Fox News (not behind a paywall).

For those who don't know Peggy Noonan, she was Reagan's chief speechwriter.

That Fox link only has part of it.

As an aside, I’m continually surprised at how many people here cite links to WSJ, which has one of the tightest paywalls I’ve come across, when I’m pretty confident none of them subscribe.

 

[wing2000]

....from what I can see on the Fox link....Ms Noonan is correct on this point -- the actions ascribed to the President are consistent with his behavior:

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

 

[Fantine]

Who needs a defense when your accomplices are running the show in the Senate?

I have limited hopes in Chief Justice John Roberts, who knows it will be HIS name in the history books if he becomes part of the obstruction that began during the Mueller investigation and continued through the impeachment hearings. He knows how history will view this dark period of American history, and won't want to be a part of this shameful legacy.

I have limited hope that he will prevent McConnell from holding an un-trial--which is what Republicans would prefer, but only 51 votes can undo any of the rulings Robert can make.

Make sure your representatives in the Senate know that you want no cover ups! Hold rallies for "no cover up."

Finally, if your Senators don't do their jobs--deliver the right verdict at the polls. Send Trump home to Mar a Lago.

 

[JohnAshton]

The fate of the Republic rests on Chief Justice Roberts.

 

[Bobber]

To anyone looking at it with an open mind and objective viewpoint, I think it should be obvious that his administration was making a thinly veiled attempt to derail a political opponent by dangling the carrot of aid to a nation that may have dirt they can reveal against said opponent.

But it's not absolute proof in fact there's many other reasons why he potentially was showing a reservation towards quickly releasing the aid. And to your point anyway you look at it it's a speculative notion your putting forth and basic rule of law is you're innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.

And to consider the precedent that would be set for the future about grounds to impeach a President....such a low level of evidence would be needed to remove any President. It should be considered this issue is so much bigger than President Trump.....what you do now is how the nation is built for the future.

I'd ask all to imagine some future American say 50 years from now being encouraged to run for office as people think he or she would be great but have them say, "No way! Not worth it! You can be impeached solely on people's speculation of anything that's been said regardless of whether I would have made a DIRECT statement to that effect!"

I'd think that'd be a crying shame as the nation wouldn't maybe have it's best and brightest willing to serve. People should strive to see the bigger picture. What type of nation are you leaving future Americans?

 

[JohnAshton]

No, Bobber, there was no "many other reasons why he potentially was showing a reservation towards quickly releasing the aid."

But the attempt alone revealed Trump's intent to pervert the Constitution, which is a impeachable offense.