Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 271: 2 weeks from now no one talks about Ukraine. But impeachment?

Ted Cruz Ukraine
Will anyone be talking about this next week? In a month? In six months? In a year?

It’s an informal analysis some of us employ to assess the potential staying power of media stories these days, which is never an easy proposition where the DC swamp establishment and Democrats are concerned. For it’s clear both entities (to the degree they’re not already the same) are in hot pursuit of impeaching President Donald Trump and the mainstream news outlets can’t be trusted to report fairly or accurately on anything anymore.

It doesn’t even serve justice to call them purveyors of “fake news.” It’s well beyond fake now -- they’re active leftwing bring-down-the-republic advocates. React first and worry about the fallout later should be their mantra.

In these most interesting of times with the ultimate outsider, Trump, residing in the White House and performing on the world’s most visible political stage (otherwise known as the American presidency), it’s difficult to decipher which stories might “stick” in the minds of the people and which news items will find their way out of consciousness in a matter of hours, if not days.

Even before the official transcript of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was released last week, the matter didn’t offer much hope of lasting long, and afterwards it certainly didn’t appear as though the hubbub would be bothering people in a fortnight either. The recorded and transcribed words neither implicated Trump nor completely cleared him of the Democrats’ charge of trying to influence a foreign leader, though to demonstrate intent on the president’s behalf (to fix the 2020 election by tarnishing Joe Biden’s and his family’s name in exchange for a quid pro quo) a prosecutor would need to be cunning and persuasive enough to sell ice to Eskimos.

It ain’t happening no matter how many impeachment inquiries Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens up. The Democrats will spend more months chasing rodents down a rat hole (something they’re particularly skilled at), discovering nothing but getting awful soiled and filthy in the process. What is all this for? Are they really that dumb?

At any rate, even if the House were to ritually impeach Trump there’s no guarantee the witch-hunt would move much in the Senate. Alexander Bolton reported at The Hill, “Senate experts say that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is required to act on House-passed articles of impeachment, which would require 67 votes, or a two-thirds majority, to convict the president.

“But McConnell has broad power to set the rules and could ensure the trial on the Senate floor is as brief as possible. He could strictly limit the arguments of House Democratic prosecutors as long as he’s backed up by his fellow GOP senators.

“Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would likely preside over a Senate trial, but he would have to follow the rules and traditions of the Senate, where the majority leader sets the schedule and has the right of first recognition.”

One can only drool at the potential of an impeachment tribunal taking place just as the Democrat presidential primary campaign reaches full fever pitch next winter. If it actually comes down to a trial, seeing as three of the top four Democrat polling leaders are senators, wouldn’t it be in Mitch McConnell’s and the Republicans’ best interest to initiate the proceedings on say, Monday, February 3rd (the date of the Iowa caucuses)?

Such a brilliant tactical move would force Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren and Kamala Harris (along with Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Amy Klobuchar if they’re still around at that point) to be in Washington listening to the House Democrat prosecutors drone on about obstruction of justice and corruption (all the while throwing out impossible to pronounce Ukrainian names) instead of hitting the icy pavement in the Hawkeye State canvassing for last minute support.

Joe Biden probably loves the scenario -- he’d have the liberal media all to himself! Perhaps folks at home could start a drinking game to make it easier to tolerate the number of times the former Obama veep denies having done anything wrong in eastern Europe. Who knows -- maybe Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama would enter as write-in candidates!

What if McConnell opted for a drawn-out process rather than a quick trial? A month or more of bloviating House Dems would foul up the entire party nominating contest. All anyone (with common sense) would be talking about is the circus atmosphere in the federal capital in the place of climate change, the Democrats’ various healthcare takeovers, confiscating AR-15’s, their amnesty proposals and slavery reparations. By the time the show concluded Trump would look like a sympathetic victim who Democrats attacked like hyenas tearing apart a wildebeest carcass.

Or, if the House inquiries didn’t produce anything “impeachable” until summer, how about scheduling the trial for July 13-16 (during the Democrat convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin)? What good fun would it be to have the party’s roll call of states nominating formality interrupted by coverage of impeachment proceedings? If Democrats are bent on being so idiotic as to push forward with this farce, shouldn’t they “pay” for it in notoriety?

Bolton’s report included interviews with several Republican senators who suggested the impeachment buzz is just smoke and mirrors and Democrats wouldn’t dare to actually go through with it because the public isn’t onboard with the prospect of formally removing Trump. According to recent polls cited by Bolton, in July half of registered voters opposed launching impeachment hearings while only twenty-one percent espoused starting them. It certainly looks like Americans prefer settling the argument themselves at the ballot box by either reelecting the president or choosing his Democrat successor.

You can’t help but think Pelosi, Democrat senate leader “Chucky” Schumer and most of those with a say don’t relish bowing to the party’s extremists. Deep down they know there isn’t evidence to charge Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors much less convict him. Heck, Democrats would even need four Republican defectors to overrule challenged evidentiary decisions by Chief Justice Roberts. And they’d require 67 senators’ votes to actually succeed on their ultimate mission. It’ll be a cold day in you-know-where before 20 Republicans side with “The Bern”, “Pocahontas”, “Chucky” and “I am Spartacus” Booker to end Trump’s term early.

And even then Mike Pence would move into the White House, start flying around on Air Force One and run as an incumbent president. Good luck besmirching the humble midwestern man as corrupt and compromised. Of course, Democrats and the media would try… but wouldn’t people just tune it out on the way to stripping every last liberal of power?

Democrats would no doubt be better served by taking the advice of the late singer Billy Preston who famously crooned in 1974,

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me

But again, will anyone even be talking about this a month from now? If the public’s muted reaction to the two-year-long Robert Mueller “investigation” was any indication, Americans are thoroughly fed-up with the ongoing political gamesmanship of the Democrats. Conservatives warned this would happen if Democrats retook the House in 2018, and every prognostication thus far has come through in spades.

Since January there’s been a non-stop parade of subpoenas, hearings, pontificating Democrats on cable news shows, excessive chest thumping, whining (from “The Squad” and Maxine Waters) and a plethora of threats and predictions of “this is it!” by Democrat leaders and committee heads. Yet “nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’”. Doesn’t anyone ever learn?

The same holds true for certain establishment Republicans, typified by 2012 party loser Mitt Romney. As he always does, Romney offered a wishy-washy response to the release of the Trumpian conversation in controversy. Jordain Carney reported at The Hill, “Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said Wednesday that a transcript of a call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is ‘deeply troubling.’

“’I did read the transcript. It remains troubling in the extreme. It's deeply troubling,’ Romney told reporters. ‘Clearly what we've seen from the transcript itself is deeply troubling.’

“Romney added: “There's a process the House is pursuing. The Senate is also looking at the testimony of the whistleblower.’”

Hmpf. This incomprehensible word-salad stems from the man who once described himself as “severely conservative.” No one ever claimed the former Massachusetts governor could speak coherently -- or that he actually believed in anything -- but this is ridiculous. Mitt didn’t elaborate on what he found so “deeply troubling” about the transcript, but one would surmise he meant to say he was disappointed it didn’t contain damaging information on the president that would fit his #NeverTrump narrative.

Romney’s been fairly silent of late but the media must’ve figured if any Republican was to provide them a usable anti-Trump quote it would be the 2012 GOP nominee. People forget if Mitt had actually defeated Obama and then run for and won a second term, he’d just be finishing up his tenure as president. What if Romney’d had the chance to speak on the record all these years…how many stupid nonsensical things would he have said?

We’d need to build a separate presidential library just for his inane, status quo preserving dribbles. And taxpayers would also end up footing the bill because who in their right mind would contribute to Mitt Romney’s honorariums? A trip through Romney’s presidency would definitely prove “deeply troubling” and likely result in queasy stomachs, dehydration and the need for medical treatment.

Democrats and #NeverTrumpers were searching for the right opening to get at Trump and they thought they’d found it with the Ukraine non-controversy. The actual words that were spoken don’t help their cause, no matter how much they insist it does. Let the chips fall where they may -- Democrats will lose in the end.

Share this