Trump's Trials: Impeachment--Follow the Money
by Anne Doherty
Google the question “Why do Democrats want to impeach Trump?" and scroll through pages before finding even a glimmer of an answer. This demonstrates that, just like the Mueller investigation, the impeachment witch hunt is motivated solely by politics. In classic contemporary liberal fashion, they manipulate the public by accusing their target of the crimes they themselves are guilty of. But their own motivations can be quite opposite from the righteousness they show their base. 
But what exactly is impeachment, and what does it mean in respect to the President?  According to Wikipedia, "Impeachment is the process by which the legislature levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law." According to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution,"The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.… When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two–thirds of the Members present.” Article 2, Section 4 states “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” 
The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution. Historically, the House places little emphasis on criminal conduct. For example, ”The articles against Pres. Andrew Johnson were based on his speech… ‘harangues’ criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority. It is enough to claim that the accused abused the powers of the office, behaved in an incompatible manner in respect to the purpose of the office, or used to the office for personal gain.” Only three of the 17 impeachments (2 presidents, 15 judges) were of a criminal nature, and the rest fall into the vague category "high crimes.” In other words, it’s constitutional for the Democrats not to have any reason, other than political gain, to attack the president. And while the house may succeed in making Trump the third president to be impeached (Andrew Johnson and Clinton were the other two; Nixon resigned, Buchanan was acquitted), as with Clinton, the attack will fail in the Senate.  Nothing will come of it, and like Clinton, Trump may win in a landslide afterward.  So why do it? 
Aside from the obvious ideological and political reasons, Democrats want to destroy Trump because he’s so rapidly dismantling the status quo.  Anyone whose livelihood and pension depends on the swamp will do anything to stop him. James Comey, for example, lost a minimum pension of $172,000 of his base salary when the president fired him. Most government workers prize their pension and stick together to protect it, and many, like Comey, expect to make even more as consultants post-retirement. Who asks for their consulting services? Multi-national corporations and foreign governments. Hunter Biden acquired all kinds of international business interests just from hanging out with Dad - billions in business from both the Chinese and the Ukraine.  What he did was not necessarily illegal, but doesn’t pass the smell test. Chuck Shumer, appearing on Tucker Carlson, described the intelligence community as a “brotherhood” who “has six ways from Sunday of getting back at you” if you cross them. And the biggest way to cross them is to threaten their pensions and perks. 
The countries paying for this influence would also fight to protect their investments. China, for example, is not happy with Trump policies. China not only lobbies in DC, it’s starting to control Hollywood, which is anxious to tap into China’s burgeoning market. While the house, whose constituents expect representatives to back democracy, supports the Hong Kong protests, Hollywood and the famous do not. LeBron James, for example, criticized the protests (as if he knew anything about them) to protect the millions he earns doing commercials and appearances in China. Since Hollywood and leftist politicians hang out with each other, one can’t help but believe Democrats who appear to support Hong Kong either don’t mean it or aren’t long for the political world. 
Finally, because even the most ardent Democrat politician senses the American people would disapprove of their shenanigans at home and abroad, they accuse their opponents of doing what they themselves have done.  That’s how Hillary and the uranium deal turned into Trump and the Russians.  By accusing the president before he can accuse them, Democrats know that retaliation makes the accused come off like a five year old in a playground argument: “I know you are, but what am I?” They know if they attack hard enough, they don’t have to give reasons. And by doing so, they can keep the public mind from discovering the depth of the public trough. 
Login to post comments