Impeachment? Yes. Conviction? No.

As the clock ticked toward 4 p.m., Ambassador Gordon Sondland looked like he needed a double scotch and a full body massage.

After a full day of hearings, what I am hearing is that President Trump ordered military aid withheld until Ukraine ordered an investigation into corruption, which included the energy company Burisma, and Joe and Hunter Biden.

Sondland said he “presumed” Trump wanted the aid withheld, that he acted on orders of the president as transmitted by Rudy Giuliani, and that “everyone was in the loop.”

Sondland was the howitzer, the big gun expected to deliver the “bombshell” the CNN chipmunks kept chirping out. (Looking at you, Wolf Blitzer.)

Problem: Sondland said Trump told him — once — he wanted nothing in return, specifically there was no quid pro quo. Republicans seized on that as if it were the Holy Grail.

Problem: Ukraine president Zelensky says he did not feel pressured.

Sure, you can question the veracity of what it said, but it was said.

I believe Trump did what he is accused of. One of my best friends, who is a conservative Republican, does not believe Trump did it.

“Really?” I asked.

“What have they got?” he replied. A bunch of hearsay and contradictory testimony from several witnesses. My friend is smart, politically acute, and fair-minded. In his view, the Democrats did not prove their case.

I think they did, but so what? Is pressuring a foreign government, even for personal benefit, a crime serious enough to warrant removing a president from office?

Is circumstantial evidence enough? Is hatred of Trump reason enough?

Let’s assume the intelligence committee votes to impeach the president and the House agrees. The matter then goes to the U.S. Senate for trial.

Let’s say the Senate decides to put the president on trial.

What will the outcome be?

The Senate is controlled 53-47 by Republicans and you would have to believe in unicorns and fairies to believe they would unseat their president, whose approval rating among Republicans is north of 80%.

The only people who can remove Trump are American voters, who will turn out — pro and con — in massive numbers next November.

16 thoughts on “Impeachment? Yes. Conviction? No.”

  1. The questions in my mind are asked in three parts; 1-Is Trump guilty of High Treason or just a morally corrupt individual unfit to qualify as a leader of our country. 2-Are we better off now than we were in 2016? Does this fully partisan Impeachment hearing hurt the country by Congress not performing the job they were elected to perform? How about a balanced budget or any legislation to improve the American way of life? 3-Is this a great civics lesson for our future leaders to observe a full-time trial without one Arbitrator to apply neutral legal applications rather than a major evidentiary proceeding costing millions to provide an already split country more reasons to stay that way in an upcoming election where both sides already have their minds made up.
    A famous Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil stated: “That all politics are local” which from what I have observed is always negative and anything you can find out about your opponent is fair game especially if your negatives are more believable than your fellow candidate. Quite a dilemma of a choice between Trump and his baggage or the current Democratic candidates and their future baggage.

  2. Good points all, Stu. You did forget to mention….when you talked about the “Intelligence Committee.” Like “military intelligence,” it really is an oxymoron – which emphasis on the “moron” part of it.

  3. I live in a Ruby Red State. Most people don’t watch the hearings or didn’t watch the debates tonight. I just happen to be a political junkie, raised by political junkies. (Watched both of the ’68 conventions with my parents as a child.) I believe that most of my neighbors in this Ruby Red state will vote for 45 again. I happen to live in Mayor Pete’s state and his own state wouldn’t support him. I have no idea what it would take to oust 45 nor am I optimistic the electorate will do it.

  4. What we are witnessing is a new tack by the hard Left: if the Left cannot win at the polls, it will destroy the winner in any way possible. We have seen the Left’s horrid tactics over and over at hearings for the SCOTUS, and now it has brought its hatred and intent to destroy to the POTUS. And walking happily hand in hand with the hard ugly Left is the soft, compliant mainstream media.

    Where does someone attacked by the ugly Left go to get his/her reputation back after the storm passes?

  5. The Kavanaugh hearings hysteria. Russian collusion. The vacuous Mueller Report. Democrats learned from their unsuccessful attempts to enfeeble and bring down the president. The Trump-Russia affair investigation was entrusted to a special counsel who ultimately was unable to establish that the Democrats’ key allegation, a coordination between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, ever occurred. House Democrats learned a few lessons and are handling the Trump-Ukraine investigation themselves. This makes it easier to reach their desired conclusion.
    Democrats simply refuse to accept the 2016 presidential election outcome and will continue to nip at the heels of the Washington establishment.

    1. And when Trump is re-elected in 2020 it will continue for 4 more years, unless the Republicans can win back the House.
      Never say never–a lot can change in a year.

  6. HAPPY THURSDAY !!!
    Sure glad that you all survived another weak week of impeachment herrings.
    Our Pallie, as always, raises some interesting points. Naturally, I disagree with Stu. Being a proud American and a Republican, I know that the witch hunt will continue. Rhetorically speaking, I can’t imagine how this congress can continue to waste tax dollars and avoid doing the people’s work. No USMCA, No insurance or medicine proposals ready to be signed into law. No Nothing !
    As for the famous question, as to President Trump doing anything illegal in his conversation with the Ukraine President. I can only base my answer- NO- on my own work ethics situations. Allow me to explain. I studied construction, not law. In my capacity as Foreman, Inspector, Site Engineer and so forth, My decisions at times, could place workers in harms way. That’s if I was wrong. In working closely with these construction workers, we would often “differ from documents”. Meaning, rather than waste time with proper procedure, I would call an audible and “do it my way”. Let me say that there are a number of ways of doing something right. If the work does not allow you to follow the drawings, then a change in those drawings will take place. Depending on the severity of the problem equates to the amount of time loss. My education and years of training / experience, permitted me to make many of these changes, and when questioned by the higher ups, my method was approved. Many times on the job, when something was not according to plans and the workers would be questioned by an authority, they would simply day,”Tony said”. That meant that “Tony said to do it”. The paperwork would follow. This unusual method of “site” management was accepted by the bosses as they recognized my abilities. I am sure that President Trump works in a manner similar to this. You are hired to do a job and you show that you have the ability to perform that job at the highest possible level. In other words, you are allowed to think and make decisions. I don’t doubt that someone “squeezed” the Ukrainians just a little bit. It happens all of the time.Somehow, some one is convinced to make a decision that would not come easily.
    As for the 2020 elections. There will definitely be four more years of President Donald Trump. I would love to see the voting Americans dump all of these useless politicians and drain the swamp! I can dream, can’t I ?!?
    Tony

    1. Like you Tony I voted for a swamp draining, but had no idea the extent!! Yes, I believe 2020 is a sure thing for Trump because he’s fully drawn out its inhabitants despite the efforts of a large part of the MSM.

      Your story of your employment, esp., the “Tony said” part reminded me of someone, who will remain anonymous, whose work ethic is impeccable and knowledge of the job incredible, although everyday frustration is what Anonymous is faced with, because of those at the top and the new hired college kids. Work is constantly backed up because of them. (Politics is also a factor). When things get bad the big bosses pressure more, and demand more, then come to Anonymous for help. Anonymous points out the problem(s) and things begin to improve until the next job. This is a constant. Why not a promotion? Politics! Why not quit? Anonymous loves this type of work and it is rare. FYI Anonymous is self taught. No “Degrees”

      When very young Anonymous left a mediocre (lest paying ) job in the South with a large luxury boat mfg. company, (and also a book, a guide compiled while working there of detailed details of how to make every part that these boats required. Titled under Anonymous’ real name, it is still in use today). Unfortunately much older and other private reasons is for now (always hope! always searching!) where Anonymous will reside.

      1. Good people will not seek office because they will not want their reputations destroyed by the Left for something they may have done in their teens. Because good people will not run for office, and because nature abhors a vacuum, bad people will run for office (you have a great example of this with the present lineup in Congress), leaving the “Shining City on the Hill” in the hands of truly evil people. Thus are great civilizations brought low…and why should the USA be any different? I am happy and sad at the same time: happy because my life is drawing to a close and I had some of the best years of American greatness in my life; and sad because of the wreckage being left for my four sons and their families. Sic transit gloria mundi.

        1. still HAPPY FRIDAY !!!
          Vincent,
          I guess that I am still naive to think that those who have strong wills and good foundations will seek office. I would not pass the scrutiny of the Globe, Enquirer and the other high quality rags. True, the politicians of today are self indulging. They view politics at any level as a career.
          A statesman or states woman look at the world and they see that some things need to be fixed .
          I have known a few of these good people in my lifetime. I don’t ask them why they serve. I know why. I do ask them if the family can tolerate another term in office. Just as President Trump takes the heat. So does his family. The ill advised passion of those that hate and would do or cause injury to those that serve must be dealt with in a quick decisive manner. I know that I am in a minority when I say, that I can separate you (generic) from your politics and still work with you. You, as a co-worker have my respect until you prove otherwise.
          As for being in our “twilight years”. I often look back and wonder. I wonder how I survived Asia at the ripe old age of 18. I wonder how I survived construction with all of the mishaps. ( I’m pre-OSHA !) Just generally speaking. I wonder how I survived this long. PERIOD! I have sons and daughters and grandkids and I worry for and about them. But when I think back, is it really any different ?
          Tony

      2. HAPPY FRIDAY !!!
        Thomas,
        A lot of the “old timers” used to do what you are saying. Suck it up, so to speak. We all were taught to do the best job that we could. We enjoyed learning, and sometimes we were rewarded. At the very least. We could look at ourselves in the mirror and were satisfied with what we saw.

        1. I will let Anonymous know of your advice. Results of one’s labor is not always rewarded in kind, but more importantly, rewarding to oneself.

          Thanks

  7. You write “Problem: Sondland said Trump told him — once — he wanted nothing in return, specifically there was no quid pro quo.” But we know that was AFTER the whistleblower’s complaint came to light. So that comment should be completely discounted as total presidential CYA. Plus Trump wouldn’t let his closest confidantes testify (Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton). If and when they do, they will either confirm Sondland’s account, or perjure themselves to protect the President.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *