FOOD FOR THOUGHT—HOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SEES THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES


From: Hank Ashmore
The Deplorable Infidel

 

 

HOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SEES THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES

When the House passed their two impeachment articles, I reacted on Twitter by pointing out the two articles were essentially:

  1. Orange man bad (Abuse of power)
  2. Orange man mean to us ( Obstruction of Congress)

That is a distillation of the two articles from the point of view of Democrats in Congress who passed them.

One can also distill the two articles of impeachment from the point of the American public. While some people don’t really know what the articles are, to those who do, legalese aside, they amount to:

  1. President Trump using foreign aid to get something from the recipient country
  2. President trump going through the courts to defend his rights

The overwhelming response to the first article from the American public who are not NeverTrumps is “it’s about time.” You might even hear a more colorful adjective before the word time from many members of the U.S. public. The American public favor getting something for their money. Now’ maybe investigating the Bidens would not be high on their list, or maybe it would, but the consensus of the public is that the U.S. gets little or nothing from its foreign aid, and it is about time the U.S. got something for the foreign aid it gives. At least by asking for something in return for one chunk of foreign aid (according to the Democrat’s understanding), President Trump was setting a precedent that the U.S. should demand something for its foreign aid.

The public is also likely to be sympathetic regarding the second article. As far back as Gentlemen’s Agreement in 1947 and 12 Angry Men in 1957, Hollywood has reflected the American public’s sympathy with someone seeking to protect his rights in the court. Certainly, the public’s sentiment is more for underdogs seeking to protect their rights, and no U.S. president is really an underdog. Still, the U.S. public is generally not going to turn against someone for defending himself or protecting his rights in court. This is why the public support has not built for removal of President Trump. Thus, the Senate will acquit President Trump, and the Democrats will be left to start rooting for the coronavirus to slow down the Chinese and U.S. economies enough to defeat President Trump in November.

James L. Swofford

 

WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

“If America is to survive we must summon the courage to condemn and reject the liberal agenda, and we had better do it soon.”
-Walter Williams-

 

“YOU JUST CAN’T MAKE THIS S**T UP” CATEGORY

President Trump named the most qualified people to sit on his coronaviris task force. CNN bitched because there were no minorities.

 

AN OPINION FROM THE DEPLOEABLE INFIDEL

The Constitution states that to remove a president from office, he would have had to commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The two articles of impeachment against President Trump did not refer to treason nor bribery. To have committed a crime, there must be a victim. Where is the victim in this case? It was not Ukraine. The transcript of President Trump’s telephone conversation  with the president of Ukraine proved that. NO VICTIM, NO CRIME! ACQUIT!

 

A SIMPLE TRUTH FOR TODAY

“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place.”

Winston Churchill
*
*

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