Should Donald J. Trump be impeached?

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2019

Further discussion next week:
Should Donald J. Trump be impeached?

We're not sure that's the relevant question. At any rate, we expect to examine the matter next week.

In the meantime, we'd recommend today's column by David Brooks, which is presumably getting murdered in comments.
Brooks conducts an imaginary conversation with a Trump voter. The conversation starts like this:
BROOKS: I hope you read the rough transcript of that Trump phone call with the Ukrainian president. Trump clearly used public power to ask a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political opponent. This is impeachable. I don’t see how you can deny the facts in front of your face.

IMAGINARY TRUMP VOTER: I haven’t really had time to look into it. There’s always some fight between Trump and the East Coast media. I guess I just try to stay focused on the big picture.
As his first imagined point, Brooks imagines the Trump voter saying that he hasn't had time to look into the whole Ukraine thing. Later, the imaginary voter says this:
BROOKS: We [journalists] became Trump-O-Centric because his daily outrages undermine norms, spread xenophobia, degrade public morality.

IMAGINARY TRUMP VOTER: You think that because you have the kind of jobs that allow you to follow Twitter all day. I don’t have that luxury. So all that passing nonsense seems far away. I have to deal with the actual realities of life.
These strike us as relevant points.

Yesterday, we discussed a New York Times report about support for impeachment. According to Quinnipiac, approval for Trump had grown by 12 points among Republicans during the recent impeachment drive.

We skipped another part of that Times news report. The part we skipped said this:
RUSSONELLO (10/2/19): In the Monmouth poll, respondents were asked how much they had heard about reports that Trump had asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate Mr. Biden’s son; 27 percent said they had heard only “a little,” and another 21 percent said they had heard nothing at all about it.
Do you mind if we get a bit snarky? Among respondents to this survey, 27 percent said they'd heard only “a little” about the current matter. An additional 21 percent said they'd heard nothing at all.

We'll take that to mean that 48 percent of respondents had heard nothing about this topic. Check that—at least 48 percent!

Brooks' imaginary voter goes on to say, in effect, that our team has long cried wolf concerning impeachment. Next week, we expect to show you some of what Trump voters were told on Fox last night.

In our view, everything Trump does is likely to be crazy; Giuliani may be crazier still. That said, The Crazy has been running our politics for at least three decades now, and for much of that time it was our crowd which was too dumb to display the first clue about what was transpiring directly before us.

This overall thirty-plus years of The Dumb strikes us as the relevant topic to be concerned about at this time. To wit:

This very morning, the New York Times—our brightest newspaper—does a very poor job trying to fact-check Trump's claims about Biden and Biden. Meanwhile—and yes, we do think this is relevant—yesterday's "Here to Help" feature (page A3) started off like this:
Here to Help
FIVE OPTIONS TO TRY IF YOU HATE FLOSSING
We hope to review this latest foolishness in more detail. But in our view, our upper-end culture is drenched in this manifest dumbness and vast self-involvement, and on this embarrassing upper-end fish food feeds a flounder named Trump.

Nothing Trump does won't be crazy. On the other hand, it seems to us that he's very successfully sliming Candidate Biden at the present time. That said, other, more competent Democratic front-runners have been successfully slimed before this.

Nothing Trump does won't be crazy. But when it comes to grinding incompetence, our own exalted, self-impressed tribe just isn't real far behind.

36 comments:

  1. Poor black children have tuna salad stuck between their teeth. They need that column.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello everyone i Am williams pater and i am from USA i am here to give my testimony about an herbal doctor called Dr,olu I was heartbroken because i had very small penis,not nice to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors prescribe for me, but could not offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the internet about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to email him on his email i saw on the internet,(drolusolutionhome@gmail.com ) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal product for Penis Enlargement, Within three weeks of me use it, i began to feel the enlargement, " and now it just 4 weeks of using his products my penis is about 8 inches longer, and i had to settle thing out with my ex girlfriend , i was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my performance in bed and i now have a large penis.thanks to DR OLU for is herbal product. you can also reach him with emsil  drolusolutionhome@gmail.com though is..number WHATASPP him today on this number [ +2348140654426 ]   
























      Hello everyone i Am williams pater and i am from USA i am here to give my testimony about an herbal doctor called Dr,olu I was heartbroken because i had very small penis,not nice to satisfy a woman, i have been in so many relationship, but cut off because of my situation, i have used so many product which doctors prescribe for me, but could not offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments on the internet about this specialist called Dr,OLU and decided to email him on his email i saw on the internet,(drolusolutionhome@gmail.com ) so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal product for Penis Enlargement, Within three weeks of me use it, i began to feel the enlargement, " and now it just 4 weeks of using his products my penis is about 8 inches longer, and i had to settle thing out with my ex girlfriend , i was surprised when she said that she is satisfied with my performance in bed and i now have a large penis.thanks to DR OLU for is herbal product. you can also reach him with emsil  drolusolutionhome@gmail.com though is..number WHATASPP him today on this number [ +2348140654426 ]   

























      Delete
  2. "to dig up dirt on his political opponent"

    Dear Bob, haven't we already established that Creepy Joe is an opponent of The Fake Indian and Demigod Bernie, but not of The Donald?

    Will you, liberal zombies, ever stop lying? Rhetorical question.

    "Trump clearly used public power to ask a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political opponent"

    Every zombie word is a lie. He asked, as a favor, to help in an investigation.

    "In our view, everything Trump does is likely to be crazy; Giuliani may be crazier still."

    Yeah, sure. You recommend the column full of lies and creative mind-reading, and then you insult your zombie cult's opponents. Nice going, Bob.

    Next November we'll find out who was crazy and who wasn't.

    P.S. What about your goebbelsian dembot Nancy telling your goebbelsian dembot Stephanopoulos - and insisting, repeatedly! - that your goebbelsian dembot Schiff accurately read The Donald's words from the transcript? Even the goebbelsian dembot hack was surprised. And that's, of course, perfectly normal, by your zombie lights. Right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might try writing in English. I think that's what most people here speak.

      Delete
    2. Here we see Mao using the same techniques deadrat uses to attack other commenters. Regardless of their political differences Mao=deadrat=empty troll.

      "creative mind-reading" indeed!

      Delete
    3. Well Mao, dear, in all fairness (albeit that fairness is a quality that seems completely foreign to you), Trump himself has made it apparent that the one he is most worried about in the actual contest is Biden. Are you that dense that you can't understand that in his goofball way, Trump would try to weaken the one who he sees as his strongest potential opponent so that the dems nominate someone who he sees as a weaker opponent? And I don't suppose you see the irony of you constantly throwing around accusations of Goebbelsianism, when your obsessive posts, repeating lies and half-truths (along with some valid points) constantly, feature a pure Goebelsian style.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for reading, dembot.

      Leaving your concerns of my, as perceived by you, state of mind alone (as I can't really help you cope with that), do you agree that Creepy Joe is not The Donald's opponent or rival?

      In fact, it becomes increasingly obvious that Creepy Joe will never become The Donald's opponent or rival.

      Is not, never has been, and never will be. And yet, it's stated as a fact in every goebbelsian liberal publication, and repeated by every goebbelsian liberal hack a million times a day.

      Does this concern you at all, dear dembot? Or are you too obsessed with the writing style of an anonymous commenter, to care?

      Delete
    5. Mao, you're so thin-skinned. So your point is that Biden isn't Trump's opponent in the race for the GOP nomination? He is a 'potential' opponent in the general election? So what; it doesn't change what I said. You get all riled up, slinging insults ('zombies' and 'dembots' and 'goebelsian,') as if your grossly slanted, conclusory, and unsubstantiated take on things is the hard truth. You label me as a 'dembot.' You actually have no idea what my viewpoint is other that that I'm not happy not happy about Trump.

      Delete
    6. "So your point is that Biden isn't Trump's opponent in the race for the GOP nomination?"

      You got it, Einstein. Neither for the GOP nomination, nor for anything else.

      Did it take you a whole day to figure that out? Sad, but not surprising.

      So, now that you've finally managed to decipher my carefully hidden point, why don't you address it now, in a straightforward manner and with as little of meaningless word-salad as possible? I know, the chance is slim to none...

      Delete
    7. AC/ MA,
      Why do you have to be so dumb? Why can't you be smart like Mao, the anti-globalist who supports the President who wants to put resorts in every nation on Earth?

      Delete
    8. anon 7:40 - 'why do [I] have to be dumb?' genes I guess.

      Delete
    9. Mao, as I originally observed, you're being dense (or disingenuous). Whether Biden is his present opponent or his potential opponent makes no difference as far as the charge against Trump that he tried to get the Ukrainian president to follow up on Trump's cracked-brained pursuit of the pseudo-scandal against Biden. You're making a big deal about an irrelevant distinction. Personally, does what Trump and his stooge Giuliani have been shown to have done merit impeachment - arguably, unlike the Mueller investigation. But I think the better course would be to leave it up to the voters in the Nov. 2020 election.

      Delete
    10. Welcome back. So, is Creepy Joe a rival of Mr Trump, or not?

      Delete
    11. Mao - who is "Creepy Joe???" Oh yeah, your childish moniker for Biden. You still in middle school? Maybe we can call Trump "diarrhea mouth Donald?" Biden is a "potential" rival of Trum., OK? Whether you call him a rival or a potential rival (the latter being true) doesn't make any difference in the context of the issue at hand. Your point about the relevance of the distinction is beyond me. Maybe Einstein, were he still alive, could fathom it.

      Delete
    12. Everyone is a potential rival of everyone else.

      So, every zombie publication and every dembot talking head is endlessly repeating that Mr Trump asked to dig dirt (also a lie) on his rival Creepy Joe, while Creepy Joe definitely is NOT a rival of Mr Trump.

      But that's okay, because Orange Man Bad.

      Is this a fair summary of your objection to my original comment?

      Delete
  3. Brooks’ imaginary Trump voter says:
    “I haven’t really had time to look into it.”

    “all that passing nonsense seems far away. I have to deal with the actual realities of life.”

    But you can bet your bottom dollar that that Trump voter will have plenty of time and feel the nearness and vital importance of every detail of the Biden corruption story as brought to you by Crazy Giuliani, Trump, and Fox.

    Brooks is full of pathetic nonsense, decrying the East Coast media while being its highest paid opinion writer and never having been a member of the white working class or spoken to an actual Trump-voting Okie from Muskogee in his life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not linking to it but David Brooks has written the worst piece ever published in the NYT.
      — Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) October 4, 2019

      I would really like to know when exactly the pod people made the switch with TDH and where did they stash the real Somerby.

      Delete

    2. “I would really like to know when exactly the pod people made the switch with TDH and where did they stash the real Somerby.”

      Altair IV, of course.

      Delete
  4. Hey Bob, have you heard that if you say “I can’t hire you because you’re an illegal alien” in NYC, you'll be fined $250,000? No jail term yet.

    Talk about crazy, eh?

    I must say, your zombie cult provides the best entertainment...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kevin Drum, who the host cites often, said the quid pro quo was: Biden investigation by Ukraine for missiles from the USA. He went on to say liberals need to remind the folks of this.

    However, Drum fails to mention that the government in Ukraine is at war with Russian backed separatists and the Ukrainian government needed the missiles to fight Russian aggression.

    Moreover, Chernobyl toxic waste site where the nuclear meltdown occurred while under Russian control, is about 55 miles from Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. A fact not mentioned by Drum.

    Also, a Ukrainian province, Crimea, was annexed by the Russians five years ago. A fact not mentioned by Drum.

    Drum also failed to mention that a recent president of the Ukraine, left rather suddenly for Russia under a substantial cloud of possible collusion with Russia.

    Finally, Drum failed to mention that after Ukrainian independence, under which they inherited some 5,000 nuclear weapons, the Ukrainians destroyed all of their nuclear deterrence. Certainly this could have been used as a deterrent to Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs.

    So when we combine Brooks imaginary Trump voter with nearly 50% of the voting public knowing substantially nothing about what all the fuss is about, the Dems have a lot of groundwork to lay before anyone is going to understand why we in the USA should worry about this and why Trump's actions are so heinous.

    There is likely even more our citizens need to know before they can make an informed decision.

    So before the citizens are going to follow Drum and Brooks down the impeach/don't impeach path, there is substantial background to be presented. Drum and apparently Brooks failed miserably today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, Brooks fails every day.

      Delete
  6. Somerby says nothing relevant, continuing a ten year trend. Dems should not, and do not, care about Trump voters. Trump voters are intractable and never discuss anything in good faith.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “it seems to us that he's very successfully sliming Candidate Biden at the present time.”

    Thanks for pushing back against this, Bob, the way you did with the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal....Oh, wait. You said this:
    Conservatives will “wonder why an all-around "Fredo" like Hunter Biden was ever offered "a lucrative seat on the board of a company called Burisma, which is a major energy company in Ukraine."

    They'll wonder why he was ever offered that seat, and they won't be crazy to do so.

    They'll assume that some slippery motives were involved somewhere in the mix. It's hard to assume that such an assumption is wrong.”

    Are you sure you’re not *helping* Trump slime Biden, Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course TDH is helping to slime Biden. Par for course for the Trumptard.

      Delete
  8. On Public Radio's "On Point" show today, the host asked conservatives to call in and discuss where they got their trusted news. During the 1/2 hour I listened, one caller who was a student said she only got news from Twitter, and so did all of her friends. Another said he only trusted internet sources who were concerned about an international conspiracy affecting both the left and right (e.g., Q-Anon stuff), yet another thought that Fox was fair and balanced because it had Chris Wallace on it. Everyone who called in deplored the lack of investigative journalism on cable news, from CNN (most maligned) to MSNBC. A few listened to radio sources such as Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Mark Levin and several mentioned sites like Breitbart. No one mentioned newspapers such as the NY Times or even the Washington Examiner. I guess conservatives don't read any more than Trump does.

    This may explain why so many people are unaware of the details of the current push for impeachment.

    Beyond that, I disagree with Somerby that anyone has "cried wolf" about impeachment. This is the first and only time an impeachment inquiry has been started. The public will be more aware of what is happening when there are public hearings -- that is part of the reason for holding them.

    Note that Trump has started running disinformation ads that are spreading lies about Biden and his actions in Ukraine. No doubt he is worried about the slippage in his base. All of the people who called in said they had voted for Trump but wouldn't do so again. Of course, they are listening to public radio, so they may not be typical.

    I don't believe Trump will get much sympathy on the right if he goes down in flames during this impeachment process. He doesn't appear to be holding himself together very well. People may not understand the details, but they can see that Trump is unwinding.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here is a blog that analyzes conservative concern trolls like Brooks. He hasn't gotten around to today's column yet, but he is always entertaining:

    http://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  10. The purpose of the NY Times and similar newspapers, is the present current events, not to review and explain past stories. Even if the Times were to thoroughly explain the current crisis, I doubt any of the people who really need to read it will pay any attention at all. If they did, they would have been following the story already and wouldn't need such a review.

    Why is Somerby against flossing?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The impeachment effort is symbolic or political, just as Bill Clinton's was. We know in advance that the Senate will not convict. So, the important question is what the political impact of the impeachment effort will be.

    At the moment, I believe it's hurting Trump. He's on the defensive. Even his supporters mostly say he was wrong to ask Ukraine and China to look for dirt on his political opponent.

    However, if it can be shown that Biden and his son committed serious infractions, then I think public opinion will shift. Most of the public wouldn't consider it wrong for a President so solicit other countries' aid to expose actual corruption. So, the ultimate impact will depend on whether the Bidens committed corrupt acts and whether their hypothetical corruption can be demonstrated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do not know the Senate will not convict, 35 Republican senators have said they would vote to convict were the vote private. Having a vote on the record concerning impeachment will make reelection more difficult for many Repub senators, so a likely scenario is Moscow Mitch will try to avoid a vote and push for Trump to resign.

      David, you are not following the story very well if you are unaware that the Biden corruption issue has already been investigated and even Trump's own people had to admit there was nothing to it.

      Delete
    2. “35 Republican senators have said they would vote to convict were the vote private”

      Really? Could you provide a list?

      I think you might be referring to Jeff (Mr. Courage) Flake’s speculation that 35 R senators would vote to convict Trump if done on a secret ballot. You might recall that Flake, like Bob Corker (R-Ken Burns’ latest documentary), grew a micro-sized set of nuts only after announcing his retirement from politics.

      The vote, being quite out in the open, will only lead to Trump’s removal if senators believe that their personal political fortunes will be protected more by voting guilty rather than not guilty. It’s possible this could happen; your guess is good as anybody’s and—if you have an iota of objectivity—always better than David’s.

      Regardless of the outcome, you can bet the farm that Susan Collins and Mitt Romney will be deeply concerned.

      Delete
    3. Fuck you asshole.

      Delete
    4. Congratulations, David, you treasonous bastard.

      You win the prize for the Most Amoral Post of the day.

      deadrat - I'm begging you.

      Delete
    5. If you think there is a Republican who doesn't support treason against the United States of America, you need to get out more.

      Delete
  12. mm, you made me laugh out loud. I know this is a bit off-topic, but I saw a political ad recently for Bernie. I’m not a fan of the treacly soundtrack, but one thing the video collage made clear is that the supposedly left MSM cannot stand Bernie Sanders.

    Not a single clip from Fox that I could see. Just like Bob, it steered clear of that shit.

    LINK

    I suppose that appealing to emotion is bad politics, hehe, but that’s a great ad.

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here's another one, from the same source.

    LINK

    My only regret, as I've expressed before, is that we would be losing a great Senator were he to pass the Constitutional hurdles set before him. Ditto for Warren.

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete