Smackdown: Mickey Kaus exposes the Dems' shifting impeachment goalposts
For a while there, the Democrats' grand impeachment show was about a presidential phone call to the president of Ukraine.
Then it was about an unspoken quid pro quo that didn't show up in the transcript. After that, it was about a supposed series of whistleblowers. Then it was about something with Trump's personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani. Then there were a couple other things I can't remember. Now it's about an ambassador.
Mickey Kaus noticed how bad it was getting on Twitter and called it out:
Remember that it was POTUS who personally ordered Amb Yovanovitch removed. This is not a subplot, it is the plot. https://t.co/nn2CjYbkFo
— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) October 12, 2019
The plot?
Now we get rid of the president and wipe out 67 million votes as a result of it? Kaus's tweet appropriately points out how badly the storyline is shifting, now that it's being actually summed up as removing the president for firing a disloyal ambassador.
Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of presidents. Obama got rid of plenty of them, not to omit, in at least one case, in a rather fatal way. Ambassador Chris Stevens is unavailable for comment. Trump isn't anywhere near that league in telling the Trump-hating ambassador, who left evidence of that all over: "You're fired."
What we are seeing here is a shifting argument for impeachment because so many Democrat arguments for impeachment are falling apart. The whistleblower's complaint became null when President Trump released his telephone transcripts, quite unexpectedly to Democrats. The series of whistleblowers coming out in the afterward are going nowhere, and humongous conflicts of interest and partisan involvements are coming out of the woodwork. The whistleblower himself is "incredibly shrinking," as J.R. Dunn notes here. The Giuliani business doesn't involve Trump. Yet as one narrative collapses, the Democrats start another, proving only that they are looking for some, any, any tiny reason at all to remove Trump. The arguments are getting smaller and smaller.

Now it's about an ambassador, and that's the plot, as the Trump-hating New Yorker writer married to a New York Times big argues.
If that's all they've got, impeachment is starting to look like a tar baby for them. Pathetic.
Image credit: Twitter screen shot.
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Transgender Armageddon: The Zizian Murder Spree
- Jasmine Crockett, Queen of Ghettospeak
- The Racial Content of Advertising
- Why Liberal Judges Have a Lot to Answer For
- Dismissing Evil and Denying the Holocaust — What’s the Endgame?
- The Witkoff Warning: Will Jordan’s King Fall?
- Can Trump Really Abolish the Department of Education?
- Carney’s Snap Election -- And Trump Saw It Coming
- We Can Cure Democracy, But Can We Cure Stupid?
- George Clooney: Master of Cringe
Blog Posts
- The Trump effect: An unprecedented investment surge and economic renewal
- Hydrocarbon-friendly Trump a match for energy-hungry India
- And Big Bird can’t sing
- The DC appellate court order affrming Judge Boasberg dishonestly ignores its lack of jurisdiction
- Hegseth boards plane flanked by two ‘bada**’ women, and the politically correct capitulation tour continues
- Payback: J.D. Vance calmly gives Denmark a real reason to be paranoid since they're asking for it
- Political shenanigans in Texas
- Jasmine Crockett tries to backpedal her ‘hot wheels’ comment about a wheelchair-bound Gov. Abbott, forgets the internet archives exist
- Signal debacle – maybe intentional
- Trump’s executive orders have big leftist law firms running scared
- In Denmark, Americans have become 'the deplorables'
- Mike Huckabee and a turning point in US-Israel relations
- Up is down, down is up!
- Who will thaw the Arctic?
- Do trans people expect us to abandon common sense?