Impeachment: Everything You Really Need To Know (So Far)

I should begin by saying that I did not vote for Donald Trump for President.

I also did not vote for Hillary Clinton.

In other words, I did not vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. The reason at the time (as of November 2016) was that I saw very little difference between the two. Both ran in the same social circles, both were equally unscrupulous, and I didn't trust one any more than I did the other, leaving me with the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils. And as the good Father Martin Fox said at the time: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

He was definitely on to something.

In fact, I also did not vote for a third party candidate, as I did in 2000 (Patrick Buchanan, Reform Party) and 2004 (Michael Peroutka, Constitution Party). The reason at the time (as of November 2016) was that my mother was dying, and I was too late for obtaining an absentee ballot.

So, I didn't vote, period.

That said, in the three years that have followed, the unemployment rate is at its lowest level in about half a century, unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, and women, are at the lowest levels in years, interest rates have managed to stay below five percent, the stock market is doing reasonably well, manufacturing jobs are actually returning in some places, companies are raising wages in other places, our NATO allies were told to pay their fair share of their own defense, this administration is frequently blamed for policies that began with previous administrations (where they weren't called "Nazis" for doing so), and the political appointees to whom I answer, at the government entity where I work, are actually competent.

In other words, it could be a lot worse, and in my experience (which would be quite a bit) usually is.

So, when there have been calls for the removal of the President since roughly the day he was elected (and this can all be verified, and I will if some of you keep pushing your luck), the least I can expect is for the burden to fall squarely on the accuser, and not the accused. But when I watch the evening news, I wouldn't know that.

A thief or a murderer gets more consideration.

That's when a friend of mine found this guy on Twitter, who like most of them never uses his real name but calls himself "Carpe Donktum" (which is really bad Latin for "seize the donkey"). What follows is attributed to him, and is published here without permission or shame.

+    +    +

Democrats: We have an airtight case against the President

Republicans: Okay, go ahead

Dems: Trump and his staff came up with a plot to withhold funding to Ukraine contingent on the announcement of investigations into Joe Biden's son. AN ABUSE OF POWER, then he obstructed our investigation!

Reps: Oh, gee, that sounds bad.

Dems: It gets worse, he also withheld a meeting with the new President of Ukraine unless he complied.

Reps: WOW. That poor man, when will they get the money?

Dems: Oh, they already got the money. A few weeks before the deadline.

Reps: Wait, he got the money? Are they going to withdraw the investigations?

Dems: He never announced the investigations, but Trump asked them to investigate in their meeting.

Reps: Wait, THEY HAD THE MEETING?

Dems: Well yeah, they had a meeting

Reps: So, let me makes sure I have this right, Trump gave them the money before the deadline, they didn't announce any investigations and they got the meeting.

Dems: Yes.

Reps: And you investigated this?

Dems: Of course we did, we had to, the president clearly has bad motives.

Reps: And you found proof of this?

Dems: Absolutely, one guy overheard someone else on the phone talking to Trump about the whole scheme.

Reps: Like on speaker phone?

Dems: Not exactly, more like across the table in a crowded restaurant, not on speakerphone.

Reps: I see, I suppose he destroyed all the evidence, thus the obstruction.

Dems: Well, no, first he declassified the meeting transcripts, BUT then he said he had executive privilege or some nonsense.

Reps: What did the court say?

Dems: What court?

Reps: Didn't you take him to court to get the records?

Dems: There was no time, we can't have a president extorting foreign countries. LOL MAN, are you crazy?

Reps: Just a second, let me catch my breath.

Dems: Shocking, isn't it.

Reps: To recap, Trump gave Ukraine a meeting, the funding, no investigations were launched, declassified the meeting, and offered to go to let the courts decide on executive privilege, and you impeached based on an overheard phone call and the fact that you were in a hurry?

Dems: Well ... when you say it like that it makes us sound silly. But you'll see when we call new witnesses during the Senate phase.

Reps: YOU HAVEN'T EVEN INTERVIEWED ALL THE WITNESSES YET?

Dems: Well, no, but we did interview a few low level staffers.

Reps: (looks around)

Dems: (grins confidently)

Reps: You are f@#$ing crazy.

+    +    +
To put it another way, A is accused of doing something wrong while going after B, who actually did do something wrong, while the ones going after A are not denying the reasons for going after B.

That's the good news. The bad news? It's not over yet.

+    +    +

POSTSCRIPT: By the way, kiddies, all Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. He can remove them for any reason without the approval of Congress. Here endeth the civics lesson.