RICK MORAN
SEPTEMBER 7, 2019


With rabid activists breathing down their necks, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee will finally vote next week on a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry.

If anyone has any doubts that Democrats don't have a clue what they're doing, recent history tells us a lot.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

The panel has rebranded what was originally an oversight probe of Trump’s presidency as an “impeachment” investigation, with the aim of deciding by the end of the year on whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House.As early as Wednesday, committee members could vote on a measure that would better define the investigation, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

They don't even know where to start. In order to have an impeachment inquiry, you've got to find, like, you know, something specific to impeach the president for.

This is apparently not working out so well:

The committee’s current impeachment approach has been criticized by Republicans for avoiding a precedent set during impeachment inquiries against former President Richard Nixon and former President Bill Clinton.In those cases, inquiries were formally authorized by the full House. This time, Democrats have steered clear of a House vote that could prove risky for Democratic freshmen from swing districts where impeachment is unpopular with voters.

The most solemn, the most awesome responsibility of the House of Representatives -- impeaching a president -- and Democrats are playing Bozo's Circus politics with it.

For much of the year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler has focused on the findings of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election meddling in the 2016 presidential election and evidence that Trump sought to impede the probe.Since Mueller’s testimony in July, Nadler has broadened the investigation to include allegations that Trump has improperly mixed his business interests with his role as president, dangled pardons to encourage official misconduct and paid money during the 2016 campaign to silence women claiming to have had affairs with him.

Hey! What happened to "Russian collusion"? Um...never mind.

Nadler isn't fishing. In order to be fishing, there would have to be fish in the water. With no fish, Nadler is stuck with trying to explain to ultra-left radicals that the object of their hate isn't going anywhere.

But, keep hope alive, right?




[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]