impeachment

Trey Gowdy: Trump impeachment trial is not about him. THIS is what Democrats want now

Republican Senator Cory Gardner is what you would expect in a swing state like Colorado: affable, supportive of his party when it benefits his state, unafraid of independence, and not angry about any of it. Like Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Reps. Peter Welch, Elise Stefanik, and Will Hurd, Gardner has a different kind of personality than what is typically rewarded in the modern political environment. His uniqueness allowed him to successfully unseat a purple state Democratic incumbent to become Colorado’s junior senator in 2014. It also makes him the real target of impeachment. The impeachment of President Donald Trump is not about Trump’s removal from office. Of the more than one dozen Republican senators whose conviction votes would be necessary to remove the president from office, no one can identify more than 3 Republican senators who might even conceivably vote to do so. And there are Democratic senators, like Doug Jones from Alabama and Joe Manchin from West Virginia, who are just as likely to vote for an acquittal, as any Republican senators are to vote to convict. Even the practicality of the math could not sway the likes of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who lectured us that impeachment was his “responsibility.” Public hearings did not change public opinion. Changing prosecutorial theories did not change public opinion. A gale-force media tailwind pushing impeachment has not changed public opinion. But Schiff knows what is best for you — even if you do not — so he must press on. So why would otherwise savvy politicians like Speaker Nancy Pelosi continue to push a case for which there is zero likelihood of a conviction? Why would these same politicians rush to advance impeachment articles, pass those articles with no Republican votes, declare President Trump an existential threat to the Republic, and then place those articles in legislative purgatory and refuse to transmit those articles for trial? The impeachment inquiry, investigation, votes, and ultimate refusal to transmit articles are not about removing Trump from office. Rather, it is a tacit acknowledgment he will be re-elected in November of 2020. The plan now is to use impeachment to neuter that second term with a Democrat-controlled Senate. This impeachment exercise is most assuredly about removing someone from office. It’s just not about removing Trump from office. It’s about removing Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst from their senate offices. A Democratic Senate would make the assemblage of a Cabinet next to impossible, end the filling of judicial vacancies, paralyze the country should there be a U.S. Supreme Court opening and ensure that both the House and Senate spend their time investigating the executive branch. If you think the country made little to no legislative progress with a Democrat-controlled House and a Republican president, just wait until there is a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and a Republican president. There are currently 53 Republican Senators with 45 Democrats and 2 independents. The 2 independents caucus and vote with the Democrats for a practical split of 53-47. Democrats need to flip four Republican seats (and more likely 5) if Republicans nominate an electable candidate in Alabama. There is no real path to victory for Senate Democrats without taking out Cory Gardner. These Articles of Impeachment, so significant they had to be passed without witness testimony Democrats now contend is indispensable, are somewhere in the Capitol penumbra because whatever existential threat Trump posed to the country was apparently nothing 25 days of inaction couldn’t bear. Almost all Americans believe it is not fair to charge someone and then deny him or her a trial. Almost all Americans believe this is true whether the person charged is a political friend or foe. Most Americans believe the Articles of Impeachment should be transmitted to the Senate so the Senate can exercise its constitutional prerogative, as the House did. Democrat leaders in the House and Senate are apparently not in step with most Americans, fear few repercussions from the media and are counting on short memories from the voters. Recently, Schiff, in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, unwittingly played his hand. He acknowledged the obvious: that the House could have subpoenaed the witnesses they now wish for others to subpoena. But he complained that would mean having to go to court. Imagine that, having to go to court to resolve issues of privilege, motions to quash, relevance, materiality, and admissibility. You mean going to court like everyone else does, Adam? You mean going to court like Americans do every day to resolve differences? You mean going to court like House Republicans did to get gain access to information needed for our own investigations? You mean going to court to gain access to information Schiff himself tried to keep from being discovered? That court? Schiff said it would take too long to go to court. And then waited three weeks and counting to transmit what was too time-sensitive to wait on. House Democrats had whatever time they deemed necessary and warranted, complete control over the subpoena pen, and full access to any court of competent jurisdiction. It was their job to fully investigate matters related to their self-styled impeachment inquiry. It is not the Senate’s job to both investigate and litigate. It is the Senate’s job to deliberate. If the Senate both investigates and deliberates, why do you need a House? The House could have subpoenaed former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani or anyone else they deemed essential to their investigation. House Democrats had time to hear from former Trump associate Michael Cohen, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, and a panel of constitutional law professors devoid of any access to salient facts. Yet they complain they did not have time to compel the appearance and testimony of witnesses they now contend are indispensable. In the interview with Mitchell, Schiff slipped up and did something unusual — he told the truth. This “pause” as he calls it, in transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, is really calculated to place moderate Republican Senators in a bind. He deemed it “fleshing” out where they stand. That is California-speak for making Republican senators in tough re-elections cast as many votes as possible on impeachment so their Democrat opponents can run as many 30 second ads against them as possible. In other words, Schiff did not vote to compel the appearance and testimony of Mulvaney because he wants Gardner to vote on it. The House did not vote to compel the attendance and testimony of Pompeo because Pelosi and Schiff want Gardner to vote on it. The House did not vote to compel the attendance and testimony of Giuliani because Pelosi and Schiff want Gardner to vote on it. Remember the tears of anguish and prayers for virtue offered at the notion Senate Republicans might coordinate with the White House Counsel’s office? What about House Democrats coordinating with Senate Democrats to force as many votes as possible to enhance their electoral prospects in the fall? Senate Republicans should move to acquire jurisdiction and release those Articles of Impeachment from wherever they are currently imprisoned. And Senate Republicans should set a day certain for the trial to begin. If Schiff and the other House impeachment managers believe they failed to interview witnesses that are now indispensable, let them explain why going to court is too steep a price to pay when it comes to removing a president from office. Whatever Senate Republicans ultimately do, they should be ever mindful this “trial” is not about removing Trump from the presidency. It is about removing at least 5 incumbent Republican senators from the U.S. Senate.

Agreed…  And well said, Trey.  Former Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is the author of that eye-opening op-ed.  For those of us here in Colorado, we need to keep this in mind come November, and make sure we re-elect Cory Gardner.  How delicious would that be?

Gowdy: Pro-impeachment Rep. Al Green a ‘gift from God’ to Trump, Republicans

Former congressman Trey Gowdy described Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, as a “gift from God” after the Houston lawmaker’s most recent comments about President Trump and impeachment. “We should buy him [air]time during the Super Bowl so he just keeps talking,” Gowdy told host Ed Henry on “The Story” Thursday. In his latest interview, Green told MSNBC host Chris Hayes that the “genesis of impeachment” was Trump’s 2016 run for the White House itself, rather than any action taken by Trump while in office. Henry noted that Hayes even appeared to try to coax Green into agreeing that impeachment was a purely apolitical exercise. Gowdy said Green is no stranger to impeachment discussions, having been one of the earliest Democrats to put articles before the House. In December 2017, Green tried to have the president impeached for allegedly “associating the majesty of and the dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism … or neo-Nazism. “Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the society of the United States, brought shame and dishonor to the office of President of the United States, sowing discord among the people of the United States,” Green wrote in his articles. In 2018, Green again forwarded impeachment articles, this time decrying the so-called “Muslim ban,” invoking the Gettysburg Address and accusing Trump of “bigotry.” On “The Story,” Gowdy further chronicled Green’s public statements in support of impeaching Trump. “He said the president should be impeached because he’s fearful he may win again in 2020, so I always thought this movement began during the inaugural address,” he remarked. “I thank Al for helping me better understand that actually running for office is an impeachable offense.” “I give him high marks for honesty,” Gowdy added. “Not high marks for following the Democrat talking points.” Gowdy also theorized that Democrats’ impeachment push is more about winning the Senate in November than winning back the White House or strengthening their majority in the House of Representatives. “If [Trump] doesn’t have the Senate, he’s essentially a neutered president,” said Gowdy, who noted that a Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to confirm any of Trump’s Cabinet picks or nominees for the federal bench in the president’s potential second term. “I always thought this was much more about the Senate than it is about removing him [Trump] from office because that ain’t going to happen,” Gowdy pointed out that several Senate Republicans are up for reelection in swing states this year, naming Cory Gardner of Colorado, Susan Collins of Maine, Martha McSally of Arizona, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Former Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) makes an interesting point about the Senate.  We definitely need to keep that in mind come November when we go to the polls.  That said…  He’s also right..  Rep. Al Green (D-TX) is the gift that keeps on giving, and a spectacular idiot.  He has openly admitted something we’ve been asserting from day one since Trump was elected; that the whole “impeachment” hoax started before the man even took office, and has been orchestrated solely for the purpose of undoing the results of the 2016 election.  That’s it!  The Russian narrative was proven to be a total fraud and a hoax; a fraud which WE-the-taxpayers paid millions and millions of dollars for.  And, that’s just for starters.  We need to also keep that in mind, come November.

Schumer wants ‘impartial’ impeachment trial for Trump but didn’t want one for Clinton: Report

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer took a hit in the liberal media Friday when CNN reported the New York Democrat argued repeatedly during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the late 1990s that the Senate wasn’t an impartial “jury box.” Mr. Schumer has criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in recent days for describing himself as “not an impartial juror” in advance of President Trump’s impeachment trial. “That is an astonishing admission of partisanship,” Mr. Schumer said on the Senate floor of his Republican counterpart. But Mr. Schumer campaigned for the Senate in 1998 on a pledge not to impeach or convict Mr. Clinton, CNN noted, and he gave several television interviews in 1998 and 1999 in which he described the Senate as “quite different from a jury” during impeachment trials. “We have a pre-opinion,” Mr. Schumer said on “Larry King Live” in January 1999, referring to himself and two newly elected Republican senators who had voted on impeachment as House members in 1998 and planned to vote in Mr. Clinton’s Senate trial. “This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.” Mr. King asked him in the interview, “So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box.” “Many do,” Mr. Schumer replied. “And then they change. In fact, it’s also not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don’t have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean, it’s quite different than a jury. And we’re also the judge.” As a lame-duck member of the House Judiciary Committee in 1998, Mr. Schumer voted against Mr. Clinton’s impeachment. Then as a senator in 1999, he voted to acquit Mr. Clinton.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is such a brazen hypocrite.  Its hard to even listen to him.  He’s such a sleazy, self-serving politician.  What a tool…  For more, click on the text above.

Sen. Graham lashes out at impeachment inquiry: ‘If we were doing this, you’d be beating the sh– out of us’

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., didn’t mince words at a news conference on Thursday as he touted his resolution formally condemning House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, saying the proceedings defy historical precedent and deny fundamental “due process” to the White House. “If we were doing this, you’d be beating the sh– out of us,” Graham bluntly told a reporter at one point, accusing Democrats of selectively leaking portions of testimony and opening statements from their closed-door hearings, without affording Republicans the opportunity to subpoena or publicly cross-examine witnesses. “And, I think it says a lot about people in your business, with all due respect.” He continued: “We’re not telling the House they can’t impeach the president. What we’re telling the House is, there’s a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. … This is one part legal, and two parts politics.” Graham, who said his resolution had 41 Republican cosponsors “and climbing,” noted that 31 Democrats had voted to open an impeachment inquiry into Bill Clinton in 1998. But, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has refused to hold a vote on beginning proceedings against President Trump, and instead unilaterally announced that the inquiry had begun. The move to put House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in charge of the inquiry was only a small part of Democrats’ “substantial deviation from what the House has done in the past,” Graham asserted, noting that the Judiciary Committee has typically handled impeachment probes. Seeking to bolster his commitment to administrative fairness, Graham noted that he previously supported legislation that would have protected then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being terminated by Trump. “The attempt to open an inquiry into the impeachment of President Trump failed miserably, so they’ve created a new process, which I think is very dangerous for the country,” Graham told reporters. Graham’s resolution specifically called on the House to vote immediately to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry; and demanded that the House “provide President Trump, like every other American, with due process, to include the ability to confront his accusers, call witnesses on his behalf, and have a basic understanding of the accusations against him that would form any basis for impeachment.” The resolution also “calls on the House of Representatives to provide members of the minority with the ability to participate fully in all proceedings and have equal authority to issue subpoenas and other compulsory process.” In his own statement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced he would cosponsor Graham’s resolution, and outlined what he characterized as Democrats’ transgressions. “Unlike the House’s actions during investigations of both President Nixon and President Clinton, this House majority is denying President Trump important rights and due process protections,” McConnell wrote. “House Democrats are even denying their own Republican colleagues basic procedural rights that the minority party was granted throughout previous impeachments.”

Agreed..  I saw Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) speech earlier today , and he was spot on! The way Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has conducted this, and how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has orchestrated this whole so-called “impeachment inquiry” process has been unprecedented, and not proper or appropriate.  In addition, the selective leaking of certain testimony by the Dems is simply orchestrated to have a negative effect on President Trump’s polling numbers.  Its a total sham, just like the whole Mueller/Russia investigation that went nowhere, and cost we-the-taxpayers tens of MILLIONS of dollars.  So, kudos to Sen. Graham, and others, for demanding more transparency and fairness in this process.  President Trump is not above the law.  BUT, he is not below it either.  He and his administration have every right to due process and fairness.  We need to demand that these Democrat Members of Congress in the House of Reps start being more transparent and give the minority party some say in the process and allow them access to witnesses and so on.  For more on this article, click on the text above.

Opinion/Analysis: Trump flips tables on foes Pelosi, Schiff

President Donald Trump, in a late Sunday evening Twitter rant, did what he does and continues to do and with just a few short characters spread over a few short tweets, utterly slammed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff. This is why Trump’s “poll numbers are defying the impeachment mess,” as CNBC recently wrote. He’s the “junkyard dog who digs” out all the dirt on the government, as CNBC’s Jake Novak recently put it. Yep. He’s the guy who doesn’t quit, doesn’t cave, doesn’t back down — and doesn’t sell out the middle-of-America fly-over country citizens to cut lucrative personal-albeit-shady deals with government’s elites. What’s more: He goes on the offensive and attacks when all the cards — all the cowards — say he should retreat. “Nancy Pelosi knew of all of the many Shifty Adam Schiff lies and massive frauds perpetrated upon Congress and the American people, in the form of a fraudulent speech knowingly delivered as a ruthless con, and the illegal meetings with a highly partisan ‘Whistleblower’ & lawyer …,” Trump tweeted. “This makes Nervous Nancy every bit as guilty as Liddle’ Adam Schiff for High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” he said, in a follow-up tweet, “and even Treason. I guess that means that they, along with all of those that evilly ‘Colluded’ with them, must all be immediately Impeached!?” Priceless. Classic Trump. No wonder Sen. Kamala Harris, seeking the high White House office for 2020, wants Twitter executives to boot Trump from the social media platform. She wouldn’t be able to stand his tweeting fire if she were to become the candidate of Democratic Party choice. As it is, Trump took the calls for impeachment those on the left have been railing against him for years — and turned the tables. Flipped the accusations around. Pointed the same fuzzy impeachment finger back at his accusers. Legal? Lawful? Possible under the Constitution to officially impeach Pelosi and Schiff? Well, put it this way: It’s more lawful than going after a president for impeachment when there are no crimes he’s committed that are impeachment-worthy. It’s the messaging that matters. And on that, Trump is aces. He’s taken the cry for impeachment, flipped it around, and slung it right back at his political foes. Let Schiff and Pelosi feel some of the political heat for a while. Let Schiff and Pelosi face the uncomfortable — unAmerican — prospect of proving their own innocence over accusations that aren’t even formally charged. What goes around comes around. Even in politics. Especially with Trump. And for those who’ve still not caught on to the facts: That’s why Trump was elected in the first place.

Agreed..  Thanks to Cheryl Chumley for that spot-on op/ed.  Excellent!!     🙂

Alan Dershowitz: Congress is not above the law when it comes to impeachment – Don’t weaponize the Constitution

The mantra invoked by those Democrats who are seeking to impeach President Trump is that “no one is above the law.” That, of course, is true, but it is as applicable to Congress as it is to the president. Those members of Congress who are seeking to impeach the president, even though he has not committed any of the specified impeachable offenses set out in the Constitution, are themselves seeking to go above the law. All branches of government are bound by the law. Members of Congress, presidents, justices and judges must all operate within the law. All take an oath to support the Constitution, not to rewrite it for partisan advantage. It is the law that exempts presidents from being prosecuted or impeached for carrying out their constitutional authority under Article 2. The same Constitution precludes members of Congress from being prosecuted for most actions taken while on the floor of the House and Senate or on the way to performing their functions. The same Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, bestows immunity on judges for actions that would be criminal or tortious if engaged in by non-judicial individuals. None of this means that these government officials are above the law. It means that their immunized actions are within the law. The Constitution, which is the governing law, precludes Congress from impeaching a president for mere “dereliction” of duty or even alleged “corruption.” Under the text of the Constitution, a president’s actions to be impeachable must consist of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The framers of the Constitution considered broadening the criteria for impeachment to include maladministration in office. But this proposal was soundly rejected, on the ground that it would give Congress too much power to control the president. Yet Democrats who are now seeking to impeach the president, despite the absence of impeachable offenses, are trying to do precisely what the framers of the Constitution forbade them from doing: exercising control over a president that is not authorized in the Constitution itself. Consider, for example, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who has said the following: “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment.” It is she, and other like-minded members of Congress, who are claiming the right to be above the law. That is a dangerous claim whether made by a president or by a member of Congress. The framers of the Constitution did not want a weak president subject to the political control of Congress. Members of the Constitutional Convention explicitly expressed that view in rejecting criteria for impeachment short of criminal conduct. In the absence of the specified criminal conduct, the remedy for a non-impeachable president lies with the voters, not Congress. There are other constitutionally authorized remedies as well. These include reasonable congressional hearings conducted under the oversight powers of Congress. These hearings, too, must not be conducted for partisan purposes, but rather for legitimate legislative purposes, such as enacting new laws that evidence of the hearings show are necessary. The current hearings do not meet these standards. They are obviously calculated to obtain partisan advantage in the run-up to the 2020 election. Another option would be for Congress to appoint a nonpartisan expert commission, such as the one appointed following the 9/11 attacks. This commission could look deeply and objectively at all the issues growing out of the 2016 election, particularly Russian efforts to interfere in the American political process. The commission’s goal would not be criminal prosecutions, but rather preventive measures to assure no repetition in the 2020 and subsequent elections. Unfortunately, we live in a time of extreme partisanship, and no one seems interested in nonpartisan truth or in measures that help all Americans rather than only one party. The time has come to stop weaponizing the Constitution and our legal system for partisan advantage. Impeachment would be a lawless response to undertake, as is the use of partisan committees to obtain an electoral advantage. No one is above the law, but no one is beneath the legal protection of the law as well. Both parties should operate within the law for the benefit of the American people.

Agreed!!  And well said, Sir.  Dr. Alan M. Dershowitz, the author of that outstanding legal op/ed, is Felix Frankfurter professor of law, emeritus, at Harvard Law School. What you may find surprising is that Dr. Dershowitz is a proud liberal who makes a point to let folks know he proudly voted for Hillary.  He is one of the few intellectually honest liberals out there, who was recently DISinvited from appearing on CNN.  So, we’re happy to post his article here.  His latest book is “The Case Against Impeaching Trump.” Follow him on Twitter: @AlanDersh Facebook: @AlanMDershowitz.  Please consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read only one thing today here at The Daily Buzz, then READ THIS!!…and then forward it to all of your friends and family members, especially those who are Democrats or who watch MSNBC or CNN…and watch their heads explode.    🙂

Trey Gowdy says no to impeachment: ‘Have you met Joe Biden?’

Republican bulldog Rep. Trey Gowdy put the kibosh on the idea of impeaching President Obama during a nationally television Fox News interview, telling his broadcast audience that booting the commander-in-chief from his office would open the doors to something even worse —the ascension of Vice President Joseph R. Biden.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is my favorite Congressman, bar none.  Watching the way that former federal prosecutor, turned Congressman, tears up witnesses in front of his committees is awesome!  If you haven’t watched him do that yet, ya really need to.  Pop some popcorn first.  He is this good ol’ boy from South Carolina who is sharp as a tack and funny as hell.  And, he crucifies guys like the IRS Commissioner, etc.  I’d LOVE to see Johnathan Gruber testify in front of a committee that Trey chairs!He is a BIG pain in Obama’s butt, and doesn’t take crap from anyone.   🙂

Boehner rules out impeachment: ‘Scam started by Democrats’

Boehner rules out impeachment: ‘Scam started by Democrats’

Speaker Boehner is exactly correct in that this whole talk in D.C. of seriously considering impeaching Obama HAS been furthered by Dems as a fundraising tactic in this election season.  And, its apparently working…unfortunately.  Yes, there are some big names in the GOP party like Sarah Palin, some federal GOP legislators, and a few talk show hosts that HAVE been advocating impeachment.  All true.  And, in the interest of full disclosure, I am 100% sympathetic to those calls.  Obama has violated his oath of office countless times, failed in his #1 priority to protect America and its borders, and has knowingly, and brazenly circumvented Congress and our Constitutional process repeatedly for over 5 years.  If ever there was a President that should be impeached, its Obama.  Unfortunately, there is NOWHERE near the numbers in House (translation..votes) at this time for it to pass.  And, of course, the Senate is still under Dem control.  So, even if Obama were impeached by the House, he would never get convicted and removed from office as long as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is the Majority Leader.  So, Speaker Boehner is wise to dismiss this for the time being, and downplay the hysteria being put out there by the DNC and Dem politicians.  That said, and depending on how the midterm elections in November (just over 3 months from now) turn out, it MIGHT be an issue that comes back up.  But, at least for now, its dead in the water, and should be.  We have a VERY important election in a little over 90 days..and its absolutely critical that we as a country stay focused on that, and not get distracted by the Dems and their scare tactics.

Sarah Palin: ‘It’s Time to Impeach’ President Obama

Sarah Palin: ‘It’s Time to Impeach’ President Obama

Gotta love Sarah Barracuda!  She just calls it as she sees it, and doesn’t hold back.  I totally sympathize, and empathize, with the former Alaskan Governor’s position, and passion.  And, I’ve been saying for a LONG time that Obama has NOT “faithfully executed” his oath of office.  In fact, he has brazenly ignored his responsibilities, and subverted the U.S. Constitution on numerous occasions, which we’ve documented here.  And, that was LONG before this latest crisis with the illegal aliens swarming over our southern border by literally the hundreds of thousands; a crisis he is squarely to blame for.  So, her point that if ever there was a President that was worthy of being impeached, its Obama…is well taken.  He has arrogantly violated his oath of office, has subverted the U.S. Constitution and the oath he swore to uphold and defend, and has on numerous occasions exercised extra constitutional authorities he does not have, so as to circumvent the House of Reps.; something he is threatening to do yet again this summer!  He is an arrogant, narcissistic, inept, elitist who cares nothing about the country he was elected to defend.  That isn’t even moot anymore as the evidence is overwhelming.

That said, from a practical standpoint, the idea of impeachment is probably not a very practical one.  Even IF Articles of Impeachment” were drawn up, and the House of Reps voted to have the man Impeached, he would most certainly NOT be convicted in the U.S. Senate, because its under Dem control.  Granted, that might change in November.  But, that’s a BIG “might.”  Even when it was barely under GOP control in the ’90s, there wasn’t enough votes to convict then Pres. Bill Clinton and have him removed from office.  He was simply left with the disgrace/dishonor of having been the second President in U.S. history to have been impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson).  Anyway, good for Sarah for her compelling argument!  Can’t say I disagree.  I just don’t think it’ll happen, and that there are federal legislators who have THEIR careers to consider.  It is what it is…unfortunately.