The Democrats want to define Trump being president as a high crime and misdemeanor
I think the outrage the left feels towards Trump boils down to two main issues. The first is that he’s president at all, and does what presidents do with all the attendant powers of a president. The second is that he is not afraid to use those powers in ways that stand to harm the Democrats and their interests and/or the Deep State and its interests.
They find this state of affairs unconscionable. So they redefine whatever Trump does that they don’t like and/or that may harm them politically as unacceptable, unprecedented, offensive, and even at times criminal.
And always, always impeachable.
But of course all presidents regularly do things that are in their political interests. That’s what they strive for. However, as with Trump, those things almost always have other motivations, as well – most often, that the president believes that such actions will also benefit the country or even the world.
It’s really not rocket science to understand that. And among those things can be something described as “fighting corruption,” including corruption that occurs at the hands of people opposed to that president. To do otherwise – to give corrupt and/or illegal actions a pass because they are committed by political opponents or those who support those opponents- would itself be a terrible thing to do, and as far as I know it has never even been asked of any president before.
In addition, it’s Government 101 that presidents get to set foreign policy and do things like appoint ambassadors. But Trump is apparently not allowed to do such things:
…[F]or those who had the patience to sit through it on Wednesday, the testimony of veteran State Department officials William Taylor and George Kent did help clarify what this impeachment inquiry is all about: a disagreement between President Trump and a coterie of career State Department bureaucrats about what U.S. policy should be in Ukraine.To put it more bluntly, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is about whether the president or unelected officials in the State Department should be able to determine U.S. foreign policy and define U.S. national interests abroad.What we heard Wednesday was a lot of opinions from Taylor and Kent about what U.S. policy should be in Ukraine and what serves the national interest there. But if President Trump has a different view, whose opinion should matter? Clearly, the president’s opinion is the one that counts because the president, not State Department officials, sets U.S. foreign policy.
Much more at the link. See also this; the president can fire ambassadors for any reason or no reason.
Trump is president, and many people find that unconscionable. Some of those people sit in positions of power and are not at all averse to using that power in any way they can to make sure he does not continue to be president.
No comments:
Post a Comment