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:

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.

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:

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.