The left's goofy case for impeachmenet

Victor Davis Hanson:

...
Had Trump misled his base and not fulfilled his campaign promises, he would have little popular support. Had he tanked the economy and started a war, he would be polling in the 20s rather than the mid to lower 40s.

Trump also polls about 85 percent among Republicans. He is even more popular among blue-collar “Trump voters,” largely because of efforts to equalize trade, restore U.S. deterrence, end illegal immigration, and jump-start the economy, as evidenced by a record-high stock market, near-record peacetime unemployment, and likely annualized GDP growth of 3 percent or more. Minority joblessness is also at a near-record low. The startling fact is that a so-called buffoonish real-estate developer hit upon a calculus to restore robust economic growth in a way that all the degreed experts of the prior administration had not.

His judicial picks belie predictions that Trump would not keep his vows to appoint strict constructionists. There have been no David Souter–like or Harriet Miers–like nominations to the Supreme Court. His national-security team at Defense, State, the National Security Council, the CIA, and the UN is better than any seen in prior postwar administrations. Mike Pompeo is not Hillary Clinton, H. R. McMaster and John Bolton have not been Susan Rice, and Jim Mattis is not Chuck Hagel. Nor is Nikki Haley playing the role of Samantha Power at the U.N., or sending in countless requests to unmask the names of those swept in FISA warrants.

In other words, Trump did what he said he would, despite widespread skepticism. Even his critics concede that the economy is booming. In retrospect, smug prognostications of disaster should the U.S. leave the Iran deal or the Paris Climate Accord or move the embassy to Jerusalem or get tough with the North Koreans or prod NATO members into meeting their prior promises were flat-out wrong.
...
In sum, impeaching or removing a successful president is not a winning proposition. More important, we have never threatened any president with impeachment primarily for purported wrongdoing before he took office.

Had we done so, every president from Dwight Eisenhower (who avoided $400,000 in taxes by finagling a one-time government ruling to declare the huge royalties on his memoir as “capital gains” rather than income) to Barack Obama (who, well aside from Tony Rezko’s “gift,” faced campaign violations involving nearly $1.8 million in improper 2008 contributions that earned a $375,000 fine) would have faced non-stop legal hounding while in office. Harry Truman would have been impeached his first year, had a special prosecutor reviewed his long relationships of years past with the criminal syndicate run by Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast. In 1963, a Mueller-like special counsel would still have been ferreting out all the election tampering during the 1960 election and its relationship to JFK.

Donald Trump has been subjected to nearly 20 months of unprecedented venom and fury. We know that some of his past associates are uncouth and criminally minded, and that he is crude in retorts and undisciplined in his private life — none of which justifies the allegations that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors while in office. That fact is another reason why Trump’s polls have not yet tanked, as Richard Nixon’s did in mid-1974.
...
For every crime — collusion, perjury, obstruction, fraud — that Mueller seeks to use to delegitimize Trump, there is a comparable or greater crime in plain sight that he ignores. The asymmetry is not insignificant and involves not the often-disreputable political class as much as the supposedly professional bureaucratic hierarchy.
...

There is more.

The "Resistance" has been on a never-ending search for an excuse to impeach, not investigating a specific crime.  That is why Mueller's cases are so disjointed and off base from his original mission to investigate collusion with Russia.  Now they would settle for a jaywalking offense.