The Democrat impeachment narrative keeps changing

Monica Showalter:
For awhile 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 story line 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....
...
The Democrat desperation for impeachment never had any merit, but they are so eager to keep the scam alive they grasp at any straw.  The President can remove any ambassador for any reason or no reason at all.  In this case, he was dealing with an ambassador who was trying to thwart a policy she did not agree with.  She deserved to be fired.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains