Democrats try to convince Republicans who give Trump 90 plus percent approval that Trump should be impeached

Michael Barone:

Has the Democratic Party reduced its chances of denying President Trump a second term by continuing to concentrate on throwing him out before the end of his first? You can make a good case that it has.

Democrats have been itching to oust Trump since the days before he took the oath of office. Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence agencies launched investigations into candidate Trump’s campaign, contrary to the general rule that such agencies avoid interfering with electoral politics.

Astonishingly, they relied primarily (if not exclusively) on information bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign, the Steele dossier. FBI Director James Comey briefed its most salacious allegation to the incoming president, an act he presumably considered a form of blackmail.

The supposition, breathlessly reported almost daily by certain cable news channels, is that candidate Trump was in criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. But the air has fizzled out of that balloon. Special counsel Robert Mueller, after nearly two years, has produced no indictments pointing to such collusion.
...
Incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., promises that he will conduct extensive hearings. “There is an abundance of evidence of collusion,” Schiff has said, but he has not set it out. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler was not much more forthcoming on ABC News last weekend. “We do not have the evidence all sorted out and everything to do — to do an impeachment,” he said.

“Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen. You have to persuade enough of the — of the opposition party voters, Trump voters, that you’re not just trying to — that you’re not just trying to steal the last — to reverse the results of the last election.” My Washington Examiner colleague Byron York takes that to mean that “Democrats have decided to impeach Trump and are now simply doing the legwork involved.” The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway reached the same conclusion listening to a Nadler Acela cellphone chat the day after last November’s election.

If so, they’d be moving on shaky ground. Nadler says it’s “very clear” Trump has obstructed justice, but his first example — referring to the Mueller investigation as a “witch hunt” — is unpersuasive. That’s probably not an impeachable offense, even to many of the 35 percent who told Quinnipiac this month that Congress should start impeachment proceedings now.
...

Schiff's alleged evidence is specious and ridiculous.  Nadler admits he doesn't have any evidence and therefore he is going on a huge fishing expedition.  The current pivot to "obstruction" is also laughable.  What they are really saying is that they are angry that Trump fought back against the false charges from their Deep State operatives.  To make a case for obstruction you would have to prove the underlying charges are valid but the Mueller investigation has not found any evidence to support that conclusion.  This has become a Coup Attempt, Part 2.