Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Tom Steyer to Dems: See, I told you not to wait on Mueller to impeach Trump

Tom Steyer to Dems: See, I told you not to wait on Mueller to impeach Trump

Steyer’s Need to Impeach group releases ad whining about how “Nothing Happened” from waiting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m10xalHbaCA

Billionare Tom Steyer has a fever, and that fever is to impeach Trump.

Steyer started Need to Impeach to push Democrats to impeach Trump. Steyer’s obsession annoyed the Democrat establishment leaders, who feared it would damage Democrats.

Even after the 2018 election, when Democrats regained control of the House, Democrats waited, hoping the Mueller Report would provide the evidence and political cover they needed.

But the Mueller report all but killed impeachment talk. Trump was completely vindicated on Russia collusion, and Mueller’s non-decision on obstruction deprived Democrats of what they needed.

Steyer is not happy that Democrats waited.

Greg Sargent at The Washington Post, who is something of a mainstream Democrat weather-vane, writes Democrats are badly blowing it against Trump. A brutal new TV ad shows how.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has succeeded in stifling impeachment talk. The Post reports that the speaker privately told Democrats to stick to policy and forget about an impeachment inquiry, and not a single Democrat uttered a word in protest.

This is meant to illustrate the iron grip that Pelosi often successfully maintains on her caucus. But, whether you support an impeachment inquiry right now, there’s no way to describe the broader strategy that Democrats have adopted on the impeachment question as a success. It’s been a muddled mess.

A new ad that impeachment proponent Tom Steyer is set to launch illustrates this well. Notably, rather than merely making the case for an inquiry, the ad trains its fire at Democrats for failing to initiate one.

The ad — a $1 million buy on national cable and in Iowa and New Hampshire — takes aim at what might be called the Democrats’ “Wait For Mueller” strategy,

I would not call the Steyer ad devastating, more like a history lesson in frustration. Sargent continues that at every level the “Wait for Mueller” strategy was misguided:

Numerous Democrats did claim there was no need to decide on an impeachment inquiry until we saw Mueller’s findings.

In retrospect, this was a serious strategic failure. If it was intended as a stalling tactic — a way to delay the moment at which Democrats would reveal their real intention not to act — it only created a situation in which Mueller’s extraordinarily serious revelations made it more difficult to definitively close the door on it.

If it was sincere — i.e., Democrats really wanted Mueller’s findings before making the call — then they were not prepared for the possibility that those revelations would be severe enough to overwhelmingly warrant an inquiry, setting them up to look feckless and weak at a moment of extraordinary challenge to the country.

Here’s the ad:

The problem was not Democrats’ “Wait for Mueller” strategy. That was the only strategy they could have followed. To not wait for Mueller on something as momentus as impeachment would have been politically disastrous.

What can Democrats do now? When it comes to impeachment, not much that wouldn’t harm Democrats more than Trump.

Which is why Trump should hope for 2020 that Democrats follow Steyer’s advice and engage in the “really futile and stupid gesture” of trying to impeach Trump.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is going to be so funny when people cut and paste just the Dem congress is so lame juxtaposed to President Trump saying same thing.

Yeah, why wait to see if there’s an actual crime before you initiate an impeachment inquiry. Start the impeachment and then you can manufacture a crime to justify your actions. Democrats, 2019.

    CorkyAgain in reply to Sanddog. | May 16, 2019 at 11:16 pm

    He’s not one of them, and that’s crime enough in their minds.

    Albigensian in reply to Sanddog. | May 17, 2019 at 9:04 am

    Verdict first, evidence later. Or never, for why present evidence after the matter’s been decided?

    But when that fails, how about a mass shout-out, “I don’t like that man!” followed by elephantine foot-stomping? Don’t think about it, just do it. Be a YouTube hero.

I’d vote to impeach President Trump.

Once I see the last thirty years of Nancy Pelosi’s financials.

As well as Dianne Feinstein’s… and Chuck Schumer’s… and Barack Obama’s… and the list goes on and on.

C’mon impeachers, drop your drawers!

    malclave in reply to guinspen. | May 16, 2019 at 7:36 pm

    I’d vote to impeach Trump, especially if I could require certain House Democrats to be the ones to prosecute the case in the Senate.

    And then I’d buy popcorn futures.

Oopsa! I forgotti the mofoload, the Clinton’s financials.

Antifundamentalist | May 16, 2019 at 7:55 pm

I’ve lost track: Why is it we “need” to impeach Trump, again? He hasn’t had inappropriate relations with any interns as far as we know; he hasn’t put classified information over unsecured servers (and then tried to have people destroy the evidence); He hasn’t lied about attacks on embassies. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of collusion with foreign governments. There doesn’t seem to be any more political-and-financial-advantages-in-exchange-for-campaign-and-charitable-trust-fund-donations….all that’s left is that he’s a bad businessman and a creep – but we knew that before he was elected.

    Well, he beat Hillary. I’m sure that’s a crime somewhere… /s

      DaveGinOly in reply to Voyager. | May 16, 2019 at 10:52 pm

      You nailed it. “Impeachment” was on the Dems’ lips immediately following DJT’s election. At that time there was no criminality evident except defeating Hillary. Everything since then has been an attempt to otherwise justify an impeachment that is actually punishment for winning the election.

        tom_swift in reply to DaveGinOly. | May 16, 2019 at 11:34 pm

        Everything since then has been an attempt to otherwise justify an impeachment that is actually punishment for winning the election.

        No, it’s not punishment; it’s less petulant than that. They have to get him out of there by extra-electoral means, because in an election against him, the D’rats will be buried. They did OK in 2018 . . . but they weren’t running against Trump. Then, they were running against the usual crop of R candidates, and those ranged from utterly pedestrian to downright feeble. But there’s nothing to match DJT looming on the D’rat horizon, and they know it.

        So impeachment is, from the D’rat viewpoint, a perfectly reasonable strategy. But an impeachment would fail in the Senate unless they can come up with real evidence of an actual crime. Hence the pious hopes for a sack of gifts from Mueller’s sleigh. But those never happened. So, in real life, impeachment is off the table. They’ll have to substitute two years of carping and foot-dragging instead.

        But they’re running out of time; the D’rats are falling apart, with major schisms appearing with the socialist Axis, the blatant Jew-haters, and the terminally racist SJWs all fighting for control of the Party. From outside, it looks like DJT is the least of their problems.

JusticeDelivered | May 16, 2019 at 8:06 pm

It seems like Democrats cannot do anything right now. It is amazing just how far they have fallen.

When Trump won they could have graciously accepted it and begged for a seat at the table.

Instead they drove him in republican arms. Since that time there have been a very long stream of disastrous (for Dems), actions.

    Yes, that’s the thing that gets me about all of this. Trump is a deal maker, and he was openly willing to cut deals with them to get the things he was working for.

    But they just couldn’t do that. They had to burn the bridge they came in on, and it made no good sense.

“And the Lord saith unto Tom Steyer, ‘I shall give unto thee resources beyond thy capacity to husband well, and thou shall be an example unto others of what not to be and what not to do. Thou is a fool, and ye shall always be the same, and others shall learn from thouest stupidity’”

    Edward in reply to fscarn. | May 17, 2019 at 8:52 am

    Unfortunately the Socialist-Democrats (and many plain old John and Jane Q. Publics) are incapable of the minor amount of contemplation necessary to understand the “lesson”.

    BiggBear in reply to fscarn. | May 17, 2019 at 12:12 pm

    Minor correction: “thy stupidity.”

    Otherwise ok.

JackinSilverSpring | May 16, 2019 at 8:32 pm

WAJ: Mueller implicitly made a decision on obstruction; it was not to indict, therefore, there is no obstruction.

    In the process of Weissmann’s* decision making, he once again threw the statute and regulations out the window, deciding to do his best to destroy the President (and give the House Soclialist-Democrats some crumbs to try and build a case from nothing) with innuendo. Weissmann was slapped down before by a 9-0 SCOTUS decision that an Obstruction prosecution REQUIRES the element of intent to be proven, not dismissed as he did in the Arthur Anderson prosecution where he convinced the Jurors to convict on a “novel” interpretation of the statute. He couldn’t even get there by such methods this time, so he violated the rule that the government either makes a decision and brings an indictment, with all the PR the Judge and conscience allows, or the government says nothing at all. In the issue of intent, the President took action to further his inherent powers with the understanding that there was no collusion so there is no intent to illegally obstruct and that is what AG Barr concluded.

    In the Barr interview on FNC this morning Hemmer asked Barr when Mueller knew there was no collusion. Barr refused to answer but FNC also had former Chairman of the House Intel Committee, Nunes, was also on and stated that the committee determined Mueller had to know on the day he walked into the job that there was no evidence at all of the allegation of collusion.

    * It appears more each day that Mueller was nothing but a figurehead with Andrew Weissmann running the show. The recent report that the selection of personnel was left to Weissmann explains the overwhelming staffing of anti-Trump people.

      Zardoz in reply to Edward. | May 17, 2019 at 10:07 am

      I highly recommend reading “Licsenced to Lie” by Sydney Powell. In her book, you will find the exact same people in the DOJ that were in the DOJ Muller era.

ottovongrubner | May 16, 2019 at 8:37 pm

The Left appears to want to wallow forever in the denial stage. More power to them.

They’ve plucked that chicken clean but keep looking for more feathers. There’s a technical term for this. Bat Crap Crazy.

Congressman Nadler, enter and sign in, please!

with an estimated net worth of $28,001 in 2013

Jerrold Nadler

We r skrd ppl.

The professor nailed it. The Dems could not afford to impeach Trump for the following reasons:

1) without evidence of obstruction of justice, they could never get a conviction in the Senate,

2) if they impeach, without conviction, and Trump has another year or more in office, he might really go after the criminal cartel known as the Obama Administration and

3) Democrat leaders knew exactly how much and how little the Mueller team actually had or didn’t have, long before the Mueller report came out.

Impeachment, while it might resonate for Dems in the mid-term elections, would be a disaster for Dem politicians, unless it occurred just before the next Presidential elections.

So, now we know, the ideological bent of the sects that held witch hunts and warlock trials.

That said, Obama spied, Clinton colluded, Biden interfered, DNC denied, and WaPo, CNN et al prosecuted a multi-trimester cover-up.

Stroke that Fever, PL!

Mr. Steyer needs to get off his rich backside and run for office. Let the American people have a say on his direction. There is nothing much worse than a rich cry baby who pays others to fight for him.

In my lifetime Democrats have always sought some way to impeach the Republican president in office. Nixon was well on his way to impeachment when he resigned (for actions that pale in comparison to Clinton’s and Obama’s). I recall sleazy efforts by Democrats to keep Gerald Ford from becoming VP after Agnew resigned (ensuring the Democrat Speaker of the House would become President). Democrats tried to leverage the Iran-Contra hearing into fodder for impeachment. Both Bush I and II have been targets of serious impeachment efforts (I recall some Democrats even wanted to impeach Bush II just days before he left office in 2009). If Democrats had had their way Trump would have been the first President in US history who was impeached BEFORE he took the oath of office.

It is safe to say Democrats have a HARD time accepting the results of an election they lost fair and square! Must be that Communist fetish that controls their party now.

Wow – – Cowbell AND Animal House references in the same post!

This ad looks like Steyer went to a Teacher’s Union meeting and picked out the biggest scolds to lay down some of their ‘truth’. I’m just waiting to get a demerit or be sent to the Principal’s office for ‘wrong thought’.

I just heard the ad on t.v. while putting the dishes in the dishwasher. I thought they were talking about Obama! Ha ha!

I saw the ad but I had the tv muted. The expressions on these people’s faces was pure hatred and anger. NEWS FLASH…..
Donald Trump won the election. Time to get over yourselves.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend