Senate Republicans should offer to convict Donald Trump in return for Democrats agreeing to fund the wall.
Trump is not going to run again anyway. In four years, he will be as viable a presidential candidate as Hillary was in 2020. You wouldn't have guessed that, either, from all the gnashing of teeth about the MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN EVER TO SEEK THE PRESIDENCY immediately after she lost.
The reason elected Republicans, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and a hundred talk radio hosts are terrified of supporting conviction is that they don't want to look like Mitt Romney and incur the wrath of the Trump base (whatever remains of it).
Trading conviction for a wall solves that. It will remind Trump loyalists that he betrayed them on his central campaign promise, and also will actually fulfill that promise.
Democrats, if they have half a brain, will leap at the offer. They are about to destroy Biden's presidency by defining themselves -- as The New York Times' Frank Bruni put it -- as "antonyms to Trump." Trump was for a wall. Ipso facto, Democrats are for open borders.
Trump was lying, liberals! Even President Obama was for border security. Great socialist hope Bernie Sanders has denounced open borders as a gift to the Koch brothers.
They don't care. Trump supporters wanted a wall, so we're going to punish them by throwing open the border!
If Biden continues with his tsunami of open border executive orders: 1) COVID-19 cases will multiply, as untested, unvaccinated third-worlders pour in at breakneck speed; 2) Black and Hispanic unemployment will go through the roof; and 3) crime -- already reaching mind-blowing proportions -- will become as potent a political issue as it has ever been.
Good luck in 2022, Democrats!
But if Democrats were to trade wall funding for the holy grail of a Trump conviction, they could save Biden's presidency, humiliate Trump, and explain to their nut base, We know, we know -- walls don't work -- but we had to trade it to convict Trump! Aren't you happy?
It's win-win-win all around.
Sitting on a nation-unifying idea like that, I never should have tuned into the impeachment trial. I knew the Democrats would somehow manage to turn me against conviction. I'm still not pro-Trump -- that's a tall order. But could Democrats please ease up on the hysterical weeping?
The president is not supposed to be organizing protests at all, much less against his own vice president. Isn't that enough? You don't need to juice up the story, Democrats.
Impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin:
"All around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye ....
"[My] kids, hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. They thought they were going to die."
Yes, being forced to listen to the Trump "shaman" gas on about organic food could have annihilated legions!
Trump is a selfish, ignorant child. But he is not responsible for the reactions of neurotic liberals.
It would be as if Raskin's neighbor smashed into his parked car, then drove off. Raskin has a perfectly good case without having to wail, I WAS AFRAID HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE AND MURDER MY ENTIRE FAMILY!
Raskin's most precious argument was this:
"Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw ... watching someone use an American flagpole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life."
First, give me a break, Democrats, pretending to give a crap about the American flag.
Second: "Tortured"?
Impeachment managers apparently used a thesaurus to write their speeches:
Siri, give me a synonym for "poke" or "strike."
Siri: jab, punch, prod, thrust, wallop ... TORTURE.
Really?
Yup, it's right there in Roget's!
Curiously, even the teary-eyed Raskin didn't allege that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by the protesters, a claim being made hourly on MSNBC.
Raskin: "People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. People's eyes were gouged. One officer had a heart attack. One officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives."
Jeremy Bash, later that day on MSNBC: "They killed a cop, Nicole!"
If Officer Sicknick's death truly resulted from injuries sustained at the hands of the mob, it would be the case in chief against the protesters. (We're not counting heart attacks, much less suicides that occurred days, or weeks, later.) But no one in the media has been able to scare up a single eyewitness to the attack on Brian Sicknick?
Unlike defund-the-police liberals, I actually am heartbroken about the death of a Trump-supporting law enforcement officer.
But the media are lying about his death. First, they claimed he was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher. Then they said he was dragged into the crowd and beaten. All that is known for sure is that after Sicknick returned to headquarters, he collapsed and later died.
Last week, CNN nonchalantly inserted this into a story on Officer Sicknick: "Medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true."
There's no hope for our media, who are irredeemable liars. But there's still a chance for everyone else to come out a winner here! Trade conviction for a wall, Republicans.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member