Like the burglars of Watergate, Trump couldn’t have done anything — it’s all Rudy, Mick Mulvaney and the Three Amigos. They were just overcome with zeal for a stable genius.
Trump insists that he's smart enough to commit crimes https://t.co/F4YWDYjCiJ
— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) October 31, 2019
Last Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal editorial board ran a unique defense of Donald Trump in which it contorted itself to argue that while the president may have “wanted a quid-pro-quo policy ultimatum toward Ukraine,” people should consider the possibility that he “was too inept to execute it.” Most individuals facing impeachment would be grateful for this ridiculous theory, especially considering the evidence thus far suggests that Trump did demand a quid pro quo from Ukraine for nearly $400 million in military aid, a fact acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney just came out and admitted to the press before trying to walk it back after realizing how bad it sounded. But Donald Trump isn’t most individuals. Instead, he’s an abnormally sensitive lunatic who flies off the handle at the slightest provocation, real or imagined, and would rather people think he’s “like, [a] really smart” criminal than dumb and innocent. And we know this because apparently Trump saw the editorial and insisted as much.
A source familiar with his reaction to the editorial told the Daily Beast: “[The president] mentioned he had seen it and then he started saying things like, ‘What are they talking about, if I wanted to do quid pro quo, I would’ve done the damn quid pro quo,’ and…then defended his intelligence and then talked about how ‘perfect’ the call [with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] was.” Another person familiar with the matter confirmed the account. “He was clearly unhappy,” the first source said. “He did not like the word ‘inept.’”
— mike luckovich (@mluckovichajc) October 18, 2019
False: The House vote to impeach Andrew Johnson was passed with only Republican votes. https://t.co/5TcH2uhAKZ
— Philip Klinkner (@pklinkne) October 31, 2019
Joyce is 100% right on this. You can't take a bribe on one hand and then say you're an objective juror on the other. https://t.co/xqJOVOThil
— Kurt Bardella (@kurtbardella) October 31, 2019
This is a sitting White House staffer confirming the quid pro quo. No matter how the GOP spins it, the evidence doesn't get any clearer than this. https://t.co/hBFR1vHpQY
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) October 31, 2019
Exactly. Same thing with Vindman. What each witness thinks about a Trump’s actions wouldn’t be admissible in that “court of law” @gop likes to talk about. What matters is what the witness saw, heard, said, did. We, the people, & the Senate jury, get to draw our own conclusions. https://t.co/jV5h5tJnNI
— Mimi Rocah (@Mimirocah1) October 31, 2019
Today the House voted to authorize release of transcripts of the witness depositions, and public hearings with those same witnesses. I guarantee you that @realDonaldTrump and @GOP will like neither. The American people will soon see all the devastating evidence against @POTUS. https://t.co/eqp0ZW5K4b
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) October 31, 2019
“If the good withhold their testimony, we shall be at the mercy of the bad.”
“Wretched indeed is the nation in whose affairs foreign powers are once permitted to intermeddle.”
—Thomas Jefferson https://t.co/0wTIGdQbNZ
— Windsor Mann (@WindsorMann) October 31, 2019
Today Trump’s allies spread the name of a man they believe is the whistleblower. Some call for his prosecution.
They’re ruining the life of a public servant who may not be the right guy. Plus there’s no evidence he did anything wrong.
This is so desperate and irresponsible.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) October 31, 2019