What Trump’s impeachment accomplished 

John McCormack in National Review:

[Impeachment] stopped Trump from further escalation during his final two weeks in office.  … Trump’s defense lawyers and his online apologists have suggested what he did was no worse than many Democrats have done in the past, but the trial made it clear that Trump’s post-election misbehavior was unprecedented.

Trump lost the 2020 election by the same number of electoral votes as Hillary Clinton did in 2016.

  • Trump’s 2020 loss came down to 43,000 individual votes across three states [including Wisconsin];
  • Clinton’s 2016 loss came down to 78,000 votes across three states. [the same].

Clinton conceded the morning after Election Day. Trump, by contrast, sought to overturn the results. He didn’t merely seek recounts and file lawsuits (as Al Gore did when the election came down to mere hundreds of votes in one state). He spread wild lies and conspiracy theories.


One of the invites to Trump’s 01-06-21 attempted coup

Trump became the first president in history to reject the results of the Electoral College. He then summoned a large crowd to Washington for a “wild” event to pressure Congress to reject the results of the Electoral College on January 6. He stoked the crowd’s anger with more wild lies and conspiracies. He told the crowd his vice president had the sole authority to reject Electoral College votes, and he ordered the vice president to commit this blatantly unconstitutional act.

As one man who was armed with a knife and broke into the Senate chamber later said in a video:

“Once we found out Pence turned on us and that they had stolen the election, like officially, the crowd went crazy.” 

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to What Trump’s impeachment accomplished 

  1. Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

    “(Hillarity) Clinton conceded the morning after Election Day.”

    What a mensch, she!

    It should be noted she then promptly spent the next FOUR YEARS “spread(ing) wild lies and conspiracy theories.”

    And she had the full force of the State Media running a slobbering interference.

    The Gotch

    Liked by 3 people

  2. calypsofacto says:

    “Trump became the first president in history to reject the results of the Electoral College. ” Really?!? You haven’t heard Clinton calling the 2016 election “stolen” for the last 4 years? You don’t think that Clinton, Obama, and Biden planting a false Russian collusion narrative at the FBI, illegally gaining wiretaps, and presenting falsified testimony, leading to a completely unjustified and partisan impeachment represents a much more egregious rejection of the Electoral College than the failure to Tweet quickly enough on Jan 6 that Trump is accused of?

    Best new article on the hyperbole surrounding Jan 6 (and by a Lefty, nonetheless!): https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims

    Disclaimer: I’m not even a Trump backer/voter … but when your Charlie Sykes-like TDS makes you nose-blind to the stink of your own BS, I feel it’s someone’s duty to point it out, for your own credibility.

    Liked by 6 people

    • David Blaska says:

      Are you new around here? The Russian collusion hoax, the FISA lies, the blind eye to BLM terrorism in Madison and Kenosha, that and more — Blaska has hit them hard.


    • sentient7 says:

      Calypsofacto — Agree, Greenwald’s article has great value. Thank’s for the link.
      RE: Dave’s view in this column:
      1. Article that you link as that of Andrew McCarthy in National Review refers to a fellow by the name of John McCormack, not Andy McCarthy. [ ??? ]
      2. How can anyone legally certify errors as an accurate measure? How can any state do this, either for gasoline, scales of measure for foods, semi-truck load limits; professional licensure for all medical/dental occupations, or even elevators? How then is it possible to certify elections that have significant errors? As Peter Navarro makes clear in his 3 essays (which you consistently and conveniently ignore)certification of election errors and/or fraud is unacceptable. Election results should be certified without recourse to fraud and error. Trump’s case against certification of illegalities, IMO, certainly was and is justified.

      Liked by 1 person

      • David Blaska says:

        Thanks for the fix. Tell me what can be done when the avenues of appeal have been decided against you — unless you approve of the attempted coup d’etat of January 6?


        • sentient7 says:

          Good question. What can be done? And, if nothing is done to preserve an honest accounting of ballots in the future, what is the point of election tabulations that remain dishonest?
          Interesting to note the passivity of those who, since election night, have failed to demand an honest accounting in the swing states. I think the silence reflects the bias of those who, for whatever host of reasons, concluded, “No issue. We wanted Trump to lose by any and all means necessary. Legalities be damned.” Once the election process becomes tainted, the outcome is no longer relevant. Tyranny becomes the next chapter.


        • Attempted coup d’etat! Good one Blaska!

          Like equating a simply battery to attempted murder!

          Exaggeration is a weapon of the left. Turn a personal insult into a hate-crime. Turn a few morons who entered the capitol dressed like clowns into a “coup d’etat”!


      • A Voice in the Wilderness says:

        Using false equivalencies between certification for professional services and certification of election results does not deflect from the fact that fraud was never proven in the 2020 Presidential election.


        • sentient7 says:

          To whom? In what venue?
          What is your rejoinder to the Navarro Reports’ data ?
          And what of “fraud,” that remains undiscovered? Certification of votes is not a difficult task. Compared to credits for a degree; bar exam; simple brokerage accounts; your credit card statement or your bank statement?
          In as much as the election and vote counting process determines WHO becomes the President, then I think there is very little room for inaccuracies.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Richard Blaska says:

    I can’t believe some people actually endorsed that fraud, con artist, clown.


    • Kooter says:

      Because unlike our Leftist friends who vote on personality and style, Conservatives vote on policy and substance.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Liberty says:

        “Because unlike our Leftist friends who vote on personality and style, Conservatives vote on policy and substance.”

        I don’t understand the pearl clutchers. Are they, themselves so perfect and fragile that they can’t handle a little brusqueness? Are they that willing to toss aside Trump’s accomplishments for America because of their disdain for his personality?

        It’s not like we have to live with the guy. We do however have to live with Biden’s (and his handlers’) decisions, which includes a return to oil dependence, an influx of illegal immigrants (which will hurt Black Americans the most), a Green Deal that does nothing to actually help the environment, and what will likely be an increase in taxes. And the grifters in the House & Senate will continue to become wealthy WHILE IN OFFICE.

        But hey, Trump’s tweets were offensive.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Good Dog,Happy Man says:

      “It’s a brave dog that barks at the bones of a lion.” < — Barry Farber.

      KMA and bark like a blue-jay, Dick.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Good Dog,Happy Man says:

    MAGAA … Make Acquittal Great Again Again.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.