The editors of the Wall Street Journal look askance at the advance of the impeachment inquiry in the House:
This requires more transparency and public scrutiny than Mr. Schiff’s unprecedented process of secret testimony, followed by selective leaks to the friendly media to put everything in the most anti-Trump light, in order to sway public opinion. If the evidence against Mr. Trump is so damning, then why not make it all public now so the American people can judge for themselves?
Trying to paint the WSJ editors as reflexive Trumpkins is a stretch. They support Trump policies that they like and criticize those they don’t. They like his tax policy; they dislike his foreign policy. IMO their reactions are fair.
The proceedings and revelations certainly haven’t covered President Trump or his administration in glory. Their conduct has certainly not been good or right. Whether they’re damning or not we should wait to assess.
How is it possible to not see them as Trump supporters of some sort when private hearings have been the norm? Remember that Republican members of the committees have been attending, they just dont go public, like the hearings run by Republicans. When you deliberately do not remember history that is easy to remember, or find on the internet, I think you are showing your true colors.
Steve
It’s really hard to say whether the dems really want to impeach Trump or simply dirty him up, further impugning his “fitness” for being reelected.