All errors should be reported to

Monday, October 23, 2017

18 times Rubin wanted to impeach Trump

Jennifer Rubin is the House Conservative at the Washington Post, a token who blogs in the fashion of a low-rent National Reviewer. I am not saying she is a crazy lady.

I am saying she writes like one.

She is dogged. Every day she seeks new ways to bring down Donald Trump and invalidate the past election. Every day, she fails. Multiple times.

On Sunday, she attacked John Kelly's military credentials: "Kelly should be replaced by someone who actually understands democratic governance and can deliver bad news and honest criticism to the president. Going forward, Congress needs to stomp out creeping military authoritarianism. Congress should start by barring generals from acting in civilian capacities in the White House."

Um, Kelly is a civilian. He retired as a general.

On October 19, she raised the specter of the emoluments clause: "Democratic members of Congress are asking a court to enjoin Trump’s receipt of emoluments so Congress can pass judgment on them. There, however, the issue may be that the GOP doesn’t want to pass judgment so the court’s injunction would be entirely ineffective. Ah, but once again that changes if and when control of one house flip to Democrats."

Sounds like a plan. Vote Democrat and we will emoluments clause Trump.

On October 18: "The Trump administration’s economic ignorance at times seems like quackery."

Yes, self-made billionaires and the former head of Exxon know nothing about the economy. They should listen to a blogger. Or Paul Krugman who predicted a free fall in the stock market when we elected Trump.

On October 18: "Another travel ban loss."

Don't tell her that the Supreme Court earlier allowed his travel restrictions.

On October 17: "Maybe Democrats in the House want to keep their gun powder dry for understandable political reasons, but that leaves a void where an informed public debate should be taking place. There is surely a need for a group of Democrats and Republicans, respected for their fidelity to the law, to begin to educate the public and make the case for impeachment on the evidence already before us."

Ah yes. Impeachment is so obvious to Rubin that she wonders why you people did not do it yesterday.

It started in 2016.

On December 18, Rubin wrote: "Democrats should confront their colleagues with a choice: Sign onto the bill to require divestment or join Democrats in demanding Trump rectify his constitutional violation forthwith by other means (e.g., withhold confirmation of any Cabinet nominees until Trump divests). If not, Democrats in the House should be prepared, yes, to file articles of impeachment and let the voters decide in 2018 if they want a president who won’t follow the Constitution and won’t put country above his family fortune."

He's rich. Impeach.

Then came 2017.

On January 13, Rubin wrote: "Predictably, Republicans are declining to challenge Trump on his phony blind trust and refusal to sell assets. Democrats rightfully may object to his snubbing of the emoluments clause — or even file articles of impeachment — but the test will come when and if the public sees real instances of pay-to-play, self-enrichment or foreign-influence peddling. Should more come to light about his connection to Russia, Trump may spend the rest of his term under a cloud of intrigue and suspicion."

She wanted him impeached before he even took office.

Once he took office, her writing ramped to screeching owl level.

On February 14, Rubin wrote: "Trump, we have noted, seems eager to trample on democratic norms and constitutional government. The latest incident suggests he thinks he is a 'TV president,' as 'Saturday Night Live' has portrayed him. If he does not drastically and immediately alter his conduct and approach to the job, lighthearted banter about impeachment or activation of the 25th Amendment will become markedly more serious. What does one do with a president who either by intention or utter incompetence puts the United States and its institutions at risk practically every single day?"

Yes, a television show mocking him is grounds for impeachment.

On February 15, Rubin wrote: "In less than a month, Trump has managed to paralyze the entire White House, shake GOP confidence in him, lose a national security adviser, re-raise questions about his uninterrupted praise for Putin and reinvigorate calls for an outside investigation into his and his advisers’ contacts with Russia. Trump has accomplished virtually nothing — other than nominating a strong candidate for the Supreme Court and raising questions about his own mental stability and the potential for his removal from office (by impeachment, resignation or the 25th Amendment). He has proved his fiercest critics right about his unfitness to govern. And given how weird this presidency has become and how fast it has left the parameters of normal political behavior, it is hardly nutty to think there is a chance he won’t complete his term."

The 25th Amendment is another favorite of hers. The lady who writes like a crazy lady thinks he is crazy.

On February 21, Rubin wrote: "Trump's historically horrendous approval numbers (38 approve, 56 disapprove in Gallup; Pew had a nearly identical split, 39/56.) As Trump's performance sends more voters, and lawmakers, reeling and the investigation of his and his aides' ties to Russia get underway, we should remember how critical Vice President Mike Pence becomes. If things get really bad — impeachment or some 25th Amendment "solution" — the choice will not be Trump vs. Clinton. It will be Trump vs. Pence, who'd take over if Trump left or was removed. Uh-oh. Pence is in positive territory (43/39 in the average), and among Republicans, especially those on Capitol Hill, he's exceptionally popular."

Impeachment on the grounds that his poll numbers are low. You know, those same polls that predicted a second Clinton presidency.

On March 30, Rubin wrote: "First, Trump’s agenda comes crashing down around his ears. He has no coalition to speak of, and the latest attack will only make things worse. The GOP accomplishes very little. The GOP, lacking accomplishments and unity, suffers losses in 2018, maybe losing one house.

"Second, the Freedom Caucus strikes back — teaming up with Democrats to step up investigations of Trump regarding Russia, enforce the emoluments clause and demand he release his taxes. (Vice President Pence is practically one of them, so the Freedom Caucus would be delighted for Trump to leave, either by impeachment or resignation.) If the choice is between the presidency and keeping his financial empire under wraps, we would bet on the latter."

The self-described conservative wanted liberals to retake Congress to make Mike Pence president so he could push a real conservative agenda -- through a liberal Congress.

Just like Jerry Ford didn't do after Nixon resigned.

On April 19, Rubin turned her argument inside out. She cited a story in the New Yorker by Ryan Lizza, who said, "I spoke to two intelligence sources, one who read the entire binder of intercepts and one who was briefed on their contents. 'There’s absolutely nothing there,' one source said. The Trump names remain masked in the documents, and Rice would not have been able to know in all cases that she was asking the N.S.A. to unmask the names of Trump officials."

This prompted her to write: "If true, this would be a clear abuse of authority — the very type of politicization of intelligence that the Trump team claims the Obama administration was guilty of. Had President Barack Obama done anything remotely similar, Republicans would have drafted articles of impeachment."

Trump was a security risk for leaking information -- according to spies who leaked the story to a reporter.

However, weeks earlier, on April 4, USA Today reported, "Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Tuesday that she did not seek to unmask the names of Trump associates for political purposes, but also described the process of asking for the intelligence community to reveal the names of U.S. citizens as a longstanding, established process."

In denying she did it -- something Rice later admitted doing -- Rice said unmasking was OK.

Did Rubin know this?

After Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, Rubin wrote on May 10: "Using one law enforcement body (or set of individuals) to stop another from investigating presidential wrongdoing was the nub of Watergate and the ensuing impeachment proceedings.

"We do not know whether that is what is at issue here, but Congress has no alternative but to determine why the president acted and why he acted now. That should entail questioning under oath of any persons aware of or involved in the firing process and ultimately an accounting by the president of his own actions."

FBI directors serve at the will and pleasure of presidents.

On May 17, Rubin wrote: "However, it is not necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the president obstructed justice. We are now talking about impeachment."

Proof is for suckers.

On June 1, Rubin wrote: "The immediate issue at hand seems to be whether noncriminal conduct, whatever the motive, that repeatedly puts the country’s national security at risk and/or advances a foreign power’s interest above ours (collectively, we’ll refer to it as President Trump’s Russia First policy) would be grounds for impeachment."

Spoiler alert: She concluded it would.

On June 9, Rubin wrote: "Looking back years from now on Thursday’s testimony from former FBI director James B. Comey, we will likely see that it marked a turning point in President Trump’s drama. There was Before Comey and After Comey.

"Before Comey, impeachment talk was not a real concern for Republicans. While they may still insist there is nothing to see here, Comey testimony’s turned impeachment into a serious topic of discussion. When you are debating whether an appalling course of conduct is illegal or “merely” impeachable, or whether it is as bad as the facts that led to Richard Nixon’s removal, the incumbent party is in deep trouble."

Comey's testimony exonerated President Trump. Comey confirmed that Trump was not under any investigation.

On June 11, Rubin said on MSNBC: “This is probably the easiest man to impeach because he not only has a record, but his lies are so frankly absurd.”

Yes, you can keep your doctor. You can keep your health plan. Premiums will go down $2,500 on average.

On July 21, Rubin wrote: "This presidency can’t be saved. It’s all downhill from here."

She cited five scenarios to impeach Trump based on the special investigation by Robert Mueller. She ended the post: "Is there a sixth scenario in which Mueller exonerates Trump? That’s the least likely outcome after Trump has fired former FBI director James B. Comey and threatened the special counsel. Why would he do those things unless there was something really, really bad to find? And if there is something bad, Mueller will find it. You can understand then why Trump sounds frantic. In no scenario does Trump’s presidency recover."

Mueller was investigating President Trump's associates, not him.

On July 24, Rubin wrote: "It’s not too early, or too nutty, to discuss grounds for impeachment."

Considering she had for eight months talked about impeaching him, the post was no surprise.

On August 11, Rubin wrote: "Republicans do not have to wake up each morning afraid of what the president has tweeted. They do not have to fret that the special counsel will find damning evidence of collusion with Russia, obstruction of justice or other criminal or impeachable behavior. They do not have to worry that they’ll accomplish absolutely nothing before facing the voters in 2018. They do not have to dread that a presidential temper tantrum will get us into a war, or force a humiliating retreat. They need not fear that the president of their own party will attack them, or even back a primary challenge against them. They could have a normal president. They could have their party back.

"In short, a significant portion of elected Republicans have clearly figured out that a President Pence would be highly preferable to President Trump. Whatever virtues they thought Trump had, those never materialized, and seven months of nerve-racking White House histrionics and dysfunction have left them mentally and emotionally exhausted."

I now knew what distinguished her liberalism from the rest of the Washington Post's liberalism. She wanted Pence as president, they wanted Hillary Clinton to succeed an impeached -- and convicted -- President Trump.

On August 31, after President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, Rubin speculated that juries would convict Trump's associates of crimes yet to be uncovered, and that he would pardon them.

Rubin wrote: "In sum, controversial pardons will only spare Trump’s friends and family from federal prosecution, not from civil suits and state prosecutions. Moreover, his actions will certainly be included in any impeachment effort. And if you think a president can be prosecuted for actions in office, then Robert S. Mueller, one would think, could certainly construct a compelling case for obstruction of justice that includes the president’s desire to shut down the case against Arpaio."

The Constitution makes pardons unreviewable.

On September 1, Rubin wrote: "Mueller has the option, as did the independent prosecutors in Watergate, to make a referral — in essence a recommendation — to the House to proceed with impeachment. There is little doubt that the course of action as it has been described by witnesses and credible press accounts lines up with the articles of impeachment the House was ready to approve in Watergate. In Article 1, for example, the House was prepared to allege that Nixon had been 'interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees.'"

Nixon was not impeached, which would require a vote by the House of Representatives, rendering those articles moot.

On September 19, Rubin wrote: "he could be impeached for abusing his office, whether there are new laws or not. It might seem unfair to remove him from office when Congress has heretofore not addressed these issues, but remember that impeachment is not limited to statutory crimes (e.g., bribery). 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' is a political determination. What if, for example, the president required employees to stay at his properties, would only meet with foreign diplomats who rented rooms at his hotels or wouldn’t travel to a foreign country unless it granted favors to promote his businesses? That would be akin to the Russian system — which amounts to an organized crime syndicate. Surely we would say that’s impeachable even if no law is implicated."

What if.

That summed up her argument in all her impeachment frenzy.

I could not find one time that Rubin called for impeaching Barack Obama. In fact, she mocked the White House for raising the specter of impeachment.

On July 28, 2014, Rubin wrote: "Since there is no GOP movement to impeach and since the White House is inventing one out of desperation, doesn’t it behoove the press to challenge the White House spinners? You’d think a few brave souls in the mainstream media would label the White House stunt for what it is — a false Hail Mary from a cratering presidency."

She called for impeaching a conservative president at least 18 times in 10 months, but never called for impeaching a liberal president in eight years.

Hers is Fake News in that she pretends to be conservative but carried water for her liberal employers.


Please enjoy my books on how the press bungled the 2016 election.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.


  1. She is the Frederica Wilson of token conservative writers.

  2. There were too many block quotes of what Ms. Rubin actually said for me to continue reading past June in the timeline. Too much exposure to the prose of Ms. Rubin would be toxic at that level and I commend Mr. Surber for having an antidote handy (perhaps the anti-venom was watching election returns from last November, starting at 9:00PM, when all the networks suddenly realized Trump had a very good chance of winning). Anyway, maybe I should just CTRL-F it for myself, but at any point in Ms. Rubin's anti-Trump screed did she unveil her dream plan to install Mittens Romney as President? Maybe with a low-energy member of the Bush clan of failed presidents as the Veep?

    1. Than you. Oh she wants Pence.

    2. Much like the lefties whose impeachment porn envisions a scenario where "I'm With Her" ends up president, via a co-impeachment of Pence and Paul Ryan picking a fellow traveler in the bipartisan globalist elite as his Veep (that would be Hillary), I'm sure Ms. Rubin's scenario envisions Pence picking Mittens Romney as his Veep and then resigning out of shame for being a Trump enabler. In her heart of heart -- presuming Ms. Rubin has a heart -- that's how she gets her dream globalist in the White House.

  3. she's a lawyer who lives inside the beltway. what else do you need to know? Oh right, I rmemeber, she's a labor lawyer. Nuff said.

  4. Mr. Surber: You are a class act and I mean that in the most flattering way.

  5. This obsession isn't mentally healthy.

    -Mikey NTH

  6. She pines for a job the NYT, the Grail for intellectual traitors like herself.
    Every article she furballs up is a resume directed to the Scion to read in his Hamptons pleasure palace between service calls from his new lackys, the MurdochScions.
    I congratulate Don for wading through this dreck but he should look after his own mental health. The left on which this woman is a mere banacle is slipping into a kind of madness over DT. They have even accused the only one of their Presidents ever to have a moral imperative in his thought and action as a sycophant merely for speaking some truth about DT, the Russians and the press. As Trump moves closer to some major legislative victory or worse more power in 18 there could easily be violence. Now Bezos and others are pressing impeachment through their feckless polyps, but as hope for it fades and their frustration intensifies, what will they sanction next? Listen to Maxime. She knows.

    1. Bret Stephens snagged the job from Rubin. Alas the NYT is sexist....

  7. I thank you for going into that diaper pail to collect a few samples...

  8. The sheer accumulation of verbiage makes it plain it's a wish-driven obsession with her.

    Among soi-disant 'conservatives' and 'Republicans' there have long been some shills (Dave Weigel, Conor Friedersdorf) and some capons (David Gergen, David Brooks, Robert ver Bruggen, Matt K. Lewis). I doubt she's either. The Post managed to find someone whose idiosyncratic problems were of use to them.

    What's amusing is that the progtrash left cannot abide this woman, much less a non-spurious dissenter.

    1. "The sheer accumulation of verbiage makes it plain it's a wish-driven obsession with her."

      She must be paid by the word. - Elric

  9. "a group of Democrats and Republicans, respected for their fidelity to the law"

    What planet does this broad live on?

    1. Her own, obviously. It's obvious, because "clear", she ain't.

  10. You gotta turn the trash can upside-down to empty it. That's what Trump is doing.

  11. Her writing isn't anywhere near as good as the original One-Note Samba.

  12. Remember when Rubin used to write for "Commentary"? She seemed so sane then.

    1. Not really. Commentary is insane now. Quit reading it about 2015. Podhoretz is awful.

  13. Who does Jen think she is? Bill Kristol?

  14. Sigh - as I said in November "We've dodge _a_ bullet. Electing Trump merely bought us time. Will it be wisely spent? I doubt it."

    A year later, I am even more concerned about the number of people who apparently do not understand that electing Trump was _their_ last chance. And that they are being weighed and found wanting, because "business as usual" isn't selling any more.

  15. Don, You are polite, and the host, so allow me to say it for you. She is a lunatic.

  16. She's a "true conservative" her job is to give lip service to right wing stuff while supporting liberalism.

  17. Rubin is just another Bolshevik who became a "conservative" to redefine what it means and render it meaningless. She is joined by so many in that neocon group. Left wing pedigrees but suddenly! conservative. The neocons did their version of destroy from within.

  18. What burns me up is that she used eliminationist language on Oct 17 ("Democrats need to keep their gunpowder dry") and the WaPoo let that sail right on thru!!!!11111!!!