Here We Go...

So the House has formally voted to impeach President Trump.

On two counts, rather than the four originally proposed.

Yes, it was a close vote overall. On both counts.
Not one Republican voted yes. A handful of Democrats joined them. 
       ...in spite of Speaker Pelosi's statements months ago that a partisan impeachment would tear the country apart.
             
Well, she's right. The United States is more divided than I can ever remember -- and that includes the brouhaha when George W. Bush was accused of cheating Al Gore out of a victory, thanks to Florida. (Rmember the 'chads' furor, Gentle Readers?) At least one friend, with whom I've cheerfully disagreed with over the years, has written me off as a MAGA dolt, because I'm not jumping on the 'Get Rid of Trump' bandwagon. And I don't even like him that much!  
     (I'm a much greater admirer of VP Mike Pence...who would, by the way, become president if Trump were impeached by the Senate. Nancy Pelosi would be third.)

Shoot, maybe I am a dolt. If you assume that the accusations made are true (which I'm not convinced they are), then all sorts of interesting things could happen.  Particularly if Mrs. Pelosi could accuse  VP Pence of the same things. No need for proof, based on the impeachment hearings -- just make the accusations, loud and often.. Then she would become president!
     Anyways, back to the story:

Pelosi is now hesitating about submitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate. (In case you're wondering, they were submitted within minutes for President Clinton's impeachment.). She's said to be hinting that the Democrats have made their point -- and they won't submit the articles of impeachment at all. (The implied reason is, of course, that it won't fly in the Senate, anyways -- the Republicans are in control there.)
     She did some rather odd things before the vote, which apparently were supposed to emphasize that the Founding Fathers were behind her in all this, including citing the Pledge of Allegiance by a large cardboard flag. Oh yes, she also wore a black dress (because this is a solemn and funeral event, and should not be celebrated), and Democrats prayed before the proceedings.
     Apparently, Republicans do not. Pray, that is.

At least one source says that if the trial goes to the Senate, Trump's only six votes away from losing. (She bases it partly on Barry Goldwater and President Nixon.) Another says you don't have to prove that a crime was committed, in order to impeach. (You don't? Being rude when you twitter is good enough, I guess.)

A handful of newspapers have urged the impeachment to continue, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Boston Globe. (These same papers endorsed Hillary Clinton for president back in 2016.)

I honestly do not know what to think. I want to believe this is all a coincidence. (Alas, I am not that stupid.)

Normally, a trial means direct evidence. In spite of umpteen "I think this" and "I overheard this" statements (which even Judge Judy would throw out as opinions and hearsay), there was not one witness that directly said Trump did what the impeachment articles said he did. In fact, when directly asked if they had 'impeachable' evidence, not one witness acknowledged that they did.

Would you like to be on trial, based on evidence like this?

I am still puzzled by the case of Mr. Biden, who was caught bragging on videotape that, as Vice President, he threatened to withhold aid unless the prosecutor -- who was investigating his son's company, by the way -- was fired. And that's exactly what happened.

    (When  asked about this during the hearings, the Democratic counsel hedged, hawed, and finally offered a feeble 'Well, that was U.S. policy.' )

Why aren't people on Mr. Biden's case about this obvious intimidation? Isn't this pretty darn close -- or the same -- as what Trump is accused of doing? And where does Mr. Biden get the right to also announce (as he did) that the President should not be talking to other world leaders on the phone? (I'm not kidding -- he really said this.) Confusing.

Dislike someone, that's one thing. Dislike their policies, I understand that, as well. But impeach them, come up with anything you can find and change or substitute as needed, if the old reasons are no longer valid? Or make up new ones... just because you despise them?

 There were those who didn't like President Obama, either -- but they didn't spend every waking moment trying to get rid of him. (It has been interesting to hear the Trump administration taking heat for policies begun in the Obama administration -- especially regarding illegal immigrants.) On the other hand, I do NOT believe that either side comes to this fracas with clean hands.

Meanwhile, serious issues are being ignored, to focus on the impeachment. (Do you really think much else has been done, on either side?) And because Christmas is near, Congress is practically sprinting out for the holidays. Maybe they're hoping that the issue will go away while they're opening presents and drinking eggnog.  Maybe their constituents will forget all the drama and name-calling, while celebrating the season of the Savior's birth.

It won't. And they won't.

And we, as American citizens, will get to see critical issues buried or given quickie treatment, before congressmen descend to the Really Important Issue of the coming year:

Getting reelected.