Will impeachment really help Trump?

By Frank Maguire

RUSH: So, I just checked the email during the break, and I got an interesting email from a listener, interestingly enough, out on the feces-strewn streets of San Francisco. It was, "Rush, you might be missing this. Isn't it true, Rush, that the president probably would benefit from being impeached?" Meaning: Wouldn't that revive and coalesce his base? "And isn't that why the Democrats haven't really done it, because they know that the public is opposed to it?" All the polling data shows the public is not in favor of impeachment, and additional polling data shows that most Americans want this investigation dropped and everybody just move on.

We had those polls yesterday. So the emailer said, "Could Barr be a secret weapon for Trump by this statement encouraging them to go ahead and impeach him?" Well, let's look at that. I guess it's strangely possible, I suppose, because one thing is happening now, and this is kind of... I have to tell you, it's interesting. The Democrats and their impeachment talk has all been (for the most part) behind closed doors. Pelosi's been trying to shelve it. She's been trying to tamp it down.

Whenever Pelosi starts speaking publicly about it, she tries to convince anybody that, "Naw, naw, that's just talk. We're not thinking of doing it." Now here comes Mueller, and he essentially says, "Look, my guidelines over here at the DOJ say I can't go ahead and charge this creep. You're gonna have to do it in Congress." That's basically what his message is. His message is, "The guidelines here says I can't do it. So the remedy for this kind of behavior by the president is Congress." He meant impeachment. So now what's happening?

Now you've got all these Democrats coming out from behind closed doors and behind the woodwork and they're openly demanding it now. Nadler, Fauxcahontas, Kamala Harris. It's added pressure on Pelosi to now do this, to go ahead and impeach Trump. Now, her instincts are not to do it, but this report... Nadler and these guys can't help themselves. But then you have to ask yourself a question: Impeach him for what? Mueller did not mention any crimes. All Mueller did was say, "We couldn't exonerate him," but Mueller didn't mention any crimes. There's certainly no crimes of collusion, and there's no stated crimes in obstruction. Now, the House can impeach for anything they want to try for. Don't misunderstand. But the objective here would be to get a conviction in the Senate, and you're gonna have to come up with something, and Mueller did not give them anything other than, "Sorry, we can't get him from here." You follow me on this? Am I making sense? Mueller essentially says to Pelosi, "Look, you want to get the guy; I want to get the guy. But I can't get him from here because I am hemmed in by rules. You gotta do it."

Nadler and Schiff and the rest of these yokels got the message. "Okay! We'll do it!" Now they're demanding it. Nadler's gonna have a press conference at 2 o'clock. These Democrats can't help themselves. They can't shut up. They're now talking about impeachment, and Pelosi may lose control of this. You're then brought back to: Okay, impeach him for what? "Well, we don't like the guy, and he might have colluded, and he might have obstructed, and he..."(laughing) But there's nothing in the report that's criminal. But, again, impeachment's political. So it doesn't matter in terms of starting this. The Democrats can impeach him for anything. Getting the conviction in the Senate is the key, and if you're not gonna get that, then you don't start the whole process. It's the whole thing about, "If you're gonna take a shot at the king, you better kill him."

© Frank Maguire