FILE – In this June 22, 2016, file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gestures as she speaks during a rally in Raleigh, N.C. Republican Donald Trump will deliver a speech outlining his trade policies on June 28, a speech that is sure to underscore the stark differences between his approach and that of Clinton when it comes to handling the economy. Trump favors big tax cuts that mainly would help the rich. Clinton wants to boost taxes on high earners. Clinton wants to raise the minimum wage nationwide. Trump favors leaving it to the states (AP Photo/Chuck Burton)

 

 

She could be growing tomatoes.

She could be digging in the dirt, sporting her wide-brimmed straw hat.

She could be enjoying retirement, having lived in the White House and served in government.

Or she could be running for office again.

Or running a frozen banana stand.

Or anything else in the present, headed for the future.

But for some unknown and paralyzing reason, Hillary Clinton cannot let it go.

She can’t catch up to November 9th, 2016 — the day she awoke to a failed campaign.

She’s still somewhere — or, somewhen — on November 8th or before.

It’s been nearly three years.

But bitterness is a heck of a time machine.

And Hillary’s DeLorean-ensconced.

Hence, the former First Lady took to Twitter to offer something not only resentful but also ridiculous. 

She quoted civil rights attorney and Democratic Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan from 1974:

“If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder!”

Barbara was referring to the shenanigans of Richard Nixon.

Hillary was, of course, referring to the impeachment of her hus– I mean, Donald Trump.

So Trump’s offenses are so extreme that the founding document of our nation should be shredded if they don’t apply?

I have a suggestion: How about, instead, say something not completely absurd? Just an idea.

But let’s go with this.

Is impeachment reasonable?

As I covered previously, Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel say no:

The key question with Trump’s Ukraine call, though, is whether the president’s actions, advisable or not, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. It’s hard to argue they do. The president did not, as was first reported, offer a quid pro quo to the Ukrainians. He did not condition any U.S. support on a Biden investigation. The Justice Department has already looked at the totality of the call and determined that Trump did not break the law.

Additionally, though impeachment may be, for Hillary, a shot of the ol’ euphoria like a grand inhalation at the dentist’s, on the other side of the proceedings will lie something else shredded: the Democrats’ hope for 2020 success. For reasons stated here, here, here, and here.

And the failed 2016 candidate’s helping it right along.

She shoulda stuck with the tomatoes.

But she’s stuck far behind in the past. And she can’t ketchup.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, here, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

New Video Shows Male Track Runners Absolutely Blow Away A Woman At The World Athletic Championships

The BBC Releases A Lesson Plan For 9-Year-Olds: There Are More Than 100 Genders. Disagree And Go To Jail

Hillary Clinton: Trump’s ‘An Illegitimate President’ And ‘Obsessed With Me’

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.