I wrote a comment at the New York Times about the stupidity of President Fucktard Trump.

Mr. Trump is not too bright so he probably didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Should we impeach a president because he's hard of thinking? No, of course not. In any case, the Democrats will fail because the Republicans will not cooperate.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

This is the New York Times editorial:

Opinion

Pelosi’s Bad Impeachment Call

The speaker’s haste may end up helping the president.

By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist

September 25, 2019

Once upon a time, prominent Democrats called for the impeachment of a powerful conservative officeholder, only to be embarrassed into silence when it turned out that the basis for their calls was arguable and incomplete, handing their Republican opponents a P.R. coup.

That conservative was Brett Kavanaugh, and the time was two weeks ago. How well did that work out for liberals?

Now prominent Democrats have begun an impeachment process against Donald Trump, based on information that, while potentially devastating, remains arguable and even more incomplete. They do so because they appear to be certain that the full set of facts will vindicate their belief that the president is manifestly guilty of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

But what if the facts don’t vindicate that belief?

That’s a thought that should have at least delayed Nancy Pelosi from announcing the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday afternoon, a few hours after Trump promised to release the unredacted transcript of a July phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

The call was one basis (though apparently not the only basis) for Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general, to tell a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee about a whistle-blower complaint on an “urgent matter,” without sharing the substance of the complaint. The complaint was bottled up by Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, on the grounds that it didn’t meet the statutory requirement for reporting to Congress.

Maguire, a retired Navy vice admiral, is scheduled to testify to Congress this Thursday morning, and Senate Republicans have joined Democrats in calling for the release of the whistle-blower complaint. Maybe Maguire’s testimony will be disastrous for the president. And maybe the whistle-blower complaint will be every bit as damningly dispositive about Trump’s conduct as his detractors expect.

But right now we have no way of knowing. As for the phone call, the document released on Wednesday shows that Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart to help “find out about” Joe Biden’s alleged role in stopping a “prosecution” of a company on whose board Hunter Biden served, which had already been widely reported and is rightly regarded as another Trumpian disgrace.

What it does not show, however, is Trump tying his request to the release of U.S. military aid in the manner of a quid pro quo. And the matter of the Bidens’ involvements in Ukraine has been public controversy for years, as when The Times’s editorial board scolded the senior Biden in December 2015 for his son’s profitable connection with a Ukrainian oligarch “under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine” for “corrupt practices.”

The upshot is that Democrats have fired a salvo — their largest and potentially their last — in the near-dark, in an uncertain hope that it will find its target.

There’s room for doubt. Barring the most sensational disclosures, impeachment in the House will never lead to conviction, unless at least 20 Republicans join Democrats to reach the required two-thirds majority in the Senate. That could still help Democrats, if a majority of Americans conclude that Trump is clearly guilty of serious crimes and that impeachment is the only viable recourse.

But that doesn’t seem to be happening — at least not yet. As of Wednesday, a Quinnipiac poll found that 57 percent of Americans oppose impeachment, against 37 percent who support it. That means that a significant bloc of voters who otherwise disapprove of Trump nonetheless oppose impeaching him. If this is the risk Pelosi wants to take with swing voters, Republicans will be happy to let her take it.

Those numbers could always change, depending on what we learn about the facts, as well as on how we understand the law. In a remarkable column in Politico Magazine, the former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti makes the case that even if Trump had offered an explicit quid pro quo to the Ukrainian president, it would not violate federal bribery statutes or any other existing criminal statute.

Mariotti nonetheless argues that what Trump is alleged to have done is so bad that it merits impeachment as a breach “of the president’s duty to not use the powers of the presidency to benefit himself,” in this case politically. Come again? That’s what presidents do all the time, only Trump does it more flagrantly.

A stronger argument is that no president should use the power of his office to try to dig up dirt on a political opponent — as, for instance, Lyndon Johnson did, abusively and persistently, to Barry Goldwater in 1964. That’s absolutely true.

But disgraceful behavior is not the same thing as criminal behavior. Democrats may now find themselves in the curious position trying to convince the country that Trump should be booted from the office to which he was lawfully elected for behavior that, whatever else might be said about it, was not unlawful. That will be a tough sell.

No wonder Trump seems to be spoiling for this fight. With an eye on Bill Clinton’s presidency, he may even relish a lengthy impeachment battle that uncovers no crime while showing that congressional Democrats are more intent on pursuing a vendetta against a president than helping the people they’re elected to serve.

I write all this as someone who thinks that Trump disgraces the office of the presidency every day he occupies it, and did so again with his call to the Ukrainian president. The best way to end this administration — and the only realistic way — is for him to be convincingly turned out by a vote of the American people next year. Impeachment risks putting that goal much further out of reach.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook