I know, I know. That's different. Because reasons.
But face it, there is more evidence for Obama rather than Trump being a toady of Putin.
Say, how about this Putin endorsement of Obama after trading Russian "space" for Obama "flexibility" (quoting an article)?
Putin turned to the issue of missile defense and declared that if Mitt Romney became president, "the (U.S. and NATO) missile defense system will definitely be directed against Russia."
Putin then slipped in a plug for President Barack Obama's re-election, saying that "in principle" he and Obama could resolve U.S.-Russian missile defense (MD) disagreements. However, he opined that American militarists and "State Department" conservatives would limit Obama's ability to strike a deal.
Wait. What? State Department "conservatives?" Who knew?
Seriously, how many of Obama's policies, both in domestic and foreign areas, were adopted in pursuit of his Holy "Legacy" rather than for the good of America?*
"Obama did not just want to be president. His mission was to leave a legacy as a president of consequence, the liberal counter to Reagan."
And how many of our presidents could pass the new standard?
It never even occurred to me that Obama should be impeached for that outrageous bargain. It was a political question in my mind. And so is the issue of Trump's phone call to the new Ukrainian president.
God help us if the Senate adopts the standard that the House Democrats have proposed. How will we conduct foreign policy at all?
UPDATE: *That is, rather than adopted only for the good of America (as Obama perceived it, whether right or wrong).
