Trump supporters have coined the clever little term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” which is (according to Wikipedia) “a derogatory term for criticism of, or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump. . . used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of his actions, as a way of ‘reframing’ the discussion by suggesting his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving” the man.

Trump’s supporters would have you believe that the efforts to impeach Donald Trump are just a way of “relitigating” the 2016 elections, which liberals and progressives do not accept. ¹

But for those people who thought that Trump should be impeached early on in his Presidency, it was primarily because they could see from the get go that this guy is a grifter. He clearly — and this was obvious early on — had received illegitimate help from Russia, and he clearly had every intention of filling up the swamp with his family and cronies and enriching himself to the maximum extent possible. ²

You didn’t have to be a fortune teller to see that one coming.

While Obama had a scandal-free Presidency that did the country proud, this guy has been a walking indictment from before he took the oath of office. There is no comparison between the two men.

It doesn’t mean that those of us who have been opposed to him from the start have any kind of derangement syndrome. It just means that we had our eyes open, and could see the evidence from the beginning.

1. Of course, for Trump opponents there are good reasons not to accept the election, which include (1) that Russian interference could very well have swung the elections in the razor thin margins in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, (2) that former FBI Director Comey’s decision to reopen (and then close) the examination into Hillary Clinton’s emails days before the election could have shifted just enough votes to make the difference, and (3) the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million voters. Since one cannot prove which, if any of these things were determinative in the minds of voters, we will never know whether they actually made the difference.
2. Nothing in the Steele Dossier was ever disproved, including the existence of the infamous “pee tape.” But since most of the evidence, and especially the tape, would be in the hands of the Russians, there is no way to prove that the allegations are true. Failing to prove them doesn’t mean that they aren’t true. It just means that they will remain unproven unless or until the Russians choose to make the evidence available.