Russian President Vladimir Putin buffooned the impeachment vote held by House Democrats in the U.S. during his annual press conference on Thursday night.
Putin accused the Democrats of attempting to “achieve outcomes through other means” after losing the 2016 election to Donald Trump, and derided the impeachment procedure as “simply the continuation of domestic political strife” in America.
Putin was reacting to a concern from reporters at his interview about the result of the impeachment vote on his relations with the Trump administration. Putin waved the matter aside as fairly irrelevant to Russia, but included the impeachment legend is not over yet.
” The Senate vote– where, as far as I know, the Republicans have the bulk– still lies ahead. They will barely want to oust an agent of their celebration from power for some trumped-up factors,” Putin stated.
” This is just the extension of the domestic political strife. The party, which lost the election, the Democratic Party, tried to achieve results through other methods, accusing Trump of conspiring with Russia. Later, it turned out that there had actually been no collusion, so this can not be the basis for impeachment. Now they are referring to supposed pressure on Ukraine,” he said.
” I don’t know what it is all about. Your members of Congress ought to understand better,” he concluded.
When It Comes To his own political future, Putin took the chance of his year-end interview to muse that Russia’s constitutional restriction versus serving more than 2 successive terms as president may have outlived its effectiveness.
” Your modest servant served two terms consecutively, then left his post, however with the constitutional right to go back to the post of president once again, since these two terms were not successive,” Putin noted, describing the period between 2008 and 2012 when he became prime minister. The presidency was assumed by Dmitry Medvedev, who took Prime Minister Putin’s recommendations on how to be president very seriously.
Putin declared Russia’s presidential term limit “problems a few of our political experts and public figures,” so “possibly it could be eliminated.”