Adam Schiff, CNN fake news, George Kent, Hunter biden, impeachment circus, Jim Jordan, joe biden, John Ratcliffe, President Trump, whistleblower, William Taylor
I last wrote on the continuing Trump Derangement Syndrome/never-ending coup attempt saga on October 22, 2019. I haven’t been able to muster the heart to do it again until now. The entire affair is such an malodorous farce we’ve devolved to the point that Normal Americans outside the Beltway and D/S/C media propaganda arm newsrooms could not care less. Considering we’re dealing with issues of enormous constitutional import, issues which will determine whether we are ever able to pull back from the brink of what increasingly seems a looming civil war, that’s hardly a good sign, understandable as it is, but onward. I ended that last article, Trump: It’s Different When Democrats Do It 7, thus:
D/S/C antipathy toward Mr. Trump is all about honor and unlimited love for the Constitution, the rule of law, America and Americans. Right.
As I’m sure everyone knows, the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by the lunatic liar Adam Schiff, opened its public circus impeachment hearings on Wednesday, 11-13-19. It was not a good day for D/S/Cs, even though they opened with what they billed their most important and damaging witnesses: State Department functionaries William Taylor and George Kent. Despite rules designed to prevent Republicans from exposing anything resembling fact, it quickly became clear neither Taylor nor Kent had any first hand knowledge about pretty much anything. In fact, what little knowledge they did have actually tended to exonerate President Trump, as PJ Media reports:
During the first day of public impeachment hearings, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor whether there was any ‘linkage’ of security assistance dollars to investigating Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian company where Joe Biden’s son Hunter served on the board despite not having any experience in the industry. Taylor testified that he met three times with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and that there was ‘no linkage’ of these issues in any of those meetings.
Note gentle readers, one of the two D/S/C’s supposedly most damning witnesses, the people whose testimony was going to be the usual media “bombshell” admitted there was no quid pro quo.
The Democrats have centered their impeachment inquiry on the claim of a quid pro quo: that President Donald Trump withheld security assistance funding from Ukraine in order to convince Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Bidens. This testimony should severely damage their attacks on Trump.
You know you’re in trouble when even CNN is poking major holes in your case, as Legal Insurrection explains:
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin admitted that the witnesses in today’s impeachment hearing not having contact with President Donald Trump could cause problems for the Democrats.
William Taylor, America’s top diplomat to Ukraine, and State Department official George Kent provided testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
However, the Republicans on the committee ‘specifically questioned’ the two men ‘about their previous testimony which relied heavily on second- and third-hand knowledge.’
[That call is] important, because the one criticism of these two witnesses, which I think is very much legitimate, it’s not really a criticism, it’s just a factual statement is that neither of them had direct contact with the president. Ever, and that’s a problem if you’re going to impeach the president,’ he added.
No first hand knowledge, no actual evidence, a clown show proceeding, secret testimony, no right to confront witnesses, coached witnesses, Republicans prevented from asking pertinent questions, due process in general denied, I guess that could be thought to be something of a problem. And the problem got even worse, as Fox News reports:
[TX Rep. John] Ratcliffe had asked top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor about whether Zelensky was aware of any hold on military aid when the July 25 call discussing those probes took place, and Taylor confirmed that he was not. Ratcliffe asserted that this was proof that Trump could not have used the call to pressure Zelensky into investigating the Bidens. Ratcliffe also noted that Trump eventually released the aid without any investigation taking place.
This is the central issue: was there an improper quid pro quo for the release of military aid to Ukraine? D/S/Cs know there was not, and they believe the American public is too stupid to understand one of the most commonly known Latin phrases meaning “a thing for a thing,” so they’re not saying “quid pro quo” anymore, instead, accusing President Trump of extortion and bribery. Since the Ukrainians had no idea military aid was being temporarily withheld, there can be no quid pro quo. Only an idiot—or a D/S/C—could imagine extortion or bribery was involved in a routine foreign policy exchange.
You have to ask yourself, ‘What did President Zelensky actually do to get the aid?’ The answer is nothing,’ Ratcliffe said. ‘He did nothing. He didn’t open any investigations, he didn’t call Attorney General Bill Barr, he didn’t do any of the things that House Democrats say that he was being forced, and coerced, and threatened to do. He didn’t do anything because he didn’t have to.’
Here’s where Ratcliffe went in for the kill:
At the conclusion of his time, Ratcliffe asked Taylor and State Department official George Kent if they could name any impeachable offense that took place in the July 25 phone call:
‘In this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where was the impeachable offense in that call? Are either of you here today to assert that there was an impeachable offense in that call? Shout it out. Anyone?’
And there, for rational people, was heard the sound of the entire D/S/C case circling the toilet bowl. But why did Mr. Trump temporarily withhold military aid, aid President Obama entirely denied Ukraine even while Russians were seizing and occupying Ukrainian territory? PJ Media provides Rep. Jim Jordan’s cogent explanation:
There was a delay on sending hard-earned tax dollars of the American people to Ukraine,’ Jordan admitted. ‘We’re not talking any country, we’re talking Ukraine. Ernst & Young said one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. … So our president said, ‘Time out. Time out, let’s check out this new guy. Let’s see if Zelensky’s the real deal. This new guy who got elected in April, whose party took power in July. Let’s see if he’s legitimate.’
Jordan continued, ‘Now, keep in mind, in 2018 President Trump had already done more for Ukraine than Obama did. That’s right, President Trump — who doesn’t like foreign aid, who wanted European countries to do more, who knew how corrupt Ukraine was — did more than Obama because he gave them Javelins, tank-busting Javelins to fight the Russians. Our witnesses have said this, others have said this: ‘Obama gave them blankets, Trump gave them missiles.’ But when it came time to check out this new guy, President Trump said, ‘Let’s just see, let’s just see if he’s legit.’
‘So for 55 days, we checked him out. President Zelensky had five interactions with senior U.S. officials in that timeframe. One was, of course, the phone call, the July 25 phone call,’ the congressman explained. ‘And there were four other face-to-face meetings with other senior U.S. officials. And guess what, in not one of those interactions — not one — were security assistance dollars linked to investigating Burisma or Biden.’
So what happened during those 55 days? ‘U.S. senators, Ambassador [John] Bolton, Vice President Pence, all became convinced that Zelensky was, in fact, worth the risk. He was, in fact, legit and the real deal and a real change. And guess what? They told the president, ‘He’s a reformer, release the money.’ And that’s exactly what President Trump did.
Jordan solidified these points:
Whatever the Democrats say, the congressman insisted on four key facts that they cannot deny: “The call shows no linkage between dollars and the investigation into Burisma or the Bidens; President Trump and President Zelensky have both said on the call there was no linkage, there was no pressure, there was no pushing; Ukrainians didn’t even know the aid was withheld at the time of the phone call; and most importantly as has been pointed out, Ukrainians didn’t take any specific action relative to investigations to get the money released.
This too, is important:
We will never get the chance to see the whistleblower raise his right hand,’ he said. ‘This anonymous so-called whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge, who is biased against the president, who worked with Joe Biden, who is the reason we’re all sitting here today, we’ll never get a chance to question that individual.’
We won’t because D/S/Cs know the whistleblower isn’t a whistleblower under the law. He has no first hand knowledge, and the transcript of the call between Mr. Trump and the Ukrainian President showed his allegations were false. That, and Adam Schiff and his staff coached him and procured his complaint. Schiff is denying knowing the man’s name. Right. Schiff’s staff coordinated this phase of the coup attempt with him, and Schiff said: “don’t tell me his name. Don’t tell me anything about him or what you’re doing. That would be wrong.” If you buy that, have I mentioned I’m a Nigerian prince in exile, and if you’ll give me your back account numbers, I’ll deposit millions? We also won’t hear from him because he would have to reveal everyone he conspired with and what he told them and vice versa. That, or take the 5th, which even for D/S/Cs would look bad.
Charlie Martin at PJ Media is predicting the House won’t impeach Mr. Trump. His argument deserves your time, gentle readers. When the testimony amounts to someone heard something from someone who heard something from someone who made up something and they think that means something, the few rational Democrats in the House, particularly the 31 in districts that voted for President Trump in 2016, have to be very, very worried.
We end with this telling Tweet, which strongly suggests the D/S/Cs have cut their own electoral throats. Go to Fox News to read the brief, related story.
Christia Bernell said:
Prezei este website. o conteúdo é suficientemente benéfico. Vou reaparecer outra hora.