Impeachment!

We have finally arrived at the Democrat's long sought after goal of impeaching President Trump. This goal began with his 2016 election, with talk of impeachment beginning even before Trump won the election. We have a so-called "whistle blower" represented by attorney Mark Zaid. Mr. Zaid, in turn, Tweeted this on 1/30/17, a mere 10 days after Trump was sworn in: "# coup has started. First of many steps. # rebellion. # impeachment will follow ultimately. # lawyers." In 7/17 Zaid said this: "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @real Donald Trump not finishing out his full term as president." I am confident that it was strictly coincidental that Zaid ended up representing this "whistle blower," and that CNN has had almost non-stop anti-Trump coverage. Sure I am.

The Democrats and the mainstream media so hated Trump, that this blog had already devoted a full post to the subject less than two months into the Trump Presidency. In the 3/12/17 post, "The Deposing of an American President," we saw Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, discussing what sounded like the need for violent demonstrations in the street. We saw a former DOD employee discussing the possible need for a military coup! Most of the dislike for Trump so early in his term had to do with the fact that the Dems/media could not accept that he defeated Hillary. After all, she was a shoo-in. The only issue for them was Trump himself. They did not like him, his personality, his ego, his name calling and so on.

To illustrate the point, I had an interesting discussion with someone who told me that Trump was an egotist and a narcissist. I agreed; and then I asked if he felt the same way about Obama. He did not. I pointed out that I was struck by how often Obama said "I" (as in "I did" or "I instructed") during one of his speeches. I decided to compare it with one of Bush's speeches. Throughout Bush's speech were many "we's" and "they's (as in "we decided" or "they/the army/the troops" were able to...). I pointed out to this individual that he never noticed it because Obama seemed "nicer" to him, and he liked Obama. As such, he was less critical of Obama's words and deeds. One could easily conclude from the way Obama spoke (with all his "I's") that he personally killed Osama bin Ladin. But, as we know, perception is reality for some.

How interesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, in charge of these proceedings. I assume she was not overly impressed with the Mueller hearings (a dud for the Democrats) run by Jerry Nadler, chair of the Judiciary Committee. And, unlike the Nixon and Clinton proceedings, the minority party (Republicans) may only call witnesses with Schiff's approval. I trust we will not be able to hear from Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. The measure authorizing the impeachment proceeding was only brought to a vote after the House investigation had begun. It resulted in a strictly partisan measure, with no Republicans voting in favor, with two Democrats even opposing the measure. Schiff is the one who told us that there is "plenty of evidence of collusion" before Mueller determined that there was not.

Did you notice that the Democrats switched their talking points from "quid pro quo" to "bribery?" The poll numbers were not moving sufficiently in favor of impeachment for "quid pro quo." So they held a focus group of voters and found that "bribery" was far more likely to get people's attentions. What was the "quid pro quo?" That Trump held back aid from our "vital ally," Ukraine, until the Ukranian president would publicly agree to look into Ukranian influence in the 2016 election, which would include the role of the Bidens. The charge is that Trump used his office for personal political interests, seeking to hurt Democratic front runner Joe Biden. A couple of things. I believe a number of presidents have been accused of using the power of their office for political gain, such as when a president is alleged to have started a military operation to either bolster sagging poll numbers or to distract from domestic problems or scandals.

Another thing I noticed is that Ukraine almost overnight became a vital ally to the US. Did that happen when the two witnesses testified on Wednesday? The testimony was given by two State Department employees - George Kent (Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs) and William Taylor (the US charge d'affaires in Ukraine). On Friday, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified. I was able to catch some of their testimony. I was struck by the fact that much of the discussion seemed to be about policy. Ukraine is apparently a vital ally, presumably in the battle against Russia; and contending with a hostile Russia is the basis for much of our foreign policy.

Just today, on Face the Nation, Speaker Pelosi claimed that Trump's foreign policy is geared towards helping Russia. Clearly, she has not given up on "Russian collusion." So, why did Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, present the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, with a red "reset" button, meant to symbolize Obama's effort to reset relations with Russia. And, let's not forget to mention Obama's message to Putin that he would have more flexibility after his re-election. Putin rightly took it as a sign of weakness by Obama, and seized the Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine as well. Did Obama send offensive weapons to Ukraine to help fight the Russians? No, Trump did that. Obama did not want to offend the Russians. And Obama followed the lead of France and Germany, who opposed supplying arms to the Ukranians.

Here are a few things we are being asked to believe. Chairman Schiff does not know the identity of the "whistle blower," who met with members of Schiff's staff, assuming he did not meet directly with Schiff. My guess is he did, but if he did not, Schiff's staff kept the name a secret - even from their boss. The State Department employees have no bias and are career civil servants just doing their jobs. Would that be like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were just FBI employees doing their job with no bias against Trump? (Recall their text messages calling Trump "awful" and a "disaster" - and those were the nicer messages. Other messages concerned what these FBI employees would need to do in the unlikely event Trump won the election.) Like Andrew McCabe and James Comey were just doing their jobs? The Hill reported in October, 2016, that $1,959,467 was donated by the end of September, 2016, to the two campaigns by federal employees across 14 different departments. Nearly 95% of those donations went to Hillary Clinton. And for the State Department employees? Over 99% of the donations went to Clinton. Can you say "deep state?"

We are also asked to believe that Obama denying necessary military aid to Ukraine in order to fight the Russians was no big deal. But Trump holding up such aid for a short period of time is a catastrophe, jeopardizing our national security, and a sign that Trump works for the Russians. And, we are not allowed to know about any Ukranian efforts to affect the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton, because that might suggest Trump had a legitimate reason to ask the Ukranians to look into the 2016 election and any "collusion" with the Obama/Biden/Clinton team.

Lastly, we are asked to believe that this impeachment hearing is all about protecting the Constitution. See the 10/6/19 post regarding that nonsense. No, Democrat Congressman Al Green told us what this is really all about. Green said he was "concerned if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Because the Democrats do not respect the process. They could not believe the American people elected Donald Trump to be President. And they cannot take the chance that the people (aka the "deplorables") will re-elect him. I still see articles suggesting that if Trump loses in 2020 he will not accept the results and will have to be forcefully removed from the White House. Who cannot accept what?