Well, you’ve all read the reports about these Trump impeachment hearings. It was boring. It was yet another example of political desperation by Democrats. And there was nothing, nothing that can be used as direct evidence for a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
It all stems from the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower, who is reportedly a CIA agent, a registered Democrat, and an individual who had worked with a 2020 Democratic candidate. This person had contacted Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) staff prior to formally filing this complaint that has engulfed the capital in impeachment fever.
The Democrats tried to get Trump on Russian collusion. They couldn’t. Public hearings on that first impeachment attempt torpedoed their narrative, so they took this whole Ukraine process into the bunker, refusing the release all the documents related to the hours of testimony that was taken from their so-called witnesses, and only giving Republicans summaries that could only be read with Democratic staffers present. Now, it’s all out in the open—sort of—after the House vote, but even CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin noted a glaring issue with this impeachment hearing:
CNN’s Toobin: neither witness “had direct contact with the president…that’s a problem”https://t.co/fjNz4cr00Z pic.twitter.com/zKW239luNF
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 13, 2019
During questioning from lawmakers, both Taylor and Kent admitted neither one of them had spoken to President Trump about Ukraine. They had only heard things second or third hand from other people and weren't "familiar with his thinking."
According to CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin, a staunch critic of the Trump administration, this poses a problem for Democrats banking on testimony to justify impeachment.
And here we go... NY Post cover for Wednesday: pic.twitter.com/XyflFWYlWQ
— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) November 13, 2019
Tomorrow's cover... https://t.co/hCNXeJ4WB5 pic.twitter.com/9bZ3dZfH6G
— New York Post (@nypost) November 13, 2019
It’s a kangaroo court and Democrats are trying to convict the president based on trash accusations supported by evidence that simply does not exist. We’re impeaching a president over a phone call he had with the Ukrainian president back in July. The New York Post’s cover for these clown hearings was spot on concerning Schiff’s antics. Michael Goodwin’s complementary column also took a shotgun to the Democrats’ quid pro quo allegation:
While Schiff and his fellow travelers loudly declare Trump guilty, they’ve yet to settle on a charge that makes sense to the many millions of Americans who live outside a political hothouse.
Take the talking point that the president engaged in an improper quid pro quo by promising arms to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation of Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s $50,000-a-month cushy gig there. It has everything on its side except a clear set of facts.
Ukraine got the arms — arms Barack Obama refused to give — but Trump never got the Biden investigation or one into what role Ukraine played in 2016.
Either the master of “The Art of the Deal” got snookered or there was no deal in the first place. And if there was no deal, was the phone call with Ukraine’s president really improper? Was the temporary hold on the arms really a crime?
Indeed, the worst possible interpretation of the call still lacks the gravitas to bring down a president less than a year before an election. If you don’t hate Trump beyond all measure, watching the left’s outrage over this is like watching a TV program in a foreign language you don’t understand. You can pick up an occasional word, but ultimately, the whole thing is baffling.
The one sure thing is that deplorables and bitter clingers understand that the death penalty is not a fair sentence for jaywalking. Democrats who defended Bill Clinton’s perjury and sex in the Oval Office with an intern certainly should be able to relate.
This clown show continues Friday.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member