1. This is nothing  new.  Democrats have been looking for an excuse to impeach the President since Inauguration Day  when the  Washington Post reported on efforts to impeach  President Trump because he had turned his business over to his sons rather than selling all of his properties, a gargantuan operation.  Two liberal advocacy groups created ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org.  On March 21 of  that  year,  it was widely reported that Congresswoman Maxine Waters tweeted “Get ready for impeachment,” which Waters explained was in reference to the allegations of collusion with Russian interference in the election. When elected to the House, Rep. Rashida Tlaib cried, “We are going to  inpeach that m***er f***er!”

 But, after three years of  investigation Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team found no evidence of collusion between President Trump’s campaign  and the Russians.  What makes that conclusion more powerful is that the team of   investigators was  comprised solely of   Democrats,  the majority of whom had contributed to Democratic candidates during the 2016 election and one of whom served as Hillary  Clinton’s lawyer during her illegal e-mail  server investigation. Could a more biased group of individuals have been found? In  addition, it soon emerged that the  basis of  the Russian hoax was a comment about  Russians hacking the DNC server  which  had been fed to Carter Page, a member of  the Trump campaign by an FBI operative, all owing the  FBI to add that to  a dossier compiled by an ex British spy and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. 

In addition to the Russian Hoax, which cost America millions of dollars, there were a myriad of other attempts through the years which also failed. When nothing else seemed to  work, the “whistleblower” was brought in.

  • The  so-called “whistleblower” was deemed  by  the Intelligence  Community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson to  have some “arguable political  bias. . . in favor of a rival political candidate.”  It turns out the  “whistleblower” is a registered Democrat who works for or has professional ties to one of the Democratic presidential candidates.  
  • The “whistleblower” did not go directly to the inspector general with his complaint as he/she should have, but instead went to Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who immediately set him/her up with a lawyer to write up  the complaint in legalese and to  represent him/her. Then Schiff sat on  the  information for several months until he determined it was the best time to release it. A second “whistleblower” has suddenly also appeared (shades of the confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh) and is being represented by the same lawyer.
  • The “whistleblower” admits he/she has only second or third hand knowledge of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky of the Ukraine, although he/she insists that the President tried to blackmail the Ukrainian president into investigating Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son by threatening to withhold aid if Zelensky did not cooperate.
  • Schiff repeatedly told news organizations that he and his staff had had no contact with the “whistleblower” prior to the complaint becoming public.  That was proven to be a lie (similar to his lies about having “seen the proof” that President Trump had colluded with Russia to steal the election: Proof that did not exist).
  • Based upon news of the “whistleblower” complaint, Nancy Pelosi declared an “Impeachment Inquiry.”  At this point she had not read the complaint, nor had she or any other Democrat read the transcript of the telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky. An “Impeachment Inquiry” is not, by House rules and precedent set  during the Nixon  and Clinton years, an “Impeachment.” An Impeachment cannot be begun without a majority  vote of all members of the House.  No vote was taken and  the odd terminology was  used because Pelosi wanted to appease the rabid impeachment wing of her party without endangering at this point the reelection prospects of Democratic  members from Trump-supporting  states who had promised they would not impeach the president if they were elected.
  • A group of Democratic senators who had visited the Ukraine, suddenly remembered how upset and confused President Zelensky had been about President Trump’s ultimatum.  Strangely, upon their return from the Ukraine, the senators gave a press conference in which no mention was made of the blackmail attempt nor of President Zelensky’s upsetedness.  When the video of their former press conference was released again, the senators suddenly  walked back their comments.
  • The phone call in question was made in July of this year.  It was not until a month later  that the President decided to withhold funding, hoping, as he had done in other  cases, to convince other NATO members to kick in some money so that the U.S. did not have to share the burden alone.  The funds were eventually  released at the urging of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle and as no assistance from other countries appeared to be forthcoming.
  • At the  start of this  so-called inquiry, Rep.  Adam  Schiff read  into the Congressional  Record, a record that is  kept for  all time  of  what goes  on  in  Congress,  what he suggested  was the transcript  of President  Trump’s phone call  with  President Zelensky. In what he read,  the President blatantly threatens President Zelensky.  Except that what Schiff read was  a total fabrication,  another hoax, a complete lie.  After members  of both sides of the aisle rebuked him  for  it, he  shrugged it  away as  “a  parody.”  One doesn’t joke about removing a  legally elected president from  office,  unless of course, you  are Adam  Schiff who lies constantly.
  1. Then  President Trump  threw  a spanner  into their works by releasing to the public the transcript of the  call between himself and Ukrainian president Zelensky.  Now everyone  could read for themselves what had been said  (if, of  course, they read  a news site which actually published the entire  transcript!)
  1. During the phone call, Trump’s favor which he asked of Zelensky, was help in getting the DNC Server  which may be in the Ukraine. A co-founder of CrowdStrike, the company  that examined the server (the  FBI never laid eyes on it much  less were  able to turn their own cyber-security team loose on it) is  either a Ukrainian  or a Russian, depending on whether you read  a conservative or liberal website.   Since the Ukraine was a part of Russia (the USSR) until  around  1991, even a Ukrainian could be rightly called a Russian.  Dmitri Alperovitch, the Ukrainian/Russian  in question, also belongs to a group which is funded in  part by a Ukrainian oligarch who has also  contributed to the Clinton Foundation.  Thus there  exists some reason for  President  Trump to ask Zelensky to look  into the affair.   In addition, the Clinton campaign  got  other assistance from the  Ukraine  during  the 2016 election, something  else that President Trump was interested in since his administration  is attempting to eliminate foreign  interference  in future elections.
  1. 540 words later in  the conversation  the Bidens come up.   There  is no, absolutely no mention of funding  for the Ukraine or its  being withheld anywhere in  the telephone call’s transcript.
  1. Joe  Biden, on  the other hand, has bragged on video tape about having  threatened  the Ukrainian government  that if  they  didn’t  fire a prosecutor  within  the  six hours  before  his plane  was  scheduled to leave the Ukraine  (President Obama had named him point man  for the Ukraine), Biden would have seen to it that  1 billion  dollars in aid from the U.S. was withheld.  The prosecutor was fired.  The  official reason for the firing is that the  prosecutor was corrupt (corruption  has  been a  problem  for  the Ukraine since their independence from  Russia), but  that  motive becomes questionable  when you  know that  Joe  Biden’s son, Hunter  Biden, who had no previous  connection to the Ukraine, didn’t speak Ukrainian,  and had  no background  in energy as he had spent much of his college life in a Cocaine haze,  had been  given  a seat on the  board of a Ukrainian energy company at a  salary of $50,000  per month.  That company  was under investigation for fraud by  the  prosecutor that  Joe  Biden  made sure  was fired.  
  1. The so-called “Impeachment Inquiry” is not  being held according to protocol or  House  Rules.  Pelosi claims to  have changed the rules,  but that, too, must be  done  with a vote  of the complete  House which did  not happen.   Witnesses are being  called to appear before  Adam  Schiff’s Oversight Committee,  which should  not  be the committee to oversee whether  the  President  has somehow committed a foreign   affairs faux pas.
  1. The inquiry  is  being  held behind  closed doors  in  a special chamber  that blocks  any recording devices.  Nothing is  being  made  public except what Schiff chooses to release to the press,  and so far, his press releases have been twisted excerpts that have said exactly the opposite of what the witnesses have testified to.
  1. During an impeachment hearing, everything is  supposed to be held in the open.  This is serious business that affects the entire country.  A group of congressmen are determining whether or not to nullify the votes of millions of Americans.  That should not be done in secret!   I am old enough to  remember the summer  before President Nixon’s resignation when no television channel carried anything all day long except the questioning of witnesses.  As in any trial, the President’s Counsel  should  be in  the House  to  present  a defense (Read  the transcript!   There is no  quid pro quo there!).   Republicans  as well as Democrats should have subpoena power to  call witnesses and to cross  examine  them.  None of that  is being allowed.  This is not an  attempt to arrive at the truth (which they  have  all obviously read by now!).  It is  simply an attempt  to remove  President Trump from  office or  badly damage him in  the  eyes of  his  supporters since,  as Rep. Al Green  stated, “If we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”
  1. Even some Republicans have suggested that the President shouldn’t have been asking favors of the Ukraine, even  without a quid pro quo (do this or else!).  However, Tucker Carlson has already  found two example  of Democrats doing just that:  

In 2000, President Bill Clinton asked British Prime Minister Tony Blair to intervene in a dispute between British Airways and two American carriers.  Clinton  explained  to Blair, ”In a political season, it would be big over here to get this  open sore resolved.   If  you could have somebody take  a look at it.”  Tony Blair agreed to do so.

In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said ““I’ve met foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, ‘you’ve got to win this, you’ve got to beat this guy, we need a new policy.’ Things like that.”  He then refused to give more details because he said it is absolutely necessary for leadership to keep conversations with foreign heads of state confidential!  (Irony?)

  1. As far as accusations that President Trump was asking  a foreign country to meddle in our elections, the transcript proves that he was not.  He was seeking to discover the depth of foreign meddling in the 2016 election and accepting information on  the  possible abuse of office by Joe Biden.  As Democrats have reminded us repeatedly, “No one  is above the law.”  Not even potential presidential candidates.  That the Obama administration, his FBI, and his DOJ  were willing to give Hillary Clinton a pass is simply because Obama knew she would continue his “legacy” whereas Donald  Trump probably would not.  In addition,  if asking  another country for dirt on a political  rival is against  the  law, what about Hillary Clinton, who asked the Ukraine for dirt on Donald Trump and then  hired the British ex spy to collect  dirt (true or not  didn’t matter) from Russians and compile  it into a dossier, as if it had been collected over time of watching Trump’s interactions with Putin’s Russia.  What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. . . unless the goose is a Republican and the gander is a Democrat!
  1. President Trump has rightly refused to cooperate with these sham proceedings and has appointed former prosecutor and form Representative Trey Gowdy to join his legal team to defend him.  He, the President, has much more important things to worry about and so do we. If the House concludes this sham impeachment and sends it to the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said it will be dealt with swiftly. And with a majority of Republicans, enraged by the handling of this shoddy affair, the President will never be found guilty.  Already some Democrats who might have voted for Joe Biden had he won the nomination (unlikely, given his gaffes, his confusion, and his bragging about abuse of power), have switched their votes to President Trump in disgust.  Have the Democrats at last overplayed their hand?