Ann Coulter has a pretty good handle on Russiagate and now the Ukraine controversy. From Coulter at anncoulter.com:
This column will explain the impeachment farce in two minutes. By the end, you will thank the media for demanding the release of Trump’s phone calls with the leaders of Ukraine and Australia.
What the phone transcripts demonstrate is that — unlike the typical Republican — Trump is not a let-bygones-be-bygones sort. He intends to find out who turned the FBI into a Hillary super PAC, using the powers of the nation’s “premiere law enforcement agency” (according to them) to take out a presidential candidate, and then a president.
The whole picture becomes clear when you have the timeline.
Instead of the FBI just admitting that it launched the Russia probe to help elect Hillary, the agency has given us a scrolling series of excuses for this partisan attack.
Posted in Crime, Cronyism, Government, Intelligence, Investigations, Law, Media, Politics
Tagged Crowdstrike, FBI, Russiagate, Trump Dossier, Ukraine, Whistleblower
Why does it matter who President Trump asked Ukraine’s president to investigate? An American politician may have used his influence to have the former president of Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that had put that politician’s son on the board of directors and paid him $50,000 a month, although the son had no experience in the relevant industry or in Ukraine. That may be a crime—certainly no one would suggest that there isn’t at least the appearance that the company may have been trying to buy influence with the politician—and as the head of the executive branch, it is Trump’s responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed and possible crimes are investigated. If he had made the request to investigate just a “regular” American politician who wasn’t vice president at the time and a political rival of Trump, nobody would have batted an eye. Does Joe Biden and his son get free passes, and if so, why? From Peter Van Buren at theamericanconservative.com:
This isn’t about the law; it’s about circumventing another vote by the deplorables in 2020.
Disregard all the dramatic accusations in and around the whistleblower’s complaint; they’re just guff. This entire impeachment brouhaha hinges on Donald Trump’s own words in the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president. Is he demanding foreign interference in the 2020 election? Or is he asking an ally to run down unethical actions by a man who might become president (here’s a 2018 letterfrom the Dems asking Ukraine to help them investigate Trump to compare it to)? Or is it mostly just Trump running his mouth off in a rambling, often disconnected, stream-of-consciousness phone call that means very little?
If you read Trump’s words as impeachable, you are asking to impeach on something that was talked about but never happened. Ukraine never handed over dirt on Biden. Trump never even asked Attorney General Bob Barr to contact Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani may or may not have had meetings with someone but no one is claiming that anything of substance happened in them. There is no evidence military aid was withheld in return for anything. If nothing happened, then nothing happened. You need a body on the ground for a smoking gun to matter.
The latest impeachment drive is about getting Trump out of office without having to go through the bother of beating him in an election. From Robert Ringer at robertringer.com:
Moronic Al Green, Democrat representative from Texas’ 9th congressional district, handed President Trump a huge win when he openly and foolishly stated that he’s “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.” Thanks, Al. You just confirmed what I’ve been saying since Donald Trump took office, namely, that Democrats (and some Republicans!) realize that they can’t stop voters from reelecting Trump, so they’re hellbent on thwarting the will of the people by some other means.
It would be downright embarrassing were it not for the fact that Democrats are beyond embarrassment. Think about it: If you were a member of Congress, and if you sincerely believed it was your job to carry out the will of the people (lol), why would you want to impeach someone whom you yourself believe voters will reelect in thirteen months?
The reason, obviously, is that pro-impeachment cretins want to make a statement that they don’t give a damn what voters want. After all, the sole purpose of an impeachment is to undo the results of a previous election.
Ask the title question of rabid anti-Trumpers and watch them sputter. From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:
I confess that I still don’t get what exactly is going to be the particular offense for which President Trump is going to be impeached.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of impeaching Trump and removing him from office, but only for grave crimes, such as waging war illegally (i.e., without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war), wreaking death, suffering, and destruction in those wars, committing countless assassinations, and violating provisions in the Bill of Rights with respect to indefinite detention, torture, denial of speedy trial, and denial of due process of law.
But impeaching Trump for a telephone conversation? To me, that has the feel of desperation attached to it, a desperation born out of an increasing realization that none of the Democratic presidential candidates is capable of defeating Trump in an election. Trump’s impeachment seems like it might be the political equivalent of a Hail Mary pass in football — almost impossible to complete but would at least give the Democrats a long-shot, short-cut way to the presidency.
There are three possible offenses that would form the basis of an impeachment. Let’s examine and analyze each one.
This made up scandal is going to hurt the Democrats even worse than the last one (Russiagate), if only because each successive one gets people more pissed off. From Brian Cates at theepochtimes.com:
Because their strategy to remove Trump from office by getting a Special Counsel appointed to find evidence to use for impeachment so utterly failed, Democrats frantically searched for the past several months trying to find something that could replace it.
It now seems Democrats think they have at last found a real scandal they can use to move forward with impeachment hearings in the House.
The new fake Trump scandal rolled out last weekend by the Democrats involves a phone call held on July 25 between President Trump and the newly installed President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.
The Democrats want to impeach Trump for upholding his oath of office, trying to faithfully execute the laws against what appears to be Biden and son corruption. From the Raconteur Report via theburningplatform.com:
…you hear that Speaker Alzheimers and her Clowncarnucopia Of Fail Clowns have decided to go ahead with impeachment inquiries, a year out from the 2020 elections:
Just so we’re clear here:
Then-Veep Biden, in a flagrant display of nepotism and outright corruption while in office, extorted Ukraine into firing their prosecutor, when said prosecutor was investigating shenanigans by the company on which his son, Hunter Biden, fresh from being kicked out of the Naval Reserve for being a dope fiend, sat on the board of directors, and was then collecting a salary of $50,000 a week. Doubtless for his sterlilng business acumen, and not at all because he was the ne’er-do-well son of the sitting VPOTUS.
(And I have a bridge for sale cheap if you believe that one…)
Biden has admitted he did exactly this, and no one’s whispering a word about investigating that, charging or prosecuting him for it, or anyone pulling Gropey Dopey Joe aside, and suggesting he take a gun and one bullet, and go seclude himself and do the honorable thing, for the Dumbocrat Party and the country’s sake.