Democrat Representative Al Green announced that the Democrats could not win in 2020 unless they impeached a very successful president – Donald Trump. For three years they have tried to achieve that goal, but for all the time and money spent on investigating the president, they have not come up with one crime, one wrongdoing or one law violation. Still they are set on impeaching him.
But why the new urgency to impeach? The answer is simple. Democrats are terrified of what Attorney General William Barr will discover in his investigations into the origins of the Mueller probe. They want to combat the pending findings by denigrating AG Barr and the report he will release. In fact, they have demanded he recuse himself from anything to do with Ukraine even though he hasn’t even talked to anyone from that country. Consequently the impeachment threat, including threats to do the same with Barr, are meant to counter and minimize the damage the Barr reports will disclose.
Off for two weeks, Pelosi has sent out her Democrats to – as she said – “educate” their constituents back home on why the president must be impeached.
The following is the account they should relate, but won’t.
Origin of the Impeachment Inquiry
The impeachment of a president should start with the full House authorizing the Judiciary Committee to open a formal impeachment inquiry. Knowing at the time that this step would fail, committee chairman Jerry Nadler initiated an impeachment inquiry on his own. He requested documents, subpoenaed witnesses and made court filings, all without a House vote.
Nadler launched his inquiry against the wishes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Years earlier Pelosi squashed Nadler’s attempt to impeach George W. Bush. Fittingly Nadler’s unilateral effort to impeach Trump fell flat and the hearings he held underscored the farcical nature of his inquiry. Nonetheless Pelosi felt increasing pressure from junior radical Democrats, which forced her to find another way to impeach the president. She turned to the man she wants to replace her as Speaker when the time comes – Adam Schiff.
Background on the Current Case
The “whistleblower” case involves a CIA agent who was detailed to the White House, but the document itself was obviously written by or with the guidance of a law firm with alleged ties to both Clinton and Biden. By the whistleblower’s own admission, he did not have first-hand knowledge of anything he reported and his claim is rife with misinformation. As shown below his accusation that Trump tried to “solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 U.S. presidential election is false. Further his alarm over the “unusual” handling of the call’s transcript is bogus as well. Phone calls of this nature ARE and obviously SHOULD BE placed in a secure, coded computer.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) who reviewed the case never saw the transcript of the actual conversation between the president and Ukraine’s leader and never interviewed the so-called “multiple sources” who allegedly provided the material to the whistleblower. The ICIG also noted that the whistleblower had liberal bias and backed one of the Democrat 2020 candidates. Despite all this, the inspector general called the case “credible and urgent.”
The ICIG does not have jurisdiction to put forth whistleblower claims involving the president. Yet he not only did that, but he surreptitiously changed the ground rules for intelligence whistleblowers. Before this incident, the ICIG did not accept such claims unless the whistleblower had first-hand knowledge of the incident in question.
However, in this unprecedented case involving the president of the United States, the ICIG miraculously revised the rule, allowing whistleblowers with second and even third-hand knowledge. So he put forward a whistleblower claim that was beyond his control and changed the ground rules to accommodate it. Think about this. Any intelligence bureaucrat on hearsay can now attack or undermine an American president. This establishes a very dangerous precedent and jeopardizes the very essence of foreign policy – conversations with foreign leaders.
Why did the ICIG make this change at this exact time? Did he collude with Adam Schiff who at Pelosi’s urging was trying desperately to find an impeachable offense against Trump? It appears so. As the ICIG was changing the rule, Schiff tweeted about President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and holding back funding for Ukraine because of its assistance to Trump for information on his political opponent. [See ICIG Whistleblower Complaint Form Recently Modified to Permit Complaint “Heard from Others.”]
Was the inspector general’s timing simply coincidental with Schiff’s remarks or was this a concerted, well coordinated operation between the Deep State and the House Intelligence committee? In weighing that possibility, consider also that 300 intelligence officers signed a letter favoring impeachment of the president. These officers, as well as the whistleblower, are alleged to be Obama holdovers and John Brennan operatives.
The relationship between Schiff, the ICIG, the whistleblower and the law firm needs to be investigated, but it is doubtful that anyone will do so.
Finally we must take a close look at Adam Schiff. He has a long history of lying. For example, in the hearing with the acting director of national security, Chairman Schiff began the session by giving a false account of the call’s transcript. (When later he was questioned about his statement, he said it was a “parody,” a joke in a very serious setting.)
Over the past three years, Schiff claimed 14 times that there was irrefutable evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. The two-year long Mueller probe found none. Schiff met with the phony Trump dossier author Christopher Steele but refuses to divulge details of his conversations. He was found to have omitted facts about committee business; made false statements about the committee itself; and gave false information about then committee chair Devin Nunes. [See Adam Schiff’s Version of Events Are Frequently False Or Missing Key Details.]
Are we to give credence to anything this man says or does?
Examining the Current Case for Impeaching the President
Where is the case for impeachment in all this? Speaker Pelosi announced the inquiry but as in the Nadler case a House vote was never taken. She did that intentionally to protect those Democrats who won in 2018 in districts that went to Trump in 2016.
As mentioned earlier, the second-hand whistleblower’s account accuses Trump of trying to “solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. As chairman Schiff observed in his “parody” of the phone call, the president requested that the Ukraine president find dirt on Joe Biden, Trump’s political adversary, and that the U.S. would withhold military assistance unless Ukraine did exactly that. Although false, this was the Democrat narrative before the call transcript was ever released but has persisted even after its release.
Let’s look at the portions of the actual transcript that are at the heart of the matter.
President Trump said the following:
“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”
And later in the phone call: “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”
Did Democrats bother to read the actual transcript? Apparently not, but their outrage rests on “Biden Dirt” and “Quid Pro Quo Extortion.” Let’s consider each of these accusations:
Biden Dirt and the “Take Care Clause”
In the actual transcript Trump asked the Ukraine president to look into: a) Ukraine involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election; b) the possible Biden extortion case involving the firing of an Ukraine prosecutor for $1 billion of American taxpayer money; and c) the Biden-Biden Jr.-Burisma situation. Since all three could be criminal in nature, the president, under the “take-care clause” of the Constitution, has an obligation to pursue and report this activity. As Gregg Jarrett puts it:
“The president is duty-bound under the take-care clause of the Constitution. If he knows of a potentially corrupt act by a vice president, trying to extort a foreign country to shut down a probe that involves his son, that’s bribery, that’s honest services fraud, and the president is duty-bound to ask that foreign country, investigate, produce the evidence, give it to us. If he doesn’t do it, it is a dereliction of his Constitutional duty.”
— Greg Jarrett
In using this whistleblower claim as the basis for impeachment, Democrats argue that Trump was only pursuing the Biden investigation to dig up dirt on a political opponent and such an action justifies impeachment. Given this criterion, if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, would she have been impeached for contracting the salacious and unverified Trump dossier using Ukrainian sources? Under the Democrat double standard, of course not.
Regarding Point (a) above, in December 2018 a Ukrainian court ruled that by releasing damaging information on Trump staffer Paul Manafort – at the insistence of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration – Kiev’s government intervened in the U.S. election unlawfully.
Regarding Point (b), Biden by his own admission engineered the removal of the Ukraine prosecutor who was investigating the company Burisma, which was paying large sums of money to Hunter Biden even though he had no Ukraine expertise.
Regarding Point (c), Hunter Biden received millions of dollars from Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings while his father, as vice president, directed nearly $2 billion in aid money to Ukraine.
Each of these activities has serious criminal implications and thus must be investigated. Attorney General Barr is investigating Point (a) and in doing so it is quite appropriate for him to explore the Ukraine connection, especially in light of the court ruling. Points (b) and (c) were uncovered over a year ago and have been largely ignored since then. The media has reported on this situation but the New York Times curtailed its investigation. The FBI, which also knew about the case, apparently has never bothered to explore it. Ironically if the whistleblower hadn’t materialized, the Biden cases would probably have been ignored indefinitely. Or is the whistleblower claim an attempt to “kill two birds with one stone:” impeach President Trump and ensure that Biden’s presidential bid is destroyed and a radical Democrat becomes the party’s 2020 nominee?
Did Trump Pressure Ukraine President Zelensky with a “Quid pro Quo”?
Democrats allege that the president threatened the new president of Ukraine to withhold military aid unless he investigated the three cases above (a, b and c). But the transcript reveals that Trump never mentioned military aid. On several occasions recently, the Ukraine president has said that Trump never applied such pressure. In fact, the Ukraine president didn’t know about the hold on military aid until weeks after the phone call.
Conversely, Joe Biden is not the only Democrat to threaten Ukraine with withholding funds. This past May Democrat senators Robert Menendez, Richard Durbin, and Patrick Leahy penned a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. [See: No Biggie. Dem Senators (and Biden) Threatened Ukraine Funding Over Trump Investigation]
Likewise earlier this month, Democrat senator Chris Murphy bragged that he had told Zelensky that U.S. aid would be jeopardized if the Ukraine president, at Rudy Giuliani’s request, investigated past corruption allegations involving Joe Biden and his family.
Thus in this classic case of “inversion politics” – a standard leftist tactic – Congressional Democrats have ignored their malfeasance and applied it to their opposition, in this case the president of the United States.
The Republican Opportunity…Or Will It be Lost?
Given the “desperate” impeachment inquiry which even the New York Times has titled the “Fantasy Impeachment,” the Republicans have a terrific opportunity to pounce on the flailing Democrats. Senator Lindsay Graham has said somebody should investigate this Ukraine-Biden issue. Yes, as head of the Senate Judiciary committee, he should. But when he was about to assume the chairmanship of the committee, he swore to reopen the Hillary Clinton case but never did. Odds are that he won’t pursue Biden either. Andy Biggs, the new head of the conservative caucus in the House, has said that the minority can call hearings of their own. Does he plan to rally his troops to do so. Doubtful as well, though he has introduced a resolution to censure Schiff for his parody version of the president’s phone call.
For the most part, Republicans are telling the president to tone it down and stop tweeting. Predictably they will let this impeachment inquiry move along unscathed and only bluster about it on FOX News. Why are Republicans like this? Because they either don’t want to fight or don’t know how.
Meanwhile knowing full well the ineptness of Republicans, Speaker Pelosi has boasted that if they cannot impeach the president with the current “whistleblower” case, they will find other routes to follow. This shows that between now and the 2020 election, Democrats will continue to fabricate anything they can to pull off a coup against the president while doing absolutely nothing to help him solve immigration problems, address health care issues, or fund much needed infrastructure projects. Impeachment talk is also having a negative impact on critical international issues where the United States holds much-needed leverage, but which is vitiated by little Congressional support. Democrats, though, don’t care a whit about what’s best for the country. They are solely hellbent on impeaching President Trump.