How Dumb Do They Think We Are?
By: Yaakov Menken
Democrats really do think that We The People are stupid enough to to buy the crap they are selling regarding impeachment. There is nothing legitimate about what the House is doing now.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Yesterday, Jim McGovern (D-MA) claimed that “we are here because the facts compel us to be here.”
What idiots does he imagine us to be? I mean this in all seriousness. Anyone who believes we arrived at impeachment due to facts has been hiding in a cave or is insane, regardless of political leanings. If this were about facts, impeachment would be nowhere on the horizon. In late 1973, the House Judiciary Committee opened an impeachment process after President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of the independent special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in, Archibald Cox. Cox had issued a subpoena demanding copies of taped conversations in the Oval Office, which, he believed, might reveal Nixon’s involvement in Watergate and the subsequent cover-up. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general both refused the order to fire Cox and resigned in protest. U.S. Solicitor General Robert Bork was then sworn in as attorney general and obeyed the order, but said he did so only in order to avoid a long succession of resignations which would leave the Justice Department “crippled” and in chaos.
It was obvious that a crime had taken place, and it was equally obvious that the president was trying to cover up his involvement. Indeed, Cox’s suspicion was borne out — the tapes revealed that the president had tried to halt the Watergate investigation on frivolous national security grounds. The House resolution to authorize the impeachment inquiry passed 410-4, obviously including overwhelming Republican support.
Bill Clinton went through impeachment in 1998–1999 because the independent counsel appointed at the time, Ken Starr, produced a report to the House Judiciary Committee detailing that Clinton had committed both perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton’s law license was suspended for five years due to the conclusions of the Starr Report. So once again, it was obvious that the president had committed a crime. The House vote was 258-176, with 31 Democrats voting in favor.
In neither case was anyone willing to state that he “was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” as Tim Morrison, the departing Russia and Europe adviser on the National Security Council, told the House Intelligence Committee yesterday.
We are here because partisans have wanted to reverse the 2016 election since the day Trump was elected, and the House takeover in 2018 was driven by leftists who demanded we “impeach the mother******” regardless of any justification. They believed the Mueller investigation would deliver the needed grounds, but — quite unlike the efforts of Cox and Starr — Mueller’s report exonerated the president. Dissatisfied House Democrats ran to hold hearings in any case, trying to pull a guilty verdict from the innocence found in the report.
It is no coincidence that those tremendously important, momentous hearings suddenly came to an end after the Ukraine phone call came to light — as no special counsel has officially ruled the Ukraine call similarly devoid of criminal conduct, the call offers a better pretense for the same pitchforks and torches.
And this is why the Democrats never demanded a special counsel or any independent, nonpartisan legal investigation regarding the Ukraine phone call and any hint of quid pro quo that might have been behind it. There is simply no time left if Democrats are to use the call to either remove Trump from office or destroy his re-election prospects before the 2020 election. That is why Democrats have bypassed all semblance of fairness, instead rushing to hold closed-door hearings and launch an impeachment proceeding far too early in the process.
Make no mistake: Were it not Ukraine, Democrats would have found another excuse to impeach. They had to, as impeachment was the goal. And we all already know this — no matter your political preferences or voting patterns, this much should be obvious to all.
This sort of move — to come up with the verdict first, and then find the purported crime to justify it — has ample historical precedent. The Salem Witch Trials are certainly an apt model, but Stalin’s Show Trials have a greater written record. It was Stalin’s head of secret police, Lavrentiy Beria, who bragged that he could make any innocent man into a convicted criminal: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
That is why we are here. Despite McGovern’s protestations to the contrary, we are not so stupid as to believe this is about justice.
Rabbi Yaakov Menken is the Managing Director of the Coalition for Jewish Values .
Tags
Who is online
32 visitors
We are here because partisans have wanted to reverse the 2016 election since the day Trump was elected, and the House takeover in 2018 was driven by leftists who demanded we “impeach the mother******” regardless of any justification. They believed the Mueller investigation would deliver the needed grounds, but — quite unlike the efforts of Cox and Starr — Mueller’s report exonerated the president. Dissatisfied House Democrats ran to hold hearings in any case, trying to pull a guilty verdict from the innocence found in the report.
It is no coincidence that those tremendously important, momentous hearings suddenly came to an end after the Ukraine phone call came to light — as no special counsel has officially ruled the Ukraine call similarly devoid of criminal conduct, the call offers a better pretense for the same pitchforks and torches.
And this is why the Democrats never demanded a special counsel or any independent, nonpartisan legal investigation regarding the Ukraine phone call and any hint of quid pro quo that might have been behind it. There is simply no time left if Democrats are to use the call to either remove Trump from office or destroy his re-election prospects before the 2020 election. That is why Democrats have bypassed all semblance of fairness, instead rushing to hold closed-door hearings and launch an impeachment proceeding far too early in the process.
Make no mistake: Were it not Ukraine, Democrats would have found another excuse to impeach. They had to, as impeachment was the goal. And we all already know this — no matter your political preferences or voting patterns, this much should be obvious to all.
This sort of move — to come up with the verdict first, and then find the purported crime to justify it — has ample historical precedent. The Salem Witch Trials are certainly an apt model, but Stalin’s Show Trials have a greater written record. It was Stalin’s head of secret police, Lavrentiy Beria, who bragged that he could make any innocent man into a convicted criminal: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
That is why we are here.
redacted transcript of the ukraine conversation. suppression of intelligence officials concerns about the conversation. attempts to publicly discredit those officials. white house admissions after denials. unbelievably fucking dumb.
Deaf, dumb and blind
National police group accuses Congress of railroading Donald Trump for partisan gain
The nation’s largest police organization is criticizing House Democrats’ vote on moving ahead with an impeachment probe of President Trump as violating his due process rights “to score political points.”
“The Fraternal Order of Police exists, in part, to defend these rights, not just for police officers, but for all citizens at every level, from the indigent living on the street to the president living in the White House,” National FOP President Patrick Yoes said in a statement.
The association has about 346,000 members nationwide, and it endorsed Mr. Trump in 2016.
Mr. Yoes said police officers understand what it means to be unfairly accused, as the House votes on Thursday to lay out formal rules for the impeachment inquiry. The group’s statement didn’t specifically refer to impeachment.
“Just as local law enforcement are often convicted in the media after being denounced by local elected officials without collecting the facts, these members are violating due process to score political points,” he said.
At a police chiefs’ conference in Chicago on Monday, the president criticized congressional Democrats for protecting illegal immigrants more than U.S. citizens. The FOP echoed that sentiment.
“Members of Congress tirelessly and stridently defend the due process rights of criminals, while seeking to curtail the rights of those charged with protecting American citizens,” the FOP said. “They seek to shield people who come to our country unlawfully from being subjected to our laws, and yet ignore the violence to citizens and to our economy committed by those who violate our immigration laws.”
Mr. Yoes also said that lawmakers often demand “transparency” from law enforcement, but don’t play by the same rules.
“You cannot have justice without due process,” the statement said. “Denying due process is a betrayal of our shared American ideals and a grave disservice to our republic.”....
If rumors about the identity of the Ukraine whistleblower are true, it’s easy to see why Republicans have been pushing witnesses to name him — because it goes a long way to making Democrats’ impeachment case look like a rerun of the “collusion” delusion.
As Paul Sperry reports at RealClearPolitics, GOP members of the House committees tasked with the inquiry have been pressing witnesses about a specific former National Security Council aide who fits the known facts about the whistleblower.
But it’s other parts of his background that stand out: He’s a registered Democrat who worked not only with then-Veep Joe Biden but also with frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Trumper John Brennan, who as CIA chief was key to launching the “collusion” investigation back in 2016.
During the campaign, this NSC staffer also reportedly met at the White House with the Democratic National Committee opposition researcher leading an effort to link the Trump campaign to the Putin regime. And he left the NSC early in the Trump era under suspicion of being one of those feeding negative leaks to anti-Trump media.
Notably, the Republicans who had been pushing hardest to see if this was indeed the whistleblower will lose the chance to push harder — because the new rules passed in Thursday’s party-line vote shift the inquiry from three committees to just Intelligence.
Democrats insist the whistleblower is no longer relevant because others’ testimony more than confirms his allegations — though they’ve so far refused to offer any evidence beyond partisan leaks.
Now the inquiry is completely under the control of Intel chief Adam Schiff, who insisted for years that ample proof existed for the now-debunked “collusion” charges. You have to wonder if his real job now is to prevent a full public airing of the evidence so that this case, too, proves nothing more than an anti-Trump fantasy....
Democrats....
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Crooked donnie supporters.
Is that all you have to say?
And you are here to add ??? to the discussion?
You don't wanna know.
Well we are smart enough to figure this out:
Democrat’s Star ‘Witness’ in Impeachment has Long Term Connections to Schiff and Burisma
After weeks of closed-door interviews, Democrats have yet to get testimony from anyone who can contribute anything more than hearsay testimony. The one witness who Democrats called a “star witness” against the President when they leaked info to the media, is hardly impartial.
Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) House Permanent Select Committee could only manage one remotely credible witness and he is closely connected to Schiff and Burisma Holdings gas company-making his testimony extremely problematic.
Burisma Holdings, if you remember, is the natural gas company that paid Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, upwards of $50,000 a month to “consult” on its board.
The witness, Bill Taylor, has also been linked to the infamous Steele Dossier used to falsely connect the President to Russian interference.
Considering the conflicts of interest Schiff’s star witness has it’s no wonder he has demanded secrecy in the questioning, will not allow Republican representatives to attend the hearings, and has refused to provide transcripts of the interviews.
To make matters even more suspect, according to other House members, Taylor failed to provide anything substantive when cross examined by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX).
Taylor, the acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine developed a close relationship with the Atlantic Council, a Washington D.C. think tank. The Atlantic Council is funded by and works for — you guessed it — Bursima.
In addition, Taylor, the senior Biden, and David J. Kramer, advisor to the late John McCain, are also closely connected to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC) which has co-hosted events with The Atlantic Council. Taylor served as a senior advisor on the USUBC.
Kramer is famous for bringing the now debunked Steele dossier to media outlets and Obama officials. Which we now know was used by the FBI to illegally obtain FISA warrants to spy on President Trump and his campaign.
Kramer testified before Congress that he held a meeting with BuzzFeed News in which its reporters snapped pictures of the dossier while he went to the bathroom.
It is also interesting to note that one of Schiff’s staffers traveled to Ukraine to meet Ambassador Taylor just after the so-called whistleblower filed his complaint. The meeting took place AFTER the whistleblower filed his complaint and reportedly after the whistleblower contacted Schiff’s office for help.
Though the House committee banned outgoing transcripts, multiple U.S. news outlets somehow obtained Taylor’s complete opening statement before the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees. (Side note: Seems like President Trump might have been right to not trust that Schiff could keep the al-Baghdadi raid secret before it happened.)
In his opening statement, Taylor said he worked for a “small Ukrainian non-governmental organization.” He failed to mention that “small” organization supposedly formed to encourage “good governance and reform” was the USBUC whose chief supporter is Bursima.
Three months before he was appointed by the President as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, The Atlantic Council printed an op-ed co-authored by Taylor. He had previously written a 2007 piece for The Atlantic Council concerning a vote on health care reform in the Ukrainian parliament.
Taylor worked alongside Kramer for nine years when they invited former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst. Herbst serves as the director of the Eurasian Center for the Atlantic Council. The Eurasian Center is directly funded by Bursima.
CNN characterized Taylor’s testimony yesterday as “explosive” even though he admitted there was no quid pro quo as Schiff and other Democrats contend.
Most readers might throw up their hands in trying to keep with the tangled web of the Ukraine story, and it seems former Vice President Biden is counting on that.
What is obvious though is that Democrats “star witness” had long standing ties to Burisma—and didn’t want President Trump to investigate the company.
It looks like even Schiff’s best witness is part of Democrats plot to impeach the President.
Fortunately what progressives think and what they know are very different things.
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
As usual, Reagan was and is right.