The big news in Washington last week was the Democrat rush to judgment to impeach President Trump on the basis of a call which he had with the new President of the Ukraine. This effort by the Democrats mainly succeeded in bringing up old allegations against their number one candidate in the Presidential contest – Joe Biden. Once the spotlight focused on the American videotapes of Joe Biden bragging about how he forced the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor that was investigating corruption in a company in which his son was a consultant by threatening to withhold U.S. funds in a true quid pro quo situation, the whole conversation changed. In another matter quid pro Joe took his son to China, using Air Force Two for the trip, and somehow managed to have his son receive 1.5 billion dollars in exchange for what we don’t know Biden may have promised the Chinese.
As a result of all this, Biden’s poll numbers have steadily diminished. He is now trailing Senator Warren in many of the primary state races.
Whenever I hear of malfeasance in Washington, I turn to a friend of mine who is a DC vet of many years for some sort of explanation. His take on this particular Biden story is that as far as he knows Joe could not wonder willy-nilly to the airport and commandeer Air Force Two for a long overseas trip without first getting clearance from the owner of Air Force One. That owner would happen to be President Obama. If Obama knew of the trip, somewhere there has to be a record of what the trip entailed. Possibly in the Democrats rush to judgment, some documentation of Biden in China will surface.
In a town where no secrets are ever kept, the Democrats must realize that the imminent BarrDurham-IG report is going to expose all of the chicanery that went into the genesis of the Mueller appointment and the ensuing Russian hoax. Those in the know have indicated that the investigation could not have started without the number one person in the White House not knowing about it. When it comes to the beginning of that investigation, it is pretty well established that the phony Steele dossier was a major part of it. Mentioning that dossier, it somehow compares with the origin of the Whistleblower complaint. The similarity exists in that the two articles were both based on secondhand information. In Steele’s case he relied on anonymous Russian sources, in the Whistleblower’s complaint he stated he had no firsthand knowledge of the events he described but relied on supposedly high official sources.
Many of the highly regarded legal pundits, who seem to have more expertise than Adam Schiff and Kamala Harris, have stated that this Whistleblower complaint is based on “hearsay”, which is not admissible in judicial proceedings. Traditionally, according to Webster, a Whistleblower is one who informs on another. In the current case, the Whistleblower may be repeating items discussed at the water cooler or in the restroom. This would seem to indicate that future Whistleblowers could make up stories from whole cloth, attribute them to other sources, and submit them as true complaints.
To further illustrate how this has become a rampant procedure in Washington, one only has to look at the tape of Chairman Schiff reading his interpretation of the much-publicized TrumpUkraine phone call. Schiff muddied the waters of his Committee hearing by reading this false narrative into the official record of the session. Schiff, who at all times seems very prissy, acted like he was auditioning for a role in the remake of the “Godfather” film. He also started calling Trump a “Mafia boss” which promptly resonated throughout the entire liberal media.
On Monday of last week before the transcript and Whistleblower complaint became public, Nancy Pelosi went on the tube to proclaim she was authorizing an impeachment inquiry. Basically, by not taking a vote of Congress, she was merely doubling down on the inquiry that Chairman Nadler has already started. Since impeachment relies on high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President, the current push by the Democrats violates the principles of how a crime is pursued. In this case we have an investigation that is searching for a crime before any proof exists.
In their zealous pursuit of the investigation, liberal TV interviews are relying on the long-term political expertise (now approaching one year) of the dimwitted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.