The Intel Committee, chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA; as if we couldn't have figured that out from the way he handled the process), began its proceedings by holding private hearings in said SCIF, instead of in front of the American people. Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses, nor were their questions allowed in most cases. No transcripts were released, but Schiff did selectively leak anything that he thought the media could turn into points scored for his cause - his verdict in search of a charge.
It then proceeded to public hearings, in which no fact witnesses were called save one, and his testimony directly quoted the President as saying he wanted no quid pro quo from Ukraine in exchange for U.S. aid. The Republicans' requested witnesses were denied, and a number of their questions were struck down by Schiff.
Next, we heard from three so-called constitutional law experts on the Democrat side, and one on the Republican side. The Republicans' witness testified that he is a registered Democrat and opposes Pres. Trump's policies; presumably that's the only way he cleared Schiff's extreme vetting process. All three of the Dems' law prof witnesses were proved to have bias against Trump; one was so vociferous that, in a previous interview, she claimed to have had to walk across the street rather than walk down the sidewalk in front of a Trump hotel. When asked if she would stay there, she said, "God, no!" No bias there.
The Republicans' witness, despite his party affiliation and opposition to Trump, warned that if the Dems proceeded down this ill-advised, unsupported impeachment path they, not Trump, would be guilty of abuse of power.
In Hollywood, they call that foreshadowing.
On to Rep. Jerry Nadler's (D-NY; as if we couldn't have figured that one out too) House Judiciary Committee "hearings." Mostly we got to hear from the Dems' lawyer interpreting all the second-hand hearsay testimony from the Schiff-show, and the Republicans' lawyer refuting it. Then we got to hear all the committee members spend a long day "debating" the two flimsy articles of impeachment: "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress." It was pretty far-ranging, going well beyond those two topics. The Dems kept throwing out all these things that they don't like about Trump, which left one to ask, "So what is it you're impeaching him for? Trump University? His charity? His family? His tweets? His hair? Beating Hillary Clinton?"
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) had the most succinct, factual and logical point of the day (a low bar, to be sure), when he said that it is the Dems in the House that are guilty of abuse of power and contempt of Congress. Abuse of power, for denying the minority due process, and contempt of Congress, for refusing to hear relevant testimony from true fact witnesses.
We did learn at least one interesting thing from the Democrat side, however: Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell's sister is a yoga instructor. Wow, thanks for that nugget, Debbie - it's very much germane to the matters at hand, and your bringing it to America's attention is a damn good use of the taxpayers' money. Really? Is that all they've got? Hey, I have a cousin who teaches music - can we get that on the record?
What happened to bribery? (You know, the charge that the Dems paid even more of the taxpayers' money on a focus group to come up with.) What happened to extortion? What happened to the vacuous Eric Swalwell's attempted bribery and extortion? What happened to quid pro quo?
"Dust in the Wind," as the old song goes. And once the dust has cleared, we're left with "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress," which the Dems can't even stay on point to defend.
But I digress - on to Sen. Lindsey Graham's Sen. Judiciary Committee's questioning of IG Horowitz. The latter's report seemed to give the DOJ and the FBI a pass, much to the dismay of some Republicans and the delight of all Democrats. But wait - there's more.
Sen. Graham and the Republicans on the Committee masterfully got to the more troubling matters behind the IG's findings, which were limited in part by the scope of his investigation. Horowitz clearly stated that an FBI lawyer flat-out lied in doctoring an email that was used as the foundation for the application for the FISA warrant that resulted in going after Carter Page. He further stated that he knew of no previous example of that being done, and conceded that if a private citizen had doctored evidence in such a matter, it would be grounds for prosecution.
Also, after Horowitz' report was released, former FBI Director James Comey said it "vindicated" him. When asked if that was the case, Horowitz replied that his report vindicates no one.
This ain't over. Look for the FBI (under new leadership; Wray is rightfully toast after this) and the AG to investigate further. Heads may yet roll, and charges may yet be on the way.
Where Schiff was smarmy and Nadler bumbling, Graham was professional. Where Schiff and Nadler were secretive and obstructive, Graham was transparent and open. Where Schiff and Nadler were vague and arbitrary, Graham was precise.
At the end of the long day of House Judiciary Committee hearings on Thursday, one important thought came to mind. This is the crux of this matter, so consider it carefully. The Dems' entire premise is that Trump sought a quid pro quo from Ukraine (or committed bribery or extortion or attempted bribery or attempted extortion or ... well, ah, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress - yeah, that's the ticket!) in withholding aid from Ukraine (that was paid to Ukraine in a timely manner), in exchange for a personal favor.
What favor? He allegedly wanted Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival, namely Joe Biden, for Biden's admittedly - indeed, braggadociously - having held up aid to Ukraine unless it did him the personal favor of firing a prosecutor who was investigating the matter of Biden's son being paid $50,000 a month to sit on the board of a company whose product he knew nothing about, and he had no experience in Ukraine (but Joe, as then-VP, was responsible for dealings with Ukraine). Quid pro quo, anyone?
Now, why did Trump supposedly want Biden investigated?
Several Dems, throughout these proceedings, have asserted that it was because polls showed that Biden would beat Trump head-to-head in the general election.
National polls. We learned in 2016 how reliable those are, when Hillary Clinton was leading Trump in national polling right up to Election Day, when he handed her her pant-suited arse in the Electoral College. And these polls cited by the Dems are more than a year out from the election, even well before the Democrat nomination. So we don't even know if Biden will remain the front-runner (he hasn't consistently been).
So, here's the key question for Democrats: If you're so sure that Trump sought dirt on Biden because Trump was afraid Biden would beat him in the general election -
Why are you so afraid that he can't??
See, if the Dems were confident that Biden could beat Trump, they wouldn't be seeking out new candidates at this late date. They had a field of 20+, but apparently they were concerned that none of them could win in 2020. So along comes Michael Bloomberg. There are rumors - pleas, even - for Hillary Clinton to once more enter the fray, or for Michelle Obama to try "Becoming" President (see what I did there?).
No one, not even the Dems, is afraid that Biden might beat Trump. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Dems are deathly afraid that he can't.
And that, my friends, is the reason for this fallacious and fruitless attempt to remove him from office.
No comments:
Post a Comment