A Myth Called “Bi-Partisanship”

Let’s face facts: the words “Bi-Partisanship” is an oxymoron when it references politics in Washington. Bi-Partisanship requires two or more people to work on any one project or issue together to reach a consensus or agreed-to result. Nothing in that resembles today’s Washington D.C. Congress.

Honestly, we could spend all day every day chronicling the disparities in the legislative methodology used today compared to just a few years ago in Congress. It may have existed for some time, but the first I remember an eternal rift between parties was when former President Obama made this statement: “Elections have consequences.” He was referencing many who complained about the unwillingness of members of both parties to work together. But Obama in saying that was highlighting the fact that Democrats won a second term in the White House and control — albeit temporary power — of Congress. To Obama, that meant his political opponents needed to follow his lead on all matters of government as long as Democrats were in control.

Where had Bi-Partisanship gone?

I cannot answer that. Indeed, the unwillingness for Congress to reach across aisles for the common good of the nation is not a single party issue. But it has reached outlandish heights in unified efforts on the part of those on the Left to resist anything and everything put forward by President Trump. I will not bore you with a list of examples. We all see them as they happen. And they happen so often we have grown numb to them. It’s as if we yawn when they occur and think, “It’s just another day in D.C.!” That’s sad.

The Sheriff in Town

Almost without question, you know who the “Sheriff in Town” references: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). He’s the boss! Formerly that role belonged to the Speaker of the House. And everyone in Congress stayed inline or drew the ire of the Speaker. Nancy Pelosi was and still should be the Sheriff in Congress. But her position was compromised immediately following the 2018 midterm elections. With the House additions of members of “The Squad,” Pelosi found herself in a difficult situation. Her power was threatened. Those freshman House members challenged her authority and threatened a mutiny to keep her from assuming the role of Speaker in the new Congress. So the Sheriff became “The Squad” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). They took control of the House of Representatives putting Pelosi on defense. And it has been that way since.

How powerful are the members of “The Squad?” We’re currently in the midst of the demonstration their power: Impeachment. The four immediately after assuming office began a unified cry for the House of Representatives to impeach the President. None could venture a guess as to an impeachable offense with evidence, but their insistence began to infect other members of Congress. The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates each joined the impeachment cause. Before long, House Speaker Pelosi found herself the target of threats by “The Squad” to dump her as Speaker if she did not bow to their demands.

Pelosi and other House leaders created the myth of this “Impeachment Inquiry.” It has no teeth at and is nothing but a sham investigative operation to find dirt on Mr. Trump that Dems hope will lead to articles of impeachment. In other words, this Inquiry is the Mueller Investigation Part II. And so far, it’s effect on finding any Trump wrongdoing is only is as useful as was the Mueller Investigation.

Pelosi quickly discovered that her appointed Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — Jerold Nadler (D-NY) — had about as much hope at putting together a successful path to impeachment process as do I. She dumped him! She then passed the mantle to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Without getting wordy, Schiff is the evilest member of Congress in my memory. And my memory is relatively lengthy because it’s 66 years long.

Schiff rewrote the Congressional impeachment process. He made it his own; he made it unconstitutional; made it partisan; and he made himself chief prosecutor, judge, and jury in its proceedings. And in “his” process, he has ignored the Rule of Law.

His objective is simple: find a way to put President Trump on trial in before the Nation and drive him from office. It makes no difference to Schiff there is no evidence through three years of nonstop investigation into the Trump organization that justifies impeachment. Schiff created a new way to handle this entire thing: impeach the President for emotional and psychological wrongdoing.

I know it sounds crazy — and it is. But this process we see unfolding day by day, chapter by chapter, has no historical reference. Nothing like it existed in the three previous presidential impeachment processes. Schiff immediately ditched the idea of “precedent” in pursuing impeachment. He created a new path for unseating a duly elected President: “Do as I say and forget about everything else.” And his objective remains front and center every day. And he has made the process all his, all about him, and all to unseat Donald Trump.

The Charlatan

What is a “charlatan?” I struggle even to spell the word. But Mr. Schiff rolled it out over the weekend in a speech he made to the California Democrat Party. Let’s set the stage.

Schiff had just completed two days of public hearings by his committee in the Impeachment Inquiry. The three witnesses that appeared brought NO facts to the table about any wrongdoing on the part of the President. All three made comments that were negative about Mr. Trump, but each comment was purely an opinion that had no evidentiary basis.

Schiff — who has now made himself a rock star — then jumped on a plane for California to give a speech that was nothing more than a version of a “Schiff victory lap.“ Schiff feels as if his committee was victorious and was successful in showing the public just how evil is Mr. Trump. And Schiff told Californians exactly what his objective in this Impeachment Inquiry is.

Adam Schiff branded Donald Trump a ‘charlatan’ in that fiery speech delivered to California Democrats.  The House Intelligence Committee Chairman, who has been tasked with overseeing the impeachment inquiry into the President, received a rousing round of applause as he unleashed the insults at the 2019 Fall Endorsing Convention in Long Beach on Saturday.

“Schiff, who was introduced at the event as ‘Our Protector’, stated: ‘Two years ago I stood before you and I urged you to resist and you did, but we are more than a resistance now – we are a majority!’ He added: ‘We are a majority in one house, and we will become a majority in the other, and we will send that charlatan [Trump] in the White House back to the golden throne he came from!'”

Put that in perspective: Schiff chairs the House Intelligence Committee. His role is to manage the operations of that committee. In that role, he has now rewritten the guidelines so that he determines each process of the committee. He controls witnesses, whether or not they can testify publicly, what they can and cannot say in their testimonies, who can or cannot question the witnesses, whether or not anyone on the committee can present evidence, ask specific questions of the witnesses, and what topics in each hearing are allowed and are not allowed. In other words, Schiff is lording over a Soviet-style process designed to allow the “ruler” (or Chairman) to control every part of the hearing. And there are no judges, prosecutors, or controlling entities to which anyone can appeal to challenge Schiff on any part of the process. Adam Schiff has become “Vladimir Schiff” with the same power as the Russian President. That’s ironic, isn’t it?

Schiff is The Wizard of Oz!

Summary

We’ll end with this example of the “Schiff-Schizzle” Lunacy.

One of the prize Schiff witnesses who we were told had blockbuster evidence that proved Donald Trump was guilty of extortion of Ukraine and obstruction of justice was former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. She was an Obama Administration holdover. Shortly after Ukraine’s election in 2018 of a new President, Trump fired Ambassador Yovanovitch. Schiff feels certain that Trump’s doing so was an effort to interfere in Ukraine to impact the 2020 presidential election in his favor — but there is NO evidence of that. We all know about the Biden corruption investigation by the former Ukraine prosecutor that was stopped by then V.P. Biden who threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if that prosecutor was not fired.

Schiff planned to use the firing of Yovanovitch as proof that Trump obstructed. Her testimony would undoubtedly prove that. And her firing (according to Schiff) was unprecedented.

But a problem with that popped up. Former President Barack Obama fired all ambassadors appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2008, the Washington Post previously reported.

Yovanovitch testified that the Trump administration, including the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, “kneecapped” her. She said that she was not supported by State Department leaders after being recalled in May.

“Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees,” WaPo’s 2008 article about Obama’s decision to fire all political ambassadors reads.

Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama in 2016. Newly-elected presidents typically re-vamp the positions with their own choices once taking office. Yovanovitch was allowed to stay on for three years after Trump took office, but has testified that senior officials “declined to acknowledge” the “smear campaign” against her leading up to her firing, Politico reported.

A 2017 Snopes fact check also noted that Trump firing appointed ambassadors was not an unprecedented move and certainly not an obstruction of justice. Doing so is part of being head of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.

The resignation and replacement of ambassadors at the end of an administration is routine,” the fact check reads, adding that some presidents have fired everyone at once while others decide on a case-by-case basis.

Democrats said during Friday’s public testimony that they were angry at Yovanovitch’s sudden dismissal, despite Obama doing the same thing when he became president in 2008.

Have you had enough? Take another deep breath: Schiff has only just begun!

Remember last week when we predicted that Pelosi would pull the plug on this impeachment inquiry boondoggle during the weekend? I stated that if she did not, I’d be here today to eat crow and to say that I was wrong. Here’s what I WILL do: I’ll say that I was wrong on the timing. As of this writing, Pelosi has taken no such action. However, her terminating the ”Schiff Schizzle” is inevitable! Why? There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing by President Trump that rises to the level of impeachment.

If Pelosi allows this to continue, “The Squad” will be her least significant issue in the Democrat House of Representatives. There will be a certain wholesale firestorm during the 2020 election as Americans send Democrat members of the House and even the Senate packing in the wake of this impeachment charade.

Stay tuned: we are certain Pelosi’s intervention of this inquiry is imminent!

Play

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.