What If…?

No, the impeachment trial is NOT over. It’s far too soon to begin celebrations of a victory. A big sigh of relief is certainly in order. But the fact that the “new” impeachment schedule has the Senate silent until Wednesday means something could happen, something could mysteriously “pop up.” After all, Adam Schiff is “Shifty” Schiff, Nancy Pelosi is Nancy, and the Lamestream Media are who they are.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday he feels they can “conclude the trial in the coming days.” The Senate approved a framework for conclusion of the trail. They’ll be back in session on Monday. And a final vote for impeachment should happen on Wednesday.

But the impeachment trial drama did not stop there. Later Friday, the Senate voted down four Democrat motions to call Bolton, Mick Mulvaney and two more administration officials to testify. In somewhat of a surprise, Supreme Court Chief Justice informed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer he would NOT break ties in the Senate by exercising a vote. In doing so, Justice Roberts said, “I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”

The trial drama apparently is NOT over. On Monday, both the House Managers and Defense Team will present their closing arguments. And Senators will be able to make speeches both Monday and Tuesday.

Does anyone think there will NOT be another gotcha that the New York Times finds?

We have just gone through the most outlandish and egregious demonstration of how our government is NOT supposed to operate. House Democrats with their Senate enablers just showed America exactly how an impeachment process is NOT supposed to be structured. So instead of our usual “Saturday Bullet Points,” let’s do a Saturday “What If?” based on this specific impeachment process. After all, we all need the right way to ratchet down the tension and anger from what Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi dropped in our laps!

What If…?

  • Republicans had impeached President Obama for “Obstruction of Congress” for his Attorney General’s ignoring Congressional subpoenas in the “Fast and Furious” investigation? Republicans requested the D.C. Federal Court to prosecute Holder for his obstruction, but the Court (with an Obama-appointed judge) declined to consider the matter. Should have the Republicans then impeached the President or AG Holder or both?
  • The GOP impeached President Obama for the executive branch theft of billions of taxpayer dollars — “Abuse of Power” — that were unethically squandered away by his administration awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and loan guarantees to his cronies in his “shovel-ready” jobs debacle? More than 50% of those funds disappeared forever at the expense of taxpayers with NO accountability for those involved OR finding the money.
  • While Paul Ryan as Speaker, House committees began an impeachment inquiry against Mr. Obama and in the structure of two committee hearings, did not allow Obama’s attorneys to be present, present evidence, subpoena witnesses or other evidence, or cross-examine any of the witnesses?
  • During House testimonies, House members called President Obama a “dictator, sick man, liar, cheat, wannabe king, or despot?”
  • Republican Members — ANY GOP members — during a hearing called Hillary Clinton a liar, a law-breaker, a government official who acts like she is above the law, or a tyrant who throws tantrums when not getting her way?
  • Any Republican Senator in a hearing supervised by the SCOTUS Chief Justice demeaned the Chief Justice (as did Sen. Elizabeth Warren) attacking him and his office as Chief Justice if he did not take actions in that hearing which Democrats wanted? (Wait: Obama did just that from the podium in a State of the Union message)
  • Republicans in any way in the press demeaned Chelsea Clinton, derided her for her appearance, her private or business life, or made fun of her religion?
  • Republicans demeaned in the press or in public the personal aspects of the Obama girls, or talked about their character traits, academics, or religious beliefs or social affiliations?
  • President Clinton or Obama signed a bill into law that members of the opposite political Party stated publicly they were going to ignore?
  • President Trump instructed his Justice Department to just ignore and not enforce one or two or three federal laws?
  • President Trump when his DOJ levied fines and penalties against companies found to be breaking rules or laws, when those fines and penalties were paid diverted that money (or a portion) to hand-picked 501c(3) organizations of his choosing, bypassing the U.S. Treasury and Congressional oversight?
  • President Trump instructed his Attorney General to drop the prosecution of two White Supremacists who had illegally threatened African American voters at the polls? (As happened in 2012 in Philadelphia’s Black Panther intimidation of White voters at a polling location)
  • When members of the current State Department came under attack at one of our overseas embassies, President Trump instead of sending U.S. military personnel to their rescue gave military leaders a “stand-down” order that directly resulted in the deaths of four of them?
  • President Trump “winked” at President Obama’s non-profit which for the expressed purpose of “relief” went to a nation which sustained a national disaster. Instead of using the millions of dollars in contributions as direct aid used most of that money for other purposes that had nothing to do with the impacted nation or its citizens?
  • The former National Security Adviser for President Obama — Susan Rice — was asked by Mr. Obama during the 2012 presidential campaign to put pressure to conduct a political dirt investigation of his opponent in the race, Mitt Romney? And then, Rice said nothing to anyone about the President’s request for almost a year at which time she allegedly claimed it in a book she is about to release?

It is easy for a reasoning American who can and will objectively examine how this impeachment debacle was started, perpetuated, and who the players were in the process. Make no mistake: impeachment did NOT begin a month or so ago. It began on Election Day in November, 2016.

Many have suspicions of the purposes for not just this impeachment trial but for the systematic attempts to dismantle everything President Trump has accomplished. Democrats have ratchet up their hatred for their opponents to demean not only the President on both political and personal levels, but while doing so, excoriate every American — 63 million — who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.

We have maintained for several years that the big difference between Democrats and Republicans has been boiled down to just two things: Republicans who disagree with Democrat policies under a Democrat President and/or Congress make it clear they simply disagree with those things. Democrats when they disagree with Republicans about the same or similar issues when Republicans occupy the White House and a majority in either House of Congress, don’t stop at disagreement. They feel anger that often morphs into hatred for all those who support those things with which Democrats disagree. One is policy disagreements, the other is opposition personal hatred. The difference is stark today and perfectly visible for all to see.

Democrats in this impeachment process have made it crystal clear: they have NO intentions of working with any Republicans in government to facilitate anything at all that everyday Americans support UNLESS it aligns with what Democrats want. And if you disagree with Democrats: they explode. Want an example or two?

Democrats made it clear with Friday’s Senate vote to reject Democrats’ motion to call witnesses that they simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his “sham” trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.

Signaling how they will message this in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.

“The president’s acquittal will be meaningless,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), declared Friday, “because it will be the result of a sham trial. With no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said Republicans may get what they want — a speedy end to the trial — but it won’t have any value.

Summary

Friday’s Senate actions revealed the heart of the Democrat Party and Democrats to the Nation. But Friday’s vote to not allow trial witnesses was nothing more than one decision in a process to disassemble the 2016 presidential election and also the 2020 election. How so? Democrats if successful at the removal of Donald Trump would legislatively go back and overturn every accomplishment in Congressional action with which Democrats disagreed.

But their attack on this Administration would NOT be over. Vice President Mike Pence has been in their sights as long as has Mr. Trump. They will take any measures necessary to remove him as well. Think about that: Nancy Pelosi would then move into the White House.

Enjoy this weekend. I don’t want to scare anyone. But while justifiably enjoying the Friday battle victory, prepare for the balance of the War. When Democrats are part of disagreements at this level, any war is never over until they say it is. Their war will never stop as long as they do not control every phase of our government.

We will pickup on Monday with our Senate Impeachment trial coverage and also our Obama era corruption. Enjoy the SuperBowl on Sunday. Relax, folks: God’s got this!

And GO NINERS!


One thought on “What If…?

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.