We're in wait-and-see mode, waiting for the FISA report to be released on December 9th. Then it'll be hurry-up-and-read mode.
In the meantime we can amuse ourselves by occasionally chronicling Dem inanities.
Derek Hunter does that this morning: Impeachment Hearings Have Exposed What Democrats Have Become.
He begins by pointing out how the Dems are degrading our public life with Impeachment Theater. The examples are obvious enough: Schiff's kangaroo court, make 'em and break 'em approach to hearing rules, and Pelosi's appalling dismissal of the presumption of innocence--
If the president has information that demonstrates his innocence in all of this, which we haven’t seen. If he has information that is exculpatory -that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame – then we look forward to seeing it.
--thus trashing Lord Sankey's famous "golden thread" of Anglo-American law (made famous by Horace Rumpole):
Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt ...
As Hunter observes:
Of all the examples of hypocrisy and incompetence on display in this sham, one sticks out to me beyond the others, and it’s perhaps the most disturbing. It’s how willing Democrats are to beclown themselves for the cause.
Zealots have always been willing to go to any length to obtain their objective. People routinely strap explosives to their bodies and ignite them, for just one example. But politicians, particularly American politicians, generally had more sense than this. Not anymore, it seems.
But then Hunter settles on a truly remarkable aspect of the Impeachment Theater--the Dem trashing of the one country they would have us believe is the country in the world most important to our own national security: Ukraine.
President Zelensky has denied any pressure at all to investigate the Biden family’s possible corruption. None. Zero. Yet the story now from the left for those repeated statements is “Zelensky is weak and cowardly.” They’re saying this man, who was elected to fight corruption in his own country, is corrupt himself, that he’s a fraud. For all the talk of the importance of Ukraine to U.S. national security – and you could easily come away from these hearings with the impression that no other country matters more, or at all, based on some of the hyperventilating words of some Democrats and witnesses – it seems odd that the team making those claims would smear its new president like this.
For the record, Zelensky won with 73% of the vote, running on that anti-corruption platform. And now the Ukrainian parliament is demanding that the US investigate Dem corruption, led by the Bidens, father and son. But never mind!
An elected Democrat finally brought this very same argument forward, making things even worse. On Sunday, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy told CNN, “The Ukrainians aren't going to come out and accuse the president of extortion. Why? Because they are presently reliant on the good will of Donald Trump to keep that country safe.”
Again, attacking Ukrainian leadership to score domestic political points.
Murphy went on to say, “Nobody should be surprised when the Ukrainians are trying to put as good a spin on this as possible, are trying to stay in the President’s good graces, because right now the president still holds enormous leverage over that country’s independence and sovereignty.”
I’d say they don’t have much independence or sovereignty if they’re dependent upon any other country, but I’m old fashioned that way.
Still, it’s an attack on Zelensky, the man whose country they say they’re outraged on behalf of, in order to discount a very powerful piece of that exculpatory evidence Nancy Pelosi said she is open to receiving. It’s almost like all the Democrats are lying, isn’t it?
These aren’t the types of things people with facts and evidence on their side do, mostly because they don’t have to. This is what political hacks wouldn’t have done just a couple of years ago. This is what Democrats have become. That tells you something, doesn’t it?
One supposes that from the moment that the American voters, in a moment of inexplicable obtuseness back in 2018, voted the Dems into the House majority--somehow imagining that Dems would adopt more constructive pursuits than an Impeachment Theater show trial--all this was inevitable. The only variable factor seems to be what the Dems thought they'd get out of this. Early on, in the heady early days after the midterm elections, they apparently really thought that impeachment could somehow be a thing. Now, however, it looks more and more like a desperate attempt to scare Trump off from investigating the real swamp of Dem corruption in Ukraine.
ADDENDUM: Paul Sperry agrees with that assessment:
It's now abundantly & scandalously clear that Dems & their impeachment witnesses are conspiring to try to kill the Ukraine interference story. By working to take away any legitimate excuse for Trump demanding a Ukraine investigation, they are giving away their own corrupt motives— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 21, 2019
UPDATE: Stephen McIntyre very briefly deconstructs the false narrative of the Fiona Hill's and even some (presumptively) well intentioned GOPers. He's referring to this BOMBSHELL article by left wing Politico which has never been disputed--
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.
We KNOW with considerable certainty based on evidence that Ukraine officials interfered in election. We are told that Russia interfered by same intel agencies that promoted Russia collusion hoax, but detailed evidence not provided due to usual excuses of sources and methods. https://t.co/p46OnVUIOK— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) November 21, 2019
Fiona Hill, the Brit woman who came to Harvard for her graduate studies, wrote a 2015 WaPo op-ed in which she opined that arming Ukraine would escalate matters with Russia. (Bret Baier just reported this on Fox) But that isn’t keeping her from going all in this morning on the Schiffless impeachment POV that Ukraine had to be armed and President Trump had somehow harmed them by making it conditional. These witnesses have agendas.. (Ken Starr just gave his 2 cents that all she’d have to do to wriggle out of this would be to say she had changed her mind since then.)ReplyDelete
I just watched a clip of that Holmes person demonstrating how he overheard what President Trump said on a phone call with Sondland when it was not on a speakerphone. Quite a performance, Holmes, but no Oscar. Talk about sketchy!
Theater of the absurd. And a disgrace to the country.Delete
Disgrace to the country indeed. Why can't we have smart villains. If we have to go through this couldn't we be at least be entertained by some token wit and guile rather than this repetitive rehashing of the same unimaginative script these Deep State infomercial hacks keep dragging in the door.Delete
"I thought someone told me that they may have overheard something that was said in the State Dept. men's room while they were using the ladies room and Suddenly! my knickers were in a twist!!!! Luckily I recognized this just as I happen to be passing Adam Schiff's, whom I had never heard of until this morning, private entrance and I was able to step inside, without being ushered in by Eric Ciaramella whom I did not encounter lurking in the hallway and I have never met, and relieve myself of this terrible National Security burden (or some bad sushi, I'm not sure which)."
Not to put too fine point on it, is creativity truly dead, not only in Hollywood, but in Congress as well? Is that why the only reliable standard on the Democrat debate stage is Lenin's rotting corpse?Delete
Ari Fleischer says "Russia indeed interfered in the 2016 election. It’s a fact."ReplyDelete
Says exactly who?
Where's Ari Fleischer coming from?
He's a Bush guy, right?
From past comments he's made, I believe he's supportive of Trump. However, like others he accepts the CW. I believe Nunes has even made comments like that.Delete
I've heard him make 'supportive' comments, too, but so have Rich Lowry and Andy McCarthy and even Pierre Delicto (maybe once) made 'supportive' comments. We really don't need supporters who buy the Deep State BS which just provides them more oxygen.ReplyDelete
No doubt there needs to be serious pushback on that, so thank goodness Durham is taking a deep look at the whole ICA.Delete