THE “IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY” WIPEOUT

In 1962, The Surfaris put out a song called “Wipeout”.  It was a big hit.

In 2019, adam schiff and his Democrat counterparts on the House Intelligence Committee got wiped out.  It was an even bigger disaster.

A large number of our media are trying as best they can to put a positive face on yesterday’s disaster.  They will probably convince some people the dump-Trump forcs had a good day.  But the exact opposite happened.

Let’s start with the overriding issue:  is what President Trump did impeachable?

Worst case scenario:  Trump demanded the Ukraine government to investigate the Bidens because he wanted to “dig up dirt” on them, and threatened to withhold aid unless they did.

Is that impeachable?  Well, if that’s what happened, there’s a good argument that it is, on the grounds that it would be an egregious abuse of power.

The problem, of course, is that it did not happen.

-Trump asked for an investigation.  He demanded nothing.  Ukrainian President Zelensky has stated, on the record, that he was at no time pressured to do anything.

-Despite the media drumbeat that Trump asked for President Zelensky to “dig up dirt on the Bidens”, he never did.

Those words were not spoken by President Trump.  They do not exist in the call transcript – which President Zelensky acknowledges is accurate.  In fact, those words were fabricated by serial liar adam schiff – who then, when called on it, had to admit Trump didn’t say them.

Every media venue claiming that’s what Trump said, therefore, is not reporting news; it is selling a Democrat talking point.

-There was no threat of withholding aid to the Ukraine.  It is not mentioned in the telephone call, President Zelensky has stated in so many words that no such threat was made, and, if that isn’t enough, what actually happened was that the aid was given the Ukraine without any investigation taking place.

Simply put, the entire basis for this “impeachment inquiry” farce is non-existent.

So what did schiff & Co. present to the public yesterday?

They presented two “witnesses” (I put that word in quotes because neither one claims to have any first-hand knowledge that an impeachable offense took place) who gave us their opinions of what happened.  When questioned by Republicans, both acknowledged they either heard what they testified about from others, or made assumptions about it (i.e. it was their personal opinion).

Do you need me to tell you this second-hand, sometimes third and even fourth-hand (seriously), hearsay would be laughed out of any courtroom in the country?

The lack of evidence was made so clear, laid so bare, that it led to this knock-it-out-of-the-park summation by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)…

“ ‘Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on Sept. 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky,’ ” Jordan read several times, each a tick faster than the previous. “We’ve got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your ‘clear understanding’ that the president had linked security assistance to investigations.

 “And you’re [the Democrats’] star witness! You’re their first witness. Based on this. I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this.”

…and this remarkable hail-mary quote from Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL):

“I guess to close, a primer on hearsay, I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay, because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances and it’s certainly valid in this instance.”

Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct????? This is what a court would make an exception for??????

That, folks, is a howler.  I wonder if Rep. Quigley believes that thinking about a really good meal is much better than having one.  Or that thinking about sex….well, you get the idea.

The bottom line?  Yesterday I said there was no way to sugarcoat the disaster of this day’s testimony (if “testimony” is even a credible description of what happened).

And there isn’t.

Media can try to put a positive spin on this.  And some of them certainly are trying to do so.  But there’s no way it can happen.

As pointed out at the beginning of this blog, Democrats started with nothing.  And even their nothing – to quote Joe Biden – got beaten like a drum.

Do you think tbe remainder of this so-called “inquiry” will be any better for them?  If so, you are truly a loyal partisan…and an eternal optimist.

2 Comments

  • Once upon a time,
    There were 435 Widdĺe Congress Peoples,

    Some were sane,
    Some were batshit crazy,

    And some believed Abraham Lincoln :
    You can fool all of the people some of the time,
    and some of the people all of the time,
    but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

    • you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

      But, can you fool enough of them when you control most of the media, education, entertainment, sports and the internet?

Leave a Reply

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