Democrats: In Their Own Words...
In Their Own Words,
Democrats Explain Why
This Impeachment Is A Farce
The House impeachment effort is bureaucracy versus democracy in the Democrats' brazen attempt to protect the 'independence' of the deep state.
It’s getting exhausting having to explain over and over and over why the Ukraine farce is a silly (if sinister) exhibition of poorly written political fiction. As such, I’m going to hand the microphone over to some of the people advancing this terrible sequel to the horrible Russia collusion hoax. Let’s start with the former vice president, the person with whom this all started. What is his opinion about the scandal?
“This behavior is particularly abhorrent because it exploits the foreign policy of our country and undermines our national security for political purposes,” Biden said in a statement. “It means that [President Trump] used the power and resources of the United States to pressure a sovereign nation — a partner that is still under direct assault from Russia — pushing Ukraine to subvert the rule of law in the express hope of extracting a political favor.”
Whoa! Don’t be so rough on yourself, Joe. Here is Biden’s video-recorded confession that he “used the power and resources of the United States to pressure a sovereign nation — a partner that is still under direct assault from Russia — pushing Ukraine to subvert the rule of law in the express hope of extracting a political favor.”
He said, “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter) He got fired.” Biden held up U.S. aid to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired — but Donald Trump needs to be impeached.
Witnesses Are Only Relevant If They Favor Impeachment
How about the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee? Rep. Adam Schiff recently penned an article in which he partially explained why he’s so triggered. He wants to know whether the White House conditioned a meeting with Ukraine, “on Ukraine’s willingness to launch and publicly announce sham political investigations to discredit the unanimous conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and into President Trump’s potential political rival in 2020.”
Somewhere in Schiff’s version of the Constitution, it says the elected U.S. president can’t question or attempt to discredit a “unanimous” conclusion or else he must be impeached.
Schiff recently issued this letter in which he explained the criteria for approving witnesses requested by Republicans in his hippity-hoppity kangaroo impeachment court. Such witnesses must be “relevant,” or Schiff will not approve them. In order for a witness to be relevant, he or she must not contradict any of the following assumptions:
- That the president requested a foreign leader and government to initiate an investigation to benefit the president’s personal political interests,
- That the president sought to use the power of his office to advance his political interests, and
- That the president sought to obstruct, suppress, or cover up evidence of his actions.
Thus, in black and white, Schiff wrote a letter that instructed the powerless Republican minority that only evidence of the president’s guilt would be considered relevant. Does Schiff have a barn? “Maybe we could hold the trial there. I’ll sew the costumes and maybe Uncle Goober can be the judge.”
Anything that discredits the unanimous conclusion that Trump committed a high crime or misdemeanor will not be received as relevant evidence. So under this criteria, would evidence of a legitimate law enforcement concern over Biden’s involvement in Ukraine be relevant to justify Trump’s interest? No. Only evidence of Trump’s guilt is “relevant.”
What about evidence of the highly partisan nature of the whistleblower and his contacts with the chairman? No. There’s a unanimous conclusion that the burden of proof is on the president to prove the absence of his political motives.
Democrats Are Undermining Democracy
The House impeachment effort is a brazen attempt to protect the “independence” of the permanent bureaucracy. It’s bureaucracy versus democracy, and the ironically named Democratic Party has gone to the mattresses to oppose the threat that elections pose to permanent bureaucratic power.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., told America, “It’s an abuse of power [for the elected president] to remove an [unelected] ambassador for political reasons because you don’t like what they’re doing … period.” Others have suggestedthe president should be impeached for threatening the independence of the Department of Justice. Others have argued that Trump questioning the House Intelligence Committee is an act of treason.
The voters are supposed to exercise their control over these powerful bureaucratic functions through their elected president. If Schiff gets his way, however, our elections will become ceremonial exercises that never change real power.
That leads to the question: Why take this question away from the voters? The voters can simply vote for a new president next year. For this, we turn to Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who was asked, “Congressman, are you concerned that impeachment talk might actually help the president’s reelection?” Green answered, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”
So in the words of the people running impeachment: Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless it fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company. This is a crime so troubling that nothing short of impeaching Trump will address the gravity of the situation.
Republicans will be allowed to call any witness and ask any question so long as the information shows why the president is guilty. All of this will defend bureaucratic independence, which has been threatened by the results of the 2016 election and must be accomplished before the voters have a chance to repeat their mistake in 2020.
These are their words. That’s what they’re saying about their own farce.
Adam Mill is a pen name. He works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. Adam has contributed to The Federalist, American Greatness, and The Daily Caller.
Post a Comment