Impeachment Narratives Change With The Wind

Littlechild@emperorsnuclothes.com/ November 23, 2019/ Uncategorized

It is absolutely AMAZING how many times the impeachment narratives and accusations directed at President Trump by House Democrats have changed. They’ve changed so often it might be difficult for busy working people to keep track of them all. There are at least EIGHTEEN! So, as a public service, I’ll present a list of them.

First Narrative: Vladimir Putin CONSPIRED to put Trump in the White House. Although there is no question that Russian cyber bots and Facebook imposters did operate during the campaign, their goal was NOT getting Candidate Trump elected. Why so? Well, that’s easy: NO ONE thought Mr. Trump would be elected, including the Russians. So, if their goal wasn’t to get Trump elected, what WAS their goal? To play havoc with our electoral process and sow as much discord as possible into our politics and, secondarily, into our economy. And, toward those goals, thanks primarily to a nefarious Democratic strategy and a lap dog media, they were spectacularly effective. The Mueller investigation, with all the divisiveness and rancor it engendered, was a direct legacy of the success of Russian strategy.

Second Narrative: Trump’s “in bed” with Vladimir Putin. Although Mr. Trump did make a few mildly positive comments regarding Mr. Putin, he was no Putin functionary. Any thoughts along those lines were definitively refuted when he ordered a stern military response to a number of Russian provocations in Syria and the Ukraine.

Third Narrative: Trump colluded with Russia to influence our election. After over 2 years of intense investigations and 35 million dollars (estimate by Money Magazine) of taxpayer money spent, NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION was found.

Fourth Narrative: Trump tried to obstruct justice by firing James Comey. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump himself partially invited this accusation by saying, at one point, that “I would have fired him anyway.” Be that as it may, preceding the actual firing, Trump received a memo from acting DOJ chairman Rod Rosenstein RECOMMENDING that Trump do so. That alone is sufficient justification for Comey’s termination.

Fifth Narrative: Trump tried to obstruct justice by calling the Russia Probe “a witch hunt.” Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler was especially fond of this accusation. It seems the Nadler felt that any criticism what-so-ever aimed at the investigation SOMEHOW OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE! And, remember, Nadler is chairman of the House JUDICIARY Committee, and SHOULD, therefore, be aware that a verbal critique is NO ONE’S IDEA of obstruction of justice!

Sixth Narrative: Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller didn’t do an adequate job investigating Trump, and, therefore, Congress would have to continue the investigation to do the job right! Although this preposterous meme received considerable attention early on, we haven’t heard hide nor hair of it for at least 6 months now. So, what ever happened to it? Well, after over two years and 35 million dollars given to Mueller, a VERY smart and VERY aggressive prosecutor, along with a virtual carte blanche to overturn every rock and stone, and a crack team of attorneys, prosecutors (most of whom were dyed in the wool Democrats and actual donors to the Democratic Party), to say that the investigation was inadequate, strained credulity to the breaking point. NO ONE believed that.

Seventh Narrative: Trump has profited from the Presidency. This line of accusation involved the emoluments clause of our penal code which prohibits government employees from enriching themselves while in office. Trump detractors pointed to imagined profits at Trump Hotels and businesses. These allegations were shown to be implausible when it was shown how much money Mr. Trump LOST as the result of his presidency. Forbes estimated his losses at over a BILLION dollars.

Eighth Narrative: Trump pressured the Ukrainian President with a “quid pro quo” demand for the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s “quid pro quo” pressure on the Ukraine government to stop an investigation into his son Hunter’s sinecure at Burisma Energy where he was paid FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER MONTH. The Democrats have produced a rag tag assembly of hearsay witnesses, innuendo and speculation with a drizzle of actual witnesses, but, the most important thing to keep in mind is that the actual president of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, has stated clearly on numerous occasions that: “There was no quid pro quo.”

Ninth Narrative: The US held back money to support the Ukraine’s military SOLELY for the purpose of pressuring Zelensky. Subsequently, state department officials have explained that there were other, very good reasons for the US to hold back the money at the time it was withheld. The State Department wanted to make certain that the newly elected Zelensky was not just a political hack that would fail to use the money for its intended purpose. Apparently, Ukraine is considered the third most corrupt government on earth, and the State Department had good reason to be cautious.

Tenth Narrative: Accusations that Biden himself pressured the Ukraine with his own quid pro quo demand have been “debunked.” Every time you hear the term “debunked accusations” regarding Joe Biden’s pressure on the Ukraine, dear reader, go to the following link:

On this short video, you can hear Joe Biden not only admitting it, you can see him BRAGGING ABOUT IT!

Eleventh Narrative: An investigation into Hunter Biden’s corrupt sinecure at Burisma is improper. As noted above, Hunter Biden was given a FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR A MONTH position at Burisma when the United States was negotiating extremely lucrative contracts with that company. Hunter Biden had no management experience nor any expertise what-so-ever in the energy sector, raising very valid suspicions of nepotism and corruption. Investigating such criminality is NOT improper. And, since the Ukraine is an ally of the United States, requests from our government that the Ukraine government “clean up their act” are NOT improper in the least. Whether or not one of the players in Ukrainian corruption is the son of an American presidential candidate is absolutely irrelevant.

Twelfth Narrative: Trump is witness tampering because he tweeted his dissatisfaction with former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s performance while in office. How this assessment, which Mr. Trump had made previously, was supposed to “tamper” with her testimony was never cogently explained. She had ALREADY BEEN FIRED. What is it she was supposedly concerned about? Losing a good LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION?!

Thirteenth Narrative: Trump BRIBED Ukrainian President Zelensky. This “bribery” appellation popped up only recently. It was never mentioned prior to it’s sudden appearance a few days ago, but now is “all the rage.” So, what’s going on with this sudden appearance of the term “bribery”?… Well, it seems that the Democrat’s own polling revealed that Americans don’t, generally, give a hoot about “quid pro quo.” Apparently, the term “BRIBERY”, on the other hand, elicits a stronger reaction. So!.. “BRIBERY” it is, then! This allegation is refuted for the same reason that the “quid pro quo” allegation was (see above).

Fourteenth Narrative: The “whistle blower” is an honest, altruistic, innocent and non partisan American intelligence employee who has stepped forward for the good of his country…. BULLS**T! The “most closely guarded NON SECRET” in Washington is this man’s identity: Eric Ciaramella was “outed” by RealClearInvestigations.com as well as other sources. It turns out that Ciaramella was anything but “non partisan”. He rose in the ranks of the CIA during the tenure of hyper partisan deep state operative John Brennan, and was friendly with none other than Barack Obama (the Washington Examiner recently published a picture of him and Obama in informal and warm conversation). He’s also anything but honest. It is now on record that he met with Adam Schiff PRIOR to lodging his “complaint”. And, anything but innocent. Long before the current controversy, he had been openly criticized for his behind the scenes communications with former National Security Advisor, and deep state operative, Susan Rice. And, he’s anything but altruistic: His gofundme account, set up through his attorneys, has already received over $220,000 in donations. Why are the Democrats so desperate to keep his identity secret? To keep all this, officially at least, under raps.

Fifteenth Narrative: Schiff’s star witness Alexander Vindman’s testimony should be taken seriously. Vindman, who is a National Security Council employee, like the “whistleblower” purports to be a a nonpartisan and honest pubic servant. Refuting his claim to honesty is the fact that he perjured himself during his testimony before Congress when he claimed to “not know” the whistleblowers identity. Analysts believe that not only does Vindman know the whistleblower’s identity but that he is the whistleblower’s handler, and it was he who leaked “concerns” regarding the Trump phone call to him. (Remember, it has been established that the whistleblower did not actually listen to President Trump’s call himself, but made his complaint based upon things he was TOLD; Vindman was one of the few individuals who actually listened in on the Trump/Zelensky conversation and be in a position to discuss it). And, despite his past record of military service, Vindman has more recently come under scrutiny AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL regarding his judgement and loyalty. Vindman’s BOSS at the NSC, Timothy Morrison, testified, under oath, that he and several other NSC staffers had concerns about Vindman’s judgement and loyalty. (See an article by Ryan Saavedra in the www.dailywire.com, November 20, 2019). Vindman never adequately explained away these criticisms, but tried to refute this judgement by quoting positive comments from past NSC analyst, Fiona Hill. Which brings us to….

Sixteenth Narrative: Former NSC staffer Fiona Hill’s testimony should be taken seriously. During her testimony, Ms. Hill claims to have been upset when the Trump administration held back military defense funding to Ukraine in 2018. However, in 2015, while working at the Brookings Institute, she wrote an editorial that was PUBLISHED in the Washington Post where she argued AGAINST sending such aid to Ukraine (see an article by Madeline Osburn in thefederalist.com, November 21, 2019). And, once again, there can be no claim to nonpartisanship here; Brookings is universally acknowledged to be a hard left leaning consortium.

Seventeenth Narrative: Ambassador Sondland’s testimony is anything other than a “cover my backside” screed. Continuously during his testimony, Sondland took great pains to shield himself from any culpability what-so-ever in his activities as ambassador. One could summarize his strategy, in essence, as: “The devil made me do it.” However, during his generally anti Trump testimony, he does admit that Trump told him that there was no “quid pro quo”. See the following link for the video of his specific testimony to that effect:

Eighteenth Narrative: That the Democrats have found ANYTHING remotely near the standard of “high crimes” by Trump. Saying “our findings are SHOCKING”, “Trump’s conduct was CRIMINAL” and “These are IMPEACHABLE offenses” and “Trump ENDANGERS our country” and so on, loud enough and often enough, DOES NOT MAKE THESE STATEMENTS TRUE. As former Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr has remarked: “They have not made the case for any remotely impeachable offense.” And, liberal legal scholar, Jonathan Turley stated in a recent interview that the current Democrat impeachment inquiry was “the shortest investigation with the thinnest evidentiary record ever” and that the Democrats were “creating crimes.” And even the uber liberal journalist Bob Woodward, President Richard Nixon’s antagonist and bete noir, issued a veiled critique during an interview yesterday with CBS in which he was asked to compare the current goings on with Watergate. He responded: “You have to remember that we investigated Watergate for over two years. The Democrats are trying to do it in two months. When you try to rush is when YOU SCREW UP.” (although the emphasis is mine, the words are his, verbatim). So, ladies and gentlemen, this remarkable tale of a plethora of shifting narratives, allegations and accusations, tells us just one thing: there IS NO NARRATIVE. There is NO CASE. This whole farce will go down as a sad attempt by an aggrieved cabal of Congressional malcontents and their media sycophants to depose a legally elected President, and, by doing so, endanger the integrity of our electoral process.