SECTION ONE: THE SAME OLD BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS – AD NAUSEUM
Great news!!! I think we have all had enough – and I am glad to say that this will be my last recap of the impeachment situation. This recap will have three sections, and this is the first one. The next two will be very small points on some evidence and a final takeaway.
So, to start this first section … maybe some comparisons are in order. Start with Chuck Schumer and his first foray into the impeachment. It was a session where you simply made motions about the proceedings that were going to happen.
At that time, people only thought there were 3 or 4 people who had some more pertinent information. Schumer could have made one motion for all the witnesses that he wanted to hear from. Then added something to the effect of “along with all relevant documents and supporting materials.” Or, the motion could have had all the prolonged legalese that such requests can be made to have – but have a waiving of the reading.
Instead, he separated everything into 13 different motions. He also made each motion have a deliberate overkill of legalese to maximize the length of time involved. Then demanded the full reading of each motion. It resulted in more than 2 hours being devoted to just reading the motions into the record. For whatever the reason, he seemed to feel that being as deliberately obnoxious and overbearing as possible had a value to him.
Then compare the final four motions he made – after he had effectively lost any more control over the hearings – and the acquittal became a fait accompli. He made four motions (that still could have been rolled into one) and the reading of each motion took about thirty seconds. And, thereby, totaled about two minutes worth of time.
Ergo, when Schumer is free to be Schumer it takes him two hours to do things that could have been done in two minutes. Thus, you have about a 60-fold factor of deliberate obnoxiousness involved when he is left to his own devices. And then there were things that remained the same throughout the entire set of hearings.
Specifically, what I have referred to as “totally pompous and manifestly hypocritical” statements. Like “You REPUBLICANS have to make sure this winds up as a fair hearing.” Really???
Fact: to make the process wind up being equally fair – to both sides – you would have to deal with the denial of cross-examination the DEMOCRAT House did to the GOP. Thus, if we really wanted everything to wind up with a totally fair and equal balance, we would have to allow the President’s lawyers to cross exam all 17 of the Democrats original witnesses.
Fact: to make the process wind up being equally fair – to both sides – you would next have to deal with the fact that only the Democrats got to call witnesses. Wouldn’t the President have the right to call his 17 witnesses – that he should have been allowed to call also? Which would then mean that the Democrats would next cross examine them.
Takeaway: If we really wanted to wind up with a 100% fair work product – and for both sides – then the Senate chamber would have to be closed for all other business for around 2 to 3 months. And this would be just to equal things back up again from the DEMOCRAT unfairness coming out of the House. And so, then what?
You now have the standardized Late Hit that has become a part of every disputed process. This is where you have the deliberate and calculated leaks from the ‘unbiased’ journalists – to drop an endless number of shiny new objects into the discussion. The Democrats would demand a witness for each of them – and the Republicans would then have the right to demand rebuttal witnesses to dispute each shiny new object. Ergo, not going to happen, was never going to happen and, thus, it should indeed have simply been dropped – like it was.
So … I will go back again to what I mentioned in the last update. Why do they do things this way? Why does Schumer have to be as belligerently obnoxious as he can get away with? Why does Pelosi act so gratuitously disrespectful to the President at every opportunity – and have every word that comes out of her mouth be so manifestly hypocritical?
It is, again, because they have been taught to act that way. There are rewarded by the mainstream media fawning on them for their every word. And by then ensuring that there is never any accountability. And, to another point I raised earlier, what if someone was to go around in this same manner – to me – that the ‘unbiased’ journalists go around with Pelosi and Co.? Then I imagine I might also become one of the worst possible versions of myself.
I don’t need someone to swoon on my every syllable, to kiss me (pardon my bluntness) on all four of my cheeks and to just, generally, encourage me to become an arrogant, narcissistic creep. This behavior, from flunky journalism, is the type of thing where you are doing someone a favor that is not really a favor at all. Destroy someone as a person by flattering them through their ears. Not good for either them or America.
SECTION TWO: THE SAME OLD (AD NAUSEUM) CANARDS FROM SCHIFF AND COMPANY
1) For the final time: It doesn’t matter how much you may hate Trump, how evil a person he may (or may not) be – or any other factor: the physical universe still makes it impossible for there to be a crime if there is no crime victim. There is only an alleged crime victim (the Ukrainians) who steadfastly maintain that Schiff and Co. don’t know what they are talking about.
Secondly, there is another fact of the physical universe and that is: that it is not possible to stop something that you have never started. To those who say “he only stopped doing it once he got caught”: again, the official Ukrainian position is NOT that they felt pressured and then it stopped. It is that nothing ever started in the first place. It is not physically possible to stop something that you never started doing in the first place.
2) For the final time: Why would they being asking “why” in the first place? When the news came out about the hold several White House staffers received many calls from the Ukrainians about “Why is there this hold?”. And, once again, not even Trump can defy the physical laws of the universe. It is not physically possible to threaten someone without explaining what they are being threatened about. So, why would they be asking why if, according to Schiff, they had already been told why as of several weeks earlier?
3) For the final time: The only person who has testified that the firing of an ambassador was connected – to all the things that they said it was connected to – is Adam Schiff. It is not just assuming facts not in evidence – it is assuming an entire case not in evidence.
Further, if Trump really got rid of an ambassador (because she was not a Trump lacky that would help him with his illegal schemes) – then why didn’t he replace her with a Trump lacky who would help him with it? Instead, he allowed the acting ambassador to stay on – and he still stays on to this day. And in neither his testimony, nor in his actions, did he ever act as a Trump lacky doing illegal schemes.
This is what I am talking about with the utter ad nauseum effect of the Pelosi charade. Once you know that it is physically impossible for him to have done an illegal act, then all he can be guilty of is (perhaps) talking about doing it or (perhaps) considering doing it. This is the type of thing that you handle politically.
If you think it was bad judgment – or you question how he could even talk or consider something about it – then that is a valid campaign issue for you to run on. I don’t agree with you – but it is valid as a campaign issue. But it is never a valid reason for a prosecution and for a very simple reason. “Do only unto others what you would want them to do to you”. I would not want to be prosecuted for what I have (maybe) talked about or (maybe) considered. Therefore, I am also against someone else being prosecuted for it.
SECTION THREE: THE SAME OLD DIATRIBES AGAINST TRUMP – AD NAUSEUM
Trump is nasty and vindictive, Trump is a wannabe dictator, Trump is a threat to our civil liberties, etc. etc. etc. etc. But let’s narrow it down to a two-party comparison for the moment: Trump vs. Trump’s adversaries. Between the two: who is the most nasty, vindictive, wannabe dictatorish and a threat to our civil liberties?
And let’s narrow down the arena to the SDNY (the Southern District of New York federal prosecutors)/Mueller team as an example of a Trump adversary. And let’s use Gordon Sondland as a case in point to study this question: of people getting their civil liberties threatened, being shown nastiness and vindictiveness etc.
First, there is why I hold the view that the SDNY/Mueller Team is, effectively, a criminal organization. Do you remember George Papadopoulos and Mike Flynn? Papadopoulos was the first person under the FBI surveillance – and has a legitimate reason to question exactly what – and how – things happened to him.
While no one claims to have all the answers even mainstream media outlets have tried to do a (somewhat) fair spin on his case. And it is because it is so much like a bizarre spy novel. It is almost as though he joined the Trump campaign at a virtually nothing burger level – and immediately seems to have a target on his back!
For no discernable reason, he has a (maybe) Russian spy initiate an encounter where he spills to him about a potpourri of bizarre news tidbits. And from that instant forward, it is like he is travelling the globe with everyone and his kid brother chasing him down: “I’m a spy! I’m a spy! Collude with me! Collude with me! Please!!” And he is caught on tape saying, essentially, “Hell no! I’m not a traitor.”
Despite his bizarre travails, the most compassionate thing the authorities can think to do with him is to still charge him with some process crime. He passed his “collusion” test with flying colors but, as I have mentioned in other writings, federal prosecutors have a very hard time just accepting no for an answer. There is just something that seems to gall them about someone leaving one of their buildings without being charged with at least something. The agency involved was the SDNY/Mueller team.
We now know that Mike Flynn was as blatantly transgressed against by the law as the FISA warrant controversy has had its transgressions. Like the FISA process, evidence was manufactured against him during his proceedings. The agency involved was the SDNY/Mueller Team.
There was a same judge who presided over the trials of a Mr. Manafort and a Roger Stone. He was not able to stop the SDNY (them again) from prosecuting them – but he admonished them that it was still an arbitrary prosecution (if not a false one). He said that they were only being charged because of their connection to Donald Trump. He is also the judge I referred to – who made the comments about how people will often “compose” rather than merely “sing” when the squeeze is on.
There is a reference of mine (in other writings) about how the feds will often break through your lawyer/client confidentiality. And I described how they did this with Trump’s lawyer, a Michael Cohen. The agency involved was the SDNY/Mueller Team.
There are two current legal activities being done against Trump regarding an affair with a woman and the question of his tax returns. Both are being handled by the SDNY. Finally, I have previously mentioned a lot of high-profile celebrity cases that were used by SDNY lawyers to advance themselves in some way. To sum up: There have taken it upon themselves to leave New York (where they are supposed to operate) and to become the Resistance against Donald Trump. And, if in the course of their quest they should wrong a few people, then they are just fine with that.
But now we get to Gordon Sondland. He is one of the two people I have talked about elsewhere. He is someone who was in the middle of the impeachment inquiry, started out favorably disposed to the President and then flipped the other way when he was subjected to the SDNY experience.
The specifics are that the impeachment inquiry, at that time, had no possible legs under it. There was no one pointing the finger at the President to say there were any malign connections in anything he was doing. There were tons of Democrat Congressmen stating it as a fact – but they had no specific person to carry their story for them.
Then other facts started to emerge. As all the pieces of the puzzle swirled, it became obvious that if Sondland stood by the President then the new narrative could never take off. And then ….
A U.S. Congressman, Earl Blumenauer, led a boycott of Sondland’s hotels – as a retaliation for his original testimony that unwaveringly supported Trump. With a curious twist here: Blumenauer is of the same political party as Adam Schiff who stated, “We take all forms of witness intimidation seriously here.” And then ..
Sondland wound up in the newspapers with an unfavorable story about abusive behavior towards women. And then …
Sondland got notified by – you guessed it – the SDNY that they had questions about his behavior (regarding matters that had no relationship to the impeachment inquiry.) And then …
He flipped!!! And this leads to our closing this point out with the comparison I talked about earlier. After he flipped, his troubles vanished like the morning mist. Whatever abusive behavior he had ever done towards women (if he ever really did any at all) no longer seemed to matter. There were no more contacts from his new-found friends at the SDNY. But … there is still the other side of the comparison.
Now that he has flipped against the President, how much nastiness, vindictiveness and abuse of his civil rights has been done to him – by the President? None. How much nastiness, vindictiveness or civil rights violating behavior was ever done to him to get him to originally be pro-Trump in the first place? Again, none.
So, if you go strictly off Gordon Sondland, who is the most nasty, vindictive and civil rights violating of the two parties? Is it Donald Trump or his adversaries?
AND, AT LAST, IT IS CLOSING TIME (FOR ME ALSO)
So, to not further prolong this impeachment, I will try to keep my remarks short on a last couple of points. I am trying to be a “new outreach” Republican with a hope to unite people. This impeachment has worried me. By (presumably) “defending Trump” I am a little leery about “un-uniting” people rather than the other way around.
But, if you are fair, am I just defending Trump? Haven’t I stated (many times) that there are much deeper issues than Trump involved? And that you, therefore, need to ignore whether you do or don’t like Trump?
So, I conclude with one bit of praise for his administration. He has made a lot of our issues his issues. There are the one-sided trade deals, the chaotic immigration policies, the collapse of manufacturing and heavy industries. And, despite all of his ‘racism’ he was the one who sponsored the second chance program. Then there are the opportunity zones for the most blighted areas of the country. Between this issue and the second chance program – you have two areas where he is helping people in situations where it is the African American who is hit the hardest.
So why not a turn about being fair play? He has made our issues his issues. So, isn’t it right for us to now make his issue our issue? We need to get off the sidelines – this type of nonsense, ultimately, attacks us all anyways.