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.

Well … depending upon some votes it could be all over – now that we are done with the Question and Answer sessions. I will let the reader decide how he liked the last two days of Q and A between the partys. I will only focus on one exchange. First, I will do the more superficial who-won-or-lost; but I will then get down to more substantive issues. Below is the rundown of my one example of Q&A –

At first, I thought it was a classic mistake. The GOP sent a zinger question to Schiff where they set up a hypothetical question. It was, basically, a hypothetical that involved an identical situation (to the impeachment charges). But it then had the theoretical change up of it being Barack Obama running against Mitt Romney. My concern was that he would just deflect the question – and talk up another round of talking points. I thought it was going to be a total waste of a question.

And it seemed that way at first. He did deflect the question but then made, as he often does, a totally pompous and manifestly hypocritical set of statements. He said that:

1) you should never talk to foreigners about a political rival (the thing that is admitted by Hillary Clinton vis a vis her paying for a Steele dossier.) And, incredibly, that

2) you should never be investigating your political rival during an election year!!!! Say what? Has he already forgotten that the FBI investigated Donald Trump during his election year? Using material paid for by his political rival – Hillary Clinton? Who collected this material – on her rival – from foreign sources? And that was, ultimately, used to set up an illegally obtained surveillance warrant – on her rival and during an election year!

Good Lord ….. even for Schiff that is a hard to imagine level of hypocrisy. But I wasn’t sure what was accomplished by the Republicans setting him up with the question. Until, that is, their next question was brought forward. It was: would you like to comment on Adam Schiff’s last answer? And … bang there you have it! Everything that I just laid out above was totally dump trucked on top of Adam Schiff by one of the President’s lawyers.

Now consider some of the takeaways. Basically, Adam Schiff has gotten to the point of being predictable in his behavior. Even to the point where you can 1) rely on him to act out on cue and then 2) have a pre-setup answer prepared – for what you already know he is going to say!

But here is we need to get away from Schiff and go to deeper lessons. A deeper question is why does Schiff act out the way that he does? What I will show is that he acts that way because he is being taught to do so. We will now move over to an even most central actor in our toxic politics that we have today.

Did you know that the CNN network gave an order to all its employees – that they were to never cover Donald Trump in a favorable manner? Did you know that the New York Times once did a groveling apology for writing an article that did NOT provide bad coverage to the President? You should know this because they did it openly and before the whole world.

You have a new type of journalism where they are deliberately, intentionally – and even admittedly – being flunky journalists for only one point of view. MSNBC even boasts how you will never find a Trump defender on any of their shows! Isn’t that wonderful?

And this is where we can start moving back to the Schiffs, the Pelosis, the Schumerites and Co. What happens to people like them (or perhaps to any of us for that matter?) when they are told – by what is still supposed to be journalism – that no matter what they think, say or do they will still have the guardians of the airwaves bootlicking them at their shoe level? How does that teach you ……. ACCOUNTABILITY?

Thus, I can wrap this up. The number one villain for all the toxicity in the political process are the people who are simply supposed to be covering it – rather than molding it instead. And that is why I made my initial observation. Why do Schiff, Pelosi and et al act the way they do? It is because they are being taught to.

The President ended his case today and it was well played; less is often better than more!! My update today is to reassure the reader that this last maneuver from the Late Hit Specialists is just that. A calculated late hit to do the maximum damage to the GOP. Not to do the maximum to get to the truth. And I am happy that the defense covered it quickly but effectively.

As to my certainty on this Bolton matter: While I don’t want to be divisive, I have followed Democratic party tactics on significant hearings for decades – not just for years. There is always the orchestrated late hit and it is always, and in every instance, 100% the bull’s whatnot. BUT …

I am being divisive and negative so down to the good news instead. I have been getting something from others in the web community. There is one idea – and with many people suggesting it – that is an absolute masterstroke!!! It centers around Lindsay Graham (who I am being referred to repeatedly with some very similar suggestions). And it revolves around a good point: why does the Impeachment hearing have to be the way to run down the loose ends? These suggestions have been made with several different components:

1) A high profile joint appearance between Lindsay and the President

2) This appearance announces that the loose leads will be run down thoroughly – but fairly also – through the Senate Judiciary Committee of Graham and Feinstein!!!

3) The statement itself – at the appearance – hits two themes hard. The first is a very well put statement that the behavior of Schumer, Pelosi and Schiff deserves no respect whatsoever – and that the impeachment hearings are not the right place to solve the remaining loose ends. But, secondly, Trump totally respects the American people and their right to get a fair and thorough process. Thus, the transfer of the investigation to a better and fairer place!!!

4) With this done it is time to acquit the President, outplay the Late Hit Specialists but, actually – and most important – it would, in fact, be the best way to proceed for the country. All in one stroke!

Whew! No more ‘action’ for today. So … I will leave you with a few tidbits about some breaking news. And (no surprise here) the latest tidbits seem to be about a Lev Parneas. Also that, as happens often, the mainstream media seems eager to ignore the big news – and just as eager to peddle things that are meaningless.

For example: I have mentioned the SDNY experience. A politicized group of federal prosecutors are lending themselves out to do witness intimidation – of anyone favorable to the President. I have previously stated that I am aware of two people who have been put through this. And I have mentioned someone named Sondland as the first one. This newly discussed person, Lev Parneas, is the second.

Like Sondland, he was:

1) on the periphery of the impeachment investigation

2) was favorable to the President and

3) he was someone that the Southern District of New York couldn’t wait until after the impeachment investigation to deal with. Arguably, you don’t want to unfairly influence an impeachment investigation. But, like Sondland, he was called before the SDNY – on a matter totally unrelated to the investigation about impeachment – and then ‘flipped’. He is now another weapon against the President. So much for the big news that the media is eager not to cover.

Their nothing burger news (that they are eager to cover) now centers around a 3-minute excerpt (from an 80-minute tape). This item ‘contradicts’ the President because Parneas is engaging the President in a conversation. But … it is a Donor’s Dinner with multiple people in it (and that have no real connection either to the President or to each other).

I know this because I attended something like it once. And I intend to have the experience be something that I only do once. Why? Because of corrupt cabals and/or impeachable behavior? Quite the opposite. What the Donor’s Dinner is is just a dog and pony show that is arranged by a low lever staffer.

You are given a lavish dinner, a rousing pep talk, and you get a once in a lifetime experience of (seemingly) getting listened to by someone of influence. Except, that they have no real interest in getting your opinions about how they should do their jobs. Nor will the encounter give you a chance to become a big-time wheeler dealer type. It is just a show that is put on to keep you donating more money.

You don’t believe me? But what about the part of the story that the media seems to be stumped on. How his suggestion about an ambassador was never acted on for at least 14 months. But there is nothing stumping about this.

It is simply what I have described. Like virtually all people that are at a donor’s dinner: you will get respectfully listened to, flattered for your brilliance (and what-not) and then both you and your suggestions will be forgotten all about just as soon as you leave. It is just a show that is put on so you will keep donating more money.

Thus, this explosive(?) new revelation shows exactly what Trump is maintaining. That, at least as of that moment, Parneas was no one to him going into the meeting – and remained a no one to him after he went out of it.

So … enough about Parneas. What about the continuation of the Presidents defense – and what they should be doing come Monday? I have some quick and simple suggestions:

1) No Senate vote is needed for the President’s defenders to show some depositions. They should show depositions of the President getting to speak out for himself. And, while I will not elaborate on it at the present time, it is time for the public to be introduced to an Admiral Mike Rogers. This can also be done by way of a deposition.

2) Before the Democrats should be allowed to call their witnesses, they should be required to allow the President to face his accuser, the whistleblower, and be given his constitutional right to face one’s accuser. Next, because the Democrat floor managers have hurled several allegations at people other than the President, they should be given their chance to respond to it with some rebuttal testimony. After that, I am not too worried about the matter one way or the other – but with one caveat.

Like I stated elsewhere: The Democrats, so far, have not even demonstrated that a crime has occurred – since no one is claiming to have been victimized. Thus, there is a point of principle involved: anyone else would have had their case shoved down their throats for trying to do something like that in court. And, like this same crowd said about Clinton, a President is not above the law, but he is not below the law either.

 

 

The good news is that we are close to the end. We are at Day 2 of the President’s defense. As to the case:  an excellent day – but with mild criticisms. Alan Dershowitz was a total blow out for the constitutionality issues (and was even able to keep it interesting to an average person). Thus, he should have been left with that chore.

The other constitutional analysis was not really needed. Especially on a charge that is not taken that seriously anyways – the ‘obstruction of congress’ thing. Respectfully, it was a little bit of a snoozer for the average person and risked getting repetitive.

Plus, one final critique: the one process matter that is still uncovered – even by Dershowitz – is a necessary pushback. Specifically, the contemptuous ridiculing about “process, smocess” by left wingers when Trump claimed it was an unfair one. There is little defense, on process issues, for the Pelosi Democrats in the House.

But this is where we are on very dangerous ground. The Trump haters have not even felt the need to defend it. They seem to honestly think you can do a: “Oh process, smocess. They are just saying that because they are losing on the ‘facts'”.

However, the problem, and an obvious one, is this: there is no way to get to all of the facts – if you skip 3/4 of the process. Say they skip over your fifth amendment right to call your own witnesses – and Pelosi did violate that constitutional right without even batting an eyelash. Then how do you present your facts in the first place?

You shouldn’t need a double law degree to know that the two things are one and the same (following a process and securing all relevant facts). In some ways, this type of a discussion may be one of the greatest damages to our constitutional processes. And it certainly lacks intellectual prowess (which one of the two blades on a pair of sheers is the most important???)

You can’t do a dichotomy between following processes vs. having facts – because that is the entire purpose of the process issues in the first place. Thus, the worst offenders in this matter may not even be the Pelosi type of a Democrat. But, instead, the dismissive left wingers in the media world that peddled this whole notion: that there even is such a thing as a “process, smocess” vs. ‘facts. There is no such a dichotomy and this obnoxious and arrogant concept has not been pushed back against yet.

Thus, I will finish with my mild criticism for the day: Even Dershowitz has not keyed in yet on the necessity of this push back. Thus, I wish the other constitutional analyzers had just done a quick blurb about the need to push back on the “process, smocess”ers. The rest should have been left to Dershowitz because of the danger of getting redundant (and of being somewhat of a snooze fest).

 

We are now on Day 1 of the President’s defense case. And it is an easy day for me to make comments because … this first day of the Defense confirms three matters that I have already mentioned earlier.

1) My prior observations from the Democrats’ first day of “repackaging” their impeachment hearings. I described how they cherry picked material from a dud impeachment hearing, wrapped it into a new narrative and then I asked a logical question: why should that make any of this material any less of a dud? Thus, the first thing that the Defense did was a great strategy: they re-introduced the rest of the material that had been cherry picked from. And, thereby, reestablished the dud nature of the evidence using a 2-hour presentation to rebut the 23 hour one of the Democrat floor managers.

2) My prior observations about the Southern District of New York were reaffirmed. The Defense reopened the original cross examination of the Democrat’s one and only source for any type of a “scheme” to pressure the Ukrainians. He is the one who admitted (during the impeachment hearings) that he had no basis for his “assumptions” – and that his only direct, admissible evidence was the one where Trump exonerated himself –  by saying that he wanted nothing from the Ukrainians. And that there was to be no quid pro quo; he just wanted the Ukrainians to do the right thing.

But, next, this same witness also testified irrationally in other ways. For example: “I don’t remember anything like that – but if a Trump opponent is saying it then it must be true.” How this reaffirms my statements about the SDNY experience (Southern District of New York) is simple. He is one of the two people (that I am familiar with) who went through the time line I mentioned earlier: was a central character in the impeachment matter, talked favorably of Trump – then got brought in by the SDNY on a totally unrelated matter – and then became the bowl of mush that his testimony ultimately wound up being later on.

3) My argument in one of my full length articles from the Pelosi Vendetta materials was reaffirmed. I stated, in a strictly analytical mode, how you cannot, legally, have a case if there is no proof that any one has ever been a victim of any type of a crime. The only people, who are alleged to have been victimized, have always denied that anything occurred, and they continue to deny it. On the other hand, I then mentioned that no one has ever submitted any firsthand admissible evidence to contradict their denial. Thus, a real court case, with real legal rights, would have been an automatic dismissal. Clearly, you first must prove that a crime (or some other type of misbehavior) has been committed. Before can charge (or in some other way act out against) someone for doing some type of an infraction.

But now it is time to speak on a more emotional level. The Democrats have never even established that a crime (or any other type of misbehavior) occurred. We cannot live in a society where both an accused person, and the person who is supposed to be their victim, both are telling the prosecutor that they don’t know what they are talking about. And that still does not limit them from prosecuting away for some type of an infraction anyway. Speaking literally, if that does not even limit their right to act out against you, then how in God’s name are they ever going to be stopped from being allowed to do so? If this type of behavior is going to become normalized: then why couldn’t it become true that anyone can be picked up at any time, prosecuted and, say, “off with your head” at any time and for any reason and on any whim that someone who hates you might want to do it?

Really now: I have heard of cases prosecuted where they could not find a plausible motive, couldn’t find the murder weapon or good eye witnesses. But I have never seen a prosecutor even be allowed to start a case – without first proving there was, at least, an actual crime victim. What total garbage!

ADMIN ONLY:

TESTING EDITING FEB 7 2020

Dear Lord, give us strength! We are on the third and final day of the Prosecution arguments of the Democrat floor managers. The endless repetition (of assuming facts that have never really had any evidence put into the record) goes on and on. But it is still easy to put it into a short blurb for those following the ‘action’.

In a sense, and in a hypocritical manner, the Democrat floor managers have conceded my point about ‘no documentary or testimonial evidence’. They are trying to prove Trump’s motives through a circumstantial case and by asserting that some of it is simply obvious (or prima facie). See my Pelosi Vendetta materials if you are not familiar with what I am saying here. In theory, they could have a point but there are simply too many problems that come from their shaping-a-crime-to-fit-their-suspect type of a mentality.

Example: I stated that – once a crime has definitely been established – it is usually obvious that someone must have had a foul motive for doing the crime. You don’t need documentary or testimonial evidence to establish that. That is, it is prima facie – in such an instance – that the motive is malign in at least some way. But the floor managers are trying to do exactly the opposite: they are trying to first establish that he had malign motives – so that they can then declare his actions to be illegal.

Example: I stated that – in addition to the so-called documentary or testimonial evidence – there is also such a thing as a circumstantial case. The floor managers are now trying to state a circumstantial case, but it is flawed from their reverse engineering tactics. All they started with is that Trump made some very passing reference to Biden in some way, shape or form. Next, that at some point – and for some reason – there was a hold on some type of Ukrainian assistance. So, what does a working backwards case now do in this type of a situation?

It does exactly what the Nadler/Pelosi crowd did. You presume (with no evidence) that the two must be related and then try to find the evidence afterwards – that will then ‘prove’ what you have already assumed.

And all the telltale signs are there to show why this approach never works at getting to the truth.

1) The timings don’t, in fact, match. The hold on the Ukraine was already in place long before any Biden issue could possibly have occurred. And the reason for the hold has firsthand admissible evidence. Trump has always maintained (and, again, long before any Biden matters could have come up) that he has reservations about the Ukraine government. Thus, his hold on the Ukraine ties into his long-held views about Ukraine – that he has repeatedly expressed long before any Biden matters could have occurred.

2) The end of the hold does not match the date of his being somehow caught in something. The date of the end of the hold has already been given previously and, again, through firsthand admissible evidence. Specifically, there was a bipartisan meeting in the White House where the President was given bipartisan heck for not releasing the money.

The heck he was given had nothing to do with schemes to pressure Ukrainians or any other such nonsense. It was about his continued skepticism of the Ukraine that the bipartisan group of Senators had grown impatient with. Trump then released the money after this meeting and because of what the Senators told him – according to those in the meeting speaking through their firsthand experience there.

3) A final matter: the firing of the ambassador under (presumably) shady circumstances. But everything stops at a complete dead end there. Nadler, Pelosi and Co. called no witnesses – and produced no documents – that tied the firing of the ambassador to the start of a scheme that she was supposed to be in the way of.

Every reference they make to “the scheme” stems from simply stating that that is why the ambassador was fired with absolutely no witnesses called to verify it – and with the production of no documentary proof either. It is the textbook case of “assumes facts not in evidence” except that it is the assuming of an entire case not in evidence. And on we could go. I’ll write you more tomorrow when we start hearing from the President.

 

We are on day two of the impeachment trial and I will demonstrate a simple exercise that will help every reader. What is a reverse engineered criminal case? One that comes from a process called “working backwards”?

It is when you, as I have demonstrated in the Pelosi Vendetta materials, start with a desire to prosecute, have the person in mind that you want to prosecute and are just looking for something to bootstrap it onto. Professional prosecutors who work with this in mind can get many a false conviction – but not if the people listening understand what is going on.

So here are two simple thought exercises for the reader:

1) The case for impeachment has consisted of hours and hours long arguments that then revolve around their clips of people testifying and making statements. It is being said how incredible a case it makes, how strong the arguments, etc. BUT, with few exceptions, every one of these items is just something that was extracted out of the impeachment hearings – that were a total dud.

In other words, when all these clips were being presented in their full context, they fell totally flat – and with good reason. All the evidence in the prior hearing (minus some clips that they did NOT show in their impeachment presentation) would be inadmissible in any court of law. All of it was statements of opinion, asserting of facts not actually in evidence, second-third-and-fourth hand hearsay, etc.

And the prior hearing was a well-deserved, complete and total bomb for Schiff and company. So …. how does cherry picking from this same material suddenly make the evidence become any better than it was before? This is simply what reverse engineering a case does – it effectively makes something out of a near nothing – by just doing a repackaging effort.

2) Consider that everything always has at least two possible interpretations. It is true that there is something of a clash going on being Trump and Biden – but doesn’t that make for two possible people who could be at fault for it? Rather than just one? Example: Did Trump focus on Biden simply because he is Biden? Or was it because of what Joe Biden said about what he did – and Trump found it to be corrupt and inappropriate?

Where has it been proven that, if someone else had said the same thing, that he would not have taken an interest in them also? The Trump case is that he only took an interest in Biden after he said what he said about what he did – and not before that. That is, if Biden had never made his publicly quoted statements then Trump would never have taken any interest in him.

Ergo, it is Biden who caused this row to happen by what he said (about what he did) – it is not Trump who caused it to happen simply because he responded to it. A Trump ad makes a fair point says the ad “Biden makes a public statement about doing illegal behavior and I get impeached because I asked just one question about it’.

Similarly, there is the same one-sided bias about the fact that he asked a foreign person about it. But that is who Biden said he did the illegal behavior to! Specifically, that he did it with a Ukrainian person.

So why would you ask a Norwegian, a Lithuanian or someone in the US about a crime done to someone in the Ukraine? Where has it been proven that if Biden had said he did it to, say, a Norwegian – that Trump would have still gone after the Ukrainians anyway? He only talked to the Ukrainians because that is where the activity happened – and on we could go.

Concluding, in any ‘working backwards’ building of a (non)case it is always the same thing. Deflect people to only one possible interpretation of the events – and then hope that they will follow only what you want them to hear.

 

The ‘trial’ (such as it is) is even more of a fiasco than I had feared. You may want to go to our “Welcome to the Library” section and look at the Pelosi Vendetta materials. He is being tried, as I suspected he would be, for “thought” crimes,i.e., was he being politically motivated?

They are also trying to criminalize differences of opinion: their own evidence shows that 1) Trump has a sincere conviction about the Bidens being stone, cold crooked and that 2) he has sincerely felt questions about the Ukranian regime – and whether they are really trying to fight corruption. But they are, essentially, arguing that because they feel that his opinions are wrong that that now makes him guilty of acting out of a ‘corrupt’ intent.

And, lastly, Hillary Clinton has already admitted to using foreigners to dig up dirt on own’s opponents – the very thing that they are trying to accuse Trump of. It’s totally hypocritical, totally politically motivated and it’s ludicrous!