The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3:
“. . . he [President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .”
The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Presidential Oath of Office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Drone photo of crowds of illegal immigrants at the International Bridge on the southern border in Texas, Sept. 16, 2021.President Biden after signing a stack of executive orders shortly after taking office to reverse many of Trump’s actions.
Yes, but he won’t be.
How to rein in the President when occupants from both parties, but particularly the donkey party, have overstepped and shirked their legal responsibilities? Do we have to wait four years to correct the abuse?
Well, no. Impeachment stands at the ready. The Democrats tried it twice in Trump’s one term. They may have debased its utility by frivolous and failed overuse. Yet, it has become commonplace for federal officers throughout the three branches to egregiously overstep their powers while flagrantly ignoring their clear constitutional responsibilities. Most recently, President Biden refuses to enforce the immigration laws. He has, by execute order(s), simply repealed enforcement of the border. That’s a dereliction of a clear compulsory-in-law duty.
Could it qualify as a “high crime” when an elected officer grievously neglects his or her lawfully required responsibility? Biden’s executive orders are a clear violation of the oath of office to “faithfully execute” the constitutional position. You can’t “faithfully execute” if you refuse to do your job. You’re willfully derelict. Willful, persistent dereliction is a willful, persistent violation of the Constitution. “High crime” anyone?
The scenes at the southern border are gut-wrenching for all the people allured by illegal presidential promises to not enforce the law. The human tidal waves passing through without paying heed to legal strictures, while enabling passage throughout the country of said violators, is tantamount to presidential complicity in crimes. This isn’t an indictment based on a phone call or overheated rhetoric at a rally. It is a shredding of the oath and Constitution. What can be a more serious “high crime” than to blatantly violate the highest law?
The donkey party’s abettors of the behavior will try to hang their hat on “prosecutorial discretion”. Where’s the discretion? Is it “discretion” to take an entire class of law and pretend it doesn’t exist? Not only that, but to assist in the violation of the laws? Hardly. It’s the practice of euphemism to provide cover for criminal conduct. “Prosecutorial discretion” turns a bank robbery into an “unauthorized withdrawal”.
It’s time to rethink our obese federal Leviathan. The level of government headquartered in DC has been unhinged from Constitutional moorings for quite some time. Impeachment might be one useful tool to once again align the branches within the bounds of our charter – i.e., return them to legal status.
However, I’m under no illusion that anybody in either party has the stomach for such medicine. We’ll, as before, muddle along and be content with the results of an electorate equally as unhinged as the people they elect. And surveys will continue, as before, to show deep disenchantment with the people they choose.
Pogo in Walt Kelly’s comic strip famously said in 1970, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Kelly meant the statement for the plague of pollution. He’d probably be surprised to learn that Pogo’s quip has a much more robust application.
Elizabeth Warren is trying to right her sinking ship of a presidential campaign by appealing to the crazy left base of the Democratic Party with more and more outrageous utterances. Last Thursday (Jan. 30), she submitted a question in the impeachment trial by attacking the character of the Chief Justice, the presiding officer in the Senate trial. She basically accused him of being a shill for the president and Republicans. Watch the Chief Justice in a multi-second stare at the senator.
This not the way to “How to Win Friends and Influence People” (Dale Carnegie, 1936) . She would do well to get the book and read it. Under “Fundamental Techniques in Handling People”: #1, “Don’t criticize, condemn, or complain.”
Previously, she belittled the office of Secretary of Education by notifying the world that a “trans” child would make the choice if she wins the presidency. What?! Is she showing how far she will go to shamelessly humiliate herself at the altar of woke patronization. At what point is the word “despicable” appropriate in describing a politician?
In previous posts I explained the craziness of the Democrats’ impeachment jihad against Pres. Trump. This post is a continuation of the series which exhibits the Dems’ near complete divorce from law and logic.
I regularly listen to only one talk show, The Hugh Hewitt Show. I listen only sporadically to the others, if not at all. This segment of Friday’s show is an interview with Dr. Matthew Spalding of Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington, DC. If you have 21 minutes, listen to Spalding’s assessment of the impeachment proceedings so far. He raises some interesting points far removed from the confirmation-bias gabfest on the cable shows and left-of-center networks (which means all of them).
Two historical references in the conversation are intriguing. First, the Democrats’ claim that Trump is especially egregious in the use of presidential powers for political gain is undermined by … history. Lincoln ordered Sherman to send his Indiana troops home to vote, all this during a catastrophic civil war. Interesting. Second, Adam Schiff butchers the context of Hamilton’s letter to Washington. Hamilton was defending Washington from his critics not, as Schiiff asserts, warning Washington from becoming an autocrat. The letter mentions the dangers to Washington of popular demagogues “riding the whirlwind” … people like Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, and the rest of the Resistance barkers. The Dems are so desperate to remove Trump that they are more willing to resemble skilled contortionists than mature statesmen.
One of the biggest dangers of this current impeachment affair is the danger of impeachment’s regular use as a tool of political bickering, something I have been warning about for weeks. In the end, here we are.
Republicans jot this down: the next time a Democrat president invents by presidential decree whole new categories of immigrants to be exempt from legal sanction, as Obama did in 2014 with merely his “pen and phone”, please move to expel that person from office.
Jerrold Nadler (D, NY), one of the House Impeachment Managers
Chutzpah increases with the intensity of the longing for power. Case in point: Jerry Nadler, House Impeachment Manager. Yesterday, Nadler cherry-picked a couple of quips from Professor Jonathan Turley’s testimony before Schiif’s committee and other statements to justify his jihad. So out of context was Nadler’s claims that it borders on perjury if he was a witness on the stand.
First, let’s hear from Nadler. Yesterday, he said that Turley “agreed that the articles charged an offense that is impeachable.” Then he quoted Turley as saying “it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a noncriminal allegation of abuse of power.” The only problem is that Turley’s full testimony is a censure of the Democrats’ impeachment crusade. Nadler’s desperation to remove Trump from office causes him to mangle reason and fact.
Next, let’s hear from Turley himself in his testimony before Schiff’s committee. Listen for yourself below. According to Turley, the offenses are impeachable … if proven. The only problem is that there is a “paucity of evidence and abundance of anger”. He said, “This is one of the thinnest records on impeachment to go forward.” Once again, turning to the possibility of noncriminal impeachable offenses, Turley agrees to the possibility … but this ain’t it! That was the entire thrust of his testimony.
Does this sound like Turley is ready to write the Democrats’ impeachment brief?
As Lincoln once said, “God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.” And that also applies to you, Jerry Nadler, and to the record of Turley’s testimony.
Impeachment manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., speaks in support of an amendment offered by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., during the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020.
Well, the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump has begun … and the title says it all. The Dems are feverishly working to turn an unimpeachable action into an impeachable one. They are twisting themselves into pretzels in the attempt.
If you just look at the guts of the accusations, there’s nothing to hang your hat on. The evidence doesn’t only lend itself to Schiff’s wild political imagination. The cry of a threat to national security is gibberish. If Trump’s delay of the giving of lethal aid to Ukraine posed such an existential danger to the US, what do you make of Obama’s boycott of the same lethal aid? The infamous phone call isn’t clear cut. It’s as rambling as Trump’s on-stage performances at his rallies. Witnesses say that they “felt” there was a “quid pro quo” as others aren’t quite sure. Besides, even if there was, the Democrats are only mad that there wasn’t Hillary in office to resurrect the IRS as an arm of the Democratic Party. Don’t you get the feeling that this is just a sham?
The impeachment mess is another example of the unrestrained “will to power”. Anything, literally anything, is considered just and proper in the pursuit of power. The Dems have ample company in the 20th century’s long list of utopia-mongers. Beware, you Democrats, the French Revolution’s Jacobin Reign of Terror ended when their guillotine was turned on them.
The Death of Robespierre, who was guillotined in Paris, July 28,1794.
I wish for a return of calm, adult reason … if that is possible.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), speaks about the the Senate Impeachment trial at the Capitol, January 16, 2020, in Washington, DC. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP)
Axios quotes Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer as tweeting, “Trials have witnesses and documents. Cover-ups don’t.” Yes, they do, Chuck, if the prosecution brings them as part of their charges, and they must be disclosed. It’s called “discovery”: the 6th Amendment right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”. Shoddy charges leads to quick dismissal. A judge would discard the charges if prosecutors approached the bench with a demand to start the trial on the basis of unknown and thus undisclosed witnesses and documents because the current batch is a joke.
Chuck, you must be admitting that your charges are empty. Result: “Case dismissed!”
A proper legal response would be to take the embarrassing things back and continue your years-long inquisition to find something that will sell, anything. But from here on, though, a Congressional session (2 years) will be devoted to a little bit of legislation and a lot of impeachment.
Congressional public approval is in the toilet. After this becomes a permanent agenda item, Congress’s positives will make their way to the sewage treatment plant.
I know, I know, it’s Christmas eve but I couldn’t resist commenting on the latest impeachment fracas. Pelosi is holding impeachment hostage by refusing to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Like the sword of Damocles, now in the hands of Pelosi, Trump will face an assembly line of impeachment articles as she demands more witnesses and documents for further expeditions into all things Trump before she turns over the already-approved articles to the Senate. But she says that she is a good Catholic, hates no one, and prays for the target of her political jihad. Really, how good of a Catholic is she? Is this Christ-like behavior?
One has to wonder. Is it Christian to endlessly hound a citizen by placing them under the perpetual gaze of inquisitors? Is it Christian for one house of Congress to step outside its legal role of investigating possible wrongdoing and demand the other house, acting as jurors, step outside its role to do what the first house refused to do, such as produce the information that it chose not to provide as part of its duty? Trump is no angel, and neither are Pelosi, Schumer, and the Resistance.
Is it Christian for her to proudly announce her Christian bonafides as she soils the very doctrines of her faith? Under the euphemism “right to choose”, she crowed in 2018 that “I’m a rabid supporter of a woman’s right to choose …” Rabid indeed! Earlier this year, rather than condemn Ralph Northam’s (D, governor of Va.) support of a live-birth abortion bill in the Virginia legislature and his description of it, she dodged the question when asked. Not even the killing of a newborn can draw the ire of this allegedly “sincere” Catholic.
In addition, she has persistently opposed efforts to protect viable babies in the womb and those born alive in the course of an abortion. She is absolutely grotesque when it comes to the Christian responsibility to protect life.
Former Vice President Joe Biden was rejected for Holy Communion by a priest in South Carolina, Oct. 2019
It doesn’t stop there. In that space where some assertions of gay rights conflict with religious freedom strides the hubristic Nancy Pelosi. Religious freedom must give way, according to her holiness Pelosi. Her House-passed Equality Act would strip protections for denominations with Bible-based views on sexuality and family, particularly if their Christian calling carries them beyond the sanctuary into running orphanages, hospitals, counseling services, schools, and wherever human need lies. Pelosi wants to essentially rewrite millennia-old Christian doctrine to fit her social views. Where’s the Christianity in this?
Here Polish World War II war orphans are being cared for at a Catholic orphange after the War in 1946.
This season to honor the birth of Christ is saddled with the preachiness of a pagan-Christian. Yes, it’s an oxymoron and also a reality in today’s morally-confused Democratic Party. I find it hard to take seriously Pelosi’s attempt to wrap herself in the garb of the Church. Does the phrase “false prophet” remind you of anyone?
Galli (r) appears on Al Sharpton’s CNN program in the wake of the editorial.
A Preface
The December 19 issue of Christianity Today – prominent evangelical publication founded by the evangelist Billy Graham – came out with a scathing editorial calling for Trump’s impeachment by the magazine’s chief editor, Mark Galli. A wide array responses critical of Galli views quickly ensued from notable evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham (Billy Graham’s son) and those affiliated with the Family Research Council.
It’s clear from Galli’s prior statements about Trump before the 2016 election that he had a strong anti-Trump bias. In 2016 he disparaged not only Trump but his supporters, many of whom are evangelicals, when he wrote, “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord.”
It would be a mistake to assume that Galli speaks for the majority of evangelicals, let alone his magazine’s founder, Billy Graham. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son, disclosed that his father voted for Trump: “Yes, my father Billy Graham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree with their opinion piece. In fact, he would be very disappointed.” Further he said, “My father knew Donald Trump, he believed in Donald Trump, and he voted for Donald Trump. He believed that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation.”
Galli speaks for himself as he sets himself apart from the vast evangelical movement. Below is my reaction to the obvious anti-Trump bias in a publication closely associated with Billy Graham. Galli richly deserves the blowback of his words.
My Reaction to Galli
John O’Sullivan, adviser to Margaret Thatcher and pundit, announced O’Sullivan’s First Law: “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.” I’m beginning to wonder if Mark Galli’s (editor in chief of Christianity Today) condemnation of Trump in his recent editorial is confirmation of O’Sullivan’s insight. One has to ponder the possibility.
The transformation of originally center-right organizations into center-left ones starts with a muddle. Fundamental canons of the institution are confused with the passing fascinations of our cultural arbiters in well-to-do urban enclaves and the commanding heights of our media. Environmentalism, for instance, creeps into sermons and encyclicals by melding “stewardship” with campaigns against plastics, CO2, and preservationist land use policies. Not surprisingly, Sunday school lessons are littered with the pop politics. And it doesn’t stop there.
Further evidence of the politicized leftward infection is the facile proclamation of faithfulness to long-established principles while accepting the premises of the left. Now here’s a real muddle. It was clearly evident in Galli’s call for Trump’s impeachment.
First, the cognitive clutter of Galli’s piece was palpable in the attempt to erect a parallel between Bill Clinton’s perjury before a federal grand jury with Trump’s request to investigate the corruption of people who include the scions of powerful Democratic Party personages. Galli blindly endorses the worst possible interpretation of a conversational and rambling phone call to the Ukrainian president as if his and the Resistance’s interpretation is the only one feasible. Aping Adam Schiff, Galli proclaims that Trump “attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents.” This is nothing but tendentious political boilerplate. It’s demeaning for the editor of one of the most respected of evangelical journals. Galli just reduced the magazine’s reputation many notches.
President Bill Clinton’s videotaped grand jury deposition on Aug. 17, 1998
Perjury before a federal grand jury is a federal crime (18 U.S. Code § 1621), the last time that I checked. Where would Galli put a rambling phone call asking the Ukrainians to investigate corruption of gold-digging American politicos in the federal penal code? And if you wanted to put it in there, how would you state it without criminalizing the president’s Constitutional duty to conduct foreign policy? Any effort would produce a hot mess.
Oh, I forgot, committing perjury in a federal district court and before a federal grand jury by a person with as many extramarital escapades as the Marquis de Sade – including quite probably a rape, like de Sade – is the equivalent of mentioning the Bidens in a congratulatory phone call. Not! Galli lacks the simple Biblical principle of proportionality.
For the benefit of Adam Schiff, Galli, and the rest of the Democratic scolds in the Resistance, here’s a more plausible alternative rendering of the call, one understandable to a 16-year-old. Trump’s mode of conversation is not professorial, as in a lecture or a speech in the well of the Senate. He rambles like a stand-up comedian in a club. He’ll have a thought that originated on the couches of Fox and Friends and run with it. So, if the eye-brow raising boast of Joe Biden getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating the younger Biden’s company gets Trump’s attention, and not being careful with his mouth like a smooth-talking politician, Trump bounced the idea off his cohorts and in his call to Zelensky. In such an atmosphere, policy arises from a series of rambling conversations with no clear and obvious determination. Trump brings it up in passing to Zelensky and some administrative underlings understandably mistake it for a directive to withhold aid, both before and after the call, while others aren’t quite so sure. In the end, the aid was released without anything in return. If the previous sentence is “B”, and Galli’s moral condemnation of Trump is “A”, how does Galli (and Schiff) ever get to “A”? Galli fell for a partisan canard.
This scenario was borne out by the testimony before Schiff’s tribunal. Those who mistook a meandering policy-making process for a clear directive appeared before the tribunal, but even they couldn’t identify the crime. And neither they nor the hanging-judge Democrats on the panel could account for the Ukrainians getting the aid as no investigations were conducted by the Ukrainians.
And the hypocrisy of the whole thing is astounding. Trump gave the Ukrainians lethal aid – i.e., weapons – while these same Democrats and Obama were only willing give the Ukrainians band aids and cotton balls. Spare me the convenient discovery of concern for the fortunes of a small country in the jaws of Putin’s Russia. Only mild protests came from the likes of Obama, Schiff, Pelosi, and Schumer as eastern Ukraine and the Crimea were amputated. Galli, the glaring hypocrisy of the hyper-partisan Democrats should heighten your sensitivity to their incredulous proclamations. They have no evidence of wrongdoing – least of all an impeachable offense – and neither do you [Galli].
President Barack Obama answers questions during his news conference following the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, August 2014.
I suspect a deep prejudice against Trump in people like Galli. A prejudice can exist whenever a prejudgment has been made in spite of the evidence. The prejudice allows a person to lose perspective. A history of political behavior in the era BT [before Trump] might prove enlightening if the prejudice didn’t get in the way of doing the research. A stroll down memory lane to the 1930’s and the reign of Saint FDR would prove instructive if only Galli cared.
Where shall I start? The bloating of the federal budget under the guise of “fiscal stimulus” was very useful for advancing the FDR’s political prospects and was put at his service. He withheld federal aid to states and districts who opposed his initiatives. The larceny was naturally more active during election season. Political opponents found their FCC licenses revoked. Charles Lindbergh found himself under FBI surveillance with FDR’s nodding approval. And let’s not forget the prosecution and persecution of Samuel Insull to fulfill FDR’s need for the scalp of one of the “great malefactors of wealth” for allegedly causing the Great Depression. What about the herding of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps? Of course, going down the memory hole is any recognition that FDR is probably the cause of a depression becoming a Great one.
To put finis on the Insull affair, after FDR’s prosecutors got their hands on Insull, he was acquitted of all charges in two trials.
Do we need to unearth the sordid political activities of the Kennedys and LBJ as the Church Committee did in 1976? Galli, come on, take a look.
We have an ample history of the conjoining of “politician” and “skullduggery”. Some of it is illegal, and, by Galli’s standard, all of it is impeachable … far more impeachable than a one-off congratulatory phone call to the president of a small country.
Galli’s standard for impeachable offenses is so loose that we might as well have a permanent congressional committee to handle presidential impeachments, particularly during periods of divided government. We’ll need it. At that point, the presidency will become the handmaiden of whatever majority happens to capture the House. Right alongside “sequestration” and “continuing resolutions” we’ll have “impeachment” as part of our daily news briefing. Galli’s standard has no limiting principle, at least not one recognizable to mortal man.
Isaiah quotes the Lord as saying, “Come now, let us reason together …” Galli confuses partisan hyperbole for reason. Context, perspective, and proportion have no role in his thought process. He has substituted invective for “let us reason together” rather than pursue a more thoughtful rendering of the issues before us.
Kudos to Senators Josh Hawley (R, Mo.) and Marsha Blackburn (R, Tn.) for attempting to really drain the swamp. Their bill, S. 2672, would move “90% of the positions in 10 Cabinet-level departments out of D.C.” What a great idea: break up the place! The thought occurred to me some time ago as the Trump-collusion imbroglio was gaining steam and I was reading Geof Shepard’s “The Real Watergate Scandal” on my Kindle. Come to think of it, a real state depression in DC wouldn’t be such a bad thing for the country.
Blackburn and Hawley.
All those minions scurrying about DC have created a world all their own. The progressives of the late 19th century assured us that the halcyon days of good government would be upon us if only more power was deposited in the hands of degreed professionals who were educated to treat all of reality as a matter for “science”. In other words, people like themselves.
Ironically, they ignored the implications of the “science” of people both as individuals and in large groups. People are simultaneously self-serving and altruistic, and not in equal measure – usually to the detriment of altruism. As a collective, they create a distinct society with its own norms and expectations. It’s a world unto itself.
The skyline of Washington, D.C., including the U.S. Capitol building, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and National Mall, is seen from the air, January 29, 2010. (Saul Loeb/AFP)
A trip into the world of the Watergate scandal sheds light on the brave new world of this administrative state. Let’s examine 3 prominent characters in the now bastardized but popular version of the story: Clark Mollenhoff, Mark Felt, and Bob Woodward.
Mollenhoff was a DC reporter and well-connected lawyer and friend of presiding judge John Sirica (Sirica is another of these networked DC folks). Not only was he well-connected, he got a position in the first year of the Nixon White House. His ambition to have direct access to Nixon and be Nixon’s premier sage was thwarted by learning that he would have to work under Haldeman and Ehrlichman. The job didn’t last much longer than a year. He becomes another of the disgruntled operatives – one among many thousands populating the District – roaming about looking for outlets for their scorn. In clearly improper, if not illegal, ex-parte meetings with Sirica, he would fill that coveted role of “sage”.
Clark Mollenhoff
Mark Felt, ex-Associate Director of the FBI, is another example of a person with stymied high aspirations. Passed over for the FBI directorate – it was handed to L. Patrick Gray – he simmered as second fiddle. He willingly became an espionage agent for Bernstein and Woodward as “Deep Throat”.
Former FBI official W. Mark Felt arrive at federal court in Washington 9/18 for the continuation of his trial on charges of approving illegal break-ins during the Nixon Administration.
Finally, what about Bob Woodward? He made his name in DC circles as an aide to Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His connections would be useful in his second career as WaPo muckraker.
Carl Bernstein, left, and Robert Woodward, who pressed the Watergate investigation, in Washington, D.C., May 7, 1973. (photo: AP)
What to make of all this? The country is governed in a bog-like slough of cliques, the excessively ambitious, and self-serving inter-relationships. If you’re an outsider from Ashtabula, beware!
Trump, does this sound familiar?
Forget all that stuff about rule by the people. Progressives bequeathed to us a government of an unaccountable nomenklatura.
That’s right, Blackburn and Hawley, we have no realistic recourse but to break it up! Break it up, and do so quickly.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dec. 11, 2019.
Like an abused wife in a divorce and seeking to salvage something from her 20 years in a failed marriage, the Democrats comb the Horowitz report on FISA abuse for something to justify their faith in the evils of all things Trump. Granted, the Trump tweets and coarseness in public performances are irritating, but are “traitor” and “shakedown artist” taking it a bit too far? I think so.
Any reasonable observer must conclude that the Russian-collusion angle fell apart. Mueller stumbled his way to the obvious. Nonetheless, the Dems tried to salvage something from the disaster by clinging to the bizarre locution of “failed to exonerate” on obstruction in Volume II of the Mueller Report. But prosecutors don’t “exonerate”. They either indict or they don’t. When they don’t, the matter is dropped. It’s treated as if it never existed.
Now, Horowitz uncovered 17 Justice/FBI FISA misdeeds. That’s the most that one can expect from a departmental IG who is limited to department documents and personnel. Plus, IG’s are famous for being deferential when they reach a dead end in spite of strong suspicions of further wrongdoing. The heavily restricted investigatory arena that they operate within produces constricted conclusions, or lack thereof.
Then we get to the Dems’ death grip on 2 other incomprehensible verdicts in the report: (1) the investigations were properly predicated and (2) a lack of bias in the investigations. #1 relies on such a low bar of cause to launch almost any government effort against a private citizen. #2 takes us back to the “deferential” thing. Without a cabal willing to engrave “We will get Trump removed” in granite with appropriate fingerprints, any suspect’s statement contradicting the obvious will be accepted. #1 and #2 are meaningless, but don’t tell the Dems that.
Still, the Dems must grapple with the clear 17 FISA abuses. The Dems must realize that the 17 misdeeds all break against Trump. An absence of bias would make at least some of the 17 going the other way. That didn’t happen. All 17 instances have the common thread of going after Trump. A chain of one-sided misbehaviors “fails to exonerate” Comey and the gang.
The Democrats are desperate. They’ve spent 3 years peddling nonsense. Unwilling to accept the rejection of their candidate by a broad extent of the country in 2016, they are trying to salvage something from their myth-making. It’s sad to watch on tv.
And the other shoe belonging to Durham has yet to drop. Wait, that promises to be interesting.
