Gerald Ford (R. Mich.) as quoted in the Congressional Record for April 15, 1970: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history.”
President Ford appears in 1974 at a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing regarding his pardon of Richard Nixon.
Does Ford’s famous comment on impeachment make sense? Kinda, if you don’t have anything else to go on. Well, Yale law professor E. Donald Elliott and his mentor, Yale law professor and Dean Harry H. Wellington, would ask you to reconsider. Ford’s comment stems from a highly contentious legal philosophy called positivism or “legal realism”. Positivism straitjackets the meaning, purpose, and assessment of law to “the acts of government officials”.
Ok, so what’s the rub? Simple, according to Wellington, the idea lacks a “theory of mistake”. The concept has no place for the law being wrong. To put it bluntly, it is what it is. Thus, it’s a convenient theory for freeing up the law from any connection to morality. The 20th century’s thugocracies – fascism, communism, Maoism, Stalinism, Jim Crow – found it useful. And so do our own progressives and law-making guiding lights. Perform an official act and there’s no need to rack your conscience about the morality of it. Just do it, as Kaepernick intones.
Jim Crow in the deep South. The intimidation of blacks at a polling place is depicted here.Jim Crow as segregation in water fountains.Oskar Dankner, a Jewish businessman, and Edele Edelmann, a Christian woman, are humiliated in public for having an intimate relationship. The signs read: “As a Jewboy, I always invite only German girls up to my room!” and “I am the biggest sow in town and only have dealings with Jews.” Cuxhaven, Germany, July 27, 1933
The Dems agree, “Just do it” – impeachment that is – even if untethered from the Constitution’s standard of “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Though it must be admitted that quid pro quos, the firing of an ambassador, disagreements over foreign policy, and a person’s deportment as president don’t quite fit the Constitutional bill. For Schiff and company, no matter. Make it “official” even if it’s based on rank innuendo, hearsay, and politically useful bureaucratic carping.
Plenty of injustice was committed under the banner of legal positivism. Just because a past Republican mouthed the dangerous nonsense doesn’t make it any less dangerous.
Accounts of the last moments of Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi depict him retreating into a tunnel with a dead end and blowing himself up with three of his children. The tale proves that a dead end is what you make of it. For al-Baghdadi, it was off to his 70 virgins (I don’t know where the kids ended up in Islamist theology.). For the Democrats in their incessant drive to impeach Trump, similarly at a dead end of facts, they are weaving a fairy tale in order to create the illusion of the light of dastardly and impeachable offenses at the end of the tunnel. The reality is that there is nothing but a wall of rock and compacted dirt.
Let’s see, we’ve experienced a “whistleblower” complaint which proved to be a collection of hearsay water cooler and lunch room talk among the minions of the administrative state.
The conspirators couldn’t spin the call at the center of their scheme because Trump released the transcript to everyone on the planet. Then the story is repeated, nothing much added, in the tales spun by others vaguely mentioned in the initial yarn. If anything is added, it’s nothing but feelings of anger of people who are upset about how the president is conducting foreign policy. They’re flabbergasted that an elected official – the president – would dare skip over they’re unelected, self-anointed wisdom. Then they’ve attempted to establish a “quid pro quo” as if something that is common in the course of foreign relations is somehow illegal, while it clearly isn’t. What does all this add up to? Nothing!
Shakespeare spun a tale of “Much Ado About Nothing”. The Democrats are trying to steal the mantle of master poet laureate. Their fiction, though, says more about them than Trump.
Go Astros! I had no dog in the hunt that is called the 2019 World Series. Sunday’s rude crowd at Nationals Park changed that. If you can’t find a good reason to root for someone, rooting against someone may just fit the bill, particularly when they behave like vulgar buffoons. The boos and the oral flatulence of “Lock him up” were glaringly repulsive. Go Astros!
It was fitting justice that the Astros pummeled the swamp things 7-1 on boo day.
Conversely, the chant at Trump rallies, “Drain the swamp”, has gained new relevance. The “swamp” in this case is DC’s polyglot population of government workers, government influencers, partisan operatives, and the net of white-collared professional handlers and manipulators. The city’s only industry is politics, or the many ways to finagle something for somebody at somebody else’s expense. The controlling party is, of course, the Democratic Party – the party of big, and ever bigger, government.
The crowd in the stadium is a microcosm of this swamp: the assemblage of over-paid schemers who can afford the $1,000 tickets. These folks aren’t the peanuts-and-beer bleacher bums at Wrigley or Dodger Stadium. The Series at Nationals Park is reserved for these well-heeled destroyers of American wealth.
Now the swamp denizens have a professional baseball team to shower their affections upon. Why the new team to replace the caput Senators in 1960? It’s simple: the market got bigger. DC grew into the obese metroplex that busted its lap belt of boundaries, most recently thanks to Obama.
2016 election results by county in Virginia. Note the blue counties across the Potomac from Washington DC.
Its girth flooded into the Maryland and northern Virginia ‘burbs producing one-party Democrat enclaves who’d support Nicolás Maduro if he was the nominee. The consequence is a deeper-blue-approaching-charcoal Maryland and a Virginia about ready to take the plunge into California governance.
What’s my chant? Shrink DC! A depression in DC is a renaissance everywhere else. Go Astros!
The Coriolis Effect: the natural bending of global air and water currents due to the earth’s rotation on its axis.
The global oceanic gyres from the Coriolis effect.
I’ve often wondered why liberals since the late 19th century have a reflex to lean ever further left. The tendency is very pronounced in today’s Democratic Party. Propositions that were soundly rejected only a couple of years ago have morphed into near dogma in the party. Take for instance the almost universal embrace of gargantuan social engineering in Green New Deals; or the racially charged seizure of wealth from one generation to fund awards to a current and specific racially-favored group 150 years removed from the wrong; or the open and broad avowals of faith in socialism, while, for some, still denying it; or the proud espousal of confiscatory taxation in spite of its historically ruinous effects (JFK would be shocked.).
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn presents a possible answer in the second volume of his 3-part historical novel, “The Red Wheel: November 1916”. In describing the rise of Russian left radicalism in the decades prior to the 1917 revolutions (there ended up being two in March and October), he compares the liberal’s leftward reflex to the natural phenomena of the Coriolis effect. Here’s how he puts it:
“Just as the Coriolis effect is constant over the whole of this earth’s surface, and the flow of rivers is deflected in such a way that it is always the right bank that is eroded and crumbles, while the floodwater goes leftward, so do all forms of democratic liberalism on earth strike always to the right and caress the left. Their sympathies [are] always with the left, their feet are capable of shuffling only leftward, their heads bob busily as they listen to leftist arguments – but they [are] disgraced if they take a step to or listen to a word from the right.” (p.59)
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn
Makes sense to me. Daniel Pipes in his magisterial works on the Russian Revolution described the blind spot in the outlook of the liberals as they deposed the Tsar in March of 1917 and tried to build a constitutional republic. If there was a threat, they were convinced it would come from the right. They ignored the warnings of the intelligence services that left extremists, the Bolsheviks, were arming and planning a seizure of power. Low and behold, Petrograd was left mostly undefended and the rest of Russian history thereafter is one of villainy and misery.
The 1930’s Holodomor, or Stain-engineered famine to destroy peasant resistance in southern Russia and the Ukraine.New arrivals to the expanding chain of concentration camps as part of Stalin’s war against the peasants in the 1930’s.
What lies in store for us as we approach the momentous date of November 2020? We have a president wounded by the incessant drumbeat of an increasingly radical left Democratic Party with numerous allies in the media, academia, entertainment, and among the campus and street mobs. His opposition, the Democratic Party, has become the vanguard of the radical left’s implementation of an all-encompassing transformation of all of society to fit their warped vision.
Antifa protesters burning American flags.
Will the political Coriolis effect in modern America duplicate the misery foisted on Russia? This is the time for some serious adult thinking on the question … before it is too late.
Proverbs 18:17 (ESV): The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
************************
A 1930’s Stalinist show trial in the Soviet Union.Adam Schiff (l), chairman, and some of the House Intelligence Committee members.
The madhouse in DC over impeachment is more reminiscent of Stalin’s show trials during his purges than American jurisprudence. The House spectacle is all about a predetermined verdict being sold behind a facade of serious-sounding rubbish. The American public is being misled. Putin is taking notes.
The Democrats have been on a jihad since November 8, 2016. The latest gambit hinges on a nefarious Trump “quid pro quo”. If the ploy was limited to that, it’s a nothingburger. “Quid pro quo” literally means “something for something”. If that was all there was to it, it’s a very thin reed to support a massive structure of impeachment. Does the Louisiana Purchase remind you of anything? International relations are almost solely conducted on a quid-pro-quo basis.
Really, though, what the show-trial prosecutors are trying to conjure is something more: a quid-pro-quo-or-else. And that, the call’s transcript doesn’t support. The “favor” doesn’t mention the Bidens till further down in the conversation. At the top of Trump’s mind is the skulduggery conducted against him in 2016. The Bidens were an afterthought. Many interpretations are possible whenever a verbal conversation is put to paper, but you can’t say that only Schiff’s reading is the viable one.
The “or else” part is the withholding of a weapons sale, or so they say – while confusing a “sale” with “aid”. Well, whatever, the Ukraine got the weapons a month later. The only president to withhold military aid to Ukraine was Obama. And further, Zelensky and his government wasn’t even aware that they were being allegedly coerced. It’s a strange quid-pro-quo when quid has no knowledge of the purported quo. This is nonsense on stilts.
US javelin missile. It was the key part of Trump-approved weapons sale to the Ukraine.
Schiff and his sorcerers have to create the illusion of a grand evil out of thin gruel. How? It’s simple: control the process! In other words, hold a show trial but call it something else. The Dems liken this charade to a grand jury. They’re right in an infantile way: charges (articles of impeachment) come out of it. But there the resemblance ends. It’s a strange grand jury proceeding when people representing the defense (Republicans) are present alongside people representing the prosecutors (Democrats). Instead, the whole affair has the adversarial characteristics of a trial. As such, the situation cries for full due process, not the secret hearings with Schiff the only one allowed to call witnesses and his serial leaking of cherry-picked statements to make his fiction seem like non-fiction. All the while, the Republicans are muzzled by keeping the thing secret. This is scandalous.
Another underhanded excuse is often bellowed to make the outrage more digestible. The process is said to be exclusively “political” in nature. But is that true? No. Impeachment is a blend of politics and statute. If “politics” was the sole driving force, once we developed political parties in the late 18th century, opposing parties controlling the Presidency and Congress would be embroiled in impeachments right and left. The fact that we have had so few impeachments tells us something. It tell us that something more than the fulfillment of political vendettas should be at the core of the process. It must be anchored in a clear and unmistakable violation of the Constitution or a serious criminal statue. A high bar is required, not the low bar of grotesque interpretations of paper transcriptions of phone calls or previously Court-approved exercises of executive privilege.
U.S. President Bill Clinton points while being asked questions regarding his relationship with former White House intern [Monica Lewinsky] during his videotaped interrogation before a grand jury on August 17. The four hour videotape was released by the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee along with 2,800 pages of [Lewinsky] case evidence.If Trump is guilty, what of Obama’s use of his “phone and pen”? He created by his lonesome new categories of immigration law violators to be free of those same laws. Is this an example of the Article II branch acting like the Article I branch? What about “faithfully executing the laws”? Or how about the Fast and Furious episode in an entrapment scheme against our Second Amendment? Have we forgotten the IRS vendetta against Obama’s political opponents? There’s more here against Obama, using Pelosi’s standard, than there ever is against Trump.
Republicans, remember this time. It’s no holds barred regarding impeachment. The Democrats have unleashed the tactic of hiding election loss anger and ideological and policy disagreements under spurious claims of misbehavior. You too, Republicans, can follow the same show trial script when the time comes.
The mania for polling says more the about the interests of the media than it does about the views of the public. They are used to inflate clicks on websites, sell air time, bloat premium subscriptions, peddle print copies, and cater to biases in newsrooms. They are also used in the manner of an arsonist to destroy clear thinking. The particulars of an issue get sabotaged in a frenzy over polls. All of sudden, facts are less and less relevant.
The media fixation is a manifestation of the old newsroom maxim: If it bleeds, it leads. In the case of the impeachment talk, the hemorrhage is the bringing low of a prominent person by making news of a series of questions thrust to a random sample of people who may be poorly informed, uninterested, caught up in the hysteria of the moment, and/or willing to answer flippantly. The thing may be scientifically sound but still be rubbish.
I say this not in regards to any current event, such as the current dust-up over impeachment. Polling has always bugged me. Why? Basics first. The general public isn’t as obsessed with the news as those who are employed to exploit it for fame and reward. As potential voters, most people don’t take something seriously till they have something serious to do, like cast a ballot. Till then, they are at the mercy of media hype while, at the same time, they have more pressing concerns at home, like getting by in the world.
Secondly, since polls are of people with more important and immediate burdens, they are snapshots of loosely formed opinions. It’s for this reason that election polls get more accurate on the state of play as election day arrives. The person has a crashing deadline, an election, to motivate more thoughtful consideration. It’s like a student who studies more intensely a day or two before a test.
So, what do the polls indicate about the impeachment of Trump? Nothing much, other than a mass of rough-hewn opinions-of-the-moment.
The lesson for the public is clear: Watch the facts; ignore the polls.
The second “whistleblower” complaint is probably a repetition of the same complaint from the same set of eyes with just a different figurehead from the group. By the way, the complaint makes reference to a group that increasingly sounds like a cabal. There’s a term for a form of espionage with the same information being used twice to create the appearance of confirmation. Bottom line, it’s in the toolkit of the intelligence community. And it’s probably operative here.
There’s more to this latest effort to impeach. “Whistleblowing” provides cover for the “whistleblower”. Labeling the person a “whistleblower” shields the identity of the person while also stonewalling efforts to plumb his or her identity for motivations – you know, like the complainant’s possible partisan political aims. Secondly, the non-inquiry inquiry is conducted to prevent a courtroom adversarial setting that would give evidentiary and debate rights to opponents. Keeping the process like a committee hearing, but just labeling it an “impeachment inquiry”, puts great power in the hands of the committee chairman and the Democratic leadership. It’s a tactic that would make Stalin beam with envy.
It’s a two-fer, and nothing but a political flim-flam.
I was drawn back to the Soviet concept of the “correlation of forces” after reading Yuval Levin’s piece from over a week ago (Sept. 27), “The Impeachment Train”. The Soviet notion was fully researched by one of our Defense Dept.’s agencies (DARPA) in a report, “The Soviet Concept of the Correlation of Forces”, in 1976.
Soviet era propaganda poster.
The Soviets sought to exploit what they considered to be favorable circumstances to advance their foreign policy goals at our expense – “the correlation of forces” so-called. The current period in our country’s history has all the ingredients for another “correlation of forces”, one that could drive the nation into strongly hostile camps resembling the antebellum divisions of the 1820’s to 1860, hopefully without the violence. The “correlation of forces” are present for all to see.
The divide has been described as a blue/red and urban/rural one. It’s true; we are deeply split in those two ways. I’ve written about this often. Since the divide is culturally-based, it has the capacity to be even more combustible. Enter Donald Trump. A divide that has been building for quite some time is deepened and widened by Trump’s style of politicking and personal mannerisms. Those manners drive people to their corners.
Part of the blame lies at Trump’s lack of a filter when he speaks (or Tweets). He’s not Bill Clinton who can compartmentalize. Trump in private is nearly the same as Trump in public. He doesn’t distinguish that much between a locker room and moments before microphones and cameras. He cares not about whether he’s talking to foreign dignitaries in private phone calls or crowds at one of his rallies. With Trump, you get what you see … everywhere. He’s unfiltered and inflammatory.
Trump rally, August 2019.
Thus, he elicits strong reactions. Trump’s presence isn’t a soothing one. Sparky talk incites sparky actions. Newton’s third law of motion comes to mind: for every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
And for hypersensitive Dems, their over-the-top reactions are easily facilitated when the party has been lurching ever leftward for the past few decades. Today, there’s not much difference between them and the radical left of the 60’s. Much of it is driven by the cultural radicalization of our urban and suburban areas. The radical has become mainstream in the party. Sure, Trump makes it easier for them to embrace extremist policies as they seek to distinguish themselves from what they considered to be a wholly detestable figure. As the cultural undertow pulls the middle of the party to the left, the more moderate elements get dragged along. Of course, Trump’s behavior is no excuse to foist the poison of socialism on the country.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey (right) speak during a press conference to announce Green New Deal legislation on Feb. 7. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
Trump is not the reason for the Democrats’ love affair with socialism and their leftward leap. Environmentalism is. Environmentalism is a pseudo-religious ideology. It’s religious for its faith in a materialistic explanation of reality. Interestingly, the combination of “religious” and “materialistic” in the same sentence makes for a classic oxymoron. Recognition of the fact by the cultural left won’t stop them from papering over the disjunction by turning Jesus and the Bible into citadels of wokeness, to go along with the long-desired surrender of humanity to a semi-deity, mother nature. It’s pantheism at best. The dogmas are grotesquely incoherent.
Environmentalism provides excellent cover, though, for socialism’s expansion of government power into every facet of life. Is it really all that surprising for the party of government to be a party of socialism? Environmentalism satisfies the Democrats’ itch for government control. The modern Democratic Party is so immersed in its socialism that it doesn’t take much for their opponents to be cast as evil. They don’t need a Trump. Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid can be branded a “denier”, “racist”, “xenophobe”, “fascist”, and on and on. They didn’t wait for Trump to brand George W. Bush a religious fanatic, a hater, a wanton killer in the chant “Bush lied, people died”, a fascist, a corrupt stooge of Big Oil, an instigator of 9-11, etc., etc.
Code Pink at the White House, about 2005.A protester calling for the impeachment of Bush in June 16, 2005.
The word “impeachment” frequently graced their lips. Trump’s crude mannerisms make for an even easier target for their ideologically-driven hypersensitivities.
The entire gamut of woke communities – on our campuses, in our cities, among our super-rich tech and finance tycoons, amidst white collar public employees, et al – can be energized for lefty activism as need arises. Ask Brett Kavanaugh. Without a shred of evidence, accusers came out of the woodwork to level the worst kind of human conduct at him: perversion, rape, gang rape, a reveler in the grossest bacchanalias, you name it. Even the most “credible” accuser, Blasey Ford, turned out to be “incredible”. In law, we must keep in mind that a story is fiction till its proven. These were never proven, and probably couldn’t ever be proven. They are lies.
Brett Kavanaugh at confirmation hearings, September 2018.Protesters demonstrating against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court.The discredited and unsubstantiated Kavanaugh accusers.
The script is repeated on Trump. Instead of an engineered line of supposed female victims, we have the denizens of public employment near the top of the Leviathan pyramid coming forward under the cover of “whistleblower”. They are proof of the existence of a government worker subculture with its own set of norms, values, and expectations that are distinct from their reason for existence. Some of those norms are ideological and partisan. Though, it must be admitted in the case of Trump that a “D” and “R” designation isn’t as relevant as the collective judgment at the water cooler that Trump is reprehensible. Nonetheless, there are vastly more D’s than R’s on the rolls of taxpayer-funded employment. Virginia is blue for the fact. The administrative state isn’t exactly a level playing field.
The ginning up of the activists will require additional gripes to increase the credibility of the charges as per the Kavanaugh caper. It doesn’t matter if the tales are true or not. What matters is the number. The one “whistleblower” story will be followed by others. As I write, a new complaint against Trump is currently percolating from the depths of the Leviathan.
Could Trump adjust by dialing down the bombast? Yeah, but not likely. Trump is like the big post man in basketball who drains a 3-pointer in the beginning of the game. After that, he cannot be found anywhere near the bucket for the rest of the game. Trump believes that his outspoken and unfiltered self is the reason for his shocking victory in 2016, while ignoring the loss of the ‘burbs and married women. So, that’s what we’re going to get for the rest of his time in the White House. He’ll continue to do it till he faces defeat.
But who knows, he may turn out to be a great 3-point shooter. Color me skeptical.
Trump’s saving grace is … today’s Democratic Party. All the talk about Trump’s incivility ignores the Democrats’ irresponsible embrace of socialism and the cultural left. Trump’s behavior may be deplorable, but the Democrats cannot be trusted with our nation. This is one of the weaknesses of some of the criticisms coming from the center-right, like Yuval Levin’s column. I don’t know of anyone who can claim that a dethronement of Trump won’t lead to an empowerment of the Democrats’ socialism. For the average citizen, their choices appear bleak: continue the Trump drama or ruin the nation by handing the keys of power to the Democrats’ leftism.
Levin is right when he says the biggest victim will be a loss of faith in our institutions. Yet, it’s not as if those institutions weren’t deserving of disrepute. The Supreme Court, and the courts in general, have been way out of their lane. Modern presidents have turned the presidency into an almost divine-right branch. Obama had his phone and pen. Congress is a eunuch that performs like a clown show. The administrative state is a law unto itself, so huge as to be unmanageable. The Constitution is made an empty document and open to the manipulations of the whims of men. We have the rule of men, not laws.
At the center of this governance by malfeasance is the institutional presence and power of the Democratic Party and its socialism-at-all-costs ethic. Trump may be personally repulsive; the Democrats are thoroughly unfit for office. The correlation of forces is lining up for a real brouhaha. The modern correlation of forces are a divisive figure in the White House, the Democratic Party’s muscular socialism, the ongoing cultural substitution of Christianity with Environmentalism, the emergence of a very partisan administrative state as the fourth branch of government, and the media serving as a megaphone for the advancement of the Democrats’ socialism and its cultural leftism. Many of these malignant forces are emanating from those blue dots on the electoral map.
Buckle up because impeachment promises to be a real donnybrook.
Prelude: The 19th century Progressives bequeathed to us a many tentacled Leviathan. The monster grew out of the progressives’ fundamental premise that life is too complicated to be left to individuals. We need, they asserted, “experts” to guide and assist us in achieving our highest potential. They did not see the monster developing a mind of its own with distinct interests from those it was intended to serve. You might say, a culture evolved from its peculiar ecosystem. Out of this unique culture arose a predilection for certain views, born of its circumstances and concomitant norms and expectations. The 2016 election threw back the rug and exposed the thing for what it really is. It is a living and breathing thing no longer moored to its original raison d’être. Its purpose for existence is itself, not the country and the country’s citizens.
*******
At times Tucker Carlson drives me nuts. One of his favorite bogeymen is “neocons”, which occasionally crowds out his infatuation with UFO’s. To him, free markets are “just a tool”. He completely misses the point that they are what happens when the state leaves people alone. Free markets blossom when a state is created to protect our natural rights, not the creator of them. But I have to admit that he is onto something in most things Trump. The latest Trump furor erupted over a whistleblower complaint about his phone call (later referred to simply as “the Call”) to Ukrainian President Zelensky. A CIA veteran appeared on his show to present his view of the whistleblower’s complaint. His observations should raise at least a few eye brows. Watch.
The complaint (read here) according to former CIA officer John Kiriakou reads too polished and legally suave to be a product of a single person. In his view, the complaint by the time it got to Congress had passed through multiple hands. Maybe this is normal, but today’s political environment isn’t normal. Multiple hands might mean a coordinated effort. There are concerns that the administrative state is a hyper-partisan outfit, particularly in its DC stomping grounds. Is it possible that our bureaucracies in DC are a well-oiled special interest group with a clear ideological cast? Is the “whistleblower” a pseudonym for a cabal of apparatchiks intent on removing Trump?
Details about the complaint and the complainant are only now beginning to emerge. The existence of an accusation was known to Adam Schiff (D, Ca.), chairman of the House Intel Committee, as it was gestating in the intel bureaucracy (read about it here). According to the latest information, the accuser interacted with a Schiff aide and was referred to a lawyer. Who’s the lawyer? It’s none other than one of the many revolving-door Democrat apparatchiks who populate the environs of the DC Mall, Andrew Bakaj with Mark Zaid as co-counsel.
Andrew Bakaj of Comparr Rose Legal Group, PLLC
Previously, Bakaj has been at the center of insider politics to frustrate Trump appointees. In 2018, he went after Christopher Sharpley, Trump’s nominee for CIA Inspector General, ironically a holdover from Obama’s tenure where he served as deputy IG of the CIA, and functioned as acting IG under Trump. Out of the woodwork arose a cadre of former apparatchiks to blast Sharpley for allegedly punishing “whistleblowers”. At the tip of the spear was Bakaj. They successfully torpedoed Sharpley’s nomination when he withdrew his name rather than face the Dem gauntlet. And who was retained as Bakaj’s legal counsel in this earlier jig? It was Zaid. You can read about the episode here.
It’s time to clear up this business about “whistleblowers” before we go any further. “Whistleblowing” can be more than just a sincere exposure of those of public trust who cook the books. It also lends itself to partisan political crusades. Whistleblowing at this level looks a lot like leaking. Whistleblowing has the potential to be legal cover for leaking.
The motivations of the complaining actor (or actress) can be of a partisan nature. Speaking of partisan, look at Bakaj’s political background. The guy is fully marinated in Democratic Party politics. He interned for Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton in the Spring and Fall of 2001 according to his Linkedin page. He was employed at the CIA’s IG office during the Obama years. That’s where he ran afoul of Sharpley, the CIA’s Deputy IG, at a time when Obama was petrified over leaks. Even Democrats at that time were aware of the blurred line between “whistleblowing” and “leaking”.
Bakaj is now part of the web of professional handlers who are on speed dial with Democrat officeholders with a political ax to grind. So the Call’s digestive tract might look like this: leaker > Schiff aide > Schiff? > Bakaj > Zaid. As more information comes to light, we may have to add more entrails to the guts of the beast.
The Call’s coming to light is starting to eerily resemble the sliming of Kavanaugh. At the root of that campaign was Debra Katz, the DC lawyer who represented Christine Blasey-Ford and her completely unsubstantiated allegations. Is her’s (Katz) a fully objective legal mind? Are you kidding? She once crowed not long after Trump’s inauguration, “This administration’s explicit agenda is to wage an assault on our most basic rights — from reproductive rights to our rights to fair pay . . . We are determined to resist — fiercely and strategically.” She’s a charter member of the Resistance.
Debra Katz at The Wall Street Journal CFO Network on June 12, 2018. (Photo: Paul Morse for the WSJ)
Into this boiling stew is thrown the Call. Cutting through the bombast, we find the complaint adds nothing, other than what appears to be Democrat boilerplate. Trump trumped them by releasing the transcript of the Call. The very thing that was to be the accelerant for a full blown uproar was now equally in the possession of any congregation of people at a barber shop or supermarket. The mom with a basket full of groceries knows just as much as the “whistleblower”. With the transcript, we get to compare the whistleblower’s account of what was said with … what was actually said.
The New York Times’s report on the complaint refers to it as following the released transcript of the Call. Of course it does. Dah! But there’s much more to the complaint that sounds more like a legal brief than a singe person’s recollection. In-between references to the Call are interpretations and embellishments. These could have just as easily come out of the Resistance hothouse or Adam Schiff and the worst of the Democratic caucus. Examples are in order.
Example #1: Right at the start, in the introduction, the complaint rattles off a partisan indictment: “… the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals.”
This is not in the transcript. It’s in the mind of the complainant, and whoever else helped him (or her) write it. As we know, Trump requested assistance from the Ukraine in our investigation of possible governmental misbehavior surrounding the 2016 election. We have treaties for this purpose, one with the Ukraine. Any reference to the Bidens is brief and offhanded, and fleetingly mentioned to make the point of possible corruption and other wrongdoing of recent vintage. As for a “quid pro quo”, to be blunt, there ain’t one. This is clear if you listen to a dramatic reading of the Call in natural conversational tones and rhythms (One was performed on the Hugh Hewitt Show, Hour 2, 10/2/2019).
Example #2: Here’s chilling reminder of the cabal within the unleashed Leviathan: “Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort.” Further, “It is routine for U.S. officials … to share such information with one another ….” Additonally and astoundingly, we have this admission: “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.”
“Fact patterns”? “Multiple officials”? “Share such information”? What are “fact patterns”? They are opinions usually fueled by bias. In today’s climate, there’s no hotter bias than DC Trump-hatred. As for the “sharing” and “multiple officials”, that sounds to me like “intrigue”. I would like to remind the Dem caucus that interpretation equally applies to the complaint as it does to the Call.
Example #3: The frequent appearance of the word “pressure” to characterize Trump’s request for assistance from Zelensky, president of the Ukraine, underscores the partisan bombast. “Pressure” is a very loaded verb. Once again, a natural oral recreation of the conversation conveys no such “pressure”. It is a provocative verb enlisted for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda. The complaint has the odor of DNC press releases.
Example #4: To further the charge of Trump “pressuring” Zelensky, a quid pro quo was stitched together by the author(s). First, they attempt to paint White House officials as “deeply disturbed” as they “witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain”. The “abuse” relies on cobbling together a line from the Ukrainian president’s account of the talk on his website with the fleeting reference to the Bidens. Here’s the Ukraine line in the complaint:
“Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine’s image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States.”
Attach the above with this:
“Aside from the above-mentioned ‘cases’ purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other “cases” were discussed.”
And you have a “quid pro quo”. Really? Yeah, in the minds of those in the fever swamp. So, we are supposed to believe in the space of a limited conversation that the mere mention of the Bidens is ipso facto proof of “give me dirt on the Bidens or we’ll let you die on the vine”. The only way to get away with the accusation is to be unfamiliar with the Call. Now that we have it to read during our morning constitution, we know that the shenanigans of the intel community and the FBI in DC, along with Crowdstrike, were mentioned. “No other cases”? The Bidens were one of three, all brought up during the length of a short phone talk. The complaint’s author(s) are lying.
I could parse more of the thing by going beyond the first 3 pages of the 9 in the screed. The document is risible. It will become more of a farce as more comes to light, maybe more about the complainant. Some reports have revealed the author to be a registered Democrat. Something not unexpected given the natural affinity between the party of government (Democratic Party) and the employees of government.
Neighboring states around DC all of a sudden have a predilection for Democratic Party candidates. The federal government grows and Democrats flock to DC and its environs. Examine the map of Virginia from the 2016 election. Notice the northern state house districts on the south side of the Potomac, a few bridges away from DC?
Republicans venturing into DC are lambs stumbling into a den of wolves.
The tale of the Call is the story of the sunset of popular sovereignty. We must recognize that the government is so big that it cannot be controlled through elections. In fact, if elections go against the lunch room zeitgeist, the new officeholders will be undermined or removed from office. Welcome to modern impeachment in the age of the institutional radical left.
Stay tuned for more from the impeachment clown show.
The transcript of the “infamous” call to Ukrainian president Zelensky by Pres. Trump, July 25, 2019.
Regarding Trump’s phone call to Zelensky, president of Ukraine, an oral message put on paper and then read isn’t the same as performance of the conversation in the manner in which it was delivered: person-to-person in conversational tones. Adam Schiff’s bastardized performance is a travesty. I’m talking about taking the original transcript and vocally delivering the actual words as they occur in a natural conversation. Once you do that, the air is taken out of the Democrat’s impeachment balloon. There’s no there there.
Duane Patterson (l), Hugh Hewitt (r).
Hugh Hewitt and his producer, Duane Patterson, conducted such a reading (Hour 2, Hugh Hewitt Show, 10/2/19). If performed as it was originally delivered, certain conclusions about the call stand out:
(1) Trump is right. There was no quid pro quo. There was no use of presidential power to advance his candidacy. There was no offer, implied or otherwise, to withhold aid for purely partisan advantage.
(2) Zelensky brought up Giuliani, not Trump. Trump was asking Ukraine for their assistance in our probe of Russia-gate. Of course, Giuliani, being the personal attorney of the president, is also gathering evidence to defend his client against the Democrats’ anti-Trump jihad. Remember, Clinton had an entire war room devoted to the defense of our priapic 42nd chief executive. In fact, the conversation mostly skirts the mention of Giuliani.
(3) The aid that the US has given the Ukraine was mentioned to remind Zelensky that allies operate in a reciprocal manner, and Europe provides little help to Ukraine. We need some international help to investigate a matter of international scope, not necessarily to go after “lunch pale” Joe. We have treaties with other nations to cover these eventualities.
(4) Biden is mentioned by Trump in a brief, offhanded manner. It was mentioned to highlight the possibility of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. The Crowdstrike reference is brought up in the beginning by Trump to make the point. That’s the context.
I could say more. It is very strange for Congressional firebrands like Schiff to rush to impeachment over this frail thread. Is this an attempt to head off Barr and Durham as they draw close to the origins of Russia-gate? If so, indeed, we have a coup underway.
In this April 25, 2006, file photo, John Durham speaks to reporters on the steps of U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn. (AP Photo/Bob Child, File) (Washington Examiner)
