The Schiff and Nadler hearings are Soviet style show trials where only one side of the evidence is presented. It should be chilling to every citizen, because if they win control of the full congress and the White House, they will be able to do it to anyone who gets in their way.
Schiff’s hearings paraded out a string of witnesses, most of which were involved in the execution of Obama’s Ukrainian policies, therefore were peripherally or directly involved with Joe Biden in the Ukraine and if they were the least bit righteous would have recused themselves from the hearings. So does Nadler also parade out a series of progressive lawyers whose bias is equally clear.
Seriously does he think we don’t know that these leftist international progressives have permeated our judicial system? Does Nadler believe that John Q. Public thinks that these leftists offer unbiased opinions and directives, and that we are willing to accept their beliefs as indisputable? We have seen leftist judges file injunctions against executive orders to block the president from doing things that John Q. Public knows were beneficial to the USA. Those executive orders were to help our nation and detrimental to international progressivism and that is why these judges blocked them.
Do we believe that the snarky woman professor from Stanford who is so arrogant that she could not even respond to the question regarding presidential misconduct, but haughtily replied, “I’m a student of democracy.” She’s just too superior to address an issue that is on all our minds, and then after tacitly declaring herself to be a god or demigod, she has the nerve to make such a juvenile suggestion as, “Trump can name his son Baron, but he can’t make him a Baron.”
Child brained Supreme Court candidate of Hillary Clinton.
This woman seems mentally unbalanced. You should thank God that Trump got elected because Hillary had her on the shortlist for the next Supreme Court nomination. Yes, thank God, and does this unstable person have a bias? You bet.
Let’s keep to simple principles that do not require experts to explain them. These principles every American citizen understands because they are his and her basic rights. And if the President’s basic rights are not respected, then can we believe ours will be respected?
Every American has the right to stand trial in an unbiased court of law.
The House Intelligence Committee is not such a court of law. The House Judiciary Committee is not such a court of law. John Q. Citizen knows what such court of law looks like: There will be a judge. Most often there is a jury of twelve randomly selected unbiased citizens. The accused will have a legal representative. The accused can call witnesses, and the accused MUST be proven to have done a criminal act, intentionally. That is, there must be an intent to do the criminal act.
In my mind, it sounds like Trump must have been convicted of the crimes by a court before the House can engage in impeachment. In other words, they impeach AFTER he has been convicted of crimes by a court. They are not the court, and their job is to determine whether his is guilty, but to determine after he has been found guilty, whether his crime rises to the level of impeachable. I’m sure there is a legal basis for these House committees get be able to execute Soviet style condemnations, but I question the legitimacy of it.
These have been Soviet style show trials, one sided, ramrodded, and a violation of individual rights and protections.
AND JOHN Q. CITIZEN KNOWS IT.
So what was the crime? The heart of their case rests on the July phone call. They would like to say they have more evidence, but John Q. Citizen knows that they do not. What they have is just rewording of the same illicit charges based on the suppositions and extrapolations of those who need Trump gone. They need Trump gone because if any investigation were ever to occur in the Ukraine, the bloodhounds would soon be scratching at their doors.
The accusation is that Trump tried to collude with a foreign power to intervene in the 2020 election. They couch this accusation in several different ways, as if many different things were done, but in fact, all of their accusations rest on one act: Presumably Trump asked the Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden.
The problem is that Trump did NOT ask the Ukraine to get dirt on JOE Biden. Read my annotation of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
The statement which Trump made and which the Democrats are trying to damn him with is this:
“The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.”
Trump clearly is not asking them to dig up dirt on JOE Biden, but to continue the investigation of HUNTER Biden, an investigation which had been halted by Joe Biden. Hunter Biden’s highly paid job with a Ukrainian oil company is suspect and very reasonably so: Hunter Biden had no skill or expertise to offer and his Ukraine employment came after Joe Biden was selected as Obama’s point man in the Ukraine. I want to know how all that came about, don’t you?
And don’t you wonder why everyone involved with Joe Biden wants there to be absolutely no investigation in the Ukraine? And why are the Democrats willing to go so far as to hold a Soviet style show trial that only their most faithful can even fake support for?
It would be peripheral to a Hunter Biden investigation if it were to turn something up on Joe. Apparently that is exactly what the witnesses, and the two House committees are tacitly implying would happen since they are suggesting that such an investigation would affect the 2020 campaign. But if that is so, then it is of Joe’s making, not Trump’s.