Have the Democrats Lost their Minds?

            (AUTHOR’S WARNING: This post is somewhat serious, somewhat tedious, and somewhat long (but still humorous). You might want to skip it unless you are a real political junkie or really want to be enlightened!)

BUFORD, WY (Pop. 1) December 17, 2019 I don’t have the political knowledge of Nancy Pelosi, or even of Adam Schiff or Gerald Nadler, but even I can recognize some basic political realities. The Democrats lost their minds. Even I can see that the Democrat’s impeachment/removal from office train has jumped the tracks. Why, how, and to what result? Let’s look.

            First, the why. To be honest, I’m not exactly sure of the why. The Democrats have politicized the entire issue, plodded towards to impeachment with blinders on and ignored everything that was going on around them. What did they miss? Lots – Every public opinion poll is turning against impeachment; the Senate will most assuredly acquit the president (or refuse to take the matter up at all – less likely); and the Republican Senate is going to politicize the trial almost as much as the two House committees politicized their impeachment “inquiries”{1}. Since everything the Democrats have done so far and what they are looking to do is factually and logically disastrous for them, I can only conclude that they didn’t think this process through logically, they relied solely on feelings – the emotional sentiment that “feels” that President Donald J. Trump must be removed from office, come hell or high water (or logic). With the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi, one of the few Democrats with sharp political acumen and the ability to overlook emotion when it is not in her party’s political interest, every Democrat involved in this process listened only to their heart, which told them that President Trump is a bad guy and just shouldn’t be president{2}.

            Even though the country is strong, the economy is good, government is less taxing (in money and otherwise), gas is cheaper, mortgage rates are lower, and our military is strong again, the Democrats are ignoring logic and reality and “going with their heart”. Their strong emotional obligation of getting rid of Trump is overcoming their logic and common sense. I believe Pelosi is aware of this problem, but for numerous reasons{3}, can’t do anything about it. I feel kind of sorry for her.

            While Senate Republicans are usually not as partisan as House Democrats{4}, they didn’t get elected by being patsies. In a pinch, they can out-partisan anyone and this is a pinch. Due to the Democrat partisanship that the public had to endure during the impeachment “inquiries”, the public will give the Senate Republican’s partisanship free rein when it comes to holding the trial. The Senate will use this free rein in three ways – In determining what will be investigated, in determining who will be called to testify, and in determining how long the trial will be last – all designed to show Democrat bias and incompetence.

            The investigations during the Senate trial will be far broader than the “inquiries” conducted by the House. The truth and logic that will be uncovered during the Senate trial will all be to the Democrat’s detriment and to Trump’s gain. Here are some things that will be investigated (and uncovered):

1. How did the whole business start? The Senate will have to look into how Fusion GPS was engaged to create a dossier on Trump. Who was involved in the compiling of the dossier? And, finally, will the entire dossier be made public? While the American public will enjoy reading the dossier, when they are through with it, the stories of Trump dancing and urinating on a particular bed with prostitutes in a fancy Moscow hotel because the Obamas once slept in that bed will disgust most Americans. The dossier readers will be hit squarely in the face with the fact that Trump’s enemies are self-centered, oblivious to reality, evil, delusional, and so filled with hate and rage that they will do anything to eliminate Donald Trump from the political scene, even using their political semi-muscle to push through an impeachment that is bereft of any claim (or indication) that the president committed treason, bribery, or OTHER{5} high crime or misdemeanor.
2. Who paid for the dossier on President Trump? The Senate must heed of the advice of Deep Throat (brilliantly portrayed by Hal Holbrook in the 1976 film All The President’s Men) and “Follow the Money”.
3. How involved was the FBI, or any other public servant in initiation the payment for, or purchase of, the dossier? Did they have family or political connections that would give the appearance of impropriety? Did any of these parties have than the “appearance” of impropriety?
4. What exactly occurred during Trump’s phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky that constituted Abuse of Power? Did previous government officials make similar requests? Were those requests treated in the same way by as Trump’s acts? Should those previous government officials have been investigated?
5. Who was the “whistleblower”? How solid is his knowledge of the phone call. Did he hear the call directly, or was his knowledge of the call hearsay? Or double hearsay? Or triple hearsay? Did he have any family or political connections that might cast doubt on his testimony?
6. Since the House impeachment process began with hearings by the House “Intelligence” Committee, their investigation must be looked into. Did any member of the committee have any contact with the “whistleblower” before his complaint was filed? Did any member of the committee, or the committee as a whole, advise the “whistleblower” to file the complaint? Did they assist the “whistleblower” in any other way (i.e. assisting him in drafting the complaint)? Does any committee member have a family or political affiliation with the “whistleblower”?
7. Was Adam Schiff telling the truth when he stated that he never met or knew the “whistleblower” before the “whistleblower” filed his complaint? Schiff should be called and asked if his statement was true. On the outside chance that Schiff “misspoke” (I’m trying to be polite), the Senate should use that misstatement to impeach his testimony. If the Senate does this, it will be the first time in American history that, during a Senate impeachment trial, the testimony of a Congressman, who impeached the president, is impeached to show that the impeachment of the president by the House was impeachable!!!
8. The findings of the House Judiciary Committee should be examined.
   a) What actions of Trump constitute his abuse of power? Have past presidents committed similar acts? What past presidents? Were these past presidents treated similarly to Trump?
   b) What actions of Trump constitute his obstruction of Congress? Have past presidents committed similar acts? What past presidents? Were these past presidents treated similarly to Trump?

The public answers to all of these questions will enlighten to all of America, except the Democrats. For them, the transparency will be devastating. They (the answers, not the Democrats) will show how the entire road to the Senate trial was improperly initiated, improperly investigated, and improperly concluded. Almost every answer will illustrate corruption, ignorance, politicization, or misfeasance, not by President Trump, who is being investigated, but of the Democrats, who did the investigating. My DVD recorder is tuned up and ready to record.

Witnesses must be called to give public testimony at the Senate trial. Here are a few who might be summoned:

1. Barack Obama – He was involved in the original FBI investigation and he performed presidential acts identical to the ones Trump was impeached for. Both of these matters must be fleshed out. Unfortunately, being called as a witness to Trump’s Senate trial will destroy Obama’s legacy, no matter how he answers the questions put to him. Everyone will only remember that he was to only president to give partisan Senate testimony against his successor in the successor’s Senate trial. Everything else Obama did, or tried to do, will be forgotten.
2. Loretta Lynch – Loretta Lynch was the United States Attorney General when the investigations of Donald Trump and his campaign began. Lynch can testify as to why and how the investigations began. While the investigations of Trump were going on, the Justice Department also opened investigations of Hillary Clinton, Trump’s opponent. To assure that the investigations of Trump were lawful, Lynch will be asked to compare and contrast the Trump and Hillary Clinton investigations. Lynch should also indicate how involved she was with both investigations. We know that she met with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac. Did she also meet with Melania on an airport tarmac?
3. Joe Biden – Since the entire Trump investigation was founded on Trump the “demand” of Trump that Zelensky enter into a Quid Pro Quo agreement, Biden’s Quid Pro Quo demand of Ukraine,
4. Hillary Clinton – Since Hillary Clinton was also being investigated by the Justice Department at the same time as Trump, The actions and procedures taken by the Justice Department during her probe should be investigated to see if she was treated as fairly as Trump, and vice-versa.
5. Elias Cole, Esq. – Cole and his firm, Perkins, Cole initiated this entire investigation by hiring Fusion, GPS to put together a dossier on Trump. His firm paid Fusion’s bill. It is reported that the funds for the payment of Fusion’s bill came from the Hillary Clinton campaign and/or The Democratic National Committee, both of whom are barred by law from incurring this type of expense. Mr. Cole should be questioned thoroughly whose idea it was to obtain a false and inflammatory dossier, his firm’s relationship with Fusion how Fusion was paid, and by whom.
6. The Washing D.C. Bar Association –The D.C. Bar Association should be questioned as to why Elias Cole, Esq. and the Perkins Cole law firm were not disbarred for expending client money from their escrow account to make a purchase that the client was legally prohibited from making{6}. No one is above the law, not even former First Lady presidential candidates or major political parties (or Bar Associations, especially Bar Associations).
7. Andrew McCabe – McCabe as Director of the FBI until his firing in March 2018. He ran the investigation of Trump and leaked classified information about the investigation. Then, he lied under oath about his leak. (For some reason, he was never charged with a crime) McCabe should be questioned about the course of the investigation, his lies, and whether he took any other leaks. Unfortunately, he will probably have to take the Fifth, a lot. What have we come to? The former top cop in the nation taking the Fifth Amendment in a Senate trial, whose purpose is to remove from office a president, who he (and his friends) investigated. God Bless America?
8. Adam Schiff – In addition to the queries posed above, Mr. Schiff should be asked why he stated on numerous occasions, and in front of numerous cameras and numerous recording machines, that he had evidence of Trump committing many crimes, yet never produced any of his “evidence” to law enforcement. Withholding evidence from the police is a crime! Schiff should also be asked why he withheld the same evidence from the Intelligence committee, which he chaired. Withholding evidence from yourself is stupid!
9. Lisa Page and Peter Strozk – Since these FBI agent were heavily involved in the investigation, they should be questioned about it and any other affairs of state of which they have knowledge.
10. Last, but not least, The Whistleblower – He threw the hand grenade that started this whole thing and, to date no one knows who he is{7}. No explanation if his actions has been forthcoming, from the whistleblower or others, and he has not been questioned about his motives, intentions, or whether he has been truthful or not. Many others have been wrung through the wringer, yet he has not even answered an interrogatory! In the words of the great social commentator, John Lodge, “Isn’t life strange”{8}.

What about Nellie and Bruce Ohr (Nellie was a Fusion GPS executive, in constant communication with her husband Bruce, a high ranking Justice Department official), Jerold Nadler (who has been fighting with Trump since the ‘80’s), Susan Rice, Judge Crater, and Sally Yates you might ask? Yes, they all have something to say, but if they all testify, the trial won’t be over until Christmas, next Christmas.

The timing or the Senate Trial is indeed opportune for the Republicans, but they can make the timing perfect by pulling one more political trick out of their hat – The Stall. It is expected that the House will refer the impeachment matter to the Senate in early January. As the trial is an historic event, since they have free rein, and since it will benefit them tremendously, the Republicans in the Senate will surely set up the stall to stretch the trial out as long as possible. Besides the political benefit, history bears them out. Andrew Johnson’s Senate trial took 81 days; Richard Nixon’s House impeachment investigation also took 81 days (he didn’t have a Senate trial because he quit); and Bill Clinton’s Senate trial took 36 days. It is not unreasonable to assume that this trial could take two months.

Just to refresh your memory, the Iowa Democrat caucuses are on February 3^rd; the New Hampshire Democrat primary is on February 11^th; the Nevada Democrat caucuses are on February 22^nd; The South Carolina Democrat primary is on February 29^th (sure hope 2020 is a leap year); and Super Tuesday (when 25 states – including biggies like California, Texas, Massachusetts – and Democrats abroad hold primaries/caucuses) is on March 3^rd.

Just to refresh your memory again, Democrat presidential debates will be held on January 14^th, February 7^th, February 19^th, February 25^th, and in early March.

Just to refresh your memory one more time, as of today, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders, who are still in the running for the Democrat nomination for president, will all have to attend the Senate trial, either as witnesses or jurors{9}.

            This means that the above five Democrat presidential candidates (which include the three current poll leaders) will be out of commission during the Senate trial and won’t have time to prepare for at least four and possibly 29 primaries/caucuses and at least four and possibly five presidential debates. No one, especially a seasoned political candidate (as they all are) wants to enter a primary, caucus, or debate unprepared.

            Since Biden, Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, and Sanders will be out of commission for so long, the Democrat nomination may go to a dark horse, a very dark horse. My guess? Buttigieg, Bloomberg, or . . . Hillary.

            Question: what have the Democrats accomplished by planning an impeachment for almost four years, by assiduously tracking down non-existent Russian collusion{10}, by bitching about a Quid Pro Quo arrangement{11}, by trying to shoehorn the crime of bribery into the president’s actions, by passing an Article of Impeachment accusing the president of abuse of power{12}, and by passing an Article of Impeachment accusing the president of Obstruction of Congress{13}?

            Answer: nothing, well, nothing good; President Trump will not be removed from office; public opinion has abandon the Democrats; two Democrat committee chairmen have shown themselves to be Horse’s asses on national television; and the United States House of Representatives (well, at least two committees of it) has been made to look partisan, angry, hypocritical, foolish, and dingy. Off the top of my head and from a Democrat perspective, I don’t think their work was worth it! .

            Oh, yes, the Democrats may have accomplished one more thing (actually three more things): Trump re-elected, 44 House seats and 6 in the Senate go from D to R.

            Finally, in my humble opinion, the two House “inquiries” and the actions of the National Democrat party during the years 2015-2019 will be studied in Political Science classes for years to come as an example of how to not run a railroad!

            Sorry, Nancy.

P.S. Did I say my DVD recorder is tuned up and ready to record.

{1} There is really no such thing as a Congressional inquiry (Actually, there is, but it is something completely different – the ability of a citizen to obtain the assistance of his representative in a matter against the government). The Intelligence and Judiciary committees use the term inquiry to mean a “sort of” investigation that allows any Democrat congressperson to tell his/her Trump hating constituents that he/she is really trying to nail the President, while, at the same time, allowing the representative to tell his/her Trump loving constituents that he/she is not necessarily in favor of impeachment, he/she is just “searching for the truth”, as all good politicians should.
{2} The rationale for the Democrat’s unstated and unexplainable feelings that Trump shouldn’t be president is a tough one to pin down. It seems to be a combination of the following: someone like Trump should never be president of the United States; Hillary is the rightful president (after all, she did win the popular vote); all of Trump’s policies just feel wrong and aren’t working; and, someone (Russians, Ukrainians, or bogeymen) illegally aided Trump and secured his victory.
{3} The general liberal drift of the Democrat party, the squad, and the Democrat belief that Twitter represents public opinion.
{4} That is because they lead with their head, not their heart. Partisanship is mostly an emotional, not logical feeling.
{5} The U.S. Constitution says that a president may be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The word “other” is often omitted when Democrats quote the clause. In fact, that word is one of the most important words in the clause. It requires that every high crime and misdemeanor considered by the House as a basis for impeachment must be just as or more heinous then treason or bribery. The word “other” eliminates the possibility of a high crime or misdemeanor that is used for impeachment to be anything a Schiff, a Nadler or a Pelosi (or a Bianco) say it is. I wish Democrats would read the entire constitution, not just the parts they like!
{6} This looks like a Quid Pro Quo, evading a law, and conspiracy to obstruct the law.
{7} They know, they are just not saying.
{8} John Lodge, Isn’t Life Strange (based on Pachelbel’s Canon In D), performed by the Moody Blues.
{9} During a trial in the United States Senate, every senator is a juror who will vote on the outcome of the case.
{10} Collusion, which I have been saying for years, is not a crime. Think about it; every one of us colludes with others every day!
{11} A Quid Pro Quo arrangement is also not against the law. Anytime anyone buys something, sells something or makes any kind of deal, they are entering into a Quid Pro Quo agreement.
{12} I wonder if Obama ever abused his power, using the current Judiciary Committee definition of the phrase?
{13} Come on now! The committee’s never went to court to enforce their “demands”. Besides, obstructing Congress is a good thing. The more they are obstructed, the less damage they can do.