Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified Thursday before Adam Schiff’s “Intelligence” Committee, and he displayed the same level of frustration and annoyance that any professional adult must feel when dealing with such a coterie of clowns as Schiff, Swalwell, et al. You have to feel for anyone who is forced to sit in front of a panel of alleged lawmakers and have to explain to them, over and over, at great length and in words of one syllable, what the “law” is.
Here's an interesting take on that alleged "whistleblower" complaint, written by someone who is not a political partisan with an ax to grind but an actual expert who's worked in the CIA and the NSC and even edited transcripts of Presidential phone calls with other world leaders. He raises some very interesting questions that I haven't heard anyone else mention yet concerning what sort of "help" the person might have had in preparing this statement.
I confess that I don’t quite understand all the outrage, including some from the Republican side, about President Trump wanting Ukraine to look into the firing of the prosecutor who was about to investigate Hunter Biden’s lucrative gig there. It’s being painted purely as an attack on a political rival because Biden is running for President, but he’s also on video, bragging about using the threat of withholding over a billion dollars in US aid to force Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor.
The Democrats want to impeach Trump just on a rumor of him slow-walking aid to pressure Ukraine to change a policy. If that’s such a terrible offense, then why isn’t the chief law enforcement officer of the US duty-bound to look into such an egregious, admitted instance of it by a former Vice President? Well, you see (according to Trump’s critics), okay, fine, Biden did threaten Ukraine with a quid pro quo, but he did nothing wrong because his intentions were good and pure. That prosecutor was corrupt, or so goes the narrative, so he needed to be fired. Joe's a hero! Here are two top CNN anchors making that risible argument:
Two points: First of all, whose word do we have that the prosecutor was the one who was corrupt? The word of the former government of Ukraine, a government so famously corrupt that the people voted by over 73% to put a politically-inexperienced TV comedian in charge of it, just to throw the bums out?
Secondly, and I know this again makes me a relic of a bygone age, but I don’t really give a flying fig how good Biden’s intentions were. If what he did was so bad that it’s an impeachable offense, then his intent is irrelevant. If I blackmail you to force you to exercise regularly and eat your veggies, the results might be positive for you in the long run, but I’m still an extortionist.
This reminds me of when James Comey pulled the “lack of intent” standard out of thin air to exonerate Hillary Clinton for sending classified documents on an unsecure server. The law against that has no loophole for lack of malicious intent; military members have gone to jail for sharing classified information completely unintentionally.
The best I can figure is that we now have a new legal standard: no matter what you do, you cannot be investigated or prosecuted as long as you’re running for President as a Democrat. Just think, Jeffrey Epstein might be alive and free today if he’d only thought to announce his candidacy. After all, it’s not like he didn’t have plenty of contacts in the Party.
Speaking of things that are only a crime when Trump allegedly does them (or even thinks about doing them), just last year, three leading Senate Democrats – Dick Durban, Patrick Leahy and Bob Menendez – wrote a letter to a Ukraine prosecutor, bluntly warning that if they didn’t cooperate with Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump, the three might oppose US aid to Ukraine. In short, they threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it helped investigate their political opponent in the 2020 election.
If you don’t think that anyone could be a brazen enough hypocrite to do that and then demand an investigation of Trump and even endorse impeachment hearings against him for allegedly threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it helped investigate his political opponent in the 2020 election, then you have not been following Washington politics for very long.
RIP TO JIMMY NELSON
By “Huckabee” writer/pop culture historian Pat Reeder (http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodhifibook)
We’re sad to report that popular 1950s and ‘60s TV ventriloquist Jimmy Nelson has died in Florida at 90. Nelson was the last living member of the first generation of great TV ventriloquists that included Edgar Bergen (okay, he was a ventriloquist on radio first, which never ceased to baffle some people), Shari Lewis, Senor Wences ("'S'aw right? S'aw right!") and Paul Winchell. Nelson was a clean-cut fellow who played straight man to dummy Danny O’Day and a slow-talking dog named Farfel.
In a career that spanned over 70 years, he appeared on many variety and kids’ shows, but what he’s best loved and remembered for are the 120+ TV commercials he made for Nestle’s, which ended with Danny singing, “N-E-S-T-L-E-S, Nestle’s make the very best…" and Farfel adding, "Chooooooc…laaaate.” Then “Click!” went his mouth to put an exclamation point on it.
By all accounts, Nelson was an extremely nice man and a great dad who loved performing (even doing shows for schools and senior centers after he officially retired) and encouraging young ventriloquists. If you’re one of the many Baby Boomers who grew up watching Jimmy, Danny and Farfel on Ed Sullivan and other such shows, here’s a great tribute to him that includes an interview and a number of classic video clips for your nostalgic enjoyment. RIP Jimmy Nelson, and thanks to you, Danny and Farfel for all the laughs.