The first public installment of the “Impeach Trump 2019” spectacle took place on Wednesday, and this is not like the impeachment hearings of old. It’s completely partisan, rigidly controlled by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. To construct a false narrative, Schiff, in a painfully obvious contortion, makes sure that only certain aspects of this complex story are acknowledged to exist. In fact, that’s why the committee had to come back later, after dismissing the witnesses and cameras: to consider a motion to subpoena the “anonymous whistleblower” (who, as we’ve noted, isn’t a whistleblower under federal law but known Democrat operative/spy Eric Ciaramella, spelled C-I-A-R-A-M-E-L-L-A, pronounced “CHAR-a-mel-ah, as in “CHAR-lie”). That motion was, not surprisingly, tabled, by party-line vote. Aw, too bad we didn’t get to find out his ("or her") name.
Anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows that one reason Schiff can’t allow questions about the whistleblower is that HE and HIS STAFF would be shown to be lying about their contacts and “collusion” with this very person. We all know who it is! We just can’t talk about him! And, of course, we can’t hear from anyone with whom he's spoken.
The fact that the very person who is RUNNING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY is the one whose staff first had contact with the person who sparked the impeachment inquiry is like something out of a political thriller. You can’t make this stuff up. (Or, if you can, you really should start writing political thrillers.) Absurdly, Schiff currently maintains he doesn’t know this person's name; either he is brazenly lying or he has carefully tiptoed around the name when speaking with his staff, so as to preserve technical deniability on that one point. But he knows.
We knew Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe would knock it out of the park on questioning, and they did. But let's also acknowledge New York Rep. Elise Stefanik for her skillful line of questioning; she has a no-nonsense way of cutting right to the chase. We should be proud of all the Republicans’ efforts to get the facts out there for the American public. Imagine how much more effective they would have been if they could have asked certain central questions without being silenced by Adam Schiff. It would have been a total take-down.
The Strange Mental Powers of Adam Schiff
He knows President Trump’s secret personal motives for his foreign policy decisions, he knows that Trump said things that there’s no direct evidence he ever said, and he even knows the names of Trump associates who colluded with Russia despite a massive, two-year investigation finding no such thing. Yet he doesn’t know the name of the whistleblower who allegedly consulted with his own staff and whose name has not only been all over social media for weeks, but was inadvertently exposed in documents he made public last week.
Now we know why he has that strange, glazed, bug-eyed look: someone has him under hypnosis. My guess: Hillary Clinton.
I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:
Helpful Hint to Impeachment-mad Democrats: If you want to gin up “OUTRAGE!!!” over President Trump describing his treatment by you as a “lynching,” you might want to knock off the public proclamations that unsubstantiated hearsay makes for much better evidence than direct evidence.
This is precisely how seriously everyone should take Adam Schiff’s “impeachment” medicine show:
A little further reading on the impeachment clown show…
For those arriving late at the “impeach Trump over something/anything” party, Bruce Buchanan has a good, brief recap of what’s really happened that the mainstream media will never admit. He also makes a good case that what’s driving the leading figures’ war on Trump isn’t hatred. It’s largely fear: the DC swamp rats thought the fix was in for Hillary to become President and cover up all their criminal activities. But Trump won, and now they’re desperate to impeach him and poison the waters before the Barr/Durham/Horowitz reports come out and expose what they were doing.
Michael Goodwin at the New York Post was also unimpressed with day one of Impeachment Theater, even though the New York Times and the Washington Post depicted it as bringing forth startling new testimony that further implicates Trump.
The Times even ran an op-ed headlined, “The Evidence of Wrongdoing by Trump is Overwhelming” (judging from a cursory glance at other liberal outlets, that headline seems to contain all the focus-group buzzwords that tested best, since they’re all repeating it without actually explaining what this alleged “overwhelming wrongdoing” is.
The best I can figure is that they’ve now stopped insinuating that Trump was blackmailing Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden and leaped to asserting it as unassailable fact without ever going to the inconvenient step of proving it. If this were a trial, that would be overruled as “a fact not in evidence.” But it’s not a trial, or even a hearing. It’s just a show.
Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)
"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
- 1 John 4:16
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.