The Gov. replies to reader about the "whistleblower" and THIS CHARADE...
What about what President Trump did i.e. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-hiding-plain-sight
From the Gov:
Thanks for asking, William. I’m not sure what has happened to Judge Napolitano; he has metamorphosed into an advocate for those who would eagerly remove Trump through impeachment. I am not a lawyer, but there are things the esteemed judge says that stand out to me as wrongheaded or downright incorrect, and I’m sure they do to many legal experts as well. Let me see if I can address some of what he says here. And then –- since, repeat, I am not a lawyer –- I might bring in some “big guns” to help me.
Since the headline of Napolitano’s piece asserts that proof of Trump’s supposed offenses is “plain to see,” let’s first address problems with the process being used against him and get that out of the way. Regarding Adam Schiff’s committee and the hearings as he has been running them, there is much more wrong than their closed-door status. The best way to show this is to compare the Bill Clinton hearings with the ones Schiff is running against Trump; we’ve already discussed this at length and the Trump “inquiry” hearings come up far short in comparison when it comes to due process. (Both Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff have been making public appearances LYING about this; former Clinton impeachment prosecutor Bob Barr called it "bizarro world.") In the case of Clinton, Republicans did not use this new “it’s-like-a-grand-jury” rationale to bar his legal counsel. They didn’t prevent Democrats from questioning witnesses or seeing exculpatory material. Their inquiry wasn’t spread over a number of committees but was carried out by the Judiciary Committee. And I'm just scratching the surface here.
The rules Democrats codified with Thursday’s vote are a joke; they don’t change anything, really, as there are loopholes one could drive a double-wide trailer through. Schiff’s hearings are continuing, just as secretively as before. The vote (even such a starkly partisan vote) gives them the thin veneer of approval that empowers them to keep lurching forward.
I could go on addressing problems raised by the process, but tucked inside the Napolitano op-ed you linked to is another link, to an article from Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation: “In Trump’s Impeachment Probe, Democrats Refuse to Follow Nixon and Clinton Precedents.” It’s quite good and continues what I might want to tell you on the issue of process so that I can move on to the meat of Napolitano’s piece, which is the argument that Trump really did commit impeachable offenses, right in plain sight.
Kim Strassel has had some good commentary on the process as well. She makes it clear that what Schiff has created isn’t like a grand jury, but rather something designed to present the Judiciary Committee with a one-sided narrative.
So, moving on to what Trump actually did or did not do. Napolitano says, “Congressional Republicans should be careful what they ask for. The defense of the President has addressed process, not proof. The proof is largely undisputed, except by the President himself. It consists of admissions, testimony and documents, which show that Trump sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2020 election.”
With all due respect, we’ve looked at this inside and out, and the judge is simply wrong here. Much of the defense of the President has addressed the lack of proof. The accusation that Trump deliberately held up military aid to Ukraine “until Ukrainian prosecutors commenced a criminal investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter” is, as far as I know, incorrect. The Ukrainians have not initiated such an investigation, yet the aid was sent. My understanding is that the President was hesitant to send aid to a country so mired in corruption, as the money tends to end up not where it needs to go but rather in the pockets of corrupt individuals.
Napolitano says that the “Mueller” team (I put “Mueller” in quotes because he obviously didn’t write his report, most likely leaving that task with right-hand man and designated attack-dog Andrew Weissmann) found “some” evidence of collusion with Russia on the part of Trump in 2016 but not enough to indict. This is a DNC talking point; the Mueller team may have phrased it that way, but there is no solid evidence of Trump’s misconduct that would stand up. If there had been, THEY WOULD HAVE INDICTED HIM. Much to Democrats’ despair, they did not.
The judge says that Trump has “admitted seeking to involve the government of Ukraine in the 2020 election.” I guess he infers Trump was doing this when he asked Ukraine to investigate internal corruption, WHICH HAPPENS TO INCLUDE THE BIDENS, AS HUNTER BIDEN HAD NO BUSINESS BEING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA IN THE FIRST PLACE. The judge has simply offered his own biased interpretation of what Trump was talking about.
Napolitano says, “Whether one agrees with federal law or not, it is a crime to solicit assistance for a federal campaign from a foreign government.” Well, yes, but, again, this is the judge’s personal interpretation of what Trump did. The president would say he was NOT doing this --- that he was trying to determine what happened in 2016. The “evidence” isn’t hiding in plain sight; it’s spinning around inside Napolitano’s brain. A much stronger argument can be made that Hillary and HER campaign were the ones trying to solicit help from a foreign government, but I don’t see the judge making that case. Talk about "in plain sight"!
Napolitano’s piece was written before Thursday’s vote on the rules for “inquiry, which the judge says is “legally unnecessary but politically devastating to the House’s process arguments.” Actually, I think their vote on these rules, as constituted, will not be devastating but, rather, helpful to the House’s process arguments, as the rules are a joke, as we’ve discussed. As for the vote being “politically unnecessary,” the judge is apparently referencing the strange decision of Judge Beryl A. Howell, which, as I have previously explained, is partisan twaddle.
In other words, what Judge Napolitano might think of as “cream” is, to me, nothing more than skim milk. And not just skim milk in the carton, but that cheap powdered kind that comes at the dollar store in a cardboard box, mixed with about three times as much water as the directions say. Fortunately, in spite of Schiff’s efforts, enough exculpatory material from these hearings is being spirited out to give us a better picture of what really happened.
For some people, the solution to every problem is more government money and federal involvement. That’s been the trend in schooling ever since Jimmy Carter created a federal Education Department. Education used to be a state and local concern, but we now have a massive federal bureaucracy placing various mandates on schools and spending $68 billion a year. And what do we have to show for it?
The head of that agency, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, just released her department’s 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress report on math and reading proficiency. She said, “The results are, frankly, devastating. This country is in a student achievement crisis, and over the past decade it has continued to worsen, especially for our most vulnerable students,”
Trends were positive up until 2015, by which time most states had implemented the “Common Core” initiative, then they flat-lined and even started declining. Despite (?) all that federal money and micromanagement, fourth graders scored only one point higher than previous tests, while eighth graders actually did worse. (In a separate international study of math, science and reading proficiency, Chinese students ranked 21 places higher than American students.)
Secretary DeVos said, “This must be America’s wake-up call. We cannot abide these poor results any longer. We can neither excuse them away nor simply throw more money at the problem.”
Fortunately, the current Democratic poll leader for President does want to do more than throw money at the problem. She also wants to crack down on school choice and ban for-profit charter schools, despite having sent her own son to an elite private school in the 1980s that currently costs about $18,000 a year.
Although to be fair, maybe that school recruited him as part of its Affirmative Action program since, being her son, he is 1/2048th Native American.
Friday Fun with Joe Biden’s Brain: Biden declared that on day one as President, he would rejoin the “Paris Peace Accord.” Either he meant the Paris Climate Accord or else he’s promising that if elected, he will end the Vietnam War.
It’s an understandable mistake, since when Joe was first elected to the Senate, the end of the Vietnam War was still over two years in the future.