From Adam Schiff’s mouth to the astonished Senators’ ears: “The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”
He didn’t elaborate. He didn’t have to. As his words wafted over his bored and exhausted listeners, in one sentence Adam Schiff revealed the sinister intentions of the Democrats’ impeachment strategy.
Does Schiff really believe that? Apparently, he does. He has yet to let go of his rabid assertions that President Trump and the Russians rigged the 2016 elections. A 2 plus year investigation by a 15 man team investigators headed by a former FBI Director isn’t enough to convince Schiff I see!
In an equally convoluted leap of logic, Schiff suggested that President Trump put the country into mortal danger. The aid to Ukraine, he whined, was needed so that we wouldn’t have to fight the Russians on our home territory.
Schiff actually said this, “As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
President Trump’s campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh got to the heart of the matter, “Every moment of the impeachment sham has been geared toward interfering with the 2020 election. Schiff is preemptively calling into question the results of an election that is still more than 9 months away.”
Bret Baier of Fox News was astonished. Does this mean that voters should never trust the vote? Must we only trust partisan hacks like Schiff to decide when a President misbehaves? Can only the lawmakers do that?
While Schiff may have insulted everyone’s intelligence, he was not to be outdone by his toady colleague Jerry Nadler the night before. If you’re going to win over a skeptical crowd, it’s best not to accuse them of defying their oaths of office and participating in a coverup if they don’t go along with calling the witnesses that the House couldn’t be bothered to subpoena.
In fact, one Republican who is no fan of President Trump, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), didn’t accept Nasty Nadler’s admonition at face value, “As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended.”
Then there was Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). He most likely typified how it was going for the Democrats when he tweeted, “The more we hear from Adam Schiff, the more the GOP is getting unified against this partisan charade.”
But Schiff doubled down and reprised his argument about the human cost of the temporary holdup of Ukrainian aid. He claimed that “more than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies.”
He tried that one the year before in the house impeachment probe. His argument overlooks the uncomfortable fact that former President Obama provided less aid than the Trump administration. Linking a temporary hold up of aid to what happened in the chaos and corruption of Ukraine doesn’t meet the test of common sense.
The Democrats’ last gasp here will be to fight for additional witness testimony. Their main target seems to be former National Security Advisor John Bolton. If Bolton shows up and starts a new round of secondhand snitching and possibly bearing false witness, he’ll no doubt drag Joe and Hunter Biden in his wake.
Except for Pocahontas Warren and Crazy Bernie Sanders, no one wants the Democrats’ best hope anywhere near President Trump’s lawyers.
