Breaking News From the Swamp!

Over the last couple of days Laura Ingraham has been breaking a story which is further pulling back the curtain on the whistleblower, the Bidens, the Obama-Biden administration, the Ukraine, and Burisma. Here are the highlights:

  1. The attempt to characterize the Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton as a “conspiracy theory” are dead. NY Times reporter Ken Vogel documented them here in 2017:
  2. The Obama-Biden administration had a meeting in the White House on Jan. 19th 2016 with “Ukrainian prosecutors and Embassy officials.” The meeting was “for the purpose of discussing Hunter Biden and Burisma.”
  3. White House visitor logs show that the person often named as the whistleblower checked in the Ukrainian delegation!
  4. In early May Ken Vogel was emailing State Department officials asking about this meeting and copied George Kent who just happened to be a “star witness” at the House impeachment hearings.
  5. Joe Biden announced his candidacy on April 25th. On May 3rd the State Department stopped responding to Vogel’s emails.
  6. The NY Times spiked the story.

Here is the full story as covered by Jeffrey Lord:

Those in sympathy with the swamp will of course pooh-pooh this as another “conspiracy theory” or label it as invalid since it was uncovered by a Fox News person. There is no disputing, however, the hard copies of the emails, the White House visitors logs, or the fact that the NY Times never printed the story. It matters not who uncovered them.

This is certainly further evidence that the Obama Administration knew full well what was going with the Biden/Burisma sweetheart deal. It also shows a connection between the Obama White House, the whistleblower, and one of their “star witnesses” in the impeachment proceedings. One is led to wonder; was the “weak tea” impeachment a coordinated hit job to be sprung on Trump with the added benefit of distracting from the real corruption of the Bidens? It sure seems more and more likely the more we find out.

This will absolutely NOT be covered by any of the mainstream media. Please share and share and share some more.

I Have Questions

See the source image

Having marginally followed the impeachment circus going on in Washington these days and hearing some arguments, I wondered about several things. Here’s just a few questions I’d like answered:

Is anything going to be ruled inadmissible during this trial?

If the Democrats are now claiming certain documents and witnesses are “indispensable” and must be subpoenaed to ensure a fair trial why didn’t they issue the subpoenas during their inquiry to solidify their case?

If witnesses are the key to a fair trial why was the President denied his during the House hearings?

In a fair trial would the defendant be denied any representation during closed door depositions, as happened during the House hearings?

If this president and executive branch is “obstructing Congress” by claiming executive privilege will every future president be subject to impeachment for making the same claim?

If claiming executive privilege becomes an impeachable offense what will this do the ability of future presidential advisers to offer honest, candid advice and options?

Whether or not the President is convicted, will this chain of events affect the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches created in the Constitution?

If the entity being offered the “quid pro quo” (in this case the Ukraine) doesn’t know it’s happening at the time, takes no action, and later says there was “no pressure” what exactly happened?

Does becoming a candidate in a primary to run for office make one immune from investigation into wrongdoing?

Does foreign policy emanate from career State Department officials or from the President?

If it is a Constitution shaking event for a president to do what is alleged here why on earth would the Democrats ask us to elect a person who bragged on television about doing that very same thing?

Dear Mitch: It’s at Least Half Zero

See the source image

As the so called impeachment trial begins this week in the Senate, I have a suggestion for leader Mitch McConnell. Without getting into the weeds about the impeachment as a whole, the calls for and against witnesses, love or hatred for President Trump, or the famous phone call, one thing is clear. The second article of impeachment has no legal or constitutional basis. It can and should be dismissed at the outset.

The second article claims that President Trump “obstructed Congress.” This charge is beyond a stretch. It is ridiculous. The claim of executive privilege by a president is in no way outside the law or an obstruction of Congress. The House subpoenaed witnesses and executive privilege was claimed as has been done in some form or another by nearly every president since, well, Washington. If the House felt those claims were illegitimate they could have gone to court to get a court order. If the president had then defied a court order the charge of obstruction might have had some legitimacy. I suspect that they did not go to court because they did not feel they could win but that is just an opinion. This boils down to the legislative branch demanding something and the executive branch telling them they are overstepping their bounds. The Constitution is a beautiful thing…….separation of powers. President Trump had, and still has, a perfect right to claim executive privilege.

By scheduling an early vote to separately dismiss the second article leader McConnell could accomplish two things. First, he would shorten the process which is in everyone’s interest (except, maybe, the media’s). Second, as a tactical move, it would demonstrate the weakness of the impeachment as a whole and the political nature of the charges without being a total dismissal. The message to the House would be “We’ll give you your day in court but this part of your case has no place in any court.”

Remove a zero. Save time and money. Strengthen your position. Just an idea Mitch.