Don's Tuesday Column

        THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   10/01/2019

Sham, fraud and hoax to impeach

While there were genuine crimes by then-President Richard Nixon, meeting the “high crimes and misdemeanors” threshold for impeachment, it came down to a sufficient number of Republicans in Congress turning on Nixon to make his impeachment and removal inevitable. The actual crimes by then-President Bill Clinton arguably exceeded Nixon’s wrongdoing, sufficient for Clinton to lose his law license and for a non-politician to go to jail and pay substantial fines. His fellow Democrats hung tough; his removal failed in the Senate.

The above summary of recent impeachments points to the inevitable role of politics therein. The failure to convict President Andrew Johnson in the 1800s by a single vote in the U.S. Senate, after the House voted his impeachment, presents yet another example of failure by a president’s opponents.

Republicans suffered from Nixon’s resignation (prior to the House vote—Nixon wasn’t actually impeached) in a guilt-by-association rejection of the party of the president. Failure to remove Bill Clinton, however, had a mixed impact with Republicans again suffering from the spectacle. The prevailing muddying messages from a belligerent fight by Clinton and his allies drove a public rejection of the process.

Only time will tell the impact of the full-bore Democrat jihad against President Donald J. Trump, now in the “impeachment inquiry” phase; by not voting in the full House, Democrats can escape, for now, accountability for authorizing the process. To a great degree, the process is the punishment as Democrats roll out quasi-legal demands for documents and testimony, find friendly “Obama” judges to enforce those demands, and propagandize hand-in-glove with their media fellow-travelers and hacks.

Their thinly-veiled, non-stealth goal will be to sour the voters, at least those in the middle, on voting for Trump, or even not voting at all in disgust at how the impeachment circus has sullied his reelection. However, in the media “battlefield,”—unlike the total dominance of the networks under Nixon, and the emergent (now ubiquitous) talk radio and conservative Internet blogosphere under Clinton—Trump’s enemies and opponents now face a sophisticated and powerful pro-Trump message-delivery universe.

Much of the general public, excluding the truly Facebook-numbed younger demographic, has access to whatever depth of research they choose, as well as sources they find reliable to summarize complex messages. Digital titans like Google and Twitter may entertain delusions that they control the stream of information and massage the message, hence delivering the votes that the left needs to implement a return of Democrat dominance. Trump’s Twitter feed, which I again urge you to peruse daily, @realDonaldTrump, remains the largest Internet megaphone with 64 million followers and millions more that just read it.

I see, not a “whistleblower”—in fact, he or she doesn’t qualify as a legal “whistleblower” under the law, and the president talking to another nation’s leader isn’t subject to the applicable law—but rather an “Embedded Democrat Operative” (EDO or EDOs plural). They are distinguished from rank-and-file federal employees, who admittedly vote and contribute overwhelmingly to Democrats; EDOs participate in undermining, or “resisting,” Trump personally and his agenda and policies.

If you doubt me, take their own admissions aired in a Vanity Fair article from Feb. 2017. Look up “Resistance by whistleblower was part of the anti-Trump plan from the start” at LegalInsurrection.com, 9/29. “DOJ employee in February 2017 predicted resistance by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press and lodging internal complaints…‘Policy dissent is in our culture,’ one diplomat in Africa, who signed the letter circulating among foreign diplomats, told The New York Times.

“We even have awards for it (i.e. the State Department’s ‘Constructive Dissent’ award). You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage…people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints. Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda and attending workshops on how to effectively engage in civil disobedience.”

Deep State self-styled “resisters” conspired to provide an EDO (see above) intelligence official with their own first or second hand stories about the phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s president. Such stories are out of the “whistleblower’s” purview—and have now been debunked by the very transcript of that call, provided to Congress and the public. There are numerous retired, former EDOs from intelligence positions, that happily funnel and act as conduits for—important to note—illegally obtained “leaks.”

Factor in the following: “Senate Democrats Face Questions After Letter Resurfaces of Them Asking Ukraine to Investigate Trump in 2018” (D.P.: That’s literal foreign collusion by Dems). “Biden Accuses Trump of Trying to ‘Hijack an Election’ in Ukraine Call” (D.P.: From the side that engaged in the only documented Russian collusion in 2016 via the Steele dossier with Russian sources used against Trump).

“‘Ukraine-Gate’ Is About the Russian Hack That Wasn’t” (“President Trump asked the Ukrainian president about CrowdStrike, the politically connected cybersecurity firm that investigated the alleged Russian ‘hack’ of the Democratic National Committee.” The FBI never physically examined the computer).

A highly suspicious change occurred in the policy that a “whistleblower” could only report supposed misconduct personally observed; it changed to allow reporting of things others observed and therefore were literal “hearsay” evidence. No court or judge would convict based on “hearsay” evidence lacking other proof; Trump is not below the law—he cannot be impeached with faceless accusers, shielded from public view.

At least one Democrat (Rep. Al Green) has revealed the whole game: “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” (D.P.: Many Dems will admit it—Trump will win in 2020). “It’s not just that Democrats disliked Donald Trump. They declared him illegitimate. By implication, they declared anyone who supported Trump illegitimate, too.” (Roger Kimball, “The Little Engine That Couldn’t”; don’t bet on tarnishing Trump’s reputation to defeat him.)