Hold onto your hats. In this post, I am going to patch together the Democratic case for the impeachment of Donald Trump, and I am going to present as strong of a case as the Democrats have put together, based on all of the testimony so far. I am then going to get into who, or what, is behind this sordid state of affairs.
The Democrats are calling Gordon Sondland’s testimony the ‘smoking gun,’ as Ambassador Sondland was 100% sure that Trump had a quid pro quo, tying military aid to an investigation of Burisma Holdings. Quid pro quo’s are simply how diplomacy is done, according to Sondland, and so Gordon Sondland is POSITIVE Trump set one up, though he has no first hand knowledge that there was one, and in fact his only first hand knowledge is that Trump specifically told him NOT to set up a quid pro quo.
In other words, Sondland’s testimony is that he believes OF COURSE there was a quid pro quo (but he does not know for sure), based on such things being so common in our foreign policy that there just had to have been one.
And that, my friends, is what Democrats call a ‘smoking gun.’
On top of that, it came out yesterday that Burisma Holdings paid Hunter Biden millions of dollars in stolen funds, before Joe Biden created a quid pro quo (and bragged about it on TV) to kill the investigation into Burisma Holdings.
Oh – and those millions of dollars in stolen funds were in addition to the $85,000 per month Hunter Biden was paid to sit on Burisma’s board.
The other star witness (Lt Col Vindman) corroborated Trump’s call transcripts. Lt Col Vindman said that he was so concerned about Trump’s call that he went to his supervisors to complain that the call was, in his view, inappropriate, and that Trump was not listening to Lt Col Vindman’s advice on Ukrainian policy (as if Lt Col Vindman, rather than the President of the United States, sets policy). Lt Col Vindman, after testifying, told the Department of the Army that he feared for his family’s safety, and when the Army did not agree that he was under any kind of threat, Lt Col Vindman went to CNN and told them his family was under threat from the President.
Let’s be very clear about something: Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), expressing contempt for public officials, such as a member of Congress, or the President of the United States, is a crime. Going to a superior about a concern is not expressing contempt, and nor is testifying to Congress. Expressing concern to superiors for your family’s safety is not expressing contempt, but doing so publicly in a claim that President Trump is out to cause you harm, when no threat has been made (and where the Army says there is no reason to believe any danger exists) – that definitely qualifies as expressing contempt.
Lieutenant Colonial Vindman violated the UCMJ, and he needs to face a court martial for that.
The other so-called ‘star witness,’ Marie Yovanovitch, testified that Trump fired her, and that though it was fully within Trump’s power to do so, she did not like being fired. Trump tweeted why he fired her while she was testifying, and Adam Schiff read her Trump’s tweet. Adam Schiff then said that Trump was witness tampering – creating a new impeachable offense out of thin air.
I don’t know how tweeting the reasons one fired someone, while that person is testifying, can be called ‘witness tampering,’ when what was tweeted was not in any way a threat, and when the witness in question would have been off the stand before she would have had a chance to see the tweet. Adam Schiff, on the other hand, was definitely guilty of witness tampering when he read the tweet to Marie Yovanovitch while she was on the stand.
Today we will hear witnesses who will testify that they do not think Ukraine had anything to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election. It’s important to note that Adam Schiff is not letting Republicans call witnesses to testify that Ukraine was all over Russian collusion in the 2016 election…
The entire impeachment process is a one-sided farcical mess…
I’m somewhat curious how Democrats can call a quid pro quo ‘impeachable’ based on a witness who says THAT IS HOW DIPLOMACY IS DONE. If the only evidence against Trump is that we always have a quid pro quo, and so we can assume one here, we might ask why we are impeaching the President for doing what everyone always does. Are we impeaching the President for doing business as usual? And why are we using the fact that every else always does it as proof that Trump had a quid pro quo, when nobody can corroborate that, and the only witness with first-hand knowledge testified that he was specifically told NOT to create one?
Does that sound like an impeachable offense to you?
We are told that Trump is guilty of using a quid pro quo to get dirt on a political rival, but if that is illegal, then why wasn’t it illegal for Vice President Joe Biden to work with the Hillary Clinton Campaign, the DNC, and the Obama Administration, to get dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump, during the 2016 election? At the very least, shouldn’t the Steele Dossier have landed Hillary Clinton in jail?
My friends – you will never see a more clear-cut case of ‘rules for thee but not for me‘ than this notion that Trump should be removed from office for allegedly doing what we KNOW the Democrats did in 2016.
Also note that Hunter Biden was paid three million dollars (on top of his $85,000 per month) out of stolen funds, while on the Board of Directors for the company that stole that money. Joe Biden, as Vice President, forced Ukraine to shut-down the investigation into that company.
Trump’s first job, as the head of the Executive Branch, is to enforce the law, so to say that asking Ukraine to look into Burisma Holdings (and the Bidens’ role in it) is impeachable, one has to believe first that the Bidens did nothing wrong, and second, that running for President makes one immune from investigation – and one has to believe this AFTER TRUMP SPENT THE ENTIRE 2016 ELECTION BEING INVESTIGATED BY SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE IMPEACHING HIM!!!
What the Democrats are doing is like something out of a Tom Clancy novel.
I’m going to throw one more bit of wood into the fire, as I think it is illustrative of exactly what is occurring. It’s a Glenn Beck video, and you can watch it here. I was asked to critique this video, and I am going to provide my critique to close this article, as it occurs to me that every single witness against Trump comes from the State Department (including Lt Col Vindman, who, though in the Army, is attached to the State Department). Glenn Beck ties all of that together. You’ll know who is behind the coup once you finish reading this, and you can watch Glenn Beck’s video if you want as well (though it’s a bit long).
Let me start by criticizing Glenn Beck. Beck’s specialty is theatrics – he’s a bit like a conservative Geraldo Rivera, in that he can stretch innuendo into a two-hour special without revealing that he has no substance until the very end. His shows are a stream of cliffhangers, one after the other, designed to do nothing more than to keep you watching, and he is far more concerned with growing a viewership, and keeping them watching for as long as humanly possible, than in providing content.
In this case, he does have substance, and he has the documents to back up his claims, but if you watch his video, understand that he uses theatrics to stretch a half hour of content into a two hour spectacle.
And that’s too bad, as what he uncovers matters.
In a nutshell, Glenn Beck shows how the State Department, under Barrack Obama (and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton), created non-governmental-organizations (NGOs), to work in conjunction with the State Department, utilizing Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals,’ to undermine and overthrow governments around the world.
This should not be surprising, given that Hillary Clinton told Saul Alinsky that her goal was to use the power of the state to implement ‘Rules for Radicals’ from within the state, rather than from outside (as Alinsky had envisioned), and that when Barrack Obama was supposedly teaching ‘Constitutional Law’ at The University of Chicago, he was actually teaching a class on Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals.’ Indeed – before running for state office in Illinois, Barrack Obama was a community organizer – literally a professional implementer of ‘Rules for Radicals.’
The State Department, under Obama, staffed itself with career bureaucrats who were committed to overthrowing non-socialist governments across the globe, and who were willing to continue to work toward that end no matter who became President in the future. The NGO’s the Obama State Department setup were then used to outsource the State Department’s work in destabilizing and overthrowing governments such that socialist states could be created.
These NGOs were also used to undermine the strength and security of the United States, as flipping the United States into an authoritarian, socialist state, is the ultimate goal.
Arab Spring? That was orchestrated by our State Department. Libya? That was orchestrated by our State Department. Syria? That was orchestrated by our State Department. ISIS? That was orchestrated by our State Department, and was then created, trained, and supplied by the CIA, which smuggled weapons through Benghazi. ISIS started as an American proxy-group to destabilize Syria.
Chile is in the process of being overthrown by these NGOs.
Trump wants to defund these NGOs, and to take these policies out of the State Department, which means removing the State Department operatives who are still implementing these programs – spreading socialism and totalitarianism across the globe, while destabilizing the United States.
Note that all of the witnesses testifying against Trump in the impeachment hearings are coming out of the State Department…
The DNC is supporting these deep-state operatives in their attempt to overthrow the Trump administration before Trump can defund the NGOs Obama created – this is why Trump is being impeached. Glenn Beck exposes all of this, and releases document after document and video after video to support his claims.
It’s all true.
It’s just too bad Beck took two hours to do it. This video would be more compelling, and would have a wider circulation, were it condensed to a half hour.
As always, we ask that you consider sharing our content. There are buttons below the article that make it easy to do so. You can also support future content by donating through our Patreon account.