No, not the whistle blower who saw the illegal actions of Trump and reported them to the proper authorities. Not yet, anyway. This whistle blower was Chinese doctor from Wuhan province. He is dead from the highly contagious deadly virus we call coronavirus.
Dr. Li Wenliang was only 34 years old. When he discovered the fact that his patient had an unknown virus and was spreading it, he took action. He thought it might be SARS. It was too late for him, since he had no way of knowing how virulent the virus was before he treated his patients.
As soon as he understood the possible repercussions of the virus he immediately informed his colleagues on a web site. On December 31 he put out the warning. This was bad. This was transmitted human to human. This was highly contagious and deadly. Take precautions . Get on top of this. He blew the whistle on the virus.
The Chinese government did not like it. Bad PR. Might lead to panic. So, Dr . Li Wenlaing was arrested. YES. Arrested for blowing the whistle. Then he was silenced.
Then he was forced to plead guilty. To spreading rumors. From an interview he did a few days before his death.
How did you feel when the police accused you of spreading rumors?
The police believed this virus was not confirmed to be SARS. They believed I was spreading rumors. They asked me to acknowledge that I was at fault.
I felt I was being wronged, but I had to accept it. Obviously I had been acting out of good will. I felt very sad seeing so many people losing their loved ones.
How long will it take you to recover? What do you plan to do afterward?
I started coughing on Jan. 10. It will take me another 15 days or so to recover. I will join medical workers in fighting the epidemic. That’s where my responsibilities lie.
But the good doctor did not survive. At 34, he is dead, leaving behind a wife, a 4 year old and an unborn child. According to Dr Li Wenliang if the government had disclosed the possible problems with the virus earlier, it may have limited the spread.
So, the whistle blower is dead. He was guilty, under Chinese law, of spreading rumors. He was silenced.
We don’t silence whistle blowers in the US. They are protected. We want them to come forth with information the public needs. Or information about government wrongdoing.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has a different idea, however. He follows the Chinese model. He plans to call the whistle blower and make him pay for blowing the whistle on Trump’s illegal activities.
“During an interview with Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo over the weekend, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham vowed to compel testimony from the whistleblower in order to get to the bottom of what led to impeachment against President Trump. He also reiterated his plans to investigate the Bidens for their involvement with Burisma, the most corrupt company in Ukraine. ….
“”The day of reckoning is coming for congressional and Senate oversight of Joe Biden and the FISA warrant process,” Graham said.
A day of reckoning. For all whistle blowers. President Trump agrees. And president Xi of China concurs.
In 2017 he was accused, and later convicted, of shoplifting. The prosecution claims he had hidden some dog toys … yes, DOG TOYS … in his girlfriend’s purse. Then they left the store without paying.
Well, they did have SOME evidence against him, to be sure. They never actually found the toys in his girlfriend’s purse. BUT. They had a video of him going to the car and bringing his girlfriend’s purse into the store. They had some empty dog toy shelves. Stuff like that.
To be clear, they didn’t catch him in the act. It was only a day later when some store employers noticed some empty packaging in the dog toy department that they investigated. Sure enough, the Sherlock-type sleuths discovered that his girlfriend had absconded with $ 186 worth of dog toys!
Some of you who do not own pets may wonder how anyone could stuff $186 worth of dog toys into a purse unnoticed. I mean, that sounds like a lot of Fido fun. Loads of doggy diversions. Now, those of you WITH pets might have a different view. I mean, where can you get a purse load of dog toys for ONLY $186? Must have been in the discount bin. Give me the address of that store. But I digress.
So, despite his pleas of innocence (his girlfriend took complete responsibility, the sweet thing) he was convicted and sentenced. To 2 to 23 months in jail. For pilfering dog toys. Well, I said he was convicted of shoplifting, but not exactly. Since he, himself, never stole any dog toys he was actually convicted of “conspiracy to commit retail theft”. YIKES. That’s sounds a lot worse than shoplifting. A conspiracy.
So poor Benjamin was convicted. But that was then. This is now.
After watching hours and hours of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump from his prison cell, Benjamin had second thoughts. The first thought was this. Being forced to watch hours and hours of the impeachment trial may be grounds for release on a “cruel and unusual punishment” claim.
Second, he wanted a new trial with Lamar Alexander as foreman of the jury.
You see, Lamar Alexander has stated, in writing, publicly that “yes”, the House managers did present a convincing case. In fact, according to Lamar, he is convinced that president Trump DID solicit (extort) the Ukrainian government to try to force them to present an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. He had seen enough, but it was not enough to convict.
So Senator Alexander does not need any more proof. Trump is a criminal. The facts are clear. Undisputed. But, since Trump is a criminal Lamar has decided NOT to vote to remove him from office. Or to seek any more evidence which might even further prove the case already proven by the House managers. Because, after all, if we convicted criminals what would be next? Slippery slope.
Lamar’s statement: “…There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.
“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate….”
When Benjamin saw this he leaped for joy. That is exactly the point he was trying to make. Just because he was found to have committed a crime does not mean he should be found GUILTY of committing a crime. Just because he was involved in a conspiracy, and that was proven by the prosecution, does not justify a GUILTY verdict. It was not really a crime, it was just “inappropriate” for him to conspire to shoplift. And, if we are to uphold what Senator Alexander calls “the principle of equal justice under the law” shouldn’t Benjamin go free?
Benjamin wants Senator Alexander on his jury. And Dershowitz as his lawyer. Mr Forsythe is hoping to call Donald Trump, Jr as his character witness. If he can afford the fee.
There is a new sheriff in town. His name is Lamar. His concept of the law: Some crimes are just not punishable. It all depends on who commits them.
The impeachment trial of Donald Trump started last week. The House managers presented a very thorough case. Now it is the time for the defenders of the president to speak. Fair enough.
So, what should they say? Well, let’s look at what the House has presented and see how they can respond.
The House case focuses first on the withholding of aid to Ukraine and the withholding of a meeting in the Oval Office with the president of the Ukraine. Both are important to the Ukraine for what should be obvious reasons. Ukraine is partially occupied and is at war with Putin’s Russia. Not to belabor the point but again. Ukraine is partially occupied and at war with Putin’s Russia.
So, the Ukraine desperately needs military help. Which the Congress and the president have given them.They also just as desperately need Putin to understand that the US stands with Ukraine against his illegal occupation and aggression. So, both the military and political aid are essential.
It is a fact that the Department of Defense was ready to start to distribute the military aid to Ukraine on June 18, 2019. From the DOD website:
The DOD does not release any military aid unless a thorough review has been done to make sure the country is meeting the requirements for fighting corruption, insuring human rights, etc.
So, for the president’s Defense Team. The first point they need to address is why the military aid was withheld. What information came to light between June 18 and the hold on the aid? There may be legitimate reasons for withholding aid, if so, what were they? And why was the very process for withholding aid taken out of the usual channels and handed over to a political appointee, rather than a career official?
Along the same lines, the defense may argue that the president can unilaterally withhold aid for any reason. In fact, the aid was held up 9 different times, with no explanation. However, the Government Accounting Office relayed a decision that what Trump did was break the law. A law that requires him to notify Congress with reasons for any hold up in aid:
“In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation. Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA….”
So, the president or his staff broke the law. Period. His defense team needs to explain that and justify the hold on military aid. Why did the president think it was essential to break the law? Perhaps he had good reason.Legal reasons. What were they? And why was Congress never notified?
Furthermore, since aid was eventually released they need to answer another question. What happened to make the president change his mind and lift the hold? What new evidence emerged? Did he discover it was illegal or was there a change in Ukraine? What specific reason was there for all of a sudden releasing most of the aid?
The second charge on impeachment brought by the House managers was the obstruction of Congress. Now, it is pretty obvious that Congress was obstructed since the president refused to provide and documents or witnesses to help in the investigation. The question is, was that obstruction legal?
On Saturday the president’s team argued that the entire impeachment proceeding was illegal. So, since the proceeding was illegal they had no requirement to cooperate. Of course, this argument does have a major hole.
The position presupposes that the executive branch alone can decide for the House of Representatives what it can and cannot investigate. In other words, although the Constitution gives the sole power of impeachment to the House, the executive branch can overrule that power. The position falls flat on two levels. First, it disregards the specific language of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Of course it makes no sense legally or logically for the object of an impeachment or investigation to have the power to end an impeachment or investigation.
Along the same lines the president’s defense claimed that the House violated their own rules, so therefore the very impeachment itself is illegal. Yet, here we are. The Senate, controlled by Mitch McConnell, recognized the legality of impeachment. The Supreme Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, recognizes the legality of the impeachment. We are having a trial precisely because the House acted legally. So, once again we have the president, alone, making claims that no other branch of government agrees with.
Now, it is legal for the president to, in certain circumstances, invoke “executive privilege”. However, invoking that privilege means the president has to make a case, before a court, that the documents or testimony being withheld is being done for legitimate national security concerns. So far, Mr Trump has made no such claim.
His lawyers, however, have taken the position that he can claim executive privilege without making a formal claim of executive privilege. In their words, he can hide anything he wants for any reason he wants. In other words, the chief executive is supreme and cannot be investigated or impeached. Trump has taken this position publicly:
“…Trump was giving a speech at a Turning Point USA conference, where he predictably veered off into a tirade about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and how, as president, Trump could’ve stopped it.
“I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump said. “But I don’t even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction.”…”
“…During a pre-taped one-on-one interview with ABC News reporter George Stephanopoulos, Trump argued that “a lot of great lawyers” agree that Article 2 of the Constitution means that the President can’t obstruct justice.
“So a president can’t obstruct justice?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“A president can run the country,” Trump responded. “And that’s what happened, George. I run the country and I run it well.”
“When the President does it, it’s not illegal?” Stephanopoulos asked….”
“I’m just saying a president under Article 2–it’s very strong, read it,” Trump said. “Do you have Article 2? Read it.”
(To be clear, executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution)
So, the president’s defense team will have to find a justification that he has refused to cooperate with Congress. While they may rightly point to very specific instances where other president’s have attempted (successfully or unsuccessfully) to invoke “executive privilege”, they will have to justify an unbridled power of the president to hide all his actions and documents.
Now, will the defense team address these issues raised by the House managers? Will they respond to the facts and evidence in the charges? Will they talk about how the Democrats have hated Trump from day one? Will they talk about Adam Schiff? Will they talk about the Mueller Report being a hoax? Will they claim the entire procedure is a “witch hunt”? Or will they talk about how corrupt the Biden’s are? Benghazi Redux?
In other words, will they address the points the Hose manager have made, or will they deflect ? Isn’t the answer obvious?
My good friend Bobo the Clown was indicted for murder.
The prosecutor had a video of Bobo walking into the bank. Shots were heard. Bobo left the bank with big bag.
The police were called. One bank teller was dead on the floor. Shot three times. In addition thousands of dollars were missing from the bank.
Bobo was arrested. He plead not guilty.
Bobo’s lawyer said it was a witch hunt. The police hated clowns. They were singling out Bobo because he was a clown.
So, the evidence was clear. But wait. just before the trial began 3 witnesses came forward. They all knew Bobo. They all said they saw Bobo with a gun and a bag of money. One of them even drove Bobo’s getaway car. A clown car.
Now, Bobo’s lawyer claims that these witnesses should not be allowed to testify. They are too late. They should have come forward earlier.
As it happens, the chairman of the jury, Moscow Mitch, agrees. Moscow Mitch , in addition to being chairman of the jury is a long time clown friend of Bobo. In addition Moscow Mitch decides what evidence can be presented at the trial. They go back a long way. He doesn’t want to hear anything else.
If only Jeffrey Dahmer were still alive. His unjust conviction and sentencing would certainly be overturned. All he needed was a defense team led by Jim Jordan, Congressman from Ohio and Devin Nunes from California.
For those who may not know, Mr Dahmer was convicted of a number of crimes. Murder. Sexual assault. Rape. Necrophilia. But if he had the Republican defense team, and more importantly a Republican jury, he would be a free man today.
The arguments for his conviction would have been something like this. Evidence of his murder of Steven Hicks consisted of dental evidence, buried in Dahmer’s yard. Evidence of his attempted murder of Tracy Edward’s by his own testimony (the only victim able to escape). The 57 gallon drum of chemicals in his bed room. And, to quote Wikipedia……
“A more detailed search of the apartment, conducted by the Criminal Investigation Bureau, revealed a total of four severed heads in Dahmer’s kitchen. A total of seven skulls—some painted, some bleached—were found in Dahmer’s bedroom and inside a closet. In addition, investigators discovered collected blood drippings upon a tray at the bottom of Dahmer’s refrigerator, plus two human hearts and a portion of arm muscle, each wrapped inside plastic bags upon the shelves. In Dahmer’s freezer, investigators discovered an entire torso, plus a bag of human organs and flesh stuck to the ice at the bottom.
Elsewhere in Apartment 213, investigators discovered two entire skeletons, a pair of severed hands, two severed and preserved penises, a mummified scalp and, in the 57-gallon drum, three further dismembered torsos dissolving in the acid solution. A total of 74 Polaroid pictures detailing the dismemberment of Dahmer’s victims were found. In reference to the recovery of body parts and artifacts at 924 North 25th Street, the chief medical examiner later stated: “It was more like dismantling someone’s museum than an actual crime scene.”
In addition, Dahmer confessed to numerous other murders and crimes, as well.
If this seems like an open and shut case I am afraid you have not seen the Republican defense team at work. So, let’s see what happens when Dahmer calls Jim Jordan to the rescue!!
Mr Jordan: This case is all about hate. Hatred for Jeffrey Dahmer. As soon as the police identified him as a potential murderer they have gone out of their way to convict him. Outrageous! A massive hoax with no fact. All hearsay. The facts twisted to fit their hatred of Dahmer and his kind.
Jordan continues: Let us see what the police actually have presented. All they have presented are numerous skulls and body parts. Were those body parts and skulls found in Dahmer’s apartment? Yes. So what? Does that prove anything? The only answer is : NO! Is it possible that someone else sneaked into Dahmer’s apartment and planted that evidence? Just like the OJ frame up? Furthermore, did the police have a search warrant to search for 7 skulls ? NO. they did not. So that evidence should be thrown out of court.
Jordan continues: Now, the prosecution will claim that Dahmer confessed to these crimes when he was caught. But those are only his WORDS. Are we going to convict a man based on his OWN WORDS? My god, what a railroad job. Just because he was able to identify the skulls and tell the police what happened, does that make him guilty? No. Never.
Jordan: Now regarding the so-called “evidence” of the polaroid photos of dismembered bodies. Yes, these were found in Dahmer’s desk. But should they be used as evidence of a crime? Definitely not. These were his PERSONAL photos taken for his own enjoyment. They fall under executive privilege. He classified them as top secret. So no one has the right to look at them. Period. This privilege is perfect. No one except Dahmer and his lawyers are allowed to see them. Hoax. Hoax. Illegal!!
Jordan: Now, I ask the jury to use their common sense. If Dahmer had killed all these people and used acid to remove the skin from their skulls would he have kept that acid in a 57 gallon tank in his bedroom? If he had buried the bodies would it not be because he wanted to give these strangers a Christian burial? If he did take photos of mutilated corpses are they not his private property and no one else’s business.
Jordan: This entire case is based on just two pillars. Circumstantial evidence and Dahmer’s own words. No one, absolutely no one, says they witnessed Dahmer kill, mutilate or rape anyone. The prosecution has not been able to produce a single witness to the actual crime. There is no DIRECT testimony. NO DIRECT evidence, only his admission and the skulls. And the 57 gallon tank. And the body parts in the frig. And the blood. No DIRECT evidence. For that reason, you must acquit.
The Republican jury deliberates for 15 minutes and the returns smiling with a verdict.
Judge: Will the clerk read the verdict?
Clerk: We, the Republican jury find Mr Dahmer NOT GUILTY on all counts…… PS. We also think you should “Lock Her Up”.
At the defense table, high fives all around. Dahmer, in his excitement , invites Jim Jordan to join him for “dinner”. Jordan scampers way quickly and yells back: “Not a chance”.
Chris Wallace, of Fox News, interviewed Senator Kennedy of Louisiana during his Sunday morning talk show. Wallace was very specific. He pointed out that the entire Intelligence apparatus of the US government concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. And Ukraine did not.
He pointed out that any Ukrainian interference claims had been debunked. He was clear.
Kennedy responded that he did not know. He said it COULD have been Ukrainians, but no one knows. Could have been.
When Wallace pointed out that there was NO EVIDENCE to support that claim, Kennedy responded (trying to be clever, I think), the the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”. Just because there is no evidence a crime has been committed does not mean a crime has NOT been committed. Just because there is no evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election does not mean Ukraine did NOT interfere in the 2016 election.
Now, it is hard. No, It take that back. It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue with that line of reasoning. What isn’t there isn’t there but that doesn’t mean it might not be there.
Senator Kennedy got me thinking. Always a dangerous situation. So, let’s take a look back at other moments in history and revisit them.
The Holocaust. No one, well, there are a few, claims the Holocaust did not occur. But did it? Some people say it didn’t. And even if it did occur, who was behind it? There is evidence that the Nazis and other Germans were responsible. But could it have been someone else?
In the 1930s there was a tribe in Kenya called the “Kikuyu”. Never did the Kikuyu issue a statement of support for Jews. NEVER. We know that in later years the Kikuyu rose up and fought the British who had colonized Kenya. It was called the “Mau Mau” uprising. Is it possible that the Kikuyu were anti-Semitic? There is no evidence contradicting that idea. So, it is POSSIBLE that the Kikuyu, not the Nazis, were actually responsible for the death camps. They hated whites. Jews are white. The Kikuyu were violent. The camps were violent. The “absence of evidence ” should not stop us from pointing out the obvious: The Kikuyu COULD have run the death camps.
The US Civil War. From 1861-1865 the US was engaged in a great civil war. No one denies that fact. But who was really responsible and why was it fought? There are a few ideas and some that have supporting evidence. Was it to protect the institution of slavery? Evidence for that. Was it to break up the union? Evidence of that. Was it to maintain states rights? Evidence of that.
However, is there something else at play? Perhaps. Keep in mind, I have NO EVIDENCE that the following happened. Nevertheless. Follow me.
Baseball was just becoming popular in the 1860s. A few teams were starting up, playing teams from other towns. But how could baseball grow into a national past time? The baseball team owners needed a war. This would divide the nation and make people more loyal to their own towns, hence their own teams. (Even today, some misguided fools support the Detroit Tigers!)
So, the team owners got together and hired some southerners to attack Fort Sumter. They hired Jeff Davis, Robert E Lee, Jeb Stuart and others to go to war with the north. It is POSSIBLE that even A. Lincoln was in on the plot. I have NO EVIDENCE but it is said by some that he owned the rights to the Chicago White Sox. WHITE !!! Racism!!!
So, was Abe Lincoln the person who started the Civil War for his own personal profit? I have NO EVIDENCE of this. But Like Senator Kennedy said: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The DNC Ukraine Connection in 2016. Now we get to the juicy one. What was the connection between the Ukrainian government and the DNC server hack. The US intelligence services have investigated and found NO EVIDENCE. So what?
According to GOP sources, here is what happened. The DNC paid Cloudstrike to hack the DNC computers. So , they paid to have themselves hacked. Now , a reasonable person may ask why they would do that? Easy.
The DNC had their own computers hacked and damaging emails released by Wikileaks because they wanted to undermine the Trump campaign. The DNC wanted Trump to be elected so they could then IMPEACH him ! A clever ploy.
To hide their plot the DNC shipped their server to the Ukraine. And kept it hidden. You may ask why they just didn’t dump it into the Atlantic Ocean. Silly people. If they dumped it there would be NO EVIDENCE that they hacked themselves. By hacking themselves and blaming it on Putin they could then undermine the Trump administration. Simple. Of course, there is no evidence of this, but recall.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Which leads me to my final example. Or fact. Or whatever.
Is Senator Kennedy a child molester? I want to be very clear about this. I am not accusing Senator Kennedy of being a child molester. There is NO EVIDENCE that he is a child molester. No one, to my knowledge has ever accused him of being a child molester.
Kennedy is a male. An old white male. We know that some old white males are child molesters. That is indisputable. Also, Kennedy would undoubtedly DENY he is a child molester. But isn’t that EXACTLY what a child molester would do? Do I have EVIDENCE? No, but then has the FBI ever investigated him for child molestation? I don’t know. Perhaps the entire Fox interview given by Kennedy was designed to throw the FBI off the trail. To hide his crimes. Who knows? Could be.
Remember that Kennedy himself has said: “Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence“. Right?
The cat is out of the bag. The conspiracy has been exposed. The real TRUTH is finally being told.
I don’t mean the Mueller Report. That report made it clear that the Trump campaign worked with the Russian government to disrupt the 2016 election. Mueller concluded that Russia (which means Putin) worked very hard with fake news to make Donald Trump president. And it worked. It is all laid out in detail.
The Mueller Report also gave us a detailed account of how Donald Trump tried to end the investigation and obstructed justice. Point by point. Very clear and obvious.
That’s not the cat that is out of the bag.
I am referring to the NEW evidence that ties Joe Biden and the Clinton campaign and the dirty tricks of the Ukrainians in attempting to get Trump impeached.
The story is now clear. Rudy Giuliani, one of our true American heroes, has pretty much exposed the “Deep State” and the attempt to initiate a “coup d’etat” against the best president ever.
So, here is is. Now, some of this may seem a bit “far fetched” but any intelligent person can certainly connect the dots.
It starts with the FBI. Now, there are approximately 35,000 FBI employees. Out of these 35,000 employers, 2 were able to completely control the direction of the organization. Peter Strok and Lisa Page did not like Donald Trump. Which is an outrage. So they wrote a few emails about Trump and how dangerous he is to democracy. And how he should be opposed. Connect the dots.
These emails set into motion the most secret conspiracy in the history of the world. Because two FBI agents did not like Trump, the entire organization tried (unsuccessfully) to destroy him.
The FBI is an intelligence agency. But so is the CIA. Notice the connection? BOTH are INTELLIGENCE agencies!!! Connect the dots.
The CIA reported that the Russians were trying to influence the 2016 election. Now we know that was false. Vlad Putin is ON THE RECORD as saying that Russia was not involved in the 2016 election. So Mueller was WRONG. Russia had nothing to do with the election. But no one in the Ukraine has ever made the claim that THEY were not involved. Connect the dots.
It was actually the Ukraine that was interfering with the election. Notice that Russia and the Ukraine have a COMMON BORDER. You can actually cross the border from Russia into Ukraine!!! And, we know that both nations have highways and cars! Connect the dots.
So, why did the Ukraine help Clinton? Because of Joe Biden. Biden has a son. Biden’s son did business in the UKRAINE. Biden=Ukraine!!! Why would the SON of a Democrat be doing business in a foreign country? The reason is obvious. CORRUPTION!! Connect the dots.
So, Biden, who PRETENDED to be Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the 2016 primary campaign was actually working behind the scenes to help Clinton get elected with the help of the Ukraine. At the same time Joe Biden’s son was laying the foundation for the Trump impeachment ! It is obvious ! Connect the dots.
So, how did the Ukraine pull this off? Well, by using COMPUTERS! A lot of people do not know this, but there are COMPUTERS in the Ukraine. And COMPUTERS were used to interfere with the 2016 election. Not just any computers. But computers that are actually connected to the INTERNET!!! Connect the dots.
But, Hillary Clinton’s server was also connected to the internet. So, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were working together with the Ukrainians. It is obvious. All three , Biden, Clinton and the Ukraine, all had computers. And all were CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET!! A coincidence? Connect the dots.
Which brings us to Barack Obama. Obama was president of the USA during the last election. We now know that Obama was also CONNECTED to the INTERNET with computers in the White House. And who else is connected to the White House? The CIA !!! Connect the dots.
Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, the Ukrainians AND Barack Obama all had internet connections. At the same time!! During the 2016 election. And all of them wanted Hillary Clinton to be elected president. Need I say more? Connect the dots.
Which brings us to Rick Perry. Rick Perry is in the Trump cabinet. But it was Rick Perry that FORCED Donald Trump to call the president of the Ukraine and hold up military aid. Trump did not want to do this. But Perry forced him to do it!! Perry is from Texas. Texas is a state that has gone Republican in the last few elections. But Joe Biden wants to be president and so he wants to win Texas. And Perry is the FORMER GOVERNOR of Texas. The plot thickens. Rick Perry also has a computer which (we now know) is CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET!!! Connect the dots.
Only a fool cannot see the awful conspiracy by the FBI, CIA, the Ukrainians, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Rick Perry to destroy the duly elected president of the USA. The best president ever. Connect the dots.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. As Rudy Giuliani reports more and more facts, this conspiracy will get bigger and bigger. I have heard that before this is over a number of folks will be implicated. Remember these names: Oprah Winfrey, Ronald McDonald, Mahatma Gandhi, Tom Brady and Tom Cruise! Don’t be a fool. It’s obvious. Connect the dots.
“…Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office….”
The key phrase, of course, is that the president is no longer able to discharge his duties.
This allows the president’s cabinet to relieve him of his duties, temporarily, until such time as they agree he is once again able to function.
I have read arguments on both sides of the issue. Some experts claim that the 25th Amendment would not apply to Trump, others say it would.
Initially the Amendment (which also includes the method of selecting a vice president) was designed as a short term solution to a temporarily disabled POTUS. For example, he has an operation . Or he is very sick and cannot function for awhile. It allowed a legal way for the Vice President to take over, temporarily. It was not intended to be a method for permanently removing a POTUS from office.
But, on the other hand, the WORDs are clear. If a POTUS is unable to be a POTUS. It does not give any guidelines for making that decision. It is left solely with the Vice President and the majority of the cabinet. It does not stipulate mental or physical disorder. It does ask “why”? It allows the cabinet to define what the word “unable” means.
So, the 25th Amendment, no matter what the intent, is a viable solution to the Trump problem. It allows the GOP to remove him from office without going through an impeachment process. It is a more painless way to take power from an obviously unfit human being. Of course, since his cabinet is composed of a cadre of sycophants any attempt to use the 25th would probably fail. Their lips are firmly attached to Donald’s hindquarters, like zebra mussels on an intake valve. (Ironically zebra mussels originated from Russia and the Ukraine)
Unless. Unless Trump continues to act nuttier and nuttier every day. If he were to call for a whistleblower to be treated as a spy. Or if he were to call for a member of Congress to be tried for treason . Or if he were to publicly ask another nation to investigate his domestic opponents. Or if he were to start using vulgarities in public. Or if he tweeted that a Civil War might erupt unless his crimes are allowed to stand. Unless. Unless. Unless.
Of course the 25th will not be used. But it should be. If ever there was a POTUS who is “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the presidency it is Donald Trump. He has demonstrated that on a regular basis. From day one.
A new poll came out from Monmouth University this week. It reported that 40% of Republicans believe that Mr Trump , in his call to the President of the Ukraine, asked for help in finding dirt on Biden. That means that 60% of Republicans do not believe that Trump asked about Biden. 60%
This is from the WHITE HOUSE release of the transcript of the call:
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”
So, the White House says that Trump referred to Biden in the call. And asked for an investigation.
The Whistleblower, supported by the Inspector General, was concerned that Trump was making a deal to help himself in 2020 by pressuring the Ukraine to “investigate” the Bidens.
From the Whistleblower complaint:
“…Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:
initiate or continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;….”
A number of members of Trump’s staff evidently told this to the whistleblower, which cause d him to blow the whistle in the first place.
Various news outlets have been reporting on the story, including the exact words of the transcript.
So, everyone right up through the White House says that, yes, Trump asked the president of the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. I mean, it is there in black and white.
Yet, despite this, 60% of Republicans do not believe that Trump said what he said. Hopeless. Hopeless. Hopeless.