Archive for the ‘Joe Biden’ Category

Last night’s Democrat presidential debate got stupid fast when the moderators changed the subject to Iran. Democrats didn’t attempt to abandon the DNC’s talking points. From there, things went downhill fast.

Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden stood out but not in a good way. Sen. Klobuchar said “Because of the actions of Donald Trump, we are in a situation where Iran is starting to enrich uranium again in violation of the original agreement. What I would do is negotiate. I would bring people together just as president Obama did years ago. And I think that we can get this done. But you have to have a president that sees this as a number one goal. I would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

First, it’s stupid to negotiate if the country you’re negotiating with isn’t feeling pain or is frightened of you. When John Kerry negotiated with Iran, Iran wasn’t worried about whether their people would overthrow the regime. The product was an agreement that was so weak that the Obama administration wouldn’t submit it as a treaty for ratification. The agreement was so terrible that most Democrats opposed it.

Next, President Trump’s taking out of Gen. Soleimani triggered an uprising against the Regime, with 5 straight nights of protests against the regime. With Iran’s economy collapsing, unemployment skyrocketing, inflation hitting 50% and students having lots of time to protest, there’s reason for Iran’s regime to worry about getting overthrown.

Third, Sen. Klobuchar should pay attention to events. Yesterday, Boris Johnson announced that the British, French and Germans had taken the first step in dragging Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA:

Britain, France and Germany on Tuesday formally accused Iran of breaking the 2015 agreement that limited its nuclear program, taking the first step toward re-imposing United Nations sanctions.

The European countries started the clock running on what could be some 60 days of negotiations with Iran about coming back into full compliance with the nuclear deal. Under the agreement, if they cannot resolve their dispute, that could revive United Nations sanctions on Iran that had been suspended under the deal, including an arms embargo.

Call me crazy but I’d argue that President Trump’s strategy is working beautifully. Biden sounded almost as incoherent:

“I was part of that deal. It was working,” he said. “It was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer to a nuclear weapon. And look what’s happened. We’re now isolated,” he continued. “We’re in a situation where our allies in Europe are making a comparison between the United States and Iran saying both ought to stand down, making a moral equivalence. We have lost our standing in the region; we have lost the support of our allies.

“The next president has to be able to pull those folks back together, reestablish our alliances and insist that Iran go back into the agreement, which I believe with the pressure applied as we put on before we can get done. And quite frankly, I think he’s flat out lied about saying the reason he went after [Soleimani] was because our embassies were about to be bombed,” Biden added.

That’s breathtakingly uninformed, which is dangerous for us. Biden being this uninformed gives credence to his nickname of Sleepy Joe. We can’t afford a president who isn’t paying attention to the world around him.

It’s either that Biden is uninformed or he’s unwilling to admit that President Trump’s strategy is well thought out and working. This information about the British, French and Germans accusing Iran of breaking the JCPOA didn’t happen right before last night’s debate. It was announced during Tuesday morning’s BBC Breakfast Show. That should’ve been part of these candidates’ morning briefing.

In short, the Democrats’ presidential candidates couldn’t admit that a) President Trump’s strategy is working and b) US allies are joining us in increasing pressure on the Iranian regime. This is what the Democrats’ stupidity towards Iran looks like:

God help us if any of these idiots becomes our next commander-in-chief.

When it comes to dovish presidential candidates, this year’s Democrats look more like 1972 than any other bunch of dovish Democrats. Kim Strassel’s article highlights just how leftist this year’s Democrat frontrunners are. Let’s start with Bernie Sanders’ dovishness.

Strassel writes “Voters now know that a President Bernie Sanders would not take action against Iran or other rogue regimes, no matter how many red lines they cross. Mr. Sanders will take no step that might bring us anywhere closer to ‘another disastrous war’ or cost ‘more dollars and more deaths.'” Honestly, I’m not certain Bernie would have any red lines. Thankfully, we won’t have to worry about that since he doesn’t stand a chance of winning the general election. That being said, he’s got a decent shot at winning the Democrats’ presidential nomination.

Then there’s Elizabeth Warren:

A President Elizabeth Warren would similarly offer a pass to leaders of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, at least if they have an official title. The Trump strike, she said, amounted to the “assassination” of “a government official, a high-ranking military official.”

Richard Nixon was right when he said that “the world is a terrible neighborhood to live in.” Anyone that thinks that these Democrats are prepared to be commander-in-chief is kidding themselves. People this dovish aren’t prepared for the harsh responsibilities of making difficult decisions on a moment’s notice. This interview is proof that Elizabeth Warren isn’t bright enough to be commander-in-chief:

Anyone that thinks that the US isn’t safer as a result of killing Maj. Gen. Soleimani doesn’t pass the commander-in-chief test. Sen. Warren thinks we aren’t safer now than we were 3 years ago. Right after 9/11, we were told that killing terrorists created more terrorists. After the US took out the Taliban and things settled down a little bit, we were told that the Arab street respected “the strong horse.” It’s time to stop thinking that these Democrats have a clue about national security/terrorism. They don’t. They’re idiots. The guy in the White House is the only person currently running that I’d trust with these matters. Trusting Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg or Warren with national security, terrorism or foreign policy is foolish.

Salena Zito’s latest reporting from the “middle of somewhere” is the best understanding of what’s actually happening in battleground states. The subject of Ms. Zito’s article is West Virginia as it relates to other battleground states. If you aren’t getting Ms. Zito’s e-updates, it’s time you started. They’re as essential of reading as Kim Strassel’s articles. But I digress.

The key part of the article comes where Ms. Zito writes “No one would argue seriously that West Virginia, where Trump got more than two-thirds of the vote, would ever be in play for the Democrats in 2020. But the story of its sentiments and the evolution of these voters aren’t just limited to within the state’s boundaries. In many ways, especially in their connection to place and their distrust of large government, political, and entertainment institutions, these voters are very similar to voters in rural, suburban, and exurban voters in the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin.”

Then it goes into extended detail:

Tom Maraffa, geography professor emeritus at Youngstown State University, explained that the similarities of the voters in slow-growth metropolitan regions are striking and important to consider when trying to understand trends. He said West Virginians “share that sense of rootedness” with voters “in places like suburban Youngstown, Akron, or Ashtabula, Ohio, or suburban Erie, Pennsylvania, or Macomb County, Michigan, or Kenosha, Wisconsin.”

If Democrats don’t win back these blue collar cities and counties in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, they’ll lose this election. Period. In 2016, President Trump turned Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from Hillary’s “blue firewall” into red states. Based on what’s happening in West Virginia, that trend is strengthening.

The premise I’m operating from is that this isn’t as much about Democrats vs. Republicans as it is about ultra-liberal nutjobs vs. sane people. Imagine the reaction of people in the audience when Vice President Biden said that coal miners should learn how to program computers:

That video says it all. Those coal miners wouldn’t walk across the street on a sunny day to vote for Biden but they’d sprint across a busy highway in a snowstorm to vote for President Trump. If Vice President Biden thinks that his reputation as a blue collar guy is enough to defeat President Trump, he’s kidding himself. A man whose job is on the verge of disappearing and whose community is falling apart doesn’t care about a politician’s reputation. That miner wants to know, first and foremost, whether that politician will be with them in their foxhole. Those miners and manufacturers know that President Trump will be with them in their foxhole.

That’s the biggest reason why President Trump will win re-election. President Trump told the people of western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan that he’d be their president and that they wouldn’t be forgotten again. That’s powerful stuff to a man who’s worrying about his community, his church and his industry.

This article isn’t rare enough. It’s the type of article I’d expect from desperate Democrats hoping and praying that nobody will notice that the economy is actually lifting all ships. Laced throughout the article are paragraphs like this:

On paper, Esther Mabior should be fine. She has a degree from Iowa State University, where she majored in economics, and lives in a city where her chosen profession, the insurance business, employs thousands of people.

But Ms. Mabior, 26, can’t find a job as an insurance adjuster. And she says her own experience is a lot like the stock market highs and the ever-expanding gross domestic product she keeps hearing about: It all looks good on the surface, but deeper down things aren’t so rosy. “There may be people doing well,” Ms. Mabior said after attending an event for Pete Buttigieg’s campaign in Des Moines over the weekend, calling herself “living proof” that as far as the economy is concerned, “it’s not that great.”

That’s the type of story that I’d call an anecdote. That doesn’t mean Ms. Mabior isn’t tell us the truth about her life. I don’t find a reason to doubt her. What I don’t find is a reason to make policy based on her testimony.

Let’s look at actual data. This is from the Atlanta Federal Reserve:

On November 25, Fed chair Jay Powell gave a speech titled “Building on the Gains from the Long Expansion,” in which he observed that “Recent years’ data paint a hopeful picture of more people in their prime years in the workforce and wages rising for low- and middle-income workers.

This is the supporting graph:

In making this point, Chair Powell used a cut of the Atlanta Fed’s Wage Growth Tracker that looks at the median annual wage growth of workers in the lowest 25 percent of the wage distribution. As the following chart shows, the lowest-paid workers have been experiencing higher median wage growth (the blue line) in the last few years than workers overall (the green line). This reverses the pattern seen in the wake of the Great Recession, when median wage growth for lower-paid workers slowed by more than for workers overall.

It’s time to reject the Democrats’ version of the economy. At the Democrats’ last presidential debate, Vice President Biden insisted that the economy wasn’t that great. Today, a Democrat strategist insisted that people were worse off thanks to higher health insurance premiums. What this strategist didn’t mention was that the Trump-GOP tax cuts put lots more money in families’ pockets so they could afford higher health insurance premiums.

It’s worth noting that every Democrat in Congress voted against the Trump-GOP tax cuts. Imagine how families would be fighting if not for the tax cuts and if President Trump hadn’t cut energy-related regulations. Those regulation cuts alone restored a dying energy industry. That, in turn, has led to rising wages for blue collar workers. The guy that’s supposed to connect with blue collar workers, Joe Biden, is regurgitating the Democrats’ spin:

“An awful lot of people, middle-class folks, are in real trouble, and they’re not at all certain about their future,” Mr. Biden said in Fairfield, Iowa, on Saturday. “So the idea that everybody’s doing well is just simply not true. The very, very wealthy are doing very, very well, but the rest are scraping along.”

If VP Biden’s speeches were rated by the Washington Post’s fact-checker, he’d get 4 Pinocchios each speech.

When she took the stage herself, Ms. Warren of Massachusetts argued that the economic recovery had failed to touch the most marginalized communities or rural areas. “Why is America’s middle class being hollowed out?” she asked. “And the answer is in who our government in Washington works for.”

Let’s see how plays with this news:

Overall, 35 percent of respondents said that economic conditions were “very good,” and 41 percent said they were “somewhat good.” According to CNN’s analysis of the data, the 76 percent net positive is the largest share of Americans to feel good about the economy since 2001, when 80 percent of those queried said things were going well.

When three-fourths of the people think that the economy is very good or somewhat good, it’s difficult selling what the Democrats are pushing. I’d rather sell ice cubes in Antarctica than talk down this economy heading into President Trump’s SOTU Address.

Biden must think that we’re dumb enough to think that Schiff and Nadler are honest. The only way Biden maintains his frontrunner status for the nomination is because the others are worse candidates than he is. Actually, that’s precisely the case.

During a week in which House Democrats impeached President Trump, Democrats also all-but-officially signed the political death certificates for their members who represent Trump districts. House Democrats then passed President Trump’s USMCA trade agreement, then passed the bill funding government for FY2020. Included in that bill was funding for President Trump’s wall and a 3.1% pay raise for the military.

After impeaching President Trump but before passing USMCA, Nancy Pelosi decided that she’d make Democrats look utterly unserious. She did that by telling reporters that she wouldn’t send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. She said that despite telling We The People that President Trump had to be impeached and convicted immediately to protect national security and preserve our elections.

While Pelosi impeached President Trump, President Trump held a rally in Michigan. These rallies have been turned into entertainment/pep rallies as well as voter registration drive headquarters. At this week’s rally, 27% of the people who filled out voter registration forms switched from being Democrats. On the subject of voter registration drives, the rally in Sunrise, FL, was a huge success, registering 31,000 people, 30% of which used to be Democrats and 27% are Hispanics.

President Trump’s great week continued when Democrats held a presidential debate in LA. At the debate, the Democrats’ frontrunner was asked a question about energy policy. Here’s Mr. Biden’s reply:

MODERATOR: Would you be willing to sacrifice [economic growth in the energy sector] knowing potentially that it could displace maybe hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of a greener economy?
JOE: The answer is yes.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were the only Democrats with a shot at winning Pennsylvania and Michigan. That opportunity disappeared when they said that they’d worship at the altar of Climate Change. Climate change and mining fit together like oil and water. If Democrats can’t flip Michigan and Pennsylvania back into the blue column, Democrats can’t win in 2020.

During the impeachment debate and vote, the Trump campaign raised $5,000,000:

President Trump’s re-election campaign raked in $5 million in donations Wednesday, the day the House of Representatives voted to impeach him, his campaign manager said.

“Incredible fundraising numbers!” manager Brad Parscale tweeted. “[Trump] has raised over [$5 million] (still growing) today as Americans use their wallet to show support against Pelosi’s impeachment hoax!” he added.

This isn’t just people supporting a candidate they like. This impeachment has fired up Trump supporters. To them, this is personal now. When independents saw the railroad job being pushed onto President Trump, they reacted.

Next November, the Republicans’ fantastic week will come to fruition.

The hot topic du jour is why House Democrats didn’t include bribery as an article of impeachment. For the entire second week of the impeachment hearings, we were told that President Trump had committed bribery. When the official articles were announce, though, bribery was nowhere to be found. Instead, abuse of power was included.

The reason for this is pretty simple, actually. Bribery is an actual crime. Therefore, to convict a person of committing bribery, the prosecution must prove multiple elements of the crime. Those elements are laid out nicely in this website:

Intent is one of the elements that must be established to prove the crime of bribery.[iii] Corrupt intent is the intent to receive a specific benefit in return for the payment.[iv] The intent to use the opportunity to perform a public duty for acquiring an unlawful personal benefit or advantage by the person who receives the bribe amounts to a corrupt intent.[v]

Another element required to constitute the crime of bribery is that a bribe must involve something of value that is used to influence the action or nonaction of the recipient. However, the bribe must not be necessarily in the form of money. It is sufficient if the receiver gets anything of value to himself/herself from the bribe.

How is investigating Joe and Hunter Biden “something of value”? It isn’t like Joe Biden is competitive with President Trump in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Iowa.

Biden is for the Green New Deal. He’s said during the Democrats’ presidential debates that he wanted to eliminate fossil fuels. He said that early while pandering to the Democrats’ far-left environmental activists. It’s difficult to think of someone as a legitimate threat to President Trump when that candidate has difficulty remembering which state he’s in:

Joe Biden isn’t someone I take seriously. He’s run for president 3 times. The first time, he dropped out before the first voting began because he plagiarized a speech. The next time he ran, he dropped out after the Iowa Caucuses because he got less than 1% of the vote in Iowa. This time, he’s the weakest frontrunner in modern history. He’s still leading but it’s because the other candidates are worse than he is.

The point that hasn’t been made yet is that getting Biden out of the race isn’t a benefit to President Trump. It isn’t a detriment to his re-election bid, either. There goes the Democrats’ argument that getting Biden out of the race is a benefit to President Trump.

There aren’t any elements to prove with abuse of office because it isn’t a crime. Democrats only have to insist that President Trump did something wrong and win over enough a bunch of Republican senators. Thus far, Democrats haven’t accomplished that. It isn’t likely that they’ll accomplish that, either. Voters are displaying signs of frustration with the Democrats’ faux impeachment, too:

The uppity peasants that Rep. Slotkin, (D-MI), isn’t listening to will show up to fire her next November. She should start writing her concession speech because she won’t win re-election.

Newt Gingrich’s op-ed studies the differences between President Trump and Joe Biden. Speaker Gingrich opens the op-ed by saying “I recently received a fundraising email from former Vice President Joe Biden that captured the profound difference in the approach to foreign policy between Democrats and President Trump. Biden wrote: ‘Did you see the video of our friends and allies in London this week? World leaders were LAUGHING at the President of the United States, after he once again embarrassed himself and tarnished the reputation of the United States at a summit.'”

These world leaders were laughing at the fact that President Trump is the most transparent world leader. Trudeau apparently isn’t aware of President Trump’s habit of answering reporters’ questions, whether it’s on his way to Marine One, during Cabinet meetings, wherever he happens to be. But I digress.

In this setting, the untold story is how successful President Trump has been at getting NATO members to increase their defense spending. That this is a major achievement can be seen from the fact that Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama tried to get NATO members to increase their defense spending and both presidents failed. Trump has succeeded.

Biden is essentially a pacifist. He didn’t speak out when John Kerry negotiated the worst nuclear treaty in history. Biden think twice about negotiating a path to nuclear weapons for Iran. That France, Germany and other pacifist countries approve of the US behavior during the Obama administration isn’t an accomplishment. Remember that the Obama administration gained approval for shipping blankets and MREs to Ukraine during their hot war with Russia.

President Trump has started fixing Europe’s corruption issues while strengthening NATO. Obama-Biden weakened the Middle East by ignoring ISIS, letting Syria use chemical weapons and giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons. If Biden thinks that’s a legacy to be proud of, then he’s an idiot.

You don’t have to take my word for the scale of the Trump impact on NATO. Here is what NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (a Norwegian) said about the American impact at a news conference with President Trump:

“Let me thank you for the leadership you show on the issue of defense spending because it is very important that we all contribute more to our shared security, and it is really having an impact because, as you said, allies are now spending more on defense,” Stoltenberg told Trump. “So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact.”

The Obama-Biden administration didn’t force this type of positive change. Their trademark was pacifism. Strategic patience was their byword. That’s code for ‘let’s do nothing.’ They were foreign policy failures.

Proving that he still swings a wicked wooden cane, Gramps Biden lashed out at a man at a townhall meeting during Biden’s No Malarkey tour. Biden’s overreaction started when a man at an Iowa townhall meeting “accused the 77-year-old former vice president of being ‘too old'” and after the man “took a swipe at son Hunter’s role on the board of a controversial Ukrainian natural gas firm.”

Then the man dug in deeper, saying “accused the 77-year-old former vice president of being “too old” and took a swipe at son Hunter’s role on the board of a controversial Ukrainian natural gas firm.” That was apparently more than Biden could handle, causing the former VP to respond “You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true and no one has ever said that.”

Then things got really heated:

“Look, the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people and I can get things done,” Biden said. “And you want to check my shape? Let’s do push-ups together man, let’s run, let’s do whatever you wanna do. And number two, no one has said my son has done anything wrong and I did not, on any occasion,” he continued, only to be cut off by the man in the audience who shouted that he “never said” Biden was “doing anything wrong.”

What a bunch of BS. It’s impossible to think that everything was innocent when Hunter Biden got a $1,000,000/yr. no-show job in an industry he knew nothing about in a nation he’d never visited.

What part of that sounds even slightly plausible? A: There isn’t a part of it that sounds plausible. Here’s the video of the exchange:

A while ago, Adam Schiff and other Democrats compared his secret impeachment hearings held in a SCIF in the basement of Capitol Hill to grand jury proceedings. That’s BS. They’re as similar as oil and water.

Most importantly, impeachment hearings involve the leader of the free world. The Democrats’ impeachment hearings have taken months, which have distracted President Trump from his important responsibilities. When a grand jury indicts a criminal, the only person getting penalized is the potential criminal. When the president gets impeached, the people get punished as much as the president does. (Does anyone think that China wouldn’t have caved by now on a trade deal if not for this impeachment fiasco?)

Next, when witnesses testify before a grand jury, they’ve actually witnessed something. Over half of the people that the Democrats deposed didn’t witness a thing about what the Democrats are impeaching President Trump about. Testifiers like Marie Yovanovitch, George Kent, William Taylor and others didn’t listen to the call. None of those testifiers has even met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call but hasn’t met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman raised a concern but that was determined to be insignificant. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the rough transcript was accurate.

Democrats have a very weak case. They’re whining that White House staff won’t testify. When they had the chance to take them to court to compel testimony, though, they declined to compel testimony through the courts. Democrats have frequently said that the White House exerting various privileges might add more articles of impeachment.

That’s why the White House has declined to participate in Wednesday’s hearing of the Judiciary Committee:

“This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continuing the West Wing’s attack on the procedural form of the impeachment proceedings. Cipollone said Nadler provided only “vague” details about the hearing, and that unnamed academics, and not “fact witnesses”, would apparently be attending.

“As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings,” Cipollone said. “More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.”

Thus far, Democrats have vetoed each of the Republican witness requests. They’ve blocked the CIA snitch from testifying because he knows whether Schiff’s office sought him out. They won’t let Hunter Biden testify because connecting him with Burisma’s corruption hurts their case. They won’t Joe Biden testify because explaining this away would prove difficult:

Democrats are afraid that good prosecutors like Matt Gaetz and John Ratcliffe will expose Biden’s corruption. It’s a safe bet that they’d make Biden look like a fool. That’s why Democrats can’t play this fair. Playing fair wouldn’t get the result they’ve wanted:

To summarize: Many Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the get-go. Frustrated at their inability to get it done, they jumped on their last, best hope, taking shortcuts to ensure their preferred result and racing to beat the political deadline imposed by their party’s presidential contest. Through it all, they have insisted they are acting only with great reluctance and sorrow.

The question now is whether the public will believe it.

Based on David Hale’s deposition, it’s impossible to not think of him as a potential star witness for the GOP. Starting with pg. 96 of Hale’s deposition, Hale was asked “But during the pendency of the security assistance hold, from July 18 through the date you got the cable from Ambassador Taylor, did you hear the names Biden, Burisma?”

Hale replied “No. No, not in government channels. If it appeared in the media, it was in the New York Times — I won’t say I don’t read the New York Times or whatever. But, yeah, it was not something that was apparent to me.”

Next, GOP Counsel Castor asked “So at no point during that time did the official chain of command, from the field, articulate these concerns to you?” Hale replied “No. No.”
Castor: And, in fact, you didn’t even hear the name Biden, Burisma?
Hale: No. No. When the whistleblower reports and all that came out of that, that’s when I first saw this.

In other words, the man with first-hand knowledge of the holding of lethal military aid and the Biden investigation said that he hadn’t heard about conditioning lethal aid with the Biden investigation until the faux whistleblower’s report was published.

This can’t be emphasized enough. David Hale said that he didn’t hear about tying the lethal military aid to investigating the Bidens. Couple that with the fact that Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, said “Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Couple Hale’s statement with Minister Prystaiko’s statement and President Zelenskiy’s statement that President Trump never tied the aid to investigating the Bidens. After tying those statements together, it’s impossible to take the Impeachment Democrats’ theory of the event seriously. People of integrity would admit that the Democrats’ case is the weakest impeachment case ever. First, lots of people wouldn’t admit that anything speculated on or proven rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Next, there isn’t much in the way of evidence that hurts President Trump. Whether you hate President Trump or think that he’s Superman, it isn’t shameful to admit that last week’s testimony didn’t produce evidence of any sort.

Third, people of integrity wouldn’t hesitate in admitting that Zelenskiy’s, Prystaiko’s and Hale’s statements affirm that President Trump applied little or no pressure on President Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. Without that, the Impeachment Democrats’ case collapses faster than a house of cards. It’s time to end these seemingly endless investigations.