Archive for the ‘Joe Biden’ Category

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.

This summer, impeachment Democrats tried stirring up passion for impeachment by having Robert Mueller testify. That was a historic failure, with Mueller essentially admitting that he didn’t write the report with his name on it. The Democrats’ next failure was with the Lewandowski hearing. At that hearing, Lewandowski toyed with Chairman Nadler to such an extent that it cost Nadler his opportunity to shine as chairman of the impeachment hearings.

This NY Post editorial proves that practice doesn’t always make perfect:

Democrats must have learned from the disastrous public hearings they’ve held in their attempt to impeach President Trump: Now, apparently, their witnesses must audition first behind closed doors before they go live before the TV cameras.

That was the case with the Dems’ “star” witnesses, US Chargé d’affaires for Ukraine Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who testified behind closed doors before appearing for Wednesday’s televised impeachment show. And for former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who debuts on the small screen Friday.

Kent, Taylor and Yovanovitch are leading off the Democrats’ case for impeachment. The thing that they’ve got in common is that none of them have firsthand knowledge of what happened. They can offer opinions on what US foreign policy should be but that’s it. Policy differences between the President and career bureaucrats doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense. In fact, it isn’t close to that threshold.

The lesson to be learned is that this is the wimpiest set of facts ever to be considered for impeachment. Last night, it was reported that Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters that “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.”

That’s firsthand information on the central issue of the Democrats’ case. It utterly demolishes the Democrats’ theory that President Trump tried extorting or bribing President Zelenskiy into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. This Trump-hater should ride off into the sunset because she’s a bitter partisan:

The truth is that Democrats simply don’t have evidence to support their impeachment theory. Though they won’t admit it, it’s getting close to the time when the jury cries out ‘Game. Set. Match.’ Get out the jelly, folks. These Democrats are toast.

This article is the political equivalent of a pair of nuclear bomb explosions, one right in front of Nancy Pelosi’s office, the other in front of Adam Schiff’s office. The Hill is reporting that “‘Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,’ Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine.”

Foreign Minister Prystaiko continued, saying “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.”

Unlike most of the testimony Wednesday (or the expected testimony Friday), this is firsthand information. The testimony that we watched Wednesday that was supposedly damaging to President Trump wouldn’t have gotten into a court of law. More on that later.

The damaging testimony heard Wednesday would’ve hurt President Obama. For instance, when Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Trump had sent lethal military aid to Ukraine, Taylor affirmed that as accurate. When Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Obama had supplied lethal military aid to Ukraine, he said President Obama hadn’t supplied Ukraine with lethal military aid. When Taylor was asked which president’s military aid was better, Taylor affirmed that President Trump’s aid was superior.

FOOTNOTE: Both sides said that they won the day on Wednesday. The difference is that Republicans had proof of their victory. Democrats only had spin. Republicans could point to Jim Jordan’s dizzying recitation of the modification to Ambassador Sondland’s deposition. That’s the one where Jordan finished by saying that he’d seen church prayer chains that were less complicated:

Another explosive event from Thursday happened when Speaker Pelosi accused President Trump of bribery:

Jim Jordan reacted to Pelosi’s quote, saying “It’s ridiculous, just ridiculous.” Which it is. Let’s tie these stories together. First, let’s deal with Pelosi’s accusation:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharpened the focus of Democrats’ impeachment case against President Trump on Thursday, accusing the president of committing bribery when he withheld vital military assistance from Ukraine at the same time he was seeking its commitment to publicly investigate his political rivals.

There’s just one problem with that theory. Its premise just got blown out of the water:

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,” Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine. 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.”

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, a man with firsthand knowledge of what as negotiated and what wasn’t negotiated, said that military aid was never linked to Ukraine investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. If Democrats were smart, which I’m confident they aren’t, they’d finish their public hearings at the end of next week, then close shop. Why wouldn’t Democrats want to follow this advice?

There’s an old cribbage saying about a hand with all even cards that aren’t consecutive. That saying is that “the only right way to throw that hand is away.” That’s my advice to Democrats. The hand that they’re playing is terrible.

Finally, Sean Hannity announced Thursday night that he’d contacted of the 53 Republican Senators since Wednesday night. Each senator was asked if they’d support rules for impeachment that gave President Trump’s legal team the opportunity to cross-examine whistle-blowers. The other question each senator was asked was whether they’d support an impeachment rules package that required the following of legal rules of evidence. Specifically, they were asked whether they’d support a rule that hearsay testimony would be excluded.

Mitch McConnell replied immediately, saying that he’d only support impeachment rules that excluded hearsay testimony and included the protections outlined in the Sixth Amendment. That’d essentially wipe out the Democrats’ testimony. Plus, it’d guarantee the whistleblower’s unmasking.

Is that truly the path Democrats want to take? The smart choice is folding. Let’s see just how smart Democrats are.

The Democrats’ defense strategy isn’t a mystery. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is rigging the process so only Democrat-approved witnesses can testify or be cross-examined. Schiff is preventing the Republicans from presenting an alternative explanation for what happened in Ukraine.

By preventing Hunter Biden from testifying, Schiff will prevent Republicans from asking legitimate questions about corruption. That’s important because the Democrats’ spin is that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy to interfere with the 2020 election. If Republicans can prove that Ukraine had corruption problems (it does) and that Hunter Biden had corruption issues or even had a whiff of corruption, then that justifies President Trump’s asking President Zelenskiy to look into the Bidens.

Democrats can’t afford the introduction of an alternative theory of what happened in Ukraine. Also, Democrats can’t let the whistleblower testify because he’d certainly be asked if he’d been coached by Schiff’s staff. If the faux whistleblower admits that he’s talked with Schiff’s staff, that will open the floodgates for the Republicans’ questions.

Democrats can’t let Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, become part of the story, either. That’s because Zaid is a card-carrying member of the #Resist movement. He’s proudly tweeted that a “coup” had started:

Zaid also said that CNN would play a major role in President Trump not serving his full term. The more that Republicans can highlight the Democrats’ hyperpartisanship, the weaker the Democrats’ case becomes.

The Democrats’ credibility would get shattered if President Trump was justified in calling for Hunter Biden’s investigation. This article highlights the fact that Hunter Biden will play a major role in the hearings whether he’s there or not:

Kent also told congressional investigators that he had repeatedly raised concerns with the Obama administration about Burisma, and also discussed the administration’s efforts to remove Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin from his post. At the time, Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the former minister of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine— also the founder of Burisma.

Shokin was fired in April 2016, and his case was closed by the prosecutor who replaced him, Yuriy Lutsenko (though Ukraine is now reviewing such cases). Biden once famously boasted on camera that when he was vice president and leading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin.

Schiff is trying his best to keep Hunter Biden off the stand:

Schiff said the inquiry “is a solemn undertaking, enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution” and that the hearings “will not serve as vehicles for any Member to carry out the same sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit.”

That isn’t the sound of impartiality. That’s what partisanship sounds like. This week, expect Democrats to sound like partisans. Expect Democrats to be on the defensive.

In case nobody’s noticed, Democrats have written their verdict on President Trump. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, isn’t into nuance. He’s been clear for years that he’s certain President Trump should be impeached in the House, then convicted in the Senate. He’s also made it clear that he plans on protecting the Biden family. After Republicans submitted their list of witnesses that they’d like to cross-examine, it didn’t take long for Schiff to protect the Biden family:

“This inquiry is not, and will not serve … as a vehicle to undertake the same sham investigations into the Bidens or 2016 that the President pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit, or to facilitate the President’s effort to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm,” Schiff said in a statement.

That sounds fair — if you’re living in the Soviet Union, Iran or North Korea. If you’re living in the United States and you’re passionate about civil rights, though, it sounds like a railroad job.

Let’s dig into the so-called whistleblower that Schiff and the Democrats are thoughtlessly protecting. Let’s have a discussion on whether he/she should have their anonymity protected at all costs. The faux whistleblower’s attorneys insist on preserving the whistleblower’s anonymity. That’s understandable because lawyers are paid to protect their clients.

What society must ask is whether we can tolerate a society where a sitting president can be impeached with accusations made by an anonymous person. The men who wrote the Constitution thought about that 2+ centuries ago. They rejected that proposition when they wrote the Sixth Amendment. This is the text of the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Democrats have said that the time to call the faux whistleblower is during the Senate trial. That’s illogical from the standpoint that impeaching a president is a more grievous matter than a criminal trial. The impact of impeachment doesn’t just impact the president. It impacts the entire nation. The sooner this is behind us, the better off we’ll be.

That doesn’t mean that #Resistance Democrats will stop resisting. The odds of that happening are slim to nonexistent. It’s that it’s important to put this partisan impeachment behind us ASAP. The faux whistleblower’s attorney is clearly a card-carrying member of the #Resistance. Adam Schiff, as noted earlier, has rendered his verdict in terms of impeachment. The Democrats’ unquestioned leader on impeachment, Schiff has insisted for years that he had proof that President Trump had colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election:

It’s noteworthy that Mueller’s hyperpartisan lawyers didn’t find that proof. But I digress. The truth is that the faux whistleblower’s job should be protected but his identity shouldn’t be protected. Our society can’t tolerate a system of justice that lets anonymous snitches take down a US president.

Our society should only impeach people who commit impeachment-worthy offenses. The fact that a pair of Democrats voted against impeachment but no Republicans voted for impeachment signals that this is a partisan exercise. This isn’t anything other than the Democrats’ attempt to use impeachment as a way of defeating President Trump. The notion that our society should tolerate partisan snitches is frightening. Democrats supporting this partisan snitch should be punished at the ballot box next November.

The Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, Mr. Schiff, has already stated that he thinks that investigating the Biden family is a sham. Considering the fact that Vice President Biden bragged about getting a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma fired, I’d argue that Hunter Biden is worthy of deposing. Schiff can’t afford that because if Hunter Biden says something, then that undermines Schiff’s case. What if we find out that Biden is corrupt? Wouldn’t that justify President Trump’s inquiry?