Archive for the ‘Impeachment’ Category

Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee, has let it be known that the Bidens, especially Hunter Biden, is beyond congressional scrutiny. That’s Schiff’s justification for not allowing Hunter Biden to testify at the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee’s hearing. Chairman Schiff and other Democrats have already settled on a verdict. That verdict was arrived at 3 years ago when President Trump was just President-Elect Trump.

We all know the story. Just 19 minutes after President Trump’s swearing in, the Washington Post ran an article saying that impeachment begins now. Further, we know that there were impeachment rallies in Chicago, Washington DC and NYC the day after Election Day, 2016. Obviously, Democrats didn’t have anything that rose to the level of an impeachable offense. To Resistance Democrats, Trump defeating Hillary was the impeachable offense.

Over the years, Adam Schiff lead the Democrats’ impeachment charge. Schiff was the lying Democrat who told Chuck Todd that he’d seen evidence that was “more than circumstantial” verifying that then-Candidate Trump had colluded with Russia to win the election. Adam Schiff is the lying dirtbag Democrat who wrote a lie-filled speech, then pretended that it was what President Trump said during his phone call with Ukraine President Zelenskiy:

Schiff has ruled that potential Biden wrongdoing is offlimits for these hearings even though it’s entirely relevant to the charges being brought against President Trump. They’re relevant because, if Hunter Biden engaged in influence-peddling, then that’s no different than what Paul Manafort did.

Stop and think this through because it’s important. If Hunter Biden engaged in influence-peddling, then President Trump is justified in having Ukraine investigate the Bidens because he’d be trying to investigate corruption. At that point, President Trump wouldn’t be trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

Democrats won’t admit that since that’d be like admitting that they’re impeaching President Trump because they hate him. Republicans should make this case daily and tirelessly. Republicans should highlight the Democrats’ hatred of Trump. Once Democrats admit that they hate Trump, the Democrats’ claims of patriotism disappear. It isn’t possible to hate the president if you’re a patriot.

It’s painfully obvious that Democrats don’t care about this nation. If Democrats loved the United States, they’d rejoice that minorities are doing exceptionally well economically under President Trump. If Democrats loved the United States, they’d fight with President Trump in eliminating corruption.

If Schiff won’t let Republicans call the 2 witnesses most central to their defense of President Trump, then Republicans should take some of their time during the televised hearing to simply explain their theory of the case. If Schiff tries preventing that, then Republicans should remind voters that Schiff is a lying partisan who’s been trying to impeach President Trump for 3 years. Why not have a ‘Schiff’s Greatest Hits’ video ready for that moment?

It’s time for Republicans to put Democrats on defense. If Democrats insist on playing by crooked rules, Republicans should ignore the rules whenever it’s needed to prove their point.

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?

At the heart of the Democrats’ impeachment drive is the Democrats’ contention that President Trump asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden. That’s a theory that the media, myself included, hasn’t examined, at least not seriously. The thought that President Trump is worried about Joe Biden, especially at a time when Biden’s fundraising is struggling and his cash on hand balance is low, is misguided thinking.

President Trump understands that he’s a force of nature, politically speaking, and that there isn’t a candidate at the Democrats’ debates that’s clicking with the voters. Sleepy Joe Biden doesn’t excite anyone. Elizabeth Warren just blew up her candidacy with her Medicare-for-All tax increase. Bernie Sanders’ campaign just died at the hands of Crazy Bernie. Check out Crazy Bernie’s immigration proposal:

Key Points

  1. Institute a moratorium on deportations until a thorough audit of past practices and policies is complete.
  2. Reinstate and expand DACA and develop a humane policy for those seeking asylum.
  3. Completely reshape and reform our immigration enforcement system, including breaking up ICE and CBP and redistributing their functions to their proper authorities.
  4. Dismantle cruel and inhumane deportation programs and detention centers and reunite families who have been separated.
  5. Live up to our ideals as a nation and welcome refugees and those seeking asylum, including those displaced by climate change.

To use an old carpenter’s saying, Crazy Bernie’s plan is a full bubble off center. But I digress. The subject was Biden.

Supposedly, Joe is the champion of blue collar workers everywhere. There’s a flaw with that logic, though, which I’ve written about frequently. Sleepy Joe wants to ban fossil fuels. This video is from the Greenpeace USA Youtube channel:

The Obama-Biden administration also prevented the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. It didn’t take long for President Trump to reverse that.

These are the policies and candidacies that Democrats think are winners in 2020? There’s nothing to think these policies will connect with blue collar voters in Rust Belt states that Democrats need to flip. If Biden doesn’t flip ‘Blue Firewall’ states like Pennsylvania and Michigan back into the Democrats’ column, Democrats can kiss this election goodbye. Check this article out:

The battle is a microcosm of what is happening nationally: Big-city Democratic mayors are aligning themselves with leftist local officials and environmental activists to renounce disfavored industries. It also exposes the Democrats’ deep challenges with blue-collar voters. In both Western Pennsylvania and the Scranton area, the shale industry is opening up prosperity not seen for two generations—and inflaming climate zealots. “A Democrat can’t win Pennsylvania without voter support from those two regions,” said Mike Mikus, a strategist who consulted for Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s re-election campaign last year. “And you can’t win the presidency as a Democrat if you lose Pennsylvania.”

The point of this is that Biden is a fatally flawed presidential candidate. President Trump didn’t need Ukraine’s help to defeat Biden. Further, President Trump ran on draining the Swamp. If anyone personifies the Swamp better than Joe and Hunter Biden, it’d be the Podesta brothers.

Unlike other presidents, President Trump has made a habit of keeping his promise. He doesn’t have a perfect record but it’s better than any recent president.

  1. He’s building the wall, despite the Democrats obstructionism.
  2. President Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  3. President Trump signed the biggest tax cuts in US history.
  4. He promised small-town workers that they wouldn’t be forgotten. Thanks to the booming energy industry, he’s more than kept that promise.

Democrats whine about President Trump going after Joe and Hunter Biden because they aren’t used to a president actually getting serious about corruption. Joe and Hunter Biden are government corruption personified. They aren’t at John Murtha’s level but they’re still in the Swamp Hall of Fame.

Each day, Democrats insist that today’s testimony damaged the White House to the point that the damage is virtually irreparable. Now that we’re finally getting the transcripts, we’re finding out that Democrats have built the sturdiest house of cards ever built. This article highlights the flimsiness of the Democrats’ case:

William Taylor, the charge d’affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.
“[Y]ou’ve never spoken to Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani?” Taylor was asked.
“No, no,” he replied.
“Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?”
“No,” Taylor said.
“And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?” Taylor was asked.
“I have not,” he said.
“You had no communications with the president of the United States?”
“Correct,” Taylor said.

That’s what’s known as hearsay. It isn’t admissible in criminal courts in most instances. Certainly, it wouldn’t be accepted if it’s from someone who heard it third- or fourth-hand. Despite that fact, House Democrats keep insisting that their impeachment case is sturdy. That’s why the public hearings will be crucial in one respect. When John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows or Devin Nunes get 45 minutes to cross-examine next week’s witnesses, they’ll expose the Democrats’ witnesses’ vulnerabilities. At this point, I’d consider Taylor to be damaged goods.

Despite Taylor’s statements, though, Schiff and other Democrats will insist that Taylor has damaged President Trump. Don’t be surprised if a gap opens between Democrats and the public. Here’s why Taylor is damaged goods:

“And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. “But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?” “That’s correct,” Taylor admitted.

“So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?” Zeldin asked. “I have not talked to the president,” Taylor said. “I have no other information from what the president was thinking.”

As damaging as that is, it isn’t the only vulnerability. Here’s another vulnerability:

“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”

“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.” “And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked. “That is correct,” Taylor responded.

This is the Democrats’ defense of Taylor’s testimony:

I won’t belittle Taylor’s service to the nation through the military. What he did was commendable. With that said, I don’t have any difficulty saying that I’m capable of saying that Taylor’s testimony is filled with holes simply because he didn’t participate in the phone call. What Taylor did, though, was verify that Ukraine didn’t know that the military aid was being withheld. If Zelensky didn’t know the aid was being withheld, that means that a quid pro quo couldn’t have been proposed.

Mark Zaid, the CIA snitch’s attorney, got caught with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar. Now he’s trying to weasel his way out of hot water. After saying that “a ‘coup has started’ and that ‘impeachment will follow ultimately’, Zaid issued a flimsy statement that said “the tweets ‘were reflective and repeated the sentiments of millions of people. I was referring to a completely lawful process of what President Trump would likely face as a result of stepping over the line, and that particularly whatever would happen would come about as a result of lawyers.'”

Later, Zaid added “The coup comment referred to those working inside the Administration who were already, just a week into office, standing up to him to enforce recognized rules of law.”

Impeachment is a completely lawful process in that it’s provided for by the Constitution. The way that Zaid and Ciaramella and others in the Resistance went about it isn’t legitimate because they couldn’t have found an impeachable offense to convict President Trump of within President Trump’s first 10 days in office. This is BS from Zaid because he’s hated President Trump since before he was President Trump.

In that respect, he’s no different than Democrats like Schiff, Maxine Waters, Al Green and other Fever Swampers. Zaid, like Schiff and Waters, started with a verdict, then worked to find evidence of the thing they were certain he’d done wrong. In the first 10 days of his administration, President Trump signed a bunch of executive orders. He also got started killing (through the Congressional Review Act) a ton of anti-fossil fuel regulations implemented by the previous administration.

It’s impossible to find anything that’s impeachable. That’s the hallmark of the Resistance. The Democrats’ Resistance doesn’t care about the Framers’ Constitution. These Democrats prefer the flexible, nimble Constitution that they constantly talk about. Zaid essentially admitted that he isn’t unbiased in this video:

That’s where Zaid tweets “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.” Notice the disdain Zaid has for President Trump’s supporters. That’s what elitists think. There’s your proof that Zaid is a card-carrying member of the Swamp. Zaid got into a fight with Bryan Dean Wright over the CIA snitch:


The more Zaid opens his mouth, the more he indicts himself, which hurts the CIA snitch’s credibility. Why should I trust a person who hides himself and who doesn’t have any first- or second-hand information and associates himself with a lawyer that’s steeply biased against the nation’s sitting president?

FYI- Bryan Dean Wright is a loyal Democrat. He isn’t a partisan hack like the whistleblower is.

If you visit CNN’s Politics webpage, you’ll find headlines like “House to explore Pence’s role in Ukraine controversy with new testimony”, “John Bolton trying to ‘walk that tightrope’ over role in Trump’s impeachment inquiry” or “Voters’ views of impeachment still forming in a key 2020 battleground.” Another column of headlines reads “Republicans again shift their defense of Trump over impeachment inquiry barrage”, “Senate Republicans have mixed views of Election Day losses”, “New poll finds tight four-way race in Iowa” or “Jeff Sessions to announce run for Senate.”

Nowhere on its politics webpage does CNN talk about Mark Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets. Here’s Zaid’s first Trump-hating tweet:


That isn’t the last Trump-hating tweet. Here’s another of Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets:


That wasn’t the last Trump-hating tweet either. Here’s another Trump-hating tweet from Mr. Zaid:


Why doesn’t CNN think that any of Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets are newsworthy? Apparently, NBC and CBS don’t think Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets are newsworthy either. What are the odds that the editors at CNN, CBS and NBC didn’t know about Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets? Isn’t it likely that they knew about these damaging tweets, then omitted them?

Make no mistake about whether Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets hurt Democrats. Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets hurt Democrats because they call into question what anti-Trump biases the CIA snitch shares with Mr. Zaid and the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee chairman. They open debate on whether the CIA snitch is just the tip of the iceberg. Is the CIA snitch collaborating with Schiff and Mr. Zaid in an effort to eliminate President Trump? Given Schiff’s and Zaid’s public animosity towards President Trump, it isn’t a stretch to think that’s possible. In fact, that seems like the most likely explanation for this impeachment inquiry.

Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, apparently has a bone to pick with President Trump. He’s apparently a prolific Twitter user, too. Zaid’s tweets might hurt his client.

According to Zaid’s tweets, he wants Trump out of office ASAP:


What’s laughable is what’s written on Mr. Zaid’s profile page:

Attorney handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing. Non-partisan

That should read “Hyper-partisan” instead of “Non-partisan.”

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

Only in Washington, DC, would a man who tweeted out such tweets be considered non-partisan.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, told Fox News that “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game. It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”

As dense as Mr. Zaid is, apparently, Justin Amash is just as clueless:

“Actually, the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser,” Hemingway tweeted. “Whistleblower protection has never — could never — mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly.”

Amash made this feeble argument against Hemingway:

“Yeah, at *trial* in a *criminal* prosecution,” Amash responded. “To say otherwise is silly. The best argument one could make is that it also should apply at trial in the Senate, despite not being a criminal prosecution, following impeachment in the House.”

Seriously? So a person can get impeached without the accuser having to testify? When did the USA’s judicial system become predicated on the notion that a person could get indicted by anonymous accusations?

It’s one thing to say that a person can get indicted without having their accuser cross-examined. While a criminal indictment isn’t fun, it’s a breeze compared with getting impeached. Getting impeached means that the president isn’t permitted to run the nation for the betterment of a nation. Does Mr. Amash think that the impeachment process not affect the entire nation?

If Mr. Amash thinks that, then he and Mr. Zaid deserve each other. They’re both losers if that’s the case.

If there’s anything that’s predictable, it’s that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article, “current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News” that “pressure is building on the spy agency’s director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter.”

Fine. Here’s a stand that these Swamp critters won’t like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment, which says “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.”

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn’t say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we’ve just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower’s attorney isn’t fond of the idea of his client’s name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client’s name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers said “identifying any suspected name … will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm.”

First, it isn’t known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn’t make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower’s identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn’t abide by the laws of integrity, they don’t deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower’s testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would’ve admitted this information into a court because it’s hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

“Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower,” Brennan told NBC News. “Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul’s appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate.”

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn’t the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.

It isn’t often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I’d better record this for history’s sake:

When Adam Schiff, the chairman in charge of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee, wrote this op-ed to regain some momentum for President Trump’s impeachment. It’s a tall order, one which I can’t picture him succeeding at. When the faux whistleblower first came forward, the American people were told lots of tall tales by the faux whistleblower.

When the snitch first burst into the national spotlight, articles were written about how President Trump repeatedly pressured Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy to investigate former VP Joe Biden. Articles like this one soon were filling newspapers’ front pages:

President Donald Trump repeatedly pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July phone call to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of leading Democratic rival Joe Biden. Trump brought up the point again and again, a total of about eight times, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday afternoon, as a whistleblower’s complaint about a call with an unnamed foreign leader was morphing into a political scandal.

Biden quickly pressed President Trump to release the transcript of the call. Surprisingly, that’s what President Trump did — after clearing the decision with Ukraine’s president.

The transcript showed that the repeated pressures never happened. Think of it as the international version of ‘Hands up, don’t shoot.’ Back to Schiff’s op-ed. Here’s the opening paragraph of Schiff’s op-ed:

A little over one month has passed since the White House released the record of President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Americans read for themselves how President Zelensky sought more weapons critical to Ukraine’s defense, and how President Trump responded: “I would like you to do us a favor though” and laid bare his abuse of the power of the presidency.

From the call record alone, we have stark evidence that President Trump sought Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election by pressing that country to investigate a political opponent. Ukraine, which lies on the front line of Russian aggression, is financially, militarily and diplomatically dependent on the United States. The president’s corrupt pressure to secure its interference in our election betrayed our national security and his oath of office.

Notice Schiff’s slipperiness? He starts by saying President Trump wanted President Zelenskiy to do him a favor without saying what the favor was.

In the next paragraph of Schiff’s op-ed, Schiff said that “President Trump sought Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election.” Notice that Schiff didn’t quote President Trump. According to the transcript, the favor didn’t have anything to do with seeking “Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election.” Here’s what President Trump sought a favor with:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your weal thy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

The favor consisted of finding out about the DNC server that was hacked in 2016. How is that asking for help in the 2020 election?

Saying that that’s a stretch is understatement. That’s so elastic that it could stretch around corners. Then Schiff tries making his case:

What we have found, and what the American people will soon learn through the release of additional testimony transcripts and in public hearings, is that this is about more than just one call.

Schiff told NBC’s Chuck Todd in March of 2017 that he’d seen evidence that was “stronger than circumstantial.” We still haven’t seen that proof. In fact, Robert Mueller didn’t find it. But we’re supposed to trust “Shifty Schiff that it exists? That won’t happen, especially after this fiasco:

Schiff’s case is built on quicksand. It isn’t built on anything solid. That being said, there’s something important that needs investigating. That’s the faux whistleblower. He made a provocative accusation that turned out not to be accurate.

Making unsubstantiated accusations against the president of the United States is serious business. If you’re making that accusation, you’d better have rock-solid proof. Schiff doesn’t have it. It’s doubtful he ever will.