Ever since President Trump tweeted about Ambassador Yovanovitch during Friday’s hearing, the MSM have been obsessed with the tweet as their latest shiny object. It’s time that the MSM that still are interested in things like credibility to stop obsessing over that shiny object. In the grand scheme of things, the tweet, which was ill-advised, is a major ‘so what’.

It doesn’t change the fundamentals of the Democrats case. That’s because the Democrats still haven’t presented anything resembling a piece of evidence of an impeachable offense. That’s because last week’s testifiers (they weren’t witnesses because they didn’t witness anything) took turns either admitting that they couldn’t identify an impeachable offense (John Ratcliffe asking Kent and Taylor) or Yovanovitch telling Chris Stewart that she wasn’t in Ukraine for President Trump’s phone call with President Zelenskiy in late July.

Why isn’t the MSM talking about Devin Nunes’ questioning of Ms. Yovanovitch at the start of the hearing? Right at the start, Ms. Yovanovitch admitted that she isn’t a fact witness:

The most memorable line in the hearings was Jim Jordan’s exchange with Ambassador Taylor:

What information does Ambassador Taylor have that’s important? It’s apparent that he isn’t a central figure in Kiev. Shouldn’t we insist that the MSM report things that are important to the impeachment case?

There’s a novel approach to evaluating whether Impeachment Democrats have made a legal case for impeachment. What information have George Kent, William Taylor or Marie Yovanovitch supplied that’s proof of an impeachable offense? There’s another test to this. The Impeachment Democrats’ theory on why President Trump should be impeached is because he withheld lethal military aid from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigated the Bidens. What proof have they offered that President Trump did that? Remember that second- and third-hand stories aren’t proof. They’re uncorroborated stories, even if other diplomats with other second- and third-hand stories agree with the original story.

This isn’t a shiny object but it’s important to the Democrats’ carefully-crafted impeachment story. Why isn’t there any reporting on why the Democrats set up the rules the way they did? Were they written that way because Impeachment Democrats didn’t want to give skilled people like John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik and Jim Jordan the opportunity to make Swiss Cheese out of the Democrats’ case?

Thus far, Democrats haven’t gotten questioned whether they’ve established a single important fact. That’s intentional. The MSM was the driving force behind impeachment. The MSM wanted impeachment far more than Ms. Pelosi wanted it.

When impeachment backfires on Democrats, Ms. Pelosi will wash her hands of the mess and say I-told-you-so. That’s true but she’s the one that caved. She’s the Democrat that didn’t fight for her position until the bitter end. In the end, Pelosi is just as guilty of dragging the nation through this divisive fight for no legitimate reason.

Democrats, Ms. Pelosi included, are the political definition of losers. All the shiny objects in the world won’t change that.

Leave a Reply