Democrats have been down in their Capitol basement dungeon adjusting a number of crimes for size, kind of like O.J. Simpson’s infamous bloody glove tryout, except they really need one that fits.
They know they have not sold swing state voters their original canard that President Trump is guilty of quid pro quo offences. The Latin expression means “an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; “a favor for a favor”.
Now they are trying out bribery, extortion and other sinister sounding names. The problem they face is an abysmal lack of evidence to justify these accusations.
The bribery and extortion statutes require clear, unequivocal evidence of giving or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would otherwise not offer.
They have accused Trump of using his office for personal political gain when he urged the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son on a July 25th phone call.
They originally claimed he withheld military aid as a quid pro quo, accusing him of public corruption worthy of an impeachment inquiry. Then they said he dangled a White House meeting to beef up their faltering allegation. Weeks later they said he insisted on a statement promising to investigate the Bidens before releasing the aid.
The White House released a transcript of the first phone call between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky last Friday, proving that the president offered him a White House visit with no preconditions, threats or mention of a Biden probe.
The administration already released the call transcript that triggered the impeachment inquiry last month and it had no reference to a promise of aid money for an investigation.
Ukrainians did not know the military aid was on hold and it was released in September, even though a probe of the Bidens had not begun.
The Washington Post staff published a primer on Monday, hoping to help Democrats with their faltering narrative while illuminating the concept for the dimwitted public.
It explained that the term simply means ‘something for something.’ The quids, the article noted, are “a White House meeting for the Ukraine president and resumption of military aid,” while the quo is “investigations into President Trump’s political opponents.” That should make it easier to understand right? Except for Democrats this has created a serious message problem — one they never anticipated when they hit the gas on their impeachment clown car.
The Washington Post also identified six episodes in which top administration officials and Ukrainians discussed these potential trade-offs based on hearsay testimony, statements and documents. No need to bore you with those here. It’s almost impossible to trudge through the testimony supporting their case without dozing off.
Maybe that’s why only 13.1 million people tuned in to watch the first day of the hearing last Wednesday, and the numbers are plummeting. Approximately 12.7 million people tuned in to watch former Ukraine diplomat Marie Yovanovitch testify last Friday, according to early Nielsen Media Research, a ratings loser.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has promised even more ‘riveting’ testimony in the weeks to come with no end in sight. The witnesses are becoming less consequential as the hearings drone on.
Sen. Ron Johnson bashed Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine specialist with the National Security Council who is set to testify Tuesday in a Monday letter to House Republicans. Vindman claimed he listened in on Trump’s call with Zelensky,
“A significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their ‘turf’,” Johnson wrote. “They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office. It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.”
Their ‘bombshell’ witness lined up for Wednesday’s hearing is U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. He has no credibility after he revised his original closed-door testimony last week.
He now claims he told Ukrainian officials they must publicly pledge to provide “the public anti-corruption statement” relating to the Bidens and the Democrats. He can’t even keep his story straight.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew, one of two House Democrats to vote against the impeachment inquiry, told Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures several Democrats are growing restless as the pointless inquiry drags on.
“There is some discussion among some of them, quietly, privately, of concern certainly. I mean, what I’m hearing out in the street is they’re kind of tired. They’re kind of worn out. They’re kind of bored, most folks. And they really want to move on unless there’s something new and amazing. We know the end game here,” He said he will not vote to impeach Trump unless they can produce evidence that “rises to the level of treason or a high crime,” said Van Drew.
In a bid to spice things up Pelosi said in a Sunday interview on CBS that Trump should testify if he’s upset about the way Democrats have presented witnesses and evidence. How tempting!
Trump tweeted Monday about the suggestion “that I testify about the phony Impeachment Witch Hunt. She also said I could do it in writing. Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!’
Is Pelosi’s goal to torture the public into a stupor then send articles of impeachment to their star chamber for a vote? By then Democrats hope we will all be comatose.