Focus Groups Are Not Grounds for Impeachment; Neither are Presumptions and Admitted Ignorance: Miscellaneous Musings on the Faux Impeachment.

Speaker Pelosi’s letter of the day is “B” for bribery. Why bribery? A focus group preferred bribery over quid pro quo and extortion as more damning to the President. The Democrats case against the President is so specious that they have to resort to focus groups to decide the right rhetoric to use against the President. Memo to Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch, the Democrats, and the media: The President has the power to recall an ambassador at any time for any reason, as well as fire the Director of the FBI and Attorney General at any time for any reason. Memo to the Democrats, the media, the foreign policy establishment, and the intelligence agencies: 1) A fundamental disagreement over the foreign policy of the United States is not grounds for impeachment; 2) The President has the power to conduct the foreign policy of the United States – not the State Department or the intelligence agencies. The honorable recourse if they disagree is to resign. Policy differences with the foreign policy establishment are not a ground for impeachment, but for the electorate; 3) Not one testifying witness averred a criminal act by the President, much less bribery; 4) Words such as “concerned,, “dismayed,” “improper” “unusual,” “inappropriate,” are not “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Ambassador Gordon Sondland is reported by the media yesterday morning to have damned President Trump. He said in his prepared statement: “Was there a quid pro quo?” He answered “With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” He said “Everyone was in the loop.” He never actually said what the quid pro quo was. Halleluiah to the Democrats, the media, and the Trump haters. Or not! The critical question was asked by Republican Mike Turner to Ambassador Sondland: “Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet – not Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo – no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct?” Ambassador Sondland answered: “that’s correct.” Cross-examination further got the Ambassador to admit that he had not included in his opening statement the following conversation with the President. The Ambassador asked the President the following question. What did you want from Ukraine? The President responded: “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” Suddenly the media switched tones and questioned the Ambassador’s credibility. Not that it mattered to the Democrats, but when asked if he had evidence that the delay in military aid was linked to the investigation, the Ambassador admitted he was presuming the link to Trump. That summarizes all the testimony against the President to date: hearsay, presumptions, speculation, and ignorance. No smoking gun – no incriminating Watergate tape, no incriminating memos. Here’s what we know. The nation’s intelligence agencies conspired prior to President Trump’s election to destroy him, led by the unholy trinity of Brennen, Clapper, and Comey, subsequently joined by Representative Adam Schiff, who almost daily over two years popped up on nightly TV saying he had proof President Trump collaborated with the Russians, doing his best tail Gunner Joe McCarthy imitation. The witnesses told us how critical Ukraine's independence is for us, and why Ukraine needed the arms. These same career State Department officials were silent when Russia invaded Ukraine, seized the Crimea, and sponsored a proxy war in the eastern Ukraine. They were strangely silent when President Obama only sent MRE's (Mels Ready to Eat) to the Ukraine rather than arms. President Trump sent arms, including $70 million in Javalin anti-tank missiles, to the brave Ukrainian fighter. Yesterday's witness, Fiona Hill, had even written an Op-Ed in the Washington Post arguing against sending arms to Ukraine. The purpose of the impeachment proceedings was threefold. The first is to impeach President trump. That was a foregone conclusion as soon as he was elected. The Democrats rejected the election results and vowed to impeach him, The only question is what would they pin it on? The second reason was to satisfy their rabid base and the AOC's of Congress. The third reason was to actually find something and thereby inflame public opinion to impeach the President. Whatever some of them say, the Trump Impeachment is not the second coming of President Nixon. There is no smoking gun. It’s a sad commentary on America’s democracy that the Democratic House of Representatives has spent the past three years attempting to remove the elected President from Office, over-turning the will of the voters. It’s further distressing that they have spent the past year trying to impeach him without any Constitutional grounds. The Democrats are fly-specking President Trump’s written answers to the House Judiciary Committee to establish if he committed perjury. The Trump Impeachment is a modern update of the 2400 year old trial of Socrates. Socrates was framed because he questioned the power structure of Athens. The House Democrats are attempting to frame President Trump because he is both outside and questioning the Washington power structure and the foreign policy establishment. A legal joke is “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I know the Law.” Representative Adam Schiff is not going to let neither the facts nor Law get in the way of the impeachment. Vice President Joe Biden said: ‘We choose truth over facts.” The Supreme Court held each house of Congress has the right to decide its rules of procedure in an impeachment. The Democrats chose to present one side of the case, rejecting the right of the Republicans to present their witnesses and limited their cross-examination of witnesses. No due process; that's technically fine. The Schiff Inquisition is a nothing burger full of hot air propped up by the media. To quote Gertrude Stein, slightly out of context: "There is no there, there."