Prosecution and Defense

What is that ancient curse? May you live in interesting times! We certainly do.

I didn’t tune in to hour-after-hour of the Senate impeachment hearings, but, as with many people, I’ve been playing catch up at the end of the day, to find out the key points that were made.

There are better sources than this blog for all those summaries. But I guess I’m the expert on what interests me and what I think about things. So that is what we’ll cover here today.

First, as we have noted for well over a month, the House has not charged President Trump with any crimes. No lawbreaking whatsoever. While in the hysteria leading up to the impeachment, they floated words like quid pro quo (meaning literally “this for that,” or an exchange, which is not necessarily illegal) and bribery. But that wasn’t what the evidence showed.

So the summary of the charges comes down to, President Trump asked the President of Ukraine to investigate corruption, which included a company called Burisma, which has Hunter Biden, son of former VP Joe Biden, on its board.

Those impeaching the president make the claim that there is no possible motive for this request other than to damage a political opponent in the upcoming election.

The impeachment prosecution must, therefore, prove not only that that was the motive, but that no other possible motive exists.

The House called 18 witnesses. They passed the testimony along to the Senate—except for one, which remains cloaked in secrecy somewhere in the recesses of Adam Schiff’s private lair.

While an impeachment is not exactly a court trial, it is analogous to think of the impeachment articles, and all that was done in the House, as the prosecution’s case. When they pass along the articles of impeachment, that is akin to the prosecutors saying, “The prosecution rests its case.”

Pam Bondi, of the White House defense team,
details Biden Ukraine connection
screenshot from here

When the Senate takes up the case, they have a couple of options beyond holding a further trial. One is to look at the evidence and say, “No, the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [the president] is guilty of these charges,” and they could rule not guilty.

Or they could look at the evidence and say, “He may have done these things he’s charged with but still not be guilty of something requiring his removal from office,” and they could rule not guilty.

Either of these they could do based on the prosecution only. If the prosecution presented an insufficient case, the Senate can dismiss without needing the White House team to mount a defense beyond their opening arguments. And let’s be certain we understand—no defense was allowed by the House. No defense witnesses were called. No testimony that contradicted the prosecution testimony has been allowed—which is probably why that one testimony is kept hidden. In an actual court trial, that and any other evidence must be disclosed to the defense. Nothing about Schiff and his process has been fair, or even anything close to resembling due process, which every person—including a president—is entitled to.

Speaking of Schiff, he is literally guilty of perjury. He claimed, during the answering of questions—while he is under oath—that he unequivocally does not know who the whistleblower is, that his team never met with, helped, or otherwise corroborated with the whistleblower. But we know that is factually false. His team had already admitted otherwise. Schiff, during House hearings, refused to have questions asked that were going to lead to identifying the whistleblower—questions that, if he didn’t know who the whistleblower was, he could not have known would lead to identifying him.

Can we charge Schiff with perjury—and impeach him for that crime? Son Political Sphere says, maybe the DOJ could charge him. The House could impeach him, but they would have to have to will to do so.

About that whistleblower. There has been blowback against Chief Justice Roberts for refusing to ask questions from Senator Rand Paul—two days in a row. The name of the whistleblower must have been revealed to Justice Roberts, or he would not know to prevent the question. Who revealed it to Justice Roberts, if not Schiff and team? Rand Paul says, in a tweet, that his exact question was,

Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings? 

He points out in another tweet,

My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent knowledge on his identity. My question is about known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun. 

Chances are high that Senator Paul has a strong suspicion of who the whistleblower is, since he has been identified in media for several months as Eric Ciaramella.

In a recent episode of Verdict, Senator Ted Cruz’s daily podcast on the impeachment, which showed up after late Wednesday night questioning, he talks about some of the questions that were asked. While he submitted a dozen ahead of time, only one of those got asked. He submitted another four from the floor, which is a sort of cross-examination, done by notecards handed in to be read by the Chief Justice. Three of these got asked, two of them were handed to other senators to submit. One of Cruz’s questions indirectly addressed the whistleblower. As Senator Cruz tells it, he asked,

Did the whistleblower ever work for Joe Biden? If so, did he work for Joe Biden on issues involving Ukraine? If so, did he assist in any material way with the quid pro quo that Joe Biden executed when he demanded that Ukraine fire the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, the company paying his son a million bucks a year?

Ted Cruz, Verdict episode 8, screenshot from here

Schiff completely refused to answer. Instead he offered a prepared speech on preserving the sanctity of whistleblowers and protecting their identity.

Recall, when this first came out, Schiff couldn’t wait for the whistleblower to testify in an impeachment trial. That was his intention. I don’t know if there is a direct correlation, but Glenn Beck came out with an investigative report on corruption in Ukraine—and how players in that story were key in coming up with the false information used in the FISA warrant in the first place, allowing surveillance of presidential candidate Trump and some former staff. Suddenly Schiff turned on a dime and absolutely insisted no one should ever know the whistleblower’s identity (after his staff had already admitted their contact). Later Beck investigations noted that Ciaramella’s name kept popping up. They found his name on various documents prior to knowing he was the whistleblower.

Glenn Beck, explaining the Ukraine Scandal, October 4, 2019
screenshot from here

BTW, whistleblowers' identity is not sacred. Their jobs are protected, so they can’t be fired for coming forward. But they don’t get to accuse anonymously.

What Senator Cruz is pointing out is that the “whistleblower,” who had no first-hand knowledge of the president’s phonecall and was therefore in no position to blow a whistle, had a self-preservation motive to prevent the investigation into the Burisma-Biden connection from going forward, because he could personally be found guilty in that corruption. Let me repeat that: the whistleblower’s motive, when he heard that Trump was interested in investigating the Burisma-Biden connection, was to prevent discovery of the whistleblower’s own involvement in that prosecutable wrongdoing.

Was it corrupt, what Joe Biden did? In another question, Senator Cruz expanded—and made more accurate—a hypothetical that Schiff had put forward. Cruz’s version, as he retells it on his podcast, was handed to Lindsey Graham to ask:

Using Mr. Schiff’s hypothetical, if President Obama had evidence that Mitt Romney’s son was being paid a million dollars a year by a corrupt Russian company—Schiff’s hypo was Russian instead of Ukraine—and Romney had acted in his official capacity to benefit that company, would Obama have had the authority to ask that the potential corruption be investigated?

As Cruz adds,

It’s not randomly, “Hey, investigate this guy.” It’s if you’ve got evidence—that on the face of it looks pretty crooked.

As I’m writing, the decision on whether to call witnesses is getting close to be voted on. That vote may even take place today. (Maybe it has while I’m not tuned in.)

There are many Americans (as high as 70%) who think there should be witnesses called. But both sides have very different ideas of who those should be. The defense ought to have the right to call the whistleblower, because it is unthinkable that a person can be convicted in America without being allowed to face his accuser—to know who makes the accusation, and to explore that person’s motives and truthfulness.

Joe Biden brags about getting Ukraine prosecutor fired.
screenshot from here

And then there’s the possibility of calling Hunter Biden and maybe Joe Biden. I’d like to know from Joe Biden—who claimed he had to fire the prosecutor in that quid pro quo that he brags about on video—what evidence did he have that the Ukrainian prosecutor into his son’s corrupt business dealings was too corrupt to remain in office? What were the complaints about that prosecutor? Where did they come from?

Because, if that was the motive instead of what it looks like, there must be supporting evidence. If not, then probably it was what it looks like—abuse of power for personal purposes. The very thing, ironically, that the Democrats have been yelling from the rooftops is disqualifying for a president.

Do I care about hearing from John Bolton? Not really. The only possible contribution would be what his personal opinion is of President Trump’s motives. He can’t know those motives—the other witnesses could not either. The defense already had the opportunity to hear from Bolton. All they had to do was get a court to override the president’s claim of executive privilege. Rather than do that, they withdrew the subpoena, saying they did not need to hear from him. So their tearful cries for him now are disingenuous. And, I’ll add, they can’t claim the president “obstructed Congress” if he didn’t defy a court-ordered subpoena. Congress didn’t do its part to get legally obstructed. (And, as I’ve heard said, a lot of people voted for Trump so he would “obstruct” Congress, which is obviously not a crime; it’s a feature of the separation of powers.)

If there were to be witnesses, and along with that there’s some claim that there needs to be fairness, we need to remember that 18 witnesses have already testified for the prosecution. Until there have been that many witnesses for the defense, let’s not talk about any “you get one and we get one.”

Since I don’t trust the Republicans to adopt that hard line, I would prefer they hear from none.

The White House defense team has presented more than ample evidence that there was plenty of incentive for President Trump to care about corruption in Ukraine, where billions in aid had already disappeared into a corrupt black hole. The Burisma-Biden connection is in the middle of that, but it’s not by any means the whole corruption story.

What have we learned from this whole impeachment ordeal? These Democrats are corrupt. They lie. They do not believe in due process, truth, or the Constitution. They were unable to come up with anything treasonous, anything that could be called bribery, or any other thing that would similarly jeopardize the country—in other words, anything worthy of impeachment.

Ben Garrison cartoon

They couldn’t even come up with a misdemeanor. They started on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, and they haven’t stopped. They have found nothing to charge him with. Yet they have put the country through this attempt at a coup for their own selfish purposes.

The biggest takeaway is that, for someone they claim is evil on a Hitlerian scale, Trump sure is law-abiding.

Battle of the Milk Metaphor

Yesterday Andrew Klavan, on his show, opened with The Big Idea that ceremony, show, and story have an effect on people. He starts with a definition of idolatry, which I thought was valuable in and of itself, so I’m going to lay it out the way he does:

Andrew Klavan, screenshot from here

[Los Angeles] is a town where some soulless Handsome Dan actor, who’s never done a d—n thing for anyone can make $250,000 a week by pretending to be a policeman on TV, while a real policeman not only makes considerably less money; he also gets insulted and criticized by the same idiot journalists who treat the actor like he’s some kind of hero.

Now, in Religion-land, we have a word for this. It’s called idolatry. Idolatry is when you mistake the representation of something for the thing itself. You worship the idol instead of the god the idol represents. Or you respect money more than you respect the work that goes into making money. Or you rank sex as higher than the love it’s meant to express.

There’s a reason, he says, that “God forbids us from making graven images of Him somewhere up near the top of the Ten Commandments.” Then there’s this important point for today’s world:

Breaking idols and keeping track of the true values they’re supposed to represent are necessary tools for staying sane and decent in a corrupt world. And they’re talents that come in especially handy when following politics.

But, then, is there value in stories—portrayals, rather than the actual thing itself? He’s a storyteller, so you’d have to guess the answer in yes. And he cites Shakespeare for support, before making the connection to today’s politics.

There’s no sense pretending that show and drama and symbols don’t affect the human mind—because we are natural idolators. Because our minds perceive truth through metaphor and storytelling, and what Shakespeare called ceremony. We have to pay close attention to the narratives that are being set before us to make sure they either tell us the truth or we learn to detect the truth in them.

Which brings me to the impeachment trial. There is simply no question that the impeachment trial going on right now is a show. It’s all a show. It’s meant to be a show.

No one thinks it’s going to have any real life effect. No one thinks it’s going to end with Trump leaving office. No one expects there’ll even be any new information that comes out of it. It’s meant to communicate messages to you, political messages designed to affect your mind and your vote in the 2020 election.

The insights we need to bring to bear on this spectacle are not legal insights, or really even political insights; they’re critical insights, the insights of an art critic, who can see what the performers are trying to communicate and cut through that to something resembling the truth.

He plays a news teaser about the impeachment trial—the drama, the import! It’s pretty over-the-top, and clearly a show.

Then Klavan points out that Adam Schiff is, in his opinion, a rather talented storyteller. He is portraying a message—that the president cannot be trusted, because of the corrupt bribery and collusion he has engaged in. Except, that, of course, the actual articles of impeachment accuse the president of no broken laws whatsoever, but you must ignore that and just listen to the story he’s telling.

Adam Schiff meme from here

A while back I watched a body language interpretation of Schiff. She found that he’s a pretty  comfortable liar: “He enjoys the deception of what he does.” It’s sadistic, and he uses sarcasm as a cover.

It is all for effect; truth has nothing to do with what he’s doing. This is his show. And reports of him talking yesterday in the opening to the Senate hearings seem to reveal that being on stage—putting on the show—is being in his element.

So, as Klavan says, we need to have “the critical insights of an art critic, who can see what the performers are trying to communicate and cut through that to something resembling the truth.”

That’s a challenge. I have some skill in literary analysis; I was an English major. And I know that, when I read a piece of literature, I often see different things than what others see. I have a pretty simple method I take students through to get at what the author is trying to say. And once you’ve done that, you can decide whether that was a point worth making—whether it’s “true” in the larger sense that fiction can be even when the people and their lives are imaginary.

Schiff is telling a story that is not only fiction; it is untrue.

Klavan included metaphor in his discussion, so I’m going to look at one today, and further it to make it actually apply. This is something I saw posted on Facebook. I haven’t interacted with the writer since the Kavanaugh hearings at which time she relentlessly insisted Kavanaugh ought to want to be investigated. She totally lost me when she claimed her husband (a decent family man with a record cleaner even than Kavanaugh’s) thought he himself should want to be investigated, not to clear his name, but in case there was a case or two of attempted rape he had forgotten about from his youth.

I have nothing to discuss with such a person. But, for some reason, yesterday Facebook’s all-knowing algorithm thought I would relate to this post. I could have just scrolled past; in fact I did. But I am including it here so we can look at how the opposition sees this show (without identifying the writer, because I don’t want to further embarrass her by name). I’m calling this the Battle of the Milk metaphor:

Ok guys. I’ve got 4 kids.

Awhile back I was making them breakfast shakes. They asked what kind of milk I used. I said regular. (We were out of coconut almond milk.) 3 out of 4 (bless that baby😇) didn’t believe me. They were sure they tasted coconut, and they were ready to fight me on it.

At this point, do I:

A. Open the fridge to show them we only have regular milk?

2. Tell them to call their dad who saw me making them so he could vouch for me?

Or D. Refuse to show proof and then pit them against each other in an all out battle over milk?

C’mon guys! You OPEN THE FRIDGE. When you’re telling the truth and you have nothing to hide, and you can unite your family behind truth, you. open. the. fridge.

The Senate trial is underway, and nearly 3 out of 4 Americans want to hear from firsthand witnesses. Why wouldn’t the White House and Senate together want to honor that desire, unite the country behind truth, and allow witnesses to testify?

I think it’s because there’s coconut almond milk in the fridge. #openthefridge #Americaneedsamom #mom4president

No child was harmed in the making of this smoothie illustration.

She got a number of reposts, thumbs up, and congratulations for this, um, brilliant metaphor. Let me just say something about metaphors: they all break down at some point; otherwise they’d be the actual thing, rather than a metaphor for the thing. But when you’re using a metaphor, it ought to be applicable to the actual situation. Otherwise, don’t try this at home. (Or online.)

I’m assuming the mis-numbering (A, 2., D) is intended for humor, so let that go. We’ll just go over the flaw in the Battle of the Milk metaphor for the Senate impeachment hearings.

What do you do? “You. Open. The. Fridge.” So, in the impeachment story, that means revealing the transcript of the infamous phonecall on the very day of the accusation. Trump opened the fridge.

“When you’re telling the truth and you have nothing to hide, and you can unite” everyone when they see they truth, you show it to them. End of subject. Argument over.

Except…  we’re dealing with Democrats. Dems with Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is apparently a real malady.

What do the Dem kids do instead of admitting the argument is settled? Here’s my version of the rest of the Battle metaphor:

“Well, I heard Johnny say he thought there was a definite coconut, or possibly almond, taste in the smoothie.”

“And I heard Suzie say that she heard an unnamed source say he or she had heard Johnny say there was a definite coconut and/or almond taste in the smoothie.”

“And now that we’ve had others point out that they tasted that hint of coconut, or possibly almond, we believe there is indeed a taste of coconut almond in the smoothie.”

“And, you know, sometimes hearsay is better than actual evidence.”

“So you, Mom, have to prove not only that you never put coconut almond milk in the smoothie—even though we know you did, because you’re a liar, liar pants-on-fire kind of mom—you have to prove that you never intended to ever put coconut almond milk in any smoothie, because if you did, then we know you put coconut almond milk in this one.”

“It’s not good enough that you show us there’s only regular milk in the fridge now. You might have used up the last of the coconut almond milk in this very smoothie—which popular opinion of those-not-around-when-you-made-it shows has a taste of coconut, or possibly almond.”

“Show us the garbage to prove there’s no evidence of coconut almond milk being recently used.”

“And show us exactly when the last coconut almond container was placed in the garbage. We need a record.”

“And, even then, how do we know you didn’t put it in the neighbor’s garbage to hide the evidence from us? Huh? Answer that!”

“Also, you have to show us your grocery receipts for the past six months. Because, if you don’t, that’s a sign that you’re hiding something.”

“No, you can’t have Dad tell us what he saw, just because he watched you making the smoothie; he’s in collusion with you. He has condoned having coconut almond milk in this house in the past, so he can’t be trusted. The only witnesses that can be allowed are those of us who either tasted what we think is coconut or almond in the smoothie, or those who have heard others say they may have tasted coconut and/or almond in the smoothie, or those who can testify that they’ve ever talked with you about the possible intention of using coconut almond milk in our smoothie.”

“Because, as we all know, and we’ve said above, hearsay can be better than actual witnesses.”

“This is the worst thing a mom has ever done! No mom should be allowed to use coconut almond milk in a child’s smoothie. And claiming that regular milk was used is only evidence of hiding the use of coconut almond milk in the smoothie.”

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Because these are crazy children who are unaware of truth, unaware of evidence, immune to accepting truth or evidence, and are completely unreasonable. Put them down for a nap!

Unfortunately, these ridiculous children are bent on removing Mom from her rightful position. They’re staging a coup. It’s about power. And, while she knows her position (and her probably valid reasons for considering coconut almond milk a valid choice for a smoothie), their relentless, loud uprising is getting in the way of the family’s actual business—of making family life civilized and prosperous for harmonious growth for all.

I’m assuming you can follow the metaphor to the actual situation now. And, even without an actual family of coconut-almond-milk-hating children, the story helps you see the truth.

Misdirection from the Larger Story, Part I

Instead of impeachment hearings Wednesday, I watched the third in a series of Glenn Beck specials on the larger background of Ukrainian corruption—and the even larger background of worldwide power mongering. They relate tangentially.

Glenn Beck's interactive chalkboard on Ukraine corruption
image from here

Before I left for the day and tuned out all news until evening, I heard just a bit of the opening statements from the open impeachment hearings. Chairman Adam Schiff’s comments were what you would expect from him by now, if you’re paying attention. He was followed by Republican Devin Nunes, who laid out the Democrats’ pattern of behavior, leading to the conclusion that this is just the next in a long series of attempts to overthrow the vote of the people in electing President Trump.

And then Congressman Jim Jordan asked when we could expect to see scheduled the opportunity to question the whistleblower: 

Reps. Adam Schiff (left) and Jim Jordan
screenshot from here

Jordan: Do you anticipate when we might vote on when we will be able to have the whistleblower in front of us? Something that you— Of the 435 members of Congress, you are the only member who knows who that individual is, and your staff is the only staff of any member of Congress who’s had a chance to talk with that individual. We would like that opportunity. When might that happen in this proceeding today?

Schiff: First, as the gentleman knows, that’s a false statement. I do not know the identity of the whistleblower, and I’m determined to make sure that identity is protected.

As Schiff (not a gentleman) knows, his statement is false. He does know the identity of the whistleblower. 

Back in September, Schiff says, “We have not heard directly from the whistleblower. We would like to.” 

Then, on October 2, the New York Times reveals that Schiff or staff (and are we to believe his staff would handle this entirely without his knowledge?) was apprised of the whistleblower’s story days ahead of the filing of that report. 

In tweets House Minority Whip Steve Scalise points out that Schiff had blatantly lied back in September. And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy says, “Schiff lied. The question is why?” So, to “clarify,” a committee member claims Schiff had supposedly meant the Intelligence Committee members as a whole, including Schiff personally, perhaps, had not heard directly from the whistleblower. Right [sarcastic tone].

Are we to believe that his staff had no other contact with the whistleblower? Didn’t direct him on how to file, where to file, how to word the statement? And also never mentioned it to their boss, Chairman Schiff? They only mentioned that there was a whistleblower, some individual with a second-hand story of a phonecall, and their boss doesn’t say, “What do we know about this person so that we can gauge whether they are credible?” No questions about the whistleblower’s possible motivations or connections? He just directs them, “Go ahead with your work. Don’t tell me anything”?

I’m picturing one of those movie scenes where a high ranking official shows up somewhere to direct a CIA operative, gives instructions, and then says, “And remember, I was never here.” Cliché.

We do know, unofficially, who the whistleblower is. This includes, I presume, Congressman Jordan, who asked the question. It was called an open secret in media circles for weeks. Some sites started using the name in early October. I heard it from The Blaze and The Daily Wire at least three weeks ago.

The name is Eric Ciaramella. He was a holdover in the National Security Council from the Obama administration, kept on because of his expertise on Ukraine issues, but was fired in 2017 for leaks, after which he returned to the CIA. (The NSC leaking sharply decreased, coincidentally.)

And note, for the record, that there’s a complaint that the transcript of the president’s phonecall in question was made classified, which was a supposed extraordinary action, because there was something nefarious to hide, Schiff implies. But such phonecalls were, as a matter of course, made classified—a change in protocol that had already been in place for a long time, in an attempt to prevent leaks. In other words, the protocol was set in place long before the phonecall—because of the behavior of Ciaramella and possibly others.

Ciaramella’s history also included working directly under James Clapper, and working with Joe Biden at the time when the Obama administration made Biden the “point man” on Ukraine (see Ukraine corruption story here). Ciaramella worked with CIA Director (until January 2017) John Brennan, and he was of course a registered Democrat. He worked directly with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa, who instigated digging up false dirt to put into the dossier used for the faulty FISA application to get permission to wiretap Trump. Remember that?

If you were looking for a Deep State operative—not a head guy, just a functionary in such a meta-organization—this is the guy.

Schiff had insisted the whistleblower’s story was necessary and important—until just five days after Glenn Beck’s first chalkboard special on Ukrainian corruption. Then suddenly we didn’t need to hear from him, and his identity must be protected at all costs. Odd timing. Unless they suddenly realized someone was onto them.

Tween from Turning Point USA's Benny Johnson
from page 236 of the transcript of US Ambassador
to Ukraine's testimony. Image found here.

And then there were the transcripts of the closed-door impeachment hearings a couple of weeks ago. Schiff’s staff accidentally failed to redact the name of the whistleblower when a witness was questioned about knowing him. Oops. 

The point here is that, if you’re starting off the hearings with someone who blatantly lies to the American people, and the truth shows that there are nefarious reasons for lying about something as simple as having had contact with the whistleblower whose testimony the whole circus is supposedly based on—well, then, you know there’s no truth to be gotten from these hearings.

The Babylon Bee, the parody news site that accidentally becomes
your best source of news, illustrates the impeachment circus.
image from here

While we’re talking the hearings, let’s add a dash of humor. A friend made a link to the REO Speedwagon song “Take It on the Run,” which starts out “I heard it from a friend who / heard it from a friend who / heard it from another …” and suggested this should be the theme song for these hearings.

And then today, in the satirical news parody Andrew Klavan does at the beginning of his podcast, he says,

Eager to get off to a powerful start that would bring forward their best anti-Trump testimony, Democrats introduced their star witness: Alexa, the electronic information assistant from Amazon. Committee Chairman Adam Googly-eyes Schiff started the questioning saying, (quote) “Alexa, did the President demand a quid pro quo from Ukraine?” (unquote).

Alexa answered, (quote) “A man passing the White House Tuesday overheard a guard in the sidewalk booth speaking on the phone to his mother and saying he had met a janitor who said he was cleaning an office in the West Wing when he saw an assistant to an aide in the press department texting a disgruntled former employee of the State Department who said he was willing to bet that old meany Trump would do anything to bring down Joe Biden, who will be a terrific threat to him in the 2020 election, if he can ever complete an English sentence without his teeth falling out and his eye exploding. That text was recorded by Facebook, who was spying on everyone and recorded by myself, who’s spying on Facebook, which is how I know Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself” (unquote).

Regarding the sources of information—all supposedly better than the actual transcript of the phonecall in question, which President Trump made public the day after the whistleblower’s report made news—that isn’t too much of an exaggeration.

We haven’t even gotten to the actual meat, the bigger background. And we are still learning about that, even though the media is conveniently—what’s the term magician’s use?—misdirecting by pretending the impeachment hearings are about protecting the American people from Trump’s supposed wrongdoing. Even though the media is doing their part in Schiff’s show, there’s a plausible reason for Deep State actors to want to hide what Ukraine corruption was really about. The Biden scandal was only a small speck in the overall picture.

But, just so I get it said, even if President Trump had asked for investigation into the Bidens’ possible corruption, wasn’t that in both the interest of Ukraine and the US to know? Would we want to have people possibly voting for a former VP, who was up to the wazoo in corruption, without knowing the facts? 

There’s never been an accusation that Trump asked for made-up information about Biden, only that he wanted an investigation into things that Biden himself had bragged about doing. Was he supposed to say, “Investigate all the corruption you can, because we want Ukraine to go forward with your new presidency having rooted that all out—except, you know, it would have bad optics if you stumbled across corruption by former VP Joe Biden, since he’s currently a candidate; so don’t follow any of those leads”? No. Even if Trump’s inquiries had been only about Biden’s actual corruption, there was nothing there that wouldn’t be in the interest of the US voting public to know.

And it wasn’t only about that relatively minor part of the overall corruption.

The larger Ukrainian corruption—and the even larger worldwide power-mongering—are what interest me much more than the impeachment hearings. But it took this much just to get past the preliminaries of the hearing, so this will require a part II.