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.

Too Much for a Soundbite

One of my (very minor) superpowers is being able to gather and synthesize information, and then lay it out for easier understanding. But there are limits. So, today I’ll show you a bit what is in the process of coming to an understanding, not fully ready for certainty.

But one pattern I’ve seen: If the enemies of freedom,prosperity, and civilization accuse their opposition of something, you can assume they’re doing that very thing.

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

Last Thursday I watched the full two-hour chalkboard presentation Glenn Beck did of the Ukraine Scandal. I’ve included the 51-minute essential video below. But it was too much for me to digest in a sitting. Or two. So I went through it again, piece-by-piece, taking notes, to see it in writing. So I might as well share that. After that, I’ll share some additional materials you can check out to educate yourself.

·         February 2014 Ukraine got a new president.

·         March 2014 Obama administration offers help to financially strapped Ukraine. Joe Biden placed to oversee the help.

·         Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, along with John Kerry’s son, has set up an investment firm—for which the younger Biden has no experience (although he does have a record, having been kicked out of the military for drug problems, and is known for other scandals. See YouTube “Joe Biden Scandal in Ukraine.”)

·         April 2014 Joe Biden, along with Devon Archer, flies to Ukraine.

·         May 2014 Devon Archer (Biden’s friend) is made a board member of Burisma, a gas company. Also, Hunter Biden is placed on that board (without experience in oil and gas)—where he receives $50,000 a month (or $600,000 for a year). The oligarch owner of Burisma is too corrupt to get a visa to enter the US.

·         Also in May 2014 Obama offers a $1 Billion loan guarantee, plus $320 Million in general assistance, plus $118 Million for security equipment and training, plus $20 Million for law enforcement reform, plus lots of advisors—for banking, politics, energy, media, and human rights.

·         November 2014 Obama administration insists that Ukraine establish a national anti-corruption bureau (NACB), with the US as a partner. This puts the US in a position to get direct information on anything this bureau uncovers. Advisors include Greg Craig, former Obama White House Counsel; Tad Devine, Bernie Sanders’ chief strategist; and Tony Podesta, brother to John Podesta (who was counsel to Obama in 2014-2015); Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist; Joel Benenson and John Anzalone, Obama campaign pollsters.

·         Meanwhile, the corrupt oligarch owner of Burisma gets $1.8 B of money going to Burisma to be placed in his private bank—and that money disappears in a “banking error.” And at this point, the ban on his visa to the US is lifted, meaning he is no longer considered corrupt.

·         June 2015 Trump announces his presidential candidacy.

·         Late 2015, in the climate of corruption tied to Obama operatives, the Democrat National Committee (DNC) hires Alexandra Chalupa, daughter of Ukrainian, to do opposition research on Trump. (She had been doing work for the DNC since 2004.)

·         January 2016 Chalupa approaches DNC officials, suggests (no evidence; she just has a feeling) that Trump is connected somehow to Russia. This is before Manafort or Papadopoulos were in the picture for the Trump campaign, and before the Steel dossier. She focuses on Paul Manafort, who had worked for the campaign of the ousted Ukrainian president in 2014, but ignores the fact that Tad Devine and Tony Podesta had also advised the ousted president (these two were later appointed as advisors to the new president).

·         January 2016 Ukraine NACB meets with White House about two issues: Joe Biden and his son related to Burisma, and Paul Manafort. Only Manafort gets investigated. Those at the meeting later report they were pressured not to investigate the Burisma $1.8 B loss of money that had come from US taxpayers. (Contrast this with the current claim that possibly Trump pressured Ukraine to look into this very thing.)

·         March 2016 Ukraine prosecutor Shokin had been looking into Burisma; Joe Biden steps in and gets him fired. (He later brags about this; there is video.) According to Shokin testimony in another case, when he was fired, there had been no complaints about his work, and Biden presented no incidents of his supposed corruption. He claims he was fired because of Biden and assumes it was because of his investigation into Burisma, because of Biden’s son’s connection with that company. But he was also investigating an NGO supported by both the US government and a George Soros-owned organization.

·         Also in March 2016, another “accounting error” loses and additional $2.2 million in US taxpayer IMP loan to Ukraine.

·         Also in March 2016, Lutsenko takes over as prosecutor in Ukraine.

·         Also in March 2016, Manafort briefly works for the Trump campaign. And Chalupa, still a DNC operative, starts working directly with the Ukrainian Embassy in the US, where she worked to (mis)direct reporters researching Manafort and Russia, to damage the campaign of the Republican candidate for president.

·         April 2016 Chalupa spoke at Open World Society forum on Manafort, bringing in Michael Isikoff, whom she had connected with the Ukrainians. In a May email she hinted about a Trump connection she was working on. Later Isikoff wrote a story on the Steel dossier; he had received that dossier—which eventually showed up with the FBI and was used to obtain a FISA warrant to investigate Trump.

·         Also April 2016, the DNC hired FusionGPS to investigate Trump. Bruce Ohr of the DOJ was married to a woman who worked for FusionGPS, which was hired by the DNC. It is reasonable to say, then, that the DNC was colluding with Ukraine to interfere with a US presidential election.

·         June 2016 The FBI officially combined with the Ukraine NACB.

·         June 2016 A black ledger containing financial records kept by the former Ukrainian president, used for under-the-table payments. The black ledger was put together by head of NACB, Sytnyk and Leshchenko. They illegally release these documents in August 2016. The same day that info comes out that sends Manafort to jail, Tony Podesta (who had been doing the same work for the former Ukrainian president) retires, closes doors on his lobbying business, and no one investigates.

·         Also in June 2016 Obama appoints a new US Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch. She calls in Lutsenko and instructs him not to investigate Burisma (and the missing $1.8 B) or the Soros-connected organization (and the missing $2.2 M), or a number of unnamed Ukrainians. Lutsenko, the new prosecutor for Ukraine, wanted to meet in the US with the DOJ. But the ambassador refused visas to him and his team. Specifically, they had wanted to discuss the following:

Glenn Beck explains what prosecutor Lutsenko wanted to share with DOJ
screenshot from here

o   DNC and Ukrainian officials were trying to gather dirt on Trump.

o   Misappropriation of $7 B in US money.

o   Ukrainian officials who admitted to influencing the US election.

o   Records showing Burisma sending $3 M to Hunter Biden (apparently way beyond his $600,00 in pay for being on their board).

o   Report of Biden pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.

o   US officials had interfered in cases in Ukraine.

·         November 2016 Trump won the election, a surprise to all these operatives.

·         July 12, 2017 Sarah Huckabee Sanders, at that time the incoming White House Press Secretary, in an off-camera briefing, tells media any actual collusion had happened between the DNC and the Ukrainian government and had specifically targeted people in the Trump campaign to influence the election. No follow-up questions from the media.

·         October 2017 Two Ukrainians (Sytnyk of NACB and Leshchenko) are found guilty of interfering in US election. US media doesn’t cover this. Evidence included prosecutor Lutsenko mentioning, in April, an audio the Americans had of Sytnyk conversation at his home, discussing how he would like to help Hillary, who was of the US and world hegemony, even though Trump would be better for the American people. Rosenblat leaked the audio recording, after the court heard it, in October 2017. It was front-page news in Ukraine, but not covered here.

·         Throughout 2018 Mueller investigation underway in US, and political upheaval is underway in Ukraine.

·         April 18, 2019 Mueller report shows there was zero collusion between Trump campaign and Russia.

·         April 29, 2019 Ukraine elects a comedic commentator as their new president, following an anti-corruption campaign.

·         May 2019 Trump fires US Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovitch.

·         Also May 2019 DOJ investigates the investigation into Trump. (Results are due out in the near future. There is some speculation that the impeachment talk is an effort to discredit the president and his administration ahead of this report.)

·         July 2019 New Ukrainian president recalls the Ukrainian ambassador to the US for corruption. Now no one is in the way of what prosecutor Lutsenko wanted to tell the US.

·         July 2019 Trump has a phone conversation with new Ukrainian president.

·         September 2019 a whistleblower with no direct information on the phonecall reports that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. The next day Trump provides the entire transcript of the call showing there was no wrongdoing; that same day Nancy Pelosi announces that ongoing committees will now be called an impeachment inquiry.

Earlier today, Glenn Beck interviewed investigative journalist John Solomon, who has done much of the digging into this story. The audio is available here (about 125 minutes in, during the 3^rd hour of the radio broadcast). 

Here are a couple more explanations from Glenn Beck:

·         “What Whistleblowers Are Supposed to Do,” procedures that were not followed in this case. Here on Facebook

·         This second one is more about the DNC operative: “The Chalupa Behind the DNC’s Ukraine Scandal.” Here  on Facebook

Here are several of the stories coming from John Solomon for The Hill:

·         March 20, 2019 “Senior Ukrainian official says he's opened probe into US election interference”    

·         April 1, 2019 “Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived” 

·         September 26, 2019 “Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story" 

·         October 8, 2019 “John Solomon claims newdocument shows 'significant shift' in 'factual timeline' of Ukraine matters”  Fox News Sean Hannity interview

John Solomon (left) being interviewed by Sean Hannity
screenshot from here

Here are a few more articles on the issue:

·         May 13, 2019 “Why Isn’t the Senate Investigating Joe Biden’s Son Hunter Over China, Ukraine Dealings?” for American Thinker by Monica Showalter 

·         September 26, 2019 “When Hillary Clinton Colluded with Ukraine” for American Thinker by Daniel John Sobieski 

·         October 10, 2019 “Ukraine President: We’re Ready To Investigate Ukraine’s Alleged Meddling In 2016 U.S.Election” for The Daily Wire by James Barrett 

Most of what you’re hearing on mainstream media is about Trump trying to discredit Biden and maybe hinting at something in a phonecall to the president of Ukraine. They’re missing the largest part of the story. You can find the facts, but it’s not that easy. The Glenn Beck Ukraine Scandal Explained video, below, was shadowbanned—meaning that some algorithm made it difficult to find even though it was much searched for.

The people who tried to effect a particular outcome in 2016 will be trying (harder) to do that in 2020. At least arm yourself with some truth. 

No One Has the Right to Rule Over Us

I don’t know if it’s obvious, but I don’t spend a lot of time covering the top news stories of the week here. This is more about the principles that lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization—which come under the category of political philosophy, rather than actual politics.

One of the principles of freedom is that the people grant government its powers, not the other way around. And we should always beware of power mongers—tyrants, who feel an inherent right to rule over other human beings.

So, this week’s news has been distracting me, as it probably has most people. But the underlying point is to understand and prevent tyranny.

To sum up,

·         The Democrats put announced there was a whistleblower’s report that a phonecall between the newly elected President of Ukraine and President Trump was a quid pro quo, pressuring Ukraine to investigate corruption that could be a political advantage to Trump. The call was simultaneously transcribed by several workers, whose words are then aligned to create as accurate record as possible. The whistleblower was not one of those transcribers, but apparently heard a leak that came, presumably, from one of them, each of whom would have had a security clearance that such a leak would violate. (Why is no one talking about the illegality of such a leak, and finding out who leaked?)

·         President Trump, with permission from the Ukrainian president, within a day put out the full unredacted transcript of the 30-minute phonecall, about 10 minutes of which was under question. Obviously, what was claimed about the phonecall was not actually spoken or done. No pressure. No quid pro quo.

·         Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, announced, the day after the whistleblower’s claim came out, that there would be an “official” Impeachment inquiry—a re-labeling of six committees already involved in a search for misconduct of the president. That is, not investigations into actual wrongdoing, but various searches for wrongdoing. Calling these already existing investigations officially an impeachment inquiry changes nothing about what they were doing, but it puts the word “impeachment” front and center. By the time she made this pronouncement, the transcript of the phonecall in question was already public, but she’d already set her plan in motion.

·         When it was clear the phonecall itself was not what they’d claimed, they then said the President was blocking the actual whistleblower report. So he had that released, with mild redactions (for national security and protection of names in the intelligence community). The additional claims were that there was a delay in giving certain aid, or selling certain arms, to Ukraine—with a claim that there was an implied quid pro quo of withholding those things until Ukraine followed through on the corruption investigation Trump advised in the phonecall.

In order to believe the claim that there was an impeachable offense, one must attribute motives and thoughts to the President that were not spoken and mostly do not coincide with records and timelines.

The “whistleblower,” who had no direct knowledge, observed some things that, if they were connected, might be construed to be pressure on a foreign government. But the whistleblower account reads much more like analysis than factual reporting.

Such analysis happens all the time. Think back to Jack Ryan, the analyst in Tom Clancy’s The Hunt for Red October. He sees some facts, and, based on his background understanding of one of the people involved, comes up with the theory that the Russian submarine Red October isn’t intending a renegade attack; it’s attempting to defect. It’s a wild speculation. In the meeting in which Jack Ryan presents it, his superior is concerned at how foolish such a wild speculation makes them look. But, because it’s fiction, the analysis gets traction, and the rest of the movie ensues.

An analysis isn’t a whistleblower report; it’s one person’s speculation about the meaning surrounding facts based on the analyst’s experience and biases. If it isn’t convincing to his superiors, it’s just another data point, set aside unless and until something more comes along to make it worth a second look. This “whistleblower,” reportedly someone in intelligence with an anti-Trump bias, wasn’t satisfied with his/her theory/speculation not being taken as fact, so he/she put it out as if it were a stifled whistleblower report (something that required a change in rules concerning whistleblowers in order to qualify).

People read the phonecall transcript differently, depending on how much they hate having Trump as our president. That doesn’t make it a fair reading.

I think it’s a fair assessment that the whole situation is evidence that there is indeed a Deep State—officials within government working toward wielding their own power, regardless of who the people elect—and that’s power mongering, which is antithetical to our constitutional republic.

Today on Andrew Klavan’s show [partial video on Facebook, entire audio podcast at The Daily Wire], he talks about this pretty accurately. Here’s the transcript from his Big Idea segment:

Andrew Klavan, September 30, 2019, screenshot from here

In a world of fake news, it’s important sometimes to remember the real news, the story that’s not being covered. And that story is this: The heads of the intelligence community, under Barak Obama, used Russian disinformation, bought and paid for by the Democrat Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, to launch a spying operation on an opposition candidate, namely Donald Trump. They then engineered and launched a two-and-a-half-year investigation into a Russia collusion hoax in order to distract from their incredible act of American subversion.

Today, as the Department of Justice Inspector General prepares his report on these doings and his DOJ Prosecutor John Durham leads a separate investigation, a completely meaningless story about Trump and the Ukrainian president, has replaced the collusion hoax as the tool of distraction, and is being covered by the press with the same breathless and reckless hysteria as the Russian hoax—and for the same reasons.

It’s as if the Russian hoax had never been exposed, but it has.

Now, why do I say the Ukraine story is meaningless? I say it because no one cares. Zero percent of the population of the United States cares if our loudmouth president said stupid stuff to the president of Ukraine. To put that in numerical terms, no people care. None.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There are people who care very deeply about hobbling Trump and getting him out of office. And they care very deeply about what they hope to get out of the Ukraine story. And there are people who care very deeply about defending Trump from the Deep State, and they care about disproving the story. But no one cares about the substance. It makes absolutely no difference to anyone if Trump was nudging the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter Biden’s obviously nepostistic sinecure with their stupid gas company, and Joe Biden’s likewise obviously compromised integrity because of it.

At the very worst—and I don’t believe this at all, by the way—but at the very worst, Trump was organizing a jerry-rigged, tape-entwined version of what Obama did to him using the full power of the government. It’s the exact story that the press, not only won’t cover, but is covering up what Obama did to Trump. And now Trump—if the worst of this is true—is sort of, kind of, maybe a little trying to do that to Joe Biden—which is absurd, because he would have much rather run against Joe Biden than Elizabeth Warren.

Now, you may say, well this could still be serious if it leads to impeachment. And we know that would be serious, because people keep saying that it’s serious. Reporters, politicians, commentators. Just listen to them. They all keep saying impeachment is a serious business. But, in fact, nothing is serious if it’s not done seriously. An impeachment show about something no one cares about, that will not result in the president leaving office, is only serious in the sense that it disgraces a legislature that no longer actually legislates, but spends all it’s time in politically motivated investigations and show trials when it’s not raising the debt ceiling to pay for the politically motivated investigations and show trials.

Want to know the news? Follow the Obama story—Obamagate. It’s a big scandal, and a dangerous scandal. And if anyone actually covers it and investigates it, it may begin to root out a Deep State that is willing to do and say anything to cover up the fact that it has gotten way, way out of control.

A bit later in the podcast, Klavan shares a couple of montages. First is one minute of a five-minute montage of the press fawning over Obama. Next is the media dishing up the “impeachment” idea, starting in November 2016, before Trump had taken office, on up through this past week.

from the montage included in the Klavan podcast
screenshot from here

What we have is a segment of society—and media, politicians, and other elites fit in here—that refuses to accept the results of an election. It was an election Hillary Clinton, with the help of a sitting president, attempted to secure through illegal means, and yet she lost. My guess is that Nancy Pelosi’s giving in to talking about impeachment now, after three years, when an election will come up before an actual impeachment could take place, is a desperation move intended to taint the president, because, based on the state of the economy and the increase in personal freedoms after Obama, the Democrats greatly fear Trump will be reelected, despite all their efforts.

As Klavan says later, this isn’t about any of the things they claim it is about:

The target is you. The target is to teach you a lesson: "Do not vote for whom we do not want you to vote for."

Those who feel they have the right to rule over us are tyrants, who should be kept as far away as possible from any of the reins of government.

If there is anything good that can come out of this, I hope it’s that truth will reveal the nefarious works of those trying to undermine the best and most important experiment in self-government in the history of the world.

Trump is not the enemy of our freedom. Maybe, as unpleasant as he is in the Twitter world, he’s exactly the tough leader we need to stand up to the tyranny. I hope he wins this particularly uncivil war against him, against us, and against our constitutional republic.