The Impeachment Trial of President Trump: Real Crime or Thought Crime?
SAN DIEGO. The attempt to remove President Trump from office via Impeachment casts a shameful shadow upon our country and our Constitution. This is because the charges against him are not genuine crimes associated with any proven action. They are instead pointing to what can at best be called “thought crime.”
That includes the latest “bombshell” from the New York Times.
Even their story (supposedly from an unpublished manuscript) about John Bolton recalling consideration for a quid pro quo between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky amounts to nothing.
Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s defense team and himself a Democrat who voted for Hillary, offered some interesting words in the Senate chamber:
“If a president, any president, were to have done what The Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense. Let me repeat: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,”
Professor Dershowitz should be commended for rising above the party and challenging people to be consistent regardless of their personal feelings about Donald Trump.
But consistency, proof, or hardcore evidence does not matter where thought police are concerned. Never mind, the actions; just figure out what the guy was thinking, what he wanted to do, what he almost did, or what he could have done.
The impeachment and Senate trial is on the verge of imploding.
For this reason, a fishing expedition is being attempted one last time by the Democrats to find some reason, any reason, to remove President Trump.
President Trump’s enemies are quite skilled at going back to the drawing board. Despite Democrats salivating with anticipation, Mueller’s conclusion is that there has been no collusion between Trump and the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. The ink on the Mueller report was barely dry before Democrats launched a new attack and drew up two very flimsy articles of impeachment.
This time, it was a phone call from President Trump to the president of Ukraine.
Part of it involved Joe Biden. While serving as vice-president, Biden had threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless a prosecutor was fired. This same prosecutor was going after Burisma Holdings Limited, an energy company where Biden’s son Hunter served as a board member.
In his call, Trump asked for Ukrainian corruption, including Burisma and the Bidens, to be investigated.
And then, with an irony that could only come from Washington, the very corruption Trump was looking into, he himself got accused of! An unnamed “whistleblower” claims Trump threatened to hold up financial aid to Ukraine if they didn’t do the Biden investigation.
So now they’re trying to nail the President for a phone call former Ambassador John Bolton calls “cordial.” Why not? What else is new? Since the night he won the election, a whole host of possible impeachment charges have been floated, from “racist comments,” to “financial conflicts of interest,” to “obstruction of justice;” you name it!
Before Trump was even inaugurated, House Democrats including Reps. John Lewis of Georgia and Jerrold Nadler of New York declared Trump an “illegitimate president.”
Then, in January, minutes after President Trump WAS sworn in, The Washington Post reported that the Democrats’ “campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.”
About 70 House Democrats boycotted Trump’s inauguration.
In August 2017, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., impressed several of the “objective” hosts on ABC’s “The View,” making it clear in no uncertain terms that she was “not running for anything except the impeachment of Trump!”
In 2018, when Rep. Rashida Talib was giving her acceptance speech, she said,
“We’re gonna go in there and we’re going to impeach the mother f****r,”
Months later, after the Mueller report failed to find any collusion, Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) said,
“I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected. If we don’t impeach him, he will say he’s been vindicated.”
This actually turned out to be one of the more honest comments from Democrats.
They don’t like Donald Trump. They still haven’t recovered from his surprise win in 2016. And they’ll do what it takes to deny him another win in 2020. Period!
Green’s comment came before the Ukraine phone call was pulled out of the grab bag as the latest prize. Once again, the Democrats thought they had something they could make stick.
Unfortunately, these latest insinuations do not match the facts:
- A transcript of the call was released. While Biden and his skilled, qualified son, Hunter, were brought up as people who should be investigated, no threat of withholding aid was mentioned on the call.
- Ukrainian President Zelensky himself said there was no quid pro quo.
- The money was released apart from a Ukrainian investigation.
- The temporary stall of the money had been unknown to Zelensky.
Is it possible that earlier on, President Trump had been exploring a different course of action in the presence of certain members of his administration? Of course, it’s possible. Presidents think out loud all the time before making decisions. They’re supposed to be free to speak their minds confidentially no matter what bizarre idea is being kicked around.
In the case of President Trump, he especially is known to speak without a filter. So who knows what he might have said to John Bolton or any other former, disgruntled associate. The bottom line is that it never happened in the end!
Can the same be said for Joe Biden?
What Trump apparently did no do, what they cannot provide evidence he did, the House impeached him over.
What Biden actually did, what he bragged about on camera, what Trump was concerned about, they ignore:
“I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. I said I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
But perhaps the most revealing words were Rep. Adam Schiff’s plea about the future before the U.S. Senate.
“We are here today to consider a much more grave matter, and that is an attempt to use the powers of the presidency to cheat in an election for precisely this reason. The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”
Putting aside the fact that the same Democrats who always express concern about election fraud are also against voter I.D., are you catching the two big takeaways here?
1) Trump needs to be impeached over what he MIGHT do in the future.
2) For this reason, you and I cannot be counted on to settle this with an actual, fair election.
Congress needs to decide the next election for us by first removing Trump. We’re too stupid to be trusted. So instead, these elitist, arrogant narcissists are going to make the decision for us!
Make no mistake; the crusade against President Donald Trump has offered nothing but thought crimes from thought police. We have heard about what he might have been thinking, what he might have done prior to deciding not to do it, or what he might do in the future. What we haven’t been hearing are crimes supported by facts!
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
Lead Image: President Donald J. Trump, joined by Vice President Mike Pence and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, signs the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020, in front of the South Portico of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)