Remember When 3 Dem Senators Did PRECISELY What Schiff Accused Trump Of Doing?

Written by Wes Walker on January 23, 2020

If they vote to convict and remove the President, we must demand three Senators’ resignations the very same day.

Supposing this whole impeachment circus was NOT just a cynical ploy by the Democrats to smear the President, to drive wedges in the party, and to hurt the reelection chances of Republican senators in Blue States.

Supposing we could all suspend disbelief long enough to pretend this was all being done for the purest and most honorable of motives, what is being alleged?

Well, everything hinges on that phone call, right?

The core of their argument is that our security interests and Ukraine’s security interests are intertwined. If Ukraine is weakened, Russia is strengthened, and that hurts American interests. Ukranian lives were (at least hypothetically) lost and endangered.

And for what..? So that one political party could get dirt on the leadership of their rival. Threatening the national security of foreign governments by withholding much-needed defense aid unless they help you to dirty up your political opponent is the ‘worst’ kind of corruption we have ever seen in impeachment cases, because it is the most cynical kind of partisanship for personal, rather than national gain.

Sound about right? That’s basically the line that Schiff has been feeding us, right?

Let’s leave aside, for a moment, Schiff’s mystical psychic powers to definitively see into every private motive of every decision Trump has ever made. Supposing we accept in general terms the idea that pressuring vulnerable foreign allies by withholding much-needed defense dollars when the Russians are literally gobbling up their territory is a bad thing. And let us suppose that is made orders of magnitude worse if it is done to ‘get dirt on’ a political opponent.

Can Senate Democrats really point an angry finger at TRUMP with a straight face? Have they forgotten what their own members did in 2018?

They sent a letter to Ukraine, specifically raising the issue of their non-cooperation with the Mueller Report.

The letter also appears to dangle U.S. support for Ukraine as a reason for the country to continue cooperating with the investigation, stating, “In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building [democratic] institutions despite ongoing military, economic and political pressure from Moscow. We have supported that capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these principles.”

Meanwhile, Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy delivered a similar message to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this month, warning that Democratic support for the country could dwindle if he complied with the president’s requests to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
Source: DailyCaller

According to the ‘new rules’ we have been shown through these proceedings, a threat need not spoken openly and explicitly for it to be ‘understood’ as such and full compliance demanded… ‘or else’.

If it’s perfectly OK for Schiff to ‘read between the lines’ and throw around terms like ‘veiled threats’ and ‘for personal political gain’ when examining Trump’s reasons for inquiring about corruption touching on – among other things — a future political rival…

How is it any LESS likely that a party whose entire motto and strategy has become ‘The Resistance’ from day one of Trump’s Presidency, and who have openly called for his ouster from the day he was elected were operating for precisely the cynical motives Schiff and Senator Schumer are so desperately trying to ascribe to Trump?

If they cast a vote against Trump for ‘endangering American security’, do they not likewise damn their OWN actions?

Or should we REALLY believe the motives of Patrick Lehey, Dick Durbin, and Robert ‘The Jury didn’t convict me‘ Menendez?

As a side note, if it’s the Democrats’ claim that Trump can be ‘forever impeached’ even if the Senate acquits him, doesn’t that cut both ways?

Doesn’t that suggest that the DOJ dismissing charges rather than run a second trial against Menendez, despite ‘compelling’ evidence of guilt should likewise mean that HIS vindication means nothing? That we are free to assume he IS guilty, and only got off on a technicality?

Is this REALLY the kind of America the Democrats want for us? One in which guilt is assumed, and innocence must be proven?

Because that thinking has led many countries down some ugly — and bloody — roads.

And that’s the price tag that politics-by-smear comes with.