Those of us with discernment have long recognized the impeachment proceedings against President Trump for what they are: A partisan attempt by the Democrats to oust a president they know will be difficult, if not impossible, to beat in this year's election. Why else would many in that party have been looking for ways to impeach him even before he took office? And they chose to use the claims of a "deep state" federal employee who disagrees with his superiors' policies as the impetus to push this laughable move to subvert the will of the American electorate.
After the urgency with which the House Democrats moved the articles, saying Trump was a danger to American security and needed to be removed from office, they proved themselves to be hypocrites as Nancy Pelosi refused to hand them over to the Senate for action until she got certain concessions on how the trial would be conducted.
We've been told over and over again how the impeachment process was similar to grand jury proceedings, and that the impeachment is akin to an indictment. If that's the case, then Pelosi's shenanigans are no different than a grand jury foreman demanding that a trial be conducted according to his or her wishes.
Pelosi finally had to abandon her demands, but her ploy may have backfired. Developments change nearly daily in the matter, but as of now it appears that Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans may acquiesce to the Democrats' demands that additional witnesses who weren't heard during the House hearings be called during the trial, but with the caveat that Republicans can call their own witnesses. "Tit for tat," it's been described.
This is actually brilliant. If John Bolton or Mike Mulvaney are going to testify, then why not Joe Biden? After all, the whole thing started when Trump called for an investigation into Biden withholding U.S. funding to Ukraine until a prosecutor who was investigating his son was fired.
Funny how that works. Biden gets no scrutiny for his role in withholding American money -- in fact, this country's left and their accomplices in the mainstream media have defended that act -- yet somehow Trump's a bad guy because he supposedly withheld American money until Biden's actions were addressed.
And how about Eric Ciaramella, the all-but-acknowledged whistleblower whose complaints about Trump got this whole process underway? Shouldn't he be required to give an accounting of himself and why he felt Trump's acts were wrong?
Why not call Adam Schiff? It doesn't matter that he's one of the House managers for the trial. Prosecutors can also be witnesses, and there's evidence that Ciaramella coordinated his complaint with Schiff. Why did he go beyond any reasonable role a whistleblower might take and actively consult with a congressman who could push for impeachment?
The idea that this is anything akin to a criminal trial is absurd. Think back to the trial of Bill Clinton. There were no witnesses, only advocates. No evidence was presented. It was a foregone conclusion that there were not 67 votes in the Senate to remove Clinton, but Trent Lott rigged the process to guarantee that outcome. Had it been a real trial, Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress would have been Exhibit 1 for the prosecution. Democrats were happy with not having a real trial back then. Why have they changed their minds?
Be careful what you wish for, Democrats. You just might get it. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. There's no possibility of Trump being removed from office. Even if some of the spineless Republicans like Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, or Susan Collins join the Democrats, there's no way they can get to a two-thirds majority to oust him. No one's mind will be changed in the Senate trial. In fact, the process has galvanized Trump's supporters in the electorate. Media reports stated that fully half of the crowd at his recent raucous Toledo, Ohio, rally was Democrats or independents. If anything, the impeachment and ongoing persecution of Trump has turned him into a victim.
If Democrats really want him out of office, there's an election this year. But they are increasingly coming to realize they don't have a candidate who can topple the incumbent. The socialism of Bernie Sanders and Fauxcahontas Warren, the bumbling corruption of Joe Biden, the warped views on spirituality and morality of Pete Buttigieg -- none of that can compete with a booming economy, new trade deals that benefit Americans first, withdrawals from one-sided treaties that don't advance American interests, and a foreign policy that targets terrorists while trying to cut back on American involvement around the globe and asking other nations to pull their own weight.
There's an added bonus to the trial's timing. Candidates such as Sens. Sanders, Warren, Amy Kloubachar, and Michael Bennet will have to decide whether they want to return to Washington to sit as jurors, or if they want to remain on the campaign trail as the Iowa caucuses and several primaries approach. The trial may take six days a week for as long as six weeks, longer if additional witnesses are called, so those senators face a dilemma. Do they allow Biden, the perceived front-runner, to maintain his lead or Buttigieg to make up ground? Or do Sanders and Warren in particular decide to forego the trial for their presidential aspirations?
As anti-climactic as the trial results are going to be, the event itself is worthy of the Big Top. The whole affair has been one big circus, and Act 2 may provide plenty of entertainment, even if the outcome isn't in doubt. Ladies and gentlemen, and children of all ages, let the show begin.
