BY JOHN SHAFFER
Well, self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders has won his third consecutive primary/caucus in the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President.
BY JOHN SHAFFER
Those of us with long memories can recall those heady days of impeachment, when the Democrats, led by Adam Schiff, declared – repeatedly – that Hunter Biden did nothing wrong by having a position on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian oil firm. They, and he, also declared that there was no legitimate reason for President Trump to be interested in any investigation of that matter; and further declared that presidential politics and the desire to sully the good name of a political rival (that is, Hunter’s father Joe Biden) were the only possible motivations for President Trump to be interested in the case at all.
As we and others noted, at the time Hunter Biden joined the board, the mainstream and leftish press, AND members of the Obama administration State Department itself, raised numerous concerns and red flags about Hunter Biden. These were swept under the rug by the upper ranks of the Obama administration. Testimony along the same lines from several witnesses called before Cong. Schiff’s committee were ignored by Cong. Schiff. Former Vice President Joe Biden, on the campaign trail, even claimed, “Nobody warned me about a potential conflict of interest. Nobody warned me about that.” Given the statements from the witnesses, the honesty of that claim may safely be called into question.
BY JOHN SHAFFER
The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump is over, and he was acquitted of both charges. And, just as he is “impeached forever” in the words of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, he also is “acquitted forever.” He is the third President to join that exclusive list, Andrew Johnson being the first, and Bill Clinton the second. Mr. Clinton, by the way, was impeached and acquitted and later received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, putting him in that category with Rush Limbaugh, whose Medal is decried by the purer among us.
But, let’s get back to topic. President Trump was impeached on a party-line vote, after a House proceeding which left out three very important things: President Trump was not 1) given the presumption of innocence; 2) was not allowed to call witnesses; and 3) was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses (without the questions and their wording being approved by Chief Inquisitor Adam Schiff). Those are three hallmarks of fair trials and justice in this country, and the fact that the House Democrats denied them to the President, makes their assertions that the President is not acquitted because he didn’t receive a “fair trial” in the Senate is laughable. Going to the historical record, there never has been a “witness” in a Senate Presidential Impeachment Trial who had not already been a witness or been deposed in the relevant House proceeding. So much for the House managers’ new demand for witnesses in the Senate trial. They had ample opportunity to make their case, but failed to do so. The Senate had zero influence on the House proceedings, which is proper. The Senate was under no obligation - legal, moral or ethical – to allow the House to run the Senate trial. Just remember, it is the House that considers President Trump to be a dictator, yet they are the ones who ran a court as a dictator does, with no rights for the accused.
BY JOHN SHAFFER
Although the identity of “The Whistleblower” whose letter triggered the impeachment fiasco has been an open secret in Washington DC for several months, it still remains a secret to to the general public. “The Whistleblower” supposedly is a man who is a Democratic Party operative and former National Security Council member. The relevant statute guards against retaliation (that is, being fired, etc.) against a “Whistleblower.” Although the law does prevent the Inspector General from disclosing the “Whistleblower’s” name, it does not demand anonymity for the “Whistleblower,” and no one else legally is prohibited from revealing his name. Nonetheless, at the insistence of Adam Schiff, Grand Inquisitor, the identity has been scrupulously protected. Odds are, this is because Cong. Schiff’s staff had extensive pre-letter associations with the man, and these would not only be embarrassing (to Mr. Schiff) if disclosed, but also would undercut the entire premise of the proceedings.
Enter Sen. Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky. During the 16-hour question and answer period of last week’s impeachment trial, Sen. Paul twice asked the Chief Justice of the United States a question that incorporated the name of the “Whistleblower,” although it did not mention the word “Whistleblower” nor ask his identity. Nonetheless, the Chief Justice declined to read the question. Later Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, reworded the question, even referring to “an individual alleged as the whistle-blower,” but omitting the name asked by Sen. Paul, and asked it of the Chief Justice, who did read the question. Of course, indignant inquisitor Adam Schiff refused to answer the question, but the key fact is this: When Sen. Paul asked the question that used the actual name, the Chief Justice did not read it. When Sen. Johnson asked the question, actually using the word “whistleblower” but not the name, the Chief Justice read it. This leaves us little choice but to conclude that, although Adam Schiff might pretend he does not know the identity of the “whistleblower,” the Chief Justice is pretty sure who it is, and so does practically everyone else. No other explanation makes any sense, as there could have been no other reason why the question wasn’t asked except because it included the embargoed name.