The Schiff Charade Continues

The fear of President Donald Trump’s re-electon is too much for the Democrats to handle. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his party are clinging to their last-ditch effort with this phony impeachment hearing, despite any direct evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. 

In spite of egregious assertions by Democrats that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo, there is simply no evidence.

The impeachment hearings began on Nov. 13, with Schiff’s first two witnesses: William Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state. Both discussed what they heard between the chatter of other diplomats and officials, yet both lacked firsthand knowledge and neither were present for the July 25 phone call.

On the second day of the impeachment hearing, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, spent her time discussing how she was fired by Trump. When asked if she had any knowledge of criminal activity committed by the Trump administration, however, she replied no. 

During Yovanovitch’s opening statement, she admitted that she had no knowledge about the phone call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky and no knowledge about the withholding of military funds from Ukraine. 

“I’m not exactly sure what the ambassador is doing here today,” Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said. “The ambassador is not a material fact witness to any of the accusations that are being hurled at the president for this impeachment inquiry.”

Schiff’s star witnesses proved to have no firsthand knowledge of collusion, and instead spent their time speculating and complaining about the Trump administration. 

On the first day, witness testimonies sounded a lot like a child’s game of telephone. The Washington Post ran an article that said, “Kent didn’t hear this directly from Trump, but rather from other officials who talked to people who talked to Trump.” 

Of course the liberal news media served up their testimonies on a silver platter, claiming them to be “damning” and “chilling.”
What should be truly chilling, however, is the fact that neither witness had ever even met or spoken to Trump, yet they are to be considered credible and key witnesses in the process to impeach our president.

On day two, Yavanovitch’s testimony was a desperate appeal to pathos. The former ambassador was given the national platform to share her emotional story about being fired after 33 years at the U.S. State Department. 

The press once again couldn’t resist the opportunity to further divide and distract. 

NBC News published an op-ed by Mimi Rocah and Karen Schwartz drawing comparisons to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, claiming that “Yovanovitch seems to symbolize any woman who’s ever had a man try to undermine her, demote her or push her out.”

Don’t fall for the diversion. 

Schiff has tried every possible tactic in an effort to mislead and distract us from the facts. He lied on television that he had no prior knowledge of the whistleblower, he mischaracterized the phone-call transcript by adding his own conjecture, and now he is continuing his charade by introducing opinion witnesses that offer nothing more than speculation built on hearsay. 

Let’s look at the facts. 

Trump released the transcript of his conversation with Zelensky long before the start of this impeachment sham. 

At no point in the phone call did Trump engage in a quid pro quo. He didn’t demand Zelensky’s assistance or threaten the removal of U.S. aid, thus he has not committed what we should call an impeachable offense.

U.S. aid came up only once in the July 25 phone call: “I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are,” said Trump. “The United States has been very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very good to Ukraine.”

No threat. No demand. No collusion.

Zelensky himself explained that the phone call was “normal,” adding that if “you read it, that nobody pushed me.”

On day four of the impeachment hearing, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland testified that “President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the investigation.” 

Sondland said that he “never heard those words from the president.” In fact what Trump told Sondland was quite the opposite; “No Quid Pro Quo. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing. Do what he ran on.” 

We can choose to believe Schiff and his opinion witnesses caught up in their game of telephone and speculation, we can fall for the emotional distraction perpetrated by the media that has zero connection to the impeachment hearing, or we can read the transcript ourselves and listen to those who were actually part of the conversation.

Even if you choose not to believe that Trump’s phone call was “perfect” or “normal” as both leaders claim, then let’s take a look at what has happened since the phone call.

First, Ukraine received its military aid from the United States. Second, Ukraine never promised to investigate Joe Biden and his corrupt business dealings that landed his son, Hunter on the board of a major oil production company. And third, Trump met with Zelensky in September at the United Nations and there was no announcement of any investigation. 

It seems rather hard to prove that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo when the “quo” is non-existent. Zelensky got his military aid, and Trump received yet another malicious attack by the left.

The entire impeachment hearing is a sham and it’s time for us all to see what is taking place and not allow the principles of our constitution and the structure of our democracy to be violated. As Schiff holds supreme power over the impeachment hearing, he has the capability to block any and all witnesses from testifying. 

A court of law entitles people to due process and a fair and speedy trial. Mischaracterizations, speculations, and hearsay would all be struck from the record and the jury would be told to disregard the testimonies.

The American people are the jury. In Schiff’s circus, though, the truth doesn’t matter, fairness isn’t valued, and evidence is rejected. 

​