What are your general thoughts on Impeachment?

As you can imagine I fall on the side of the President and Republicans just like the vote. I’ve read the transcript several times. It is a fast read and I suggest everyone read it for themselves. Click here. I do not see the crime in asking the newly elected President of Ukraine to cooperate with investigating to see if a former Vice President committed a crime. That is what it is going to boil down to. Answer the question. Is it a crime to ask someone to cooperate in the investigation of a crime? If someone claims it is a crime because the person involved is a potential political candidate for President, does that mean people running for President are above the law? I thought Nancy Pelosi and everyone is saying nobody is above the law. I also thought the Dems were good with having then-candidate and now President Trump investigated.

What do you think about the vote taken in the House?

Impeachment should be a bipartisan thing. Historians from both parties agree to this single fact. The Democrats could not get a single Republican to vote for the impeachment inquiry. On top of that two Democrats voted against the measure along with the Republicans. It is amazing they could not find a single Republican to vote with them. This should tell us all something about this process and the premise.

What do you think about the opening statement of Colonel Vindman and those who attacked him?

I read through his opening statement. Like other issues, I suggest people read it before they comment. Click this link to read the entire opening statement. I will paste in what I think is pertinent below.

On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him.

On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.

I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.

I noticed the NSC (National Security Council) proposed the call between the Presidents. The call was monitored by the NSC and the office of the VP. The transcript is a matter of public record.

President Trump has made his views clear about the “Security” agencies even as a candidate. He doesn’t completely trust them. It was Chuck Schumer who said:

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

  • Remember, Chuck Schumer is the top Democrat in the Senate. He was not being kind but at this point, he was being honest. Could it be this was a set up by the NSC? Are they part of what we now know as the “deep state”? I’m just asking questions.
  • With so many people on the phone call would Trump say anything he thought was illegal? Is it wrong for a President to ask for the cooperation of foreign leaders to investigate crimes committed in their country by our politicians? Again, is Biden above the law?
  • Go read the transcript! We are back to that again. Vindman said it was a matter of public record so he is not suggesting a cover-up. Whatever Vindman thought was wrong is there for all of us to read.
  • Vindman uses words like concerned, think, worried, could be, interpreted. These are not the words we used in the military when making a point of fact. They are words we used when making opinions known. So, all we know so far is Vindman holds an opinion that is the opposite of President Trump.

Finally, I know he received the Purple Heart. However, I do not know the man but I knew plenty of people who got wounded and receive the Purple Heart. If any veteran is seriously injured my heart goes out to them. However, a Purple Heart is meaningless when it comes to measuring character. It is like saying the person was in the wrong place at the wrong time and that sucks. Good and bad people get shot and seriously injured. Again, all I’m saying is it does not speak to a person’s character one way or the other. In that respect it is neutral. Acts of valor are different.

There’s your “bombshell” testimony.

 

%d bloggers like this: