Share This Article with a Friend!


Fact-Free Impeachment Redux

Trump on hearings
After weeks of secret hearings and depositions and two weeks of carefully orchestrated public “testimony” one thing is clear about the impeachment of President Donald Trump: The only thing the open hearings accomplished was showing the American people that the President did nothing wrong.

After countless hours wasted on these hearings, Democrats still have zero evidence of wrongdoing by the President. Democrats droned on and on for hours about the President’s July 25th call with Zelensky – when every American can read the transcript and see that it was completely appropriate. President Trump explicitly stated he didn’t want anything from Ukraine and the testimony established beyond all doubt that the President did not want a quid pro quo.

Democrats repeatedly relied on witnesses who have no communication with the President. Witness after witness passed along speculation, hearsay, and assumptions – while admitting they had no direct knowledge regarding the events at hand. The only person who heard directly from the President on Ukraine was Ambassador Sondland – and the President told him he wanted no quid pro quo.

Indeed, multiple witnesses outright denied having any evidence of a quid pro quo, bribery, or extortion – whatever Democrats’ focus groups want to call it. But don’t take our word for it, or accept the Democrat spin as fact, read what the “witnesses” actually said:

Taylor and Kent were both asked directly if there was anything in the President’s July 25th call that was impeachable and neither said yes.

Williams and Vindman confirmed they have never used the words “bribery or bribe” to describe the events in question.

Volker and Morrison testified that they were never a part of any bribery or extortion.  

VOLKER: “I was never involved in anything that I consider to be bribery at all.”

QUESTION: “Okay. Or extortion?”

VOLKER: “Or extortion.”

QUESTION: “Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?”

MORRISON: “No, sir.”

Yovanovitch testified that she had no information whatsoever regarding bribery or criminal activity by President Trump.

QUESTION: “Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?”

YOVANOVITCH: “No.”

QUESTION: “Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all.”

YOVANOVITCH: “No.”

No one has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo tied to the aid and Volker confirmed that he never received “any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo.”

QUESTION: “Mr. Zeldin asked you in the deposition that in no way, shape or form in either readouts from the United States or Ukraine did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo, is that correct?”

VOLKER: “That’s correct.”

Sondland confirmed that “no one told [him] directly that the aid was tied to anything,” he was simply making a presumption.

Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that the President asked for a quid pro quo for a White House meeting with Zelensky and according to Sondland, the President never said that investigations were a precondition for a White House meeting.

QUESTION: “The President never told you about any preconditions for a White House meeting?”

SONDLAND: “Personally, no.”

When asked, Volker declined to say that a public statement on corruption was a “condition” for a White House meeting.

QUESTION: “In fact, it was a necessary condition as you understood at that point. Right?”

VOLKER: “I wouldn’t have called it a necessary condition.”

What’s more, so-called “witnesses” repeatedly relied on hearsay, presumptions, guesses, inferences, and assumptions.

The only witness who directly spoke with the President was Sondland, who said the President told him “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”

Sondland wasn’t able to offer any firsthand knowledge about the aid being withheld.

QUESTION: “What facts or what firsthand accounts can you provide about the aid holdup?”

SONDLAND: “None… Other than I was aware of it.”

Taylor testified that he didn’t know what the President was “thinking about the Ukrainians,” and could only provide accounts of what he heard from other people.

TAYLOR: “What I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people.”

Holmes was brought in to testify about this call he allegedly overheard – yet the only person actually on the call with the President was Sondland who had already testified about it and said the call was not significant.

SONDLAND: “[T]he July 26 call did not strike me as significant at the time.”

SONDLAND: “The aid was my own personal, you know, guess based again on your analogy, two plus two equals four.”

What has become vividly apparent throughout the process to ratify Rep. Adam Schiff’s effort to frame and railroad President Trump out of office is that there are no facts backing up the charge that Trump committed any “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and that he is being impeached for purely political reasons.

Democrats have not set forth any facts that support any claim of criminal conduct by President Trump. What is going on here is the criminalization of policy differences and the creation of a process to legitimize the raw hatred Democrats and the permanent political class have for Donald Trump. This is something not seen in our country since the lead up to the Civil War and it bodes ill for the internal peace and tranquility that has, over the past 154 years, made America great.

Share this

Trump Impeachment

None of these facts are going to matter to the democrats or the left. They will vote for impeachment simply because they hate Trump.