Connect with us


Panicking & Desperate To Stop Trump, Pelosi, Schiff Advance Baseless Impeachment Inquiry

Elder Patriot’s Opinion, Speculation and Analysis – The way I see it, once Americans handed control of the House to Democrats impeachment became inevitable.  Even before the new House was sworn in, Speaker Pelosi was allegedly rewriting the House rules in preparation for a partisan impeachment effort, in my view.

(CTH’s POV) Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {Go Deep} With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment.

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now.  The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (Republicans) would have enforceable rights within it.  Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive.  This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules. (read more)

As House Democrats moved towards impeachment, anti-Trump elements in the intelligence community – surprise, surprise – were likely, in my opinion, changing rules of their own to facilitate the creation of a predicate to justify impeachment.

For all of history a whistleblower had to pass two criteria; he or she had to have first-hand knowledge of the incident in their complaint and, as a measure of their credibility, they must show no bias against their target.

The current whistleblower qualifies on neither count.

Tweets are the opinion of their author, not necessarily

The reason for the first criterion seems obvious to me.  You can’t go into any court of law relying on hearsay as evidence but for Pelosi, and her rabid dog Democrats, that is an inconvenient fact to be ignored.

In a proceeding as solemn as the impeachment of the President of the United States, where the end result is overturning an election, the bar for evidence should be at least that high.

Especially when the president remains as popular as he currently is according to this poll.

As I see it, Impeachment in this instance would serve to tell the American people that their votes no longer matter.

To proceed with impeachment, Pelosi needs a requisite predicate, no matter how weak or unbelievable it might be. 

Enter the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), Michael K Atkinson who accepted the ‘hearsay’ complaint about the president’s phone call, allegedly without any direct knowledge of what was said.

Funny thing about Atkinson, he was the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016 while that division was the epicenter of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax as I see it.

Today, he’s the ICIG and, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that under his watch the criterion to qualify as a whistleblower was expanded to include reporting on hearsay.

H/T Sean Davis of the Federalist:

‘Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.’ 

We have not been able to 100% confirm this document’s authenticity, so let’s speculate. If the form is to be believed, it was changed last month after the president’s phone conversation with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy.

 To buttress the complaint, it appears that the whistleblower was given some help in crafting his complaint… allegedly, quite a bit of help.

This has all the hallmarks of the debunked Steele dossier that the IC used to smear President Trump, in my view.  I Call it the Schiff dossier. And it appears to be just as specious in its rollout.

There were a  number of other persons listening in on the call, including some from the IC, with first-hand knowledge of the call.  Why haven’t any of them come forward to file a complaint?

More to the point, why would Pelosi publicly authorize an impeachment proceeding without first questioning those who were on the call? To the best of my knowledge she neglected to do this as well. 


“We. Must. Fight.” (it’s a figure of speech not a call to action.)

Sick of FB C**S**S**P?  Join SPREELY.COM, The Social Network For Free People!  It’s Chocked Full Of Patriots! 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

To Top