The media has gone into a frenzy with the news that the Trump administration fired Alexander and Yevgeny Vindman, the twin brothers who starred as the "anti-Trump heroes" in the impeachment saga.

But like almost all of their reporting in the last four years, the media is getting it wrong - and they're hurting themselves in the process.

Tweedledee and Tweedledum

"You've begun wrong!" That's how the self-assured Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum responded to Alice in Wonderland when she tried to introduce herself.

The supercilious Vindman twins are very much like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, deeming themselves the arbiters of "appropriate" behavior on the part of the President.

w

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman listened in on President Trump's July 25, 2019, phone call and determined that the President had done something wrong.

He then did something wrong himself. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was willing to subvert the chain of command because he thought that President Trump had "inappropriately" requested the aid of the Ukrainian president to investigate corruption that involved Hunter Biden.

He did not report the inappropriate conversation to his immediate superior Tim Morrison.

Instead, he contacted his brother, an NSC attorney, Deputy Secretary of State George Kent, and an unknown person (probably the whistleblower) according to his own testimony during the House impeachment inquiry.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

In the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings Vindman revealed his inflated opinion of himself as he corrected House Judiciary Committee Ranking member Devin Nunes for calling him "Mr. Vindman" instead of Lt. Col. Vindman.

In his testimony, Vindman came across as a tattletale, but his tales were not told to the person in authority, but about the person in authority; as if he said, "Teacher, teacher, the president broke the rules!" forgetting that the president makes the rules when it comes to foreign policy.

Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman

It has been reported that Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, an NSC ethics lawyer, may have reviewed former ambassador John Bolton's manuscript "The Room Where it Happened."

Parts of this manuscript were leaked to the media, triggering the Democrat House managers to demand that John Bolton testify at the Senate impeachment trial. They claimed that Bolton's testimony would show that the president was holding up military aid to Ukraine to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

Who leaked it?

Vindictive, retaliation, retribution

Of course, the mainstream media is already decrying the removal of Vindman Dee and Vindman Dum running headlines like these:

  • Washington Post: "Trump ousts Vindman and Sondland, punishing key impeachment witnesses in post-acquittal campaign of retribution"
  • Washington Post: "With Vindman’s dismissal, Trump gets especially vindictive"
  • Business Insider: "Trump also fired the twin of impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in apparent retaliation for his brother's testimony"
  • ABC News: "Emboldened Trump fires 2 officials who testified in impeachment inquiry"

The mainstream media wants to spin the removal of the Vindman twins as vindictive retribution and retaliation. They continue to argue that Trump does not have the right to appoint and fire whom he will in his own administration.

But they are misleading their readers.

President Trump needs support, not spies

The president has the right to hire and fire whom he will to staff his administration. He needs to purge the White House of overweening bureaucrats who are spying on him and leaking to the media.

These spies and leakers have been obstructing him for 3 years now. It is high time that he surrounds himself with people that share his vision and support him, not career officials who obstruct him.

The entire nation has been through a gut-wrenching political nightmare as the Democrats in Washington acted out a three-year temper tantrum because Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

Now, it's time to celebrate and thank God that the efforts of the Democrats to remove the President have failed. The country is still in one piece thanks to sober-minded Republicans in the Senate.

Acquitted forever

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell deserves a lot of the credit for guiding the impeachment trial calmly through to the predictable end, not allowing Chuck Schumer and the Democrat House managers to bully him into giving them more than they deserved.

McConnell held the line, maintaining that the impeachment was illegitimate and should be treated as such in the Senate. And the Democrats were bullies, threatening all sorts of dire consequences if the Senate didn't give them their way. No matter, President Donald Trump is forever acquitted. 

State of the Union

In spite of the colossal efforts of the House Democrats to obstruct President Trump, he had a great year.

His SOTU was a long list of accomplishments including the signing of the trade agreement USMCA, historically low unemployment rates through every demographic, a roaring stock market, and millions of new jobs.

10 million people are off the welfare rolls.

Trillions of dollars of wealth have been created by the roaring stock market.

The Senate has approved 187 judges.

The President reaffirmed his commitment to life, promising to push a ban on late-term abortions, and he committed to pursuing school choice for American families. In spite of the 24/7 media blitz against him, the President is enjoying a good approval rating that remained steady throughout the impeachment process.

The impeachment effort by the Democrats only seemed to consolidate the President's support among the GOP senators and congressmen. This party unity has been forming since the beginning of this Congress, and it is very welcome. With the support of Republicans in the House and Senate, the President should enjoy even more success.

Pelosi and the Democrats

No doubt the Democrats will make another run at the President, but they run the risk of crying wolf too many times. Americans of every political stripe are tired of the hysterics coming out of D.C.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to signal her frustration with the failure of impeachment when, at the end of the State of the Union speech, she tore up her printed copy in a childish display of temper.

UnMITTigated Disaster

Then there's Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is either gullible or malicious. This writer believes the latter.

He has opposed President Trump since he joined the Senate in 2019 after cultivating the President's endorsement to win his senate seat. He justified voting to convict President Trump for obstruction of congress as the morally right thing to do to fulfill his oath.

Romney accepted the Democrat's accusation that the only reason President Trump would want the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens would be to affect the 2020 election, refusing to entertain the idea that the president had a legitimate reason to look into corruption, especially by a former vice president. He invoked the name of God, his oath, and his faith as reasons to vote to convict:

But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

Romney said he could not ignore the evidence, but the Democrats presented no evidence, only hearsay, and presumption. If Romney, along with the Democrats were successful in convicting the President with such "evidence" the Republic could no longer provide justice for all.

Romney's decision to embrace the Democrats accusations will make him a political pariah, and rightly so. He should really consider switching to the party that hates the president as much as he does. Utah has to be embarrassed to have to own the one GOP senator that voted against the President. Even before the vote, a movement was underway in Utah to remove Romney. Go Utah!

The Ingraham Angle provides some great commentary on the momentous events:

If you were having trouble understanding what the Iowa caucuses are, the stunning lack of results will only increase your confusion. This writer is too lazy to find out how the caucuses work, and now I really don't want to know.

But the Democrat candidates vying for the nomination to run for president care very much and had a lot riding on the results out of Iowa. They have been campaigning in Iowa, it seems like for months, spending millions and millions to win the caucuses.

Candidates are issuing their own results based on their own internal data, to bolster their campaigns. Mayor Pete claimed an "undeniable reality" that he is headed to New Hampshire victorious.

There is speculation that the results are not being reported because Joe Biden performed poorly and Bernie Sanders got the most delegates. That is bad news for the Democrat party.

Now on the day after the President's State of the Union speech, 71% of precincts are reporting that Pete Buttigieg is at the top with Bernie in second! The only surprise here is the choice of Buttigieg in first. No one doubted that Bernie would best Biden in the Iowa contest. We are still waiting for the final results.

The problem of Bernie

There has been fear in the Democrat party that Bernie Sanders would come out on top of the Iowa caucuses, with many in the mainstream media trying to torpedo his campaign. Remember the last Democrat debate, where Elizabeth Warren tried to take Bernie out as a sexist?

The Democrats fear Bernie because they believe if he gets the nomination, he could not beat Trump in the 2020 general election. But really, who, in the Democratic field could? Klobuchar? Warren? Buttigieg? Biden?

In a moment of honesty, MSNBC host Chris Matthews said he is not happy with the Democrat field. Apparently, he doesn't believe any of them, including Bernie, can beat Trump, but he believes that Bernie will win Iowa and New Hampshire, which is a problem for the Democrats because Sanders won't be able to beat Trump.

Watch:

Chaos equals opportunity

Whether it was intentional, as some cynics believe, or unintentional, the chaos in Iowa could be the perfect opportunity to jettison the state's status as trendsetter. Matthews has been very vocal about the candidates, but he also has been lobbying to move the first voting on the Democrat candidates away from Iowa to a warmer, more progressive and diverse state, California. He thinks the Democrats are wasting their time in a little state like Iowa, and that the mess in Iowa is a good reason to ditch Iowa.

Former candidate Julian Castro called for the first Democrat primary to be moved to a state that better reflects the diversity of the Democrat party, (Iowa, like the Democrats running for the nomination, is too white for his taste.)

36 hours after the close of the caucuses, Democrats are calling for a change of venue.

Senator Dick Durbin also called for the end of the first in the nation status of the Iowa caucuses.

Democrats are saying Iowa can't count and Iowa should lose its "first in the nation" status.

Iowans can't be very happy to wake to a less than complimentary national status now. Democrat Iowans should reconsider their party affiliation. Perhaps they should switch to a party that respects them as Americans. 

Update:

Over the weekend the DNC chairman Tom Perez did not rule out the possibility that Iowa would lose its first-in-the-nation status in the 2024 election cycle.

Republicans on the chaos

Republicans are taking the opportunity to say that the Democrats want to run the entire US economy but they can't seem to count in Iowa.

Tucker Carlson provided his incisive commentary on the mess in the Democrat party.

Watch:

During the questioning period of the impeachment trial, Chief Justice John Roberts refused the question that Paul sent to the desk. Today, Paul read the question on the Senate floor. The question was refused, presumably, because it contained the identity of the now-infamous "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella. Paul pointed out that Adam Schiff denies knowing who the whistleblower was and no one else knows, including Roberts, so how can his question about Ciaramella be disallowed? Roberts refusal to read the question unintentionally reveals the identity of the whistleblower.

Adam Schiff revealed that he knew that Lt. Col. Vindman knew the whistleblower when Rep. Devin Nunes questioned Col. Vindman in the House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry meeting. Schiff warned Vindman to not answer questions that might reveal the whistleblower, which prompted Nunes to point out that Vindman had already testified in his deposition that he didn't know who the whistleblower was, so how was it possible to out the whistleblower.  Vindman then said he was advised not to testify about anyone in the intelligence community.

Rand Paul's question

Manager Schiff and counsel for the president, are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when working at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

Paul justified asking the question because there had been news articles about their activities. "If six people working together gamed the system to bring down the President, we should know about that. "

Please watch Senator Paul's speech here:

Politico reports:

Paul said Tuesday that he supports protections against reprisal for whistleblowers but not necessarily anonymity.

"In the first month of [Trump's] office, in January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment," he alleged. "And you say 'Well, we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserves anonymity.' The law does not preserve anonymity. His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he's not supposed to be fired. I'm for that."

The Democrats want to keep the identity of the whistleblower secret, and the media, the House Democrats, and the Chief Justice have protected his identity so far. But Paul claims that the law provides protection from retaliation and termination, but does not promise anonymity. Perhaps the senator should have sent that question to the Chief Justice. Does the whistleblower law protect the anonymity of the whistleblower?

Secret Courts endanger freedom

The whistleblower is just one piece of the coup. The resistance in the intelligence community also weaponized the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court)  and FISA warrant process to spy on President Trump. Senator Paul has been warning that the use and abuse of secret courts endanger the liberties of the American people, and now he has real ammunition to demand reforms in the secret FISC since the ICIG report on FISA abuse. Since the revelations of the Horowitz report in December 2019, the DOJ has admitted that two of the FISA warrants granted to spy on President Trump's campaign aide, Carter Page, lacked probable cause and were therefore illegal. These abuses weren't just "mistakes," as sloppy James Comey asserted, but malicious attempts to unseat a duly elected president. Do we need to rehearse how harmful such actions are to the security and peace of the country?

Never again

Paul insisted that his question needs to be answered and we need to know how this all started so that it never happens again. Americans should insist that the perpetrators of this unprecedented and dangerous coup be held accountable so that this can never happen again.

 

 

The House impeachment managers and President Trump's counsel made their closing arguments today before the entire world.

The President's lawyers were well reasoned and thoughtful. The same can't be said for Adam Schiff.

Patrick Philbin: voice of reason

The president's counsel made their closing arguments in a respectful, organized way. Patrick Philbin argued in his reasonable, clarifying way, that the House managers hadn't followed the law in the impeachment process.

In very significant and important respects they didn’t follow the law. From the outset, they began an impeachment inquiry here without a vote from the House, and therefore without lawful authority delegated to any committees to begin an impeachment inquiry against the president of the United States. That was unprecedented in our history.

Watch Philbin's closing argument:

Jay Sekulow

Jay Sekulow rehearsed the arguments proving that neither impeachment article brought by the House managers rose to the level of impeachment. He then showed that the House Democrats had been planning to impeach President Trump from the moment he was inaugurated.

Sekulow provided slides and video of the Democrats talking about impeaching the president even before he was inaugurated.

Schiff, Alaska and Jared Kushner

After the reasonable and calm presentations of the president's lawyers, Adam Schiff's closing statements came across as hysterical and poorly reasoned. He even claimed that if Donald Trump was allowed to remain in office, he might even give Alaska to Russia! The House Democrats even drew from the King James Version of the Bible, citing the president's love for "filthy lucre."

Schiff hysterically argued that if "abuse of power" was not impeachable, then President Trump could give Alaska to the Russians! or permanently move to Maralago and let Jared Kushner run the country!

Watch:

The neverending impeachment

If you think that the impeachment trial will be over when the Senate votes to acquit the president on Wednesday, think again. Steve Bannon, a former White House adviser to the president, says impeachment will not end until the Democrats no longer control the House.

No surprise

Anyone following the "soft coup" to remove the president will not be surprised at the idea that the Democrats will continue to leak damaging information about President Trump. They will continue to go after people like John Bolton in order to get them to betray the president.

Spies in the White House hurt us all

One wonders why the president allows White House staff like Colonel Alexander Vindman to remain in a position to, (dare I say it?) spy on him. When will the president purge all the Obama holdovers? Do we need any more affirmation that people appointed by Obama (like former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch) were and are willing to do whatever is necessary to advance the cause of removing the Great Disruptor, President Trump?

These "spies" don't just hurt the president, they hurt the entire country, when they provide ammunition to the media and the House Democrats. The media uses this ammunition to maintain a 24/7 prime-time assault on the president, which is intended to destroy his chances in 2020. That obstruction, as in the case of USMCA, deprived the country of months of prosperity and lost opportunities.

The House Democrats use the leakers to conduct fake investigations into the president's policies and appointments, designed to injure and obstruct the president, all the while accusing the president of obstruction of Congress.

The president needs people in his administration that will support his policies here and abroad, and he shouldn't be afraid to get rid of anyone who puts his or her ideas of policy above the president's agenda, the agenda that the American voters put him into office to achieve.

The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to investigate the coup

You might be wondering if justice will ever be done regarding the lies Adam Schiff told in the impeachment hearings and trial.

You might wonder if people like James Comey, John Brennan, Peter Stzok, and Andrew McCabe will be held accountable for spying on Carter Page, and through him, the president.

Senator Lindsay Graham and Steve Bannon are both calling for a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into the Mueller Probe, the FISA court abuse and the 2016 election, the Ukraine matter and the "whistleblower" otherwise known as "the coup."

The president and his team get things done

Meanwhile, the president recently signed USMCA, a trade agreement that should benefit the US. He also just signed an executive order strengthening our ability to go after human traffickers, especially those that exploit children. The order also strengthens Native American tribes' ability to fight trafficking in their communities. He also took out one of the worst terrorists of the 21st century, Iranian General Soleimani. The president encouraged and helped both Theresa May and Boris Johnson to get Brexit done.

Keep up the good work, President Trump.

Watch:

The House Democrats have been accusing the Senate of conducting a sham trial because there will be no witnesses are allowed. They have said, ad nauseum, that the Senate trial must have witnesses, and if the Senate won't vote to have witnesses, then they will be part of the biggest cover-up since Watergate.

All of the managers have repeated this argument fervently, eloquently, passionately. Blah, blah, blah.

The House Democrats obviously believe that Americans have very short memories. It was only two months ago that the entire country was held captive by the House Intelligence Committee and then the House Judiciary Committee for weeks during their "impeachment inquiry." Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler tried to muzzle the Republicans on those committees, but they couldn't completely silence them. Representatives Elise Stefanik, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, Louis Gohmert and others did their best and succeeded to show the unfairness, the sham of the inquiry and the unfitness of the "witnesses."

Republican representatives stormed the secret meetings in the SKIF, and told the American people were told that the president was not allowed to have counsel present in the inquiry for over 70 days. The Republicans on the committees were not allowed to call any witnesses that might contradict the Democrat's charges. These hearings were not fair.

The"witnesses" that were called were asked leading questions so the Democrats could get the soundbites they wanted to further their case, but the Republicans poked holes in their case by exposing the unfitness of the witnesses. Not a single witness had first-hand knowledge of any wrong-doing by the president, including the so-called "whistleblower."

The "witnesses called before the Judiciary committee were just legal "experts" with opinions and/or disdain about and for the president, Jonathan Turley excepted. They had no first-hand knowledge of any wrongdoing. This evidence was no evidence at all, but the Democrats ran with it, knowing the media would cover for them.

Indisputable case

The Democrats in the House declared after their inquiry, that their case was airtight, undisputed, and indisputable. They drafted their articles of impeachment and voted to adopt them.

All the Democrats but one, voted for the first article, "abuse of power." A Democrat joined the Republicans in voting no. The second article, "obstruction of Congress," was similarly adopted, except that a couple more Democrats joined the Republicans in voting no.

The Senate acts fairly

The articles contained no charges of a crime, and in a court of law, would be rejected. But an impeachment trial is not a court of law, and so the Senate had to receive them. 

So the Senate spent a very late night debating what the rules of the trial would be, with the House managers demanding witnesses. Then the Senate listened to the opening arguments in which the Democrats frenetically accused the president of crimes for 23 hours over three days, and yet charged him with zero crimes. They accused the Senate at the same time, saying that if the Senate didn't do what the Democrats wanted they would be undermining the constitution!

The Senate listened to the much more respectful opening argument in defense of the president. The president's lawyers spent two hours on the first day of their 24 hour period, and just a normal time on day two.

The Senate and the country sat through 16 hours of questions over a period of two days, probably with a collective sigh of relief, because Chief Justice Roberts asked the questions, and the hysterical Democrats only spoke half the time. The other half of the time, the president's legal team, especially Pat Philbin, spoke with dignity and clarity, which was a balm to this weary soul.

The Senate provided a fair forum with ample time for the Democrats to make their case. They failed to bring actual crimes to be tried, and they know they have failed.

Acquittal is fair when the impeachment is a sham. It is time to vote to acquit President Donald Trump. No crimes, no removal.

The calls for John Bolton, President Trump's former National Security adviser, from the House managers, to be a witness at the Senate impeachment trial have been long and loud. The media, including Fox News, have also been aiding and abetting the Democrats in the pursuit. But Bolton is just a red herring meant to distract from the real issue at hand.

Democrats have no case

The real issue at hand is that the House Democrats have brought articles of impeachment to the Senate that contain no high crimes, misdemeanors, or bribery. They have witnesses that witnessed nothing. They want to convict and remove the president for having the wrong motives. This has been obvious all throughout the impeachment inquiry in the House and is still very apparent in the Senate trial. The Democrats have rhetoric and the mainstream media helping them, but in the end, the Democrats have no case. 

Enter the Red Herring

So, almost on cue, John Bolton's manuscript was leaked to the press on the first day of the president's defense in the impeachment trial. The manuscript is supposed to have evidence that President Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. (I thought we already knew that because President Trump released the transcript of the call?)

The Vindman brothers

Who leaked the details in the manuscript? No one knows conclusively, but Yevgeny Vindman, the identical twin brother of Alexander Vindman, an NSAC ethics lawyer, had access to the manuscript to review it for classified materials.

You will remember that Alexander Vindman bypassed his immediate superior, Tim Morrison, to report the president's July 25th call to his brother, an unknown person (probably the whistleblower), and Secretary George Kent. His testimony in the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings revealed his inflated opinion of himself and his disdain for President Trump's Ukraine policy.

He came across as a tattletale, but his tales were not told to the person in authority, but about the person in authority; as if he said, "Teacher, teacher, the president broke the rules!" forgetting that the president makes the rules when it comes to foreign policy.

Why are they still anywhere near the president?

NSC manuscript review process and leaks

Bolton’s manuscript was submitted to the National Security Council’s records management division on Dec. 30. Manuscripts written by former members of the NSA need to be reviewed for sensitive information that could jeopardize our national security. Leaking material from such manuscripts is just reckless.

John Bolton's attorney, Charles J. Cooper,  said, “It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript."

The smoking gun

Amid all the speculation that Bolton's testimony would be the smoking gun the Democrats need to convict and remove the president, a recent interview of John Bolton surfaced. Bolton was interviewed by Radio Free Europe in August 2019 and in it he described the president's call to President Zelensky of Ukraine.

Bolton described the calls to Zelenskiy warm and cordial and that the US considered the welfare of the Ukraine a priority. Policy toward Ukraine was discussed in the interview, and Bolton's description of the president's calls was completely positive. Bolton even emphasized the president's policies toward Russia were very tough, contrary to public perception.

President Trump declares Game Over!

Democrat House manager Adam Schiff wrapped up the House's case on Day 4 of the Senate impeachment trial.

Schiff told the Senators, "CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike. I don’t know if that’s true."

It wasn't.

Beginning and ending with lies

It is fitting for Schiff to conclude his arguments for the impeachment and removal of the president of the United States with an untrue statement. He opened the Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry hearing with a statement that was also not true.

Schiff infamously interpreted with a mobster persona, reminiscent of The Godfather, the transcript of President Trump's call to Ukraine's President Zelenskiy, on national television, and left it like that in the congressional record, without reading the actual transcript into the record.

It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

Schiff put words in President Trump's mouth, words, that if true, would get him in a lot of trouble. That was the intent. But President Trump did not say those words, and Adam Schiff is a liar.

Washington Post lie tracker

The Washington Post keeps track of Trump's exaggerations and calls them lies. Things like, "My tax cut is the biggest tax cut ever," which they have tracked 181 times. They claim he has lied thousands of times because they track the same exaggeration every time he utters it, and he does repeat himself. Here's another "lie" the president told.

"Eighty times, Trump has claimed his phone call with the Ukrainian president was “perfect." Another "lie" the president told 242 times — "is that the U.S. economy today is the best in history." These rhetorical exaggerations are what the Washington Post tracks and calls "lies." Who is really lying?

Schiff's lies vs. Trump's exaggerations

Now, exaggeration about how good the economy is or how big the tax cut is has its problems, but it doesn't really hurt anyone. Lying about what was said to another head of state in a telephone call has far greater consequences, such as the divisive effort to remove a president from office and the disturbance of the peace of the country that has brought.

Where is the WaPo lie tally for Schiff? I would argue that in comparison, Schiff's lies are more of an existential threat than Trump's exaggerations.

Senator Marshal Blackburn on Schiff and the Democrats

Sen. Marsha Blackburn commented on Schiff's words in his closing statement and said that he should have retracted the statement as it was not true. She also pointed out the other insulting things the House managers said during their opening arguments. The Democrats have called the senators liars, accused them of participating in a cover-up, and called the president a dictator and a monarch.

It seems that Senator Blackburn has seen through Schiff's lies; let's hope all the senators have.

Watch:

On Day 3 of the Senate trial of President Trump, Sylvia Garcia, a Democrat House manager, presented arguments designed to debunk the idea that Joe and Hunter Biden were involved in corruption in Ukraine. It was surprising to hear so much about the Bidens and Ukraine during the impeachment trial.

In fact, it is puzzling that Russia and Ukraine have loomed so large over Trump's time in office. The career bureaucrats, the Biden's, and career congressmen and women seem to know so much of what is going on in Ukraine, but President Trump and the American people are just finding out now.

It is getting to the point that when folks hear the names Russia or Ukraine, they get a bad taste in their mouths since these two countries have been coupled with all the divisiveness, acrimony, and antagonism directed toward President Trump and anyone that supports him.

A tale of two Ukraines

Even the most unpolitical American must be wondering what is going on over there in Ukraine. President Trump surely stirred up a hornet's nest. Most Americans are probably in shock over the role Ukraine is playing in our lives, now.

Perhaps this is really a tale of two Ukraines, the permanent progressive international political class's Ukraine that works like an ATM, US aid in and then right back out into the pockets of the politically connected, and President Zelenskiy's Ukraine that is tired of being the playground of corrupt international progressives (Soros) and oligarchs, that wants to function like a real democratic republic.

Why are the Democrats willing to tear apart the US over Ukraine?

One has to wonder why the House Democrats and others are so furiously worked up about President Trump's request to Ukraine President Zelensky for help investigating what went on in Ukraine during the 2016 election? Why the relentless bombardment? Morning, afternoon, evening, in the House, on cable news, on the campaign trail.

Why are they so furiously denying Joe Biden's role in firing the Ukraine prosecutor that was investigating the company, Burisma, on which's board, Hunter Biden sat? What are they hiding?

If, as Biden says, there was no corruption, how would an investigation hurt him? Wouldn't a thorough investigation exonerate him? 

Corrupt anti-corruption activities

If Biden and our embassy were involved in corruption in Ukraine, what better way to deflect attention than touting your "anti-corruption" activities?

The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Guliani, has an explanation. He asserts that the Democrats are fomenting this impeachment so vociferously to cover up their own corrupt dealings in Ukraine. There is evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election, and there is evidence that our US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was meddling in Ukraine affairs issuing "Do Not Prosecute" lists to Ukrainian prosecutors, among other things.

John Solomon

Guliani is not the first to uncover the shady dealings of Obama administration officials. Investigative reporter John Solomon has been writing about Ukraine, Burisma, and the Bidens for several years. He's written for Politico and The Hill (which describes him as a former employee) and posts on his own website.

On the Burisma investigation, Solomon wrote:

This may be the single biggest under-reported fact in the impeachment scandal: four months before Trump and Zelensky had their infamous phone call, Ukraine law enforcement officials officially reopened their investigation into Burisma and its founder.

The Democrats "spike" Rudy Guliani's arguments in a two-pronged attack

The House Democrats and the Biden campaign conducted a two-pronged pre-emptive attack. House manager Garcia ran interference in the Senate impeachment trial and the Biden campaign took on the press.

House manager Sylvia Garcia made an impressive presentation intended to prove that Biden was just helping to rid Ukraine of a corrupt prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, a man that all of Europe considered corrupt. Why were the Democrats risking bringing up the topic of Biden when they don't want him as a witness in the impeachment trial?

Guliani has been pretty vocal about what he has been uncovering in Ukraine, so it stands to reason, if he has damning evidence of Biden corruption, that the Democrats would like to take out the argument before it is made.

But Guliani is ready to spill the beans, and Biden's campaign is also preemptively striking by issuing a memo to news agencies, warning them not to push a "debunked" theory about him in Ukraine.

Biden Memo orders media to stop spreading "misinformation"

Biden, who has told the media more than once what they can say about him, issued a memo recently, to inform the media what they should be saying about him, Hunter, and Ukraine.

According to Politico, "The memo, released a day before the start of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, says there is “no evidence” for disproven claims pushed by the president that Biden sidelined a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that his son, Hunter, held a high-paid position with."

The memo goes on,

“To fail to make clear that the conspiracy theory and false accusations about Joe Biden have been comprehensively disproven, to artificially prop-up these egregious lies based on the 'principle' that if partisans make accusations, they have to be treated as legitimate regardless of the facts, is to make you an enabler of misinformation,” the memo warned reporters and media outlets.

John Solomon has responded with an article of facts that Biden and his campaign must have forgotten when they wrote the memo.

Watch:

Copyright© 2025 - Conservative Institute LLC - All Rights Reserved