Impeachment for Dummies: Trump, the Whistleblower, and Quid Pro Quackery

This week the House Intelligence Committee will begin holding public hearings on the impeachment of Donald Trump. They will interview witnesses who have inside knowledge of the administration’s efforts to extort the government of Ukraine into digging up dirt on Joe Biden. And the pressure this is putting on the President is evident in his frantic and fearful reactions.

Donald Trump Impeach

On Saturday Trump disgorged a record 82 tweets, most of which were self-exalting tributes to himself and his personal perspective of his purity and innocence. And he spent much of last week wallowing in victimhood and delusional outbursts that, for the most part, worked against him in public approval polling. His tantrums are continuing into this week with more tweeted whining about the impeachment hearings and his congressional nemesis, Adam Schiff, about whom he tweeted 104 times last month. His latest attack was dripping with animosity and fictional accusations:

Trump is now boldly calling for Schiff to be “investigared,” despite the fact that Schiff has nothing that even warrants being investigated, much less investigared. Trump is so “investi-scared” he can’t communicate coherently. Which may explain why he thinks that “doctored transcripts” are a thing. All congressional transcripts are signed off on by the witnesses for accuracy. So there is no such thing as Democratic or Republican transcripts. What Trump must be thinking of are doctored summary memos of transcripts, like the ones that he and his Attorney Genuflect, Bill Barr, have disseminated.

However, Trump’s obsession with the whistleblower is a peculiar diversion. He has been howling about it for weeks. So this might be a good time to school the Resident on whistleblowers in general, and this one in particular.

The whistleblower statute provides for confidentiality expressly to prevent the sort of retaliation and witness intimidation that Trump is engaging in. His tactics, and those of right-wing media including Fox News, have a very real possibility of resulting in serious harm to the whistleblower and his/her family. That’s something that Trump and his political and press cohorts don’t appear to care about.

What’s more, the whistleblower’s testimony in this affair has become entirely irrelevant. Since making the first complaint, Trump released his summary memo of the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. In it Trump admitted that he had made foreign aid contingent on Ukraine helping him to smear the Bidens. That’s a textbook example of quid pro quo. He also admitted this on national television, as did his Chief-of-Staff, Mick Mulvaney.

Following that, witnesses whose identities are public (National Security Council Russia advisor Fiona Hill, NSC Ukraine expert Alexander Vindman, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sonderland, Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, and Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch) have all corroborated this attempted extortion. So why would the whistleblower – whose account was second hand – need to testify at all?

In addition to that, there is no requirement that a quid pro quo exist for Trump’s behavior to be impeachable. It is the request itself that breaches the protocol and ethics of the presidency and constitutes an improper abuse of power, as well as conspiracy to solicit foreign interference in an election. So even if there was no promise of any reciprocal action, it would still be improper. And the attempt doesn’t have to be successful either in order to be impeachable.

These simple facts are all that are necessary to understand the current legal jeopardy that Trump finds himself in. But they are apparently still to complex for him to grasp. So he lashes out repeatedly with the same bogus gripes as if repetition will make them true. And his enablers in Congress and the media are either equally as ignorant or deliberately dishonest when they pursue these red herrings as defenses for Trump. But the American people understand and that’s why a majority of them favor Trump’s impeachment and removal from office. And the sooner the better.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.


8 thoughts on “Impeachment for Dummies: Trump, the Whistleblower, and Quid Pro Quackery

  1. And then we have Alan Dershowitz, who, let the record show, is a lawyer. His comments before Varney the Vampire lead one to question that status.

    Alan Dershowitz: It’s “unconstitutional” to impeach Trump

    Dershowitz: Take the worst, worst, worst-case scenario — the president abused his foreign policy power to gain political advantage. How many presidents have done that over time? It’s not among the listed impeachable offenses. It’s not a crime —

    Stuart Varney: It’s not a high crime or misdemeanor.

    Dershowitz: It’s not any kind of a crime.

    You would have considered it a crime had it been Obama, you miserable hypocrite. Admittedly, the Constitution isn’t exactly clear on what is considered “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but not long ago, you Reichwingers decided that a blow job qualified. That’s not in the Constitution either.

    Dershowitz: Look, I’m a liberal Democrat.

    Tyrant worshipers like you and Varney the Vampire are neither one, Derp….

    • Dershowitz also said that abuse of power and obstruction of justice are not crimes. I’m beginning to think that Giuliani is a better lawyer than Dershowitz.

      • Of course, Rudy Ghoul has the (dis)advantage of being either insane or senile. Or both….

    • {DTrump} #1
      “The lawyer for the Whistleblower takes away all ?credibility from this big Impeachment ?Scam! It should be ended & the Whistleblower, his lawyer and ?Corrupt politician Schiff should be investigared for ?fraud!” {11/11/19}
      >> ?= Words that only fit Trump << [4?]

      {DTrump} #2
      "Shifty Adam Schiff will •only release doctored transcripts. We •haven’t even seen the documents & are •restricted from (get this) having a lawyer. Republicans should •put out their own transcripts! •Schiff must testify as to why he MADE UP a statement from me, and read it to all!"
      {Nov 11, 2019}
      •(is projecting onto others again) •'Doctored transcripts'(?) No – that's what you & Barr do! In fact, lucky to get any at all – you refused to turn over ANY docs at all!
      •You haven't seen 'em yet & you're whining?
      •Not being denied lawyer! But, your side's turn is usually not 'til it goes to Senate.
      •Only Trump thinks this way is ok!

      • They’re both classic examples why Shakespeare was right when he said, “First, let us kill all the lawyers.” (!)
        (I will 2nd that idea.)
        As Kali said, blow-job not listed in Constitution, but no prob there, when it’s a Dem they’re going after! (That was wife’s problem, not ours.)
        Rethugs have no honor left in them — it’s like they sold their souls for Trump!?
        Founding fathers thought there would be wise & learned men deciding these things, not slimy people.

  2. At point, one would have thought, ESPECIALLY AFTER Watergate, somebody important, someone that WOULD be listened to, would have CLEARLY DEFINED what high crimes and misdemeanors are, what the government MEANT by those terms. Seems silly NOT to have spelled it out CLEARY, somewhere along the line, especially AFTER Watergate.

    • It would also set it in stone, which the Tyrant Worshipers would take advantage of the next time they get a traitor “elected” as president. “Wait, THAT’s not on the list; therefore, Our New Beloved God cannot POSSIBLY be guilty!!”

      Meanwhile, the very next Democratic president would ALWAYS be accused of committing a high crime or misdemeanor no matter what we do. “We don’t CARE that it’s NOT on the LIST; it was INTENDED! Therefore, he’s GUILTY!!!”

      Tyrant Worshipers are a filthy breed….

  3. Holy Moley I love the commenters here! Thank you for your participation.

Comments are closed.