Who Can Stop Trump Now?

In one of my previous articles, written a year after the 2016 election, I suggested that Trump was headed for a full-blown bankruptcy of his political opponents.  This was referring not only to the financial, but also to the political, legal, and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Socialist Party and its organs of mass disinformation.

But who could have foreseen that the route the Democrats would take would be in the form of self-destruction?

On Halloween, the full House of Representatives finally voted to legalize the impeachment investigation, which was unlawfully conducted by the Schiff-Nadler-Pelosi trio.  By a majority vote, the House approved the rules for an impeachment inquiry.  (Oddly enough, Speaker Pelosi also voted, although traditionally, the speaker of the House does not vote unless such vote is absolutely necessary).  This was a logical step, as it is known that the Democrats never concealed their intentions — the course of impeachment was announced by the Democrats only 19 minutes after Trump took the oath.

The rules of the impeachment process legalized by the House of Representatives turned out to be even worse than all assumptions.

Firstly, this is the first investigation of the current president in U.S. history, sanctioned by members of only one party: the opposition.

Secondly, the new rules of impeachment legalize the de facto dictatorship of one person: chairman of the Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff.  Schiff gained almost unlimited power.  Now it is Schiff alone who decides who will be called in as a witness, what questions can be asked to the witness, and who exactly will get the right to ask questions.  Schiff obtained the right to terminate the hearing if his version of the events is disputed by some intractable witness.

Republicans were graciously given the right to be able to ask Schiff to call a defense witness, and then only Schiff would be able to decide to admit such a witness.  Only Schiff decides whether the hearing will be open or closed and whether a transcript of the committee’s meetings will be made public.  At the same time, Trump’s lawyers are not allowed to attend meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

The current situation happening in the House of Representatives is often compared to a Soviet show trial, but apparently, the trio of judges under the direction of Commissar Pelosi had a different historical trial they planned to emulate: medieval trials.  This inquiry smells of a medieval inquisition.  (In fact, this is not surprising, since the Pelosi electoral district in San Francisco is famous for its medieval unsanitary conditions, where medieval diseases such as typhoid, tuberculosis, scarlet fever, measles, and even bubonic plague are rampant.)

At the same time, the endowment of Schiff with almost dictatorial powers is reminiscent not of the appointment of Torquemada, but the appointment of Napoleon as the lifelong first consul (and then the emperor) by the legislators of the French Republic.

Since we mentioned Napoleon, let us turn to an expression often attributed to him: “Never interfere with the enemy while he is in the process of making a mistake.”

The situation that the Democrats find themselves in is unenviable.  According to leaks from the secret basement of the Capitol, where Schiff’s inquisition takes place, all the witnesses called up to now do not accuse Trump of violating any federal laws at all — their accusations are nothing but a poorly concealed annoyance over disagreements with Trump’s politics.

Washington office plankton, as it turns out, are unhappy that the commander-in-chief did not heed their opinion.

Even if Trump did everything in Ukraine that the Democrat inquisition accuses him of, this is still not a crime — this is a disagreement with his foreign policy and nothing more.  The position of the Democrats is as follows: a criminal investigation in Ukraine of an American citizen (and at the same time a candidate for the White House) is illegal (with one exception: if this candidate is Donald Trump, as in 2016).

It is clear that this Democrat inquisition is mainly designed for foreign audiences.  After all, on the domestic political front, it is practically impossible to fight Trump with any known legal political methods — in fact, what can the opposition party contrast with the unemployment rate, which is at a 50-year low?

Recall what events led the Democrats to legalize the process of impeachment.

China is losing the trade war.  The Chinese communists believe (not without reason) that their only chance is impeachment, which they are currently financing.

Democrats lost the bet on Mueller’s investigation.  The Washington communists believe (without reason) that their only chance is impeachment, which they are currently trying to push through.

At the same time, we all begin, to some extent, to understand the popular leftist term “proportional response,” which has long been used against Israeli actions to repel external aggression.  From the point of view of the Democrats, Trump’s bluffpeachment is a completely “proportional response” after the mission of Special Prosecutor Mueller failed, and the mission of Special Prosecutor Durham to investigate Obamagate became criminal.

The task that the Democrats set for themselves is to make Trump persona non grata not only at home, but abroad, too.  This refers to Trump’s impossibility of pursuing foreign policy in any form — who will discuss anything with a person who “will soon be removed from power”?  At least it is in this vein that the mass disinformation media covers the events in Washington.

What is the likelihood that anyone (apart from the loyal friend Netanyahu) will want to deal with a person who, according to CNN, has only a few days left in the White House?  (By the way, CNN and Schiff have been repeating this over the past three years, and there are still people who believe them.)  While this impeachment inquisition is ongoing, North Korea will continue to launch ballistic missiles, China will continue to steal intellectual property from American companies, and European countries will continue to build a gas pipeline from Russia along the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

In other words, the task of the Democrats is to torpedo Trump’s foreign policy.

That is why they are not going to ratify the new USMCA trade agreement among the USA, Canada, and Mexico — the ratification will create many additional jobs in America.  That is why Democrats are opposed to a trade war with China — winning this war is a serious stimulus to the U.S. economy.  But Democrats do not need this — they desperately need the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange.

Japanese admiral Yamamoto is credited with the phrase allegedly said after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

Who can put a lid on Trump’s resolve now?

Who can stop Trump’s anger now?

Who can stop the avalanche of declassified Obamagate documents?

Who can stop the arrests of all the conspirators from the American and foreign intelligence agencies who participated in an attempted (and failed) palace coup?

Can anyone truly suggest that Trump will wait until after the 2020 elections to pay attention to the fact that the Obama administration was spying on him and his campaign?

Does anyone think Obama’s typical footman and spy, agent “Charlie” (Eric Ciaramella), has a brilliant career in front of him?

Now, who could possibly convince Trump not to use the full power of the federal investigative apparatus until after the 2020 elections?  Who would dare to tell him that Brennan, Comey, Strzok, et al. should not be arrested because of…because of what?  What will Trump gain if he utilizes the sword of justice on the conspirators after the 2020 elections and not before?

Who now doubts that an attempt by Obama’s intelligence agencies to cancel the results of the 2016 elections will naturally lead to the fact that the 2020 elections will be a pure formality?

[Originally published at American Thinker]

7 thoughts on “Who Can Stop Trump Now?”

  1. I can provide a book of evidence, but what for? Evidence don’t exist for you because you have already set your mind. This is final attempt (which I am 100% sure you will disregard as worthless). Read this opening statement from Devin Nunes
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-devin-nunes-opening-statement-in-house-impeachment-inquiry-hearing
    Of course he is not as convincing as Adam Shiff…He tries to appeal to common sense, logic, facts – all the things that don’t exist for you.
    Don’t even bother to answer. I don’t have time to read your “arguments”
    It was NOT a pleasure talking to you.

    1. “I can provide a book of evidence, but what for?”

      That is easy. If it is important for you that your claims are taken seriously, then providing evidence for validity of your clams is the only way to make sure that your claims are taken seriously. It is also very important that you yourself logically examine available evidence to make sure that reasons for forming opinions that inform your claims are, in fact, good reasons.

      “Evidence don’t exist for you because you have already set your mind.”

      Any working mind is set on something at any given moment. But if you imply, that whatever my mind is set on, it is set in stone and I will never change my mind no matter what, then you are wrong. Any conviction I hold is based on what I know to be the fact at the moment. If new information will ever show, that whatever I thought to be a fact is not a fact, then I will change my mind on the spot.
      For example.
      I’ve heard many times on Fox, that Biden’s request to fire Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin as a condition for getting 1bil in loan guaranties is a corrupt act, b/c his real reason is not to enforce US anti-corruption policies, but to protect his son from becoming a target of investigation by overzealous prosecutor.
      I consider this position illogical and ridiculous. This is where my mind is set now.
      Why? Very simple. Prosecutor Shokin was not a threat to Bidens. He inherited Barisma investigation from previous prosecutor, but he did not pursue it. In fact, he slow waked it. He basically put it on hold.
      So, if Biden was really tried to hide his son from troubles, by insisting on firing Shokin he did him a great disservice. Thus, Fox’s version of Biden’s motives is illogical and should be ignore by rational people.
      But it is only true, and I will stay with my current conclusion only if the assessment of Shokin’s practices
      given by multiple independent sources will continue be proven factually correct. As soon as it will be credibly shown that he was not a corrupted prosecutor doing his best to cover oligarchs from investigations, but fearless and honest anticorruption fighter, I will change my position on Biden’s motives accordingly. But not before.
      Why Fox pushes this illogical nonsense on people, I don’t know.
      Maybe they lack critical thinking skills over there?
      Or maybe they are sure that their audience lack critical thinking skills so they can get away with crappy logic? I don’t know.
      You tell me.

      “This is final attempt (which I am 100% sure you will disregard as worthless). Read this opening statement from Devin Nunes https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-devin-nunes-opening-statement-in-house-impeachment-inquiry-hearing Of course he is not as convincing as Adam Shiff…He tries to appeal to common sense, logic, facts – all the things that don’t exist for you.
      I’m sure he does try to appeal to something by asking bunch of questions. And I absolutely don’t mind evaluating available answers, if any. But whatever he does, surely has nothing to do with our discussion.”

      So, in this case, I’m questioning your common sense and logic. What do you find especially logical in providing bunch of questions with no answers as an evidence in support of your claims here? How can questions be evidence for anything, except that there is something unknown for somebody?
      How Nunes opinion on state of the media can support your following claims?

      Biden blackmailing Ukraine
      Democrats spy on candidate in president
      Shift requests compromat on Trump from Russian pranksters

      Is there an answer?

  2. So, Trump is blackmailing Ukraine and Biden wasn’t? Great logic
    And Democrats are allowed to spy on candidate in president (no complaints on their side) and prepare a fake documentation – that’s OK. Shift can request a compromat on Trump from Russian pranksters – that’s fine. But when GOP does much smaller favor – oh my… the sun is falling.

    1. So, here are your claims:

      Biden blackmailing Ukraine
      Democrats spy on candidate in president
      Shift requests compromat on Trump from Russian pranksters

      Would you be willing to substantiate these claims?

      1. Would you be willing to open your eyes and ears and switch from CNN and NBC?
        Biden blackmailing Ukraine – this video with him bragging has been shown so many times that only the person living on a separate island with no tv doesn’t know about it.
        Democrats spy on candidate in president – have you heard about Mueller probe and the source of “Russian Saga”.? If not – I can only suggest to wait until Durham case and IG REPORT will be made public. BTW – it is already criminal case.
        I am sorry, I have to work for living, and I don’t have time to go thru archive materials for you (again it was shown on TV and BTW mentioned last Wednesday during impeachment hearing by VERY REPUTABLE SOURCES).

        1. “Biden blackmailing Ukraine – this video with him bragging has been shown so many times that only the person living on a separate island with no tv doesn’t know about it.”
          I saw this video, of course. We both did. Seeing video is not a problem.
          The problem is in the conclusion you draw from this video.

          You look and you see some kind of blackmailing, or, rather, extortion. (blackmailing is something else entirely) This is the problem.
          There is absolutely nothing in the video in particular and in the the story behind the video in general, that would justify logically and/or factually the conclusion you draw from it.

          What Biden did was an implementation of US laws and policies, that prohibit US foreign aid to go to to countries in which high level of corruption is suspected.
          He did not express his own opinion nor he tried to achieve any personal goals. He simply delivered the message from US government – if you will not get rid of prosecutor Shokin, whom we, along with European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, consider corrupted, you are not going to get 1 billion in loan guaranties.
          As I said perfectly legitimate implementation of US laws and policies – “Clean up your own house, or you will not get American help.”

          Compare to what did in his conversation with Zelensky – “Start investigation of my political opponent, or you will not get American help.”
          Perfectly illegitimate and unlawful request.

          What would be a legitimate way to investigate anyone (including political opponents)?
          Certainly not to ask assistance from foreign country using leverage of denying what that country badly needs.
          This type of concerns is what US Department of Justice for. Call Barr.

          So your first claim – Biden blackmailing Ukraine – is demonstrably false.

          “Democrats spy on candidate in president– have you heard about Mueller probe and the source of “Russian Saga”.? If not – I can only suggest to wait until Durham case and IG REPORT will be made public. BTW – it is already criminal case.”

          Again, I am very familiar with Mueller probe and its conclusions.
          Two major points.
          The report established monumental and never ending effort of Russian intelligence to influence the results of 2016 election. Also, the report listed 10 instances of abstraction of justice by Trump, for which he was not prosecuted only because the sitting president can not be indited.

          Nothing in the report is showing any kind of spying by Democrats on candidate in president.
          So I have no idea what you mean by that.
          The only thing I can think of is the Trump’s bogus claim that his residence and campaign offices were illegally “bugged” by FBI. This crazy conspiracy theory was completely and easily debunked. There are no factual basis for it whatsoever.
          So, if this is what you mean by “Democrats spy on candidate in president”, then this claim is also false.

          You suggesting for me “to wait until Durham case and IG REPORT will be made public” is very puzzling.
          It simply does not make any logical sense.
          If Durham case (whatever that is) and IG REPORT are not made public YET, how can you know anything about it? Without knowing anything about it, how can you make any assumption that whatever findings are YET TO COME, will necessarily support your claim about Democrats spying on candidate in president?
          I hope you can see the problem with your logic here.

          “I am sorry, I have to work for living, and I don’t have time to go thru archive materials for you”

          I work for a living too, and I don’t ask you to provide archive materials fro me.
          I can easily find it myself.
          What I asked you is to justify your claims. For that, simply pointing to archive materials is not enough. Archive materials are simply a raw data that still must properly interpreted with a help of logic and critical thinking.
          So, what would be enough is actually correct and logically impeccable argument that would show, that the conclusions you draw from the information you consume are, in fact, solid and can be trusted.

          So far nothing like that is shown by you. Not in the least.

  3. On the entire page of the article no one sentence of the real story. All speculation are just about how inconvenient is the procedure for Mr.T. Disregarding of opinion on the impeachment (positive or negative), your essay should be at least a little bit more smart (for PhD). Not so primitive, no logic, just for digestion by uneducated people with no critical thinking. No pretend to be objective. Blackmailing someone to get the dirt is OK in your view. Especially blackmailing Ukraine that is weak and semi-alive. This what criminals do – they find weak people and rape them. Have you heard about moral principles and honesty? Not creating any respect for the author.

Leave a Reply