Additional Books by the Director
This three-volume set covers the impeachment of Donald J. Trump that occurred over the fall of 2019 to the winter of 2020. It was yet one more attempt to oust the President from office by Democrats, who never accepted he won in 2016
It began when Trump made a phone call on July 25, 2019, the day after Robert Mueller testified before Congress. A complaint about that phone call led an impeachment inquiry to begin in early September, and the resultant proceedings tore America apart at the seams.
All of these events were occurring against the backdrop of the 2020 Presidential election, which was already well underway, even though the election itself was still over a year away. As will be seen, and as the title of this three-volume set implies, that election was in fact the real impetus for the impeachment.
This trilogy will enable the reader to go back and get caught up on all that you missed. Though this whole fiasco will be over when this trilogy is published, it will be good for Americans to have a history of what happened, as that could affect how they vote in November 2020.
We also will sadly see many similar situations in the future. In fact, that was a talking point of Republicans throughout the impeachment proceedings, that Democrats are so watering down impeachment that it will be used as a political weapon anytime in the future when the President is of one party and the House is controlled by the other party. As such, it is important to remember what happened during this impeachment when the next one occurs.
In addition, this trilogy will help the reader understand the rancor seen in Washington in general and the dishonest bias of the mainstream media. It will be seen that the two sides can look at the same evidence and come to two completely different conclusions.
These three volumes also answer a question the author has often been asked—how can the author, as a conservative Christian, support such a “crude” person as President Trump?
This Volume One covers the beginnings of the impeachment inquiry through the public hearings before the House Intelligence Committee.
Paperback: 452 pages (6" x 9" pages). $15.50. Order from Amazon.
Kindle Reading Device eBook: 0.79 MB. $4.25. Order and download from Amazon.
Paperback: 452 pages (6" x 9" pages). $14.25. Order from Lulu Publishing.
Hardback: 452 pages (6" x 9" pages). $21.25. Order from Lulu Publishing.
Acrobat Reader® eBook: 436 pages. 3,125 KB. $4.25. Order and download from Lulu Publishing.
EPUB for Adobe Digital Editions Format – $4.25. 363 KB. Order and download from Lulu Publishing.
Note: Different formats and publishers might have different covers, but the content is the same in all of them.
The Three Volumes
Volume One: Beginnings Through HIC Hearings (Early September Through Late November 2019)
Volume Two: HJC Hearings and Pre-Senate Trial Events (Mid-November 2019 to Mid-January Early 2020)
Volume Three: Senate Trial and Aftermath (Late January to Early February 2020, Updates Through Summer 2020)
Download the free PDF Reader (Acrobat Reader®)
Purchase the Kindle Wireless Reading Device
Table of Contents
[Page numbers refer to the hardcopy versions]
Introductory Pages … 5
Preface .....……………………………………………….. 7
Format/ Quotation Notes …………………...………..…. 9
The Constitution on Impeachment …………………..... 11
Definitions ……………………………………………… 13
Analytical–Literal Translation …………………………... 15
Abbreviations .....………………………………………. 17
Section One – 23
Initial Impeachment Inquiry
Early September to Mid-October 2019
#1 – Initial Impeachment Inquiry – Part One ………… 25
#2 – Initial Impeachment Inquiry – Part Two ………… 47
#3 – Initial Impeachment Inquiry – Part Three ………. 69
#4 – Syria, Turkey, and the Kurds/ ISIS Leader Killed 91
Section Two – 113
Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry
Mid-October through Mid-November 2019
#5 – Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry – Part One ……. 115
#6 – Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry – Part Two ……. 135
#7 – Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry – Part Three …. 153
#8 – Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry – Part Four …… 169
#9 – Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry – Part Five ……. 189
#10 – Minneapolis and Lake Charles Rallies ………. 209
Section Three – 229
House Intelligence Committee (HIC) Hearings
Mid to Late November 2019
#11 – House Hearings Overview ……………………. 231
#12 – First HIC Hearing with Taylor and Kent …….. 257
#13 – Second HIC Hearing with Marie Yovanovitch . 287
#14 – Third and Fourth HIC Hearings ………………. 309
#15 – Fifth HIC Hearing with Gordon Sondland …… 331
#16 – Senator Johnson Destroys and Buttresses …. 355
#17 – Sixth and Seventh HIC Hearings …………….. 369
Appendixes … 397
#1 – Bibliography.……………………………………… 399
#2 – Additional Books by the Author ………………… 441
#3 – Author’s Websites, Newsletters, Social Sites/
Contacting the Author ………………………………… 451
This three-volume set is a sequel to my book Tearing the USA Apart. That book chronicled events that occurred during the summer to fall of 2018 that contributed to the tearing apart of the USA. These included the proceedings to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the rise of political incivility and violence, and caravans of illegal migrants heading to the US border. That book related all of these events to the 2018 midterm elections.
I then cover various political events that occurred from the winter of 2018-19 through the spring of 2019 on my Biblical and Constitutional Politics website. This book then picks up the story in the summer of 2019 with the beginning of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald J. Trump.
These impeachment proceedings began as soon as the Mueller investigation into alleged Trump/ Russian collusion in the 2016 election ended, culminating in the Mueller report and his testimony before Congress on July 24, 2019. That witch hunt was just one of many attempts by Democrats and the mainstream media (MSM) to disparage and remove President Donald J. Trump from office.
There were also the false claims Trump has dementia and attempts to remove him from office via the 25th amendment, the Stormy Daniels farce, the Emoluments clause schemes, the constant badgering to get Trump’s tax returns, and unending lies about Trump being a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or some such negative labels. These attempts are chronicled on my politics website and in my Tearing Apart book.
That background is important to remember as we review this impeachment fiasco. This was not the first attempt to remove President Trump from office or at least to disparage him, nor was it the last. As this fiasco was occurring, something was brewing in China that would go on to affect the entire world. But Dems and the MSM would also try to use that crisis to disparage the President.
I am of course referring to the Coronavirus pandemic. I discuss that crisis in detail in a section on my politics website titled “Coronavirus Articles and Commentaries.” In this three-volume set, I will only mention the Coronavirus when dates coincide between what was brewing in China and these proceedings.
But here, this impeachment fiasco began when Trump made a phone call on July 25, 2019, the day after Robert Mueller testified before Congress. A complaint about that phone call led to an impeachment inquiry and the proceedings that tore America apart at the seams.
All of these events were occurring against the backdrop of the 2020 Presidential election, which was already well underway in the summer of 2019, even though the election itself was still over a year away. As will be seen, and as the title of this three-volume set implies, that election was in fact the real impetus for the impeachment.
The impeachment inquiry itself began in early September 2019 and ran up until February 5, 2020. This set will mention additional important events that occurred during that time period. It will mostly conclude two days after the close of the Senate impeachment trial, on February 7, 2020. But several updates after that date will be included in Volume Three.
The impeachment proceedings involved many days of hearings in the House, with seventeen witnesses testifying, plus additional days for debates. The trial in the Senate lasted thirteen days. Each of those days lasted many hours, sometimes literally all day. In addition, thousands of pages of testimony, reports, and other documents were released.
Altogether, there were hundreds of hours of speaking events and tens of thousands of pages of documents released. I seriously doubt any American watched all of that programming and read all of those documents. That means, most Americans based their decisions and attitudes towards the impeachment on the very bias reporting of the MSM.
However, I did my best to watch and read all of this material and will report about it in this three-volume set. That is why I believe this trilogy is important. It will enable the reader to go back and get caught up on all that you missed. Though this whole fiasco will be over when this trilogy is published, it will be good for Americans to have a history of what happened, as that could affect how they vote in November 2020.
We also will sadly see many similar situations in the future. In fact, that was a talking point of Republicans throughout the impeachment proceedings, that Dems are so watering down impeachment that it will be used as a political weapon anytime in the future when the President is of one party and the House is controlled by the other party. As such, it is important to remember what happened during this impeachment when the next one occurs.
Finally, this trilogy will help the reader understand the rancor seen in Washington in general. It will be seen that the two sides can look at the same evidence and come to two completely different conclusions.
Initial Impeachment Inquiry
Early-September to Mid-October 2019
But now they think they finally got him. Trump made a phone call! That led to an impeachment inquiry by the Democrat (Dem) controlled US House of Representatives. They were sure this would be his downfall. But from the outset, I was predicting this coup attempt would also fail and probably backfire.
This newest attempt to get Trump will be addressed in detail in this three-volume set. This and the next two chapters were written from mid-September to mid-October 2019, as the various events were occurring. I updated each section as new details emerged during this time period. But I have kept a mostly chronological order to the events as they first occurred or were reported about.
However, it was hard to keep up, with so much happening so fast. Making it even more difficult was I entered a powerlifting contest in the middle of this period, on September 28th. I was busy for a couple days before and several days afterwards due to the contest. But I took notes while I was otherwise occupied and went back and researched it all out. My hope here as throughout this trilogy and in my writings in general is that I am as accurate as possible in all the details I present and in my comments thereupon.
The background story to the July 25, 2019 phone call has two parts. The first part begins back in March 2016, while Barrack Obama was still President and Joe Biden was his Vice-President (VP). It’s rather complicated, but to boil it down, Robert “Hunter” Biden, Joe’s son, was working for the Ukraine energy company Burisma. He was getting paid an average of $50k/ month, though at least for one month he made $83,3000. That is known, as FNC showed a copy of a financial statement with that amount listed as his monthly pay. Overall, he made from $3,000,000 to $6,000,000 in the course of five years.
However, there were questions raised as to whether he was qualified for that position. He earned a law degree. But he had been dishonorably discharged from the navy for cocaine use. He then became a lobbyist for online gambling. Later, he was on the Board of Directors for MasterCard. That company is based in Delaware, the very state that his father was a Senator from at that time.
Then Hunter was on the Board for Amtrak, which is a government funded company. That was when two bills were before Congress that would benefit Amtrak if passed. Again, that was while Joe was a Senator. Altogether, Hunter was on the Board of five different companies. But it does not appear he was qualified for any of those positions.
Then came his position on the Board of Burisma in Ukraine. But he had no experience in the energy sector, no experience in private equity, no experience in Ukraine, and he doesn’t even know Ukrainian, yet he was being paid as an advisor of the largest energy company in Ukraine. Therefore, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was investigating the case.
However, that prosecutor was said to be corrupt. Thus, the United States and several countries were trying to get him ousted. Joe Biden was able to do so by threatening to withhold $1 billion in federal loan guarantees to Ukraine from the US and these other countries.
Those loan guarantees had been approved by Congress in March of 2014, but Biden was threatening to withhold them, and Ukraine reacted as he wanted. Shokin was fired, and Yuriy Lutsenko replaced him, who did not continue the investigation into Burisma and Hunter. Shokin later claims he was fired for investigating Hunter Biden…
The second part of this story involves what is being alleged about President Trump and his phone call with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, on July 25, 2019.
Note: There are various spellings for the last name of the Ukraine President. I am going with the most common one I have seen. But I have also seen Zelenskiy and Zelenskyy. The latter is the spelling on the “President of Ukraine. Official website.” But I still thought it best to go with the most common English spelling of “Zelensky.”
That said, the claim is, in that phone call, President Trump demanded that Zelensky investigate the Bidens and their dealings in the preceding situation. It was said that Trump threatened Zelensky that if he did not, the US would withhold $391,500,000 of promised military aid. This is thus another claim of a quid pro quo.
The United States has been giving military aid to Ukraine since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. The $391.5 million in aid at issue in the current controversy was approved by Congress to help Ukraine deal with an insurgency by Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country (Reuters).
Note: Ukraine is located in Eurasia, between Russia and the European Union (EU). Crimea is a peninsula, extending into the Black Sea off the southwest of Ukraine. It looks like an island, except for the thin land bridge connecting it to the Ukraine mainland. Ukraine claims Crimea is part of it, while Russia claims it belongs to them and annexed it via military action in 2014. They have been at war ever since.
That said, in the July 25 phone call, Trump claims that he made no such connection between this military aid and Ukraine investigating Joe Biden. The administration’s story is that Trump withheld that aid for a short time but then released it on September 11th, after the phone call but before any investigation of the Bidens had been started by the Ukrainian government and before any of this become public. As such, these was no quid quo pro.
“The aura around the phone call was disturbing: did the president of the United States take money that was going to the Ukraine and threaten to withhold it if he did not get help in his reelection? The answer is no,” [Lindsey] Graham said. “Did Joe Biden threaten to withhold money if you don’t fire somebody in the Ukraine? Yes” (Trib. Lindsey).
Moreover, Ukraine did not know the aid was being withheld at the time of the phone call nor for over a month afterwards. If one side in a quid quo pro does not know there is a quid quo pro occurring, then there can be no quid quo pro. To put it another way, a person needs to know they are being threatened to feel threatened.
However, the reason Trump initially withheld the aid is where things get a bit dicey. As often has been the case with his administration, there has not been a consistent explanation. The first idea floated around was it was due to Trump’s overall belief that the US is giving too much money to other countries. That defies his motto of “America first.”
Here, I agree with Trump. It makes no sense for us to borrow money from China, which is what we are doing, then to give that money to foreign countries. Giving aid to others is a good thing, but not if you have to go into debt to do so.
What the US is doing would be like someone racking up credit card debt in order to donate money to charity. Donating to charity is a good thing, but not if you have to go into debt to do so.
The other idea being floated is Trump was concerned that the US is supporting Ukraine, while European nations are not carrying their share of the burden in doing so. This imbalance has also been a constant theme of the Trump presidency, with Trump having previously gotten NATO countries to agree to pay more for their own defense….
Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry
Second Half of October 2019
The previous section covered the impeachment inquiry from its beginning in early-September to mid-October 2019. This chapter will pick up the story in mid-October.
Depositions the Week of October 13, 2019
There were five depositions scheduled for the week of October 13, 2019. They were to be with Fiona Hill, George Kent, Gordon Sondland, T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, and Bill Taylor. In addition:
Michael McKinley has agreed to appear voluntarily for a closed transcribed interview on Wednesday [10/16/19], just days after he announced his resignation as a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Also, a person familiar with the proceedings confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper would be interviewed by the committees on Friday…
The House panels also are scheduled this week to hear from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and State Department Counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, a top aide to [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo. (Investing).
The first deposition was on Monday October 14 with Fiona Hill, an ex-Russian advisor for Trump. As with most of the previous depositions, this was a closed-door deposition. As such, neither I nor any other American were able to watch it and decide for ourselves the importance of what was said.
But it was reported that Fiona testified for ten hours. Why she was interviewed for so long is hard to say given that she had left the White House before the July 25th phone call with Zelensky. But it appears the focus of the deposition was as to why she was fired from her post.
Lee Zeldin (R. NY) appeared on two different FNC shows. First, on Martha MacCallum’s show The Story that evening then on American’s Newsroom the next morning.
He said is was disturbing that members of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) were not allowed to question the witness. For that matter, he was disturbed that most members of the House were not privy to what was happening in these depositions, some 412 members, yet they would all be expected to vote on impeachment. But how can they make an informed vote if they did not witness the depositions firsthand?
He also said he has tried to ask Adam Schiff, who is overseeing the depositions, “What House rule is covering this process?” But he has never gotten an answer. The reason is, there is no rule. Adam is just making it up as he goes along, ignoring all precedent as to how such inquiries were conducted in the past. Zeldin also complained that the public was being kept in the dark, and that there was a gag order on him, so “I cannot tell you anything.”
He then called Schiff a liar and a leaker. The “liar” charge comes from Schiff saying for two years he had evidence of Trump Russia collusion, but he never produced that evidence. It also comes from Schiff saying he and his office had no contact with the whistleblower (WB) before the complaint was released, when we now know two of his aides had contact with the WB a month prior to that time. And it comes from his made-up story in the first deposition as to the content of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky. Thus, in three ways, Schiff has been proven to be a lair.
The “leaker” part comes from Schiff only releasing what he wants released from the various closed-door testimonies, while preventing GOP lawmakers from saying anything about them.
Zeldin further said the witness list should include the two Schiff aides who met with the WB before he filed his complaint. He then added that the minority parties had rights in both the Nixon and Clinton inquiries, yet in this deposition the minority party has no rights….
House Hearings Overview
The impeachment inquiry entered a new phase on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 with the first of the public hearings. In this chapter, I will overview these hearings by way of first presenting the main questions that were raised by the hearings and some related issues. I will then look at the main points of the House Intelligence Committee (HIC) report that was issued after the hearings in that committee….
Main Impeachment Inquiry Questions
There are some basic questions that need to be answered in deciding on one’s position on these hearings and the relevant issues.
First, is the reason Trump wanted Joe and Hunter Biden investigated because he believed they engaged in criminal or at least corrupt behavior while Joe was Vice President (VP)? Or is it because Joe is Trump’s potential political rival in 2020?
If the first possibility is true, then not only was it not inappropriate for Trump to ask Zelensky for aid in investigating them, but Trump was duty bound by his oath of office to do so. Moreover, given our treaty with Ukraine in regard to criminal investigation aid, Zelensky was bound to provide that aid if asked. However, if only the second possibility is true, then it would be a corrupt act on the part of the President.
In other words, what matters is the President’s motive or intent in mentioning the Bidens in that phone call and otherwise. But establishing someone’s intent is not easy. It requires being able to read someone’s mind, which no one except God can do. The best we can do is look at surrounding circumstantial evidence.
Dems claim that circumstantial evidence is that Trump did not begin to ask for investigations into the Bidens until after Biden announced his candidacy for President. “If it was really about Biden’s alleged crimes as VP, then Trump should have started investigating him sooner.” However, the counter is that Trump only became aware of the Joe Biden’s alleged criminal or corrupt behavior more recently, due to Rudy Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine investigating 2016 election interference and the release of the Biden quid pro quo video in early 2019.
Though personally, I think what happened is Trump is still angry over him being falsely accused of colluding with Russia in the 2016 election. That false claim denigrated his victory, leading many to think he only won because he cheated. Meanwhile, he sees there is evidence that Democrat operatives colluded with Ukraine to aid Hillary’s campaign, so it was she not him who cheated. Consequently, he had Rudy in Ukraine investigating that matter.
Then, as the Mueller investigation was winding down, after putting a drag on his presidency for two years, Trump couldn’t help but get upset that the crimes and corruption of the prior administration were never looked at. He became aware of this situation in Ukraine through Rudy’s work in Ukraine investigating 2016 and the Biden quid pro quo video, and that got him outraged and wanting that investigated to show it was the Obama/ Biden administration that was corrupt in its dealing with foreign governments, not him and his administration.
But it must be noted, the issue here is not what is true in regard to the Bidens and Ukraine election interference. It is what Trump believed to be the case when he was talking to Zelensky on the July 25 phone call and in the other claims of him seeking investigations in Ukraine.
Moreover, if Trump believed Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, then asking about Crowdstrike and related investigations was perfectly legitimate. And again, what matters is not if in fact Dems conspired with Ukraine in that election but what Trump believed at the time of the phone call and in other requests for investigations. Again, that requires discerning Trump’s motives, which is almost impossible to do….
Five Main Points of HIC Report
After the conclusion of the six public hearings in the HIC, Schiff released a report detailing their findings to the HJC. FNC listed the five main points of the report on 12/8/19, as they were waiting for the first hearing in the HJC. They are as follows:
1. Solicited interference in 2020 election.
2. Pressured Zelensky to work with Rudy and to speak publicly about Investigations.
3. Suspended military aid with no justification.
4. Undermined US security to advance political interests.
5. Tried to conceal conduct.
As an overview of the hearings, I will comment on each of these points.
1. Solicited interference in 2020 election:
The claim of the Dems is that by asking Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, Trump was soliciting interference in the coming 2020 election. Throughout the hearings, Dems on the HIC and most of the witnesses would refer to Joe Biden as Trump’s “political rival” or “political opponent.” In their minds, that was the only possible reason he wanted Biden investigated, so that “dirt” would be dug up on his political rival.
They also claimed this has been Trump’s pattern ever since 2016. They claimed many times in the hearings that Trump saying in a debate, “Hey Russia, if you have Hillary’s emails, we’d like to see them,” that was Trump soliciting election interference from Russia.
There were also many references to the Mueller report, with claims it also showed Trump/ Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
They also referenced Trump saying in an impromptu press conference that China should investigate the Bidens. They said that also was Trump soliciting election interference, that time from China.
Thus, the Dems on the committees and some of the witnesses said these were all examples of soliciting foreign election interference and thus established a pattern of behavior on the part of President Trump.
However, none of the witnesses could testify that they heard Trump say he wanted Joe Biden investigated because he was his potential 2020 rival. Most of them never even talked to the President. Thus, every time they referred to Joe as Trump’s political rival, it was their assumption, their opinion, not an established fact.
Even Gordon Sondland, the lone witness who actually talked to the President, never said Trump told him he wanted Joe investigated because he was his political rival.
If that was his motive, you would think at least one person could testify that Trump said he feared he could not beat Joe, so he wanted Ukraine to dig up dirt on him to damage Joe for the election, or some such statement that showed 2020 was on his mind.
It is just as likely that Trump wanted Joe investigated because he saw the video of Joe bragging about his quid pro quo with Ukraine that was released in early 2019. The event that video was from occurred in early 2018, while the behavior itself was in 2014. There were probably also findings from Rudy’s investigation that exposed Biden’s potential corruption.
In other words, the precipitating events for Trump wanting Joe investigated were looking backwards not forward, going back to the Biden Vice Presidency. It angered Trump that Joe’s possible corrupt behavior had not been investigated, while he had been investigated ad infinitum since the day he took office, while the corruption of the Obama/ Biden administration had never been fully investigated, and this was one such instance.
As for the debate comment, that was a joke. But the MSM and Dems never got that. The China comment was not a joke, but it was Trump emphasizing that it was perfectly appropriate for him to ask a foreign government to investigate alleged criminal behavior by an American in their country.
Then there’s the Mueller Report. Its conclusion was that no member of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. But Dems and the MSM have never accepted that conclusion, just as they have never accepted the results of the 2016 election.
These two points go together. They just know Hillary should have won in 2016, so Trump must have cheated. The best they could come up with was the Trump/ Russian collusion hoax. Thus, to push to their fantasies, they have to pretend the Mueller Report concluded the exact opposite of what it did conclude….
First HIC Hearing with Bill Taylor and George Kent
The first public hearing in the House occurred on Wednesday November 13, 2019, in the House Intelligence Committee (HIC). Democrats and especially Adam Schiff seemed confident that once the American public saw the “facts” of the President’s guilt, they would be on board with the impeachment. However, Dems seem to forget that the previous two public hearings they orchestrated did not turn our so well.
The first occurred during the confirmation proceedings for Brett Kavanaugh in the fall of 2018. Before the sexual allegations, the proceedings showed Judge Kavanaugh was more than qualified to become Justice Kavanaugh and to sit on the Supreme Court. But they thought a public hearing with Christine Blasey Ford and her 35-year old allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh would derail his confirmation. And her opening statement was heart-wrenching and seemed believable.
However, Proverbs 18:17 came into full force when sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell cross-examined Dr. Ford and exposed the many holes in her story. Then when Brett himself testified and produced hard evidence that Ford’s story could not be true, Ford’s narrative fell apart, and Kavanaugh was rightly confirmed to the Supreme Court.
This is all detailed in my book Tearing the USA Apart.
Then in the spring of 2019, Dems thought the Mueller Report would bring down the President. But the report did not bring back a pronouncement of guilty on either Trump/ Russia collusion or on obstruction of justice. But Dems thought having Mueller testify would do the trick.
But that public hearing was a disaster, as Mueller turned out to be a terrible witness who obviously didn’t even read the report let alone write it. Consequently, no articles of impeachment could be drafted based on his report or hearing. That is all detailed on my politics website.
But now, Dems are trying again with public hearings they think will bring down President Trump by pushing their narrative of an illegal quid quo pro or bribery on the part of the President towards Ukraine….
But note, what follows is in no way a word for word transcript of these hearings. That would require several books, just as with the private depositions. Instead, I will be paraphrasing and summarizing the most important points of each speaker. Only when I use quotation marks am I presenting a direct quote of a statement.
I will include my comments within the summaries. I will make it clear when I am commenting and not paraphrasing a speaker by using first person pronouns or the phrase “To comment” to introduce my comments.
Opening Statement by Adam Schiff. D. CA:
Schiff started out by saying he will only allow “facts not in question” to be presented in the hearing. To comment, in my opinion, he then lists many questionable facts, such as when mention is made by Trump about investigating the energy sector in Ukraine, Schiff said that means Burisma and Burisma means the Bidens. But the fact is, the energy sector in Ukraine, especially Burisma, has been alleged to have many questionable business dealings that have been and need to be investigated, irrespective of the role of the Bidens.
Schiff then referred to the, “Infamous July 25 phone call.” To comment, that is a dishonest way of referring to that phone call. But then, many question Trump calling it “perfect.” Most believe it was somewhat in-between. But whatever the truth, the terminology Schiff chose to use showed right off the bat how very bias he would be in his overseeing of the proceedings.
Schiff continued in that vein when he referred to the “discredited 2016 Crowdstrike conspiracy theory” and the “extraordinary step of putting a call transcript on a secure server.”
Schiff then said Trump was using “irregular channels: of diplomacy in Ukraine. Schiff then noted that the military aid was only released after the WB complaint became known, September 11 and 9, respectively. To comment, that dating is true, but he is assuming the aid was released because of the WB complaint. That will be called into question later.
Schiff then claimed the Zelensky desired White House meeting with Trump never happened. To comment, that is technically true, in that when the two Presidents met, it was at the United Nations not at the White House, but they did meet.
Schiff then claimed he does not know the name of WB and will stop anyone who tries to mention it. To comment, I couldn’t help but think, if he doesn’t know his name, how will he know if someone mentions it?
Schiff then claimed Trump obstructed justice, abused his power, and invited foreign interference in elections via Ukraine investigation of Biden.
Schiff then spent quite a bit of time outlining the backgrounds of the two witnesses. He emphasized that both had been engaged in public service for decades. To comment, I suppose that was to demonstrate they were of high character and could be trusted. But it had the opposite effect on me.
Whenever I hear about someone who has spent his or her entire lifetime in “public service,” I am not impressed. I am disgusted. Such people have no idea what life is like here in real America. They are in fact part of the swamp that Trump promised to drain during the 2016 election. Sadly, he has not done a throughout job in doing so, and that has come back to bite him, as we have already seen in the private depositions, and I will see more of in these hearings.
To be clear, most all of the witnesses testifying against Trump are career government employees. None of them have ever held a real job in their lives. But the important point to remember is that due to being in government for so long, they think they know it all and that a newcomer like Donald Trump should listen to them.
However, Donald Trump, as now President Trump, is the one who sets policy, and they serve at the pleasure of the President. If they are not carrying out his polices, he has every right to remove them and replace them with someone else. Remember those points as we proceed.
Opening Statement by Devin Nunes, R-CA:
Devin Nunes is the “Ranking member” on the HIC. That means, he is the highest ranking member of the minority party, which in this case is the Republican Party.
He opened up by talking about the Mueller hearing. It occurred on July 24, and he called it an “implosion.” To comment, by that I think he meant, it did not accomplish what Dems wanted, to give them cause to impeach the President. As a result, they turned to Ukraine.
Nunes then said we are expected to forget Schiff’s many claims that he had evidence of collision between Trump and Russia but never produced that evidence. He also referred to Schiff trying to attain nude photos of Trump.
To comment, that second point was a reference to a recorded prank orchestrated against Schiff. Two Russian pranksters called Schiff and told him they had dirt on Trump. It was from when Trump was in Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant. The dirt consisted of “nude photos of Trump.” They even said Putin was aware of the photos.
Schiff fell for the prank hook, line, and sinker. And with it being recorded, it is the only for certain incident of an American colluding with Russia to get dirt on a political opponent. But nothing ever came of that collusion. Nunes point was, Schiff was hardly in a position to accuse Trump of wrongdoing in colluding with a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent when he tried to do that very thing.
Nunes said Schiff had engaged in “countless other deceptions.” He then said the allegations against Trump are “preposterous” and were orchestrated by Schiff and the WB. He also said that the impeachment inquiry was not bipartisan. That is clear from the very lopsided impeachment inquiry vote.
Nunes also decried the secret depositions and the selective leaks therefrom. He also complained that not all of the transcripts had been released, and when they were, the names of Dem operatives were redacted. He also complained about the denial of the Republican’s request to hear Hunter Biden and the WB. He chided Schiff for his “parody” of Trump’s phone call. He also claimed Schiff spoke with the WB then lied about it. He said Dems have the habit of accusing Republicans of what they are doing.
Nunes then said there was both Russia and Ukraine interference in our elections. He mentioned about the need to investigate Hunter and referred to the “impeachment shame.”
He then said there were three “crucial questions” that needed answered. First, what is the extent of coordination of Schiff’s office with the WB and whoever else who knows who the WB is? Second, what is the extent of Ukraine interference in the 2016 election? Third, were Hunter’s actions illegal?
He then asserted that this process will damage the faith of Americans in the government. He also noted that lifetime civil servants seem to think they not the President are in charge (just as I just noted).
He then said the whole impeachment push was based on “rumors and innuendo.” He said all we have is “outrage at the firing of an ambassador.” To comment, that us a reference to the removal of Ukrainian ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Her hearing will be discussed in the next chapter.
Here, Nunes then said Trump provided military aid to Ukraine while Obama provided blankets. He closed by saying this was “an impeachment process in search of a crime.” …
Sixth and Seventh HIC Hearings with Four Witness Total
Conclusion on HIC Hearings
I doubt very much that very many people watched all of the dozens of hours of these hearings in the HIC. In fact, I would say that the only people who did were people like me who were doing so for work reasons, namely reporters who are paid to do so. Of course, I only did so because of writing this book.
This situation is similar to that of the thousands of pages of transcripts of the private depositions that were dumped in a matter of days. Only those being paid to report on these proceedings probably read them.
What that means is, the vast majority of people are depending on what they hear in the media for what happened. And what they are getting is very bias reporting, with only part of the story being told. That part is of course the liberal spin the MSM always puts on its reporting.
In this case, what most Americans probably heard was all the parts of these hearings that sounded the most damaging to President Trump. The much exculpatory evidence and testimony was mostly not reported.
That bias reporting is the only way you can have polls at this point that show more people are in favor of impeaching the President than are against it. But when all of the evidence is considered, there is no way it rises to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt or even the preponderance of evidence proving the President did any illegal or impeachable.
That concludes this Volume One of this three volume set. Volume Two will first backtrack a bit and provide some updates on events that happened while these hearings in the HIC were occurring. It will then cover the hearings in the HJC. It will also overview events that happened after those hearings but before the Senate trial began. Volume Three will then over the Senate trial and its aftermath.
The above book preview was posted on this website August XX, 2020.
Alphabetical List of Pages Contact Information
Text Search Biblical and Constitutional Politics