Guilt by Miscommunication: On Trump’s Impeachment Accusers
by
Jennifer Williams testifies before Congress on November 19, 2019 (YouTube screenshot)

It’s not like I’ve ever met or even spoken with Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, or Adam Schiff. But I can say with supreme confidence that these pols are conducting their impeachment inquiry in bad faith. They realize that President Trump hasn’t committed an impeachable offense.

How do I know what is in the minds of these congressional Democrats? Well, like the Democrats’ initial star witness William Taylor, I have gray hair (I went gray at 25) and a sonorous voice (my mom told me so).

Moreover, like the Dems’ next marquee idol witness, George Kent, I wear a bow tie when I want other people to think that I’m a Mensa member.

Both these personal traits prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I know what other people are thinking — even better than they do. Even if I have never met them. Or even spoken with them.

Witness how Taylor and Kent ascribed bad motives to the president despite the fact that neither has ever met Trump or even spoken with him on the phone. Same goes for Democratic witnesses Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and vice-presidential adviser Jennifer Williams, who are testifying as I write this.

But the real clincher that proves that I’m right about the Dems’ perfidy is that a friend of mine whose identity I can’t disclose who sometimes visits a relative of his who lives in Virginia, just maybe 75 miles from D.C., told me that he was unambiguously informed by an acquaintance who works at the Department of the Interior, who knows a park ranger who works on the National Mall, and who was on duty 37 feet away from an administrative assistant who works in Pelosi’s office and who told a homeless man that he would be better off panhandling in San Francisco because there was no chance of him ever getting arrested there and that anyhow foot traffic would be down on the Mall because her boss, Nadler, Schiff, and Jim Acosta understood that their case against Trump was chicken poop and were busy trying to locate someone in the White House (preferably an employee, though a tourist would do) who was willing to testify that he or she (or any gender combination thereof) heard Trump say something to the First Lady, Ivanka, or Jared Kushner that would, if translated into Esperanto, then into French, then into Ukrainian, and finally back into English, and after all prepositions were removed, advocate violating some federal statute, really any one, even 6 USC Section 551 and 36 CFR Section 261.16(c), which make it a crime to wash a fish at a faucet that is not an official fish-washing faucet, provided that the soon to be ex-president also uttered any of the names “Biden,” “Hunter,” “Joe,” or “Sleepy” within 540 words of advocating the statutory violation.

Could the Democratic cabal’s bad faith be any clearer?

Admittedly, my friend further told me that he heard from his relative that the Dems nearly had the commander in chief dead to rights last week. Apparently, the president complained about a “disgusting” salmon fillet served at a working lunch. He then asked Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to go to the kitchen and wash it off.

Unfortunately for Madame Speaker and company, the law in question only criminalizes illicit fish washing in a “national forest.”

Democrats may protest that my “friend’s” tale is rank hearsay that would never be considered by any court of law outside North Korea, China, or Cuba. To which any fair-minded observer’s response should be, “Exactly.”

The Dems’ hearsay-based impeachment charade does benefit the body politic in one respect — at least so long as ABC continues to preempt The View to televise the hearings.

Marc Berman writes on politics, law, culture, and religion.

o
Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!