<p>This is driving me crazy. I&#8217;ve been watching the impeachment proceedings today and it is by far the most bizarre thing I&#8217;ve seen out of Washington in quite some time. From the bug-eyed Schiff to the &#8220;witnesses&#8221; who are being used to prove something that is not illegal nor illegitimate in any way, this has been a massive waste of time.</p>
<p>By every indicator, the Democrat decided to impeach Trump months ago, after failing to get ammunition to impeach Trump based on the Mueller probe (which wasted two years).</p>
<p>Pure propaganda, specifically designed to affect the 2020 Presidential elections. Nothing more.</p>
<p>So, by the numbers:</p>
<p>1. The &#8220;whistleblower&#8221; is Eric Ciaramella, who has been outed (but not outed) as an associate of the top Democrats &#8211; including Schumer, Susan Rice and the Obama administration &#8211; who worked on the fake Russian &#8220;dossier,&#8221; and who consulted with the Congressman Schiff&#8217;s office before he &#8220;blew the whistle.&#8221; I.e., not a whistleblower but an <em>agent provocateur.</em></p>
<p>2. We have a conversation between President Trump and President Zelensky of the Ukraine.</p>
<p>a. The key &#8220;crime&#8221; seems to be Joe Biden&#8217;s brag that he blackmailed the Ukraine into firing a prosecutor. The suspicion is that he did this not in the interests of America, but in defense of his son, who was getting paid large amounts of money to be on the board of directors of a company that &#8220;may or may not&#8221; have been under investigation by this prosecutor. Worth investigating?</p>
<p>b. Since this is possibly a heinous crime, and, if true, interfered massively with the relationship with an important ally, doesn&#8217;t the President have the right (and indeed the obligation!) to ask his counterpart to investigate? Has Joe Biden somehow acquired immunity for past crimes just because he is a current presidential candidate?</p>
<p>3. The focus appears to be on &#8220;Quid Pro Quo&#8221; which simply means &#8220;I&#8217;ll do this, if you do that.&#8221; Sounds like simple negotiation to me. There is no law against it. And the conversation in question, the only real evidence, shows no quid pro quo, and President Zalensky says he wasn&#8217;t aware of any quid pro quo. But why is it even an issue?</p>
<p>4. The witnesses appear to be geared only to establish &#8220;quid pro quo.&#8221; This is useless because quid pro quo is not illegal. Plus, they are speaking and acting several levels below the President&#8217;s level. They have already admitted that they were out of the loop on the preparation for the phone call. They appear mostly to be pissed off because they didn&#8217;t know what was going on. But they are not in a position to even understand, much less judge the President&#8217;s actions.</p>
<p>5. But the only question is really this. Did President Trump ask for the investigation solely to assist him in the 2020 election? Or did Trump legitimately want the investigation of crimes and interference with the 2016 election? Or both?</p>
<p>This last question is the key. But who is to say what was in the President&#8217;s heart? How can you determine motivations?</p>
<p>Certainly not with officials who have never met Trump, who felt slighted at being left out of important proceedings.</p>
<p>And as long as there is a legitimate reason for asking for this investigation, and assuming innocence until proven guilty, what LEGITIMATE court would convict him of anything?</p>
<p>As I said, this is nuts.</p>