Abuse of Power

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that President Trump was seeking political advantage by asking the Ukraine to investigate its interference in the 2016  presidential election and Joe Biden’s possible quid pro quo in getting his son appointed to the Board of Directors of Burisma at $83K per month. This request,  according to the Democrats, is abuse of power ... in that Trump was trying to influence the results of the upcoming presidential election by demeaning a potential opponent.

Now, carry this charge forward to today ... are Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler also trying to influence the next election by investigating and accusing Trump of all sorts of wrongdoing ... using their impeachment process? Of course!

Ergo, the Democrats are engaged in exactly the same supposed malign process that they are trying to impeach Trump with ... from which it is pretty certain he will be acquitted. But this process is intended to leave a political stain ... obviously designed to damage Trump’s chances next November. Why would one be wrong and not the other? Should Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler also be impeached for their sinister abuse of power?

Bribery

Hunter and Joe Biden

Sondland suggested a Trump quid pro quo,

Despite the fact that he could not show

 Any cold hard facts

Of Trump’s bribery acts.

Truth was, t’was Hunter who took big dough.

Still Standing

The litany of Trump’s impeachment offenses ... with status:

Firing James Comey NO

Abuse of office NO

Russian collusion NO

Obstruction of justice NO

Porn star payoff NO

Campaign law violation NO

Emoluments clause violations NO

Quid pro quo NO

Bribery and extortion  ?

Questionable

To me, there were at least five questionable elements in the first Impeachment Inquiry hearing yesterday:

1) Intelligence Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff asserted repeatedly that he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower! He is clearly lying. For this to be true, Schiff either is not managing his staff ... or he is grossly incompetent. Neither can be true.

2) Before Ambassador Taylor accepted the top job in the Ukraine from SecState Pompeo, he testified he told Pompeo he would resign if we did not continue to support Kiev. If Trump had actually withheld such aid illegally, as Taylor has claimed, how come he didn’t resign? This failing clearly contradicts his testimony or sullies his character.

3) If Trump was forcing the president of the Ukraine into a quid pro quo, how come the president of this country did nothing to investigate its involvement in the 2016 American election ... or the Burisma use of Hunter Biden to influence our policy there? Nothing was done for over six weeks between the infamous phone call and the release of the aid, yet Trump’s supposed threat was not carried out.

4) Adam Schiff interrupted the Republicans at least twice in their questioning of the witnesses. He did not interrupt the Democrats at all. He also refused to hold a vote on calling the whistleblower to testify. Instead, he held a vote on tabling the motion on calling the whistleblower. Very shifty!

5) The Dems are now accusing Trump of (since it must be a high crime) bribery with his withholding of Ukrainian aid awaiting an investigation of 2016 election tampering and general corruption. Isn’t this backwards? Wouldn’t bribery require Trump to be bribed ... not he being the briber? Using this notion, wouldn’t all charity auctions be bribery? Anyway, it sure sounds evil ... and that's what counts.

Afterward ... see: Diplomad’s Comments.

Truer Words ...

And drug dealers. And sexual predators. And voter fraud. And bribery. And welfare fraud. And illegal guns. And perjury. On and on ...

Headlines

All from Internet news sites. Guess which from Politico?

[Hawaii] Judge blocks Trump's latest travel ban order

Report: FBI sat on evidence tying Clintons to Russian bribery scheme

2,800 Huma gov't docs found on Weiner's laptop ...

Study: More immigrants in 2016 than ever before in American history

[Sens.] Alexander, Murray strike bipartisan Obamacare deal

Bob Weinstein has now been accused of sexual harassment

Alabama shock poll: Roy Moore tied with Dem ...

Trump tells McCain: 'At some point, I fight back'

Trump official halts abortions among undocumented pregnant teens

Kaepernick blames Trump for his unemployment

Anti-immigrant billionaire politician rises in Czech Republic ..?

[Jane] Fonda: 'I don't regret going to Vietnam' -- 'I'm proud'

Petrobras

There's an awful lot of oil in Brazil ...  and an awful lot of scandal. Petrobras, that huge Brazilian oil company, has just been exposed as chock-a-block full of cronyism and corruption ... all mostly tied to the current government there ... read the details here: Bloomberg Story. However, after reading most of the sordid bribery and kickback details of this clearly criminal enterprise, note that there is one key detail that was not mentioned ... and that was that President Obama, in an unprecedented move,took an executive action to lend Petrobras and Brazil  2+ billion dollars in 2009 to develop its offshore oil resources.

To me, this transaction was quite unusual and suspicious when it was announced ... see: Wall Street Journal Article ... but has largely gone unnoticed and un-commented-on since it occurred. Even the Bloomberg article referenced above does not cite this Obama commitment. This pledge then seemed very odd to me in that Obama had a well-documented aversion to carbon-based sources of energy.

Humm ... I wonder if the Clinton Foundation received any significant donations from Brazil or Petrobras around the time of this Obama largess? Hopefully that new exposé book, Clinton Cash, will shed some light on this possibility.

Afterward: For another wrinkle on this Obama deal read this later article in: Forbes Magazine.

After Afterward: And now a Clinton Foundation connection ... see: Wall Street Journal Article. Since this WSJ article is behind a paywall, I include a key quote from it here:

OAS has been in the news because it is caught up in a corruption scandal centered on Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras. In November Brazilian police arrested three top OAS executives for their alleged roles in a bribery scheme involving inflated contracts and kickbacks. OAS denies the allegations. Closer to home the 2013 OAS donation to the Clinton Foundation deserves attention because of the power that Bill Clinton has in Haiti, where OAS has been awarded IDB contracts.