NADLER’S IMPEACHMENT ARGUMENTS APPEAR TO BE PRETEXT FOR DEMOCRATIC EXIT STRATEGY FROM FAILED EFFORT
It’s reasonable to believe that House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, on the last day of the Democrats’ fraudulent gas-lighting session in front of the Senate, framed the Democrats’ positioning on their exit strategy for their failed impeachment attempt. There is also room to question the overarching intent behind sending such flimsy Articles of Impeachment sans even a grain of proper predication.
Here’s the relevant quote from TGP,
Nadler went off on the Senate in a crazy, late night rant accusing Republican senators of casting “treacherous votes,” participating in a “cover-up” and voting “against the United States” for blocking every proposal by Democrats for witnesses and new evidence at the outset of the impeachment trial of President Trump.TGP
Here’s what Nadler is doing. He’s redirecting or deflecting his party’s own criticism back onto his opponents by projecting the dearth of evidence and the need for additional evidence and witnesses as a problem of the Senate. He’s selling snake oil by claiming it’s the Senate’s moral, ethical and legal obligation to supplement the articles transmitted to it so as to somehow make those articles complete. That is in no way a function of the Senate.
Nadler is out of line here and he knows it. Everyone knows it. That’s precisely why it has to be deliberate and therefore strategic. There’s no other plausible rationale other than being a moron. It’s that binary and basic.
Nadler is out of line because it is the House that shall bear the responsibility of the production of sufficient evidence to predicate the Articles of Impeachment, which it’s responsible for transmitting to the Senate. It is the Senate that shall bear the responsibility of conducting the trial according to rules, procedure and the articles transmitted to them by the House.
So, that all begs a question. Was this the plan all along? To intentionally send flimsy and weak articles with no predication whatsoever?
For that to make sense, you have to assume the actual facts of the matter – that there is not a scintilla of evidence anywhere suggesting that the President committed any sort of impeachable offense. That limits his opponents to dealing only in completely erroneous “fact sets,” which can only be proven fraudulently and rhetorically. Such “evidence” (aka talking points) might resonate well in the headlines of the disingenuous and duplicitous MSM, but it rings hollow in the Halls of Justice; with its stringent evidentiary standards.
So then, what would an impeachment trial look like with those particular circumstances? For the answer, I refer you to the current impeachment trial. All that Democrat House managers have done thus far is weave an erroneous narrative while bloviating about fraudulent talking points as supported by fake claims and made-up “evidence.”
Everyone in DC knew this impeachment was DOA upon arrival and it’s been a complete dog and pony show up to now. Now, though, it gets all kinds of real.
Reasonably, Nadler’s exit strategy will begin to manifest now that he’s apparently established the pretext for it vis-a-vis his impeachment arguments.
Here’s that strategy: With no crimes ergo no evidence, there is no ability to predicate legitimate Articles of Impeachment. Now, remember this fine detail that makes a HUGE difference. One of the parallel objectives of the coup d’etat/impeachment effort is the exploitation of the impeachment process as a mechanism to launder Democratic narrative, talking points and anti-Trump campaign fodder to be delivered to the American people on a grand stage; all partisan and political maneuvering devoid of any intent to exercise the rule of law and shine light on the truth. Another objective relative to all of this that is discussed frequently is the self-preservation angle.
So, by intentionally sending weak articles to the Senate, the Democrats frame a construct around the Senate that is based on criticizing it for proceeding to trial hastily and absent all of the needed evidence and testimony; the provision of which is incumbent upon the House (pure projection, here.)
So what we’re seeing now – all of the criticism coming from the Democrats – is a pressure campaign being applied to the Senate to enforce that construct. That entails painting a picture of the Senate being the bad guy for forcing a trial without all of the evidence.
By doing so, it permits the Democrats to reach their ultimate objective, which is using this construct and its pressure campaign to leverage themselves into a position where they will walk away from their own failures while hanging 100% of the blame on the Senate. The easy bet is that immediately following the acquittal and total exoneration, they’ll scream cover-up (already screaming it.) I believe that’s exactly what Nadler was throwing down.
It’s therefore reasonable to expect the Democrats to use that strategy to keep the propaganda and coup d’etat effort at full throttle. As I continue to state – they will not stop until they are MADE to stop.
If we start seeing Nadler’s fallback position and talking points repeated across the MSM, we’ll know we’re on to something.
I get the feeling those talking points will start to become relevant tomorrow when the President’s counsel eviscerates the Democrat’s case burns down the House.