Gregg Jarrett: Adam Schiff’s drive to impeach Trump based on opinions, deception and illusions – Not facts fxn.ws/36eZTrG #FoxNews
Rep. Adam Schiff is a poor man’s Harry Houdini. He is a cheap illusionist performing amateurish parlor tricks of deception in his quest to convince his audience that he possesses damning evidence of an impeachable offense committed by President Trump.
Schif has no such evidence, of course. But like most illusionists, he employs misdirection and confusion. He attempts to convince you that opinions are evidence, while facts are not.
He won’t allow you to peek behind the curtain to see for yourself the witnesses he has called in his “super top secret” impeachment inquisition.
You are never permitted to view transcripts of depositions or examine testimony that purports to incriminate the president. That, of course, would ruin all the hocus-pocus.
The transcript of the telephone call and the statements of the two participants, Trump and Zelensky, are the only relevant evidence. All other witnesses are simply offering their gratuitous interpretation and opinion of the conversation to which they were not a party.
For example, William Taylor. Schiff and his confederates leaked to friendly media outlets that Taylor testified Trump wanted to withhold U.S. military aid ....
...unless Zelensky vowed to investigate alleged Ukrainian meddling in the U.S. election and possible corrupt acts by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
But wait. It appears Taylor’s testimony was not based on any first-hand knowledge. Instead, it was his interpretation derived from conversations by others who had no first-hand knowledge. In other words, it was conjecture built on speculation. How’s that for reliability?
Another example was the much-anticipated testimony of LTC Alexander Vindman, who oversees Ukraine policy at the NSC. Vindman listened in on the telephone conversation and then expressed “concern” to his superiors about its propriety inasmuch as Joe Biden’s name was mentioned.
But hold on. Isn’t that his judgment or opinion? It most certainly is. Vindman said, “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen.”
He can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing that the U.S. quite often enlists the assistance of foreign governments in investigations, many of them involving U.S. citizens.
Still, Vindman is offering nothing more than his opinion, and a mistaken one at that. His interpretation of what he thinks is “proper” in a phone call has no greater value simply because he heard it instead of reading it.
Anyone with computer access can download and read the transcript while forming their own opinion. What is indisputable are the facts contained in the transcribed conversation.
Nowhere is there a reference to a “quid pro quo” of U.S. military aid in exchange for an investigation of the Bidens or anyone else. There is no demand, no condition and no pressure.
Zelensky is on record stating there was no blackmail involved during the call and no pressure applied. “Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said. “We had a great phone call,” he added. “It was normal.”
Separately, the Ukrainian government has confirmed that it did not even know that the U.S. had suspended security funds until almost five weeks after the call with Trump. This seriously undermines the argument by Democrats that there was a “quid pro quo” for the aid.
It is impossible for there to be a “quid pro quo” when the recipient of the “quid” is oblivious to the existence of the “quo.” This is common sense, which is in short supply these days in the bowels of the House basement where Schiff pursues his “super top secret” inquisition.
t is folly for Democrats to argue that a diplomatic conversation of this nature somehow constitutes an impeachable offense. Schiff, the illusionist, can offer nothing but impressions, perceptions, judgments and opinions. It is all irrelevant and a sham. Facts are what matter.
A hundred so-called “whistleblowers” relying on hearsay about a conversation to which they were never privy cannot change the factual equation laid bare by the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call.
Not even the great Houdini could pull off that trick.
Not even the great Houdini could pull off that trick.
