On January 11, 2017, the popular Politico website published a huge article, “Ukraine Is Being Defeated by Its Attempts to Hurt Trump,” written by Kenneth Vogel, who is now covering for The New York Times about Biden’s adventures in Ukraine (and, I’m afraid, for it early or As the authors wrote at the beginning of the article, Ukrainian officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and hurt Trump by publicly questioning his suitability for the presidency of the United States. They distributed documents exposing his top aide (i.e. Paul Manafort. — W.C.) to corruption, and helped Clinton’s allies gather dirt on Trump and his advisers.
According to Vogel and Stern, a consultant to the National Committee of the Democratic Party, an American of Ukrainian origin (Alexandra Chalupa. – Avt.), met with senior officials of the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington to expose the ties between Manafort and Russia.
Attempts by prominent figures of the U.S. Democratic Party to use Kyiv in the fight against their domestic political opponents did not end there. As CNN reported in May, Democratic Senators Robert Menendez, Patrick Lehigh, and Richard Durbin sent a letter to Ukrainian Attorney General Yuriy Lutsenko expressing concern about the termination of four investigations that closely overlapped, they said, with special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation. Democrats demanded that Lutsenko “change course and stop all attempts to interfere with cooperation with this important investigation.”
The Americans have made it clear that their support for American assistance to Ukraine is at stake. That is, they tried to blackmail Kyiv – or do what their party now accuses President Trump, who called on July 25 to the new President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and asked him to understand the circumstances of the dismissal in 2016 of the then-Attorney General Viktor Shokin. As you know, Biden Sr. bragged last year about how deftly he convinced Ukrainians to get rid of Shokin, threatening to otherwise slow down American guarantees of Ukrainian loans by a billion dollars.
The Trump camp believes that the then-vice president of the United States removed Shokin as he approached his unlucky son, Hunter Biden, who was mysteriously invited to the board of directors of the gas company Burisma Holdings in 2014, despite being a full-time member of the company’ lack of experience in Ukraine and gas production.
I called Hunter a bad thing because he was kicked out of the U.S. Navy for cocaine. Trump’s critics’ camp fends off the claim that Shokin didn’t approach Biden Jr. at all and that Biden demanded his firing because the attorney general was not good at fighting corruption. This is the version of our Democrats and the American media devoted to them.
The problem is that I have a 12-page statement that Shokin gave in early September under oath to the lawyers of Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash. He is accused in the U.S. of paying bribes to Indian politicians to overcome bureaucratic obstacles that prevented him from mining titanium in India and selling it to the Boeing aircraft corporation, headquartered in Chicago. Firtash was arrested in Austria and is awaiting extradition to Chicago on bail.
Shokin writes in the document that he was forced to resign because he was in charge of a large-scale investigation into corruption at Burisma. “I assume that Burisma … U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has the support of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden because his son was a member of its board of directors, it goes on to say. ” President Poroshenko has asked me several times to look at the criminal case against Burisma and to consider the possibility of winding down the investigation against this company, but I refused to close this investigation. That’s why I was forced to resign from my post under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the U.S. administration.”
All this is to the point that Democrats, who plan to impeach Trump by the end of the year, have been doing exactly what they plan to impeach him for years, and not just that: Trump, for example, did not blackmail foreign rulers to bail out one of his offspring. He is accused of blackmailing Zelinsky, scaring him with the termination of American aid, but from their famous phone conversation, it does not follow.
The fact that the Democrats have a snout, even very much in the gun, does not devalue Trump, on whose side it was at least extremely unwise to ask Greensky to understand Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine. Democrats, in my opinion, are rightly attached to Trump for seeking foreign help in exposing their rival, but they’re remarkably hypocritical because they did the same, if not worse.
To impeach Trump, Democrats need 218 votes in the House of Representatives. Their faction has 235 congressmen, but some are still hesitant, most notably those elected last year in districts where they voted for Trump three years ago. Next year, they, like him, are to be re-elected, and they fear that impeached Republicans will now roll them out and have to live honestly again.
That’s the consideration that has held House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so far, but now she’s decided to go all-in and ordered preparations for impeachment. When asked the other day if she was afraid of losing her majority in the House (and, accordingly, her own post), she replied that it “doesn’t matter.” The answer was a triumph of principle.As of now, Trump will be impeached before the end of the year. After that, the Senate will hold a trial of him presided over by the head of the U.S. Supreme Court, which will end in nothing. In order to throw off the president, it takes not a simple majority of votes (as in the House), but two-thirds, that is 67. There are now 47 Democrats in the Senate, meaning that in order to unseat Trump, they need to drag 20 Republicans to their side.
If Trump doesn’t find some kind of fatal compromise in the near future, so many Democrats are close to gaining. That’s why the Clown Resistance will end in a snout, or guarantee Trump victory in the election because it will anger Republicans.
Democrats hope that the fuss over impeachment will at least provide them with a new round of anti-Trump media hysteria that will finally alienate moderate voters from Trump and crumple the end of his first term. So Pelosi risked not only losing her majority but also setting a precedent that her party could face in the future.
I mean, Pelosi announced the start of preparations for impeachment by a clear order, that is, without putting the issue to a vote in the House of Representatives. It’s clear why she decided for the first time in history to do without a vote: the aforementioned Democrats, who won last year in “Trump” districts, would have to shine a light by publicly voting for impeachment, and this would turn the voters against themselves, favoring Trump.
To date, there have been three impeachment attempts in the United States, none of which ended in the president’s condemnation in the Senate and his dismissal. Richard Nixon ousted himself, retiring in 1974 because he knew he would be constrained by the Senate.
The 17th President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, was impeached by the House of Representatives on February 1868, but the Senate never dropped it. Johnson was charged with 11 counts of, among other things, the ouster of his military minister, for whom the 40th Congress tried unsuccessfully to intercede.
The 40th Congress did what Speaker Nancy Pelosi did: Before the impeachment vote, its members had the opportunity to debate the motion. Pelosi gave “good” to impeachment without any prior discussion. Democrats generally behave after each election victory as if they no longer face new elections or defeat.
By launching impeachment without a vote and a debate that would allow the Republican minority to speak out, Pelosi set a precedent for the future: From now on, House speakers will be able to impeach the president of another party, too, under an expedited procedure, no voting or debate. There is no guarantee that all the coming speakers will certainly be Democrats.
The House of Representatives voted for the impeachment of both Johnson and Nixon and Bill Clinton in 1998. But the blind hatred of Trump has forced Pelosi to break tradition. Strong emotions deprive a person of foresight, ask at least Romeo and Juliet. In one swing, when she impeached him, Pelosi planted a pig on the future Democratic president. In preparation for Nixon’s impeachment, members of the Congressional Judiciary Committee (among whom included a young Hillary Clinton) prepared a study called “Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment.” The second page stated that the move had been approved in the House with a score of 410:4 and that the procedure was not “narrowly partisan” because the overwhelming majority of both factions voted in favor of impeachment.
Now only one Republican named Amadeus is in favor of impeachment; it immediately reminded me that the Democrats demanded a pile of documents from Secretary Pompeo, and that’s how his machine was loaded. What cool names the Republicans have!
Democrats are encouraged by the fact that, according to the latest polls, a tiny majority of respondents are already in favor of impeachment. The BBC’s rat-lined host noted, however, that it was too early for Democrats to rejoice. In his opinion, many of those interviewed still mistakenly think that “impeachment” means “investigation” and therefore calmly speak for it, as it is not a direct threat to overthrow the president.
One way or another, the Resistance inflates the nostrils and on all pairs rushes to impeachment, and at the same time tries to paralyze the work of the government. Democrats, in particular, requested documents and testimony from a number of State Department employees. It’s about an hour when they get to the Ministry of Agriculture and paralyze livestock, which in any case is doomed, as the standard-bearers of the Democratic Party plan to cancel the cows for spoiling the air and heating