by John Leuschner ’18.
On Feb. 13, 2016, Donald Trump debated his fellow Republican candidates in the presidential race. If not already clear to the American people, his platform as a Washington dissident would soon be affirmed. Throughout the evening, president Trump, rightfully so, threw digs at our nation’s bureaucrats and establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle; he called the invasion of Iraq a “big fat mistake,” and further attacked the war hawk attitude present throughout much of D.C.
In doing so, he created an array of enemies before the concept of his presidency appeared at all likely. Consequently, upon taking his oath of office, many of those thought to be constituents of the president proved to be conspirators attempting to oust his stint in office. Even more so, they were aided, and continue to be, by a media so partisan and corrupt it could rival that of the “news” in China.
The first of these attempts came with the idea that now President Trump, had colluded with a foreign government to advance his chances in the election. While this theory has largely been disproven through hours of testimony, it is important to note that the accusers repeatedly endorse the crime in which they based this accusation; calling for eleven million illegal aliens, or in PC terms “undocumented persons” to vote in a federal election is by definition foreign interference. Furthermore, the advantage any sizable campaign contribution could possibly offer pales in comparison to that of eleven million votes.
However, in this scenario, interference would benefit the Democrats and so it is okay; in fact, it is encouraged because after all, those who endorse this idea, (the Democratic party and their puppets Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd) are America’s moral compass.
With election season around the corner and not a dominant candidate in sight, nor the possibility for a massive foreign vote, the Democrats sought the only solution left: impeachment. This latest charade with Ukraine is nothing but that: a façade to designed to divert the American public from real issues and even more so an attempt to garner power without democracy. After all, if Trump really did do something wrong, the citizens of this country will have the opportunity to vote him out of office in less than a year; that is how democracy works.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have grown out of touch with a group of people who once comprised a large portion of their electorate and stand nearly no chance in winning the next election. Therefore, they’ve reached the conclusion that the only logical thing left to do is have Adam Schiff throw his impeachment hail Mary. While CNN has described the congressman’s oration as if he’s Julius Caesar, any logical person should sense a feeling of disparity; one you’d expect from a man who knows he’s about to lose the very thing he cares most about. For Adam Schiff, that thing is the power of his party, and its disappearance is becoming imminent.
This past week Congressman Schiff gave testimony for nearly eight hours that was in no way pertinent to the articles of impeachment brought forward. He vehemently argued the necessity of the 400-million-dollar Ukrainian aid package in the name of national security, exclaiming it’ll help us fight Russia over there “so we don’t have to fight Russia over here.”
The idea that we are at war with Russia or would even want to be should be scoffed at by rational human; it would likely mean the end of the world as we know it.
However, for Adam Schiff and his war hawk companions such a national catastrophe would likely mean a big pay day with defense contractors not dissimilar to Iraq or Afghanistan. There was never a real national security threat in either of those foreign policy disasters, just like there isn’t in Russia. Yet, every Democrat in D.C. seems to want a fight with Putin. You can’t blame them though; it won’t be there kids going to die in some foreign dump. As a matter of fact, their kids will likely sit around reaping the benefits of nepotism: a disgusting habit rampant throughout D.C., that when questioned can get a sitting president impeached.
While having said during a press conference in 2016 that “[we] need to fight the cancer of corruption,” there is no denying that Joe Biden and his son have some shady business dealings. As a matter of fact, three weeks following that same press conference Biden’s son, Hunter, was appointed to the board of Ukrainian natural gas giant, Burisma. At the time Burisma was under investigation for corruption by the Ukrainian government; this investigation would soon cease.
Ukraine was not the only country where Biden had business dealings that would suggest a conflict of interest. In December of 2013 then VP Biden, along with his son Hunter, was greeted by Chinese diplomats upon arriving in the great red state. In less than two weeks, Hunter’s investment group would have new business with the government-controlled Bank of China, aiming to raise 1.5 billion in capital.
Furthermore, as AG, Pam Bondi pointed out during her testimony, multiple witnesses called by the Democrats from the NSC, DOS, and other agencies acknowledged that perhaps there existed a conflict of interest regarding Joe Biden and his son’s inolvement in both Burisma and China.
In addition to the testimony by federal agents, bank records indicate that 3.1 million dollars was paid by Burisma, over the course of 17 months (approx. 83k per month), to Hunter Biden and his business associate. This level of compensation far surpasses that of board members at fortune 100 companies like Goldman Sachs, one of the world’s leading investment banks; at Goldman Sachs, board members are highly qualified and have generally spent decades in the banking sector.
Having no knowledge of the natural gas industry, nor the ability to even speak Ukrainian, Hunter Biden was asked whether he would have his board seat had his last name not been Biden; to this question he replied, “I don’t know, probably not.” If it is not clear in the evidence provided that daddy’s political power played a role in Hunter’s business, I encourage you to watch Ms. Bondi’s testimony; I would gladly continue but am constrained by a word limit.
In closing I ask the following: would this corruption inquiry even be an issue had Biden not entered the 2020 presidential race and more so, as Biden is running against President Trump, does that fact grant him immunity from being prosecuted for blatant corruption? In regards to Nadler, Schiff and those pleading for impeachment, Sic Semper Tyrannis.