A Heavy Price

At the beginning of the Democrats' latest impeachment frenzy, they dredged up a "Whistleblower" who told us that Donald Trump tried to get the Ukraine to investigate corruption that may have enveloped Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States at the time. The Dems claimed that there was a threat to withhold military funding (which was NOT withheld) so that the Ukraine would conduct an investigation (which was NOT conducted) to find dirt on Biden (there is copious evidence that ethical lapses by Biden occurred). The Dems began braying about a lawless president who had the temerity to suggest that the Obama administration looked the other way as Biden's son enriched himself using his father's high government office as leverage (sort of like the Clinton family enriched itself when Hillary was Secretary of State). Never mind that the Dems' 2016 candidate did far more than threaten to withhold anyone's funds—she literally bought and paid for Russian help in digging dirt on Trump. But Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, so her actions are perfectly acceptable to the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

But back to the Whistleblower. Have you noticed how the dems demanded that is identity remain secret. Wonder why?

The editors of Investor's Business Daily provide an answer:

The mainstream press has been oddly incurious about the identity of the “whistleblower” who got the Trump impeachment train rolling. Now we know the reason why.Real Clear Investigations on Wednesday published a bombshell account by investigative reporter Paul Sperry, who says that the identity of the so-called whistleblower “has been an open secret inside the Beltway.” There’s even a 40-page research dossier floating around on him compiled by former colleagues.

It turns out that the person who wrote the second-hand, factually inaccurate account of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky isn’t just some careerist, non-partisan CIA official, or even, as Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson put it, a person with “some indicia of an arguable political bias.”

Eric Ciaramella is, as Sperry reveals, “a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia ‘collusion’ investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

What’s more, Ciaramella left his White House post in mid-2017 “amid concerns about negative leaks to the media.” Sperry reports that, according to that 40-page dossier, Ciaramella also helped generate the “Putin fired Comey” narrative.

Oh, and he worked “on Ukrainian policy issues for (Joe) Biden in 2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama’s ‘point man’ for Ukraine.”

As partisan icing on the cake, before filing his complaint against Trump, Ciaramella met with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff – who is running the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry – for “guidance.”

Oooo-kay then.

In other words, the "Whistleblower" is a partisan hack recruited and primed by the Dems as catalyst for their impeachment craziness. Every "witness" whose "secret" testimony has been leaked to the Dems trained hamsters in the media has been called using the Beria Rule.

The Dems conducted star chamber hearings with "witnesses" who tell us their interpretation of a phone call whose transcript is public. Why does anyone need their "interpretation"—read the transcript! Why should anyone care of any if these people felt "uncomfortable" with the call? Might it not be better to simply read the transcript to determine whether their discomfort was manufactured or genuine? And even if it was genuine—who cares? Is the job of the President of the United States to make everyone "comfortable" with his decisions and actions? Is it his job to be certain that no one is "concerned" with his words?

On Thursday, the Dems conducted a partisan vote to codify the rules for their impeachment inquiry. Donald Trump is correct when he calls their inquiry a "witch hunt" and a "sham." But it's more than that as Michael Goodwin writes:

The vote to formalize the impeachment jihad is a great day for Trump haters and a tragedy for democracy and common sense. Coming a year before an election and without a compelling claim that the president committed anything remotely resembling “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the action is an abuse of power for purely partisan purposes ...

Yet there is something bigger at stake than the next election. The effort to overturn the 2016 results is such a radical event that it raises the question of whether polarization has become fatal to our republic.

If so, then elections will never settle anything again. Each loser will simply look for a way to erase the outcome as if it never happened.

Driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Dems have become increasingly dishonest and vicious in their attempts to remove Trump from office. There is no lie too big, no allegation too small, and no absurd theory too crazy for them to pursue. Yet they keep getting caught in their own lies. Their theories and allegations are disproven over and over again while their "witnesses" are outed for their political bias and/or their dishonesty.

At this point the Dems have invested so much that there's little doubt they'll impeach Trump. And if there's any justice at all, they'll pay a VERY heavy price for doing so.