Impeachment Mania and Squirrels

Scott Johnson discusses the increasing impeachment chorus coming from a choir of Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media, and yeah, even a very few #NeverTrump Republicans. He writes:

The Dems invested heavily in the Mueller Report, but were disappointed by the outcome. Remember the weeping and wailing about the sanctity of Mueller himself? He required protection at all costs from the Hitlerian madman in the White House. Left free to run wild with a team of subpoena wielding Clintonian partisans, Mueller delivered too much of nothing. The Dems went bust on their investment.

Those Clintonian partisans on Mueller’s team heavily seeded Volume II with markers pointing the way for their Democratic friends in the House of Representatives. Volume II might have been inspired by a close reading of Hansel and Gretel. It partakes of the qualities of a grim fairly tale, not a Grimm fairy tale: a fairy tale written by lawyers stretching a bad case to please an immature audience having troubles with deferred gratification.

For their friends in Congress Mueller’s team pointed the way home. We are to believe that Trump corruptly impeded the investigation of crimes he didn’t commit — even though he withheld approximately nothing from the investigators.

The Dems’ impeachment mania is inversely proportional to the merits of their case against Trump. It represents one branch of their refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election. To borrow a metaphor used in Fourth Amendment law, it is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

I also have written about Democrat impeachment mania, noting on the one hand, the Dems' unhinged calls for impeachment but on the other noting that Trump can be removed from office much more easily by defeating him in an election that is now only about 17 months away. But alas, that would do nothing to reduce the fever of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and the fever rules all.

But I've come to realize that both Johnson and I are only half correct. There's another reason for impeachment mania, and it has to do with squirrels. It looks as if the greatest political scandal in the history of the United States just might come to light. An honest AG has appointed a no-nonsense prosecutor to investigate the scandal, along with the FBI IG who is currently wrapping up an internal report. The result might be the release of damning evidence that a soft coup, perpetrated by senior executives in the FBI, the Obama DoJ, and our intelligence agencies under the codename "crossfire hurricane" (discussed here, here, and here) actually did occur. That crimes were committed, and that the Democrat partisans involved just might be indicted.

And the Dems, fearing that serious and dangerous political corruption on their watch might be revealed, will do anything—and I mean anything—to cause a distraction that buries the scandal. The trained hamsters in the media truly don't want to cover a story of massive corruption involving Democrats, but they need a reason to ignore it. Like a dog walking through the woods, they can be easily distracted and will chase a squirrel if they see one. Impeachment is the squirrel they need.

So here's a prediction. If the "crossfire hurricane" scandal is as bad as most objective observers believe. If it involves actual crimes, hard evidence of corruption at the highest levels of government, and certainly if it presents a trail of bread crumbs that lead to the Obama White House and perilously close to the past president—articles of impeachment will be introduced in the House. Bet on it.

UPDATE-1:
---------------
Based on copious, publicly available facts and evidence, the Crossfire Hurricane (a.k.a. "Spygate") scandal is real—it did happen. But that doesn't mean that anyone in the deep state will be held accountable. Marc Ellis writes:

To what extent, if any, will Russia-Gate actors like Lynch, Simpson, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Strzok, Page and the rest be held accountable for their alleged criminality?

... The answer, from [conservative] Fourth Estate constitutionalists like Gregg Jarrett and Sara Carter, is always couched in a context of cautionary advisement: “They should,” or, “If justice still exists in America, yes,” or, the best conditional condemnation of all, “Put it this way, if you or I had done what (Hillary, Comey, Strzok, etc.) had done, yes, we would likely be looking at serious jail time.”

Lying to a FISA court, destroying evidence, leaking classified information. These are but a minimal sampling of the alleged crimes and malefactions committed in the name of electing Clinton and usurping Trump’s ascendancy.

... it would be irresponsible to categorically state that yes, this person, those people, will ever be charged or brought to trial, let alone hear the clank of a cell door closing behind them. Due to the labyrinthine depths, interconnectivity, and power inherent in a Deep State that has shocked a nation aghast at the reach of rogue bureaucracies, no one can say for certain whether any of those who concocted this conspiracy will ever be brought to justice.

Originally, I was of the opinion that no one would be held accountable. Now, I'm not so sure.

UPDATE-2 (5/24/2019):
-------------------------------
As a consequence of Donald Trump's move to declassify very specific information related to the crossfire-hurricane scandal, the Dems are beginning to feel just a bit uncomfortable. Their narrative du jour was voiced by serial liar, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who opined that any effort to declassify information that might shed light on thee scandal was an effort to “weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their [the GOP's] political enemies.”

That's rich, given that the entire "spygate" scandal was about exactly that—weaponizing law enforcement and classified information against political enemies (i.e., Donald Trump). Talk about psychological projection!

Gosh ... and here I thought that the Dems demands for full transparency were sincere. After all, if the memos to be declassified show no wrongdoing, that will vindicate the Dems and people like Schiff. I wonder why he's so concerned?

Paul Mirengoff comments:

...We can’t have one party or set of partisans using the power of the intelligence community to undermine the electoral prospects of the other party.

Thus, the investigation the Trump administration will conduct through Attorney General Barr is every bit as important as the investigation Robert Mueller conducted into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Indeed, it is probably more important. We can cope more easily with interference by outsiders than with partisan involvement by insiders using the immense powers of our intelligence agencies to favor one candidate over another.

Every shred of evidence unearthed so far indicates that Democrat partisans used "the power of the intelligence community [and FBI] to undermine the electoral prospects of the other party." That not good and those partisans should pay a price—a very steep price.