Whew! No more ‘action’ for today. So … I will leave you with a few tidbits about some breaking news. And (no surprise here) the latest tidbits seem to be about a Lev Parneas. Also that, as happens often, the mainstream media seems eager to ignore the big news – and just as eager to peddle things that are meaningless.
For example: I have mentioned the SDNY experience. A politicized group of federal prosecutors are lending themselves out to do witness intimidation – of anyone favorable to the President. I have previously stated that I am aware of two people who have been put through this. And I have mentioned someone named Sondland as the first one. This newly discussed person, Lev Parneas, is the second.
Like Sondland, he was:
1) on the periphery of the impeachment investigation
2) was favorable to the President and
3) he was someone that the Southern District of New York couldn’t wait until after the impeachment investigation to deal with. Arguably, you don’t want to unfairly influence an impeachment investigation. But, like Sondland, he was called before the SDNY – on a matter totally unrelated to the investigation about impeachment – and then ‘flipped’. He is now another weapon against the President. So much for the big news that the media is eager not to cover.
Their nothing burger news (that they are eager to cover) now centers around a 3-minute excerpt (from an 80-minute tape). This item ‘contradicts’ the President because Parneas is engaging the President in a conversation. But … it is a Donor’s Dinner with multiple people in it (and that have no real connection either to the President or to each other).
I know this because I attended something like it once. And I intend to have the experience be something that I only do once. Why? Because of corrupt cabals and/or impeachable behavior? Quite the opposite. What the Donor’s Dinner is is just a dog and pony show that is arranged by a low lever staffer.
You are given a lavish dinner, a rousing pep talk, and you get a once in a lifetime experience of (seemingly) getting listened to by someone of influence. Except, that they have no real interest in getting your opinions about how they should do their jobs. Nor will the encounter give you a chance to become a big-time wheeler dealer type. It is just a show that is put on to keep you donating more money.
You don’t believe me? But what about the part of the story that the media seems to be stumped on. How his suggestion about an ambassador was never acted on for at least 14 months. But there is nothing stumping about this.
It is simply what I have described. Like virtually all people that are at a donor’s dinner: you will get respectfully listened to, flattered for your brilliance (and what-not) and then both you and your suggestions will be forgotten all about just as soon as you leave. It is just a show that is put on so you will keep donating more money.
Thus, this explosive(?) new revelation shows exactly what Trump is maintaining. That, at least as of that moment, Parneas was no one to him going into the meeting – and remained a no one to him after he went out of it.
So … enough about Parneas. What about the continuation of the Presidents defense – and what they should be doing come Monday? I have some quick and simple suggestions:
1) No Senate vote is needed for the President’s defenders to show some depositions. They should show depositions of the President getting to speak out for himself. And, while I will not elaborate on it at the present time, it is time for the public to be introduced to an Admiral Mike Rogers. This can also be done by way of a deposition.
2) Before the Democrats should be allowed to call their witnesses, they should be required to allow the President to face his accuser, the whistleblower, and be given his constitutional right to face one’s accuser. Next, because the Democrat floor managers have hurled several allegations at people other than the President, they should be given their chance to respond to it with some rebuttal testimony. After that, I am not too worried about the matter one way or the other – but with one caveat.
Like I stated elsewhere: The Democrats, so far, have not even demonstrated that a crime has occurred – since no one is claiming to have been victimized. Thus, there is a point of principle involved: anyone else would have had their case shoved down their throats for trying to do something like that in court. And, like this same crowd said about Clinton, a President is not above the law, but he is not below the law either.