Candidate Donald Trump declined to endorse the 2016 election outcome until after reviewing the results, asserting that “millions” of ineligible illegal alien voters – could swing it. Mr. Trump also complained about media airbrushing Hillary Clinton’s arguably-felonious email scandal, and that the Obama administration’s intelligence and law-enforcement agencies were exonerating her.
Clinton responded that she was “horrified” to hear Trump “talking down our democracy.” Pre-Election Day, Clinton declared that the election was absolutely legitimate, that refusing to concede would be “traitorous.”
According to Rasmussen Reports, “Just over half of voters still believe in the likelihood of an illegal high-level effort to stop the Trump presidency…”
Rasmussen asked, “How likely is it that senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency” Fifty-one percent of likely U.S. voters believe officials broke laws. Likely, the other forty-nine percent are partisans or merely inattentive.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy laid it out:
“In 2016, the…administration of President Barack Obama put the…government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the…Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts…
“Plan A was to get Mrs. Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations of her felonious and politically disqualifying actions.
“Plan B was the insurance policy: an investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he was elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump un-reelectable under the guise of building an impeachment case.”
Inauguration Day, 2017, Washington Post headline: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” That’s the pig on which a nearly party-line House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry unsuccessfully tried to apply lipstick. Two Democrats voted against.
The October 31 House vote formalized an unfair, corruptly-conceived, already-rigged, undeniably-partisan, slow-motion coup d’état in which the accused is unrepresented, and Republicans are not allowed to call – or even question – witnesses without the permission of a Democratic chairman who, to date, has denied rights to the House minority and due process for President Trump.
If the president’s alleged offenses were genuinely impeachable, Democrats would cut the charade, grant due process, hold public rather than closed-door hearings, and stop highly-selective partisan leaking. Persuaded, Republicans could sign on.
Americans, generally, are perceptive and fair. People get it. A likely-voter majority already suspects “an illegal high-level effort to stop the Trump presidency,” so, if Democrats deny due process and public surveillance/oversight, expect protests, the Senate won’t convict, and Democrats will suffer a well-deserved electoral backlash.