Mark Levin on Impeachment: "You Are Witnessing Tyranny"

From Real Clear Politics:

You're witnessing tyranny in the House of Representatives, in the Intelligence Committee that doesn't do intelligence work anymore. This is an outrageous violation of the Constitution. How often is the Constitution read during these hearings? Never, never, and it's never going to be, because they're destroying the Constitution of the United States. 

They're undermining your franchise they're trying to influence the 2020 election. And by they, I not only mean the Democrats on this committee, I mean the media. To listen to the media analysis of what's taking place in these hearings is absurd, it's disgraceful. They talk about Russia, they sound like the Russian media. 

The Democrat Party and the media are like this, that's why I wrote the book. They're like this. So the President's never going to get a break from the media, so he tweets. So due process, even though it's not a criminal case, even though it's not a civil case, due process - Western civilization believes in due process 

Due process even before the Bill of Rights does not apply to the President, because Congress can do whatever it wants. Is that what the Constitution says? Is that what that says? No that's not what that says. President's not allowed to tweet to defend himself. Well then he can't defend himself, you name one newsroom in this country really that's calling it straight here. None of them, none of them - not picking on anyone, I'm saying none of them. 

President's tweet today - not a single newsroom that I watched put the tweet up there in full - in full. Here's what the President tweeted America, everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then - and that's pretty much what he said. No it's not, according to Adam Schiff it is. 

"Then fast-forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors." This woman is intimidated by this? We're told 33 years in the State Department where they have the most brutal bureaucrats on the face of the earth. She was facing down dictators. She was in somewhat - she was on - oh, my god, this tweet intimidated her. 

Now how could the tweet intimidate her, as I posted early on and everybody repeat it. She'd didn't even know about the tweet until commissar Adam Schiff read the tweet and he'd even read the full tweet. He read part of the tweet. Now let's talk about what's going on here. Here's an article for the 50th time. POLITICO, January 2017, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. Now other news outlets, this is conspiracy theory written in left-wing POLITICO, repeated in left-wing "New York Times." It's not conspiracy theory it's fact. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. It goes on in incredible detail. This ambassador wasn't all that familiar with it. Did she do anything about it? No. 

They have this great leader over there that everybody loves in Ukraine was trashing the President on social media, did she call him? No, no, it's - that's OK. But you know the poor thing was smeared by Rudy Giuliani. Let me tell you what a smear is. A smear is when you go after somebody's returns, a smear is when you go after somebody's bank records, a smear is when you go over somebody's children, a smear is when you try and dig up dirt about their past personal lives, a smear is this clown show. 

I mean it was fractious to hear them, "oh, I'm sorry poor madam ambassador that you were smeared and that Rudy Giuliani - I'm sorry, while they're smearing the President of United States, while they're undermining these values that we believe in Western civilization and in our United States Constitution. (Read more.)

 From Cheryl Chumley at The Washington Times:

True, this impeachment inquiry is not being held in a court of law. Different scenario, different standards. But shouldn’t the same spirit of America justice guide and prevail, just the same? Yes. Indeed. Indubitably. Not in Pelosi’s world, though.

“If the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known and that’s part of the inquiry,” Pelosi said, as The Week noted. “And so far, we haven’t seen that. But we welcome it.” Pelosi then went on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday and told host Margaret Brennan that if Trump had “information that is exculpatory — that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame — then we look forward to seeing it.”

This is a flip of American justice. It’s just not how we do things in a free U.S. society. Democrats, leftists, socialists and President Donald Trump haters of all political walks may cheer this nonsense. But they’re blinded by hate. And nobody with any affinity for America at all would — should — applaud such a call.

It’s the way of the dictators, it’s the stuff of secret police and Gestapo types and tyrannical rulers throughout history. It’s the line of logic that goes, “Well, if you have nothing to hide, then what’s the big deal?” And it can be used for everything from pulling over a citizen on a sidewalk to frisk through pockets and purse, to hauling a political enemy into court on less-than-factual charges in order to slam, slander and shame — which is kind of where we’re at in the impeachment inquiry, by the way. (Read more.)

Fake witnesses in a fake trial. From The Washington Post:

Every day in America, true victims of crime face blood-sworn and violent enemies and accuse them — face-to-face — of terrible crimes. Each of these good citizens faces actual intimidation and real retribution in a very real world. Long after they have stood up for justice in a courtroom and confronted the violent criminal, they are tormented by fear of reprisal. From inside jails, drug lords order hits against good citizens who dared to stand up to make their neighborhood a safer place. Even decades later, ordinary citizens who testify against murderers and rapists are reminded again and again that the person condemned for destroying their life will soon be let out of prison. And do they have an opinion about this?


But that is not how things work in Washington. If you are a “witness” willing to smear President Trump from inside the federal bureaucracy, then you are treated like some kind of precious, swaddled savior, one who must be protected at all costs from any whiff of fairness or justice or due process. It does not matter how many times removed the testimony of the “witness” is from actual firsthand information. And it does not matter how jaundiced or opinionated the testimony is. So long as it smears President Trump, then it can be tossed like a wet log onto the bonfire to burn President Trump at the stake.

Take the precious “whistleblower” who sparked the impeachment furor. This partisan bureaucrat has no actual firsthand information to offer. His testimony would, literally, not be allowed in court. A judge would punish a prosecutor for even mentioning the existence of such a witness and admonish the jury to erase any hint of his testimony from their minds. Yet this “witness” is protected and coddled. Democrats on the House intelligence committee raise all sorts of crazy alarms about how people are somehow threatening the life of this revered bureaucrat if his name is uttered — never mind that virtually everybody in Washington thinks they already know exactly who it is and have gotten in on the game of not uttering his name.

You mean to tell me we are going to impeach a president and remove him from office based entirely on the whistle blown by a partisan bureaucrat who can never be named? That is seriously the state of “journalism” in America today? What will the history books say? Then along comes former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, publicly testifying on national television about all of her opinions of President Trump and his policies in Ukraine. OK, we get it. State Department loyalists don’t like Mr. Trump or his foreign policy. Great. Go run for office. Until then, shut up. (Read more.)

From The New York Post:

The scariest aspect of Vindman’s testimony is his insistence that US foreign policy should be made by unelected bureaucrats like himself. He says he and his colleagues have formulated “the best, most informed judgment” about Ukraine, and it was not “appropriate for government officials” like Trump’s ambassadors to act “counter” to it. What arrogance.

Vindman drafted talking points for Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky and grew “concerned” when the commander in chief “strayed” from them, according to pages 18, 42 and 93 of his testimony. Is this guy for real? Similarly, Vindman was outraged over Trump’s recall of Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch. But Trump had solid reasons. Zelensky said he disliked her and mistrusted her. She had sided with his rival during the election, as page 324 of Vindman’s testimony reveals. It’s smart to ­appoint an ambassador who can get along with a country’s leader. (Read more.)

More HERE. And HERE. Share