The release of the Mueller report should have finally silenced President Trump’s Democrat critics who for two years have fueled the false narrative that he and his campaign colluded with the Russian government to win his election. Mueller’s exhaustive investigation has proven conclusively their destructive, and very likely concocted allegations were pure fantasy. But hard facts are no substitute for blind hatred, and Democrats are not about to give up.
The report left open for them another opportunity to keep alive the hatred and suspicion that’s enveloped the country for much too long. It cites several instances that Trump critics could interpret as obstruction of justice – obstruction of an investigation into a crime that never happened.
Mueller’s team debated the justification for criminal charges, and rejected it in all cases. Legal scholars studying the report have been unable to establish clear-cut evidence of obstruction. But Democrats in Congress have decided to perpetuate the suspicion, the anger and gridlock that they instigated more than two years ago. They’re starting from scratch and picking through Mueller’s report word-by-word, hoping to prove, after endless hearings, that Trump somehow obstructed Mueller’s investigation when he offered those words of support for General Michael Flynn while meeting with FBI Director Jim Comey, or when he later fired Comey for incompetence.
Because obstruction of justice can’t be established without specific intent, like Johnny Carson’s Carnac, Democrats will try to reveal exactly what he was thinking during those instances cited in the report.
But they don’t have to divine the deepest depths of Trump’s psyche to find clear, unequivocal examples of intentional obstruction of justice. For decades, two prominent Democrats have been showing them just what it’s all about.
Hillary Clinton offered a textbook example during the last presidential campaign, when she deliberately deleted 33,000 emails that had already been subpoenaed by Congress. That scandal evoked long-forgotten memories of her missing Rose Law Firm billing records, also subpoenaed by Congress, that ultimately surfaced under her control in the White House. As First Lady and Secretary of State, Hillary has proven that learning to obstruct justice is like learning to ride a bicycle. And it doesn’t take a mind-reader to understand her intent. Nor was there any question about Bill Clinton’s intent when he lied in a written deposition in 1998. It was, in fact, what led to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Democrats are certainly mindful of Clinton’s impeachment. They remember that even with such a clear case of obstruction, and the opposition party controlling both Houses of Congress, they could still not muster the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate to convict him. They also know that the trial actually boosted Clinton’s popularity.
With that in mind, and the approaching 2020 election, Democrats aren’t likely to risk strengthening Trump’s hand, while weakening theirs. Asked about the possibility of impeachment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said, “…we’re not there yet.” She knows that, based on the Mueller report, they’ll never be there.
Yes, some obsessed, hyperventilating, Democrats live for Trump’s impeachment. To Democrat presidential candidates, it’s become a reliable fund-raiser. To the more rational Democrats, it’s not much more than an addendum to their wish-list – just like the Green New Deal.
While they have no real appetite to impeach the president, they do have an insatiable appetite for something else, and that is much more threatening to our future. We hear it in the rhetoric of their newly-elected lawmakers as well as their 2020 presidential hopefuls. It’s a hunger for power – the power over the people that comes with socialism. Under the guise of compassion and benevolence, they promise economic and social equality. What they’re clawing for so desperately is power and control.
The “free” health care they promise, Medicare for all, isn’t free, nor is it unlimited. Funded by the American taxpayer, it would be distributed – doled out by government bureaucrats weighing cost-to-benefit ratios. Likewise, free college means government-controlled, taxpayer-funded education. The government would set the guidelines, the regulations, and stipulations for higher education. It would decide when continued studies were no longer in the best interest of the state. It would regulate all aspects of energy use and would restore the oppressive regulations that stifle economic growth. One candidate has boasted about weakening our Second Amendment rights through Executive Order, and compelling all workers to either join unions or pay a fee. Power-hungry Democrats are pushing hard for government control of every aspect of our lives.
Their humiliating defeat in 2016 intensified that craving for power, and they’re not about to take any chances with the approaching presidential election. So even as they pontificate about congressional oversight responsibility, their real purpose is clear. They won’t risk an impeachment trial, but they’ll do what they can to weaken this president through endless hearings and relentless accusations and innuendo aimed at him, his associates, and his family. The collateral damage to our country is irrelevant to them, as long as they’re convinced it will restore them to power in 2020.