The Democrats' Evidence and Charges Against Trump: A Honeymoon of Lies and Injustice

During the democratic impeachment proceedings against Trump, the evidence presented was either non-existent or based on false assumptions. This article delves into the ins and outs of these charges and the central claims made by the Democrats, debunking the myths surrounding the two impeachment cases and exposing the truth behind the false narrative.

First Impeachment and Its Foundations

The first impeachment of Donald Trump was rooted in the now-infamous Steele Dossier, a document that was later proven to be unverifiable and a result of questionable sources. This dossier served as the precursor to the Mueller investigation, which was essentially an inquisition rather than a genuine investigation.

Aaron Schoenfeld, a famous federal defense lawyer, accurately described the situation as referring to the Mueller investigation as a Mueller inquisition. The reason for this characterization lies in the fact that Mueller did not charge Trump with any crime. Instead, he conducted a series of interrogations and investigations with no concrete evidence, only to suggest potential avenues for further inquiry.

To understand the scale of the supposed evidence provided against Trump, one must first grasp the concept of a reverse Comey. During the Hillary Clinton email scandal, then-FBI Director James Comey repeatedly talked about evidence regarding Clinton's private server but always followed with the statement that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in this case.” Fast forward to the Trump case where Robert Mueller did the exact opposite: he stated that he couldn't find enough evidence to charge Trump but still suggested further investigations in the realms of both collusion and obstruction of justice. This were the logical extensions of a documented FBI investigation that suffered from flaws in evidence and methodology.

Second Impeachment and Its Flaws

The second impeachment of Donald Trump centered around the insurrection claim, which was entirely fabricated and misleading. The Democrats selectively quoted his speech and manipulated context to incriminate him, without any substantial evidence to back up the allegations. The committee branded this a false narrative, purposed to create a sense of urgency and guilt.

Thousands of video recordings from January 6, 2021, were withheld by the congressional committee, specifically when these videos could have provided concrete evidence against the insurrection claim. Despite the arrest of over 1,000 individuals in relation to the insurrection, not a single person was charged with insurrection. The insurrection charge was a smokescreen to incriminate Trump and justify his impeachment, under a misleading banner of justice.

Unfounded Claims and Casualties

In the aftermath of the insurrection, the Democrats issued numerous false claims about the events. They reported five people killed during the protests, which was later revealed to be an oversimplification. The only fatality was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed female veteran who was shot by Capitol police. Additionally, Brian Sicknick, a Capitol police officer, was incorrectly reported to have been killed in a hit-and-run involving a fire extinguisher. It was later confirmed that he died of a stroke, which was clearly a natural cause, not resulting from violence. This misrepresentation of facts implies an intent to exaggerate the violence and the responsibility of the rioters.

Consequences and Future Outlook

The actions of the Democrats during Trump’s impeachment proceedings are a testament to their willingness to manipulate evidence and facts to further their political agendas. Their irrational behavior is a clear indication of fear and desperation. When faced with the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) potential to grant Trump presidential immunity, all the hopes and dreams of a conviction will evaporate, leaving the Democrats in an awkward and untenable position.

One can only speculate on what the Democrats will do in the future, especially if their expectations of a conviction are dashed. The culmination of these events demonstrates a broader issue with the political process and the fragility of democratic institutions when under attack. The implications of these false narratives and manipulative tactics are far-reaching and should serve as a sobering reminder of the importance of truth in public discourse.