xml:space="preserve">

It’s official. Democrats have lost their minds. They are way past puppies and bubbles and strolls on the Capitol grounds. They may even be well beyond medication. Their vitriolic hatred for this president is so overarching, they are willing to overlook the facts, overlook the law, and overlook the mandate of the American people.

At one point, I thought “Trump Derangement Syndrome” was simply a cute way to irritate the Democrats — an overstatement for comic effect — hyperbole, if you will. But it now appears to be emerging as a serious illness. At some point, we may need to declare a national emergency and send in a fleet of psychiatrists.

Advertisement

While I would be the first to agree that President Trump is unconventional in his approach to governing, one should note that “unconventional” is not the equivalent of “unethical.” Before this president even stepped into the White House, before he picked up a “phone and a pen,” before he was even sworn into office as the nation’s commander-in-chief, Democrats were already foaming at the mouth and announcing their plot to impeach him.

My patience is exhausted with these Democrats and their constant barrage of accusations and their continuous leaps from the improbable to the impossible. No doubt they subscribe to the theory that if you tell a lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth. It’s called “wishful thinking,” and the sole believers are those who launch it, those who perpetuate it, and those who mindlessly parrot it without benefit of their own independent inquiry.

Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is a typical example. While the country waited for the Mueller Report to be released, Schiff assured us that he knew that the president was guilty of collusion and/or obstruction of justice. He had seen the “proof.” And the Democrats banked on Mueller to “prove” their case for impeachment. Unfortunately, their plans fell through when Mueller and his entourage of left-wing attorneys failed to find the evidence. Did that stop Schiff? Au contraire. He was off and running, assuring us yet again that there was, indeed, conclusive evidence of the President’s misdeeds. We have yet to see it.

Fast-forward to the current accusations. Before they saw the transcript of the president’s conversation with the new Ukrainian president, before they knew anything about the so-called whistleblower, the Democrats jumped in full-throttle, launching an “impeachment inquiry” looking for high crimes and misdemeanors that the President certainly must have committed simply because he is Donald Trump. And the coup de gras was to be the release of the telephone transcript. Another fizzle.

Here’s what we currently know:

First. The president’s conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky was well within his presidential authority, and according to Zelensky himself, there was no quid pro quo (something for something).

Second. The “whistleblower,” a third-party interloper, had no first-hand knowledge of what was said during the president’s call to Zelensky. In legal terms, it’s called “hearsay,” and here’s what legalzoom.com says concerning hearsay: With few exceptions, “hearsay evidence is inadmissible for lack of a firsthand witness. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination.”

Third. Going forward, future discussions with world leaders are imperiled because those leaders can have no confidence that their conversations with any U.S. President, Democrat or Republican, will remain confidential. In short, with their relentless pursuit of presidential impeachment, Democrats have managed to undermine the future security of the United States.

And now that we’ve seen the transcript, now that we’ve heard from the anonymous whistleblower (an acknowledged Democratic partisan), and now that we’ve heard the Ukrainian president’s version of the conversation, we still have Schiff blathering on about what he knows (or conceivably, what he launched).

I once believed that setting term limits for Congress was not wise because the younger members needed the wisdom and guidance of the older members. I am now convinced that not only should there be term limits, but before they are even qualified to run for office, Congressional candidates should be subjected to a background investigation with full public disclosure and compelled to pass a basic test on the U.S. Constitution.

M.K. Sprinkle writes from Hampstead.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement