The Hypocrisy of Impeaching Donald Trump – a Response to an Email from Congresswoman Katherine Clark of Massachusetts.

I recently received an email survey from Congresswoman Katherine Clark (D – Mass.).  The email asked if I wanted the Senate to provide a “fair” impeachment trial of Pres. Donald Trump.  What follows below is my response to the Congresswoman and is based on what I know of the issue(s) and upon the overall hypocrisy of it all:

January 20, 2020

Congresswoman Clark,

Regarding your email survey demanding a “fair impeachment trial” of President Donald Trump in the U.S. Senate (“House Sends Trump Impeachment Articles to the Senate,” of 1/15/20): The impeachment of President Trump is a disgrace and appears as a dereliction of duty by the U.S. House of Representatives.  Foremost, it is a disgrace to impeach a President - who was elected by sixty million voters - on hearsay alone.  Furthermore, the impeachment proceedings in your House of Representatives seemed to be the unfair process.  Where was your survey demanding a fair process then?  The hypocrisy of your claiming the “unfair” process yet to come in the Senate is not lost on most of us, when the whole impeachment process in your House of Representatives appeared as nothing but political partisanship and grandstanding. 

To impeach a President who was elected by sixty million voters and to not present the supposed hearsay "whistle-blower" declarant to the process or to not present that declarant to the people/nation, a declarant upon whose words were the impeachment process was based, seems to flaunt the deranged nature of your legislature and attests to your obvious hatred of President Donald Trump.  For instance, typically a litigant can not win a legal dispute on hearsay alone.  Yet, your apparently deranged House of Representatives seems to believe that hearsay alone is adequate to impeach a seated U.S. President – again, a President who received sixty million votes. 

Moreover, with all the major problems facing the nation, your legislature chose to spend the nation's valuable time, resources, and tax-dollars to impeach a President of whom you don’t approve.  The impeachment merely appears as though your political party and its followers can not accept that Trump beat your preferred candidate in the general election.  I mean…, the next election is not that far away.  Couldn’t your legislature address the pressing problems facing the nation as opposed to pursuing your obvious hatred of Trump?  Apparently not, huh? 

As for military aid to Ukraine, anytime our nation gives aid to another nation, we should get something in return for our tax-dollars.  Your party and your fellow insider politicians have been giving away nearly everything the nation has to offer, it seems.  And you rarely seem to get anything in return for the taxpayers – other than the resentment of our nation by those to whom we give our tax-dollars in the form of international aid. 

For your information, many of us did not like Obama - who reportedly was too fearful of Russia and Putin to give any meaningful military aid to Ukraine.  But those of us who did not care for Obama dealt with his election victories like adults, for the most part - not like deranged individuals who forever cried like babies for Obama's impeachment.  Also, your legislature's impeachment of Trump clearly sets a bad precedent for the next time a President is not liked by a House of Representatives who is under the control of the opposing party. 

Finally, anytime any politician can expose any corruption or insider influence peddling - which had clearly been happening with the Bidens and the Obama White House (and other insider politicians in Congress too, apparently), that politician should expose such corruption for any reason and under any circumstances (as was Trump looking to expose, I'm sure).  For any legislature to reprimand or censure any politician for exposing corruption for any reason is surely a dereliction of duty by that legislature (regardless if the exposure of corruption is self-serving or otherwise). The subsequent impeachment of Trump seems to say that your legislature wants no exposure of the corruption that could be underway by your political-insider buddies in power.  A demand for "business as usual" seems to the moral of your impeachment process. 

Congresswoman Clark, I trust freedom of speech has not become too unpopular with your legislature or political party as well.  That is to say, the freedom of speech of differing viewpoints with which you clearly don’t agree does not also deserve censure, I assume.  Modernly, however, it seems like those of you who suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” believe that your opinions are the only opinions deserving of any freedoms allowing for expression.  Nevertheless, please let me know your thoughts and comments to the matters herein, if you would be so kind. 

Sincerely,

Adam Trotter

XXX-XXX-XXXX (cell)

Water Answers Energy

Check it out, for an unlimited supply of energy:

http://engineeringandcommerce.blogspot.com/2020/01/water-answers-energy.html

 


AVT  (January 2020)

Hoping for Result “A” While Getting Result “B.” The Government and Gun Control Laws.

Our nation’s governments are historically inept – at least during the most recent decades.  That is to say, when the government(s) try to solve one problem, it always merely creates another different problem.  Why would the outcome of any gun-control laws be any different?  

For instance, the government(s) could try to outlaw guns all together or make guns nearly impossible to buy – such as it is here in most of California.  As a result, then, only the criminals would have guns while leaving everyone else defenseless to those criminals with guns.  Does anyone think of California as a safe place to walk through dark urban alleys late at night by oneself?  I doubt it.  For more examples, we can look to Washington, D.C., and New York City, the places with the claimed “strictest” gun-control laws in the nation.  Would anyone feel especially safe walking though dark, desolate alleys in those cities by oneself?  I doubt that too.   So, leaving only the criminals to own guns does not make any place any safer.  Again, as I’ve blogged previously, criminals don’t care about gun laws (or any laws), that’s why they are called "criminals."

Equally as important and also as ironic, when faced with a violent creep on a homicidal rampage, or merely looking to defend oneself from wrongful attack, a gun is typically the only viable defense available to many.  What does the government hope to achieve or what does it think will be the likely result when it takes guns away from the law-abiding populace?  Whatever it hopes, the likely result will be to leave the populace defenseless to the never-ending numbers of violent creeps who roam freely among the populace looking for defenseless and easy victims for the creep to attack.  To take guns away from the law-abiding populace, the governments of our land would merely be signaling that most folks do not maintain the ability to defend themselves from attack.  As an example of where lack of guns leaves the innocent defenseless, we can look to the Fort Hood shootings – where the shootings happened on Federal property and where gun control laws are among the most stringent; yet even with those gun-control laws on Federal property, those laws only accomplished to leave the innocent totally defenseless to a homicidal maniac.

Another possible result of outlawing or banning guns would be to create an “underground market” or “black market” for guns.  Thereby creating opportunities for folks in the military and law-enforcement sectors to sell guns stolen from entities in those sectors – which probably happens in the rest of the world where guns are illegal.  Such would create a whole new stream of revenue for scofflaws in those sectors.  Because, if there is a demand for any item, there will be those who look to supply that demand.  One only needs to look at the demand for illegal drugs in the nation and the governments’ long-standing yet ineffectual war on drugs as but one example of demand driving an illegal supply. 

Or, maybe, with gun-control laws the governments are simply looking to have another reason to throw throngs of the populace in prison.  Clearly, the government gains some benefit/profit for having so much of the populace in prison – even if only for victimless crimes.  Now that certain drugs such as marijuana are becoming decriminalized and legal in much of the nation, does the government need a new source of prisoners for any slave labor that takes place in those prisons?

Anyway, I assume it’s still legal to speak and express one’s opinion on such subjects as addressed in this blog entry.  No doubt, time will likely tell.

Adam Trotter (August, 2019)

 

Other related thoughts:

Handguns Save Life and Property, While the Defenseless Can Lose Everything.

http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2011/07/handguns-save-life-and-property-while.html

Tragic Disgrace: More Fort Hood Shootings/Killings.

https://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2014/04/tragic-disgrace-more-fort-hood.html

Fuck the Stupid Drug War; Let’s Start a War on Violent Creeps!!!

https://avt777.blogspot.com/2010/03/fuck-stupid-drug-war-lets-start-war-on.html

Stop the Violence on Our Streets and in Our Society!!! If It Takes Violence to Do So, Well.... Damn the Torpedoes, Full Steam Ahead!!

https://avt777.blogspot.com/2010/03/stop-violence-on-our-streets-and-in-our.html

No Middle Class and No Guns Assures No Revolution, Ever! The Haves and Have-Nots of Futuristic America.

https://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2013/01/no-middle-class-and-no-guns-assures-no.html