Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante.
First off, people, to understand where I am going here, we, the actual American people, whether born here or naturalized, need to ask ourselves why it is that of all the types of government there are in the world, we have this particular frame with an executive not beholden to the House of Representatives, because he does not serve at the pleasure of the House of Representatives, although the incoming Democrat party seems bent on changing that by using the threat of impeachment as a whip and a goad to bring the president under their direct control.
Think the Lilliputians, tiny people who are about one-twelfth the height of ordinary human beings who live in Lilliput, said to be ruled by an Emperor assisted by a first minister who carries a white staff and several other officials who later bring articles of impeachment against Gulliver on grounds of treason, and you are in the right ballpark!
Getting back to the main story here, which is about Adam Schiff, a top Lilliputian if there ever was one (no, people, there is no Constitutional bar to tiny people who are about one-twelfth the height of ordinary human beings serving in the United States House of Representatives as Democrats from California), we are hearing a lot these days about the “founders” from the Democrats and what are supposed their thoughts on the impeachment of a sitting U.S. president, and according to them, we have now reached the patently absurd position in this country, thanks to the Democrats, that a U.S. president can be impeached for allegedly defrauding the voters of the United States of America, who, by the way, do not elect presidents in the first place; the electoral college does, by not specifically telling them that while he was running for president, he was actually making hush payments to some women not his wife who he was alleged to have had carnal relations with, as if that could somehow disqualify a person from holding the office of president of the United States of America.
So let’s see what the actual founders have to say about why we have the frame of government in this country that we do, as opposed to all the alternatives, such as can be found in the Congo, and Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, for example.
Let’s start with FEDERALIST No. 6, Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, which is exactly what we are seeing in the United States of America today, actually, with red states and blue states, by Alexander Hamilton for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, where we learn about our actual history, not the history being invented on the fly by the Democrats, from someone who was actually there when it was happening, to wit:
THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations.
I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind— – those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions.
Focus on that last line there, people, and more specifically on the words, “domestic factions and convulsions,” where convulsions can be taken to mean “a violent social or political upheaval,” with such synonyms as turmoil, agitation, and disorder, as in “the political convulsions of the period,” which takes us directly to an article in The Hill entitled “Schiff: Trump may face ‘real prospect of jail time’” by Michael Burke on 9 December 2018, where we are told as follows:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that President Trump might “face the real prospect of jail time” after prosecutors indicated last week that he directed illegal payments during his 2016 presidential campaign.
He “might,” Adam?
Do tell, dude!
Thanks for the timely head’s up, dude, but seriously, doesn’t the use of the word “might” imply that you are engaging in rank speculation?
Here, Adam, let me help you out by guiding you to an internet site entitled “Writing Explained,” and an article titled “May vs. Might: What’s the Difference?” where we learn that the two words may and might cause a lot of confusion in English and many writers aren’t sure when to use which one.
As to “might” as the word is used in The Hill article by California’s Adam Schiff, who incidentally is a Harvard-trained lawyer, so he should know the meaning of words as well as I do, it is used to express what is hypothetical, counterfactual, or remotely possible.
As the site tells us, right away we notice that might deals with situations that are speculative or did not actually happen, i.e. hypothetical, whereas may deals with situations that are possible or could be factual.
An easy way to express/remember this difference is that might suggests a lower probability than does may.
If something is very far-fetched, you probably want to use might.
You could say might is for things that are mighty far-fetched.
So, people, why then is California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who incidentally voted to invade Iraq based on bad intelligence, telling us in The Hill about something far-fetched?
And that answer is quite simple – California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, is trying to inflame people’s passions in this country for the exact purpose of causing convulsions to disturb our national tranquility for cheap partisan political gain and in order to disrupt the functioning of our national government and to influence the next presidential election.
Simply stated, Adam Schiff is a Democrat bomb-thrower, which takes us back to The Hill, where bomb-thrower Schiff then states as follows, to wit:
“There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him.”
Oh, really Adam!
My goodness, how serious that sounds.
So, Adam, they may indict him on the very day he leaves office.
I see, I see.
But tell us, Adam, how is it that you happen to know the exact date that the Justice Department is going to indict Trump?
Are you colluding with the Justice Department to make that happen, Adam?
Getting back to The Hill:
“That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Now, people, really, can you believe this bull****?
Can you believe that the Justice Department, which doesn’t confirm or deny that it is conducting an investigation, is telling California’s Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the Justice Department is going to put Trump in jail after indicting him on the day he leaves office?
Is there anyone out there actually credulous (ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence as in “few people are credulous enough to believe such nonsense”)enough to believe that crap?
But let’s not stop there, because it gets even wilder yet, as follows:
Schiff, who is likely to be the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, added that the next president may have to determine whether to pardon Trump.
“We have been discussing the issue of pardons the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people,” Schiff said.
“The bigger pardon question may come down the road, as the next president has to determine whether to pardon Donald Trump.”
Now, people, no wonder that the Democrats have made Adam Schiff of California into the top dog Democrat on House Intelligence Committee – it is because he is so intelligent, he not only knows what is going on now, but in the future, as well, as we can see right above here where he raises the serious existential question as to whether the next president will bother to pardon Trump after the Justice Department indicts him on the day he leaves office, or whether that next president, especially if a Democrat, will leave Trump to rot in jail, as the Democrats so clearly want him to, in retaliation for him defeating the Democrat’s own Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election they thought they had sufficiently rigged for Hillary to win.
And that spew of speculative crap from Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is likely to be the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, despite the fact that he himself seems to be greatly lacking in real intelligence, despite his Harvard law degree, takes us back to Federalist No. 6, as follows for a possible explanation as to why Adam Schiff of California is spewing such **** in The Hill, to wit:
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other.
To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.
Enter Adam Schiff, people!
Stay tuned, for more is yet to come in this breaking story of drama and deceit from the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C. where truth, justice and the American way can no longer be found.