Virginia, simply one of the most historic States in the Union, is absent of representation during the impeachment hearings undertaken by the House of Representatives with the stated goal of impeaching President Trump.
The Virginia Delegation to the 116th Congress is split along party lines with regard to the entire impeachment inquiry process. While many Virginia Democrats were quite vocal with regard to impeachment of President Trump months ago, many if not all have remained relatively silent in recent days regarding the matter.
In fact, Representative Abigail Spanberger (D) of the Virginia's 7th and Representative Elaine Luria (D) of Virginia's Second Congressional District have been so quiet since authoring an op ed submission supporting the impeachment inquiry in the Washington Post in September.
Virginians critical of Luria's stated position in October at a town hall meeting at New Hope Baptist Church were not permitted to express their opinion or ask questions at the event related to the impeachment process. Protesters of Representative Spanberger recently protested her position outside her district office in Virginia,
Both Spanberger and Luria represent districts in Virginia that supported President Trump in 2016 over Hillary Clinton and both saw portions of the their respective districts support Virginia Republicans for Virginia Senate. Both Jen Kiggans and State Senator Bill Desteph secured Senate seats in the Virginia Assembly in the Virginia Beach area while State Senator Siobhan Dunnavant was reelected in the 12th Virginia Senate Districts which involved almost four million in funding and one of the most funded state races in Virginia political history.
In terms of impeachment process during the last few weeks, both Spanberger and Luria have become "milk carton" Democrats with virtually little to no comment regarding the hearings and constituents are noticing.
Democrats have yet to present publicly thus far any evidence to support formal impeachment in two days of hearings thus far.
The second day of testimony before the United States House Select Committee on Intelligence impeachment before the committee has former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as the sole witness for the day. Yovanovitch has been portrayed as "the best of the specie" by committee member Democrat Denny Heck of Washington.
By 'specie", Denny Heck is referring to the foreign service members of the Department of State working around the world on behalf of the Unites States.
Thus far today, all the thirteen committee members on the Democrat side have done is express their frustration and anger in the manner in which Ambassador Yovanovitch has been treated by the President of the United States. Their contempt for the President and his ability to direct foreign policy in the manner in which he desires is the larger point that the Democrats are using the hearings for in an attempt to use the impeachment hearings not to impeach the President but rather impune his leadership style and the manner in which he conducts his policy or more to the point "treats" people.
Is how a President "treats" people and impeachable offense as outlined by the Constitution? Were not voters informed that Trump was not a typical politician and well aware of his personality and intent on "draining the Swamp"?
Ambassador Yovanovitch testified this morning she had no information regarding any "bribery" involving the President with regard to Ukraine. No evidence to support any claim that Trump bribed any Ukrainian officials.
The majority of testimony in the first round this morning was centered around the "treatment" of Ambassador Yovanovitch regarding her removal from her position and "reassignment" to a Fellowship at Georgetown University. The Ambassador remains a member of the Department of State in this capacity of teaching students in the area both National Security and Ukraine. Yovanovitch testified her salary remains the same at Georgetown University in her capacity there as it did at her post in Ukraine.
The Democrats this morning appear to be coming more to the defense of the "Swamp" and the foreign civil service and what he has apparently had to "endure" under the direction of the President but thus far none of this as to do with verifiable actions or measures taken or ordered by the President to extract anything from a foreign leader.
Democrats have set out to "protect" institutions yet what if it is the very institutions that have been corrupted? What if AG William Barr and the IG report determines the level of involvement of these institutions in targeting the Trump campaign during the Obama Administration were in fact illegal? Should these "institutions" be protected?
Ambassador Yovanovitch admitted under direct testimony that during a previous hearing before Congress while in the Obama Administration that she was prepped for the hearing by Obama staff regarding "how to answer questions about Hunter Biden". Clearly, the Biden issue in Ukraine was obvious to the Obama Administration as early as 2014-15.
Democrats in Congress for months now have asserted there was nothing wrong with Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma Holdings while his father Vice President Joe Biden currently running for the Democrat nomination for President was in office. In fact, VP Biden was captured on tape stated that he personally withheld funding to Ukraine for hours until Ukraine determined to remove a Prosecutor who was investigating wrong doing and corruption by Burisma Holdings where Hunter Biden served on the Board.
The Democrats appear to support the notion that the Foreign Service directs and implements policy and somehow that officers of the Department of State do not in truth serve at the pleasure of the President. Presidents long before Trump have removed, replaced or recalled Ambassadors and Generals for that matter in our long history because that power in fact rests with the President elected by the people.
Today's hearing thus far has revealed nothing worthy of impeachment nor evidence to support such action but has revealed that the Biden involvement in Ukraine deserves greater attention given even the Obama Administration understood that it posed serious questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment