Impeachment Hoax Is the Actual Election Interference

As the impeachment show unfolds, the real issue is getting overlooked: Democrats would guarantee a Democrat wins the Presidency in November 2020 if the U.S. Senate were to convict and remove President Donald Trump from office on impeachment. The deadlines for a Republican candidate to seek the Republican Party nomination for President in the 2020 election have already expired in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, California, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Mississippi, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia. The deadlines will expire for Indiana on February 7, for Pennsylvania on February 18, for Nebraska on March 2, for Georgia on March 6, and for Montana on March 9.

Game-playing is chronic with the Democrats

If Trump were removed by the U.S. Senate, it would not be possible for the Republican Party to marshal its best or ideal next-best alternative (as opposed to fringe candidates who are already running). There would not be time to put an alternative candidate on the ballot in November. Therefore, conviction of President Trump on impeachment effectively means that the Democrat nominee will become President in 2021. Remember that many states require the gathering of large numbers of petitions ahead of those deadlines. So for a serious Republican candidate to run for President as an alternative to Donald Trump the effective deadline was months ago to start to set up a campaign structure nationwide and organize at least in those 16 early deadline states, assess viability, get early donations to spool up a campaign, gather petition signatures, and file papers in each State. It is already too late to get on the ballot of the States with March deadlines. Is this yet another reason why Nancy Pelosi delayed delivery of the Articles of Impeachment another 33 days into the 2020 election calendar? This is the same scam Democrats pulled in Alabama, when women waited 38 years before springing last-minute allegations against Judge Roy Moore (despite 8 contested elections intervening) only after it was too late for the Republican party to run a different candidate. This kind of game-playing is chronic with the Democrats.

---

Democrats illegally used taxpayer funds to manipulate the 2020 election

Democrats illegally used taxpayer funds to manipulate the 2020 election. Democrats cannot pull off a rally like Trump. So their impeachment show was their rally. Paid for with taxpayer dollars, the impeachment of Donald John Trump was a massive campaign commercial for the election of a Democrat on November 3 set in the U.S. Capitol. The danger of foreign interference in our elections was a major theme which Democrats harped on throughout their impeachment show against U.S. President Donald Trump. But this impeachment attempt is itself actually the interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential and Congressional elections. The President's legal defense team had the challenge of shooting fish in a barrel with an M-60 belt-fed machine gun. Guaranteed to win by the requirements for 67 votes for removal of the President, the legal team needed to protect Trump against reputational injury. They played "prevent defense" while letting the Democrats trash their client. An attorney has to be careful not to win the battle yet lose the war for his client. The Trump Administration's lawyers have not handled Trump initiative's well since January 20, 2017, handing his opponents legal challenges by improperly handling the repeal of DACA, the travel ban from failed states (can't verify identities) that had nothing to do with being Muslim, funding for the border wall, etc. If there is any one single fault in President Trump's efforts in office it is bad choices in hiring and depending upon attorneys who phone it in.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

President's impeachment legal defense team did not expose the full extent of the scam

The President's impeachment legal defense team did argue repeatedly that the impeachment would take the President off the ballot, depriving the voters of the choice of their preferred President. But the further point needs to be made that it is now too late to put another Republican on the ballot for November. They did not expose the full extent of the scam. The President's legal defense team never attacked the Democrat's core allegations that Trump asked the Ukraine to "interfere in the 2020" election. Every single one of the witnesses (who touched on the topic) testified that Trump wanted an investigation into what happened in the 2016 election. None of them mentioned any request for Ukraine to "interfere" or "intervene" in any election. None of the witnesses mentioned anything about the 2020 election. No one attacked the allegations on the grounds that the “Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters” required Ukraine to do what Trump (actually) asked them to do. So, there cannot be any quid pro quo. The defense team clobbered Hunter and Joe Biden, but only poorly connected that scandal to the legitimacy of Trump wanting the Biden corruption investigated. How could the United States fulfill its foreign policy objectives of helping Ukraine cure corruption? The USA would have to expose and condemn a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch who owned Burisma Holdings appearing to bribe the Vice President of the United States by paying his son vastly excessive monthly payments for a part-time or no-show Board of Directors job. How could the United States champion an end to corruption without President Trump signaling to Ukraine that paying bribes to the Vice President through his son is unacceptable?

---

The defense team never tackled the fake GAO opinion

The defense team never tackled the fake GAO opinion. On January 16, 2020, just as the U.S. Senate and the Chief Justice were kicking off an impeachment trial, GAO, an agency of the U.S. Congress, suddenly issued a report:

But on page 3 of the GAO "Decision" (of 8) the GAO admitted:

On July 25, 2019, OMB issued the first of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes withholding USAI funds from obligation. OMB Response, 1–2. This footnote read: 
“Amounts apportioned, but not yet obligated as of the date of this reapportionment, for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (Initiative) are not available for obligation until August 5, 2019, to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds. Based on OMB’s communication with DOD on July 25, 2019, OMB understands from the Department that this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction. DOD may continue its planning and casework for the Initiative during this period.”

A "brief pause" because we are thinking about it (without reaching an actual decision) does not qualify as a deferral so as to violate 2 U.S. Code § 684. And the OMB explicitly instructed the Pentagon that: "DOD may continue its planning and casework for the Initiative during this period.” The OMB also said that this "will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction." While Trump will "win " by not being removed from office, the public still needs to be advised of just how false and damaging the Democrat impeachment scam really was. I hope that my work with "Americans for the Trump Agenda" throughout the year can help expose the falsehoods.