Me: Can’t imagine anything more hypocritical than Dem Congressmen and Congresswomen during the impeachment inquiries of Trump and Biden. Can’t imagine anyone saying, “There is no evidence of colluding with a foreign power in the Biden inquiry” while maintaining that “There is absolute evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians” in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Lefty: Oh! Come on. You’re just upset because Trump was impeached like a gajillion times or maybe more times. I couldn’t keep count. He made that call to Ukraine. What do you have to say about that?
Me: It’s almost not even worth the effort to tell you the difference between calling to ask for an investigation and calling to ask for no investigation plus a little walking around money, say about a million a year for one’s son.
Lefty: Huh? You don’t have any proof…Where’s the evidence?
Me: You see. Nothing, not even the appearance of impropriety matters in the Biden affair whereas even the slightest accusation of impropriety in the Trump affair is a Watergate-level scandal.
Lefty: You January-sixers are all alike. Conspiracy theorists and whatnot.
Me: You certainly realize that we’re talking about different kinds of events; certainly you have the ability to distinguish. I’m focused on the Biden impeachment investigation and the effort by Democrats to dismiss it as mere politics.
Lefty: Because that’s what it is.
Me: Let me tell you a little story.
Lefty: Here we go, one of your pointless anecdotes.
Me: In my state, the legislature mandated an environmental study that had to be performed every five years with the results reported directly to a committee in charge of the study’s oversight. I was chosen to perform that research, which I did. After completing that research and other research over about a decade for the state, I was told that what I had done was beyond reproach. It was objective and accurate, and its findings and their associated recommendations were accepted without objection. In fact, what I did was accepted by both the legislature and by the environmentalists who voluntarily stood as watchdogs. Both groups praised the work for its objectivity.
Me: So, where’s this going. Is this a puff piece for you?
Me: Five years later the legislature’s mandate required a redo. But in the interim, I had worked as a researcher for a large private company in its dispute with the state over environmental matters. As a result, when the state’s environmental agency approached me to repeat the study, some in the Department of Environmental Resources said I was ineligible because of an apparent conflict of interest. I had, after all, consulted for a coal company.
Lefty: I can see that. You worked for a coal company as I remember, and the mandated research dealt with environmental damage to the environment caused by mining. So, yeah, conflict of interest stuff.
Me: So, here’s that point you said was going to be pointless. After all my previous research for the state, I received commendations for my complete objectivity in my work—by everyone, both Left and Right, both officials in the government and concerned citizens. It was my integrity and the objectivity of my work that drew the state to initially approach me for the ensuing five-year study. But because of the “appearance” of impropriety and regardless of my demonstrable objectivity, the state officials concluded I should not do the followup research. And when the state gave the research project to another group, ironically led by a former student then working at another university, it declined that group’s request to allow me to assist them because of my expertise, again on the grounds of the “appearance” of conflict of interest. Okay, I had no problem accepting that. Besides, I had recently retired and was ready to move onto other things like traveling, writing, playing with family, and losing some weight.
Lefty: Sure, I can see that. You can’t work for two masters without conflict.
Me: No problem. I understand the appearance of conflict of interest principle. But I also know that the unfounded accusation of conflict of interest was all it took for the state to choose another researcher and research group while still acknowledging personally that what they liked best about all my previous research projects was the objectivity I brought to the table—and the integrity I exhibited in doing the research.
Lefty: So, where’s this going?
Me: Emails, actual transfer of funds from foreign actors, and telephone calls all add up to Biden’s “appearance of impropriety” and “appearance of bribery.” Heck, they even add up to colluding with foreign powers. But you Democrats, so intent on tying Trump to Russia or Ukraine, can’t accept that accusations against him were ‘trumped up’ charges but that the appearance of wrongdoing is as tight as a Gordian knot around Biden and his family. Yet, you refuse to accept this “appearance” while still maintaining the falsity of the Trump collusion, with that collusion demonstrably the work of the Democratic National Committee on behalf of Clinton’s campaign.
Lefty: But, but…
Me: No buts. If appearance of impropriety or appearance of colluding was a valid reason for an impeachment inquiry in one instance, then it should be a valid reason for such an inquiry in all instances. Flat out, it appears that your guy was making his family rich by selling influence. How else do you account for a senator to accumulate millions—was it money he saved by riding Amtrak? And how did his entire family become rich when they had no real skills or products to sell? Appearance. On appearance alone, you should want an inquiry—the same as you wanted for the previous president even in the face of the falsity of those charges.
Lefty: Well, you righties haven’t expelled George Santos. So, look who’s talking hypocrisy.
Me: If he deserves the expelling, then he should be expelled. But look at what you just did.
Lefty: What? Point out a corrupt congressman who’s a Republican?
Me: You didn’t address the main issue. I don’t favor keeping Santos in the Congress. I don’t favor keeping Swalwell in Congress because of his Chinese girlfriend, or, for a number of years when she was alive and being chauffeured by a Chinese spy, keeping Feinstein in the Senate. I’m not suggesting either did anything wrong, but I am suggesting that both opened themselves up to the appearance of impropriety on a grand scale, one that would make the stuff of a spy novel. I don’t favor keeping in the House or Senate anyone whose integrity can be questioned objectively. And I should throw in your guy Schiff who went national in nightly statements that he had evidence for Russian collusion when, in fact, he had nothing.
Lefty: Duh…
Me: Look, I understand the need to protect your party. But when hypocrisy is blatant, it’s blatant. And when protecting the party is more important than protecting the United States, then it…
Lefty: Okay, okay. I get it. But you still don’t have any evidence against Biden.
Me: I’m not the one gathering evidence. I’m just the one pointing out the appearance of impropriety. That was enough to go full impeachment on Trump. You Lefties don’t even want a moderated inquiry.
Lefty: Oh! Come on. You’re just upset because Trump was impeached like a gajillion times or maybe more times. I couldn’t keep count. He made that call to Ukraine. What do you have to say about that?
Me: It’s almost not even worth the effort to tell you the difference between calling to ask for an investigation and calling to ask for no investigation plus a little walking around money, say about a million a year for one’s son.
Lefty: Huh? You don’t have any proof…Where’s the evidence?
Me: You see. Nothing, not even the appearance of impropriety matters in the Biden affair whereas even the slightest accusation of impropriety in the Trump affair is a Watergate-level scandal.
Lefty: You January-sixers are all alike. Conspiracy theorists and whatnot.
Me: You certainly realize that we’re talking about different kinds of events; certainly you have the ability to distinguish. I’m focused on the Biden impeachment investigation and the effort by Democrats to dismiss it as mere politics.
Lefty: Because that’s what it is.
Me: Let me tell you a little story.
Lefty: Here we go, one of your pointless anecdotes.
Me: In my state, the legislature mandated an environmental study that had to be performed every five years with the results reported directly to a committee in charge of the study’s oversight. I was chosen to perform that research, which I did. After completing that research and other research over about a decade for the state, I was told that what I had done was beyond reproach. It was objective and accurate, and its findings and their associated recommendations were accepted without objection. In fact, what I did was accepted by both the legislature and by the environmentalists who voluntarily stood as watchdogs. Both groups praised the work for its objectivity.
Me: So, where’s this going. Is this a puff piece for you?
Me: Five years later the legislature’s mandate required a redo. But in the interim, I had worked as a researcher for a large private company in its dispute with the state over environmental matters. As a result, when the state’s environmental agency approached me to repeat the study, some in the Department of Environmental Resources said I was ineligible because of an apparent conflict of interest. I had, after all, consulted for a coal company.
Lefty: I can see that. You worked for a coal company as I remember, and the mandated research dealt with environmental damage to the environment caused by mining. So, yeah, conflict of interest stuff.
Me: So, here’s that point you said was going to be pointless. After all my previous research for the state, I received commendations for my complete objectivity in my work—by everyone, both Left and Right, both officials in the government and concerned citizens. It was my integrity and the objectivity of my work that drew the state to initially approach me for the ensuing five-year study. But because of the “appearance” of impropriety and regardless of my demonstrable objectivity, the state officials concluded I should not do the followup research. And when the state gave the research project to another group, ironically led by a former student then working at another university, it declined that group’s request to allow me to assist them because of my expertise, again on the grounds of the “appearance” of conflict of interest. Okay, I had no problem accepting that. Besides, I had recently retired and was ready to move onto other things like traveling, writing, playing with family, and losing some weight.
Lefty: Sure, I can see that. You can’t work for two masters without conflict.
Me: No problem. I understand the appearance of conflict of interest principle. But I also know that the unfounded accusation of conflict of interest was all it took for the state to choose another researcher and research group while still acknowledging personally that what they liked best about all my previous research projects was the objectivity I brought to the table—and the integrity I exhibited in doing the research.
Lefty: So, where’s this going?
Me: Emails, actual transfer of funds from foreign actors, and telephone calls all add up to Biden’s “appearance of impropriety” and “appearance of bribery.” Heck, they even add up to colluding with foreign powers. But you Democrats, so intent on tying Trump to Russia or Ukraine, can’t accept that accusations against him were ‘trumped up’ charges but that the appearance of wrongdoing is as tight as a Gordian knot around Biden and his family. Yet, you refuse to accept this “appearance” while still maintaining the falsity of the Trump collusion, with that collusion demonstrably the work of the Democratic National Committee on behalf of Clinton’s campaign.
Lefty: But, but…
Me: No buts. If appearance of impropriety or appearance of colluding was a valid reason for an impeachment inquiry in one instance, then it should be a valid reason for such an inquiry in all instances. Flat out, it appears that your guy was making his family rich by selling influence. How else do you account for a senator to accumulate millions—was it money he saved by riding Amtrak? And how did his entire family become rich when they had no real skills or products to sell? Appearance. On appearance alone, you should want an inquiry—the same as you wanted for the previous president even in the face of the falsity of those charges.
Lefty: Well, you righties haven’t expelled George Santos. So, look who’s talking hypocrisy.
Me: If he deserves the expelling, then he should be expelled. But look at what you just did.
Lefty: What? Point out a corrupt congressman who’s a Republican?
Me: You didn’t address the main issue. I don’t favor keeping Santos in the Congress. I don’t favor keeping Swalwell in Congress because of his Chinese girlfriend, or, for a number of years when she was alive and being chauffeured by a Chinese spy, keeping Feinstein in the Senate. I’m not suggesting either did anything wrong, but I am suggesting that both opened themselves up to the appearance of impropriety on a grand scale, one that would make the stuff of a spy novel. I don’t favor keeping in the House or Senate anyone whose integrity can be questioned objectively. And I should throw in your guy Schiff who went national in nightly statements that he had evidence for Russian collusion when, in fact, he had nothing.
Lefty: Duh…
Me: Look, I understand the need to protect your party. But when hypocrisy is blatant, it’s blatant. And when protecting the party is more important than protecting the United States, then it…
Lefty: Okay, okay. I get it. But you still don’t have any evidence against Biden.
Me: I’m not the one gathering evidence. I’m just the one pointing out the appearance of impropriety. That was enough to go full impeachment on Trump. You Lefties don’t even want a moderated inquiry.
RSS Feed