Chris Crawford
Nov 2 · 4 min read

OK, so you want to do this by the book. Fair enough. Let’s impeach the man, then hold a trial where all the evidence is presented. Tell me, is there ANYTHING that would convince you that he should be removed from office?

Second, after he leaves office, there will be many charges he has to answer to. There are the ten counts of obstruction of justice. There’s soliciting foreign interference in an election. There’s treason in the form of subverting the policy goals of the United States for personal benefit. We’ve got rock-solid evidence for all of these. There are also fraud charges, tax evasion, and other charges to deal with.

If he’s fairly and properly convicted on these charges, will you say, “Yes, Mr. Trump is a crook and deserves to go to prison.” ? I want to see your answer to that. I expect you to evade it with lots of qualifications.

“Mr. Trump’s organization is not synonymous with the election campaign. That would be illegal. Duh!”

OK, so it’s your claim that somebody in the Trump Organization just handed over $130,000 without telling Mr. Trump, and that Mr. Trump doesn’t bother to keep track of spending by his people. Double-duh!

“Where does it say to “reach a conclusion?” Duh!”

Exactly as I predicted, you are playing semantic games. Compelling evidence doesn’t compel you to play ping-pong. Compelling evidence doesn’t compel you to sing “God Bless America”. Your suggestion that compelling evidence compels an investigation but not a conclusion is bull. I asked you the question, “if that investigation produces additional evidence, then what do we call that additional evidence? “Super-duper compelling evidence”?

You, of course, didn’t answer that question. We both know why.

“It is well documented that the Mueller team was biased.”

That’s a lie. Mr. Mueller is a Republican, for crying out loud! The hypocrisy of your position is stupendous. First you insist that we get absolute proof in a court of law before we draw any conclusions whatsoever about Mr. Trump, even though we have mountains of evidence and we even have video of him committing a felony. Then you turn around and accuse Mr. Mueller of criminally biasing the investigation. Your evidence? Lies from Fox News and Breitbart! What surpassing hypocrisy!

“DON’T CALL ME A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!”

I’m not calling you a liar. I am pointing out lies in your commentary.

“It’s as if I accused you of having “Trump Disorder Syndrome”. I would never accuse you of that.”

OK, I’m taking note of that, and I appreciate it. My plaint with you is that you are arguing an absurd case based on false information and atrocious logic. The evidence is overwhelming and yet you deny, deny, deny everything. So let me ask you another question:

We have video of Mr. Trump committing a felony by soliciting interference by foreign countries in our election. Can you at least admit what is on the video?

“You are obviously willing to convict prior to a hearing.”

No, I am not. I don’t have any power to convict. I have power to form opinions, and my opinion is that, if Mr. Trump is indicted and receives a proper trial, then a jury will find him guilty. Do you disagree?

“I’ve never said I oppose Mr. Trump’s going on trial.”

OK, good, I managed to wrangle that one clear statement out of you by a lot of pestering. So again I ask, given the evidence of the Mueller report, do you not agree that he would probably be found guilty in a proper trial?

“Name a president that has even tried to stand up to China. In the fifty years I’ve been paying attention to politics, I can’t name one.”

You don’t understand the complexities of the geopolitics. For example, shortly after Mr. Trump slapped the first tariffs on China, it resumed trading with North Korea. China voted for the UN sanctions, but it also sees North Korea as a useful tool against America. It had reluctantly gone along with the sanctions for a variety of reasons, but the tariffs convinced it that it need to show Mr. Trump some teeth. So it resumed trade. North Korea was really on the ropes as the sanctions were finally starting to bite, but China saved it.

So sure, go right ahead and hold your head high and wave that American flag. It’ll feel good but it will only make matters worse. The fundamental fact is that China has FOUR times our population, and its GDP is rapidly rising. It is already larger than the American economy in PPP terms, and it is growing very fast. In a decade, they’ll be able to outspend us on research, foreign aid, and military spending — without even breathing hard. What will we do then?

The only thing that can prevent China from dominating the entire planet is the coordinated efforts of all the other big countries. But they’ve already gotten Russia on their side, and Mr. Trump has managed to antagonize and/or betray our other allies. He has clearly declared that America will not lead the world against China. So there won’t be any unified resistance to China and one by one, nations will be Finlandized like pawns.

That’s what Mr. Trump is doing with China. He’s setting up the global dominance of China.

    Chris Crawford

    Written by

    Master of Science, Physics, 1975. Computer Game Designer. Interactive Storytelling. www.erasmatazz.com