World Net Daily ... Ever since Donald Trump was elected – even before his inauguration – Democrats and themedia have floated impeachment balloons, hoping to make him a less-than-one-term president. The latest effort has afflicted members of Congress, whose Trump opposition appears driven more by hatred than substance, with a serious case of "happy feet." 

But, like a rookie football quarterback so afflicted, Democrats most likely will suffer a "sack" as, once again, they dance around substantive impeachment claims. 

Interestingly, the outcome concerning the latest impeachment balloon Democrats have aired, involving details of Trump's telephone discussion with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, may well turn on a 21-year-old event – one in which then-Senator Biden ironically participated.

Before going there, however, let us examine the impeachment balloons which, for 32 months now, have driven Democrats into a frenzy. When impeachment claims involve Trump, pundit Mark Levin astutely notes, "The Democrats and media are like drug addicts looking for their next fix." 

The first balloon was floated before Trump even took office. It was an allegation, based on what we now know was the inadequately vetted Christopher Steele report, accepted by the FBI after he was engaged by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Convention to write it, claiming that collusion between Trump and Russia was influencing the 2016 presidential election. 

One can only wonder why an immediate red flag failed to materialize. After all, why would Moscow – after benefitting enormously under Secretary of State Clinton's 2010 Uranium One deal, gaining 20 percent of US uranium extraction capacity for absolutely no good reason – have favored Trump over Hillary in the election? 

The Steele report most likely would have been buried had Clinton won. But the shock of her loss so fueled the collusion theory that, in 2018 – lacking concrete evidence – 60 Democrat House members still sought Trump's impeachment. 

The Deep State which had worked so hard to ensure a Clinton victory now faced a need to cover its collective rear end while promulgating Trump as an illegitimate president due to alleged Russian influence. 

Robert Mueller was appointed in May 2017 by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – a clandestine Deep State team member – as Special Counsel to investigate the matter. Mueller picked a heavily weighted group of pro-Clinton staffers to assist him, some of whom had already granted Clinton a free pass in her email scandal, leaving Democrats content Trump would be hung. But even with the deck so stacked against Trump, after a nearly two-year investigation, Mueller's team proved unable to find a Russia collusion smoking gun.

Perhaps recognizing his report exonerated Trump of collusion, Mueller needed to toss the anti-Trump mob some red meat. He therefore cited 10 "episodes" of potential obstruction of justice claims. But doing the American public no favors, he claimed it was not his job, but that of Congress, to determine if these episodes amounted to Trump breaking the law. 

This raised the question why he even addressed such episodes if his job description did not include doing so.

Frustrated Democrats therefore launched their second impeachment balloon – this one citing obstruction of justice, despite Attorney General William Barr's finding insufficient evidence to support a case against Trump. While this balloon gradually lost air, anti-Trumpers occasionally attempted to re-float it.

With his critics asserting from Day One that Trump is an illegitimate president, they remained determined to find something on which to hang their impeachment hat. Thus, when a whistleblower – notably one who also was a Deep State team player – wrote an Aug. 12, 2019 letter expressing concerns over Trump's July 25 telephone discussion with Ukrainian President Zelensky, they believed they could replace the Russia collusion balloon with this one. 

Despite Zelensky's assertion no pressure was applied, Democrats unbelievably floated the third balloon.

The impeachment inquiry triggered by this whistleblower is that Trump improperly made financial aid to the Ukraine contingent upon its investigating Joe Biden's role as vice president in quashing an investigation into Burisma Group, the Ukraine's largest private gas producer on whose board his son Hunter sat.

While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced a "formal impeachment inquiry" without evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, Republicans argued a formal House vote was mandated, identifying a substantive matter to be investigated by Congress. Despite Trump's released notes of the conversation, taken by those authorized to listen in and containing no such quid pro quo, resulting in CNN admitting his vindication, Pelosi's inquiry moves forward.

Other details making the impeachment claim suspect are:

1. The whistleblower's complaint begins with the words, "In the course of my duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."

A whistleblower with first-hand knowledge has always been a requirement for such suits, standing this whistleblower lacks, as it otherwise gives rise to "gossip." But that standing was secretly changed by the intelligence community just prior to his filing. The change makes sense if one recognizes the whistleblower involved is a member of the same Deep State team involved in trying to turn Trump out of office.

Meanwhile, his claim was found by the intelligence community's inspector general to have "arguable political bias." Telling, too, is the whistleblower's representation by a Biden-donating, anti-Trump activist attorney.

2. While the gist of the impeachment claim involves Trump leveraging financial aid to investigate a 2020 political opponent (which the released transcript shows was not done), three Senate Democrats in a May 2018 letter used similar leverage, inappropriately demanding Ukrainian cooperation with Mueller investigators. Additionally, Democrats were unfazed by a March 2016 video of Biden boasting he forced the Burisma investigation prosecutor's dismissal by leveraging U.S. aid.

3. The Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma has testified under oath he was canned for refusing to drop the investigation into the Bidens' corruption.

4. A matter of impeachment deserves strict adherence to accuracy and truth. Incredulously, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) kicked off the inquiry with a scandalous parody of the Trump/Zelensky call. If ample supporting evidence existed, he had no reason to do this. (Remember, this is the same Adam Schiff who falsely claimed having "ample" and "direct" evidence of Trump/Russia collusion – evidence he never produced.)

5. Schiff knew about the whistleblower complaint in August but, like Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh – known about for months earlier but not raised until the last minute – this claim also smacks of orchestration by Democrats.

Despite the above, even assuming financial aid was leveraged by Trump, his appropriateness in doing so may, in the end, be supported by a 1998 treaty approved by Senate vote, including then-Senator Biden's. The treaty allows the two nations to cooperate in investigating and prosecuting crimes and corruption, which Trump sought to do with the Bidens. The treaty makes it an appropriate request, lest Democrats believe the Bidens – like Hillary in her email scandal – rate an exemption. 

Interesting too, Biden remains the only 2020 Democratic presidential candidate not fully supporting impeachment.

Pelosi and her ilk also need to explain to voters their hypocrisy based on recently unearthed videos of them decades ago during President Bill Clinton's impeachment. They are seen singing a much different tune about impeachment back then. 

Pelosi scorned Republicans in the House as "paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton and until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer." 

On another video, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is heard lamenting at an outdoor rally, "The impeachment of a president is the undoing of an action of election. ... (Republicans) are telling us our votes don't count and that the election must be set aside."

Just like the previous two impeachment balloons, this one too will lose its airworthiness despite Democrats' hot air efforts to keep it afloat. When it comes crashing down, however, it runs a risk for them. It will reveal the height of their hypocrisy in efforts to dump Trump, undermining the will of the people who voted him into office.