December 17-18, 2019
Dec 17 01:11 Disrespecting Collin Peterson Dec 17 14:50 The Democrats' endless investigations Dec 17 15:58 Bombshell: Democrats supporting impeachment dropping Dec 18 02:22 The people figured it out Dec 18 11:24 MN Human Services must change Dec 18 12:49 The Democrats' death wish
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Disrespecting Collin Peterson
This article is surprising because it's something nobody had heard these rumors. The article starts with a sentence that says "Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) told KFGO that he's leaning against voting to impeach President Trump -- but won't switch parties."
Peterson issued this statement:
I'm staying in the party, in spite of some of the stuff that's going on that I don't agree with, I am not going switch parties at this stage of my career. There have been overtures by the highest levels of the Republican party in the last couple weeks to ask if I would consider it and I told them no.
That fits with Chairman Peterson's character. Had Peterson switched parties, it would've been one of the biggest switches in recent political history. That being said, Peterson is in the fight of his political life.
According to Lt. Gov. Fischbach, a) President Trump won the district by 31 points in 2016 and b) Chairman Peterson has " voted against President Trump 85% of the time ", including voting against funding the wall. That isn't exactly the fastest way to endear yourself to MN-7 voters. While President Trump was winning the district by 31 points, Peterson won by a meager 5.03% . In fact, Peterson defeated his GOP opponent by just 4.26% in 2018.
Still, there's been some visible tension between Peterson and Pelosi. Peterson got Speaker Pelosi's cold shoulder when she announced that a deal had been reached on the USMCA trade agreement. Rather than having Peterson at the press availability, Pelosi invited Richard Neal, the Democrats' chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Peterson wasn't invited. Then there's this:
[Video no longer available]
In the report, Peterson is quoted as saying that a) President Trump didn't commit a crime and b) the Democrats relied on second- and third-hand information. Those are big sticking points with House Democrats. That pretty much guts the Democrats' case. If the Democrats are getting along with Peterson, why is he torching their impeachment case?
Stay tuned to LFR for more twists and turns in this race. This one might be a major upset if Republicans flip Peterson's seat.
Posted Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:11 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' endless investigations
Yesterday, Sen. Schumer laid out the Democrats' agenda for the foreseeable future. That agenda is endless investigations and unlimited accusations. During his press conference yesterday, Sen. Schumer said "How, on such a weighty matter, could we avoid hearing this, could we go forward without hearing it? I haven't seen a single good argument about why these witnesses shouldn't testify - unless the president has something to hide and his supporters want that information hidden."
Byron York has this figured out:
If Schumer gets what he wants, it seems hard to believe that will be the end of it . The request for more witnesses appears designed to lead not to closure but to reopening the case against Trump. In this way, if Democrats can introduce new testimony in the trial, they can say the new testimony has raised new questions that will require new investigation. And new investigation will require more new witnesses, which will surely lead to more new questions, which :
That won't be the end of it. The minute that Trump won the election, they immediately started calling for his impeachment. When they retook the majority in the House, they started talking about the Mueller Report being the basis for impeachment. When that report flopped, they tried reviving it by having Mueller testify about it. Democrats insisted that Mueller's testimony would "breath new life" into the Report. That hearing failed miserably.
Now Senate Democrats want to extend the investigation rather than act as the impeachment jury, which is what the Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to do. These would be new witnesses. If they were central figures to the investigation, why didn't Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and the Democrats call them to testify? When President Trump invoked privilege on them, the House Democrats could've taken him to court to compel testimony. They chose not to :
"Every member I've spoken to wants to see it wrapped up in 2019 in the House of Representatives," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Given the potential for a long battle that ends in front of a conservative Supreme Court, " most of us don't want to put our eggs in that basket . "
Implicit in that quote is that Democrats thought that the risk was too high to file a lawsuit. Democrats thought that they wouldn't get the outcome they wanted. Further, they thought that these witnesses weren't important enough.
[Video no longer available]
Sen. McConnell highlights Sen. Schumer's duplicitousness in this part of his speech:
The Democratic Leader's letter to me, by way of the press, literally misquoted the Constitution. 'Senator Schumer wrote that we should exercise, quote, ' the Senate's ' sole Power of Impeachment ' under the Constitution with integrity and dignity.' He attributed to the Senate, quote, the 'sole Power of Impeachment.' 'Well, there's his problem. That's the role the Constitution gives to the House! Article I, Section 2 says "The House of Representatives: shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Susan Collins is upset with Sen. Schumer because he sent his letter to the press without first talking with Sen. McConnell:
'It seems to me unfortunate that Sen. Schumer wrote a letter which he released to the press prior to his sitting down and having the kind of discussion with Sen. McConnell,' Collins said.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Sen. Schumer intentionally pulled this stunt. Further, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Sen. Schumer is a partisan political hack. This proves it:
During a Monday interview on CNN's New Day, Schumer was asked if he would strike a deal with Republicans to get testimony from those four witnesses in return for testimony from Biden, a witness many Republicans have requested. Schumer, however, said there was no justification to drag Biden in to testify.
In Sen. Schumer's mind, not only does he want to do the House Democrats' job but he also wants to continue the House Democrats' practice of denying President Trump's legal team the right to call witnesses.
Nobody is above the law. Minority leaders, though, don't have the right to deprive presidents their due process rights. Defendants across the nation have the right to call witnesses to assist in their defense. Sen. Schumer, in addition to lying about the Senate's role in impeachment, now wants to deprive a president he hates of his due process rights.
That's the type of conduct you'd expect in a third world dictatorship or in the former Soviet Union. In the United States, we don't just expect fair treatment of defendants. We demand that treatment.
Posted Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:50 PM
No comments.
Bombshell: Democrats supporting impeachment dropping
In a bombshell poll from CNN, support for impeachment is dropping -- amongst Democrats . That's a stunning piece of news. What's more stunning is that Democrat support for impeachment is dropping like a lead balloon:
A CNN poll released Tuesday on the eve of the pivotal vote showed 77% of Democrats now backing impeachment, compared with 90% in the same poll in mid-November.
That's a 13-point drop in a month. If you look in the dictionary for the definition for cold feet, you'll find a picture of this polling. That doesn't mean there will be double-digit defections tomorrow, though.
That isn't the only grim news for Democrats from that poll. Here's more bad news from the CNN poll:
Just 38% of Independents and only 7% of Republicans expressed approval in December of the way Congressional Democrats are handling their impeachment quest, comparable to the October results.
If I was a swing-district Democrat running for re-election, I'd be biting my fingernails and ordering a case of Maalox because of this polling. This definitely isn't good news for Democrats. In fact, I can't picture this being good news for Democrats in any but the safest districts across the USA.
[Video no longer available]
Pundits have talked endlessly about the 31 Democrats holding seats that Trump won in 2016. This polling tells me that those aren't the only House Democrats who should be worried.
Posted Tuesday, December 17, 2019 3:58 PM
No comments.
The people figured it out
This USA Today poll proves that the average voter has figured it out. The article itself proves that the MSM hasn't figured it out.
One of the first results reported shows that "In the poll, sentiments divided along predictable partisan lines. Republicans by an overwhelming 89%-9% oppose a Senate vote that would remove Trump from office; Democrats by 81%-15% support it. Independents by 52%-41% oppose it." It isn't exactly predictable that independents oppose impeachment by 11 points.
Later, the poll reports "Men oppose convicting Trump by close to 2-1, 62%-33%. Women by double digits support a conviction, 57%-40%." It isn't surprising that there's a gender gap. What's surprising is that men oppose President Trump's conviction by 29 points. That's a huge gap that favors Republicans bigtime. Despite that, here's what USA Today says about the gender gaps:
That could signal political turbulence ahead for the GOP, which struggled to hold the support of female voters in last year's midterm elections.
It isn't disputable that women abandoned Republicans by a wide margin. This graphic tells the tale, though:
In 2018, Democrats had a 19-point advantage with women while Republicans held a 4-point lead with men. With all due respect to the journalists 4-point gap with men in 2018 vs. a 29-point gap in 2020 is a pretty significant difference. Based on 2018 exit polling and this USA Today polling, 2020 will be nothing like 2018. This paragraph from this article should frighten Democrats:
According to the survey, Trump would beat former Vice-President Joe Biden by three points, Sen. Bernie Sanders by five points, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren by six points.
Additionally, President Trump defeats Bloomberg by 9 points and Buttigieg by 10 points. It's worth noting that this is a national poll . Prior to this poll, the only polling that showed President Trump ahead were battleground state polls.
That isn't insignificant because we have a federal election, not a national election. Polling that shows President Trump leading in battleground states are most important. National polling that shows President Trump leading the top 5 Democrats should frighten the daylights out of Democrats. Perhaps this graphic tells the story better:
The people have figured it out that impeachment is just the latest Democrat-led temper tantrum. Democrats should accept the fact that they won't defeat President Trump and they won't impeach and convict him, either. That's the political reality of this situation.
Posted Wednesday, December 18, 2019 2:22 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen L Leisen at 18-Dec-19 08:26 PM
News media often cite the polls regarding the womens' vote favoring the Democrat candidates. It's humorous that they ignore the discrepancy in the men's voting pattern. It's as though we should believe that a difference of 15% in the womens' vote will somehow ensure the Democrat candidate's election when the difference in the mens' vote favors the GOP candidate by 25-30%. The news media continues to believe we 'deplorables in fly-over country' are stupid.
MN Human Services must change
Saying that Jason Rarick's statement on the state of Minnesota's Department of Human Services isn't filled with compliments is understatement. Sen. Rarick opens the statement by saying "It's time to break up the Minnesota Department of Human Services. This was the recommendation of Acting Commissioner Pam Wheelock this past August. It is not a brand new idea, but it is the only reasonable option. I can no longer see an alternative path that gets the agency turned around and functioning at the level Minnesotans demand."
While there's no doubt that DHS needs to be broken up, that's only part of the problem. Another part of the problem is the corruption. There must be a way to get rid of corrupt employees.
In the heart of Sen. Rarick's statement is this paragraph:
In just November, we have learned that the agency has habitually been violating state contract law to award more than 1800 illegal contracts last year alone. We have learned that DHS illegally instructed counties and Indian tribes to claw back $727,000 in overpayments to poor people, which must now be returned. We have learned a DHS screw up led to $624,000 in improper county payments to foster homes that didn't meet federal background check requirements. And we have learned of an additional $22 million in illegal payments that must be repaid to the federal government, including $13 million that occurred even after the mistake was discovered. Again, that's just from November. [emphasis added]
A department filled with waste, fraud and lawlessness needs transformation. Leadership is required to accomplish that. That doesn't exist:
The Senate has held several hearings to get answers straight from those in charge. Unfortunately, those answers were mixed at best. For the most part, the officials we asked to testify evaded questions, stalled, or merely offered vague promises about being engaged and committed to comprehensive changes. The administration has also delayed for as long as possible responding to data requests we have made.
In fact, rather than address these problems head on, Gov. Walz seems disinterested. We've asked him to engage and help us fix the department, but instead he has placed his priorities elsewhere - like his newly-formed sub-cabinet to fight climate change.
It's apparent that the DFL isn't interested in fixing DHS. When it comes to Human Services, the DFL is interested in the status quo. Gov. Walz's formation of a cabinet department on climate change is proof that he's disinterested.
It's also proof that Gov. Walz's priorities aren't Minnesota's priorities. If you polled Minnesotans about what's more important, it's a safe bet that they'd say eliminating waste, fraud and lawlessness at DHS rates far higher than forming a new bureaucracy dealing with climate change.
This DFL administration is tone-deaf. This DFL administration is oblivious to the need for transformation. Watch Commissioner Harpstead's testimony and you'll see what obliviousness looks like:
[Video no longer available]
She couldn't care less if DHS is transformed. It isn't clear whether she cares about the department she's been charged with leading. Her opening statement was 100% incomprehensible word salad.
There's an age-old principle about presidential candidates. It says that a presidential candidate's vice presidential pick says much about the presidential candidate. That's transferrable to this situation. When Gov. Walz picked Jodi Harpstead, it said that fixing DHS wasn't a high priority. Further, the DFL House has followed Gov. Walz's lead. They offer the same word salad as Gov. Walz. If the DFL won't help fix the problem, then they're part of the problem. Next November, it's time to fix that problem.
Posted Wednesday, December 18, 2019 11:24 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' death wish
Anyone who's watched the Democrats' months-long stampede into history books knows that they're entering the history books for all the wrong reasons. Chairman Nadler is one of the Democrats' impeachment leaders. During the debate, he said "there can be no serious debate about the evidence at hand. [President Trump] has demonstrated a clear pattern of wrongdoing. We cannot rely on the next election as a remedy for presidential misconduct when the President threatens the very integrity of that election. He has shown us he will continue to put his selfish interests above the good of the country. We must act without delay."
That statement has more indefensible statements in it than Jim Comey's FISA warrant applications. First, the only firsthand proof in the record, which is the only type of proof admitted in court (with some exceptions), is exculpatory evidence. Let's not forget that Nadler tried spinning away President Zelenskiy's statement that he didn't feel any pressure from President Trump was because President Trump pressured him into saying that. Let's remember, too, that he said this with a straight face and without a bit of evidence to support that allegation.
Next, Nadler's statement that President Trump has "demonstrated a clear pattern of wrongdoing" is spin for 'I don't like how he's doing things.' Differences of opinion aren't impeachable offenses.
Then there's Speaker Pelosi's schtick:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is opening the debate on the floor of the House and says she does so "solemnly and sadly. If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duties," she says, adding that Trump "gave us no choice." She says it is a matter of fact that Trump is an "ongoing threat to our national security and the integrity of our elections."
Pelosi's schtick might've been believable if not for this:
Pelosi is given a round of applause from her benches as she finishes her remarks. She is wearing black, reportedly to communicate the solemnity of the day.
Nothing communicates solemnity like a lengthy round of applause like this:
[Video no longer available]
After the vote is taken, the pundits will assess the damage done by this impeachment. During the process, Adam Schiff fabricated President Trump's statements to President Zelenskiy. Jerry Nadler shut down the impeachment hearings without allowing a single GOP-called witness. Adam Schiff called Marie Yovanovitch to testify even though she'd been fired 3 months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call that triggered impeachment.
Increasingly, independents are siding with fair-minded Republicans more than they're siding with Democrats. Voters won't forget this impeachment, nor will they forget the fact that these Do-Nothing Democrats don't have a single signature accomplishment to brag about. Doug Collins has it right in this article :
"They trashed rules in the House, they've trashed decorum, they've trashed everything. Because they had one purpose and one purpose only: to undo the election of 2016 when their own candidate failed miserably and their own policies have never been accepted by the American people," he explained.
Democrats only have themselves to blame for this disgrace.
Posted Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:49 PM
No comments.
