December 7-9, 2019
Dec 07 00:30 Is the DFL going further metro? Dec 07 12:51 President Trump v. Vice President Biden: strength vs. weakness Dec 08 01:01 Democrats' nonstop investigations Dec 08 07:46 No crime, no proof? No problem Dec 08 15:28 Adam Schiff's big blunder Dec 09 06:45 AOC + 3 vs. Problem Solvers Dec 09 07:56 Do-Nothing Democrats, Part XXV Dec 09 21:06 Nadler is Nostradamus now?
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
Is the DFL going further metro?
According to this article , the DFL's leadership might become further metrocentric. To those that think that wasn't possible, that's understandable. Of the 7-person DFL Senate leadership team , 1 person is from northwest Minnesota (Kent Eken) and another person (Tom Bakk) is from northeast Minnesota. The other 5 people (Susan Kent, who is challenging Bakk for Minority Leader, Jeffrey Hayden, Carolyn Laine, John Hoffman and Ann Rest) are from the Twin Cities. By comparison, the 9-person GOP leadership team represents the entire state.
In particular, Bakk's positions on northeastern Minnesota mining issues have run afoul of environmentalists who are an important part of the DFL coalition. Kent's challenge came to light days after Bakk came under fire from environmentalists for telling a group of business and political leaders in Ely that the controversial Twin Metals copper-nickel mine proposal on the Iron Range will not be stopped by a state environmental review. "Now it might take a decade or more," Bakk said, "but the process isn't intended to stop projects."
Bakk's opposition to stronger gun laws also put him at odds with colleagues from Minneapolis, St. Paul and their suburbs, deepening a long-simmering intraparty rift. Bakk has long been a fixture in the politics of northern Minnesota, a region that was once a DFL stronghold and which has drifted increasingly toward the Republican Party in recent elections.
In other words, Sen. Bakk is too moderate for DFL Metrocrats. DFL Metrocrats passionately hate mining. In fact, the only thing that DFL Metrocrats hate more than mining is the Second Amendment. Apparently, Tom Bakk isn't leftist enough for the DFL Metrocrats' liking.
The brewing leadership fight has played out largely out of public view, with several DFL senators declining to comment publicly for this story. It comes as Senate Democrats prepare for a 2020 election cycle in which they will attempt to overturn Republicans' current 35-32 majority.
With the DFL's divisions, the DFL should be worried in 2020. DFL turnout in 2018 was almost as high as it is for a presidential election. In 2020, Republican turnout will be higher than it was in 2018. It'll be difficult for the DFL turnout to be much higher.
This begs the question of whether the DFL can gain seats in either the House or Senate. I wouldn't bet on it, especially if the DFL essentially tells the Iron Range that they aren't welcome in the DFL anymore.
Posted Saturday, December 7, 2019 12:30 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 07-Dec-19 04:24 AM
I don't think there are enough progressive kooks in MN to give them the majority in both the house and senate but then again I never thought Timmy would be governor and Ellison would be AG so I could be wrong. All I know is the more power and control they get, the worse off MN will be.
President Trump v. Vice President Biden: strength vs. weakness
Newt Gingrich's op-ed studies the differences between President Trump and Joe Biden. Speaker Gingrich opens the op-ed by saying "I recently received a fundraising email from former Vice President Joe Biden that captured the profound difference in the approach to foreign policy between Democrats and President Trump. Biden wrote: 'Did you see the video of our friends and allies in London this week? World leaders were LAUGHING at the President of the United States, after he once again embarrassed himself and tarnished the reputation of the United States at a summit.'"
[Video no longer available]
These world leaders were laughing at the fact that President Trump is the most transparent world leader. Trudeau apparently isn't aware of President Trump's habit of answering reporters' questions, whether it's on his way to Marine One, during Cabinet meetings, wherever he happens to be. But I digress.
In this setting, the untold story is how successful President Trump has been at getting NATO members to increase their defense spending. That this is a major achievement can be seen from the fact that Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama tried to get NATO members to increase their defense spending and both presidents failed. Trump has succeeded.
Biden is essentially a pacifist. He didn't speak out when John Kerry negotiated the worst nuclear treaty in history. Biden think twice about negotiating a path to nuclear weapons for Iran. That France, Germany and other pacifist countries approve of the US behavior during the Obama administration isn't an accomplishment. Remember that the Obama administration gained approval for shipping blankets and MREs to Ukraine during their hot war with Russia.
President Trump has started fixing Europe's corruption issues while strengthening NATO. Obama-Biden weakened the Middle East by ignoring ISIS, letting Syria use chemical weapons and giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons. If Biden thinks that's a legacy to be proud of, then he's an idiot.
You don't have to take my word for the scale of the Trump impact on NATO. Here is what NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (a Norwegian) said about the American impact at a news conference with President Trump:
"Let me thank you for the leadership you show on the issue of defense spending because it is very important that we all contribute more to our shared security, and it is really having an impact because, as you said, allies are now spending more on defense," Stoltenberg told Trump. "So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact."
The Obama-Biden administration didn't force this type of positive change. Their trademark was pacifism. Strategic patience was their byword. That's code for 'let's do nothing.' They were foreign policy failures.
Posted Saturday, December 7, 2019 12:51 PM
No comments.
Democrats' nonstop investigations
I wrote awhile back that anyone that thought that Democrats would stop investigating President Trump after he's acquitted by the Senate were kidding themselves. This article is proof that I was right. The only way to stop the Do-Nothing Democrats is to defeat 40-50 of them next November. The only way to get important legislative and judicial things done is to increase the GOP majority in the Senate. But I digress.
"If the Senate doesn't vote to convict Trump, or tries to monkey w his trial, he could of course be retried in the new Senate should he win re-election," tweeted Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general under former President Obama. "Double jeopardy protections do not apply," he added, referring to the principle that suspects can't be tried twice for the same crime. "And Senators voting on impeachment in the next months know this."
That's a blueprint for nonstop Democrat-led investigations. It's also a threat against the GOP majority in the Senate. Katyal implies that Republicans voting not to convict will be targeted.
The important part that Katyal isn't talking about is that Democrats haven't found a crime, an impeachable offense or any evidence of wrong-doing after 3 years of investigations. These rabies-infested Democrats hate President Trump. They've literally wanted to impeach him since before President Trump's inauguration. That isn't hyperbole. That's historical fact.
The 2020 House election comes down to something simple. Do the American people want a Congress that puts America's priorities first or do the American people want a Congress that's all-investigations-all-the-time? Unlike the Democrats' impeachment investigations, there's proof of what the Democrats' intentions are. The Democrats' priorities are investigate, investigate and investigate.
Speaker Pelosi has yipped a little about the bills sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk. What Ms. Pelosi won't talk about is the list of high priority items sitting on her desk. Pelosi won't talk about ratifying USMCA except to momentarily say that they're "working their way to yes." She hasn't said that they've been on that road since last year or that they expected it to be easy.
This week, Ms. Pelosi told a CNN audience that "civilization as we know it today is at stake":
[Video no longer available]
Watch Ms. Pelosi's gyrations as she's speaking. She doesn't look like a healthy person. I don't say this to mock her. I say it because it looks like she's out of control.
Republicans, it's imperative to retake the House majority. This investigative abuse can't continue. The president needs to have time to do his job. Democrats have done their utmost to deprive him of that ability. Thank God we've had a president powerful enough to power his way through the Democrats' BS.
Democrats will keep pushing for investigations even if the Republicans have the majority. The good news is that, this time, Bill Barr won't wimp out and appoint a special counsel. The better news is that Congress would start doing its job. The best news is that the economy will take off the minute USMCA is ratified and the US-China Phase One deal is reached.
Posted Sunday, December 8, 2019 1:01 AM
No comments.
No crime, no proof? No problem
If these were normal times, Democrats would've already been laughed off the planet for attempting to impeach President Trump. Initially, they pinned their hopes on the Mueller investigation. The Mueller investigation was a historic failure. Mueller's team of partisan lawyers didn't find a crime during their investigation. They cited 10 instances that might've been categorized as obstruction of justice but they didn't make a determination.
Next, Democrats pinned their hopes on Mueller testifying before Chairman Nadler's committee. That was such a failure that it caused Speaker Pelosi to shift impeachment hearings to Adam Schiff's committee. Had Democrats been smart, they simply would've dropped the investigation then. Democrats aren't smart. Instead of dropping their investigation, they plowed ahead.
Ignore the media's reporting. Schiff's hearings were a disaster for Democrats. The testifiers couldn't identify a single crime, much less an impeachable crime. That isn't the Democrats' biggest problem, though. The Democrats' biggest problem, which will be highlighted during the Senate trial, is that they don't have any evidence of a crime. The night before each hearing, the testifiers' opening statements were leaked to the MSM. Immediately, the MSM declared the next day's witnesses would deliver "bombshell" testimony.
What we quickly learned is that anyone could make provocative accusations in their opening statements. Sustaining those provocative statements through disciplined, hard-hitting cross-examination is a quite different thing. It didn't help that the majority of testifiers didn't witness anything. George Kent didn't have first-hand knowledge of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. Bill Taylor didn't either. Jim Jordan jumped all over Bill Taylor's understanding of things:
[Video no longer available]
Marie Yovanovitch, another of the Democrats' "star witnesses", was fired from her ambassador's job in April, 2019, 3 months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. At the time of the call, she was teaching in the United States. At one point, Devin Nunes commented that he didn't know why Yovanovitch was testifying. Considering the fact that she didn't have any first-hand information of anything, that's a fair point.
Last Wednesday, George Washington University's Jonathan Turley stated "this is certainly the thinnest of the modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which is almost wafer thin in comparison. There's a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it . It might be out there, I don't know. But it's not in this record . "
None of this matters to the Democrats, though. When third-hand hearsay is considered "bombshell testimony", the fix is in. When people who had nothing to do with the phone call are called witnesses, the fix is definitely in. When a crime can't be identified and evidence is nowhere to be found, it's best to just skip the illegitimate hearings in House and skip to the Senate's legitimate hearings where you can call witnesses and offer exculpatory evidence.
Posted Sunday, December 8, 2019 7:46 AM
No comments.
Adam Schiff's big blunder
If Adam Schiff isn't worried, he isn't getting good legal advice. Kim Strassel's article highlights a multitude of crimes that Mr. Schiff might be prosecuted for. That's the subject for others, though, so let's unpack Ms. Strassel's article.
In her article, she wrote "Mr. Schiff divulged the phone logs this week in his Ukraine report, thereby revealing details about the communications of Trump attorneys Jay Sekulow and Mr. Giuliani, ranking Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes, reporter John Solomon and others." A paragraph later, she continued, saying "If we've never had a scandal like this before, it's in part because it is legally dubious. Federal law bars phone carriers from handing over records without an individual's agreement. The statute makes some exceptions, including for federal and state law-enforcement agencies. But not for lawmakers . 'There does not appear to be any basis to believe that a congressional committee is authorized to subpoena telephone records directly from a provider - as opposed to an individual,' former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells me."
Members of Congress can't access these phone logs because they fall outside the purview of their legislative responsibilities. For those saying that Schiff had additional authority thanks to impeachment, the reality is that Schiff requested these records a month before the House voted to initiate the impeachment inquiry. It was after Nancy Pelosi declared that they were starting the inquiry but that's insignificant in the court's eyes.
That's because the Constitution gives the authority to "the House of Representatives." Literally for decades, courts have ruled that the House hasn't acted until it votes. Though Ms. Pelosi has frequently acted like a queen, it isn't likely that a court will grant her queen status. It isn't likely that a court will rule that a legislator, even a Speaker of the House, can unilaterally declare the start of impeachment.
The question is whether Mr. Schiff, in his zeal to bring down Mr. Trump, has made himself legally vulnerable. In Kilbourn v. Thompson (1881), the U.S. Supreme Court held that 'a congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose.' Mr. Schiff might argue he has wider powers in an impeachment inquiry. But the House didn't approve the inquiry until Oct. 31, a month after he issued his main AT&T subpoena.
Rep. Jim Banks wrote "It doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to recognize that subpoenaing these call records violates the spirit of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures."
Schiff didn't go to court to get these records. He submitted the request directly to AT&T. The reason why legitimate requests go through the courts is to have the courts supervise the process.
"The subpoenas aren't related to legitimate congressional oversight," says constitutional lawyer David Rivkin. Because there's "no conceivable legislative purpose to obtaining these call logs and publicly disclosing this information, Mr. Schiff would not be able to benefit from the Speech and Debate Clause immunity that otherwise protects members of Congress from civil and criminal liability." Mr. Rivkin adds that any of the targets could sue Mr. Schiff under state law for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and potentially even compel Mr. Schiff to turn over documents in discovery.
The other thing that should be considered is throwing Schiff out of the House for violating another congressman's Fourth Amendment rights. Nobody is above the law, especially the chairmen of powerful committees.
Schiff's actions are reprehensible. Ethics charges should be filed with the House Ethics Committee immediately against Chairman Schiff. If Democrats protect him against those charges, highlight which Democrats protected Schiff for his disgusting behavior in campaign ads. Let Democrats know that they'll pay a steep price for protecting corrupt members of their party.
[Video no longer available]
Adam Schiff hasn't displayed the proper caution for his high-ranking position. He hasn't been accurate with his statements or findings of facts. His accusations aren't based on verified information. Simply put, he's been reckless. That's why he needs to be stopped permanently.
Posted Sunday, December 8, 2019 3:28 PM
No comments.
AOC + 3 vs. Problem Solvers
Something that's gotten lost in the impeachment fight is how Speaker Pelosi was intimidated into impeachment by AOC + 3 versus how she's essentially ignored ratifying the USMCA treaty that the Problem Solvers Caucus. Speaker Pelosi knows that she can intimidate the so-called moderates. That's what she's done the last 15 years. When they were debating Cap & Trade, she needed Collin Peterson to vote for it. At the time, I wrote that Collin was a Blue Dog Democrat : until Nancy needed his vote.
Pelosi can't intimidate AOC + 3. In fact, they've intimidated Pelosi into supporting impeachment. Pelosi's majority isn't possible without moderates. Still, there's no enthusiasm without AOC + 3. It's a Catch 22 situation.
What isn't a difficult thing to figure out is what will happen to Democrats running for re-election. Appearing on Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo, Kevin McCarthy said "Well, Nancy Pelosi, if you're one of those 31 Democrats running for re-election -- well, you're a little afraid with hearing what Nancy Pelosi just did putting out this timeline for articles of impeachment. She just gave up your job. If you look at some new polling from American Action Network in these Democrat districts, 54% of their district is more likely to vote against you if you vote for impeachment -- and they already have."
That's the news from the 31 districts that we've heard about since seemingly forever ago. If 54% of voters are voting against you if you vote for impeachment, that isn't good news for those Democrats who Nancy Pelosi is forcing into voting for impeachment. Couple that information with the increasingly prevalent opinion that Democrats should be called the Do-Nothing Democrats and you've got the starting foundation for a wave election that will sweep Ms. Pelosi out of office.
This won't end well for Democrats because people across the nation have turned on them. Democrats have peddled one impeachment story after another for the past 3 years. First, they peddled the Russia collusion story. When that went bust, they shifted to obstruction of justice. When that wasn't taken seriously, they pounced on the whistleblower's report. When that wasn't taken seriously, Democrats impaneled some focus groups to come up with words that provided greater impact. That's when they settled for bribery.
Of course, the story hasn't changed. The transcript is still the transcript. The witnesses against President Trump are limited. It isn't surprising that people have tuned out. The boy cried wolf a dozen times too often. The boy's credibility doesn't exist anymore. (In this story, the boy is played by Adam Schiff. Go figure, right?)
Posted Monday, December 9, 2019 6:45 AM
No comments.
Do-Nothing Democrats, Part XXV
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered this speech on the Senate floor. In his speech, as he's done frequently, Sen. McConnell highlighted Speaker Pelosi's obsession with impeachment:
For weeks now, Republicans have been asking Democrats to take off their impeachment blinders and let Congress legislate for the American people. We've argued that American families deserve better than this partisan paralysis where Democrats obsess over impeachment and obstruct everything else.
This very morning, Speaker Pelosi gave a speech on national television to push forward her rushed and partisan impeachment process. Not one word on the outstanding legislation the American people actually need. Nothing on the USMCA, or the NDAA, or funding for our armed forces. It's all impeachment, all the time.
Only in this town, only in Washington D.C., does anybody think it's okay for our armed forces to go unfunded... and a major trade deal to go unpassed... because Democrats are too busy hosting a panel of law professors to criticize President Trump on television.
Here's the video of Sen. McConnell's speech:
[Video no longer available]
Why haven't Democrats from the Problem Solvers Caucus publicly push passage of USMCA? These Democrats want to be known as solving problems. Thus far, it's more accurate to call them Do-Nothing Democrats than Problem Solvers. They're a bunch of wimps who haven't gotten a thing done. If these so-called moderates won't stand up to Queen Nancy, then they're essentially worthless. We The People need doers, not talkers.
The good news is that the policies implemented by President Trump and Republicans are paying dividends to the people President Trump promised to never forget. It can't be happy times for Mike Bloomberg. This article from Bloomberg BusinessWeek contains good news for the American people:
The economy appears to be in a much better place than experts feared: good news for an incumbent president heading into an election year. In its analysis of the November jobs report, Bloomberg Economics lowered its projection of 2020 year-end unemployment to an astounding 3.3 percent and forecast "U.S. Election Day Unemployment to Be Lowest Since '52."
Back when we last had unified GOP government, important things actually got done. Republicans didn't fix the mess that Democrats created with health care but they got rid of tons of counterproductive anti-energy industry regulations.
The Trump administration's deregulation policies have made the US energy dominant. We're now exporting more oil than we're importing. Further on the regulations front, President Trump issued this executive order , which says in part:
Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. In addition to the management of the direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars through the budgeting process, it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination , and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.
The latest report reported that 7.5 old regulations were eliminated for each new regulation created. That's the biggest reason why the economy is strong and getting better. It's time to get rid of this Do-Nothing Democrats majority in the House so we can return to doing the people's business.
Posted Monday, December 9, 2019 7:56 AM
No comments.
Nadler is Nostradamus now?
Apparently, Chairman Nadler thinks he's Nostradamus now. In his own words, Chairman Nadler said "The integrity of our next election is at stake. Nothing could be more urgent." Then he continued, saying "The president, based on his past performance, will do everything he can to make it not a fair election, and that is part of what gives us the urgency to proceed with this impeachment."
What's amazing is that Chairman Nadler never cites proof for these aspersions. What's even more disgusting is that Chairman Nadler isn't the only Democrat spouting this nonsense. It isn't surprising that Speaker Pelosi said "The president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit."
That's an amazing statement considering the fact that Democrats still haven't introduced evidence that President Trump corrupted the 2016 election. We have allegations that Hillary Clinton hired people to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. We know that the Obama FBI did its best to corrupt the 2016 election. We know that because the Obama administration didn't do anything when Ukraine's Ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed criticizing then-Candidate Trump, saying he was unfit for office.
Honest people would declare that interfering in a US presidential election. Of course, Democrats don't think that's interference, thereby failing Prof. Dershowitz's shoe-on-the-other-foot test. Thus far, Prof. Turley is the only law school professor, other than Prof. Dershowitz, who's passed that test.
The Democrats' dishonesty shines through in this Washington Post article :
At the heart of the Democrats' case is the allegation that Trump tried to leverage a White House meeting and military aid, sought by Ukraine to combat Russian military aggression, to pressure President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a probe of an unfounded theory that Kyiv conspired with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 presidential election .
Democrats keep insisting that Ukraine and Russia couldn't both interfere in the 2016 US presidential election. My question to Democrats is simple. Why can't both interfere in our elections? Why can't they have different motivations for their interference? Is there a law that prohibits Russia and Ukraine from both interfering in US elections?
Chairman Nadler isn't basing his statements on verified information. It's based on Democrats' daily talking points. What's most disappointing is that Democrats aren't just suffering from TDS, aka Trump Derangement Syndrome. They're suffering from UDS, aka Ukrainian Derangement Syndrome, too.
Finally, Chairman Nadler looked rather confused in this fight with Louie Gohmert:
[Video no longer available]
It's easy to see why Speaker Pelosi didn't want to deal with impeachment. Chairman Schiff is disgustingly dishonest. Chairman Nadler is dumber than Chairman Schiff is dishonest.
Posted Monday, December 9, 2019 9:06 PM
No comments.
