January 23-25, 2020

Jan 23 02:03 Chairman Adam Schiff: Let's end democracy to protect democracy
Jan 23 09:31 Susan Collins, true moderate
Jan 23 15:18 President Trump's impeachment communications team

Jan 24 01:47 What's missing from President Trump's impeachment trial
Jan 24 10:16 The FBI's FISA disaster
Jan 24 12:33 Elizabeth Warren rigging the system

Jan 25 01:42 The Schiff-Nadler insult machine
Jan 25 07:40 Schiff's 'head on a pike' legacy
Jan 25 16:14 Adam Schiff's piñata day

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Chairman Adam Schiff: Let's end democracy to protect democracy

Wednesday, Adam Schiff argued against himself when he said "the president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won. The president has shown that he believes that he is above the law and scornful of constraint."

It's frightening to think that the House Democrats' lead impeachment manager is this dishonest. The presidential election is a federal election It isn't a national election. That's the foundation for why we have an electoral college. That's why we don't elect presidents based on the national popular vote. Further, each state counts its votes at each polling station, which is done at the precinct level.

That's 3-4 levels, minimum, below the federal government. It's certain that each state has different laws governing their elections. Those laws are insulated from the federal government by the Tenth Amendment. The text of the Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that instructs states how to tally votes, what time polls close, etc. That automatically means that this is the state or local government's responsibility. Other than preparing against foreign governments hacking into voting machines or the state secretary of state's election website, there isn't much that the federal government is involved with.

In this video, Chairman Schiff essentially tells the American people and the US Senate that President Trump will use his office to cheat on the 2020 election:
[Video no longer available]
It doesn't take a genius to know that this isn't an impeachable offense. First, you can't convict an impeached president without proof of criminality. Next, it's impossible to gather proof for something that hasn't happened yet. That's what Chairman Schiff just tried. Third, Democrats hope you didn't notice that they don't have proof that President Trump's call with President Zelenskiy was to rig the 2020 election.

The transcript of the call certainly is proof that President Trump asked for President Zelenskiy's help in investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. Saying that it's proof that he did that strictly political profit is a stretch. Without documentation stating intent, it's just a theory. It's a plausible theory but it's a theory nonetheless.

Schiff and other Democrats repeating that theory 20 times a day doesn't constitute proof. It's still just a theory, even if Democrats repeat the theory 50 times a day. Without an email, text or other electronic communication, it's just a theory.

There's no doubt that the Democrats don't have much of a case. Chris Wallace said it all when he said "I thought he said it all. Then I realized we have [up to] 21 hours and 40 minutes left to go. : My Lord, three days and 24 hours [total]. You just wonder how many times you can keep making the same point."

If Democrats don't inject new life, aka proof, into their presentation, they will lose their fight by mid-afternoon Thursday. To follow Tuesday's marathon session with a snoozefest is cruel and inhuman punishment. Nobody should have to hear Adam Schiff and his team of Democrats whine on and on and on and on. That ought to be an impeachable offense.

Posted Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:03 AM

No comments.

Susan Collins, true moderate

It's time for Republicans, starting with me, to admit that Susan Collins is a legitimate Senate moderate. This article verifies what I'd already suspected of Sen. Collins. While I disagree with her on a number of issues, I can't help but respect the fact that she thinks things through.

The thing that first got me rethinking Sen. Collins was the Kavanaugh Hearings. As a result of those hearing, Republicans were forced to take a firm position. That's what Sen. Collins did. The tide had already started to turn as a result of President Trump refusing to pull Kavanaugh's appointment. He insisted on fighting for Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Republicans remember that that's when Lindsey Graham went from being a total squish to being a fighter in a single speech. Every Republican remembers this speech:
[Video no longer available]
Later in the confirmation process, Sen. Collins delivered this riveting speech from the Senate floor:
[Video no longer available]
Disagree with Sen. Collins' policy positions if you like. I certainly have. What I appreciate, though, is the research that she does. Look at the research that she did for this speech. There's a ton of details and tons of information that you only get after doing due diligence.

Compare Sen. Collins' positions with Amy Klobuchar's positions. The differences between the 2 'moderates' is stark. Sen. Collins voted for the tax cuts that have this economy humming. Sen. Klobuchar voted against them. Sen. Collins confirmed Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch. Sen. Klobuchar voted against these highly-qualified justices.

Kevin Cramer, the freshman senator from North Dakota summed things up perfectly :

Susan always does what's best for her constituents, and then she explains it really well. I'm sure it didn't hurt her any; I'm sure it helped her. She's a very courageous Republican.

Thanks to her loyalty to her constituents and Mitch McConnell, Sen. McConnell will have her back this November. I expect her to win re-election in a tight race.

Posted Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:31 AM

No comments.

President Trump's impeachment communications team

Back during the House's impeachment inquiry, the conventional wisdom was that President Trump had to beef up his communications team. Rather than hiring a bunch of consultants to help with that, President Trump beefed up his legal team, hiring people like Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray and Ken Starr. President Trump wasn't finished, though. Later, he "announced eight House Republicans will join his legal defense team ."

Joining the team were Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, Doug Collins, Lee Zeldin, Mike Johnson, Debbie Lesko and Mark Meadows. These aren't the only reinforcements, though. Since the trial started, senators like Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy and Tom Cotton have played a more prominent role in defending President Trump against the House Democrats' impeachment accusations.

This morning, for instance, Sen. Cotton was interviewed by FNC's Sandra Smith:
[Video no longer available]
Sen. Cotton is right. If Democrats had compelling evidence, they'd present it and "let it speak for itself." They don't have compelling evidence, which is why they've repeated the same things over and over again.

Since beefing up their legal team, these attorneys have applied a full-court press. Dershowitz has appeared on ABC's This Week, CNN's State of the Union and on FNC's Hannity and Ingraham Angle shows. Robert Ray has been on multiple shows, as has Elise Stefanik, Doug Collins, John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton. They've taken turns highlighting Adam Schiff's dishonest statements. When Trump's legal team makes their presentation, expect them to include many of Schiff's dishonesties in that presentation.

If witnesses are called, expect Hunter Biden to be called. If he's called, here's why:


Talk about opening a door of opportunity for Republicans. BTW, this is what a confident, polished attorney looks like:
[Video no longer available]
President Trump's legal team and communications team are fitting together perfectly. They're confident and well-prepared for each contingency. That's what a team of professionals looks like.

Posted Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:18 PM

No comments.

What's missing from President Trump's impeachment trial

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Democrats' impeachment presentation has stunk up the Senate. After President Trump is acquitted, Sen. McConnell should get the Senate floor cleaned to get rid of the House Democrats' stench. While praising Chairman Schiff's presentation, CNN and MSDNC haven't noticed what's substantively missing from the impeachment trial.

Can Chairman Schiff tell me the timestamp on the email from President Trump to Ambassador Sondland where President Trump told Sondland to screw over Ukraine if they didn't investigate the Bidens? Is Chairman Nadler able to tell me the timestamp on the communication between the Department of Defense and Ambassador Taylor where the DOD tells Taylor that delaying the $391,000,000 aid package will endanger US national security? Has Zoe Lofgren or Hakeem Jefferies submitted documents from State Department officials telling the DOD that things are getting dicey on Ukraine's eastern border?

If these sorts of things can't be produced, then the past 2 painful days have needlessly tortured senators. If Democrats haven't submitted documents that verified testimony supporting the Democrats' accusations, then those accusations are just theories or opinions. Without physical proof, the Democrats' presentation isn't compelling. It's just a word salad presentation built to destroy a presidential administration and hurt Republican senators from battleground states.

What's the proof that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy to investigate Burisma for the purpose of hurting his political opponent? Have the Democrats proven that a) President Trump was worried that Vice President Biden was a threat to his re-election and b) the investigation wasn't designed to simply eradicate corruption?

There's a ton of evidence to support the fact that President Trump really was interested in fighting corruption. Early in his administration, President Trump has withheld aid to Pakistan, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador and other countries until they fixed their corruption problems. Further, there's tons of proof that President Trump wanted NATO to pay their fare share towards defending Europe. This is one example of President Trump pushing that message:
[Video no longer available]
Here's another example:
[Video no longer available]
In the July 25 transcript of his phone call with President Zelenskiy, President Trump mentioned the need for NATO and Europe to pay their fare share. That casts doubt on the Democrats claim that President Trump withheld aid for personal gain.

Democrats haven't made the case that President Trump committed an impeachable offense. Thus far, the only thing that Democrats have made are one accusation after another. Without physical proof to support the accusations, the accusations should be ignored. Do we want a society where lives can be ruined based solely on an accusation? Think that through thoroughly before answering.

Without rock-solid proof supporting the Democrats' accusations, this impeachment trial should be ended ASAP. A conviction without proof isn't justice.

Posted Friday, January 24, 2020 1:47 AM

No comments.

The FBI's FISA disaster

The upper echelons of the FBI better prepared their lives turned upside-down. The Justice Department announced that "at least two of the FBI's surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause."

One of the people who should be worried about this news is Chairman Schiff. He should be worried because "Schiff had previously insisted the Page FISA warrants met 'rigorous' standards for probable cause, and mocked Republicans for suggesting otherwise." Then there's this:

The June 2017 Page FISA warrant renewal, which was among the two deemed invalid by the DOJ, was approved by then-Acting FBI Director (and now CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The April 2017 warrant renewal was approved by then-FBI Director James Comey.

This doesn't mean that the first 2 FISA warrants met the FISA Court's standards. It simply means that a determination hasn't been reached on those applications yet.

At minimum, Rosenstein, McCabe and Comey should be very worried. Lying to the FISC should be accompanied by a lengthy stint of gathering striped sunlight. Their actions should result in the DOJ and FBI reaching a large, quick settlement with Carter Page. Clearly, Carter Page was hurt reputationally. When a person is hurt as a result of corruption, the corrupt people need to write checks with a half-dozen zeros to the left of the decimal point.

The Justice Department said the FBI should have discontinued its secret surveillance of Page far earlier than it did because "there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power." The DOJ's letter was revealed in a January 7 court filing unsealed on Thursday.

"Thanks in large part to the work of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, the Court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in the applications filed by the government in the above-captioned dockets," the letter states. "DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, 'if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.'"

At this point, it's indisputable that corruption was pervasive throughout the top echelon (singular, not plural) of the Obama-Comey FBI. It's clear, too, that Rod Rosenstein wasn't the boy scout he claimed to be.

Bipartisan support is growing for tearing down the FISC as it's currently constructed. The judges that sit on the FISC were warned by Devin Nunes while he still chaired the House Intel Committee about these abuses:

"The way that the court has conducted themselves is totally inappropriate, they ignored clear evidence that we'd presented to them : they did absolutely nothing about it," Nunes told Fox News host Martha McCallum late Tuesday. "They've left Congress no choice but to have to step in and fix this process."

Finally, there's this:


Posted Friday, January 24, 2020 10:16 AM

No comments.

Elizabeth Warren rigging the system

A consistent part of Elizabeth Warren's stump speech is when she criticizes the current system as being rigged against the little guy. She who wields the sword shouldn't be surprised when they get sliced by that sword. That's what happened while campaigning in Grimes, IA .

While campaigning in Iowa, Sen. Warren was approached by a man about her student loan proposal. It didn't finish well. In fact, it was pretty harsh medicine throughout:

"I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter is getting out of school. I've saved all my money. She doesn't have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?" the father asked Warren. 'Of course not,' Warren said.

"So you're going to pay for people who didn't save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?" he responded. The man went on to say he had a friend who "bought a car and went on all the vacations,' while he worked a double shift. "You're laughing at me," the man said, which Warren denied. "Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing. We did the right thing and we get screwed."

A great economist said that "if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul as an ally." Obviously, Sen. Warren's proposal requires a little 'Robbing Peter to pay Paul' action. That isn't the greatest sin, though.

The problem with Sen. Warren's proposal is that it doesn't fix the problem. Ten years after the student loan debt is forgiven, we'll be right back into the same situation. That's because people's behaviors won't change. That's because the universities' behavior won't change. What incentive do universities have to start being fiscally responsible? After all, it isn't their money that they're spending.

The problem is OPM, aka Other People's Money. In the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician, OPM is as addictive as opium. That's the simple, indisputable truth. The conversation is a little difficult to hear but here's the confrontation:
[Video no longer available]

Posted Friday, January 24, 2020 12:33 PM

No comments.

The Schiff-Nadler insult machine

If the Democrats' chief goal during their portion of the impeachment trial was to insult Republican senators, they picked the right people for the job. During Friday night's closing arguments, Chairman Schiff said "CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, 'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.' I don't know if that's true."

The Reuters article continued, saying "After that remark, the generally respectful mood in the Senate immediately changed . Republicans across their side of the chamber groaned, gasped and said, 'That's not true.'" That's pretty dramatic. After Schiff's statement, Susan Collins replied "Not only have I never heard the 'head on the pike' line, 'but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration."

As disgusting as Chairman's Schiff's quote is, it isn't that much more disgusting than Chairman Nadler's statement :

He is a dictator. This must not stand. And that is why -- another reason -- he must be removed from office.

The Democrats' highest-profile impeachment managers think that President Trump is a dictator who thinks that people who don't follow his instructions should be impaled. Here's the video of Schiff's quote:
[Video no longer available]
Schiff threw in the line that "I don't know if that's true. I hope it's not true. I hope it's not true." Anyone who's chronicled Chairman Schiff's dishonesty won't give him the benefit of the doubt.

"That's when he lost me," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican moderate, said about Schiff's remark, according to her spokeswoman.

It's time to talk about another subject that people haven't talked about yet. When Speaker Pelosi picked the impeachment managers, she said that "all seven managers have personalities that 'fit a pattern that Speaker Pelosi kind of likes: to keep it reserved and somber." That's reserved and somber?

If this impeachment trial is finished by this time next week, it'll be because the Democrats' impeachment managers alienated moderate GOP senators. Despite the fawning media coverage he's received, Schiff has done a terrible job. Rather than persuading people, he's alienated senators. History won't be kind to Chairman Schiff when this impeachment is written.

Posted Saturday, January 25, 2020 1:42 AM

No comments.

Schiff's 'head on a pike' legacy

It's been less than 12 hours since Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Chief Impeachment Manager, closed by saying "CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, 'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.' I don't know if that's true." Since then, Schiff has rightfully been the subject of GOP vitriol.

First, Schiff earned that vitriol. After using that line, Schiff then continued, saying "But I was struck by the irony of the idea -- when we're talking about a president who would make himself a monarch that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was imposed by a monarch." Schiff used that line because it fit the image he's trying to paint of President Trump.

Next, just because he was wrong in using that line doesn't mean he's the only person worthy of criticism. Nancy Cordes, the CBS reporter who broke the story, should be criticized, too. This segment should never have gotten published:


Cordes' reporting was discredited virtually immediately :

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, considered another key Republican vote, agreed with Murkowski. "Not only have I never heard the 'head on the pike' line but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration," she told reporters.

In other words, this 'reporting' is BS. This follows a pattern. Who is the Trump confidant? Nobody knows because that's just included in the reporting.
[Video no longer available]
Schiff's legacy is forever tarnished. Prior to last night, the biggest part of his legacy was telling Chuck Todd that he had seen "evidence that was stronger than circumstantial" that President Trump had colluded with Russia. From this point forward, "head on a pike" will be Schiff's legacy.

Posted Saturday, January 25, 2020 7:40 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 25-Jan-20 08:18 AM
Shiff needs to be taken out by his constituents for all the lies and bullshit he has been telling the last year or two. We know that will never happen because the people who voted for this worthless sack of crap agree with the means and methods he has taken to try and remove Trump from office.

Adam Schiff's piñata day

This morning's impeachment hearing quickly and surgically turned Adam Schiff into a pinata. President Trump's legal team did more damage to Chairman Schiff in 2 hours than House Democrats did to President Trump in 3 days. President Trump's team didn't resort to hyperbole because the facts spoke for themselves.

Pat Cipollone, the White House Counsel, opened the presentation. During his part of the presentation, Cipollone frequently asked why House Democrats didn't tell the senators about exculpatory testimony. Nine minutes into his presentation, Cipollone said "What we intend to do today is go through their record that they established in the House and we intend to show you some of the evidence that they adduced in the House that they decided over their 3 days and 24 hours that they didn't have enough time or made a decision not to show you. And every time you see one of these pieces of evidence, ask yourself 'why didn't I see that in the first 3 days'?"

This video contains the entire hearing:
[Video no longer available]
Twenty minutes into the video, during Michael Purpura's presentation, President Trump's team played the video of Schiff's 'parody speech' where he play-acted out a fictional phone call with President Zelenskiy. This was the highlight of Mr. Purpura's presentation. It drew strong reactions from senators and from Chairman Schiff. One senator said that the blood left Chairman Schiff's face at that point.

Towards the end of their presentation, President Trump's team highlighted Chairman Schiff's change in attitude about the whistleblower testifying by showing a 3-frame slide. In the first 2 frames, Schiff said that the whistleblower had to be called. In the final frame, Schiff had changed his mind, saying that the whistleblower didn't need to testify because they now had the transcript.

Team Trump highlighted the fact that the change also coincided with this NYTimes article that reported that the whistleblower had met with Schiff's staff. Various senators in the room said that impacted people's attitudes in the room.

Cipollone hinted that the President's team might call Schiff as a fact witness if Democrats keep pushing for witnesses. That's got to frighten Schiff because he's prone to disinformation, to put it charitably. Democrats already know the outcome of this trial. If Republicans can point to Schiff lying on the witness stand, that takes a major weapon away from them in attacking potentially vulnerable GOP senators.

Finally, when Patrick Philbin talked about why Team Trump didn't claim executive privilege on the initial subpoenas, he said that the subpoenas were issued before the impeachment vote at the end of October. Defense attorney Bob Bianchi appeared on FNC after the hearing. He was asked about that. Bianchi replied that he'd been following the hearings quite closely and hadn't heard that explanation before this morning. He then replied that this would be a powerful argument if this checked out.

I wrote about that in this post . I made the point that impeachment inquiries don't start until a vote of the full House is completed authorizing a specific committee to start the inquiry. Speaker Pelosi announced the start of the inquiry on Sept. 24, 2019. The House didn't vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry until Oct. 31, 2019. The subpoenas were issued between those dates, rendering them invalid.

Today's hearing will be seen as a game-changer because a) Team Trump's attorneys were professional, respectful and to-the-point, b) Team Trump's attorneys did a surgical job of carving Schiff like a Thanksgiving turkey and c) they weren't bombastic like Chairmen Schiff and Nadler. It's also a game-changer in the sense that it essentially ended the need for additional witnesses. After today, no amount of witnesses can undo the damage done to the Democrats' case.

Rick Scott got it right in this interview:
[Video no longer available]

Posted Saturday, January 25, 2020 4:14 PM

No comments.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more

October 31, 2007

Oct 31 01:01 Media Matter's Alter Ego? Oct 31 03:32 Iraqi Civilian Casualties Dropping Oct 31 10:52 Hillary's Panderfest Blows Up in Her Face Oct 31 13:15 Brod, Emmer Call For Investigation of Mark Ritchie Oct 31 19:43 Ritchie's 'Episode' a Tempest in a Teapot? Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Prior Years: 2006 Media Matter's Alter Ego? One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there's another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds . The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend's interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity's America. To say that their post didn't attempt to refute Justin's story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity: Last night's (October 27th) Hannity's America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses...
Read more