January 28-30, 2020

Jan 28 01:35 CNN's elitist attitude is disgusting
Jan 28 04:31 Prof. Dershowitz unloads on Democrats' impeachment managers

Jan 29 02:37 How Mitch McConnell will win the witnesses debate
Jan 29 11:03 Bruising John Bolton's ego

Jan 30 04:58 Impeachment trial almost over
Jan 30 11:45 Patrick Philbin obliterates Hakeem Jefferies
Jan 30 17:54 Texas turning purple? I don't think so
Jan 30 22:32 Elizabeth Warren's grandstanding

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

CNN's elitist attitude is disgusting

Saturday night, CNN's elitist attitude was on full display . It was a disgusting thing. Unfortunately, it isn't a surprising thing. What Don Lemon's guests said is comparable to Hillary's basket of deplorables statement. Let's remember that oldie-but-goodie:
[Video no longer available]
Notice how loud the laughter got when she said that. That isn't the sound of approval. That's the sound of derision. While I refuse to think that that's typical of all Democrats, I'm totally confident that significant portions of Democrats think that way about Republicans. Here's what many CNN viewers think of Trump's supporters:


If Republicans and thoughtful independents need motivation to vote, play that video to those would-be voters. Ask yourself this question; would you want these people in charge of anything? I don't.

Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2020 1:35 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 28-Jan-20 05:34 PM
A shinning example why Trump was elected and will be re-elected in 2020.

Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Jan-20 09:40 AM
What was the date on that CBS video you embedded? Was it from back when the Never Trump Republicans were in play, before Trump sewed up nomination? There were many, many Never Trumpers who agreed then with what Hillary said; until falling into line when Jeb, Newt, and a stagefull of others had been eliminated from contention - by a basket of Trump supporters, whatever you call them. Many Republican commentators back then were appalled by the Trump movement, but now forget or downplay that period and outlook. So that Boss in Chief is now lionized by former critics - for winning, and then falling into line himself. Now with Lindsey Graham as soul-mate, then, Graham's tune differed; but Graham shows flexibility.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jan-20 10:40 AM
The Hildabeast video was from 2016.

Prof. Dershowitz unloads on Democrats' impeachment managers

Saying that Alan Dershowitz unloaded both barrels of the Constitution on the Democrats' impeachment managers is understatement. They deserved it. The highlight of Professor Dershowitz's speech came when he said "I'm sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents."

Perhaps the most controversial part of Professor Dershowitz's presentation was when he said that "Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like 'quid pro quo' and 'personal benefit.'"


Then there's this:


My question is this: since I watched every minute of Professor Dershowitz's presentation, does that count towards certifying me as a credentialed legal bloviator? I know that doesn't make me a lawyer but I'd appreciate getting a certificate from Professor Dershowitz saying that I'm now qualified to talk about the Constitution and impeachment.

Seriously, the Trump legal team did a great job in putting out the 'Bolton Bombshell.' Attorney after attorney dismantled the key components of the Democrats' case for impeachment. Michael Purpura addressed, for the second time, the justification for not complying with the initial set of compulsory subpoenas, highlighting that the House hadn't voted to authorize a committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The House didn't vote on an impeachment resolution until Halloween. The compulsory subpoenas were sent out in early October. Speaker Pelosi held a press conference on Sept. 24, announcing that the House had started an impeachment inquiry. Nixon Judiciary Committee Chairman on impeachment, Peter Rodino, stated that his House Judiciary Committee didn't have the authority to start the impeachment inquiry until there was a vote of the whole House authorizing that inquiry.

This situation requires a Peter Rodino or a Henry Hyde. Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are partisan Democrat hacks. Rodino and Hyde were gentlemen, statesmen and patriots who felt comfortable working in a bipartisan situations.

Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:31 AM

No comments.

How Mitch McConnell will win the witnesses debate

It's purely speculation on my part but I'm betting that Sen. Mitch McConnell will win the debate over whether the Senate will call additional witnesses to the impeachment trial. With senators like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul threatening to call a bunch of witnesses if Democrats insist on calling John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, Sen. McConnell is sitting in the power seat.

Further, Pat Toomey and Mitt Romney are talking about working out a swap with Chuck Schumer. Cruz, Graham and Paul want the trial to end quickly. That doesn't mean they aren't willing to play hardball with witnesses. If the Senate votes to call witnesses, expect Cruz, Graham and Paul to insist on calling Schiff, Chalupa, the Bidens and the whistleblower.

What Lindsey Graham is saying is that Democrats call witnesses at their own peril. This won't be a John McCain-style deal where Republicans get screwed and McCain gets to act like a dealmaker. That ain't happening this time. Check this out:



What I would say is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Biden's connection to the Ukraine is inappropriate. There is a tsunami of evidence. So the House managers told the Senate that this is 'baseless' that it's been 'debunked,' and I think the defense team, yesterday, made a damning indictment of what Hunter and Joe Biden allowed to happen and it's not in America's interest to see this happen again in the Ukraine where Hunter Biden turned it basically into an ATM machine. We're going to go to that, and there's media reports, people in your business, that suggested a DNC staffer [Alexandra Chalupa] met with Ukrainian officials about the 2016 election. I don't know if that's true or not, but if we're going to open this up to additional inquiry, we're going to go down the road of whether it was legitimate for the President to believe there was corruption and conflicts of interest on the Biden's part in the Ukraine. We'll explore that, and whether or not there is any credibility to the idea that the DNC may have been working with the Ukraine.

Lindsey has figured out how to negotiate. The McCain-style negotiation is mostly groveling. The Trump-style negotiating means negotiating with a gun to the other guy's head.. Make the other guy sweat. Make Democrats worry about whether it's worth it.

Democrats are already worrying about voting :

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are all undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land.

If I had to bet, I wouldn't bet against Sen. McConnell. He's buried tons of people. Why would I think this time will be different? A month ago, he buried Nancy. Last week, he defeated Chuck Schumer 12 straight times.

Finally, I don't think Mitch is tired of winning. Call your senator. Tell them to vote against witnesses.

Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:37 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Jan-20 09:49 AM
Hunter and Joe Biden do need to explain themselves, so having witnesses from each side seems a win-win for America. For voters who will show up in November to, hopefully, vote intelligently. Bolton the quintessential Neocon needs to be smoked out of hiding in the weeds. Sunshine IS the best disinfectant, if you believe what Justice Brandeis said decades ago. If you believe Lindsey Graham and McConnell can pin Biden and Bolton, bless the idea of having a go at it. Progressives would pay attention. Last, Gary, readers - Do YOU trust John Bolton? I do not, but it is a subjective call.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jan-20 10:39 AM
I trust Bolton but only to a certain extent. Putting him under oath matters.

Bruising John Bolton's ego

The only stories that the MSM is covering are impeachment, John Bolton's kiss-and-tell manuscript and the coronavirus epidemic. Let's explore a theory about Bolton's kiss-and-tell manuscript. Let's assume for the sake of just this article that Bolton is telling the truth. (Anything's possible, right?)

It's entirely possible that President Trump told him that at some point. We know that President Trump told Don McGahn to fire Mueller. We know that McGahn didn't follow President Trump's orders because Mueller didn't get fired.

Imagine how upset Bolton must feel. First, President Trump publicly ignored his advice on meeting with North Korea. Next, President Trump didn't follow through with tying military aid to investigating the Bidens. Finally, President Trump unceremoniously fired Bolton.

A man with Bolton's pride can only take so much humiliation. Why shouldn't we think that he'd try and lash out at President Trump? Why shouldn't we think that this is just Bolton's best shot at complicating President Trump's life?

While Bolton's book jumps off the shelf, Democrats continue playing their anti-American games. It's obvious that Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Chuck Schumer care more about winning elections than they care about doing what's right for this nation. If they cared about putting America first, they wouldn't have pushed this evidence-free impeachment. Remember this?
[Video no longer available]
The Mueller Report showed that there wasn't any Russian collusion. Thus far, Democrats haven't shown any proof that President Trump did anything illegal. They've offered speculation. They've insisted that they'll have bombshell testimony if only Bolton would testify. That's just additional speculation. It isn't proof.

It's time to put a wooden stake through this impeachment vampire's heart. Impeachment is just the Democrats' latest vehicle to kill the Trump administration. That's what happens when Democrats put a higher priority on winning elections than on doing what's right.

Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:03 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Jan-20 11:45 AM
"It's time to put a wooden stake through this impeachment vampire's heart." An interesting thought.

Recall, Pelosi opposed impeachment, then this Ukraine quid pro quo thing surfaced. Early reporting did mention Bolton, and the House issued a subpoena, if I recall correctly, with Bolton saying he'd litigate it because of the Trump bar on administration folks testifying. A whistleblower situation arose, Schiff and others paid attention and Pelosi agreed with the Dem caucus majority belief that holding an impeachment was a good idea.

One speculative possibility, Bolton initiated the inquest, where the whistleblower identity was never tied to Bolton, definitively, by any mainstream reporting.

Bolton writes a book, and says he'd testify (in accordance with the book text).

BOYCOTT THE BOLTON BOOK! And urge your friends to do so also. Stick the publisher with a warehouse full of kindling, vs selling Kindle versions. Minimize the cash flow to Bolton for arguably being the tipping factor toward moving Pelosi toward blessing a hearing.

Bolton's motives, presuming others beyond ginning up book sales to make more money, need intense scrutiny. You get that if he becomes a witness, and the entire hearing might unravel if he tells the truth.

Do YOU trist John Bolton? That seems to be clarifying as a bottom line in things. Trump and Bolton in a swearing contest - which is telling the truth - is a scenario similar to what happened to Hoffa. Everyone knows there's a story but nobody is coming forward with a body; leading to rampant speculation.

Bottom line seems that Bolton may have initiated the situation, Shiff being only a willing follower, liking the path Bolton was charting. Then, big man shows up at the eleventh hour saying, "He told me directly, . . ."

There is a Bolton spore to much of the entire thing.

What's in it for him? You tell me. Trump's restraint in dealing with Iran beyond what Bolton wanted might mean Bolton would like a more pliant Chief Exec. The course he chartered seems so directed.

Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Jan-20 11:56 AM
A head's up, for reader followup, as each may want - Wikipedia has a current stub page on the book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Room_Where_It_Happened



Readers might want to keep a bookmark on that, to see how it ebbs and flows over time, as one or another Wiki maven does editing and/or adding. It arguably might be a more objective resource than other things now on the web.

Impeachment trial almost over

Based on Fox's reporting and this article , the Senate trial of President Trump's impeachment is almost over. Wednesday's questions opened with a question from Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney to President Trump's legal team.

Before that, though, Mitch McConnell met with Sen. Murkowski "for about 20 to 30 minutes. That was seen as a sign by several senators that Democrats will fail to convince four Republicans to join them in calling for witnesses. Without a vote to hear from witnesses, the trial could end as soon as Friday."

After their meeting, the mood in the GOP Conference was improved:

"We're going to get it done by Friday, hopefully," Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said following the meeting. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), emerging from the lunch, said, "I think I can say the mood is good." Braun expressed confidence that McConnell will be able to keep his conference unified enough to defeat a motion to consider subpoenas for additional witnesses and documents.

Sean Hannity isn't a great interviewer but he's been right about the various Trump administration investigations. I take him seriously when he says that the trial is almost over, which he did in his opening monologue Wednesday night:
[Video no longer available]
If Sen. Romney votes to convict President Trump, he'll instantly become a pariah in Utah. It's almost guaranteed that he'd get primaried, too. After seeing Matt Towery's poll results, Mitt would be wise to think twice about rejecting President Trump.

Towery asked 400 registered voters in Utah these questions:

  1. How would you like your 2 senators to vote in the trial? Vote to acquit President Trump: 68%

  2. Do you support or oppose calling additional witnesses? Oppose 64%

  3. More or less likely to support Romney re-election if he votes for witnesses? Less likely 60%


At this point, I can't picture an outcome were more than 49 senators vote for additional witnesses. If the vote comes out 51-49 in President Trump's favor, this will become a non-factor in the 2020 senatorial elections. Impeachment just isn't that important to the people.

Posted Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:58 AM

No comments.

Patrick Philbin obliterates Hakeem Jefferies

During yesterday's questions portion of the impeachment trial, Dep. WH Counsel Patrick Philbin responded to Democrat Impeachment Manager Hakeem Jefferies statements about "blanket defiance."

Rep. Jefferies, the chairman of the House Democrat Caucus, was the first to respond to a question about why House Democrats didn't contest the Trump administration's refusal to respond to subpoenas. Jefferies said "Simple. We did not challenge any claims related to executive privilege because, as the President's own counsel admitted during this trial, the president didn't raise the question of executive privilege. What the president did raise was this notion of blanket defiance, this notion that the executive branch, directed by the president, could completely defy any and all subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives, not turn over documents, not turn over witnesses, not produce a single shred of information..."

It didn't take Counsel Philbin long to shred Rep. Jefferies intentionally dishonest statement. Philbin started, saying "Let me frame this, partly in response to what Mr. Jefferies just said and I went through this before. The idea that there was blanket defiance and no explanation and no case law from the White House is simply incorrect. I put up slides showing the letters, the letter from Oct. 18th that explained specifically that the subpoenas that had been issued by the House were not authorized by a vote from the House were invalid and there was a letter from the White House Counsel's office saying that. And there was a letter from OMB saying that. There was a letter from the State Department saying that. There were specific rationales given, citing the specific cases, Watkins, Roonley, explaining that defect. The House managers chose not to take any steps to correct that. We also pointed out other defects. We asserted the doctrine of absolute immunity for the president's senior advisors to the president, which has been claimed by every president since Nixon."
[Video no longer available]
Compulsory subpoenas are different than the subpoenas that Congress routinely uses because those subpoenas are used to gather information for legislative purposes. Compulsory subpoenas are different because they include the Article II responsibilities of investigations. On Sept. 24, Speaker Pelosi stepped before some microphones and gathered reporters to announce the start of an impeachment inquiry.

Pelosi's problem, which turned into the House Democrats' problem, is that the Constitution gives sole authority for impeachment to the House. It doesn't give that authority to the Speaker or to a committee. The Founders insisted on this to guarantee accountability of the entire House of Representatives. The men who wrote the Constitution wanted everyone to be accountable and they wanted impeachment to be rare and bipartisan because of the division impeachment causes.

On another subject, Republicans should reject additional witnesses because impeachment is a privileged resolution. That means, literally, that all other work in the Senate stops until impeachment trials are finished. Imagine the chaos that might happen if the House passed articles of impeachment without doing the investigation. The House could conceivably impeach a president multiple times and tie up the Senate indefinitely. That means no budgets, no funding the government, no ratifying trade agreements.

The House would have the ability to grind the Senate to a halt. That isn't acceptable.

Posted Thursday, January 30, 2020 11:45 AM

No comments.

Texas turning purple? I don't think so

Karl Rove's article on a special election for a House seat in the Texas State Legislature is a positive bit of news for Republicans. The article starts by saying "While many Americans were focused on Washington this week, I was paying special attention to Fort Bend County, Texas. What took place in that Houston suburb may reveal more about the 2020 election than the impeachment trial in the Senate does."

It continues by saying "Fort Bend held a special runoff election to fill a vacant state House seat left open by the resignation of the Republican incumbent, who took a job with the University of Texas. Sensing an opening, state and national Democrats decided a win in House District 28 would give them a head start on flipping the nine seats they'd need to control the Texas House and boost their efforts to overturn GOP state legislative majorities from Arizona to Florida, Wisconsin to Pennsylvania and a dozen states in between."

Next, let's skip to the part about how badly Democrats wanted to flip this seat:

Democrats, eager to set the tone for 2020, piled into the race with money, endorsements, technology, lists and volunteers to help Elizabeth Markowitz defeat her Republican opponent. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Mike Bloomberg all endorsed Ms. Markowitz. Mr. Bloomberg even carved out time from his presidential campaign to go door-to-door with her. Former presidential candidates Julian Castro and Robert Francis O'Rourke also canvassed neighborhoods, Mr. O'Rourke so frequently that it looked as if he was trying to establish residency .

How effective were the Democrats' efforts? This effective:

All these hopes of a Democratic victory were shattered Tuesday. In the biggest turnout in history for a Texas House special runoff, Republican Gary Gates walloped Ms. Markowitz 58% to 42%. His 16-point margin of victory was more than twice the Republican incumbent's in 2018 and larger than the district margins for President Trump in 2016 (10 points) and Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018 (three).

If that's the best they can do after sinking that many resources into a special election, Democrats should be worried. Of course, Democrats will spin this by saying 'That's a GOP district. We thought it was a longshot from the start.'
[Video no longer available]

Posted Thursday, January 30, 2020 5:54 PM

No comments.

Elizabeth Warren's grandstanding

Elizabeth Warren's question this afternoon was intentional partisan grandstanding . On Day Two of questioning, Warren submitted a question to Chief Justice John Roberts to read. The question read "At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?"

That question is one of the most partisan questions I've ever heard. First, it overlooks the fact that Adam Schiff conducted the most partisan, most incomplete investigation in impeachment investigations in US history. President Trump's legal team pointed out that the fair trial provisions in the Constitution protect the defendant from the government . Double jeopardy is part of the Bill of Rights to prevent the government from getting multiple bites at the apple. The Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches by the government .

Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton worried that the government, with all its resources, could just grind the people down and force them to plead guilty even if they didn't commit a crime. That's essentially what they did with Gen. Flynn. The question that hasn't been adequately addressed is this: What was fair about Schiff's sham investigation? The government called whichever witness they wanted. The White House Counsel's office wasn't allowed in the SCIF to cross-examine the government's witnesses. The only time the White House Counsel's office was invited to participate in the impeachment investigation was after Speaker Pelosi announced that the House Judiciary Committee would start writing articles of impeachment.

What's been disgraced, Sen. Warren, is the Democratic Party, especially, though not limited to, the House impeachment managers. Adam Schiff has told more lies per minute of speaking than any other member of House or Senate leadership in US history. He's been worse than Baghdad Bob.

What will it take to satisfy Sen. Warren, Speaker Pelosi and other House Democrats? A: President Trump getting convicted. Anything short of that makes President Trump illegitimate.
[Video no longer available]

Posted Thursday, January 30, 2020 10:32 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