November 15-17, 2019
Nov 15 01:53 Sondland bombshell report Nov 15 07:59 Really, this time, we mean it Nov 16 00:31 Adam Schiff vs. Elise Stefanik Nov 16 06:38 The Democrats' impeachment practice-makes-perfect problem Nov 16 08:15 Nancy Pelosi's 3 faces Nov 16 23:41 The MSM's shiny object farce Nov 17 03:56 Friday night Almanac roundtable Nov 17 15:54 Pelosi has finally lost it
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Sondland bombshell report
This article is the political equivalent of a pair of nuclear bomb explosions, one right in front of Nancy Pelosi's office, the other in front of Adam Schiff's office. The Hill is reporting that "'Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,' Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine ."
Foreign Minister Prystaiko continued, saying "I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events."
Unlike most of the testimony Wednesday (or the expected testimony Friday), this is firsthand information. The testimony that we watched Wednesday that was supposedly damaging to President Trump wouldn't have gotten into a court of law. More on that later.
The damaging testimony heard Wednesday would've hurt President Obama. For instance, when Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Trump had sent lethal military aid to Ukraine, Taylor affirmed that as accurate. When Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Obama had supplied lethal military aid to Ukraine, he said President Obama hadn't supplied Ukraine with lethal military aid. When Taylor was asked which president's military aid was better, Taylor affirmed that President Trump's aid was superior.
FOOTNOTE: Both sides said that they won the day on Wednesday. The difference is that Republicans had proof of their victory. Democrats only had spin. Republicans could point to Jim Jordan's dizzying recitation of the modification to Ambassador Sondland's deposition. That's the one where Jordan finished by saying that he'd seen church prayer chains that were less complicated:
[Video no longer available]
Another explosive event from Thursday happened when Speaker Pelosi accused President Trump of bribery:
[Video no longer available]
Jim Jordan reacted to Pelosi's quote, saying "It's ridiculous, just ridiculous." Which it is. Let's tie these stories together. First, let's deal with Pelosi's accusation :
Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharpened the focus of Democrats' impeachment case against President Trump on Thursday, accusing the president of committing bribery when he withheld vital military assistance from Ukraine at the same time he was seeking its commitment to publicly investigate his political rivals.
There's just one problem with that theory. Its premise just got blown out of the water:
"Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations," Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events."
Ukraine's Foreign Minister, a man with firsthand knowledge of what as negotiated and what wasn't negotiated, said that military aid was never linked to Ukraine investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. If Democrats were smart, which I'm confident they aren't, they'd finish their public hearings at the end of next week, then close shop. Why wouldn't Democrats want to follow this advice?
[Video no longer available]
There's an old cribbage saying about a hand with all even cards that aren't consecutive. That saying is that "the only right way to throw that hand is away." That's my advice to Democrats. The hand that they're playing is terrible.
Finally, Sean Hannity announced Thursday night that he'd contacted of the 53 Republican Senators since Wednesday night. Each senator was asked if they'd support rules for impeachment that gave President Trump's legal team the opportunity to cross-examine whistle-blowers. The other question each senator was asked was whether they'd support an impeachment rules package that required the following of legal rules of evidence. Specifically, they were asked whether they'd support a rule that hearsay testimony would be excluded.
Mitch McConnell replied immediately, saying that he'd only support impeachment rules that excluded hearsay testimony and included the protections outlined in the Sixth Amendment. That'd essentially wipe out the Democrats' testimony. Plus, it'd guarantee the whistleblower's unmasking.
Is that truly the path Democrats want to take? The smart choice is folding. Let's see just how smart Democrats are.
Posted Friday, November 15, 2019 1:53 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Nov-19 07:37 AM
Just looking at the process from afar, it would appear Wednesday was an egg-bomb to the face of Democrats. They did not admit it, but notice how quickly Pelosi came to the mic to talk about how they were going to pass the USMCA?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-19 08:59 AM
Notice, too, that she's trying to take the spotlight off the hearing by saying that President Trump's decision on Javelin missiles "amounted to bribery." That wasn't coincidence.
Really, this time, we mean it
Kim Strassel's latest column is titled "Impeachment as Usual." In the article, Ms. Strassel writes "Democrats laid out their best case for removing Donald J. Trump from office, repeatedly using words like 'extortion,' 'bribery' and 'abuse of power.' Mr. Trump was accused of 'presidential misconduct,' of a 'shakedown scheme' and of 'corruption.' He was said to have broken the law and violated the Constitution. Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro analogized the president's actions to 'attempted murder.'"
To appropriate a phrase of George Will's -- Well. It's more than a little disgusting when you hear these Democrats frequently resort to hyperbole. It'd be interesting to know if these Democrats understand that their hyperbole is pushing them further leftward. This is 'the boy who cried wolf' on steroids'. For 3+ years.
[Video no longer available]
That's a Democratic failure by any measure, and it is hard to see how that dynamic could change as the hearings progress. Friday's hearing is with a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who left that post two months before the disputed phone call. Next week's hearings will include more critics but also witnesses such as Kurt Volker, former special representative to Ukraine, and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who will likely defend the administration's actions.
Democrats will be walking through a political minefield when questioning Ambassador Sondland because it's just been reported that " Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations ,' Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine."
Foreign Minister Prystaiko has firsthand knowledge of what was and wasn't negotiated. He's the man who did the negotiating. How do Democrats get around that important fact?
Democrats won't fold their hand at that point. That's because they still think that they can scuff President Trump up enough to defeat him next November. They're foolish because they're fully invested in defeating President Trump regardless of the political price they'll pay. Ms. Pelosi can kiss her Speaker's gavel goodbye for the final time.
Ms. Strassel wrote that both sides are hoping the impeachment process will help increase turnout. That's possible, though that isn't a guarantee. What Democrats should be worried about is what they haven't done.
Democrats haven't ratified the USMCA. Democrats have sat on the USMCA. House Democrats haven't passed the mutually-agreed upon NDAA, aka National Defense Authorization Act. At this point, House Democrats don't have a single accomplishment to point to. That's a losing hand because you can't beat something with nothing.
Posted Friday, November 15, 2019 7:59 AM
No comments.
Adam Schiff vs. Elise Stefanik
This morning, Adam Schiff, the Democrat chair of the House Impeachment Committee, did his best tyrant impersonation after Devin Nunes tried yielding time to New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. Upon yielding time to Rep. Stefanik, Schiff gaveled in, repeatedly saying "The gentlewoman will suspend." Ms. Stefanik replied "What is the interruption for this time? It's our time." Schiff replied "The gentlewoman will suspend. You are not recognized."
Next, Devin Nunes tried intervening, saying "I just recognized her." Schiff, acting like a petty tyrant, replied "Under House Res. 660, you are not allowed to yield except to Minority Counsel." Technically, he's right but the bigger point is that Schiff isn't interested in working cooperatively with Rep. Nunes. Chairman Schiff isn't behaving like Peter Rodino with Nixon or Henry Hyde with Clinton. Schiff hasn't hesitated in acting like a world-class jerk.
In terms of acting like the chairman of an impeachment investigation, Schiff has hit a new low that Hyde and Rodino never came close to hitting. Hyde and Rodino cared most about doing what's best for America. They were fair-minded. They gave the defense wide latitude. By contrast, Schiff lied about what President Trump said during President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky. After he lied while putting the faux transcript into the Congressional Record, the other Democrats just sat there like potted plants. Those Democrats apparently didn't see anything wrong with Schiff's actions.
After Schiff's sexist behavior towards Ms. Stefanik, Schiff's Democrats sat silent just like they did when he lied about President Trump's conversation. Schiff's Democrats aren't profiles in character. Schiff's Democrats aren't profiles in integrity.
It's painfully obvious that the Democrats set up the rules to restrict the Republicans' cross-examination of witnesses. Schiff's interested in running a tightly scripted production. Pelosi knows that Nadler wasn't up to the job of running impeachment hearings. That's why Pelosi shifted that responsibility to Schiff. That's why Pelosi tightened up the rules for Schiff's hearings. Pelosi isn't totally stupid. She's aware of Adam Schiff's ability to screw things up.
Another thing that's becoming obvious as the hearings progress is that Adam Schiff is exceptionally thin-skinned. Prior to this heated exchange, Devin Nunes read the transcript from President Trump's first phone call with President Zelenskiy into the record. He didn't ask that it be admitted into the Congressional Record. Nunes literally read the entire transcript into the record so it couldn't be turned into another Schiff parody. Here's that tweet:
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2019
Rep. Stefanik needled Schiff by reading Schiff's tweets into the record:
"The chairman refused to allow us to put these into the record with unanimous consent," Stefanik, R-N.Y., said. "As we know, it is important to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and firing: but in this case, the fact that we are getting criticized for statements he, himself, made earlier in the process shows the duplicity and abuse of power we see."
Chairman Schiff's actions were disgusting. As I said earlier, Schiff's performance isn't worthy of the People's House. In Schiff's mind, this is Pelosi's House or the Democrats' House. If Democrats had any respect for W e T he P eople, they'd have greater respect for the people's elected officials.
Unfortunately for America, these Democrats only respect themselves.
Posted Saturday, November 16, 2019 12:31 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' impeachment practice-makes-perfect problem
This summer, impeachment Democrats tried stirring up passion for impeachment by having Robert Mueller testify. That was a historic failure, with Mueller essentially admitting that he didn't write the report with his name on it. The Democrats' next failure was with the Lewandowski hearing. At that hearing, Lewandowski toyed with Chairman Nadler to such an extent that it cost Nadler his opportunity to shine as chairman of the impeachment hearings.
This NY Post editorial proves that practice doesn't always make perfect:
Democrats must have learned from the disastrous public hearings they've held in their attempt to impeach President Trump: Now, apparently, their witnesses must audition first behind closed doors before they go live before the TV cameras.
That was the case with the Dems' "star" witnesses, US Charge d'affaires for Ukraine Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who testified behind closed doors before appearing for Wednesday's televised impeachment show. And for former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who debuts on the small screen Friday.
Kent, Taylor and Yovanovitch are leading off the Democrats' case for impeachment. The thing that they've got in common is that none of them have firsthand knowledge of what happened. They can offer opinions on what US foreign policy should be but that's it. Policy differences between the President and career bureaucrats doesn't amount to an impeachable offense. In fact, it isn't close to that threshold.
The lesson to be learned is that this is the wimpiest set of facts ever to be considered for impeachment. Last night, it was reported that Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters that "Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events."
That's firsthand information on the central issue of the Democrats' case. It utterly demolishes the Democrats' theory that President Trump tried extorting or bribing President Zelenskiy into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. This Trump-hater should ride off into the sunset because she's a bitter partisan:
[Video no longer available]
The truth is that Democrats simply don't have evidence to support their impeachment theory. Though they won't admit it, it's getting close to the time when the jury cries out 'Game. Set. Match.' Get out the jelly, folks. These Democrats are toast.
Posted Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:38 AM
No comments.
Nancy Pelosi's 3 faces
Nancy Pelosi's 3 faces are showing. It isn't a flattering look. When Ms. Pelosi declared this impeachment inquiry in the House, Ms. Pelosi worked hard to leave the impression that Democrats saw this as a somber undertaking. Ms. Pelosi talked about the importance of prayer in a time like that. When she declared the impeachment inquiry into existence, Ms. Pelosi said "If we have to honor our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, that's what we'll have to do. But we have to have the facts. That's why I've said, soon as we have the facts, we're ready."
That sounds so dramatic. Then Pelosi made an additional demand. According to the article, "Pelosi said Trump making the transcript of his call with the president of Ukraine public is not enough. She said the whistleblower complaint is what is important and is what the Trump administration has been withholding." The last thing Pelosi and the Democrats expected was for President Trump to make those documents available. When the documents were made public, the gossip that Democrats in the media had peddled was pretty much discredited.
Let's call that Pelosi 'Discredited Nancy' because that's who she is.
Yesterday, another of Ms. Pelosi's faces was displayed. In an interview with CBS's Face the Nation, Ms. Pelosi's bitter partisan face came out :
[Video no longer available]
This is what Ms. Pelosi said:
I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he's in that office way over his head. And so he has to diminish everyone else.
Let's be clear about this. Nancy Pelosi knows that Adam Schiff's gaveling down of Elise Stefanik was a terrible look for Impeachment Committee Democrats:
[Video no longer available]
Further, Ms. Pelosi knows that it wasn't a good week for Impeachment Committee Democrats from the standpoint of the information that came out. Just 4 minutes into John Ratcliffe's cross-examination of Bill Taylor and George Kent, they sat silent when Mr. Ratcliffe asked if either had seen an impeachable offense:
[Video no longer available]
Ms. Pelosi's hyperpartisan statement about President Trump being in over his head was intentional. Ms. Pelosi was forced into that statement to change what people were talking about. Ms. Pelosi doesn't think for a split-second that President Trump is in over his head. Ms. Pelosi hasn't thought for a split-second that President Trump thinks of himself as an imposter. Ms. Pelosi thinks that Impeachment Committee Democrats didn't have a good week so she stepped in to change the subject.
Let's call this Pelosi 'Calculating Nancy.'
Actually, Ms. Pelosi's third face isn't a public face. It's the face she must wear when she thinks of how she didn't want to start impeachment. It's the face of disgust. It's the face of I-told-you-so.' It's the face of her vitriol. That's her worst face. That's why it isn't seen in public. Twice, Ms. Pelosi has been Speaker. The first time, she was speaker for 2 terms. In those 2 terms, she shoved Obamacare down America's throats. This time, her final time, she'll be Speaker for just one term. During this term, her 'noteworthy' accomplishment will be hyperpartisan impeachment. Adam Schiff's and Jerry Nadler's handling of impeachment is historic only in the sense that they compare unfavorably to Peter Rodino and Henry Hyde.
Let's call this final face of Ms. Pelosi 'Vitriolic Nancy.' Think of Vitriolic Nancy as the real Nancy.
Despite Ms. Pelosi's calculated hateful statement, the facts haven't changed:
- Impeachment Committee Democrats still haven't come close to identifying an impeachable offense.
- Impeachment Committee Democrats still haven't called a witness who has witnessed anything firsthand.
- Impeachment Committee Democrats, especially Adam Schiff, have looked mean-spirited and hyperpartisan.
- Adam Schiff has behaved terribly towards Elise Stefanik. Ms. Stefanik is a big girl and can take it. The point is that she shouldn't have to deal with the Democrats' vitriol and chauvinism.
Finally, it's apparent that, to the Democrats, the #MeToo Movement is just a political weapon. Adam Schiff's facial expressions when dealing with Ms. Stefanik said everything.
Posted Saturday, November 16, 2019 9:01 AM
No comments.
The MSM's shiny object farce
Ever since President Trump tweeted about Ambassador Yovanovitch during Friday's hearing, the MSM have been obsessed with the tweet as their latest shiny object. It's time that the MSM that still are interested in things like credibility to stop obsessing over that shiny object. In the grand scheme of things, the tweet, which was ill-advised, is a major 'so what'.
It doesn't change the fundamentals of the Democrats case. That's because the Democrats still haven't presented anything resembling a piece of evidence of an impeachable offense. That's because last week's testifiers (they weren't witnesses because they didn't witness anything) took turns either admitting that they couldn't identify an impeachable offense (John Ratcliffe asking Kent and Taylor) or Yovanovitch telling Chris Stewart that she wasn't in Ukraine for President Trump's phone call with President Zelenskiy in late July.
Why isn't the MSM talking about Devin Nunes' questioning of Ms. Yovanovitch at the start of the hearing? Right at the start, Ms. Yovanovitch admitted that she isn't a fact witness:
[Video no longer available]
The most memorable line in the hearings was Jim Jordan's exchange with Ambassador Taylor:
[Video no longer available]
What information does Ambassador Taylor have that's important? It's apparent that he isn't a central figure in Kiev. Shouldn't we insist that the MSM report things that are important to the impeachment case?
There's a novel approach to evaluating whether Impeachment Democrats have made a legal case for impeachment. What information have George Kent, William Taylor or Marie Yovanovitch supplied that's proof of an impeachable offense? There's another test to this. The Impeachment Democrats' theory on why President Trump should be impeached is because he withheld lethal military aid from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigated the Bidens. What proof have they offered that President Trump did that? Remember that second- and third-hand stories aren't proof. They're uncorroborated stories, even if other diplomats with other second- and third-hand stories agree with the original story.
This isn't a shiny object but it's important to the Democrats' carefully-crafted impeachment story. Why isn't there any reporting on why the Democrats set up the rules the way they did? Were they written that way because Impeachment Democrats didn't want to give skilled people like John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik and Jim Jordan the opportunity to make Swiss Cheese out of the Democrats' case?
Thus far, Democrats haven't gotten questioned whether they've established a single important fact. That's intentional. The MSM was the driving force behind impeachment. The MSM wanted impeachment far more than Ms. Pelosi wanted it.
When impeachment backfires on Democrats, Ms. Pelosi will wash her hands of the mess and say I-told-you-so. That's true but she's the one that caved. She's the Democrat that didn't fight for her position until the bitter end. In the end, Pelosi is just as guilty of dragging the nation through this divisive fight for no legitimate reason.
Democrats, Ms. Pelosi included, are the political definition of losers. All the shiny objects in the world won't change that.
Posted Saturday, November 16, 2019 11:41 PM
No comments.
Friday night Almanac roundtable
The last part of Friday night's Almanac Roundtable focused on DFL mismanagement of multiple agencies and departments. Moderator Eric Eskola opened that portion of the segment by saying "Gregg, you were around the legislature for a long time and with candidates and so forth. I really sense that this is a bad year for big government in Minnesota, Human Services and so many problems and I wonder if it was this bad when you were working for Speaker Sviggum?" Later in the segment, Eskola interjected, saying of Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles' testimony at this week's hearing that "If this was a prize fight, they would've stopped it. He just mopped the floor with her."
Eric Eskola has been a significant part of the Minnesota media for a generation+. That's the most provocative thing I've ever heard him say. That isn't saying that he's wrong. In fact, I think he's exactly right. The times I've watched Auditor Nobles testify about DHS's mismanagement, Mr. Nobles didn't pull his punches. He's landed some hard-hitting body blows to DHS management.
The laughable part of the segment was Abou Amara saying that divided government was to blame for the mismanagement. It's laughable because the executive branch can function perfectly whether there's unified government or divided government. Period. Stop.
Amara is right in the sense that it's easier to pass legislation when it's unified DFL government. That doesn't guarantee problems getting fixed, though. The bigger point that Amara intentionally side-stepped is that reform-minded people in the executive branch could start changing the culture without passing a single law. That doesn't mean we don't need reforms to fix DHS's problems. It simply means we can start fixing the problem by hiring high quality management personnel.
Gov. Walz got criticized for the mismanagement:
Gov. Tim Walz's administration came under fire Wednesday for violations of state contract laws. Republican senators held a hearing about the violations, which occurred when vendors working with the state started work before contracts were signed and when employees committed to spending state money without agency permission. Records from the administration show these violations happened roughly 1,300 times over the last year.
Minnesota's bureaucracy needs a major overhaul. There's no time to waste.
[Video no longer available]
Posted Sunday, November 17, 2019 3:56 AM
No comments.
Pelosi has finally lost it
In her interview with CBS's Face the Nation, Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful Democrat in Washington, DC, simply lost it . One of the unhinged things she said was "I will make sure he does not intimidate the whistleblower. I told the president you're in my wheelhouse when you come after the whistleblower."
What a nutjob. The man in question, Eric Ciaramella, aka the faux whistleblower, aka CIA snitch, isn't guaranteed anonymity . That's because the ICWPA, aka the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, is exceptionally clear :
In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:
Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.
Further, for all the talk Ms. Pelosi has made about the Constitution, she apparently doesn't give a damn about the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant's attorneys the right to confront the defendant's accuser. If Ms. Pelosi throws a snitfit against President Trump's attorneys for conducting a thorough, intense and aggressive cross-examination of the CIA snitch, she'll prove that her talk about the Constitution is a sham.
When they taped the interview on Friday, CBS leaked this snippet of the interview:
[Video no longer available]
This is what Ms. Pelosi said:
I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he's in that office way over his head. And so he has to diminish everyone else.
What the hell is Pelosi babbling about? Has she totally lost it for good? The economy is going gangbusters. The unemployment rate for minorities is at a historic low. The wall is getting built. Poland and Ukraine, with help from the Trump administration, is letting the Putin administration know that they stand against Russian expansionism. If President Trump is in over his head, as Pelosi insists, things are going pretty well for the US. They're certainly going better than they did with the previous administration.
Perhaps, Pelosi lost it because AOC + 3 drove her crazy. Then, too, perhaps it wasn't a long drive. Perhaps, it was just a short trip. Whatever the case, San Fran Nan isn't in control of her faculties.
Posted Sunday, November 17, 2019 3:54 PM
No comments.
