November 21-23, 2019
Nov 21 03:23 President Trump's Wisconsin good news Nov 21 09:18 Andy McCarthy vs. Adam Schiff Nov 22 02:42 Pelosi won't finish USMCA in 2019 Nov 22 09:12 MSM's corruption exposed Nov 22 09:56 Peter Strzok's legal difficulties Nov 23 04:46 The Democrats' dark vision Nov 23 12:48 Democrats' partisanship vs. GOP leadership Nov 23 22:54 The GOP onslaught starts
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
President Trump's Wisconsin good news
Despite a topsy-turvy day on Capitol Hill, President Trump still has plenty to smile about. President Trump should smile at Marquette University's latest presidential polling . The highlight of Marquette's poll is that President Trump leads each of the top 4 Democrats in the race:
President Trump leads the top Democrats in the battleground state of Wisconsin. In October, Trump trailed Biden, Sanders and Warren by 6, 2 and 1 points respectively while leading Buttigieg by just 2 points. This month, after the public impeachment has started, Trump leads Biden, Sanders and Warren by 3, 3 and 5 points respectively. Meanwhile, Trump leads Buttigieg by 8 points.
It's interesting to see President Trump taking the lead over the top 4 contenders while Democrats pursue impeachment. The ratings kinda tell the tale on that. The first day of testimony attracted 13,800,000 viewers. The second day of testimony attracted 12,700,000 viewers. The third day attracted 11,400,000 viewers. It's apparent that the Democrats' impeachment inquiry is backfiring.
Despite all of the MSM headlines that talk about bombshell testimony and Republicans in despair, the people are sending a different message. While House Democrats are working themselves into a lather, the people are tuning out. Again, the Democrats have overpromised and underdelivered. With impeachment sucking all the oxygen out of the presidential campaign and with President Trump frequently holding rallies across the nation, it isn't surprising that President Trump is gaining momentum.
Once the RNC ground game kicks into high gear, which it will, this race will turn. President Trump has a lengthy list of accomplishments that will appeal to independent voters. Democrats have earned the title of Do-Nothing Democrats.
There's an old saying in football and track. It says "If he's even, he's leaving.' Right now, the Trump campaign is even. With the Trump/RNC cash advantage, a lengthy list of accomplishments and a weak opponent, President Trump won't be even much longer.
Posted Thursday, November 21, 2019 3:23 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen L Leisen at 21-Nov-19 03:55 PM
I do not usually put much faith in polls, especially a year ahead of an election - but - the Marquette poll has a historic record of bias towards the Democrat party position. Therefore I find this to be significant. It shows a shift in Wisconsin voter's perception of President Trump vs. the Democrat candidates.
Andy McCarthy vs. Adam Schiff
Andy McCarthy's article on Adam Schiff's kangaroo court is devastating to people who care about the truth. If you're a hyperpartisan Democrat hack, it's largely irrelevant. It's also relevant if you're one of 75+ Democrats that the GOP alphabets have targeted.
In his article, McCarthy wrote "There has been a common thread in the testimony on these two subjects, potential Biden corruption and 2016 Ukrainian collusion with Democrats: There is no basis to believe, and none has been offered, that the witnesses Democrats permitted to be called have any relevant information about these matters. This testimony would not be allowed in a court proceeding under rules of evidence and due process, where witnesses are permitted to address only matters about which they have direct knowledge. If they only know what they've read in the papers, their testimony isn't any more reliable than ours would be."
That's why I've repeatedly said that the next piece of proof that proves President Trump committed an impeachable offense will be the first such piece of proof. Let's illustrate with example. During yesterday's hearings, Eric Swalwell said (this isn't verbatim but it's close) "If a man comes walking in and his umbrella is wet and his raincoat is wet, too, do we need to step outside to know that it's raining?" Of course, it's entirely possible that it's raining if that's what people have seen. It's also possible that someone dumped multiple buckets of water on the guy.
What's required is someone actually looking outside to verify that it's raining. That's proof. Proof might come in the form of text messages, email chains, DNA or fingerprints. Thus far, Democrats haven't offered anything approaching proof. Republicans have offered proof that President Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense. Yesterday, US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland said that President Trump told him directly that he didn't want a quid pro quo, that all he wanted was for President Zelenskiy to do was to do the right thing, to do what he ran on.
There it is folks!
Ambassador Sondland CONFIRMED that nobody on earth told him @realDonaldTrump was tying aid to investigations.
So this is all based on presumptions that turned out to be wrong.
Why is this impeachment circus still going on? pic.twitter.com/7C5RNowLIp
- Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) November 20, 2019
The hearings are taking place under one-sided rules that enable Chairman Adam Schiff, a fierce partisan, to determine which witnesses are permitted to testify.
There's nothing fair about these impeachment hearings. The good news is that the Democrats' case is so weak that Republicans aren't having difficulty poking holes in the Democrats' theories.
The other observation worth making is that the testifiers' opening statements act as jet fuel for the media but the cross-examination of the witnesses pretty much kills that testifier's statements.
If this was put before a judge who faithfully limited testimony to established rules of evidence, we wouldn't have had needed 5 days of testimony. It could've gotten squeezed into an afternoon. That's the definition of a kangaroo court.
Posted Thursday, November 21, 2019 9:18 AM
No comments.
Pelosi won't finish USMCA in 2019
Most people understood that it wasn't likely that Nancy Pelosi would put the USMCA trade negotiation up for a vote before the end of the year. This article seems to confirm that suspicion. The article opens by saying "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she doubts Congress has enough time left to pass the USMCA this year, but Democrats and the Trump administration will continue talks next week to work out a compromise on remaining issues."
The latest DC rumor is that Pelosi is holding that vote up to pressure reluctant Democrats to vote for impeachment. In this scenario, Ms. Pelosi will withhold the USMCA vote until after they vote on impeachment. Ms. Pelosi knows that Schiff's impeachment case was weak going in. Further, she knows that impeachment got beaten up quite a bit during the public hearings.
When Democrats voted to authorize the impeachment inquiry, 232 Democrats voted for it. When the entire House votes on Articles of Impeachment, there won't be 232 Democrat votes. If I was scoring the hearings the way I used to score baseball games, I'd score it this way: Democrats pretty much won each day's opening statements, especially the witnesses' opening statements. I think that was intentional.
Think of the witnesses' opening statements as political clickbait. Their job was to feed the MSM. It was then up to the MSM to plaster that day's "bombshell" into that day's chyrons to pound the message home. That message was simple -- Testifier A, B or C delivered a "bombshell" testimony. The case against Trump is insurmountable. He'll be impeached and removed. Pay no attention to what Fox says. Don't pay attention to what Townhall or the Federalist says, either.
What Democrats wanted people to ignore was the cross-examinations, especially this one:
[Video no longer available]
Mike Turner's cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland all but officially finished the Democrats' impeachment inquiry. That's the most powerful cross-examination of the 5 days of hearings. All of the other gossip from the other testifiers is worthless. Sondland spoke directly with President Trump and President Zelenskiy. He's the only one with firsthand knowledge of the central characters in these hearings.
Turner, BTW, is just one of the new GOP heroes coming out of these hearings. For those of us who've followed this
Holding up the USMCA is further proof that Ms. Pelosi is the nastiest partisan this century. She'd rather hurt President Trump than do what's right for the nation. The US needs selfless leaders who put the nation's needs ahead of partisanship. That isn't what we're getting right now. Right now, we're getting overdoses of partisanship from Pelosi and Schiff.
Posted Friday, November 22, 2019 2:42 AM
No comments.
MSM's corruption exposed
Jonathan Allen's article is either proof of his stupidity or his corruption. After 5 days of hearings and 5 days of biased headlines, it's difficult not to chalk it up to outright corruption. For the foreseeable future, the MSM won't get the benefit of the doubt from conservatives.
According to Allen's article, "a string of current and former administration officials collectively described for the House Intelligence Committee over the last two weeks how the president directed a concerted effort to aid his own re-election efforts at the expense of U.S. national security interests." What Allen omits is the fact that these testifiers got demolished on cross-examination. This is a perfect example of the Democrats' star witness getting demolished:
[Video no longer available]
Jim Jordan grilled Ambassador Taylor without being nasty. He simply got Taylor to admit that Taylor testified as to what he'd heard. Jordan replied that that's what the problem was. Taylor testified as to what he'd heard . In this instance, it's what Taylor heard third-hand. That's what happened to the Democrats' star witness on the first day of public testimony.
Mike Turner's cross-examination of Gordon Sondland was pretty aggressive:
[Video no longer available]
Rep. Turner questioned Ambassador Sondland:
Turner: No one on this planet told you that this aid was tied to investigations. Yes or no?"
Sondland: "Yes."
Turner, who called Sondland's testimony "somewhat circular," questioned the ambassador's assertion that "everyone was in the loop." "If Giuliani didn't give you any expressed statement, then it can't be that you believed this [about the connection between investigations and aid] from Giuliani," Turner said. "Is that your testimony today, Amb. Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to aid because I don't think you're saying that."
Sondland said he was "presuming" that is what Trump meant.
"The way it was expressed to me was that the Ukrainians had a long history of committing to things privately and then never following through, so President Trump presumably, again communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on record publicly that they were going to do these investigations. That's the reason that was given to me," Sondland said.
In Taylor's instance, he'd spoken 3 times with President Zelenskiy in a short period of time. In none of those instances did attach conditionality to the lethal military aid. In Sondland's instance, he called President Trump directly to ask what he wanted with regard to the aid. President Trump said "I don't want anything. No quid pro quo. I just want him to do what he campaigned on."
Yesterday, David Holmes testified that it was his "clear impression" that the lethal military aid was tied to President Zelenskiy starting an investigation of Burisma. Burisma is the corrupt natural gas company that Hunter Biden got a no-show job with that paid him $50,000-$83,000 a month. That investigation didn't happen. So much for clear impressions.
Gregg Jarrett's article highlights the fatal flaw with the testifiers' testimony:
These hearings have revealed a common and consistent thread. None of the witnesses have provided any direct evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable act. Instead, they have offered an endless stream of hearsay, opinion and speculation.
Of all of the people who testified, only Sondland had talked directly with President Trump.
Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who testified on Day Two of the hearings, was fired months before the July 25th Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. That caused Devin Nunes to question why she was even there. Lt. Col. Vindman "testified that he felt 'concerned' about Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy."
The American people aren't fooled. The TV viewership started off mediocre, then went downhill after that. President Trump's approval rating went up. He's now ahead of the Democrats' top 4 candidates in Wisconsin. The momentum has switched.
If Democrats were smart, they'd put down their shovels and stop digging. That isn't what's likely to happen, though.
Posted Friday, November 22, 2019 9:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Nov-19 10:07 AM
Gee. MSM corruption went undiscovered until now. What a surprise. Who would have thought ... I am shocked. SHOCKED!
Peter Strzok's legal difficulties
Last night, word leaked out that a former FBI lawyer had altered a document . This morning, Katie Pavlich wrote "CNN legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, who was fired by President Trump in 2017, says the news that former FBI agent Peter Strzok altered or forged a FISA warrant application used against Trump campaign associate Carter Page is 'alarming.' 'That's kind of an alarming bit of news,' Bharara said. 'If there was an FBI agent sworn to uphold the constitution who can be proven to have altered a document in connection with a legal proceeding, including the obtaining of a FISA warrant, that's really serious. It doesn't get more serious on that.'"
If Ms. Pavlich's reporting is right, which I suspect it is, then this is a major shift in the impeachment storyline. If the underlying investigation was corrupt, why would people think that the final work product be worth anything?
The counter-intelligence investigation started during the Obama administration in an attempt by Democrats to surveil the Trump campaign. If Strzok altered the FISA warrant application in order to get the warrant, then Mr. Strzok is in serious legal trouble. Further, once corruption is detected at the FBI, John Durham's investigation will get expanded again . Durham's investigation expanded from a review to a full-fledged criminal investigation a month ago. With this, the scope of Durham's investigation just got wider.
At minimum, Andy McCabe and Jim Comey should start getting worried. FISA warrants aren't just signed off on by agents. The agent collects the information but he/she needs the boss's approval, too.
[Video no longer available]
Posted Friday, November 22, 2019 9:56 AM
No comments.
The Democrats' dark vision
After watching the Democrats' testifiers the past 2 weeks, something disturbing is emerging. Think of it as 'the Democrats' dark vision'. Of the people who testified, just 1 spoke directly with President Trump. The list of testifiers who've never met President Trump were Lt. Col. Vindman, Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes, Laura Cooper, Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, Jennifer Williams, Tim Morrison, David Hale and Kurt Volker.
What's interesting is that Bill Taylor met 3 times with President Zelenskiy after the infamous July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy. Despite those conversations, Taylor apparently thought that communications with Sondland were needed to get a clear understanding of the lethal military aid that was the topic of discussion.
Amb. Sondland, the only witness to talk directly with both Presidents, admitted this during cross-examination:
[Video no longer available]
It isn't a stretch to think that the Democrats' strategy is to deploy a splashy headline that implies (but doesn't prove ) the Democrats' accusation du jour. Each day, the Democrats' star witness du jour made a splashy accusation that the MSM immediately turned into a provocative headline. Do we want to live in a nation where a person can be accused of something without rock-solid proof? Isn't it disgusting that an innocent person could get thrown out of office based on hearsay? Do we really want to throw out the votes of 63,000,000 people just because we don't like a president?
What I've described to you is the Democrats' vision. If I told Chairman Schiff, the chairman of the Democrats' Impeachment Committee, that President Trump would be impeached and convicted if Schiff admitted that he'd killed Jeffrey Epstein, he'd admit to that virtually immediately. That's because Democrats haven't paid attention to truth or first-hand evidence.
What Democrats did was corroborate a fictional storyline. That isn't proof. A skilled writer can create a compelling storyline in minutes. In this instance, throw in some Swamp creatures who don't like their world getting turned upside-down and you've got a corroborated corrupt storyline. Throw in a Lt. Col. with connections to a CIA snitch and you have a nefarious-sounding situation:
[Video no longer available]
You still don't have first-hand proof but it sounds juicy. The Democrats' dark vision is to disenfranchise the votes of 63,000,000 people because their candidate didn't win. The Democrats' dark vision is to disenfranchise the votes of 63,000,000 people because they're sore losers. That's the portrait of people who couldn't define patriot if their life depended on it.
Posted Saturday, November 23, 2019 4:46 AM
No comments.
Democrats' partisanship vs. GOP leadership
It's time to step away from last week's impeachment hearings to examine something significant. It's apparent that Adam Schiff's Democrats specialize in partisanship. It's apparent because the supposed high crimes and misdemeanors President Trump was accused of committing kept changing .
In her article, Mollie Hemingway wrote "Before we get to the politics and how they were played by Republicans and Democrats, it should be noted that President Donald Trump has not been credibly accused of committing any crime, much less a high crime or misdemeanor. It's almost shocking that Trump, of all people, keeps managing to do well on this score. Yet, as with the Russia collusion hoax, in which he was accused of being a traitor to his country, the lack of evidence for the charges against him is his ultimate saving grace."
She continued with this:
What the charge is keeps changing, of course. The whistleblower initially suggested a campaign finance violation arising from a call Trump had with the president of Ukraine. That morphed into a quid pro quo for military aid to Ukraine, then extortion, then bribery, then obstruction of justice, then back to a quid pro quo, but this time only a quid pro quo for a White House meeting. The lack of certainty among even Trump's critics certainly worked in his favor.
Let's get this straight. Each of these charges is laughable. They're laughable to the extent that extortion and bribery were suggested by focus groups commissioned by the DCCC, the Democrats' campaign committee commissioned with losing the Democrats' House majority in 2020. (That wasn't what they were hired to do. That's what will happen. It's like the old Shakey's Pizza saying -- 'We're a non-profit. It wasn't planned that way. That's just how things worked out.')
Seriously, though, Democrats kept switching from one ridiculous accusation to the next. They didn't have proof for their accusations. Democrats simply relied on the MSM to sell the charges. That's what happens when muscles atrophy. They relied more on the media, less on legitimate, well-researched arguments. The Democrats' eutrophication was best displayed by Ms. Pelosi's choice between Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to spearhead the Democrats' Impeachment Committee. Schiff is terrible but he's significantly better than Nadler.
To impeach a president, you need evidence of a major offense that everyone looks at, then says 'Yep, that's an impeachable offense.' The Democrats don't have that. It's like the football team with 3 QBs. That team really doesn't have any. When you have 3-5 impeachable offense theories, you're really not in the ballpark. You might not even be in the parking lot outside the ballpark.
Meanwhile, Republicans on the Impeachment Committee took apart the Democrats' ridiculous accusations with ease. Jim Jordan demolished Bill Taylor. Mike Taylor demolished Gordon Sondland. Elise Stefanik took apart Ambassador Yovanovitch:
Holy cow. Rep. @EliseStefanik absolutely wrecks Adam Schiff & the Democrats' entire impeachment premise. pic.twitter.com/sUJEMwa0Tw
- Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) November 15, 2019
John Ratcliffe demolished Lt. Col. Vindman:
[Video no longer available]
The MSM won't admit that they're propping up House Democrats but that's what's happening. Republicans don't need propping up because they're taking the Democrats' testifiers apart with precision and discipline. It helps that the facts are on the Republicans' side. It helps that the Democrats' testifiers have relied on weasel-word testimony.
Posted Saturday, November 23, 2019 12:48 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Nov-19 11:30 AM
Leadership vs. partisanship? Have you seen the claim that one of the Florida Ukranians tied to Giuliani asserted; that Nunes met in Vienna after the 2018 election with Shokin before the new Congress began under Democratic leadership. You can Google = nunes shokin parnas
Then filter the returned list for "NEWS" or by time/recency. Apparently Vicky Ward at CNN broke the story. It is Parnas speaking through counsel, Parnas wanting Fifth Amendment concessions [immunity] before willingly testifying per such offer of proof. There may be documents?
That would be Nunes wanting to dig dirt on Biden, dating back to then - but under the same claim as Trump of soliciting foreign interference in U.S. elections.
Comment 2 by eric z at 24-Nov-19 12:46 PM
About the Nunes allegation. Nunes denies, but beyond that it appears he has publicly said he intends to sue CNN and Daily Beast - I have seen that reported online. It looks to be more collateral drama, where we need to wait and see.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Nov-19 06:53 PM
I can do better than that, Eric. Rep. Nunes told Maria Bartiromo this morning that he'll file the suit in federal court right after Thanksgiving. This isn't gossip like we saw from the testifiers last week. It's the truth from person with firsthand knowledge.
The GOP onslaught starts
When it rains, it pours. When Nancy Pelosi's Democrats declared war on President Trump, they woke a sleeping giant. That's if you thought that Republicans were sleeping, which I didn't. The floodgates have opened and it's raining advertising cash into the districts of vulnerable Impeachment Democrats.
GOP-aligned outside groups have spent roughly $8 million on TV spots this cycle in battleground districts, such as Rep. Anthony Brindisi's central New York seat. The vast majority of those ads specifically hammer Democrats over impeachment.
Meanwhile, swing-district Democrats are receiving little reinforcement from their own party or even other liberal coalitions. Democratic and pro-impeachment groups have spent about $2.7 million in TV ads, according to an analysis of spending by the ad tracking firm Advertising Analytics. And more than $600,000 of that total went to ads targeting Republican incumbents, not helping vulnerable Democratic members.
"Many of us have been expressing our concerns to leadership," said a Democratic lawmaker said, who declined to be named in order to speak candidly about strategy. "You don't want to have to play catch up."
'Everyone knows you don't just take a shot and sit there,' the lawmaker said. 'It's like someone taped our arms to our side and punched us in the face.'
That's what happens when 232 Democrats voted for impeachment. These supposedly moderate Democrats showed their true colors. Meanwhile, the numbers of Never Trumpers continues shrinking. If you want to start a wave election, this is the way to do it.
Democratic-aligned groups, however, have begun spending on ads. Last week, the liberal coalition Protect Our Care launched a $2 million digital ad campaign to promote a Democratic drug-pricing bill. But GOP groups are devoting far more cash, including a roughly $5 million buy on anti-impeachment TV ads across 18 Democratic districts by American Action Network, a nonprofit tied to House GOP leadership.
The last I checked, $5,000,000 is quite a bit more than $2,000,000. Also, the unfair impeachment hearings didn't play well in battleground districts. In fact, the impeachment hearings have pulled House Republicans closer together than at anytime since 2010. For those too young to remember 2010, Republicans and independents registered their disgust with the ACA that year. Republicans gained a net 63 seats in the House. Republicans flipped majorities in 20+ legislative bodies nationwide. Republicans flipped governorships, too.
Check this out:
"That's probably something for the pundits to decide. I'm just focused on doing the right thing and voting for the district," Cunningham said in an interview. "People in the First District are smart and they can sift through the fiction and get to the facts and when they do they realize that I'm the most bipartisan freshman Democrat."
That sounds awfully defensive. It sounds like something a worried Democrat would say. He has a right to say that. He's got a bullseye painted on his back in a ruby red state. Speaking of ruby red states:
McAdams, another swing-district Democrat who's being targeted by ads, said he's working to counter the GOP ads with his own direct pitches to voters in events like town halls.
"They're negative but you know, I'm out there in person telling my district the work that I'm doing and they know me," McAdams said. "They're going to judge me based on who I am and my track record and I think I have a track record that resonates."
McAdams voted to start the impeachment inquiry. That's the biggest thing voters in UT-4 need to know. This is telling:
House Majority Forward, a nonprofit with ties to Pelosi, has so far made the largest investment to help vulnerable Democrats, running $2 million worth of ads in a dozen districts. Those spots touted legislative achievement of freshman lawmakers but did not explicitly mention impeachment .
Isn't that interesting? If impeachment isn't hurting Democrats, why aren't they touting it? This, more than anything, indicates that impeachment is hurting Democrats. All of the Democrats' spin isn't changing reality. Not even with the MSM's help can they turn this polling around.
The Democrats have a decision looming. They can either start working with President Trump or they can anticipate a wave election. Democrats promised to work with President Trump. They haven't. The people won't vote to re-elect politicians who didn't keep their promises..
Posted Saturday, November 23, 2019 10:54 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Nov-19 10:02 AM
Pelosi wanted to avoid impeachment hearings and a final vote on whether to impeach. Her caucus pushed her, where they in turn in going back to district heard hot words in town hall local events. The strong sentiment against Trump among citizens exists, while he has supporters with equally strong feelings. Trump finalized the scenario with that Ukraine phone call show, and the downhill snowball gained its own momentum. At least it gives media stuff to pundit over, so it's not all sound and fury signifying nothing. It gets WaPo and NYR online hits, for which advertisers are cheered; although many in doing online reading use ad blocking browser technology. Will MSNBC be able to sell Joe Biden? That might be the most interesting question today, if Biden does not disappear during early polling even before substantial primary voting. The effort of Dem. money to fob off Joe upon the rank-and-file and upon outsiders with strong progressive expectations is bigger long-term, than the House action against Trump. Given the Senate nose-count any final House action will face, there's a feeling of mootness in the air over why bother, the McConnell fix is on anyway.
