October 24-26, 2019
Oct 24 01:12 Piercing Schiff's SCIF Oct 24 07:49 DOJ sues California over emissions Oct 24 16:35 Is impeachment crumbling? Oct 25 07:15 Yesterday's talking point Oct 25 17:16 Trump's re-election by the numbers Oct 26 00:59 Impeachment, Schiff-style
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Piercing Schiff's SCIF
Republicans took an important first step in piercing Adam Schiff's star chamber on Wednesday when Matt Gaetz, Steve Scalise and other Republicans stormed Adam Schiff's SCIF Sanctuary. I don't doubt that they'll be prepared for a second such attempt. That's why I recommend changing things up the next time testimony is taken.
Instead of storming the gates, Republicans who are allowed into Schiff's SCIF should take mental notes of what the witnesses say on cross-examination. The minute the minute a witness says something that contradicts their opening statement, that Republican should exit the room, walk right up to a camera, then tell the camera what the witness just said.
If you say that House rules prevent that, I'll counter that by saying that the Constitution trumps House rules. If you're wondering what I mean by that, it's simple. The section of the Constitution that I'm referring to is Article I, Section VI, often referred to as the Speech and Debate Clause . The important part of that clause states "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place . "
That means that a Republican congressman or woman leaving Schiff's SCIF can't be questioned for making a speech. That part of the Constitution has been upheld most recently in 1966 and 1972. Remember Harry Reid's speeches on the Senate floor accusing Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years?
[Video no longer available]
Sen. Reid wasn't punished for slandering Mitt Romney:
[Video no longer available]
Despite slandering a man from the Senate floor, Harry Reid retired a happy man. If the Speech & Debate Clause protected him while he slandered a presidential candidate, Republicans should use the Speech & Debate Clause to shine sunlight into Schiff's SCIF. The only precaution I'd make it to not mention anything that's legitimately classified.
If Democrats insist on fighting dirty, then it's time that Republicans fight fire with fire. The first thing that I'd state as justification is that if Democrats won't conduct transparent hearings, then Republicans will deploy the options that the Constitution gives them to provide transparency. I'd also state clearly that I'm prepared to stop the minute Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats actually implement a set of rules that don't change from witness-to-witness and day-to-day. Mention that there's lots of different ways to skin Democrats' rats. It's important to remind Ms. Pelosi's Democrats that the Speech & Debate Clause extends to Republicans' aids, too.
The point is to highlight to the Democrats that there's an infinite supply of different ways to pierce Schiff's SCIF. Each time Republicans utilize this option, they'll expose the Democrats' dishonesty. In fact, I'd tell the NRCC to highlight Schiff's dishonesty in an online video. Start with Schiff's parody speech. Then I'd transfer to the Meet the Press/"more than circumstantial" oldie. Remind people that Schiff is the most corrupt, dishonest politician in DC in several generations.
The point of this is to first level the playing field. Next, it's important that Democrats understand that you're just as ruthless as they are. Third, remind them that they've got much more to lose that they do. Tonight on Tucker Carlson's show, Matt Gaetz said that Republicans need to understand that they can't "use Marquee de Queensbury rules while a pack of rabid hyenas" are attacking you.
Finally, I hate to disagree with my friend Ed Morrissey, albeit ever so slightly. Ed wrote "No one should trust any of these reports until we see the transcripts. In fact, no one should put any confidence in this process until it gets conducted openly, honestly, and fairly."
I'll stipulate that we won't know with certainty that we're reading the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth until the testimony transcripts are made public. That being said, I'm pretty confident that I know the truth because John Ratcliffe has proven himself in the hearings I've watched to be an honest man with lots of intelligence. When he told Martha McCallum that he personally cross-examined Taylor and got him to admit that "neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that any military aid was being withheld on July 25th. Unless and until they can bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone who speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a legal quid pro quo is impossible."
Meanwhile, Adam Schiff, the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, has been caught lying multiple times. I'll stipulate that we can't trust Schiff's statements but I'm fairly comfortable trusting John Ratcliffe because Ratcliffe has a history of being trustworthy and he was the man who questioned Taylor. Getting the information from the man who questioned Taylor matters because it isn't hearsay like most of the information that's gotten leaked thus far.
Finally, I'm willing to trust the transcripts.
Posted Thursday, October 24, 2019 1:12 AM
No comments.
DOJ sues California over emissions
President Trump's DOJ has filed a federal lawsuit against California for entering into a cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec. Apparently, California thinks that it doesn't need to comply with the Constitution. In the lawsuit, the DOJ states ""The state of California has veered outside of its proper constitutional lane to enter into an international emissions agreement. The power to enter into such agreements is reserved to the federal government, which must be able to speak with one voice in the area of US foreign policy. California's unlawful cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec undermines the President's ability to negotiate competitive agreements with other nations as the President sees fit."
In Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, it states that the president "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." The federal government was created, at least in part, so that the states could speak with one voice internationally. Of course, California thinks differently:
In a statement Wednesday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, slammed the cap-and-trade suit as "political retribution" and another example of the Trump administration's "abysmal record of denying climate change and propping up big polluters."
"For years our state has proudly participated in a number of environmental partnerships that tackle the devastating effects of climate change to our health and economy. This latest attack shows that the White House has its head in the sand when it comes to climate change and serves no purpose other than continued political retribution," Newsom said.
Regardless of what Gov. Newsom said, the truth is that the Constitution assigns authorities to specific parts of the government. States weren't authorized to negotiate international treaties. That authority is given exclusively to the President.
This video highlights as fact that Gov. Newsom isn't too bright:
[Video no longer available]
Might the higher prices be because California imposes irrational regulations? That's likely why prices are higher, though Xavier Becerra won't admit that. Finally, expect California to lose this lawsuit.
Posted Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:49 AM
No comments.
Is impeachment crumbling?
I know that's a silly-sounding headline but it's starting to gain credibility. First, let's start with Sharyl Attkisson's article that explains the usefulness of quid pro quos and how it isn't the sinister practice that the MSM and other Democrats are portraying it as.
Diplomatic quid pro quo, requiring certain actions, behavior or "conditions" in return for U.S. aid, is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. "Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided."
That makes sense since we want this aid spent efficiently. We don't want it sent to corrupt nations where the oligarchs get rich but the problem isn't fixed.
Back to the Democrats' notion that it's improper, or possibly even criminal, for President Trump to hold out U.S. aid in order to achieve cooperation from Ukraine's new president. On Tuesday, headlines were made from widely leaked closed-door testimony by William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who assumed that position in July. Taylor reportedly testified he was 'alarmed' that the Trump administration supposedly was withholding military assistance unless Ukraine committed to investigating 2016 election corruption, including alleged wrongdoing by the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
Yet Ambassador Taylor is very familiar with the process of "conditioning" U.S. foreign aid. He spoke of it extensively in November 2011 after he had just been handpicked by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a new position as the State Department's Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions, specifically Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
"You'll condition your aid based on the direction in which these countries are going? a reporter asked Taylor at a news conference. "Our assistance is part of our foreign policy. This is clear," Taylor replied. He went on to give examples of how U.S. aid would be used as leverage. Quid pro quo.
This isn't sinister or nefarious, which the Democrats have insisted. It's just 2 nations acting in their own self-interest.
Second, the goods must actually be delivered. In this case, President Trump would have had to receive the requested packet of "dirt" on Biden, in order to trigger release the U.S. aid to Ukraine. So far, there is not an allegation that Part Two ever occurred. Without delivery of the dirt, there's no quid pro quo. Just a quid.
This is a semi-controversial statement but I'll say it anyway. Joe Biden has repeatedly said that neither he or Hunter Biden did anything wrong. That's BS. Having the vice president's son getting a $1,000,000/year salary for a no-show job that he wasn't qualified for is the definition of doing something wrong. Having Vice President Biden insist that he didn't know anything about his son's situation isn't credible.
After watching this speech, I'm left wondering how this clown could be the Democrats' frontrunner:
[Video no longer available]
Senate Majority Leader McConnell has signed onto Sen. Lindsey Graham's resolution that urges "the House of Representatives to begin respecting the precedents and due process safeguards that have been abandoned thus far in impeachment inquiry proceedings." Steny Hoyer said that there would be public hearings after the Democrats' unconstitutional investigation. When that happens, expect John Ratcliffe to demolish the Democrats' star witnesses during his cross-examination of them. The Democrats' case isn't that strong. Bill Taylor, the charge d'affaires for Ukraine, for instance, only has second- and third-hand information. That's worthless. The Democrats' faux whistleblower got major things wrong, starting with the number of quid pro quos President Trump supposedly offered Ukraine. At one point in time, the Democrats' faux whistleblower was the cornerstone of the Democrats' impeachment case. Now, Democrats are doing everything possible to prevent this faux whistleblower from testifying. That isn't a sign of strength. When the Democrats' faux whistleblower testifies, complete with his anti-Trump biases, expect him to get annihilated on cross-examination.
From a strategic standpoint, Pelosi never should've announced the impeachment inquiry before the complaint was published. She essentially went by gossip surrounding the complaint. Building any case on that quicksand is foolish. Building a case for impeachment is downright stupid.
After this is behind us, expect voters to punish Democrats. This nation went through 4 years of torture for nothing. Democrats should pay a steep political price for that decision.
Posted Thursday, October 24, 2019 4:35 PM
Comment 1 by Gretchen L Leisen at 24-Oct-19 07:47 PM
Sometimes I think the Democrats are just trying to wear us out with their dishonest behavior. I am at the point that I often change the channel from news to either sports, forensic files or Hallmark.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-19 12:11 AM
Trust me, Gretchen. The Democrats' witnesses haven't provided firsthand testimony on hardly anything. As the saying goes, if you want to take down the king, you'd better put him down with the first shot.
Comment 2 by eric z at 25-Oct-19 11:03 AM
Gary, you wrote: "That makes sense since we want this aid spent efficiently. We don't want it sent to corrupt nations where the oligarchs get rich but the problem isn't fixed."
Netanyahu.
Yesterday's talking point
The day after House Republicans pushed their way into Adam Schiff's SCIF, the MSM was out in full force talking about the Republicans' "stunt". Vox's article highlighted the opinion that the Republicans' "stunt" was intended to use "those complaints to distract from the substance of the probe." That's interesting since there doesn't appear to be any substance to the Democrats' faux investigation.
First, we were told that a faux whistleblower would finally bring the walls crashing down around our president. Back then, President Trump's crime was committing a quid pro quo, which literally means this for that. That type of transaction happens countless times between countries. Now we're finding out that the faux whistleblower didn't have firsthand information. The faux whistleblower isn't anything but a gossip. But I digress.
While House Republicans want to put pressure on Democrats, their Wednesday crusade revealed how much heat they and Trump are facing regarding the impeachment inquiry: They don't seem to have much substantive defense they can offer the president, so instead, they're going after Democrats' process.
Actually, Vox isn't telling the people the truth. John Ratcliffe cross-examined Bill Taylor, the ambassador to Ukraine. Ratcliffe got Taylor to admit that the Ukrainian administration didn't know that the US-supplied military aid had been held up. They didn't find out until a month after the Trump-Zelensky phone call.
It's impossible to extort favors from someone who isn't aware that he's been robbed in the first place. To use Ratcliffe's line, it's a quid pro quo without the quo. Without that, there isn't any substance to talk about. Ratcliffe insists that the case wouldn't get to a jury in a regular court because it was missing an important element of the crime.
I'm tired of the Agenda Media using process as a euphemism. What Republicans have been objecting to is that Democrats haven't paid attention to the Constitution. Democrats haven't let President Trump's attorneys defend the President. Democrats have repeatedly made provocative accusations without proof:
"It is of paramount importance to ensure that witnesses cannot coordinate their testimony with one another to match their description of events, or potentially conceal the truth," Schiff wrote in a letter to his House colleagues last week. Schiff emphasized that public transcripts of these depositions would be released in the future, and also anticipated that testimony would ultimately be public as well.
The people who've testified thus far have been diplomats with an axe to grind against President Trump, a woman from the Defense Department. The likelihood of any of these people coordinating their testimony to protect President Trump is virtually nonexistent. That's why they have an axe to grind against President Trump. One last thought on the witnesses called thus far: the only person who doesn't fit that profile was Ambassador Sondland, who was a political appointee.
The 'we can't let these witnesses coordinate their testimony' line is BS. Other than Ambassador Sondland, these people don't like President Trump. They aren't coordinating testimony to protect President Trump. If anything, there's a better chance of them coordinating their testimony to sink President Trump.
The claim that Republicans did anything to distract from the testimony that's supposedly harming President Trump is foolish. Thus far, most of the testimony is second- and third-hand information. That isn't worrying experienced prosecutors like John Ratcliffe. When it's heard by the American public when the public trial starts, that type of information will backfire on the media and other Democrats. Why would Republicans worry about that type of information?
Honestly, I'd consider the Vox article nothing but spin. These aren't reporters as much as they are propagandists. This is the only media coverage that wasn't wall-to-wall spin:
[Video no longer available]
Watching Juan Williams' rant, it struck me that he didn't mention a single piece of evidence. That's of a piece with these hearings. Thus far, it's mostly been second- and third-hand information. That's hearsay, not evidence. As Congressman Ratcliffe highlighted, you can't have a quid pro quo if you don't have the quo. If the Ukrainians didn't know that their military aid was being withheld and the Biden investigation didn't happen, then it's impossible to have a quid pro quo.
This isn't damaging President Trump. It's demolishing what's left of the MSM's credibility.
Posted Friday, October 25, 2019 7:15 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Oct-19 08:00 AM
AFAIK, and the Democrats deliberately obfuscate this point, the aid was quickly restored and the investigations have never been started. But of course we have Biden clearly bragging of his quid pro quo/extortion confession on video. But he "did nothing wrong." Why is it so hard to trust the media, one wonders?
Comment 2 by eric z at 25-Oct-19 10:59 AM
I want Biden investigated. Why is your Senate majority doing zippo that way? If he's a crook, that is important information, yes/no? There is smoke. So is there fire? MSM issues a pass, a complete "move on, nothing to see here" and only J.Ewing objects? If there is a chance Biden is run against Trump, is he clean enough to be a candidate? As to impeachment, the House will do its vote, more likely than not impeaching, and the Senate will do what McConnell wants. Big frigging story, so what about Joe? Are your people hoping the Dems walk Joe into the nomination, then to dump a load on him? It sure looks that way, and if done it would be shabby, but what the Dem inner party would deserve. Hell, Trump could Nixon out, saying "not a crook" from the helicopter steps, and it could be a Pence-Bernie contest. That would be REAL theater and popcorn futures would soar.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-19 01:43 PM
I think the Senate Republicans are a little nervous to start another investigation into a major political figure. Considering how the MSM have criticized Republicans for that already, I understand that.
I agree with you, though. The Bidens sold influence. Joe didn't get rewarded but Hunter certainly did.
Response 2.2 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-19 01:47 PM
Eric, I think Republicans view this group of candidates as being particularly weak. If it's Biden, then it's Biden. If it's Bernie, then it's Bernie. If it's Other, aka Hillary, then it's Hillary. The operation that's in place right now, coupled with the RNC/Trump fundraising, will make Trump virtually impossible to defeat.
Trump's re-election by the numbers
Saying that President Trump is an embattled president is somewhat accurate, though definitely inaccurate, too. Let me explain with the help of this article . In the article, A.B. Stoddard highlights the fact that the RNC has outraised the DNC by an enormous amount. She also highlights the other advantages that Republicans have. This isn't a 'Republicans are doing well here but Democrats are doing well elsewhere' situation. It's a situation of the RNC pretty much dominating the entire landscape:
For months Democrats have worried about a potentially lethal combination of Trump's incumbency advantage coupled with the unparalleled strength of the GOP organization -- and that was before their newfound fear that they may not end up with a suitable nominee to take on even a deeply embattled Trump. While he rants on Twitter and holds campaign rallies, Democrats in a primary race get little notice or coverage. Meanwhile the Trump campaign is carpet-bombing Facebook with ads and the RNC is spreading a volunteer army across key swing states, all while breaking fundraising records allowing them to deploy critical resources nearly a year before a Democrat is nominated.
Dynamic fundraising eliminates a ton of sins. This isn't just about fundraising, though. It's about how that money is getting used. In this instance, it's getting used wisely and for maximum impact:
In August, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez acknowledged the threat after the RNC tripled the amount the DNC raised in July. In an email he sent supporters sounding the alarm, he wrote that "our eventual nominee won't stand a chance against Trump and the GOP's fundraising machine unless we start making strategic, early investments right now."
It was clear in September, when the RNC quadrupled the DNC total, that those investments have yet to materialize. September was the best non-election-year month for the RNC in history for either party, raising $27.3 million to the DNC's $6.9 million. The RNC is carrying no debt; the DNC is carrying $7.2 million. The RNC has $59.2 million cash on hand while the DNC has $8.6 million. The RNC's 2019 total is $168.7 million while the DNC has raised only $66.5 million this year.
That's only part of the story. Here's the important part of the story:
Impeachment has been a boon to GOP fundraising and grassroots organizing. Since the official start of impeachment, $10.3 million has been spent between the RNC and the Trump campaign in ads on air and online and the RNC has held 60 events in swing or Trump districts held by Democrats, and in Senate and gubernatorial races, just since Sept. 30.
For the 2020 campaign, RNC has staff deployed in 19 states including New Hampshire and New Mexico, with five regional communications directors and nine regional political directors. By Election Day there will be 2 million volunteers coordinated by 60,000 "fellows ," who are trained grassroots volunteers. In 2016 the RNC had 5,000 fellows, then in 2018 that grew to 25,000, and more than 30,000 additional fellows are being trained up now. Volunteers download an app, then go door to door in assigned teams that break down by state, then "turf," then neighborhood. " We don't care about offices ," said RNC spokesman Rick Gorka.
Watching Trump's rallies, coupled with reading this article, it's interesting to see how both things fit together. Most of the rallies have substantial numbers of people who haven't been to a Trump rally before. Couple that with the data gathered and you've got a powerful 1-2 punch getting built.
[Video no longer available]
In Arizona, now a swing state after decades trending red, the RNC will be tracking 207,284 so-called "disengagers" statewide, that is, people who voted in 2016 but not 2018. They already know, for example, their specific goal in "turf 24" outside of Maricopa County: to reach 14,537 swing voters they need to win over.
This money is being spent to build a strong GOTV operation. It's also doing things that few other presidential campaigns have done. For instance, they're doing voter registration drives to strengthen congressional and Senate candidates and incumbents. President Trump and the RNC want this to be a wave election up and down the ticket.
Though I haven't seen anything communicating this goal, I'm betting that the RNC's and the Trump campaign's goal is to re-elect him, strengthen the Republicans' majority in the Senate and retake the majority in the House. At this point, I think accomplishing all 3 things is possible. This isn't a pipe dream. It's a legitimate goal.
Posted Friday, October 25, 2019 5:16 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Oct-19 10:42 AM
Not just a goal, but an absolute necessity.
Impeachment, Schiff-style
The WSJ's Kim Strassel is their go-to journalist on impeachment. In Ms. Strassel's latest article , she didn't pull her punches on the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman, Adam Schiff. Ms. Strassel opened by saying "Rep. Elise Stefanik was informed this week by Republican House Intelligence Committee staffers of a new diktat from Chairman Adam Schiff. It made the New York Republican's jaw drop. Democrats had informed Republicans that, from here on out, the committee would produce a single, printed transcript of every interview it conducted as part of its impeachment inquiry. Only members of the three committees involved in the purported inquiry would be allowed to view that printout, and only in the presence of a Democratic staffer. Ms. Stefanik - an elected member of Congress who sits on the Intelligence Committee - will be babysat while reading by an unelected employee of the Democrats."
This isn't helping Democrats. First, it's firing up GOP activists because they see Schiff's rules to be something only seen in third-world dictatorships. Next, there's growing proof that Schiff's stunts are hurting Democrats in the form of record campaign contributions to the RNC . This won't end well for Democrats because fair-minded people are getting upset.
Welcome to impeachment, Schiff-style. Democrats keep their witnesses locked behind secure doors, then flood the press with carefully sculpted leaks and accusations, driving the Trump-corruption narrative. And so the party goes, galloping toward an impeachment vote that would overturn the will of the American voters - on a case built in secret.
Conservative commentators keep noting that Mrs. Pelosi's refusal to hold a vote on the House floor to authorize an official impeachment inquiry helps her caucus's vulnerable members evade accountability. But there's a more practical and uglier reason for Democrats to skip the formalities. Normally an authorization vote would be followed by official rules on how the inquiry would proceed. Under today's process, Mr. Schiff gets to make up the rules as he goes along. Behold the Lord High Impeacher.
Democrats keep telling us that "nobody is above the law, not even the president." That's fair enough but it doesn't go far enough. Let's add that "not even the Lord High Impeacher is allowed to make up the rules fresh each day." This isn't a dictatorship. Democrats like Schiff shouldn't get to make up the rules each day. Further, House rules should require a vote to establish rules for impeachment and that a majority vote is required. By majority vote, I mean at least 218 votes. If that majority isn't reached, then impeachment can't start. House rules should include the stipulation that the majority party can't call impeachment witnesses without that majority vote and the rules are established.
For those who haven't read Ms. Strassel's book , this video is a great alternative:
[Video no longer available]
It's a bit long but it's worth every minute of your attention. Personally, I'd recommend watching the interview and buying the book. There are few books that I consider essential reading for conservatives. Ms. Strassel's book is one of them. Ed Morrissey's book and Salena Zito's book are the others that I consider essential reading. But I digress.
A little more than 15 minutes into this interview, Ms. Strassel said something utterly brilliant when she said that "You can't be a libertarian dictator." In his mind, however, Schiff apparently thinks that due process requirements can be met even when he changes the process daily, which is what he's doing. There isn't any proof that the Democrats' Impeachment Chairman worries about the Constitution's due process requirements.
When the history books are written, honest history books will say that impeachment, Schiff-style, is a dark stain on the nation's institutions. The American people didn't deserve anything like this. We deserved a media that spoke truth to power to both sides of the aisle . These days, the Agenda Media assists today's Democrats.
Apparently, Schiff thinks that he doesn't need to get President Trump removed via the impeachment process. Schiff must think that he just needs to scuff President Trump up sufficiently, then let the Democrats' nominee take him out in the election. That's foolish. That group of clowns would have difficulty defeating a solid conservative in a congressional race in a swing district.
Posted Saturday, October 26, 2019 12:59 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 26-Oct-19 03:50 PM
For the 10 millionth time, they have nothing. If they had something to actually impeach Trump with, they'd let everyone watch it on CSPAN. Just more wasted time and money.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Oct-19 04:12 PM
Exactly right.
