September 24-26, 2019
Sep 24 03:35 'Moderate' Democrats disappearing Sep 24 11:09 Council affirms Hontos vote Sep 25 02:58 Pelosi: Speaker in name only Sep 25 04:23 The actions of a guilty man? Sep 26 09:03 Democrats' impeachment dilemma Sep 26 14:59 The whistleblower vs. the transcript Sep 26 22:45 The Declaration of Independence's instructions on impeachment
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
'Moderate' Democrats disappearing
I wish I could say that I'm surprised to find out that Angie Craig and Dean Philips aren't moderates. I'd be lying if I said that they were. Simply put, they aren't moderate. According to this article , we now have proof that Craig and Phillips aren't moderates. We know that because they're now on board with impeaching President Trump for the flimsiest of reasons:
Minnesota Democratic Reps. Dean Phillips and Angie Craig have been moderates on impeachment, but an accusation that President Donald Trump asked Ukraine to investigate a political rival is changing that. Trump is accused of pressing Ukraine's leader to help investigate political rival Joe Biden at the same time the White House was withholding $250 million in aid to that country. Trump says he's done nothing wrong.
Phillips says it appears Trump "invited foreign interference in our democracy" in a way "that is corrupt at best (and) treasonous at worst." He says if the accusation is proven, "we must pursue articles of impeachment." Craig went farther in her statement on Monday, saying it is time to open impeachment proceedings now.
Nobody has seen the transcript of the call. Further, Phillips should know better than to say that President Trump's alleged statements can't amount to treason because it's only possible to commit treason when we're at war. Further, Phillips flipped based on a rumor. If he doesn't know what's in the document, what's the justification for flipping? I suspect that Phillips wanted to support impeachment but he had to act like a moderate until the next faux indignation happened.
Here's what Phillips is quoted as saying :
"Our Constitution transcends any person, politician, or political party, and I call on the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Judiciary Committees to use every legal mechanism possible to obtain all relevant evidence .
If the reports are corroborated, we must pursue articles of impeachment and report them to the full House of Representatives for immediate consideration."Think about what Phillips just said. He admitted in plain language that he doesn't have evidence that President Trump has done anything wrong. Let's contrast that with the Nixon impeachment. In Nixon's case, there was a crime that'd been committed. There was something solid for Congress to investigate. In this case, the Democrats' faux investigation is actually a fishing trip. They've heard a rumor and their hatred of President Trump pushes the Democrats' buttons.
Instead of doing real work, like fixing immigration or keeping the Trump economy strong, Democrats have invested most of their time on investigation after investigation after investigation. That's why I've nicknamed these Democrats the Do-Nothing Democrats.
Craig didn't even do that. She said "It is clear that the sitting president of the United States placed his own personal interests above the national security of the United States. When there is an abuse of power of this magnitude, it is our responsibility to stand up for what is right. This is why I am calling to open impeachment proceedings - immediately, fairly and impartially."
First, I demand to know what President Trump did that constitutes abuse of power. In his explanation, President Trump said that he demanded that the Ukrainian president clean up the corruption so that America's money wasn't stolen by international grifters (my words, no President Trump's.). That doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. It isn't close.
Constitutional definition of impeachment
They should especially highlight Article II, Section 4, which says 'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors .
Here's hoping that this duo is booted out after a single term. This time, I hope We The People throw them out via the vote, not by having a Dayton-like temper tantrum..
Posted Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:35 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Sep-19 12:26 PM
Gary, you're one of the ones who wants to disappear Collin Peterson with a Dominionist. So why lament the disappearance? The position of the two Congress persons you mention would be to investigate, meaning they have a guess but want evidence one way or the other. There is nothing wrong with seeking evidence, is there? My worry, how to honestly investigate without Hunter and Joe Biden as witnesses. That likely would never happen, and any investigation without it is suspect.
At a guess the Bidens would be happy if Craig and Phillips were to turn their attention elsewhere. Yet the question will not go away unless the Biden candidacy does.
Trump was successful in moving the Hunter Biden cash flow question from back burner to front, now, early in the process, with this phony looking "whistleblower" BS; for whatever motive Trump had to fan the flames - early.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Sep-19 03:44 PM
Let's be clear about something. I'm just highlighting the fact that Phillips & Craig never were moderates. They simply played moderates until they ripped the mask off with their impeachment statements. Also, it's patently obvious that the Democrats' track record on Trump 'scandals' has been terrible. In fact, their record would have to improve to reach terrible.
Frankly, the Biden family is in deep trouble. VP Biden threatened to withhold money that was needed to keep Ukraine afloat if the Ukraine didn't fire the investigator who was investigating Biden's son. Whether either Biden testifies is irrelevant. The Biden family will star in the Republicans' ads all next fall.
Finally, the Democrats are now headed down a path that they'll regret. This impending impeachment inquiry is disastrous for the Ds. This is much ado about nothing. Further, the Ds just further pissed off Trump's base. Before, people just wanted to re-elect Trump, increase the Republicans' majority in the Senate & retake the majority in the House. With this boneheaded stunt, Republicans will want to annihilate the Democrats' nominee, gain a 57-58 seat majority in the Senate & run up the score in the House.
Whether that's what happens remains to be seen but that's what today's boneheaded stunt has the potential of unleashing.
Comment 2 by eric z at 24-Sep-19 12:30 PM
Aside from that for a moment - are you looking forward to the Bears game as a test of more than Atlanta and the Raiders? It should prove interesting.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Sep-19 03:44 PM
I think the Vikings will lose at Soldier Field.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 24-Sep-19 07:10 PM
The D's have wasted millions of dollars in investigations and given the American public and now they are going to spend millions more for more nothing. Why don't they investigate boasting Biden and his actual blackmailing crime. they have proof in the interview Biden gave unless he was lying once again.
If the reports are true, the whistler blower never even heard the call first hand. Can't wait until the entire transcript is released tomorrow.
Comment 4 by eric z at 24-Sep-19 07:27 PM
Agree with Chad that the claimed-to-be-unredacted transcript will prove interesting. Especially if the call was intercepted and recorded by the intelligence community and it differs materially from a released transcript. Once the transcript is released, without contradicting versions at a guess, there will be the question of implications, things that could be left unsaid, etc. with it a fact release of funds for Ukraine had been put on a temporary hold before the call. The Senate will not convict, and pence will never advance because McConnell knows how THAT would really galvanize the population to vote Bernie, who I believe will be the candidate if not Warren. Biden's slide will continue.
Gary, I am not so sure about the game. I think the Bears are as strong as last year but it is early in the season and if one team takes an early two-touchdown lead that team wins. Starting hot will matter.
Comment 5 by Rex Newman at 25-Sep-19 07:31 PM
Representatives Craig and Phillips never were moderates as you (Gary) said. A moderate by definition listens to both sides and insists on facts. Which has to be encouraging to GOP candidates seeking to retake these Districts.
Council affirms Hontos vote
Unlike the first time the St. Cloud City Council voted to censure George Hontos, this time they had the courage, if you can call it that, to vote in public . Nonetheless, it still was a disappointing display of bruised egos.
The good news is that the Council didn't hide their vote. Now we know that the "ballots indicated Masters, Goerger, Paul Brandmire and Mike Conway voted 'yes' to censure Hontos; Steve Laraway and Lewis voted against censuring Hontos."
I wish I was surprised that Masters and Goerger voted to censure Councilman Hontos but I'm not. Those 2 are the biggest disappointments on the Council. By far. I'd trade both of them for a bag full of Val's French Fries and a chocolate shake. I'd consider the Val's package a significant upgrade.
I'm most disappointed with Councilman Conway's and Councilman Brandmire's votes. Voting against the First Amendment is always wrong. A vote to censure Councilman Hontos was a vote against the First Amendment. It isn't often that I agree with the ACLU but this time, I totally agree. It's time the Council got back to governing by first principles. This vote was a vote on worst principles.
Rules 6-8 should be abolished ASAP. If the Council doesn't vote to abolish those rules, then I wouldn't be surprised if a court struck them down. Silencing the people's representatives can't be justified. That's what the Council did last night. This shouldn't shame Councilman Hontos. He did the right thing in speaking out. This vote should shame Councilmen Masters, Goerger, Brandmire and Conway.
Speaking of Councilman Hontos, he sent me this statement:
It was very evident this was an orchestrated action. I found it not surprising that some Councilmembers were aided by our City Attorney. I will look forward to the reaction from the ACLU. One important clarification Council member Conway misspoke in describing the open forum process. Here are the actual details, the meeting is adjourned, there are no minutes taken of what is said, there is no camera, and the individuals who speak are not listed in the minutes. That is different than what he stated.
On the deeper issue of turning off the cameras and adjourning the meeting before the public forum, I don't know who's hairbrained idea that was but that's another thing that's got to stop immediately. If the Council actually listened to the people, then they'd keep the cameras on, extend the speaking time from 3 minutes to 5 minutes and restore the forum to being part of the meeting. Finally, if it's to have a meaningful impact, councilmembers should be allowed to respond.
At this point, I'm disgusted with the Council. They aren't listening to their constituents. It's time they started.
Posted Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:09 AM
Comment 1 by Paul A Brandmire at 26-Sep-19 12:26 PM
We, as adults who respect each other's viewpoints, can always disagree with the results of connecting the dots. You say you disagree with my conclusions; I disagree with yours. Who's right? Probably neither of us, completely. I've already explained why I voted the way I did numerous times, but let me summarize again: The council, as free-thinking adults, made an agreement in 2004, one item of which was once a vote is taken, you don't attempt to undermine that vote if you lost. Every council member since 2004 has agreed to that standard of conduct and none (including Mr. Hontos who was on the council when those rules of conduct were written) has ever taken any action to change or eliminate them. He knew the rule and intentionally violated it. His time to speak up on this issue (and others) was before the vote. He did. He lost. Then he created a shitstorm by writing his LTE. This is not a 1st amendment issue: he CAN and DID express himself at the meeting. He CAN and DID write his letter and express his opinion. He CAN and DID express it AGAIN at the council meeting the other night. What this is, is a willful violation of an agreement of conduct. It was him not liking the vote and then attempting to win sympathy and create chaos among the constituency. And he succeeded. If the original TV camera issue proves to be unproductive, we re-address it in the future and potentially change it back. Meanwhile, we ALL as a council, even those who voted against censure (which is simply an expression of disapproval) ALL expressed disapproval at his violation of the rules of conduct for his own personal edification. And it is we on the council who were tasked with the responsibility to maintain certain standards, to conduct ourselves with certain decorum, and to hold each other accountable when we violate either. As for listening to our constituents, we do. We are. I also get messages of agreement. But in the end, I have the awesome responsibility of casting my vote based on my own best judgement, and despite what I've heard, I am still convinced it's the correct vote.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Sep-19 02:04 PM
Paul, with all due respect, it isn't your option nor Councilman Hontos' option to ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution. Period. On lots of things, Paul, I'll agree with you that most issues are shades of gray. On the Bill of Rights, especially the First and Second Amendments, I find little in terms of shades of gray.
Paul, please don't take this as me trying to humiliate you in public. That isn't my intent. It's my intent, however, to state emphatically that my priorities always think of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as pretty straightforward.
Comment 2 by Paul A Brandmire at 26-Sep-19 03:37 PM
As do mine. You know me well enough to know I always side with the constitution. However, I disagree with you that this particular situation violates the 1st amendment. We can argue whether or not this particular rule violates it some other time, that's not the immediate issue. I don't think we disagree that the rule was in force, with his knowledge and consent, for 15 years, and that he willingly violated the rule which required him to gracefully accept losing the vote. That is the issue. Remember, I voted with him -- but I accepted that he and I were in the minority and I live to fight another day. He, on the other hand, did not. After the discussion was over and the vote taken, he continued to whine (as he too-frequently does) about it in an opinion piece in the local paper. And the result of that is precisely the result the rule was in place to prevent. There was a time to argue and fight; that was before the vote was taken. But in a representative republic, your representatives vote their conscience and the minority is required to civilly respect that vote. Then work on overturning it, if necessary, based on evidence of its failure. I respect your opinion and understand your points; I really do. I just disagree with your conclusion.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Sep-19 11:09 PM
Paul, there's no question in my mind that the First Amendment is in play because the City Council is the legislative branch to the Mayor's executive branch. Further, there's no question that you're part of the government. That means you're 2-for-2 for whether the First Amendment applies.
Were I to get elected to the Council, I'd vote against these rules & I'd write an op-ed if I lost the vote. If you wanted to censure me, I'd laugh in your faces, then wear that censure as a badge of honor.
Finally, if I wanted to "live to fight another day," I'd find another profession.
Comment 3 by Paul A Brandmire at 27-Sep-19 05:29 PM
Gary, you've hit on a key point: You weren't faced with the vote. I was. I made it, and I stand by it. All SIX of us expressed our disapproval of his conduct.
To me it was NOT about his letter; not about his vote; not about the 1st amendment; not about the validity of rule #6. To me, it was about 7 adults who had an agreement of standards of conduct and he violated that agreement as he had NUMEROUS times. We all told him repeatedly that he was out of line. He wore it as a badge of honor, seeing himself as a bit of a maverick, I think. Fine. But, as is obvious from the hoopla resulting from this, his constant disruptions to the council by failing to accept his losses are taking up way too much of our time which we should be spending on other issues, and creating an awful lot of animosity, anger, and irritation among not just the council but creating a rift with the citizens. This is EXACTLY what the standards of conduct were implemented to try to prevent. See what happens when they're violated???
I don't ask for your blessing on my vote. I only ask you try to understand my thought process. I listened to yours and I understand. We walk arm in arm a long way down this path of logic. We just diverge at some point and don't arrive at the same destination. That's ok.
I had one minute notice to decide how to vote. Whether or not I still think I'm right in hindsight, I believe I have sound logic and reasonable conclusion.
We disagree. We probably will again. It's done. Move on.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-19 07:30 AM
And there's your problem. You weren't guided by the Constitution. You were guided by your "disapproval of his conduct." The fact that you (whether as a group or you individually) told George that he was out of line for expressing his opinion is disturbing. Just because you didn't like what George had to say doesn't mean he was wrong.
Adjourning the meeting and turning off the cameras is wrong. Everyone except the Council knows this. Further, it's disgusting that you think that creating animosity at hearings is a negative. I don't. Whether at the City Council or in the halls of Congress, governing is a messy thing. When silencing the people, it should be damn feisty.
The people out across this city are getting frustrated. We want our voices heard & we want them heard by everyone in the city. By shutting off the cameras, the Council has limited my ability to persuade others. Placing that type of limitation on me & my fellow citizens is totally unacceptable. The only proper position on silencing the citizenry is opposition to it.If that means I'm a villain by the Council, I'll wear that like a badge of honor. These are God-given writes. How dare the government think that they can take them away. That's the definition of arrogance.
Comment 4 by Paul A Brandmire at 28-Sep-19 06:28 PM
Get a grip, Gary. Calm down. Let's try this one more time.
I VOTED WITH HIM AGAINST TURNING OFF THE CAMERAS! I still think it was wrong.
The censure was NOT about the cameras.
It was NOT about stifling discussion.
It was NOT about him writing an LTE.
It was NOT about liking (or not liking) what he had to say.
It WAS about his inability to accept he lost a vote. It was about him violating the agreement to maturely accept a loss to the majority. It was about his subverting the majority vote because he didn't agree with it.
At some point, he has to SHUT UP and accept he lost this one. Otherwise we fight forever.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-19 11:36 PM
From my perspective, it was TOTALLY about silencing the people. I've checked with friends who are councilmembers. None of them have these rules. St. Cloud is screwed up in the extreme.
Pelosi: Speaker in name only
It's safe to say that Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House in name only. This afternoon, Ms. Pelosi all but officially admitted that the woman in charge of running the House is a 29-year-old former bartender. The facade is gone. The results won't be pretty a year from November. Democrats will get shellacked and then some. When Ms. Pelosi stepped up to the microphone, she announced that the House was starting official impeachment proceedings.
At that point, Ms. Pelosi intentionally lied. Official impeachment proceedings can't start until there's a vote on the House floor that authorizes those proceedings. Until Ms. Pelosi subjects those 31 Democrats representing districts that President Trump won by substantial margins to voting for starting impeachment hearings, from a legal standpoint, nothing has changed. We still don't have an official impeachment proceeding.
From a PR standpoint, it's a big deal because the Speaker-in-name-only has said the magic I-word. That's a big deal to her out-of-control Far Left Wing but it won't be enough once they realize this was Ms. Pelosi's last-ditch attempt to save her Speakership. Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement that highlights what Pelosi's announcement means. Here's the key paragraph:
'Speaker Pelosi's much-publicized efforts to restrain her far-left conference have finally crumbled. House Democrats cannot help themselves. Instead of working together across party lines on legislation to help American families and strengthen our nation, they will descend even deeper into their obsession with relitigating 2016.
By semi-starting the impeachment proceedings Tuesday, Pelosi has guaranteed to give the House Chairmanship gavels back to the Republicans in January, 2021. Here's Pelosi's speech:
[Video no longer available]
Despite what she said, impeachment doesn't start until there's a vote of the whole House authorizing an impeachment investigation. Ms. Pelosi hasn't (and won't) do that unless her back's against the wall. That might well happen now that AOC has taken over the House Democrat Caucus.
Posted Wednesday, September 25, 2019 2:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 25-Sep-19 08:43 AM
Were it only true that AOC was empowered to run the House in place of Pelosi. She would do a better job because she stands for progress that polls repeatedly show the majority of the nation's population favors. Pelosi is an impediment to progress, as a multi-millionaire representative of the privileged class; with Hoyer worse.
We need to blast things loose and Bernie is best to move us to become a good nation. That "Great Again" slogan admits that the consistent policy since Nixon and Ford, indeed Johnson, of war mongering around the world has to be stopped, the imbalance of distribution of wealth and income needs fixing, and medical care as a right needs to be nailed down permanently and strongly.
Progress will happen and getting dirty money out of politics will happen. That Citizens United total BS will be swept away even if it means increasing the Supreme Court beyond the number nine. The nation has been made sick by Republicans and Republican-lite Dems [Clintons, Obama, Biden, etc.] and it needs a cure. AOC knows it. We all do.
For now, we need all the evidence. We may get lies, we've gotten that before as a part of the two-party stranglehold, but now at least one party has an awakened heart of progress. To win. To govern fairly, for a change. CHANGE not as a slogan but an actuality, taking effort and force, but Bernie surely has answers that resonate. He would have won. He will win, unless the press and the worse part of his own party torpedo him.
Then, there is Warren. There will be a first female president at some time. If now and Warren, it surely will be a brighter day than were it to have been a compromised Clinton. Warren has integrity, which both candidates in 2016 lacked, explaining why they were the two most unpopular choices of all time.
Bernie would have won. The Democratic corporatists had the nomination and such a Wall Street compromied offering that they gave the White House away to a grifter.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 25-Sep-19 08:57 AM
And worse than that. It appears Trump is poised to completely obliterate the basis for this witch hunt, er, "investigation." He's releasing the transcript of the call and the full whistleblower complaint, allowing the whistleblower (who admits no direct knowledge!) to testify to Congress, and will hold a joint press conference after meeting with the President of Ukraine! One nothingburger, hold the pickle!
Comment 3 by Gretchen L Leisen at 25-Sep-19 01:09 PM
Eric Z says "Warren has integrity". Where was that integrity when she applied for a position in Texas and wrote boldly on her application that she was 'a native American'?
Comment 4 by eric z at 25-Sep-19 01:27 PM
Gretch - Have a sense of perspective.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Sep-19 11:37 PM
Integrity isn't a flexible thing. Either you have it or you don't. She doesn't.
Comment 5 by Chad Q at 25-Sep-19 07:38 PM
AOC is as dumb as they come and she proves it every day. Chakrabarti was the brains of that duo and now he's gone leaving her with farting cows.
Yeah, Warren has integrity. All she does is take Bernie's ideas and increase them by 10 fold. No one on the progressive side has an ounce of integrity, especially the one with .0000015% Indian blood coursing through her veins. Maybe she should video herself having another beer.
Comment 6 by Daniel R at 01-Oct-19 09:52 AM
Wow! What could I possibly say about the sorry state of direction of todays Democratic Party that could resonate more clearly than the words of Eric Z? Eric says AOC stands for progress. Progress as defined by running off Amazons 25,000 estimated jobs in New York. I'm not a fan of Amazon, but 70% of New Yorkers polled were in favor of the investment plan. Apparently progress doesn't include listening to your constituency.
Now about those Democratic Presidential candidates (in order of relevance)....
Joe Biden: Belongs in a memory care unit.
Elizabeth Warren: Lies about who she is, but believe her about everything else.
Kamala Harris: Comes from a slave owning family, but believe her when she says reparations are needed. Guilty conscience?
Bernie Sanders: A chicken in every pot. Medicare for all.
A Lamborghini in every driveway. After all, no one deserves more than anyone else, everyone should have everything, and no one should have to pay for it.
Beto O'Rourke: The Irishman...no wait he identifies as Hispanic. A convicted burglar who wants to take the guns away from law abiding citizens. I'll bet he does.
In summary, AOC and Eric Z; don't go changing. The clear thinking majority desperately need you our there representing the Democratic Party.
The actions of a guilty man?
At the start of Tuesday, Democrats insisted that they wanted the Ukrainian whistleblower's transcript released. When President Trump agreed to do that , Democrats moved the proverbial goalposts, this time insisting that they needed the whistleblower report, too. After mulling things for a few hours, FNC's Ed Henry reported that the Trump administration had agreed to release the whistleblower complaint, too. Henry also reported that "a senior White House official" told him that the whistleblower has an anti-Trump bias.
Next, Democrats, mostly Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) insisted that the whistleblower testify this week in front of the House Intelligence Committee. The White House agreed to that, too. Suffice it to say that President Trump didn't act like a guilty man.
The point is that Democrats kept moving the goalposts in the hopes of making President Trump look guilty while President Trump kept agreeing to their demands. If that isn't enough for the Democrats, consider this: this is the week of the UN General Assembly. Ukraine's president isn't just attending the UNGA. He's scheduled to have a bilateral meeting with President Trump. If that isn't bad enough for the Democrats, President Trump and President Zelensky are scheduled to host a press conference that day, too.
Suffice it to say that this was the wrong week for the Democrats to accuse President Trump of holding Ukraine's President hostage with military aid. With all that's gone wrong for the Democrats, it kinda reminds me of this famous scene:
[Video no longer available]
I guess this would've been a good week for Nancy Pelosi to resign as Speaker. Who needs to deal with this bunch of idiots?
This is turning into being a fantastic week for President Trump and Tom Emmer. Emmer issued this statement as Chairman of the NRCC:
For the past three years, the socialist Democrats have been obsessed with impeaching the president and backfilling in the reason after the fact. They have become so radicalized by their hatred of President Trump that they are willing to plunge the nation into a constitutional crisis based on secondhand gossip. Democrats have lost their sanity and any remaining credibility with the American people.
Make no mistake about it: backing impeachment will cost the Democrats their majority in 2020.
Chairman Emmer is right. Impeachment will cost Democrats their chairman's gavels.
What's worst for Democrats is that they're still about 50 votes short of being able to pass articles of impeachment.
Posted Wednesday, September 25, 2019 4:23 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 25-Sep-19 09:06 AM
Evidence will be sought. Honest responses will be hoped for, but likelihoods cannot be forecast. Wish as you might, November 2020 is too far away for anything but hopeful speculation of partisans. Awaiting the evidence, fully heard and reviewed, is the hope. Even though McConnell's majority will never convict, the House may impeach. Also, the question may hang fire into the post-convention ramp up to the general election. Pence will never get a chance to wreak havoc worse than Trump. That appears to be the one certainty in things. As often, GOTV will be the game.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 25-Sep-19 07:29 PM
How'd Russia Gate turn out for the progressives? Pretty bad and this will be even worse. The progressive's have less than nothing this time except a chance to get rid of Biden once and for all if they really want to prosecute a criminal.
Democrats' impeachment dilemma
Because Democrats cried wolf 250 times too many, nobody's buying the Democrats' line that the transcript is President Trump's doomsday:
[Video no longer available]
They especially don't buy the things that Adam Schiff has said . Why would anyone trust the guy who said that he had evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia. Remember this golden oldie?
[Video no longer available]
That's when Rep. Schiff, (D-Calif.), had this exchange with Chuck Todd:
SCHIFF: All I can tell you is, reviewing the evidence that I have, I don't think you can conclude that at all. Far from it.
Chuck Todd: But you admit that all you have right now is a circumstantial case.
Schiff: Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars but there is more than circumstantial evidence.
TODD: You have seen direct evidence of collusion?
SCHIFF: I don't want to go into specifics but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation...
That proof never materialized. Most of Schiff's statements turned out to be false. Schiff has been peddling this foolishness since President Trump's inauguration.
This past Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi said that Democrats were officially launching an impeachment inquiry. That's BS. Until they take a vote on the House floor, the Democrats' investigation remains un official. That speech was nothing but a PR stunt. The bad news for Democrats is that the particulars aren't that important to people like AOC, Al Green and Maxine Waters.
They'll demand an impeachment vote. Pelosi was hoping to save her majority by protecting her vulnerable freshmen with this past Tuesday's PR stunt. AOC isn't about playing things safe. She's a my-way-or-the-highway type. She won't hesitate in running Ms. Pelosi over.
That's the definition of the Democrats impeachment dilemma.
Posted Thursday, September 26, 2019 9:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Sep-19 11:03 AM
The whistleblower report is now online, various outlets, with a classified [partly redacted] addendum. A number of names added to the story. At a guess the House hands it off after several months to McConnell, where his people will have to weigh what they think best serves their hopes for the 2020 election. The guess, there will be no President pence. Republican Senators will be on record either bottling the thing or voting along party lines.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Sep-19 02:10 PM
I just started reading the whistleblower report. Based on what the whistleblower admits, this isn't a difficult thing to make a decision on. It's almost all secondhand information that can't be corroborated. If I'm asked to decide whether to trust a transcript put together by career CIA people assigned to the Situation Room of the White House or trusting news articles in Politico, the Washington Post, New York Times, Bloomberg and CNN, I'll trust the transcription of career nonpartisan CIA people 100 times out of 99 opportunities.
The whistleblower vs. the transcript
John Ratcliffe is quickly becoming one of my favorite Republicans because he's skilled at cutting through the Democrats' subterfuge. I just watched Rep. Ratcliffe demolish the Democrats' impeachment charade. While questioning Acting Secretary McGuire, Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the so-called whistleblower didn't have firsthand knowledge of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy of Ukraine. Further, Ratcliffe pointed out that the whistleblower got his/her information from media articles. That caused Ratcliffe to say that this was "Russia 2.0".
The transcript was made public yesterday. The whistleblower's complaint was made public (with redactions) this morning. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the Democrats preferred the information from a document whose information was, at best, secondhand and perhaps thirdhand over the transcription of the actual phone call.
It's worth noting that this tells me that the whistleblower will get crucified if that person testifies to Congress. If the whistleblower doesn't have firsthand knowledge of President Trump's phone call, why should that be considered credible? Ratcliffe highlighted that the whistleblower's worries came from articles in Politico, NYTimes, Washington Post and other media outlets.
As bad as some of those articles might've been in terms of accuracy, they pale in comparison with Chairman Schiff's opening statement:
[Video no longer available]
Chairman Schiff rearranged some paragraphs from the transcript to make it sound nefarious. Apparently, it didn't dawn on Chairman Schiff that reading things in the order they were written is required to understand what the people intended to convey. Shortly thereafter, Ranking Member Nunes delivered his opening statement. Notice how he mocks Chairman Schiff:
[Video no longer available]
The whistleblower's complaint contains some things that destroy the Democrats' credibility. For instance, it says "In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple Government officials that President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. election." In other words, it's entirely possible that this whistleblower might've gotten their information from deep state operatives who hate President Trump. That isn't a verified statement but it's entirely possible.
Earlier, I mentioned John Ratcliffe's questioning of Secretary McGuire. Now, I have the videotape of his questioning. Right at the opening of Rep. Ratcliffe's questioning, Rep. Ratcliffe starts with something very disturbing:
[Video no longer available]
That's pretty stunning. The whistleblower first accuses Rudy Giuliani of conspiring with Bill Barr to rig the 2020 election. Later, in a footnote, the whistleblower admits that they aren't certain to what extent either Giuliani or Barr was ever involved. That's kind of a big point to be uncertain about if you're interested in journalistic integrity. If you're just worried about impeaching President Trump regardless of whether the evidence supports it, which appears to be the Democrats' goal, then it isn't that important.
Final prediction: Apolitical people will side with Republicans on this issue. Hyper-partisans will side with Democrats. Since there are more people whose lives don't revolve around politics, it's likely that this issue favors Republicans politically.
Posted Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:59 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 26-Sep-19 06:02 PM
In another 2 weeks this will blow over and the next "Trump colluded with X" democrat farce will begin. These people have nothing, well other than Schiff who had the whistleblowers info for well over a month and sat on it only to watch it blow up in his face today. What a bunch of sore losers.
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Sep-19 10:15 AM
Perhaps from the start, Never Trump might have been the best idea, but we are where we are, and how the Republican howl would have been had it been during Obama years, Obama asking Israel to dig dirt on Romney, that election? The bleating would have never stopped. Mitch would have expressed blind rage. But now? What I believe I am seeing is a double standard, and it is worrisome when blinders are put on party-wide, by Republicans who should know better. It is somewhat unseemly, what now is dismissed as inconsequential. Paying off bimbos, grab women by genitalia, all that stuff and then unprincipled communication with a foreign nation's newly elected head of state - this represents Republican good judgment? Surely not, so examine the facts.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Sep-19 10:32 AM
I've read the Trump-Zelensky transcript. Trump's 'bombshell' favor was to ask Ukraine for help in tracking down election interference.
The Declaration of Independence's instructions on impeachment
For a month or so, I've had thoughts rattling through my head on whether the Declaration of Independence holds instructions on the topic of impeachment. Tonight, the final piece of the puzzle dropped into place. The answer is an emphatic yes .
The opening paragraph in the Declaration says "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The next paragraph is key:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes .
Let's start with the second paragraph, which states that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." What House Democrats are attempting to do is institute a government without the consent of the governed. That's the first strike against today's Democrats. They aren't listening to We The People. Instead, they're listening to Resist Movement activists. The latest polling shows two-thirds of the country opposing impeachment. Still, that's what House Democrats are shoving down our throats.
The wisest admonition to House Democrats, not that they'll listen, is when it says that prudence dictates "that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." In other words, governments, like election results, shouldn't be overturned for reasons that aren't "lasting, enduring, or permanent." If Democrats think that the reasons why they're forced to impeach President Trump aren't enduring for multiple generations, they should abandon this push.
This is the time for cooler Democrat heads to prevail. Just because Democrats are upset with 2016's election results doesn't give them the authority to overturn an election. If Democrats don't heed the Declaration's lessons, if Democrats instead shove impeachment down our throats, then they'll pay a heavy price in November, 2020.
Posted Thursday, September 26, 2019 10:45 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 27-Sep-19 09:14 AM
Time for a paraphrase of Brer Rabbit, as a plea to Democrats: "Oh, please, please, don't throw Trump into that briar patch [of impeachment]!"
Did you notice that in the 24 hours after Pelosi's announcement, Trump 2020 took in $5 million?
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Sep-19 10:05 AM
For now it is an inquiry. Should grounds be uncovered in hearings, where subpoenaes cannot be dodged for phony "security" reasons, then there will be a vote on impeachment. For now fact finding. Later action, depending on facts found. Not just the quid pro quo implicit situation with Ukraine, screw over Biden family no matter what or funds stay withheld, but was there a conscious coverup attempt to prevent such facts from seeing the light of day. Barr, what role, should he be impeached? Rudy, no official Department of State authority, back-channeling like crazy? How far did he go? A ton of questions about impropriety. Where things land, in the House, remains dependent upon hearing results. Things are being done with due caution. Why Trump felt he could get away with that Ukranian intrigue is a mystery, where answers need to be uncovered. Was there crime of a level to impeach? Given the low Starr-Kavanaugh bar set against Clinton by ill-mannered Republicans, who knows?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Sep-19 10:30 AM
This investigation has been ongoing for almost 3 years. Democrats won't find anything because, believe it or not, Trump isn't anywhere as evil as Democrats think.
Comment 3 by Mark at 27-Oct-19 04:56 PM
The current process is without due process, fairness, cross-examination and no witness transcripts. So unfair to the President. If the DoJ IG Report confirms FISA abuse and if the John Durham report shows criminal acts against our duly elected President then there must be accountability. Remember, the Comey leaks to his professor friend got to the NYT which caused the appointment of Mueller. His 448-page report CONFIRMS there was no Russian collusion or collaboration between Trump/his campaign to affect the 2016 election. Poor loser Hillary wrote the book "What Happened" and still blames everyone but herself for the 2016 loss. Thanks to Democrats, we've wasted 3 years for nothing and they are looking for ANYTHING to reverse the 2016 election. Keep in mind there have been 4 investigations into Russian collusion (3 by the House/Senate committees plus Mueller) and they all came up with the conclusion no collusion occurred. Trump wins 2020 with even more electoral votes no matter who runs against him.
