September 27-29, 2019
Sep 27 10:11 Trump calls for Schiff's resignation Sep 27 14:59 Frighteningly similar Sep 27 21:04 Craig "supportive of Adam Schiff" Sep 28 08:11 House Dems vs. American people Sep 28 12:06 Discrediting the snitch's complaint Sep 29 05:05 Why Dems fight President Trump Sep 29 06:19 Gun control contradictions Sep 29 08:05 Pelosi's impeachment follies Sep 29 11:32 Pelosi's pathetic performance
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
Trump calls for Schiff's resignation
President Trump has called for Chairman Schiff's resignation after Schiff made up a faux transcript of President Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. In his opening statement, Schiff said "What is [President Trump's] response? Well, it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what [President Trump] communicates: "We've been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I want a favor that I want from you, though. And I'm only going to say this 7 times so you'd better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, lots of it, understand? On this and on that, I'm going to put you in touch with people, and not just any people. I'm going to put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States, my attorney general, Bill Barr. He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I'm going to put you in touch with Rudy. You're gonna love him, trust me. You know what I'm asking so I'm only going to ask this a few more times, in a few more ways. And, by the way, don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I've asked."
Schiff's statement continues but you can take it in by watching this video:
[Video no longer available]
President Trump, along with Republicans, are ramping up the fight , especially after Schiff tweeted this:
The presidential oath of office requires the President of the United States to do two things: Faithfully execute his or her office, and protect and defend the Constitution. The whistleblower complaint and call record provide the most graphic evidence yet Trump has done neither.
Mr. Schiff is playing a terrible hand poorly. First, the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call contradicts Schiff's wild characterizations. Here's the important part of the transcript:
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine , they say Crowdstrike : I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
Democrats staked their claim that this was President Trump's quid pro quo, the dangling of US military aid over Ukraine's head. That's a joke.
It's one thing for Schiff to later admit that his opening statement was a parody. This wasn't just a parody. It had nothing to do with reality. President Trump did have a favor to ask. Unfortunately for Schiff and the Democrats, the favor was to look into an open US law enforcement operation. If that's the Democrats' quid pro quo, they should shut down this impeachment inquiry immediately. They don't have anything that proves that President Trump committed "treason, bribery or high crimes or misdemeanors." Democrats have nothing.
Democrats are either the Gang who couldn't shoot straight, the 3 Stooges or the Not Yet Ready for Primetime Players. Whatever they are, they shouldn't have chairmanship gavels. They haven't accomplished anything constructive. As we've seen through this episode, Democrats are unethical. It's time to replace them with people who want to tackle the important issues facing our nation.
It's time to run these Democrats out of DC.
Posted Friday, September 27, 2019 10:11 AM
No comments.
Frighteningly similar
According to Sean Davis' article , the snitch's complaint (my word, not Sean's) put together by the snitch's legal team has some frightening similarities to the Steele Dossier. In Sean's article, he highlights the fact that Steele's dossier didn't use people's names:
Steele hadn't gathered or witnessed any of this evidence first-hand. Rather, he relied on anonymous sources, many of them third-hand. 'Source B asserted that the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,' Steele wrote. 'Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,' including Hillary Clinton, Steele claimed.
Let's compare this with the snitch's complaint:
'I was told that a State Department official' did this or that. 'I heard from multiple US officials' that such and such. 'Officials have informed me. ' And so on. Much like Steele, the Ukraine informant lacked first-hand access to evidence he claimed proved Trump's guilt. It must have been hard to blow an accurate whistle when the whistleblower wasn't even in the same room.
Why are we protecting a snitch that doesn't rely on their own observations? That isn't a whistleblower. That's a Page 6 wannabe. House Republicans should create a firestorm that highlights the similarities between Steele's discredited dossier and this snitch's questionable second-hand allegations. This should be raised as a point of order or point of parliamentary procedure or some such thing. The point should be highlighted that the allegation-maker doesn't have first-hand information for the committee. Though the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, won't run it, real journalists like Katie Pavlich, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, etc. will push this story out to their readers, where it will gain a life of its own.
[Video no longer available]
The snitch's story is amplified through a compliant media that accepts everything as Gospel fact:
The questionable use of media sources to buttress hearsay claims is also consistent across both documents. After Steele compiled his dossier, he peddled the allegations to numerous reporters, who then dutifully reported them as fact. The Obama administration then cited those articles, which were sourced directly to Steele and his dossier, as proof of the validity of the allegations. One article was given to a federal intelligence court to justify wiretaps on a Trump campaign affiliate. The information it alleged was false.
Likewise, the Ukraine whistleblower repeatedly cited articles from The New York Times, Politico and even a report from former Clinton flack-turned-ABC-newsman George Stephanopoulos as evidence of the alleged conspiracy. It isn't known whether he or his sources provided information used in any of the cited articles.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that the same people who tried to sabotage President Trump with Russiagate are attempting to impeach President Trump with Snitchgate. The tactics are the same. In both cases, the names have been either withheld or made up to protect the snitch.
I just finished reading the transcript of President Trump's phone call with President Zelenskiy. There's no question that President Trump brought up Biden's son late in the conversation. I still don't see the quid pro quo, though. The fact that it wasn't one of the first things they spoke about speaks to President Trump's priorities.
The other thing that's noteworthy is what wasn't said. At no point did President Trump use US military aid as a tool to insure Ukraine's investigation of Hunter Biden. It simply isn't there, not even in a dog whistle.
Republicans should highlight that fact frequently. If Republicans take out that leg of the Democrats' impeachment stool, Democrats will be screwed for 2020. Democrats haven't passed anything that's improved the economy, fought the opioid epidemic, fixed our immigration and asylum laws or helped eliminate MS-13 here in the United States. Without question, Democrats have morphed into the Impeachment Party.
Posted Friday, September 27, 2019 2:59 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 27-Sep-19 05:32 PM
Of course it's the same people. This will continue to go on day after day, month after month, year after year until Trump is no longer in office. The people are nothing but sore losers and will stop at nothing to try and remove Trump from office.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 27-Sep-19 07:31 PM
I'm wondering how long before Trump refuses to send anybody up to capitol hill to testify in any "impeachment inquiry" because it has not yet been approved by the full Congress.
But please, please, continue you Democrats. Every stupid utterance just costs you another seat in Congress, and another vote for Trump 2020.
Comment 3 by eric z at 28-Sep-19 02:20 PM
Many will stay with Trump. Some may follow George Will. Nobody will feel sorry for Trump under the aggressive way he faces this, whatever the result may be, whenever the House votes after a careful inquiry.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 28-Oct-19 10:15 AM
"a careful inquiry"? That is beyond their ability, even if there WERE something to find, which there very plainly is not. The only thing they should be looking at is Joe Biden's boastful confession that his power play in Ukraine-- a quid pro quo-- directly benefited his son.
Craig "supportive of Adam Schiff"
When I read Angie Craig's quotes in this article , the first thing I thought of was that Craig wasn't happy with Speaker Pelosi's initial actions. Craig is quoted as saying "The speaker listened. That's all she did today. The speaker listened to us. I'm in a district where I think I've been reluctant to move forward only from the perspective of, I want to be disciplined, I want to look at due process, and I want to make sure we have all of our facts. And this inquiry will allow us to do that. And I'm very supportive of Adam Schiff and what he and his committee [are doing]."
The first thing that jumps off the page at me is that she's "very supportive of Adam Schiff." That's a stunning admission on Craig's part. She's representing Minnesota's 2nd District, not Minnesota's 4th or Fifth districts.
Further, asking the most tone-deaf Democrat politician how to message something in a Minnesota House race sounds a little desperate. I'd also suggest that people who don't know how to message an issue probably shouldn't have staked out their political position. I'd point Ms. Craig to this article , which says this:
According to a Quinnipiac University national poll published Wednesday morning, Limbaugh may be on to something. The poll, which received 1,337 responses from registered voters across the political spectrum, indicated that support for Trump's impeachment sits below 40 percent. Opposition, on the other hand, is at 57 percent.
My point is that this isn't a packaging issue. It's a content issue. This is how Doug Collins expressed it in his opening statement for the House Judiciary Committee's Lewandowski hearing:
[Video no longer available]
Collins said that "I've never seen a majority who've been so amazed with packaging in my life. You know why? It's because they can't sell what's inside." Craig has the same difficulty. It isn't the packaging. It's the crap that's inside. Just a third of registered voters want Democrats to impeach President Trump. The American people are trying to tell Pelosi's Democrats that this isn't that big of a deal to them. They're saying that this doesn't rise to the level of "treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors."
Ms. Craig has a Schiff problem. She's listening to Chairman Schiff too much. That won't play well next October because Schiff has said a thousand things that are perfect for campaign commercials. Schiff is a California nutjob. That might play well in Minnesota's 4th or Fifth districts but Minnesota's 2nd District is a totally different critter.
The Democrats are heading for a difficult year whoever they pick as their presidential nominee. The bad news for them is that things can get worse if Democrats are pictured as Do-Nothing Democrats or Impeachment Democrats.
Originally posted Friday, September 27, 2019, revised 30-Sep 5:30 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 28-Sep-19 04:31 AM
Listening to anything lying pencil neck Shiff has to say is a mistake. Everyone knows Craig is just another follower and not a leader so it's no surprise she's latched onto every bad idea the progressives have had.
House Dems vs. American people
Democrats apparently think that the hand that they're badly misplaying is the political equivalent of a straight flush. Their blind hatred of President Trump is turning them into political idiots. What other term fits a person who thinks that not immediately complying the House Democrats' subpoenas is worthy of an article of impeachment.
In a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Democrat committee chairs wrote "'Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry,' the chairmen wrote to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo." That might be taken seriously if Democrats had called for a vote of the entire House to authorize the initiation of an impeachment inquiry.
Democrats didn't do that, perhaps to restrict the Republicans' ability to put together their counterarguments to the Democrats' articles of impeachment. As a result, the Democrats' subpoena power isn't as strong. The courts won't give them access to as many documents as fast as they'd prefer.
That isn't to say that Republicans will resist each subpoena. Instead, they should only resist with lawsuits the most questionable subpoenas. I'd think it'd be difficult, if not impossible, for Democrats to create an article of impeachment over contested subpoenas.
In other impeachment news, Democrat Bryan Dean Wright criticized Democrats :
"You better stand up and do it publicly," said Wright, blasting House Democrats for seemingly being uninterested in collecting additional facts about the phone call. "This isn't about trying to get facts. We've already decided, as a partisan Democratic Party. I'm sorry to say, we've already decided we have to get rid of the president. We're moving forward with it, irrespective of facts. That is clear."
That's a sad thing to hear. What's worse is that the Washington Post's article reads like a thread from a Fever Swamp blog, not a serious newspaper. That article insists that the whistleblower's account is accurate and that the CIA agent is some sort of superhero that's saving our nation.
Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would start an impeachment inquiry before she'd seen the call transcript or the whistleblower's complaint. In other words, Pelosi said that Democrats were launching impeachment without any evidence . I'd expect that from AOC or Maxine Waters. I shouldn't expect that from the Speaker of the House.
[Video no longer available]
Ari Fleischer put it best , saying this:
As offensive and norm-breaking as Trump can be, it is more norm-breaking and offensive to refuse to accept an election result and instead seek to turn all forms of political disagreement into a constitutional crisis in which the Congress tries repeatedly to remove the president from office, negating the results of an election .
Democrats repeatedly insist that President Trump is a threat to democracy. What hypocrites. Throwing out a duly elected president because they hate him is a true threat to democracy. I'll do my best to highlight this injustice to the American people. In this instance, Democrats couldn't get more vindictive, more disgusting.
The only way to restrict the Democrats' troublemaking ability is to defeat them in sufficient numbers next November. If they're in the minority, Democrats can't push idiotic ideas like impeaching a president just because they don't like him.
That's the real threat to democracy.
Posted Saturday, September 28, 2019 8:11 AM
No comments.
Discrediting the snitch's complaint
To listen to some of the Democrats' talking points, you'd swear that the snitch's complaint was etched in stone tablets, then given to Moses himself. This article eliminates that superstition. For instance, the snitch insists that President Trump threatened to withhold military aid if Ukrainian President Zelensky didn't dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden. There's just a major problem with that version of events. The details are wrong:
An unnamed Ukrainian official said that Kiev was not made aware that the U.S. suspended security funds until a month after President Trump's call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, which calls into question the whistleblower's account and Democrats' arguments that there was a quid pro quo for the aid.
The official told The New York Times that Zelensky's government was unaware about the aid issue until a month after Trump's July 25 phone call in which he discussed Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
If Ukraine wasn't aware that US military aid had been suspended, then it's impossible for the snitch's complaint to be accurate. That means that a major Democrat talking point is BS.
Another significant Democrat talking point is that "U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to 'contain the damage' from Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine." Unfortunately for these impeachment-crazed Democrats, the opposite is true:
But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine, even sending Giuliani a message reading, "Connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."
There goes another major point of emphasis that Democrats were hoping to rely on.
Unfortunately for the American people, today's Democrats aren't fazed by falsehoods. They're planning a political coup and the truth is just a casualty of this battle. It's the greater good that matters, not the details or the casualties.
I don't want to put all Democrats into that category. I'm intentionally saying, though, that the Democrats leading this political coup don't care about the truth. Chairman Schiff doesn't care about the truth. Watch him make up the entire story about what President Trump said to President Zelensky:
[Video no longer available]
That's a man interested in the truth? I don't think so. In fact, I'm certain he doesn't care about the truth.
Democrats are attempting a bloodless coup. The Democrats' weapons of war aren't machine guns, artillery and the Air Force. The Democrats' weapons of choice are lies that the media tell, the lies that the other Democrats tell and focus-grouped soundbites that help Democrats sound reasonable. I'll give you an example.
When Democrats talk about gun control, they always talk about "common sense gun laws." Who can oppose anything common sense? We're all for common sense, right? That's the trap. It sounds reasonable. That's the purpose. The purpose is to hide the Democrats' radicalism. Here's what the Democrats look like once the mask is ripped off:
[Video no longer available]
The details discredit the snitch's complaint. This is nothing more than Russia Hoax 2.0. This is a perfect summarization of the snitch's complaint:
Posted Saturday, September 28, 2019 12:06 PM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 28-Sep-19 08:45 PM
Snitchgate can now be added to the lexicon of political terms. At least in a court of law the snitch has to expose themselves to cross-examination. Our legal structure allows an accused to face their accuser. Perhaps the new mascot for the Democrats is going to be a kangaroo. It would be most fitting since the leadership of the party certain know how to run kangaroo style hearings. What's that phrase used to describe justice systems in dictatorships? You will be give a fair and speedy trail and then be executed.
Why Dems fight President Trump
The American people aren't stupid. That fact has pushed Democrats off the deep end. They know that President Trump has put in place policies that have spurred robust economic growth, unleashed the energy industry, rebuilt the US military, signed criminal justice reform while building large sections of the wall on the US-Mexico border.
The notion that these lightweight Democrat presidential candidates might defeat a president with this list of accomplishments is laughable. Democrats know this and it frustrates them mightily. In their minds, Trump shouldn't have won. Hillary should've. Those damn uppity peasants rejected the corrupt career politician whose foreign policy was directed mostly by who shipped the most money to the Clinton Foundation.
Let's be blunt, people. Hillary's State Department was as much a shake-down operation as it was about diplomacy or national security. She just wasn't good at it. The other part of why we rejected her was because her indifference got a true diplomat and his security detail killed. She was incompetent and corrupt. That's easy to reject.
Democrats have been on the warpath since. That's why 65 Democrats skipped President Trump's inauguration . They simply hate him. Speaking of which, one of the haters is Jerry Nadler. Imagine how different things might be if he'd shown some fairness rather than his hostility.
Each day, President Trump fights to make the US a stronger, safer, more prosperous nation. Democrats wake up wondering how they can control the people. Gun control isn't about safety. It's about controlling the people. Single-payer health care isn't about making people healthier. It's about controlling people. When Democrats threaten to pack the Supreme Court, it isn't to make the Court more just. It's to get the Court to rule in their favor more often. The thought of a fair-minded judiciary frightens Democrats.
All you need to know about Democrats is found in Adam Schiff's opening statement of the Maguire hearing:
[Video no longer available]
To open this hearing, Chairman Schiff made a bunch of things up, then read those lies into the Congressional Record. When Schiff was called on it, Schiff replied that it was intended to be, more or less, a parody. Coming from a political hack like Schiff, there's no reason why I should trust him.
Democrats fight President Trump because they hate him. Despite President Trump's positive accomplishments of building one of the strongest economies in my lifetime, making the US energy independent and energy dominant, lowering unemployment to a 50-year low and lowering minority unemployment to all-time lows, Democrats still can't stop criticizing him.
That's proof that Democrats simply hate President Trump. The proof of that is that Democrats won't vote for any of President Trump's policies. For instance, every Democrat in the House and every Democrat in the Senate voted against the Trump/GOP tax cuts, otherwise known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Posted Sunday, September 29, 2019 5:05 AM
No comments.
Gun control contradictions
This LTE contains its fair share of contradictions.. Perhaps, the biggest contradiction is the one found in this paragraph:
Imagine how we could lower gun deaths by requiring a license to purchase or use a gun! By requiring background checks for every gun sale? By limiting ammunition purchases? By making firearms inoperable by anyone except the original owner? This would stop killings by children and gun thieves. The National Rifle Association uses money to prevent Congress from passing such common-sense solutions, and - guess what - the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers. They would lose money if reasonable and constitutional limits were placed on weapons.
This is the ultimate contradiction in my estimation. How do you place restrictions on guns that pass constitutional muster? First, let's start with the text of the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's important to notice why the Second Amendment was written -- for "the security of a free state." Further, it's worth noting that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights said that it's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
The person apparently doesn't know much about this subject because we already have a system of background checks. Some of the recent mass-shooters have shot people after passing background checks. The problem isn't whether there should be background checks but whether these background checks should include mental health data or whether juvenile arrests should be wiped clean.
The talk about implementing "common sense solutions" is just that -- talk. House Democrats don't just want "common sense" restrictions. They want an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, etc. An assault weapons ban is worthless. If you specify which weapons are classified as assault weapons, it's easy for the manufacturer to get around that. What they did with the initial assault weapons ban, a month after the ban went into effect, the manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new model wasn't part of the list so it wasn't classified as an assault weapon.
If the legislation defines assault weapon by caliber, muzzle velocity of the round, physical characteristic, etc., then the definition is too broad. In their Heller decision, the Supreme Court said that firearms "in common use" can't be prohibited. That doesn't stop Biden, Beto or Harris from wanting to confiscate guns:
[Video no longer available]
Beto's 'Buyback':
[Video no longer available]
Sen. Harris' executive order:
[Video no longer available]
Democrats don't want to pass "common sense" restrictions on guns. They want to confiscate our weapons. The people making these threats aren't back-benchers. They're the Democrats' presidential candidates. Their fidelity to the Constitution is limited at best.
Posted Sunday, September 29, 2019 6:19 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 29-Sep-19 08:14 AM
It's not about the gun, it's about the control. Progressives don't want anyone to have a gun except the people who are protecting them as they believe they are far more important than the common person.
Background checks - every gun purchased through a licensed firearms dealer is run through a background check, even those bought at gun shows so there is no loop hole. They will never be able to background check the person to person sales or criminal transfer of guns because criminals don't follow the law.
Evil people are going to do evil things no matter if it is with a gun, knife, bat, or in the case of 9/11, jets. How many of the 8 recent murders in St. Paul were done with legally purchase guns? I'm going to guess 0.
Pelosi's impeachment follies
Now that Speaker Pelosi has officially declared that House Democrats have started an official impeachment inquiry , it's now time to study who will be Pelosi's top lieutenants in this fight. Apparently, Pelosi has picked Adam Schiff to be the top general in the Democrats' impeachment fight:
The confluence of two otherwise coincidental events - the embarrassing Lewandowski hearing followed in quick succession by the explosion of the Ukraine story - handed Pelosi an opening to sideline Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in favor of the more widely trusted head of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), as Democrats launch the formal impeachment inquiry. And Pelosi has made clear that the investigation will focus narrowly on the Ukraine matter, a scandal she believes could be easily understood by the public.
I can't blame Pelosi for sidelining Nadler, especially after his disastrous performance in the Lewandowski hearing. The question I have, though, is whether Schiff is much of an upgrade over Nadler.
Frankly, considering Schiff's opening statement at the Maguire hearing, it's an even-money bet whether the American people would take Schiff seriously. Schiff's opening statement was seen as a pack of lies or as an unfunny parody at a supposedly serious impeachment hearing. Republican Ranking Member Devin Nunes ripped Schiff with his opening statement:
[Video no longer available]
Schiff's 'parody statement' is already drawing fire from Rep. Andy Biggs. Rep. Biggs has introduced a motion to have Chairman Schiff censured for his dishonest opening statement:
[Video no longer available]
I found this Schiff quote laughable:
"We have to flesh out all of the facts for the American people," Schiff said in a letter to colleagues Friday. " The seriousness of the matter and the danger to our country demands nothing less. "
If this matter is serious, why did Chairman Schiff open a hearing with a parody that didn't accurately portray President Trump's statements to the Ukrainian president? If this matter is serious, why hasn't Speaker Pelosi called for a vote asking her members to approve of this impeachment hearing? This statement is beyond laughable:
'There's no better guy on the face of the planet to undertake this in an adultlike, intelligent, integrity-filled manner than Adam B. Schiff. Period, full stop,' said Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.), a committee member.
I'm predicting right now that President Trump and Republicans will rip Schiff into shreds. He's an idiot. He isn't honest. He's damaged goods from a PR standpoint. Those aren't the worst of it. He's been caught playing fast and loose with the truth too many times to be the face of a serious inquiry.
Posted Sunday, September 29, 2019 8:05 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 29-Sep-19 08:18 AM
They are all idiots but especially Schiff. This guy has been beating his chest for 3 years saying they have dirt on Trump yet it never seems to come out because they don't have anything. This is just another waste of taxpayer money.
Pelosi's pathetic performance
Recently, Nancy Pelosi has portrayed herself as a patriot's patriot, a prayer warrior and a hardline constitutionalist. That's a joke. When I listen to her comments at the Texas Tribune Festival, I'm certain that I'm listening to a scripted speech that's the product of multiple focus groups.
Here's part of Pelosi's dramatic, insincere performance:
If this activity, this pattern of behavior were to prevail, then it's over for the republic. We will have the equivalent of a monarchy. Let us be prayerful. Let us be solemn. Let us try not to make it further divisive. But we cannot ignore our oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Pelosi has consistently insisted that President Trump hasn't defended the Constitution. That's a bunch of BS. President Trump has done more to preserve religious liberty than any recent president. He's done a great deal to keep this nation safe. He's protected conversations with foreign leaders from leakers.
When was the last time Pelosi stepped forward to protect us from people invading from Mexico and Latin America? She's insisted on putting in place policies that invite people to illegally enter the United States, then having those illegal aliens released into the country. Pelosi's sat idly by when the women who really run House Democrats, aka the Squad, lie about law enforcement's mistreatment of illegal aliens.
A patriot's patriot doesn't sit idly by when a detention center is compared with a Nazi concentration camp where millions of Jews died in the Holocaust. Speaker Pelosi didn't correct the Squad for spreading those filthy lies. Pelosi sat there like a potted plant. That isn't a patriot.
I'm insulted to hear her act like a serious, God-fearing person. She didn't criticize liars in her own caucus. She promoted Adam Schiff to lead this phony impeachment investigation after Schiff lied about what President Trump said to President Zelensky. I won't hesitate in saying that Pelosi's actions are contemptible. Her actions aren't honorable. She should be treated with contempt.
When asked why she moved from the strongest backstop against impeachment to the leader of the effort, she chose brevity: "The facts." "I have handled this with great care, with moderation, with great attention to what we knew was a fact and what was an allegation.
"This is very bad news for our country because if - as it seems to be - our president has engaged in something that is so far beyond what our founders had in mind they knew that some president might go beyond what the Constitution intended."
It's amazing that Ms. Pelosi would say that the facts drove her to change her mind. Ms. Pelosi launched the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, the day before the transcript was released. What facts is she babbling about? Did Ms. Pelosi receive a vision from God telling her what was in the transcript?
I doubt it. The transcript was a dud. We were told it contained a quid pro quo. That was nowhere to be found. Ms. Pelosi told Mournful Joe that the Trump administration was in the "coverup of the coverup", presumably because the snitch's complaint hadn't been released. That happened Thursday, along with the release of OLC opinion explaining why the snitch's complaint hadn't been turned over to Congress.
[Video no longer available]
Ms. Pelosi has spread enough manure to fertilize a farm. She isn't trustworthy in the slightest. I've seen too many pieces of proof of her dishonesty.
Originally posted Sunday, September 29, 2019, revised 30-Sep 5:27 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Sep-19 12:33 PM
Running against Nancy Pelosi again when there's nothing positive to be running on; same, same old song, keep it simple, play it long.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Sep-19 03:01 PM
Are you that dense? Or that dishonest? Wages are rising. The economy is growing at a rate last seen during the Clinton/dot-com boom. Minority unemployment is the lowest it's ever been. Female unemployment is the lowest it's been since WWII. Trump signed criminal justice reform in 2018, liberating lots of minorities. He's also dramatically improved the VA Hospital system. He's negotiated a better NAFTA trade deal. GHG gas emissions continue to drop, making the US the only industrialized nation in the world who can say that.
That's before talking about our newfound energy independence & energy dominance, which allows us to more or less ignore Iran's petty threats. Other than that, Trump hasn't done much.
We're running as much against the idiots of the Squad because they're airheads & socialists as we're running against San Fran Nan. Mostly, though, we're running on President Trump's multitude of accomplishments.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 30-Sep-19 05:15 PM
I think obtuse is the word you were looking for Gary.
