No Minister

Posts Tagged ‘Impeachment

USA: SOTU and Acquittal Aftermath (UPDATE)

leave a comment »

Well, well, well.

Looks like Nancy’s “spontaneous” ripping up of Trump’s SOTU speech was actually a planned stunt as she carefully re-ripped the pages throughout the speech in the lead up to her big finale.

And of course this is in addition to her making silly faces behind Trump at various points in the speech. Less House Speaker (3rd most powerful political position in the US) than leader of a High School Mean Girls group.

I thought these people held themselves to be better than the “childish” Trump?

Posted without further comment.

“I’d trained for weeks to prepare for ripping up those few pages, but I forgot to stretch before the big event,” she told the doctor sheepishly. “I even pre-ripped the pages so they’d be easier to tear up, but it wasn’t enough. I shouldn’t have skipped arm day at the water aerobics class last week. Oh, boy, am I going to look silly. But I’ll just blame it on Trump somehow.”

Written by Tom Hunter

February 6, 2020 at 5:31 am

USA: The Democrat Iowa debacle and Pelosi’s origami (oh – and it’s Impeachment Vote day)

leave a comment »

Following the Democrats’s incredible display of incompetence in the Iowa caucus with their hopeless vote-counting app failing on the night, votes continue to trickle in as the work is done by paper.

Not that you’d know this by looking at the Iowa Democrats website, which at the time of writing still shows no results when you hit the Caucus Results button!!! It’s got to be up soon.

Meantime, here’s the website results:

Panic time for the Democrat Party. Sanders will likely win the next Primary in New Hampshire (NH), as he did four years ago. It borders the state of Vermont, which has been Bernie’s home for decades.

Meantime, nobody expects Buttigieg to do all that well in New Hampshire, let alone in the states beyond that, such as Nevada and South Carolina. That was where Creepy Joe was supposed to hit his stride and …. it’s not happening; look at the dates of these NH polls:

The result being that one of the elder statesmen of the Democrat Party, James Carville – a key player in Bill Clinton’s success in the 1990’s and a Democrat with his feet on the ground and a Southern Accent – is hitting the panic button, as he contemplates the Corbynisation of the US Democrat Party.

But when you’re a leading, powerful Democrat politician, who cares about such mundane things when there’s paper to be ripped up on live TV, just to show how very, very angry you are for not getting your own way.

That’s twice in one week we’ve seen powerful woman dressed in white losing their sense of occasion and acting out in foot-stamping ways that reflect badly on them and their own institutions.

Mairead McGuinness, Irish MEP & EU VP | Nancy Pelosi, US House Speaker

Trump is a petulant man and refused to shake Pelosi’s hand after handing her a copy of his speech, and Pelosi reacted at the end by tearing up a copy of his speech.

I get that these two people hate eachother’s guts, just loath eachother, and I suppose in our modern world it’s a mark of honesty that this hatred is out in the open, rather than being covered by polite, traditional gestures, especially when it’s an accurate reflection of the rest of the USA, which is more partisan than I can ever recall in my lifetime.

But I still find it a little depressing. It’s not exactly Gladstone vs. Disraeli material is it? Two political men who also loathed eachother passionately but who allowed good manners to cover it in public.

This by contrast is rather like two divorced parents who can’t stop their private war from exploding in front of the rest of the family.

Still, I’ll take the war rather than the polite squishiness. Although Pelosi and Trump don’t know it,  large forces and ideas – of which they are mere representatives – are increasingly in mutually exclusive conflict and the results matter. We may not want to call it a war, but it is.

And I need more popcorn.

Written by Tom Hunter

February 5, 2020 at 8:01 pm

USA: The Great Impeachment – You’re Goddamed Right I Ordered The Code Red

leave a comment »

When it comes to Trump I think it pays to wait a while after the screaming stops before looking at what it was all about. It’s a 24/7 shitstorm and stuff that was front-page news a week ago is now barely remembered, for example the screamfest about Trump’s alleged treatment of Pentagon bigwigs in 2017.

So with the Senate decision on Friday, Jan 31, to not hear any new witnesses, the impeachment of President Trump was basically all over bar the shouting – and there will be much shouting from the Democrats between now and November, with the poll-tested phrase “cover up” certain to be the No.1 choice.

There was a great deal of yapping from House Democrats about criminal acts like bribery and corruption in the phone call that could be placed as articles of impeachment. This was an argued extension of the initial public claims of “quid pro quo”, which did not poll well, being turned into the meatier public claim of “bribery“. There was even talk of reaching back into the dead Mueller Report and dragging some stuff out to re-litigate. However, even the House Democrats eventually realised that they simply could not make the case for bribery, let alone treason, from the phone call that started all this or the evidence of the witnesses they called.

Instead they yielded to Law Professor Turley’s advice and submitted just two articles of impeachment. First was an “abuse of power“, which they hoped could be argued to fall into the category of “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Second, “Obstruction of Congress”, which argued that Trump had committed by going to the courts to prevent Administration members to testify as witnesses.

So no treason and no bribery. Even with high crimes and misdemeanors the Democrats ignored Turley’s warning and advice that the charge was weak based on the evidence gathered to date and that taking longer to investigate more deeply might strengthen it. He also warned and advised them that the second charge was extremely weak based on precedent and the basic fairness of due process.

Not much to build an impeachment case on.

But by now the Democrats had no choice except to plunge ahead. Pelosi is a shrewd old bird and she had warned Democrats for months that impeachment was dangerous and had to be bi-partisan, but with the AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) wing dominating the rest of the Democrats Pelosi had no choice. She probably hoped that it would at least damage Trump and aid flipping the Senate, and by mid-2019 she realised that they had nothing else.

She even gave Supreme-Trump-Hater Schiff the lead in the House Managers group for the prosecution, even after he’d beclowned himself with two years of breathless daily talk of Mueller’s “evidence” which he could not reveal but which was certain to destroy Trump. He’d also just been caught out by the FBI Inspector General’s report that showed Schiff’s Intelligence Committee Minority report of early 2018 to have “misrepresented” almost all the facts around the intelligence information on Trump-Russia collusion, while his then Majority head of the Committee, GOP rep Nunes, had got it right – after both had looked at the same facts. Not a very credible person, but you go to war with the lawyers and arguments you have.

The final vote to impeach Trump will be held soon, and as had been expected for months, the Senate will vote not to impeach him. Strangely, it was decided to make the vote after Trump did his State of The Union address on the Tuesday night, which Nancy Pelosi invited him to do over a month ago. Why it’s almost as if she knew from the beginning that impeachment was a cynical ploy aimed at the 2020 election.

I’ve already covered the farcical leadup to all this with: Nancy’s Strategy and Problems;  Stage I-III and House Tactics; and Stage IV, The Senate.

But while all this was predicted some time ago by many people, I figure it’s still worth looking at the final arguments around Trump’s impeachment.

According to the Constitution (Article II, Section IV) the only impeachable offenses are as follows:

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Those are the reasons – the only reasons – for which a president may be impeached.

Abuse of Power Article

So let’s look at the phonecall that started this nonsense. There’s the usual back-and-forth greetings and greasing between foreign leaders.

The President: Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

After all the talk about aid being tied to a request I was a bit surprised to find that the word “aid” is not mentioned once, nor in the rest of the phonecall. It’s Trump’s usual moan and bitch about the Europeans not pulling their weight in contrast to the USA being “very, very good” to Ukraine.

The Ukrainian President responds, also talking about Europe, and then this:

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.

This is Trump’s favourite theory regarding the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails in 2016; that it was done by Ukranians not Russians because of the role that Crowdstrike played in the subsequent investigation, with their Ukranian links. It’s rather a nonsense theory but that’s Trump for you. He’s so determined to claim the 2016 election win as his own that he refuses to accept the findings of his own intelligence agencies that the Russians did interfere in it, though to no great effect.

This is Trump’s favourite theory regarding the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails in 2016; that it was done by Ukranians not Russians because of the role that Crowdstrike played in the subsequent investigation, with their Ukranian links. It’s rather a nonsense theory but that’s Trump for you. He’s so determined to claim the 2016 election win as his own that he refuses to accept the findings of his own intelligence agencies that the Russians did interfere in it, though to no great effect.

I can see Trump’s emotional motivation however, given the Democrat’s claims that it’s the reason Trump won, which is equally nonsensical – unless you believe that Facebook advertising purchases of a few hundred thousand dollars and a Facebook/Twitter troll army is responsible for Trump breaching Hillary’s Blue Wall in the Mid-Western swing states, as opposed to efforts to change ballots or truly manipulate the process.

But in any case if you’ve seen too many Mafia movies and hate Trump then it’s just obvious that Trump is linking aid to this request about Crowdstrike – even though the word “aid” has not been mentioned earlier and nowhere is there any such direct link verbalised. To even say it’s implied is a huge stretch and requires “knowing” what’s in Trump’s mind. Again, that’s easy to assert for Trump haters; they’re certain they know, and that becomes more important later in this phonecall.

But that’s not even close to being evidence.

The Ukrainian President again responds and is actually the first one to mention Guliani:

President Zelensky: ….I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine….

It’s Trump’s reply to that section that really got TDS sufferers excited with the mention of the Biden family:

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

Recall that President Zelensky is the one who mentioned Guiliani first and who had obviously already met him. Despite all the initial claims about “quid pro quo” and then “bribery” that argument eventually failed with the Democrats themselves for the simple reason others had pointed out from the start; that you had to imagine the link simply because US “support” (not “aid”) was mentioned at the beginning of the phonecall and the Biden’s at the end.

The short video below is a superb example of how the Democrat’s very own witnesees testified that they too imagined there was link between “aid” and the request on Crowdstrike and the Bidens – but that they had no evidence, written or verbal, to support those feelings and opinions. And that included two people who were on the phonecall.

It was for this reason that Adam Schiff took the desperate step of reading out the phonecall transcript to the House with Mafia-styled phrases inserted by himself. Under attack from his own colleagues Schiff later claimed it was a deliberate “parody’.

In light of the quid pro quo theory being so soundly trashed in the House by their own witnesses it’s not a surprise that the focus switched to claiming that asking the “favour” alone was unacceptable, arguing that it amounted to an abuse of power and thus fit within the category of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Moreover, the Crowdstrike request was simply ignored and all the attention went on Trump’s request that the Ukranians dig into Biden’s claims that he threatened to withdraw US aid to Ukraine unless they fired one of their prosecutors.

Now I’ll say up-front that I’m fine with US Presidents asking other nations to delve into their own corruption when billions of dollars of US support is involved, irrespective of whether one of their US political opponents might be involved in some way. And I’m hardly the only one who thinks this:

Rep Speier (R): “Would it ever be U.S. policy in your experience to ask a foreign leader to open a political investigation?
Lt Col Vindman: “There are certain procedures that are put in place. Certainly, the president was well within his rights to do that.”

No shit!

But the Democrats naturally did not agree. They argued that Trump’s abuse of power presented in three basic ways:

A. He pressured a foreign nation to meddle in American domestic politics by asking for a political rival to be investigated. 

B. He thereby undermined the 2020 US elections, corrupting them.

C. He endangered national security.

So let’s take each one in turn, plus some of the sub-text arguments made by the Democrats

A. He pressured a foreign nation to meddle in American domestic politics by asking for a political rival to be investigated.

First, Trump has spent thirty years bitching about US foreign aid to corrupt, “shit hole” countries. From the start of his Presidency he’s had public fights with NATO allies about their levels of military spending and contribution to NATO. It is therefore no surprise that he was reluctant to provide aid to Ukraine given that nation’s notorious levels of corruption. Several witnesses testified to Trump’s complaints about this back in 2017. The entire phonecall is him gauging whether the new Ukranian President is serious about tackling it. As such Trump talks and asks about Crowdstrike, about Ukranians meddling with the 2016 election, about “the same people” still being around the new President, about a US ambassador he thinks was connected with those people, and the Biden’s involvement in the Ukraine. Aside from the Crowdstrike theory all the rest are legitimate questions around Ukrainian corruption.

  • There is indisputable evidence that senior Ukrainian government officials opposed President Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 election and did so publicly. To be fair the Ukrainians must have had well-grounded fears that Trump’s isolationist-type talk might mean their abandonment to the tender mercies of Vlad. Democrats have called this reporting “debunked” and “conspiracy theories,” without ever disputing the specific facts reported in Politico, The Hill and The Financial Times, none of whom have retracted those stories.
  • Biden started leading Obama’s Ukraine policy in early 2014, shortly before his son Hunter took a lucrative job at the notoriously corrupt Ukrainian gas company Burisma shortly thereafter, even as Britain seized $23 million from the bank accounts of the company’s founder in a fraud case. Hunter’s position was bad enough that the Obama State Department noted concerns about it 2015 and 2016.
  • If Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor in order to protect his son, that would be an immense corruption scandal well worth investigating. Furthermore, the scheme would not necessarily violate any American laws, so it makes more sense for Ukraine to investigate the matter, rather than the U.S. government.

Second, claiming that simply asking the favour itself amounted to “pressure” was a clever piece of sophistry to try and get around the fact that there was no indication of conditionality, coercion, or intimidation, which are the usual markers of “pressure”. The only other evidence would be the people involved, especially the Ukranians, saying they felt pressured. But the Ukranian President himself, numerous aides and cabinet members have repeatedly said they felt no pressure, then or later from the phonecall or any other conversations they had with Trump, Guliani and company. – and if you don’t believe their words you can believe their actions, or rather inaction, as they never did what Trump requested.

Third, Trump was not asking Zelanski to make up evidence about Hunter Biden from whole cloth – as Schiff-for-brains disingenuously claimed in his “parody” performance of the Trump–Zelensky call. As with those other aspects of Ukrainian corruption there are legitimate questions surrounding the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin. For all the talk by Democrats about how multiple nations wanted him gone and there’s just no way – pinky swear – that VP Biden could know it would benefit his son, the facts have since come out that he was investigating Burisma, and his replacement dropped any further investigation. Like Trump I’d like to know what the hell was going on there.

Fourth, as legal scholar Alan Dershowitz explained, if you’re going to imagine such motives in Presidential decisions and requests then you could attack many such decisions over the centuries. My favourite example would be Lincoln pressing Sherman to win as quickly as possible in his siege of Atlanta; while it would help end the Civil War it would also immeasurably aid Lincoln’s re-election in 1864, which even Lincoln, earlier that year, was expecting to lose and badly. It’s a good example of the bad faith in arguing on all this that critics immediately took Dershowitz’s sober, precise, reasoned legal argument and turned it into the same sort of imaginary garbage they aimed at the phonecall, such as asserting that this meant a future GOP President could nuke California to eliminate it’s fifty five Democrat Electoral College votes as long as a military need could be also claimed.

There were a couple of sub-text arguments that effectively had already been booted in the House, since they’re trying to support the quid pro quo claim that was ultimately dropped. but they’re worth re-visiting.  

He Transferred Aid Only Because He Got Caught

He Cared Only about an Announcement, Not an Investigation

B. He thereby undermined the 2020 US elections, corrupting them.

The assumption here is that Trump was desperate to gain damaging information on Biden in the Ukraine because Biden was the candidate posing the greatest threat to Trump in the 2020 election (a nonsense assumption as I pointed out here) and that he did not already have a mountain of crap in his history that is a gold mine for opposition, as it has been for his Democrat opponents.

A Ukranian investigation that dragged in Biden would add nothing to “oppo” research and damage that could not already be obtained from Biden’s typical gum-flapping effort caught on video where he boasted about withholding

1. Nothing Happened . . . and Biden Does Not Have Immunity

Ukrainian officials have insisted, over and over again, that they felt “no pressure,” and Ukraine did not know that the funds had been held up during the time Trump was supposedly using the funds to pressure them to announce this investigation. It is a routine occurrence for presidents to hold up foreign assistance, and the ultimate reason for the delay remains in dispute. Trump ultimately released the funds without Ukraine announcing any investigation — a marked contrast to Biden’s quid pro quo regarding Ukraine funds.

2. Ukraine-gate Does Not Hold a Candle to Russia-gate

3. The Risible ‘Continuing Threat’ Claim

C.  He endangered national security.

And of course he not only did yield to the advice of the “policy community” that Vindman talked about, but did so with lethal military aid that Obama had refused to give.

(1) that the possible corruption of the famly of a former Vice President through payola was a legitimate subject of discussion with the government where the corruption and payola took place, even if that former VP now was running for president, or

(2) even if the foregoing was improper, it mixed legitimate public objectives with the sort of political interests that motivate all politicians, or

(3) even if all of the foregoing was wrong and without any legitimate motive, it did not amount to the type of serious threat to the Republic that, even if not a crime itself, required immediate removal from office in an election year

Crucially, Romney insisted that Trump’s “purpose was personal and political.” In claiming this, the senator echoed the Democrats’ mindreading. Trump’s defenders have insisted that there is an alternate explanation for the president’s withholding of the aid — his skepticism of foreign aid in general and the corrupt country of Ukraine in particular. Democrats have not proven that Trump’s “purpose was personal and political,” but their anti-Trump partisanship leads them to this conclusion.

Obstruction of Congress

As Turley said of the latter:

“If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of [Trump] going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power“.

Presidents have routinely defied Congress on Administration members testifying: some times the courts have agreed with Presidents and sometimes not, and even in the latter case have specified that the witness cannot testify outside certain narrow lines of inquiry related to the issue at hand.

Schiff, Jeffries and Nadler vs Sekulow and

The Witnesses

a judge in the District of Columbia issued an opinion that was largely lost in the crush of New Years stories. The opinion could loom large in the Senate trial, however, and one line in particular, which states “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness, may be repeated like a mantra by the Trump defense team. The witness was Charles Kupperman, a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton. Other than Bolton himself, Kupperman is one of the officials most likely to have direct knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo on aid to Ukraine. After subpoenaing him last fall, the House withdrew its request before the court could rule on compelling his testimony for the record. The House also decided not to subpoena Bolton or any other key witnesses in the administration. Judge Richard Leon dismissed the case before New Years Eve with a hint of frustration, if not bewilderment, that the House did not seem interested in hearing from a possible eyewitness.

According to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate trial was “the greatest cover-up since Watergate”   “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”   Murkowski said in a statement released Friday. “It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort,”

According to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate trial was “the greatest cover-up since Watergate”  

“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”  

Murkowski said in a statement released Friday.

“It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort,”

Written by Tom Hunter

February 3, 2020 at 7:00 am

USA: The Great Impeachment – Stage IV, The Senate

leave a comment »

The tactics by this stage had become crude and simple:
  • Get the whole thing handed off to the Senate as soon as possible, before it bled into the Democratic primaries.
  • After hopefully damaging Trump enough with a trial, throw everything at the 2020 election.
In the end the Justice committee ultimately followed most of Turley’s advice: they rejected the only criminal articles of impeachment they’d boasted about, adopted the two articles of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and got the House to vote on them.

Chairman Nadler ended the hearing by quoting Turley’s position on Congressional abuse of power.

The Fair and Balanced MSM

The vote went as expected, but again with the bi-partisanship on the “No” side as one Democrat defected to the GOP and a couple of others abstained or voted present, one of them a candidate for the Democrat nomination, Tulsi Gabbard.

But then something happened that was not expected: Nancy decided to hold off sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate! You might say that she ‘blinked’, but I doubt her botoxed eyelids can do that.

On January 10th she finally said she will send them – but then stalled again, talking about how “House Managers” had to be carefully selected. All this almost a month after the articles were passed. Not exactly the way to keep public momentum on this thing, which reinforces the nervousness and a lack of seriousness of the Democrats on this issue.

It also added to the spectacle as farce. Not to mention abusing the norms of US Constitutional power, although this approach had been suggested earlier by prominent legal scholar, Larry Tribe.

There are a lot of theories running around – in both Left and Right-wing circles – about why Pelosi did this. Here are just a few, and some of them are contradictory of course:

  • Minority Senate Leader Chuck Schumer threw Nancy under the bus when he started demanding that further investigation was needed. As GOP Senate leader Cocaine Mitch bluntly put it, that’s the House’s job. The Senate may call additional witnesses in a trial but if the case presented by the House is weak it’s not the job of the Senate to fix it up – which could mean an even faster dismissal than what’s already expected. By holding back, Pelosi may think that more evidence can be obtained or even further articles of impeachment to strengthen the case.
  • Pelosi was trying to leverage McConnell in handling the trial as she and the Democrat House want. God knows why because that is never going to happen. She has no leverage. Irrespective of who runs the Senate, that body does not appreciate being told how to do things by the House, for which the Senate was specifically designed to “cool the passions”. McConnell doesn’t even want a trial, so if Nancy didn’t send the articles then it was all good. In any case he did respond to her to say that her case was weak, useless and rushed, and that any trial will be run in the same way as Clinton’s was in 1998. More sauce for the goose: the Senate Democrats have nothing to argue against that recent precedent given that it was supported 100-0 in the Senate at the time.
  • The foregone conclusion of the Senate trial means that Trump would pile into the 2020 election saying that he’d been exonerated. Pelosi would prefer to hold it over his head throughout the year and – again – perhaps add more impeachment articles in the hope that something will stick.
  • It’s been understood for months that the Senate trial would likely crash into the Democrat primaries, pulling the Senate candidates off the campaign trail for the first votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, and perhaps even longer. That would especially hurt Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the two heavyweight Senate candidates. The original theory was that by rushing the case this might be avoided, especially if the Senate GOP simply booted the impeachment in early January. The theory in some Democrat Social Media circles now is that perhaps she wants to hurt those candidates, giving Biden a clear run. Considering how the Democrat insiders treated their candidate in 2016, Bernie supporters are very suspicious.
  • Given that Pelosi never wanted impeachment anyway, she might argue that with the Senate a foregone conclusion and PR damage against Trump being no certainty – it’s certainly not had the effect the Democrats had hoped for to date – there is no point in submitting the articles. She can sit back and tell the rabid Left of her party that she did the best she could and now it’s time for them to buckle down for the 2020 election.
  • The closer that election comes the more stupid and time-wasting this will seem in getting rid of President Trump; let the voters do it. Pelosi already looks silly enough in having made a big deal about the Terrible And Imminent Threat Of Trump to the 2020 election that demands urgency – only to hold up for a month. Already there are off-the-record comments being made by Democrats as to how the party should just move on and do the best they can to blame the GOP for an unfair, sham process.
  • Finally, not bringing the case to the Senate would let certain moderate Democrats in the Senate off the hook; some Senators who are up for reelection this year face a risk if they vote to convict. The same might be said of the opposite situation for GOP Senators, but not with the way this has run in public.

Holding the articles for longer and perhaps eventually never putting them forward would have marked the Trump impeachment with a big and puzzling asterisk. It would have been an awful risk to take just in the hope that the damage to Trump, if any, will help the Democrat Presidential candidate in the 2020 election.

Politics is the art of the possible and often managing situations where all the options are bad. That’s where Pelosi is right now but like some hopeless WWI general she probably feels she has no choice but to continue slogging forward with the same tactics. The trouble is that she appears to be growing more desperate for a breakthrough:

The sources also said Pelosi laid into McConnell, saying, as she’s said before, that he is acting like a rogue Senate leader. She mused that sometimes she wonders whether McConnell has Russian connections, the sources said.

She’s now said the same in a public interview. So now McConnell is part of the Great Russian Collusion! The sad state of this woman is well summarised in this Tweet and reply:

And now the piece de resistance: nothing truly says serious, solemn and somber than Pelosi supplying specially made pens for signing the impeachment articles and gleefully handing them out to her cronies, some whom at least had the decency to look embarrassed.

Written by Tom Hunter

January 17, 2020 at 10:04 pm

USA: The Great Impeachment – Stage I-III and House Tactics

leave a comment »

The key tactics have changed as things have proceeded through three stages in the House.
Stage I: Intelligence Committee investigation
  • At the start the process was kept within one Democrat-controlled House committee – Intelligence –  where tight control could be applied over questions by GOP members, witnesses introduced by them, or any evidence that would exculpate Trump.
  • An endless stream of leaks was supplied from the transcripts of witness interviews, taken out of context of course to appear as damning of Trump as possible.
  • The leaks were fed to the Democratic Operatives With Bylines that is 95% anti-Trump. They’re eager to publish anything leaked, no matter how out of context.
  • The idea was to dominate successive news cycles. When the full context was revealed showing the original headline as over-egged crap it didn’t matter, since there was always another in the pipeline.

The initial impeachment investigation proceeded without a House vote authorising it, and was conducted entirely within the Intelligence Committee headed by Adam Schiff. This was a “closed-door” process, even though there was no classified information involved: more charades. Schiff was the same partisan hack who had pushed the Russia Collusion story hard for two years with endless tales of the “solid evidence” he’d seen that would bury Trump by the end of the investigation – all of this breathlessly repeated by the MSM.

Even after that embarrassment, he kicked off his Committee’s work by making a dick of himself all over again in reading out the Ukraine phone call transcript with phony phrases he’d made up. Even then it was a clear sign of the thin nature of the charges: had there actually been anything really bad in the transcript Schiff would not have needed to provide his “parody”.

“He’s guilty. You can see it on his smug little face! Guilty I say. Guilty, guilty……”

Stage II: House Authorised Investigations

The closed-door charade could not continue forever and a full House investigation had to happen eventually for Impeachment to proceed. But when the vote was held it was another embarrassment as bi-partisanship turned up on the GOP side, with two Democrats voting against it. The Democrats still had the majority of course so the ride continued.

The tactics here were as follows:

  • Get multiple committees investigating everything about Trump, from breaches of the Emoluments Clause to Trump’s tax returns to god knows what else.
  • Nail every bullshit “impeachment” idea you can so that it does not get regurgitated later in 2020 by a Democrat base enraged that the GOP Senate threw it out.
  • Get new witnesses who provide damning testimony in public.
  • Get legal experts to explain to the public why impeachment is needed and how it’s all above board.
  • Produce a damning report that would persuade the House to vote for actual impeachment.

But after more huffing and puffing it turned out that the other committees also had little to go on and in the end it all went back to Intelligence, only now with public testimony from the witnesses.

Things continued to not go as planned for the Democrats, as I discussed here – and they’ve only gotten worse since then. One of the most embarrassing was the vanishing “whistle blower” himself, after weeks of Schiff claiming that he would testify. Schiff then made a big deal about how he had to be protected – except that there is protective legislation and a clear definition within US government departments for genuine whistle blowers, which he was not. People in D.C. soon found out who he was anyway,  a CIA staffer who had not been on the phone call, and who had been coordinating with Schiff’s staff, which Schiff naturally lied about it before being caught out. The whistle blower’s usefulness over – in fact he’s now counterproductive – we’re supposed to forget he ever existed. Of course at a Senate trial he will be forced to testify.

The Justice Committee would normally have got the job and been expected to carry the investigative load right from the start, given its role in the House and as it has in past impeachment efforts. The reason it didn’t this time is due to its leader, Ralph “Jabba-The-Hutt” Nadler.

I want to eat Han Solo, NOW!
His previous handling of the Mueller hearings following the Russia-Collusion report had not gone well and was regarded as a black eye by fellow Democrats. There had also been other missteps by Nadler and he was regarded as a less sharp-elbowed partisan than Schiff.

But just as importantly his Justice Committee would have had to follow its own precedents with the impeachment rules of the past. The Intelligence Committee was bound by no such thing and could break new ground – such as continuing to screw due process, questions and witness admission in favour of the Democrats.

Even so, under GOP questioning it turned out that the witnesses could only testify to what they’d heard at 2nd, 3rd and even 4th hand, and what they believed was heavying of the new Ukrainian government. It turned out the whistle blowers testimony was the same so was not missed, The one guy who did ask Trump about all this, Sondman, was told in no uncertain terms by the President that there was to be no “quid pro quo“, a phrase that was soon dropped anyway in favour of the meatier term “bribery”, thanks to those well-known sources of legal expertise, Democrat focus groups.

There was also an attempt at argument-from-authority as several witnesses, all presented as patriotic, dedicated, impartial, non-partisan, career folk – none more so than the cringe-worthy Lieutenant Vindman – claimed that Trump was upsetting the “established policy” for Ukraine set by the whole “U.S. government policy community“.

The fuck? Aside from such a nonsense term, Vindman and others did not seem to recognise that they’re small cogs in the system and at the end of the day it is the President who sets foreign policy and fires people who don’t comply. The joke here, as with the aid itself, is that Trump appears to have followed the advice of this community on Ukraine anyway – despite his thirty years of instinctively despising US foreign aid to “shit hole countries“. And that includes the lethal military aid that President Obama refused to send, fearing an escalation of violence with the guy he wanted to show flexibility with: Putin.

Stage III: The Justice Committee and Articles of Impeachment
In the end the only report was from Intelligence, who wrapped it up in as neat a partisan bow as they could and sent it to the Justice Committee for official turd polishing, as it is they who must codify the actual Articles of Impeachment to be sent to the Senate for the trial. More witnesses were expected in Justice Hearings but the only thing that happened was inviting four respected legal scholars to testify to the public about the legal aspects of impeachment.
That didn’t go well either. Three of the experts revealed degrees of Trump obsession and loathing that seemed strange for such supposedly academically detached people. One in particular talked of how she moves to walk on the other side of the street from a Trump building and told a scripted joke aimed at Trump that foolishly involved his son, Barron – the result being that her arguments were forgotten before the end of the day. The public were certainly left wondering what’s being taught at US law schools nowadays. The one who did stand out, Jonathan Turley, notably did so because he put forward arguments the Trump haters did not want to hear. Even though he was also adamantly against Trump that didn’t stop his Leftist “friends” turning on him, as he later wrote.

Professor Jonathan Turley

Turley pointed out that impeachment articles based on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice (all criminal charges) would be weak to non-existent. He felt that only two charges could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and even there he felt that the record was incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate, pointing out that this was the fastest impeachment in US history and therefore would result in very weak articles.

Worse, he upbraided them specifically on the notion of abuse of power:

“If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of [Trump] going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power“. 

You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts at the other two branches. What comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy.

This last point was about the Democrats anger at Trump refusing to allow current and former senior members of his Administration to testify to the committees in the public stage. As past Presidents have done he claimed executive privilege and told Congress to go to court on the matter. After more drum beating about these witnesses and the terrible insider things they would reveal about the Ukraine, the Democrats simply quit, not even bothering to pursue court actions. Why?
“Aim high, and you won’t shoot your foot off.”

The reason goes back to one of Nancy’s balancing acts between having an impeachment and not screwing with the Democrat primary season. The former demands time and in-depth investigation: the latter demands that things be wrapped up as soon as possible. They are mutually exclusive and so the Democrats decided to not only not go to court to force these witnesses to testify but to then craft Trump’s refusal into an article of impeachment itself: Obstruction of Congress.

That’s too cynically cute by half, and will be treated so by the Senate.

Written by Tom Hunter

January 16, 2020 at 6:00 pm

USA: The Great Impeachment – Nancy’s Strategy and Problems

leave a comment »

Old Woman screams at Clouds
It’s all too easy to get caught up in the Social Media wars between Trump and his enemies where it’s 24/7 flame-throwing. So I wanted to wait a while for things to develop on two fronts: The Great Impeachment, and the report from the FBI Inspector General on the Great Russia Collusion Hoax, which is going to need a separate OP treatment.
For that matter the Impeachment thing has so many strings to it that it’s hard to cover in one hit, so I’m going to split this up into three OP’s:
  • An overview of Democrat strategy and problems
  • The stages and tactics at each stage
  • The arguments
Democrat Drivers and Strategy
The whole exercise has seen Pelosi involved in not one but four balancing acts over the last two years.

First, she’s been trying to keep the Far Left of the Democrats engaged with rage so they’ll be good little foot soldiers and voters in the 2020 election – while also not burning off the “moderates”. There’s no major wars, recessions or social issues outside of the usual grumblings and worries about the Supreme Court, and also no big ticket policy to fight for yet.

Second, trying to keep together the House and Senate Democrats, who have different risk exposures to the GOP and Democrat partisans.

Third, and related to the first two, getting her party to beat Trump in 2020 whilst not being a candidate herself in the next election cycle. As House Leader she would normally be taking a step back at this stage and leaving it to the campaigns of her Party’s nominees. The trouble is those nominees look increasingly hopeless, so Pelosi has had to step out on the wire with them and use the House to damage Trump.
Fourth, she’s trying to get things done in Congress so that Trump can’t run a Harry Truman “do-nothing Congress” campaign, while at the same time stopping Trump taking credit for things he has pushed, while also pushing impeachment.
Democrat Problems
First are the ones arising naturally from her four balancing acts.
The “moderate Democrats” and their “purple” districts are why she downplayed impeachment during the 2018 election campaign. Having lived through the 1998 impeachment she’s always known how this could hurt her party as it hurt the GOP when they had a swing against them and lost House seats, though not the House or Senate. The GOP have already begun pouring a lot of money into attack adverts in those swing districts won by Democrats in 2018. That’s already raised Democrat concerns and the attacks will only increase from here. It could be a repeat of the “Blue Dog” debacle of 2010.
And enraging your own voter base is a double-edged sword here. Impeachment might end up actually helping Trump by enraging his base to the point where they’d crawl across broken glass to vote for him, as well as getting independents to sympathise.
The same problems apply in the Senate, though to a less intense degree. But so far there’s nothing that could be weaponised against GOP Senators voting down impeachment, beyond the usual Trump-hatred / you must-be-ashamed-and-guilty tactics that failed so badly in 2016.
With regard to the Democrat 2020 nomination, the timing is awful. Centrist Dems want to go slow in order to show right-leaning and independent voters in their home districts that they’re taking this seriously and not rushing to conclusions about Trump. But even aside from endless hearings and news sucking the oxygen away from the Democrat nominee debates there’s the god-awful spectacle of having several candidates forced to vacate the campaign trail to sit silently through the Senate trial from January to March while their primaries are happening. It was for this reason that way back in September there came this quote:

“Very few hearings, if any,” said a senior Democratic aide, who said the coming investigative work will largely take place in closed-door interviews. 

The flip side being that if the hearings are rushed you’re not only going to look like a kangaroo court to swing voters but also end up with a weak case to take to the Senate. There’s actually no good solution here for Pelosi.
In terms of House work, a classic example of Pelosi’s dilemma is the new US-Mexico-Canada-Trade Act (USMCA), which even the Democrats have no problem with but which Nancy has sat on for months. It will look like a big win for Trump, who was the one who pushed hard for a revamp of NAFTA. But not passing it, and other items, will make the Democrats look like they’re obsessive about impeaching Trump – which they are of course, but they can’t admit that to non-partisan voters.
As if those were not enough Pelosi has many other big problems.
The biggest being the incredible weakness of the Ukraine charges. It had long been expected that impeachment would key off the Mueller investigation’s two years of work, supposedly with huge amounts of evidence as well as the spun-off prosecutions of Trump associates, even if none of them were for Russia-collusion “charges”. It was can’t miss stuff.
But with that having died a public death the Democrats were desperate to find something else – which is when the “whistle blower” turned up with tales of dirty deeds by Trump with regard to Ukraine in a phone call. However when Trump simply released the transcript a lot of the air went out of the charges immediately. This was not how he was expected to react; the Democrats had thought he’d go for Executive Privilege and keep the contents secret, enabling them to spend months talking about what secrets he was hiding and cover-ups. When anybody could read the transcript and draw their own conclusions the Democrats were reduced from simple assertions to argument, which they’re not good at, especially when they had to throw them together in just weeks.

Moreover the weaker the case the easier it would be for Cocaine Mitch to just turf the thing the moment it arrives in the Senate. 

Trump is absolutely gagging for a trial and a fight: he lives for this shit, as the Babylon Bee so accurately captured
But McConnell will be as keen as Pelosi to get this behind them and move on to the election.
Then there is the hyper-partisanship of the entire nation. Appeals to Good Will, the Rule of Law and all that are simply falling flat in the face of two largish groups of voters who don’t believe that their opponents believe in any of that. It’s political warfare down to the last, unbroken bone, pure and simple. Impeachment has to be bi-partisan to have any impact  – right Mr Nadler, Ms Pelosi, et al….?
1998 vs. 2019 Impeachment Mashup

“The Republicans in the House are paralysed with hatred. Until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer” – Nancy Pelosi, 1998. 

“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will produce the divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.” – Jerry Nadler, 1998

Chuckle! Politicians eh? I can see the crocodile tears from here.

There’s also the general disengagement of the voting public from this shitstorm,  probably because there’s nothing there as catchy as Nixon’s secret Whitehouse tapes and because this looks like just another lump in the three year old soup of Trump-Hate.It’s just not registering despite the MSM’s best efforts at placing the news front and centre. Here’s the Minneapolis Star Tribune “Most Read” items from just a few days ago.

And that’s the final big problem that hurts the Democrats as they try to build the case with voters: the MSM is dead. In 1974 there were only four national broadcast channels and a few extra broadcast channels in local areas. If you tired of Days Of Our Lives or All My Children then endless hours of Impeachment testimony might tempt you. But nowadays such coverage is fighting against hundreds of cable and satellite TV channels, plus thousands of YouTube and Vimeo channels, Twitter pages, Facebook, etc, etc. And that’s before we consider the incredibly low trust in the MSM that the public now evinces.

ATTN: Metaphor alert.

It’s no wonder that the whole thing has made no headway with anybody but Democrat partisans.

Written by Tom Hunter

December 21, 2019 at 11:00 pm

“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” – UPDATE

leave a comment »


Rasmussen polling reports Nov 15, 2019

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.


After three days of breathtaking Impeachment testimony? I mean to say, “Impeachment” means you’re guilty right? Especially if it’s the Democrats and the entire US Left raising a pointed finger at you? Surely the accusations of such sainted people as Schiff-face count for something?

The Impeachment situation has developed not necessarily to our advantage

The president’s overall approval has been tracking up since Wednesday, the first day of the House impeachment hearings. It was at 46% on Wednesday morning, then rose to 48% yesterday and is now at 50%. Two of the three nights in today’s survey follow the highly-publicized hearings.

Tracking up? But….. But…. But…. that’s not supposed to be what happens when you’re a Democrat telling everybody how awful Orange Man is.

And when we look at history…

Holy dog shit Texas!

But wait… there’s more…

Trump’s approval rating on Wednesday was 44.3 percent, according to a Real Clear Politics average of more than a half-dozen major polls. That is higher than Obama’s average approval rating of 43.9 percent on September 18, 2011, by the same measure.

You mean to say that Trump’s Approval/Disapproval ratings are ahead of where Barack Obambi was on the same poll at the same stage of his Presidency in 2012?

After weeks of this Impeachment-Trump-Is-Dead shit? After three years of 90%+ negative coverage from the MSM? Compared to the overwhelming MSM fellating of Obambi circa 2008-2011. Well – aside from Fox News of course: but who cares about them, right?

It’s okay. The Democrats have lots of Star Witnesses to call as they desperately trudge forward on the Great Inquisition of 2019. They hope that somewhere – somewhere, surely – an impeachable offense will be found hiding among Trump’s communications relating to Ukraine.

Oh – and Trump released the transcript of the April 21st call he made with the new President of the Ukraine.

Sounds like a really guilty guy!

My God. My God. What will the country say?

It should be noted that people were walking out of the House chamber long before Impreachement proceedings were done the other day.

Sounds like a winner.

And of course; Dems Switched From “Quid Pro Quo” To “Bribery” Because A Focus Group Told Them It Was Better.


Maybe the Democrats can win this by telling every Trump voter how ashamed of themselves they should be! That’ll work?

UPDATE: One of the quotes supplied by a commentator on this thread contained the following lines…

Guilty, guilty.
Guilty, guilty, guilty…

Yes, that’s actually a quote from a supposedly “sober” magazine called Esquire, and it reminded me of the following scene from possibly the greatest ever Pixar movie, The Incredibles:

Jesus! That teacher even looks like Schiff!

Written by Tom Hunter

November 16, 2019 at 7:01 am

Die MSM, Die – Trump voters are stupid and tribal

leave a comment »

“Donald Trump’s chances of winning are approaching zero.”

As incredible as it may seem that was actually the headline of a Washington Post article three years ago on the verge of the 2016 US election.

Hell, even at 10 o’clock on election night, the NYT said that Hillary Clinton was odds-on with an 85% chance of winning. One of the best laughs you can have is to watch The Young Turks watching that number slip back later that night.

You’d think they’d have learned… something. At a minimum the technical stuff: the limits of polling for example. Let alone the deeper things like an understanding of all those dumb-fuck voters in the land of the low-sloping foreheads that the Great MSM supposedly speaks for. You know the classic quote journalists used to tell themselves, that their job was to:

Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Stop sniggering.

Here’s merely the latest example: what the MSM saw when it looked at polling about Trump’s impeachment by well-known survey group, Monmouth University, as well as a Fox News poll:

That’s what the MSM pulled out of that poll. You see, it “proves” that Trump voters are a “cult”.

As usual, when you dig a little deeper you can find out other meanings.

So it’s an accurate reporting that the poll asked Trump approvers (43 percent of respondents) if he could do anything that would make them disapprove of him and 62 percent of that group said there’s nothing he could do to make them disapprove of his job performance.

The Narrative: Trump voters are stupidly tribal.

But here’s the thing: when the Trump disapprovers group (51 percent of respondents) were asked if Trump could ever do anything aside from resigning that would make them approve of his job performance,  70 percent of disapprovers said there’s nothing he could possibly do to earn their approval of his job performance.

In other words, the anti-Trump faction are even more stupidly tribal, in fact the most mindlessly tribal faction in American politics today.

NOT The Narrative: Anti-Trump voters are even more stupidly tribal.

Which should not be a surprise when one considers the denial of Trump’s election win from the start, the efforts to switch the voters of the Electoral College, the 25th Amendment demands, the Emoluments Clause, the Russia-Collusion farce and on and on and on…..

This is actually how most MSM news arrives; not lies but the far more clever version called the half-truth. But repeated enough it effectively becomes a lie. Even more so when the MSM knows that few people would actually look at the detailed results of the opinion polls themselves.

It’s also piss-poor, shallow analysis when you consider the history of voting in the USA, where people tend to support their party’s current leader through thick and thin – and oppose the other party’s current leader.

Shocking I know – yet entirely normal.

As just one example: Democrats gave huge support to  President Bill Clinton even after he was caught lying under oath and aiding others perjury, obstructed justice in the investigation over sexual assault allegations, was sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court – and being impeached of course.

Yet I don’t recall any MSM reports about the mindless tribalism of Clinton voters in the late 1990’s.

Oh and one more thing from the Monmouth poll: its responses on Impeachment were brutal for the MSM’s Narrative about public support for it:

  • 59% agree with the statement that “if you want Trump out of office, it makes more sense to focus on next year’s election rather than go through an impeachment process now.”
  • 73% have little or no trust in the impeachment process.
  • 60% say Democrats are more interested in bringing down Trump than in learning facts.
  • 61% say the GOP are more interested in finding ways to defend Trump.

Well duh!.

What I think the poll shows is that most voters are sensibly regarding the whole process as a farce where both the GOP and the Democrats are playing their usual games, and that they’ll reserve their judgement on Trump and his eventual Democrat opponent until November 2020.

Smart people!

Written by Tom Hunter

November 9, 2019 at 6:30 pm

"If we don’t impeach this President, he wins reelection"

leave a comment »

It’s not often that politicians speak the truth. When they do it’s tempting to assume that they’re either drunk or high, but the sad truth is that it’s likely a Freudian slip; an unconscious wish or fear that has forced its way to the surface and seized control of the brain and mouth.

Thus this statement uttered by long-time Democrat politician, Al Green, as he began to face up to four horrible unstated truths that are only slowly dawning on other Democrats and their Operatives With Bylines, the MSM journalists who “report” on all this.


The first truth is that the Democrat party has the worst set of Presidential candidates in three decades. A bunch of stone-cold losers in the general election on personal characteristics alone. Check out the synopsis of them by Democrat and Trump-hater Andrew Sullivan.

Adam Schiff: “Wa Hay – I’m in charge of Intelligence?”

Second, the policies they’re pushing are starting to scare the living shit out of moderate Democrats and Independents in swing states, especially as the candidates are forced to get into the detail of how the policies would work.

Third, after almost two years in control of Congress the Democrats have nothing positive to show the voters, aside from the annual spendathon farce that is the budget. Having spent all of 2017 and 2018 assuring people that Democrats were not being elected to Congress just to go after President Trump they’ve done nothing but that.

Fourth, the traditional power reasons for turfing a President – war and recession – are absent. Trump has started no wars and is actually getting into fights with D.C. “experts” because he wants to pull US troops out of current ones. Meanwhile the economy is still humming along. Even if there was a GDP downturn in the next two or three quarters it would be a technical issue months removed from a falling Dow Jones, bankrupt companies, abandoned homes and rising unemployment that are the obvious signs of economic problems for working people.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi – current Democrat House Speaker and thus effectively the leader of the Democrat Party – has also been watching all this. She’s an old, shrewd politician and while she may have her word-salad days

… she usually makes the right political call. Throughout 2018 she and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) exercised strong message control on candidates in swing districts, where they talked not at all of impeachment. Nancy herself issued volumes of soothing words on the matter.


But to be fair she did actually keep her word – for as long as she could. Right from the start of her Speakership she resisted the impeachment calls of wild-eyed revolutionaries from Deep Blue districts, first and foremost Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “Squad”. Pelosi knew that the GOP got nothing out of their 1998 impeachment of President Clinton, and even lost ground in the ’98 Mid-Term elections. The pressure on her grew to the extent that a small revolt occurred with a candidate put up against her for the role of Speaker. But San Fran Nan is not just shrewd but also a massive fundraiser for the Democrats from her base as a multi-multi-millionaire in super-rich San Francisco. She easily defeated the “Squad” and their allies.

However, this was back when she and her herd expected the Mueller investigation to do all the heavy lifting against Trump. Unfortunately for the Democrats the investigation became a fallen souffle a few months ago – following in the loserdom path of the 25th Amendment, the Emoluments Clause, “Campaign Violation” payoffs to mistresses, Stormy Daniels, Michael “The Beast” Avanattithe Michael Cohen quote, and on and on and on from the  “Walls Are Closing In … A New Bombshell…. Turning Point… He’s Done…” MSM echo chamber…

At which point attention turned to the 2020 election as a way to get rid of Trump, at which point Nancy, like Al Green, had her “Oh Shit” moment.

And so she reached for the only weapon left to her: Impeachment.

You should understand that this has nothing to do with “High crimes and misdemeanors“, the Constitutionally written threshold for impeachment. Trump was supposed to run for cover on the Ukrainian phone call accusations but instead released the entire transcript.

This is not how Presidents with something to hide are supposed to act and is yet another example of how Trump is not understood by his enemies, even one as canny as Pelosi.

Nancy has undoubtedly read it, as many of us have, and must know what a thin reed it is. Excising 500 words between mention of military aid and “Biden” may work for a Democrat propaganda outfit like CNN / MSNBC and their gullible viewers, but will cut no ice with Trump’s Senate lawyers or GOP Senators. Neither will the words “damaging testimony“, which we’re going to hear repeated a lot from the MSM as they kindly summarise the testimonies for us.

Pelosi can also count, and there is simply not enough there to induce 20 GOP Senators to commit suicide in order to please her and Democrat Senate Leader Chuck Schumer. She already got a taste of this with the vote on making the investigation formal; it obtained not a single GOP vote in the House, not even from those who won slim margins over Democrats, and two Democrats voted against it. What will happen after a few more weeks of “testimony” when it’s time for the House vote on actual Impeachment?

No, Impeachment is already a dead duck on its own terms. Its real purpose is to beat Trump down in the opinion polls – where he’d been rising since the end of the Mueller farce – and then in the General Election in 2020.

But the Democrat’s political strategy is a double-edged sword in many ways, and that deserves a separate analysis. Suffice to say that just one aspect involves another “Oh Shit” moment approaching for the Democrats, as Joe Biden so boastfully explains in the following video clip – not that his Democrat nominee opponents will be unhappy about this at all.

Written by Tom Hunter

November 6, 2019 at 12:34 am


leave a comment »

If confirmed the news that President Trump ordered his staff to freeze $400 million in funds appropriated by Congress earmarked as aid to the Ukraine a few days before he telephoned the Ukrainian President seeking ‘dirt’ on the family activities of Joe Biden, his possible Democrat opponent in next years election, is impeachment material slam dunk.   For the Democrats this is the smoking gun … Speaker Pelosi has been counselling caution on impeachment … not any more.

As I said, it’s smoking gun slam dunk.  The withholding of federal funds to pressure another country to provide dirt on a political opponent.    Simple question … what say National had won the election and Prime Minister Bridges had instructed MFAT to withhold aid to the Tokelau Islands pending him phoning Kerisiano Kalolo (Head of Government) seeking dirt on Ross Ardern (the Administrator and father of Jacinda) that he could use against his daughter as Leader of the Labour Party … don’t bother answering as there is only one answer … resignation.

If Trump were smart he would resign and get the now President Pence to issue him a blanket Presidential Pardon.   But he won’t because he’s not that smart.   Impeachment will proceed apace and, if successful, you could well find the ‘orange’ man in an orange jump suit.   Perhaps ‘time’ will see him breaking bread with a certain large German well known to us all … they have much in common.

Written by The Veteran

September 25, 2019 at 2:14 am