Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Attempted Theft In Progress

Attempted Theft In Progress

The impeachment push is straight up attempted theft of the 2016 election. There’s no good faith. There’s no honesty. There’s not even honor among thieves.

screencaps from videos

I am now going to give you the least surprising announcement in the history of unsurprising announcements:

“Breaking: Dems say enough evidence to move forward on impeachment. Vote likely by mid-December. They will not wait for courts to force additional witnesses”

In other news, thieves believe they have a right to steal.

Make no mistake, the current impeachment push is attempted theft of the 2016 election.

The people behind impeachment have been declaring their intention to impeach Trump since before he was elected, before he was sworn in, and ever since. Their tools have been a concerted effort to paralyze the executive branch until they could find something, anything to impeach; the mainstream media have been crucial, willing, and knowing participants in creating a permanent frenzied news cycle and hunting for the excuse. Poisonous characters in the highest echelons of the FBI played a central role.

The excuses to steal the 2016 election have varied over time, and are completely pretextual: The ‘unfairness’ of the Electoral College; the Russia collusion hoax; the Mueller Inquisition; the Emoluments Clause; and the 25th Amendment delusion, among others.

The result in House committees controlled by Democrats, and likely the full House vote, was preordained. The hearings have been a charade, the window dressing, with rank speculation, supposition, opinions, hurt feelings, and bureaucratic turf battles posing as evidence.

The thieves disabled the alarm system by manipulating and selectively leaking closed-door testimony, and by refusing to allow Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee to call the witnesses they wanted to call during the public portion. It was a show trial manipulated by Adam Schiff with Nancy Pelosi’s blessing.

Jim Jordan had it right. Democrats have not accepted the outcome of the 2016 election. That’s what the past three years of impeachment fever have been about.

This is straight up attempted theft.

There’s no good faith.

There’s no honesty.

There’s not even honor among thieves.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

They don’t have any choice. Durham has already empaneled a grand jury, which means that the only defense they have against the forthcoming indictments is to claim that they are in retaliation for impeachment.

    Barry in reply to txvet2. | November 21, 2019 at 10:38 pm

    That will not work. Durham and Barr will have the evidence that will predate any of the fake impeachment inquiry.

    Yippy in reply to txvet2. | November 22, 2019 at 12:02 am

    Except that Barr and Durham started their investigations before impeachment proceedings started.

      txvet2 in reply to Yippy. | November 22, 2019 at 1:24 am

      That isn’t going to change the narrative, either by the Dems or the LSM.

        Exactly. The MSM/DNC axis is very successful in convincing its true-blue believers that black is white, up is down, and evil is good.

        Barry in reply to txvet2. | November 22, 2019 at 10:47 am

        It will not change the narrative, true.

        Many people are nit that stupid however and the “narrative” will fail.

        The commies impeachment “narrative” is failing as we speak.

          txvet2 in reply to Barry. | November 22, 2019 at 12:42 pm

          I didn’t say it wouldn’t fail, I said they wouldn’t have any choice. They’ve been doomed to fail ever since they started this fiasco.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | November 23, 2019 at 3:02 pm

          I get your point. OTOH, they do have a choice. Engaging in lies and perfidy that is going to fail anyway is not very bright. They could have chosen to ride it out, be American.

          But they’ve never been Americans. They are communists, have been from the cradle.

      Edward in reply to Yippy. | November 22, 2019 at 11:39 am

      That is immaterial. John and Jane Q. Public generally aren’t paying any attention to the specifics and they get their news from the MSM. They aren’t sure the MSM is objective, but they have always gotten the news this way and old habits are hard to break. That the MSM is a wholly owned propaganda subsidiary of the Socialist-Democrat Party (or the Party is a wholly owned political subsidiary of the MSM) has thus far escaped their full cognizance, though they are beginning to become a little uncomfortable on the issue.

    MarkS in reply to txvet2. | November 22, 2019 at 5:41 am

    If the Grand Jury is empaneled in DC no #Resistance person will be indicted

      MattMusson in reply to MarkS. | November 22, 2019 at 6:52 am

      Flynn’s former firm was found guilty of FARA charges. And, then the Judge vacated the Jury verdict because there just was “insufficient evidence” to support the verdict.

      That means, DC Juries will find Republicans guilty without evidence and release Democrats who have committed crimes.

        as with Greg Craig!

        In fact, IIRC, the District Court Judge found there was insufficient evidence for the Grand Jury to have voted out a True Bill and vacated the Indictment as well as issued a directed verdict of acquittal. A member of the current administration, the Trump campaign or any Republican (for that matter) has a lesser chance of acquittal by a DC Jury than the proverbial snowball.

        I believe this is why Sidney Powell isn’t asking for Judge Sullivan to allow LTG Flynn to back out of the Plea, but is apparently aiming at the Judge throwing the whole thing out. IF LTG Flynn has to go to trial, there’s little doubt a DC Jury will find him guilty of whatever is charged as well as stealing cookies from the cookie jar.

    My fear is that the IG report is part of the usual GOP kabuki. I just don’t trust McConnell and Graham to do the right thing. They are certified members in good standing with The Swamp. Let’s see what happens between now and Dec 9 when the report comes out.

    I still believe that Pelosi and McConnell cut a deal. Although I can easily map out a scenario where McConnell tortures the Democrats by extending a Senate trial through to the 2020 election and redirecting the focus to Democrats’ corrupt cabal, I keep reminding myself that McConnell is possibly the most corrupt of them all.

    I just don’t trust any of these guys to do the right thing. Too much “there but for the grace of God go I” for just about everyone in the House and Senate. When crooks start prosecuting crooks, where is the integrity? If you think it’s ugly now, it can get so much uglier when everyone starts telling the truth about each other and what they know about everyone else’s crimes. “You did it too and it was much worse than what I did!”

      I am afraid you may be right. Even if McConnell is squeaky clean (I doubt it), there is considerable GOPe antipathy towards Trump in the Senate. I have been engaged in a lively “discussion” down thread about Senator Ben Sasse, a David French wannabe if ever there was one. Sasse, along with Mitt Romneycare and Mike Lee and perhaps a few others, would love to see a damaged Trump lose re-election next year and will do whatever it takes to insure that happens without jeopardizing their own political careers.

      The eight years of Failure Theater in falling short of repealing Obamacare convinced me that the Republican Party was politically closer to Democrats than their own Republican voters. The only disagreement was in who got credit for the government takeover of healthcare.

      “I just don’t trust any of these guys to do the right thing. Too much “there but for the grace of God go I” for just about everyone in the House and Senate. When crooks start prosecuting crooks, where is the integrity?”

      Amen, and amen.

      IG reports like this are almost always intended to cover up the misdeeds of the upper level.

      It is the criminal investigation being conducted by AG Barr and Durham that has the potential to put the rats in jail. We’ll have to wait on that.

    ConradCA in reply to txvet2. | November 22, 2019 at 9:22 pm

    Why does the Senate have to wait for the house to impeach in order to hold hearings? They can subpoena the witnesses that Shift wouldn’t let the Republicans call. This would ruin the progressive fascists plan to prevent the Senate from holding a trial and get the facts out that the Dems didn’t want the public to here.

If all else fails, cheat….

Adam Schiff channels Joe McCarthy.

    Not fair! Communists had actually infiltrated Hollywood. They completely control it now.

      His methods are what destroyed him, among other things. It’s even worse now because of the facts.

      Ronbert in reply to rdmdawg. | November 22, 2019 at 9:02 am

      Joe McCarthy was a senator. The house investigated hollywood.

        Edward in reply to Ronbert. | November 22, 2019 at 11:52 am

        And usually Senator Joe McCarthy is charged with all the things done by (what was popularly known as) the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC). I’ve actually read people claiming McCarthy was a member of HUAC, they had to be told he was a Senator (and I’m not sure some got it even then).

      neurodoc in reply to rdmdawg. | November 22, 2019 at 10:30 pm

      Any Commie movies or other entertainment the Commies in control of Hollywood have turned out hese days? Or are you just a loon off their meda?

      neurodoc in reply to rdmdawg. | November 22, 2019 at 10:30 pm

      Any Commie movies or other entertainment the Commies in control of Hollywood have turned out hese days? Or are you just a loon off their meda?

    Michael Johnson in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | November 21, 2019 at 11:01 pm

    You need to learn some history. Senator McCarthy did not accuse innocent people. He accused people who were actually members of the CPUSA. Thanks to the Venona papers (look it up), we even know their membership numbers.

    If you want facts about McCarthy, I recommend:
    Blacklisted by History and Stalin’s Secret Agents
    both by M. Stanton Evans. McCarthy had his facts right; in fact, he didn’t go far enough in exposing the corruption in DC and the penetration of the State Dept by Soviet agents.

      I reread Eisenhower’s farewell speech every once in a while just to refresh my memory of what he said about the military/industrial complex. I’ve come to believe that he wasn’t warning us of what could happen if we don’t pay attention, I think he was announcing that he had failed. JFK certainly heard his message. The game was lost even then. And today we find Russia fulfilling Stalin’s plan to take over Europe after WWII.

    Schiff is Howdy-Doody’s evil twin .. right ?

Blaise MacLean | November 21, 2019 at 9:21 pm

I have the illusion of getting a T-shirt with a pictures of Stalin and Schiff overlaid saying “Adam Schiff…Stalin was smarter”

Let’s see the MSM spin the trial in the Senate – which I hope goes for the duration. I’ve heard up to 8 weeks? Hopefully coordinated with IG / FISA report drops.

Hope yesterday’s (speculative) story about the possibility of Roberts recusing and Clarence Thomas presiding over the trial is a reality.

    pfg in reply to MrE. | November 21, 2019 at 10:49 pm

    The USSC has a line of cases which holds that when the text of the Constitution is clear, that text is be followed. When it comes to a Senate trial, the text is clear, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

    Now this is a very real issue. Roberts is compromised because he appointed the FISA court judges which issued the warrants. But Robert’s the Chief Justice. The text of the Constitution doesn’t state that another justice can be substituted. The Constitution states expressly that it must be the Chief Justice.

    Solution. Roberts must resign as Chief Justice. Yah! DJT nominates his replacement; the Senate confirms. All this takes time. Meaning that no impeachment trial can proceed until there is a new Chief Justice who can preside at the impeachment of a president, just as the Constitution requires.

      fscarn in reply to pfg. | November 21, 2019 at 11:18 pm

      You’re right; there’s no ambiguity whatsoever.

      But what if Roberts won’t resign? He’s certainly involved because of the FISA court appointments. What if the Senate GOPers defending the president list him as a possible witness?
      And Roberts is on record giving Trump a rebuke on the Obama judges remark. In short, Roberts’ ability to act as an impartial is non-existent.

      What then? One possibility is that no impeachment trial on DJT can ever take place. I’ve read online a bunch of arguments that Thomas can take over because he’s the most senior judge, that substitutes are permitted when Congress has vacancies, blah, blah, blah.

      The bottom line is what the Constitution says. The Chief Justice, and only the Chief Justice, is to preside.

      Milhouse in reply to pfg. | November 22, 2019 at 12:40 am

      Whenever the Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties of his office or the office is vacant, his powers and duties shall devolve upon the associate justice next in precedence who is able to act.”

      Therefore if Roberts can’t preside Thomas automatically becomes acting chief justice and can preside over a trial in the senate.

        fscarn in reply to Milhouse. | November 22, 2019 at 7:25 am

        Which has superiority, the Constitution itself (which contains the Supremacy Clause) or a rule made by the Court itself?

        Trump should push the argument that Chief Justice as used in the Constitution means the person who was nominated as CJ and confirmed as CJ, and only that person, not any old justice that might be available. In other words, no substitutes.

      MrE in reply to pfg. | November 22, 2019 at 1:54 am

      Thanks for the thoughts … Thomas presiding would restore my faith in justice – in the sense of universal karma. How long has Thomas waited for justice for how they smeared him? I know impeachment isn’t about him, but the possibility of him presiding must have the Dems soiling themselves.

      Edward in reply to pfg. | November 22, 2019 at 11:55 am

      Nice dream, Roberts resigning. But of course it is just that, a dream.

This is basically a trial where the prosecutor (Schiff) has vetoed all the defense witnesses. He also cut off any cross-examination of his chosen witnesses whenever they reflected badly on his accusations.

From Wikipedia, “In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings, no “due process” rights to those accused, and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, “star chambers”.”

“Strict, arbitrary rulings.” Check. Schiff arbitrarily vetoed all the defense witnesses and cut off cross-examinations.

“No ‘due process rights’.” Check. Trump hasn’t been allowed to confront his accusers, some of whom have been anonymous.

“Secretive proceedings.” Check. Schiff began with secret hearings, with selective leaks to bolster his narrative.

This inquisition meets all of the definition of a “star chamber.”

    Seems to me that one of the very first things we will learn once the Senate gets started is whether these proceedings are also rigged. My sense is that they are. I have never been wrong assuming that Republicans are masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. This may very well be their crowning achievement in their role for surrendering the US to the New World Order.

      Hm. While I’m not a McConnell fan, I don’t see him rolling over on this. At the root, I don’t see what he would get out of it. Removing Trump? No way. That would devastate even the GOPe RINOs in various elections in 2020 and he’s got enough trouble holding onto the Senate as it is with so many GOP seats in play this time around (basically the same problem the Dems had in 2018).

      No, I think he’s going to play it cleanly, throw a lot of mud on the House Dems for the sham process that got this started, and then vote to keep Trump in office and let the voters decide in November 2020. And he’ll be sure to call a bunch of “witnesses” that the Dems don’t want called and drag them through hot coals, too.

      The Senators I’m worried about are Pierre Delecto, Collins, Murkowski, and ** Richard Burr **. Burr, in particular, is a corrupt mofo. You know when there’s a corrupt Republican Senator trying to do illegal shit in a movie? Yea, that’s Burr.

      Now, I think it would be suicide for Delecto, Collins, or Murkowski to vote to remove, but Collins in particular is holding on by a thread in Maine and may feel that she has nothing to lose. And Murkowski voted against Kavanaugh, so she’s a traitorous nitwit in any case.

      No, I think Mitch will be smart and make the Dems eat shit on this one.

        I don’t think you understand the terms “Uniparty” and “kabuki”. There is no such thing as a Republican party. What we are witnessing is the Deep State shadow government defending their empire.

        After everything that we have seen with the GOP always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory at the very last minute to hand the Democrats major victories, why don’t you understand this by now? What will it take? McConnell is as corrupt as anyone in government. The conflicts of interest represented by his being married to the daughter of the wealthiest man in China make Biden and the rest look like street pickpockets.

        This is bigger than your ancient two-party construct. Step back to see the elephant. You’re standing too close.

          Phil, yea, I guess I’m not quite that conspiratorial. Again, I’m not a McConnell fan in the large, but if you look at what he’s doing to push Trump’s judges into the appellate courts, I don’t see that he’s acting like it’s just a single uniparty. Sure, he’s definitely a member of the GOPe and a squish and the motto of the GOPe is “to lose like gentlemen,” but I don’t think he’s gone quite full-on uniparty. If Romney was running the joint, I could definitely see it. But I think McConnell relishes the power that he has. And because of that, he’s going to be motivated by self-interest, and I don’t see how throwing Trump out during the middle of an election year is going to help him maintain his power. If anything, I’d think he’d want to save Trump so that he’d have a chit to play later with Trump on something else. So, I’ll go so far as to say that McConnell is definitely a self-interested DC swamp-dweller. But outright in league with the Dems as part of a uniparty? I’m not ready to go that far.

          “The conflicts of interest represented by his being married to the daughter of the wealthiest man in China make Biden and the rest look like street pickpockets. ”

          Wealthiest man in China? Phil, he’s not Chinese, he’s Taiwanese.

          VaGentleman in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 23, 2019 at 3:12 am

          Elaine Chao immigrated to the United States when she was eight years old.[4] The eldest of six daughters, Chao was born in Taipei, Taiwan, to Ruth Mulan Chu Chao, a historian, and James S.C. Chao, who began his career as a merchant mariner and in 1964 founded a shipping company in New York City. The company, Foremost Maritime Corporation, developed into the Foremost Group; as of 2013, James S.C. Chao continued to serve as its Chairman,[5] later succeeded by Elaine’s sister Angela.[6] James first met Ruth when she and her family relocated to Shanghai during World War II. In 1949, James and Ruth relocated separately to Taiwan at the culmination of the Chinese Civil War. They married in 1950. In 1961, Elaine came to the United States on a 37-day freight ship journey along with her mother and two younger sisters. Her father had arrived in New York three years earlier after receiving a scholarship.[7][8]

          Chao attended Tsai Hsing Elementary School in Taipei for kindergarten and first grade,[4][9] and subsequently attended Syosset High School in Syosset, New York, on Long Island.[10] She was naturalized as a U.S. citizen at the age of 19.[11]

          Chao received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, in 1975. In the second semester of her junior year, she studied money and banking at Dartmouth College. She received a MBA degree from Harvard Business School in 1979.

          Chao has received 37 honorary doctorates,[12] including an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from Georgetown University in 2015.[13]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Chao

          Ah yes, the other “C” word. What would you call what has been going on? Stop being afraid of calling it what it is, the biggest and most dangerous conspiracy of all time. Why do you think there is such a big and obvious disconnect between reality we can see for ourselves and what the Swamp critters are saying and doing? They are facing annihilation. They don’t have time to dot their “i”s and cross their “t”s.

          If you think it’s ugly now, just wait.

Serious crimes against the nation require serious punishments. No Club Fed. No getting out on bail during years of appeals. Speedy trials followed speedily by appropriate penalties.

Schiff. McCabe. Comey. Brennan (who can no longer flee to the USSR). Clinton. Clinton. Yates. Strzok. Half of the State Department. The entire Ninth Circuit. Everyone at CNN, The New York Times, and The Communist Post. As Adam Schiff would say except it’s true, there’s abundant evidence in plain sight.

And why George Soros is still walking around free, I don’t know. Obama might qualify for mere censure because he’s a former head of state, but don’t let him out of your sight for a single minute.

Now the Senate can begin to daily tell House Dems just how extensive the Senate trial will be, right down to an opening list of “invited” witnesses. We wouldn’t want House Dems to cast a rash vote when it happens. An informed vote should be the goal. Also, Sen. McConnell can assure Dems that a trial will last long into next year.

It’s probably no great surprise to anyone but I was amused to discover that Schiff is actually from Framingham, Massachusetts and is also a Harvard lawyer.

Ah well, at least Jacobson and Hinderacker turned out to be good guys. There are probably a lot of other good guys, out of Harvard, but the media has no interest in them.

“Now the Senate can begin to daily tell House Dems just how extensive the Senate trial will be, right down to an opening list of “invited” witnesses.”
****
I wouldn’t count on that scenario. Senate Judiciary Committee is +2 Repub. members but of those, at least two are Never Trump GOPe. Senate trial is controlled by Senate Rules and the Presiding Officer, John Roberts. Conflicts are settled by majority vote with at least three Repub. votes highly suspect. In Presidential impeachment trial V.P. doesn’t have vote in tie votes.

I would love to see an 8 week trial that exposes all of the Obama and Dem/thug police state corruption; IMO, too much “bi-partisan” corruption for that to happen.

    SHV in reply to SHV. | November 21, 2019 at 10:08 pm

    Trying to think what the Dems. Impeachment end-game is. Almost no chance for 2/3 Senate vote for any of the Articles but a majority vote for “guilty” on one or more Articles is very possible considering some of the Repub. Senate Snakes, led by Romney. A majority guilty vote would be heavily exploited by Dems. to influence outcome of 2020 election.

      I wish I could upvote your two comments a thousand times.

      Barry in reply to SHV. | November 21, 2019 at 10:42 pm

      “A majority guilty vote would be heavily exploited by Dems. to influence outcome of 2020 election.”

      That would work about as well as impeachment hearings, or what passes for them.

      You might take note of the most recent polling. Hint: It’s not good for the democrats.

        OnPoint in reply to Barry. | November 22, 2019 at 2:15 pm

        Careful. A majority Senate vote would be spun by Dems and the Media as “He was guilty, but the Republicans were obstructing our noble attempt to remove him for <>.” Sure, some people will see through the fraud, but many low information voters will buy it.

      TX-rifraph in reply to SHV. | November 22, 2019 at 6:18 am

      Perhaps the end game is to destroy the effectiveness of the Constitution so the USA can be remade into the Utopian Socialist Alliance (or something). Remember, they have said “By any means necessary.” They have used the term “Constitutional” crisis. They are conducting a coup. They are desperate. And some of the deep state “heroes” risk prison. They will take down the country. NP.

      If only the 2A did not exist say they. They need the USA to implode or they lose.

Impeachment by the House was a 100% certainty. Democrats have been promising their genocidal base that they would impeach Trump since before he was elected. I am mystified by conservatives who have persuaded themselves otherwise.

What worries me is the Senate. Barring a massive seismic shift removal is unlikely, but Mitt Romneycare is a lock for removal (Ben Sasse and Mike Lee are also probable votes for removal as well). If Democrats stick together, then with the help of Romneycare/Sasse/Lee they can control the proceedings and stretch out the removal phase for weeks if not months. The GOPe knows they probably cannot remove Trump, but they are hoping they can possibly damage him enough to deprive him of re-election.

If you think my scenario is too far-fetched to be true, then remember that the GOPe will do ANYTHING to get their hearts’ desire of open borders, gun control, and government-run health care. It is unlikely that even a half-dozen GOP senators voted for Trump in 2016, and I don’t think his standing has improved with them since then. The GOPe realizes that if Trump succeeded and starts draining the Washington Swamp they will likely get pulled down.

    #1 rule for senators:

    Get re-elected.

    Sasse is up in 2020. No, he’s not a vote for conviction. Not even close.

      The Nebraska GOP primary is May 12, 2020. As far as I can tell Sasse is (so far) unopposed for the GOP nomination. The two Democrats running against him (Philips and Janicek) don’t seem to pose a credible threat to him in a red state like Nebraska.

      So Sasse will play nice until he secures the nomination. But after that – he is a loud, whiny NeverTrump scold, and he may very well gamble that it is worth a chance to take his best shot at Trump once he feels secure.

        “The Nebraska GOP primary is May 12, 2020.”
        ***
        If there is a Senate trial, it will likely be over well before May. Sasse’s vote will be on his record.

        If Pelosi has the Dem. votes lined up, Articles will be voted out of Judiciary by mid-Jan and shortly followed by full House vote. By my reading of the “Rules”, the Senate is obligated to start the trial procedures once they receive the House Articles.

        Rules Aug. 1986:

        “Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the
        House of Representatives that managers are appointed on
        their part to conduct an impeachment against any person
        and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the
        Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready
        to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such
        articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice”

    Colonel Travis in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | November 22, 2019 at 1:48 am

    I doubt impeachment will make it out of the House and have thought so ever since the secret hearings began. Despite all the bullshittery you hear about how devastating So-And-So’s testimony was, absolutely nothing tangible has come out of the hearings. Everyone knows this. You have to be genuinely, mentally deficient to not know this. Again, people can pretend all they want but reality hits them in the face in the Senate. I do not think they want to risk everything a Senate trial will expose. They have built a house of cards so big, even I am shocked by it. I never thought I’d see that party take the Stupid Party trophy from the (R)s. But they have.

    The House has something like 8-9 days in this calendar year to meet. If they do vote during that time, it will not be an impeachment vote. It will be a vote to start impeachment hearings with another committee – the one that should have handled it from the beginning (Judiciary), but could not for the (D)’s sake, because that would have prevented them from ramping it up like they have been with that bearded ninny tootle-blower.

    A Senate hearing would be next year – election year. In a best-case scenario, a Senate trial wouldn’t be over until primary time at the earliest. At that point, the argument of “isn’t this too close to an election?” becomes extremely powerful.

    Also – and this is related to what I just typed, there are lawsuits in federal court about whether Trump’s people must be forced to testify because of a House subpoena at this stage. If the (D)s lose that, they could be screwed because the court can say: what you’ve done so far doesn’t count. The full House must vote on impeachment in order for impeachment to be valid. The House has not done this because they know they don’t have squat, and if they did, it would make too many House (D)s vulnerable. They can’t afford to lose seats, and it becomes easier to hold seats if impeachment is official. Right now, it’s not official but they are pretending it is because there are enough stupid people and the media to cheer them on. If they had a valid case, they never would have started this crap in secret. It would have started with the Judiciary Committee in the open.

    Also also – the IG report is coming in a few weeks, Durham is not finished.

    The (D)s are risking a lot right now. This is why Pelosi even today said she has no idea when a proper impeachment hearing will begin, while also saying she’s not going to wait for any court decisions.

    Are they going to go all in or fold? I’m still picking the latter.

      I wouldn’t be surprised the Dems slow roll DJT until their nominee emerges and then pivot to a 2020 campaign issue/slogan, calling it “the people’s impeachment” or some such.

      Will the D’s or R’s be more demoralized? Which will be the most pissed off and storm the polls?

      About the D’s, I’ve wondered how many will say to themselves “we’ve been promised impeachment since 1/20/2017 and they couldn’t get it done – the hell with democrats”. Conversely, how many R’s will be disgusted with 4 years of pandering do-nothing R’s – sniveling cur dogs who didn’t fight back against the D’s.

      I know how I’m voting.

Well I certainly hope all of the senate investigations and hearings are thorough and the senate is prepared to sit down for the impeachment hearing during the entire month of OCTOBER!

I hope it costs them the house in 2020.

Subotai Bahadur | November 22, 2019 at 1:26 am

If one party is actively and openly subverting the Constitution and the results of elections by lies, trickery, and subversion [including of the entire Federal law enforcement and intelligence apparatus]; at what point does any government run by, commanded, or controlled by that party forfeit obedience and allegiance? This question is going to be critical soon, I suspect.

Subotai Bahadur

I actually am surprised they’re letting it go to the Senate. Once it is in the Senate, Pelosi and crew have no control over the narrative anymore, and losing control of the narrative is the single biggest threat the Democrats face right now.

    Barry in reply to Voyager. | November 22, 2019 at 10:57 am

    They haven’t let it go to the senate. Myself and others think they will not as they lose control of their carefully scripted bullshit narrative, and they get exposed for what they have done.

    They, being the commie democrats.

    They are letting it go to the Senate because they believe, correctly, in my opinion, that most of the public does not know the difference between impeachment and removal. Their whole campaign will be, “How can you vote for a President who was impeached?”

      Barry in reply to jb4. | November 23, 2019 at 3:11 pm

      They’ll sure as hell know it when a senate trial is conducted. A verdict of not guilty will make that rather clear.

Breaking: Dems say enough evidence to move forward on impeachment. Vote likely by mid-December.

They have no more evidence than they had months ago. And that’s bupkis. Doing a crash & burn in the Senate does the D’rats no good. The only possibility of an impeachment vote giving them what they want is if DJT does a Nixon redux and resigns before the trial. But even the D’rats can’t be so oblivious that they think there’s any possibility of that. So they’ll keep talking about impeachment, but will never deliver. Mid-December will turn into January, then February, then—oh, did we say February? We meant April. Just a puppet show.

It’s driven by the news media, not the dems. The business model sells audience to advertisers, and soap opera fans are the only segment big enough to pay the daily bills, so soap opera is what you get.

The dems are free-riding with a soap narrative the media can sell to the soap opera people.

As for reality, half the country prefers living in a story. If the senate rebels, it will just become another evil guy in the story. Trump got away with it or some such story.

Taking away the women’s vote would decouple the system, remove the story from politics.

Nikki Haley has risen among the Republicans as if shot out of a cannon; I’m not so sure the Senate intends to support Trump.

What ever happened to Schiff’s concrete evidence that Trump conspired/colluded with Russia?

There seems to be more than sufficient evidence to show that the president used the power of his office to try and coerce Ukraine into publicly announcing an investigation of the Bidens, and conspiracy theories revolving around the 2016 election.

There is a serious danger if a president can invite foreign interference in an election (Russia), then use the power of the presidency to coerce foreign interference in an election (Ukraine and China). At that point foreign powers will begin to pick apart American democracy.

    LOL,
    We now know with certainty the democrats commies are losing because they have directed the minimum wage and brain paid keyboard commies to show up with false bullshit.

    Voyager in reply to Zachriel. | November 22, 2019 at 11:44 am

    You know that that is his official job right? If Biden is corrupted by a foreign power, Trump has an obligation to investigate it, and part of that obligation involves twisting the arms of our treaty partners to make sure they fill their half of the treaty.

    It *does not matter* if it benefits him. It is his job as President to do it.

      Voyager: If Biden is corrupted by a foreign power, Trump has an obligation to investigate it

      There is a system in place for investigations concerning violations of U.S. law, and they don’t start in Ukraine, but with the U.S. Department of Justice. Such investigations are normally done in secret, and a formal investigation requires a ‘reasonable indication’ of a crime, which is lacking in this case.

      Just making stuff up and then coercing Ukraine (and China!) to make a public announcement of an investigation is clearly for political purposes.

        Voyager in reply to Zachriel. | November 22, 2019 at 12:48 pm

        Step one is the boss asks the other boss to tell his subordinates to cooperate with their subordinates.

        Diplomatic communications,such as the 7/25 call *are* generally secret for *exactly* the reasons you just listed. Someone apparently decided that that investigation needed to be made public.

        Further, the Biden statement about getting a prosecutor fired for potentially threatening his son’s job, combined with said son having a $50,000 a month job with no visible means of support is sufficient to ask whether a crime may have been committed. That is the level of the 7/25 call, and it is exactly the appropriate level for the publicly available information at the time.

        While a police officer requires a warrant to enter your house, they do not require a warrant to knock on your door and ask if things are ok, and if there is an appearance of something being off (loud noises, yelling, smoke, etc) they have an obligation to do so, even if it’s just a barbeque gone slightly sideways.

          Voyager: Step one is the boss asks the other boss to tell his subordinates to cooperate with their subordinates.

          That’s right, whether it is a valid exercise of power, or a criminal conspiracy.

          Voyager: Diplomatic communications,such as the 7/25 call *are* generally secret for *exactly* the reasons you just listed.

          They are secret so leaders can have candid discussions. However, secrecy can’t be used to hide possibly impeachable or criminal conduct.

          Voyager: Further, the Biden statement about getting a prosecutor fired for potentially threatening his son’s job, combined with said son having a $50,000 a month job with no visible means of support is sufficient to ask whether a crime may have been committed.

          No. Biden was working at the direction of the president, in coordination with stated U.S. policy, consistent with E.U. concerns, and with bipartisan support. Firing the corrupt prosecutor *increased* the likelihood of prosecution of alleged corruption, including of Burisma, investigations which were languishing under Shokin.

          Voyager: While a police officer requires a warrant to enter your house, they do not require a warrant to knock on your door and ask if things are ok

          That’s right. A search warrant requires probable cause. Surveilling requires a reasonable indication of a crime. Knocking on the door just requires some reason, such as collecting for the police charity fund.

          But that’s not what Trump was asking. Trump was asking for a public announcement of a formal investigation into 2016 conspiracy theories, and of a U.S. citizen. Trump also said the authoritarian, communist government of China should investigate a U.S. citizen, his political rival, and he did so just before negotiations involving hundreds of billions of dollars in trade were set to begin.

        tom_swift in reply to Zachriel. | November 22, 2019 at 6:21 pm

        There is a system in place for investigations concerning violations of U.S. law

        A system which has no authority to investigate crimes in Ukraine.

          tom_swift: A system which has no authority to investigate crimes in Ukraine.

          That is incorrect. If a U.S. citizen breaks certain U.S. laws while in another country, such as laws against bribery, then they can be investigated and prosecuted under U.S. law. See 15 U.S. Code § 78dd.

There seems to be more than sufficient evidence to show that the president used the power of his office to try and coerce Ukraine into publicly announcing an investigation of the Bidens, and conspiracy theories revolving around the 2016 election.
____________________________________________________________

you need to put the bong down

    Trump, 2019 October 3: China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.

    Trump directly and publicly called on an authoritarian, communist regime to investigate his political opponent and U.S. citizen. He did so days before the start of negotiations with that regime concerning hundreds of billions of dollars in trade.

      VaGentleman in reply to Zachriel. | November 22, 2019 at 10:21 am

      Isn’t that all the more reason to investigate the relationship. The Chinese don’t give money away without a quid pro quo.

      Speaking of bribery and quid pro quo: Isn’t it bribery and coercion when the US gov’t tells the states that they have to enforce HOV lanes or lose highway funds they have paid into the trust?

        VaGentleman: Isn’t that all the more reason to investigate the relationship.

        Any investigation of a U.S. citizen should start with U.S. investigators. An official investigation requires a reasonable indication of a crime, and there is no evidence of a crime. Even then, investigations are normally conducted in secret to protect those who are never indicted.

        VaGentleman: The Chinese don’t give money away without a quid pro quo.

        They are paying for what they hope are connections and influence. Turns out, that’s not illegal.

        VaGentleman: Isn’t it bribery and coercion when the US gov’t tells the states that they have to enforce HOV lanes or lose highway funds they have paid into the trust?

        There are actually a number of court decisions on the issue. The federal government can’t commandeer the state (Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1849). The federal government can encourage with funding, but can’t coerce. That’s why highway funding rules have generally been ruled constitutional (South Dakota v. Dole 1987), but ObamaCare’s Medicaid mandate (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 2012) was ruled unconstitutional.

          “An official investigation requires a reasonable indication of a crime, and there is no evidence of a crime.”

          In commie moron land, only the committee has the right to determine or speak of a crime.

          It’s politburo level stuff. Zach and his commie brethren will tell you when you are guilty, and the tell you the crime.

          And their politburo members will never be guilty.

          Zach is a paid commie, paid to disrupt boards like LI.

          OnPoint in reply to Zachriel. | November 22, 2019 at 3:28 pm

          “An official investigation requires a reasonable indication of a crime, and there is no evidence of a crime.”

          LOL. You’re high.

          We have Biden on video bragging about his abuse of power and doing the very thing the Dems are saying that Trump did (projection). Look, if Hunter wasn’t on the Burisma board, then maybe Quid Pro Joe would be able to say “Ukraine is a corrupt place and I just got rid of a corrupt prosecutor.” Whether the prosecutor himself was corrupt, surely Ukraine is a hotbed of corruption. But as soon as Hunter is on the board, Burisma is sending emails to the state department and Devon Archer is getting meetings with John Kerry, and then Biden withholds Ukrainian aid and goes in front of a live audience with video cameras to brag about it, there is probable cause to believe that a crime may have been committed.

          In summary, there is far more probable cause to believe that Biden committed a crime than there was to believe that Trump “colluded with the Russians,” which spawned a whole special counsel.

          I’m thinking we need to appoint Devon Nunes as special counsel to investigate Biden, and he can hire a bunch of Trump donors as his lawyers. I bet he can do an investigation faster than Mueller did.

          OnPoint: We have Biden on video bragging about his abuse of power

          No. Biden is on video bragging about using U.S. power to advance official U.S. policy, as directed by the president, consistent with E.U. concerns, and with bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress.

          Furthermore, firing the prosecutor, who was slow-walking investigations, increased the chances of investigations of alleged corruption, including at Burisma.

          OnPoint: than there was to believe that Trump “colluded with the Russians,” which spawned a whole special counsel.

          The Special Counsel was charged to investigate links between Russian agents and the Trump campaign, not “collusion”. The Special Counsel detailed ten cases of possible obstruction by the Trump administration.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | November 23, 2019 at 3:14 pm

          Commie Comrade Zach is a liar.

          Every sentence is a lie.

      To say comrade Zach is full of sh*t is an understatement.

      Zach is one of the paid commies that show up on boards with a handful of talking points, all carefully crafted to fool the fools.

      Don’t be a fool.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Barry. | November 22, 2019 at 2:36 pm

        Just remember that Zach is the guy who thinks it was OK for the Obama administration to investigate the Trump campaign without any credible evidence of wrongdoing. He also thought it was OK to lie to the FISA court (more than once), and to attempt to involve a foreign intelligence agency to investigate an American citizen in a manner that would not be allowed by US law.

        Trump, OTOH, was asking an ally to uphold its end of an agreement that it would investigate corruption under its own laws. And it can’t be imagined that the president is without the means to enforce that agreement as he sees fit.

        Would such an investigation give him a political advantage? Yes, it would. But if that were enough to derail a legitimate investigation into a situation posing an obvious appearance of impropriety, where was this concern over the Mueller investigation (or the current impeachment hearings)? Didn’t said investigation give the Dems an advantage in the midterms? Weren’t the Dems poised to reap a windfall of advantage if the investigation had been fruitful? Zach didn’t argue against the Mueller investigation for the advantage it would give the Dems, did he?

        And let’s not forget the “hook” to the whole quid pro quo leak – the claim that Trump endangered US national security (and favored the Russians) by withholding military aid to Ukraine. That seems to have faded out of sight once it was realized how many people were aware Obama refused to give Ukraine any military aid at all. (Remember when Zach criticized the Obama administration for showing favoritism to Russia and endangering national security? Neither do I.)

          DaveGinOly: Just remember that Zach is the guy who thinks it was OK for the Obama administration to investigate the Trump campaign without any credible evidence of wrongdoing.

          DOJ watchdog report expected to say FBI’s Russia probe launched properly but lower-level employees made mistakes

          DaveGinOly: Zach didn’t argue against the Mueller investigation for the advantage it would give the Dems, did he?

          No. Because the Mueller investigation was properly predicated, and done by U.S. law enforcement, not a foreign government fighting its own corruption, at war with Russia, and under coercion by Trump.

          DaveGinOly: Obama refused to give Ukraine any military aid at all

          That’s false. They initially provided armored vehicles, patrol boats, and body armor. Later, under the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, they provided lethal aid.

          Comrade Zach is lying if his fingers are typing.

          “DOJ watchdog report expected to say FBI’s Russia probe launched properly but lower-level employees made mistakes”

          Mistakes my ass. It was a corrupt and illegal investigation carried out by high level employees. As will be shown when Barr and Durham are finished.

          “No. Because the Mueller investigation was properly predicated, and done by U.S. law enforcement, not a foreign government fighting its own corruption, at war with Russia, and under coercion by Trump.”

          You must clean stables for a living with the horseshit piled this deep. The Mueller investigation was corrupt from its very beginnings. The Russians invaded Ukraine because Obama gave them the green light, and refused to help them with any material actually useful to counter a Russian invasion. It was President Trump that actually provided lethal aid useful in fighting off the Russians.

          “DaveGinOly: Obama refused to give Ukraine any military aid at all

          Comrade Zach: That’s false. They initially provided armored vehicles, patrol boats, and body armor. Later, under the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, they provided lethal aid.”

          You’re a liar. Every single item provided was useless against the Russians. Every damn bit of it was nothing more than a façade. It was Obama that gave the greenlight to Putin to invade the Ukraine.

          Thankfully for the Ukrainians, President Trump approved lethal aid that is actually lethal and useful to countering a Russian invasion.

If Pelosi let’s this matter get to the Senate she is more insane than I thought.

    Not so. She will be delivering it to the McConnell-led Senate and I maintain that they have cut a deal. We’ll find out soon enough. Trump’s “bring it on!” message is predicated on having Schiff, Ciarella, Hunter Biden etal.. called to testify and face questioning under oath. I predict that McConnell will quash that on day 1.

      Today’s post by Breitbart’s Joel Pollack makes the slam-dunk case for what McConnell should do. Zero chance. McConnell assured Democrats from day one that if the House votes to impeach, there will be a Senate trial. The Swamp is still being run via Uniparty kabuki until proven otherwise.

      I also predict that the IG report will be mishandled.

        There will be a trial, of that you can be sure. But I don’t think McConnell will be able to decide who will testify. The process will be presided over by Chief Justice Roberts (or Thomas if Roberts recuses himself). And as I said in another comment, I think McConnell will relish the chance to drag the Dems through hot coals. He just needs the outcome of the process to be seen as fair so that he can say, “While the House sent us this steaming pile of crap, the Republican Senate did its duty in a fair and impartial process. We called all the witnesses and investigated every lead and then voted to not remove the President. While people might have disagreed with the President’s policy or his methods, he’s the head of the executive branch and there was no evidence of crimes or wrong doing. If the people of the United States feel otherwise, they can remove the President in November at the ballot box.”

        Pierre Delecto, Murkowski, and Collins might vote to remove, which the Dems and media will trumpet like a win, but Trump stays in place until at least November 2020.

        tom_swift in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 22, 2019 at 6:36 pm

        McConnell assured Democrats from day one that if the House votes to impeach, there will be a Senate trial.

        A trial conducted outside the controlled confines of the Star Chamber is probably the only way to ensure that the fictional Schiff Narrative doesn’t dominate the news and, perhaps, public perception. Killing the trial before it even happens will be portrayed as some sort of procedural trickery designed to subvert a proper investigation of DJT’s purported crimes.

        Suppression of the Mueller report would have done the same. But publicizing it in its entire glory allowed it to show that the President is about as squeaky-clean as anyone in government can be.

      Phil,

      You realize that McConnell is up for election in 2020?

      And he prizes being a senator above all else?

      That he is from Kentucky, a state that went for Trump by 30%, 62-32?

      McConnell is not stupid. Trump has him by the very small set of balls.

    Sonnys Mom in reply to Gersh204. | November 23, 2019 at 10:53 am

    She is. Nothing’s really changed since her 1987 run for Congress, when Pelosi described herself as a “rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth person in the Democratic Party”.
    https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/nancy-pelosi

What is unbelievable to me is that those voters supporting the Democrat coup do not seem to realize that the Democrats have no more respect for them than they have for those who voted for Trump. Possibly even less so. As has historically been the case, the first ones executed will be the most outspoken of the supporters.
Look at the French Revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, Cambodia, China, any South American banana republic, who disappears first? The useful idiots.
The same types who supported Walter Duranty and the New York Times are now supporting Adam Schiff, the NYT, the Washington Post, and Nancy Pelosi. We, the People, are supposed to be too stupid to govern ourselves, and too stupid to recognize that all of the above are lying through their teeth. They may be right. Anyone who could believe–as CNN did–that Gordon Sondland testified that Trump demanded a quid pro quo for anything from Ukraine would believe anything.
Ironic that it’s about Russia and Ukraine again, isn’t it?
The playbook appears to be “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

If this is a theft, it’s being carried out in slow-motion.

“I’ve heard of the habitual criminal, of course. But I never dreamed I’d become involved with the habitual crime.” — Dr. Amusa, “The Hot Rock”

When a Deep State loyalists and Pelosi underling like Schiff smear President Trump, they’re just following the Pelosi playbook.

Pelosi has a history of using “demonize and destroy” tactics to influence voter opinion and win elections. She on record attacking Ronald Reagan as readily as she went after George W. Bush.
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/nancy-pelosi

So it’s not really about President Trump, his personality, background, or how he implements policy. To Pelosi, it’s a simple proposition: all Republicans are the enemy.

It worked during the “W” and Reagan years, and it frustrates her that it’s not working now.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend