US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Last edited:
Democrats' bid for new Trump impeachment witnesses likely to fall short

Reuters Article (Archive)

Article said:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats appeared to have fallen short on Thursday in their bid to garner the votes needed to call witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, clearing the way for his likely acquittal as early as this weekend.

Democrats have worked to get at least four Republicans to support the effort, but their hopes appeared dashed when Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who had been undecided, declared further evidence in the case was unnecessary.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander said in a statement after the evening session.

Barring an unforeseen change of heart by another Republican senator, it appeared Alexander’s decision would bring a swifter conclusion to Trump’s two-week trial.
Republican Senator Susan Collins broke with her party and announced her support for witnesses. But Democrats needed at least of three of her colleagues to defect and give them the 51 votes needed to call witnesses and prolong the trial.

Late on Thursday, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski said, “I am going to go reflect on what I have heard, reread my notes and decide whether I need to hear more.”

A 50-50 tie on the question of witness testimony and additional evidence could result if Murkowski and Senator Mitt Romney join Collins in backing the additional evidence.

Such a deadlock would mean that the drive for witnesses would fail, unless U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the Senate trial, voted to break the tie.

The backing of two-thirds of the Senate is required to remove Trump. He is unlikely to be convicted.

Democrats had hoped to hear from former National Security Adviser John Bolton after a report - which he has not denied - that he planned to say in an upcoming book that Trump told him he wanted to freeze $391 million in U.S. military aid for Ukraine until it investigated Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was vice president.

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives impeached Trump in December, formally accusing him of abusing his power for pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The House also charged Trump with obstruction of Congress.

Trump’s acquittal would allow him to claim vindication just as the Democratic Party holds its first nominating contest for the Nov. 3 election in Iowa on Monday.

Trump held a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday and slammed the trial, calling it an effort by Democrats to overthrow his 2016 election victory.

“They want to nullify your ballots, poison our democracy and overthrow the entire system of government,” Trump said.

TRYING TO UNMASK WHISTLEBLOWER

The two sides also sparred over the unnamed government official whose whistleblower complaint about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spurred the drive for his removal.

Trump and some other Republicans have pressed for months to unmask the intelligence official who filed the report and have tried to paint the individual as a partisan figure working with Democrats to destroy Trump’s presidency.

The government has provided security to the whistleblower in response to security threats, the individual’s lawyers have said.


On Thursday, the issue boiled to the surface again when Roberts refused to read a question from Republican Senator Rand Paul that included the name of a person right-wing media have accused of being the whistleblower.

Paul is one of several Republicans, including Trump, who have posted social media links to some of those news articles.

“The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” Roberts said. He had rejected a similar question the day before.

Paul said his query whether the individual named had worked with a member of Democratic Representative Adam Schiff’s staff to impeach Trump was not meant to unmask the whistleblower.

“My question’s not about the whistleblower,” he told reporters. “My question’s about two people who are friends.”

“This question was really framed and intended to expose the identity of the whistleblower and subject that whistleblower to retaliation,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal told reporters.

Bradley P. Moss, a lawyer whose firm represents the whistleblower, called the Republican effort “a stain on the legacy of this constitutional republic.”

On Friday, each side is expected to present closing arguments before the Senate moves to the question of whether to call witnesses.

Schiff, the trial’s lead Democratic prosecutor in the trial, proposed both sides conduct closed-door witness depositions for a week while the Senate returns to normal business.

But there was no sign his plea was being considered by Republicans.

While Friday’s session could run late into the night, one senior Senate Republican aide said the vote on Trump’s acquittal could be engineered to take place during daytime hours on Saturday or even Monday.

That is when more Americans would be watching the outcome.
 
In case you missed it, Alexanders statement on not needing witnesses means that he thinks that the democrats proved that did Trump did the bad thing, just that the bad thing is not impeachable.

We've been asking who could be stupid enough to fall for Schiffs bullshit, turns out its members of the United States Senate.
 
MAGA, bitches. Deal with it. YOU made it this way and refuse to understand why it is so.

Don't be mad at them. They are just the same type of people that thought in the 80's any moment Reagan would lose his mind and smash the red button. The only difference between then and now is the media is with you always, everywhere in your mobile, like having a TV strapped to you 24/7. So the effect of the media is stronger now for people.

It's harder to ground yourself, get perspective, because your friends are subjected to the same media 24/7 you are.
 
In case you missed it, Alexanders statement on not needing witnesses means that he thinks that the democrats proved that did Trump did the bad thing, just that the bad thing is not impeachable.

We've been asking who could be stupid enough to fall for Schiffs bullshit, turns out its members of the United States Senate.
tbh why she is voting No is irrelevant, without an act of actual god there is no way the Dems are getting the 2/3s required.
 
Reminder the anti war movement went to sleep during Obama, resulting in the death of many in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. And failed to close Gitmo or end the war.

Wont be surprised in the next democrat administration, all those outrage bots and activists will disappear.

As my coworker said, it all depends on who is in office.
 
Last edited:
Reminder the anti war movement went to sleep during Obama, resulting in the death of many in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. And failed to close Gitmo or end the war.

Wont be surprised in the next democrat administration, all those outrage bots and activists will disappear.

As coworkers said, it all depends on who is in office.
It is already asleep, you have the supposedly anti-war people screeching about him leaving Syria now.
 
It is already asleep, you have the supposedly anti-war people screeching about him leaving Syria now.
well a lot of the memorable bush era anti war guys lost relevance once obama was president.

noam chomsky is old
jim hightower is old
howard zinn is dead
al franken is old
ward churchhill disappeared after being fired for being a fake injun
mumia abu jamal lost influence with the rise of black lives matter
cynthia mckinney is ???
danny glover is old
nofx graduated punk rock and that guy lives on the golf course.

i think jello biafra is still at it.
 
well a lot of the memorable bush era anti war guys lost relevance once obama was president.

noam chomsky is old
jim hightower is old
howard zinn is dead
al franken is old
ward churchhill disappeared after being fired for being a fake injun
mumia abu jamal lost influence with the rise of black lives matter
cynthia mckinney is ???
danny glover is old
nofx graduated punk rock and that guy lives on the golf course.

i think jello biafra is still at it.

That or mayhaps they were just faggots who hate anyone with an R after their name.
 
well a lot of the memorable bush era anti war guys lost relevance once obama was president.

noam chomsky is old
jim hightower is old
howard zinn is dead
al franken is old
ward churchhill disappeared after being fired for being a fake injun
mumia abu jamal lost influence with the rise of black lives matter
cynthia mckinney is ???
danny glover is old
nofx graduated punk rock and that guy lives on the golf course.

i think jello biafra is still at it.
Maddow got her start filling in for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and she's now #1 liberal media NPC. No idea what happened to Olbermann after his creepy GQ show, but at least the guy had a personality that wasn't just oozing smug.

Chomsky hasn't been relevant since the Reagan administration. His media critique is spot-on with what is happening today but's he's stuck in the loop of Orange Man Fascist. His beard is rocking tho.
download.jpg
 
FUCK Nasty Nancy, Useless old bitch, puts party over country.

On a related note, Victor Davis Hanson opines as to what the Dems may try after this fucking joke of an impeachment is over. Good one. But no way in hell will the Dems wear President Trump out physically. They STILL don't realize not only does he not give a flying fuck what they say or do, but he eats this stuff right up and shits it out - on the Dems!

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/26/target-trump-forever/


Target Trump Forever
Destroying the president is not just the only viable trajectory for the Left, but it is also the only possible narrative given that focus on the current left-wing agenda is slow-motion suicide.
Victor Davis Hanson

- January 26th, 2020


The Left has shown that the collusion exoneration last year by the heralded Robert Mueller investigation—all 22-months, the “dream team,” and $34 million of it—meant absolutely nothing.

Nor did it matter that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz found no justification of “collusion” in the Steele dossier to justify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants it issued to spy on Carter Page.
Both the Mueller and Horowitz investigations confirmed that even the partisan and warped FBI “Crossfire Hurricane” intrigues could find no Russian-Trump collusion.

And yet the House impeachment managers cannot finish a sentence without exclaiming “Russian collusion,” as if it has now transmogrified into some exotic foundational myth.

Remember, no sooner had Mueller found no collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Kremlin and no actionable obstruction than the progressives narrative was recalibrated into Ukrainian quid pro quo—albeit after brief detours in “Recession!” and “Racism!”

Yet it is now as if neither Mueller nor Horowitz ever existed, as if we have forgotten the thousands of hours of investigation that found no Russian collusion, but indeed discovered the systematic warping of the FISA court by allegations of such falsities. As if to prove that the Mueller investigation was never biased, Andrew Weissmann now appears on MSNBC as a legal analyst to continue what he once did for Mueller, in the manner of the post-Russian “collusion” careers of Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and James Clapper.

In truth, impeachment started the very week Donald Trump was inaugurated by articles of impeachment introduced in the House of Representatives by 58 Democrats. Between 2017 and 2019, one effort to remove Trump or members of his administration before the 2020 election followed rapidly and furiously upon another. Reason, logic, moderation, and common sense vanished, replaced by a shrill directive that Trump was evil and thus his administration had to be aborted by the good people, and by any means possible.

Obama Administration holdover and then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates targeted Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, with the fossilized Logan Act and began to resist Trump’s executive orders. Soon Trump opponents sued Trump under the equally ossified Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. In no time, Democrats were seeking to remove Trump as mentally unfit under the 25th Amendment. Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein contemplated rounding up cabinet members to declare him insane and the requisite Ivy-League “expert” was pulled out of central casting to diagnose the never-examined patient Trump in absentia as crazy.

Meanwhile, fired FBI Director James Comey leaked confidential memos of conversations with the president, in an admitted—and successful—bid to secure a special counsel to investigate Trump for “Russian collusion.”
At times, various characters, such as the now-indicted Michael Avenatti and now-jailed former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, swore Trump had broken various laws and would be removed from office. An indicted Lev Parnas now takes their place as the Democrats’ new and one real—though, again, criminal—truthteller.

A former Trump liaison, adult film actress Stormy Daniels, held lurid interviews and press conferences about “hush money,” which Trump’s opponents sought, unsuccessfully, to translate into actionable campaign finance law violations. And as soon as Trump was elected, his political opponents sued to release his IRS tax returns.

Resistance from Within

Less formal but even more alarming efforts at removing or neutering Trump were embraced by the Washington elite, federal bureaucracy, and some Trump establishment appointees.

Former Obama official Rosa Brooks wrote an article discussing ways to remove Trump, including the idea of a military coup. An anonymous administration official penned a New York Times op-ed, and later a book, bragging that he was one of many officials in the executive branch trying to disrupt the operation of the administration. Apparently, all these misfits thought they were playing the role of Lieutenant Tom Keefer using his supposedly superior wit to take down a crazy Captain Queeg.

Several tell-all accounts from former Trump appointees, muckrakers, and Washington insider journalists variously alleged that Trump and his family were either criminally minded or unhinged. A “whistleblower” worked with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to lodge a complaint against Trump, alleging second-hand knowledge of a Trump phone call, purportedly leveraging Ukrainian help in investigating supposed Hunter Biden corruption to release U.S. aid. The whistleblower now is mute and supposedly remains anonymous because if he were to identify himself and testify under oath, his motivations, activism, and prior relationships with Schiff and Joe Biden would transmogrify him from a cult hero into a conniving anti-Trump activist.

And on and on.

So what happens in the never-ending impeachment story, once the current impeachment indictment leads to an inevitable Senate vote of exoneration?

Another Stormy somewhere? A follow-up to Operation Crossfire Hurricane? Tax returns redux? Whistleblower 2.0? Another New York Times anonymous op-ed resister? Bob Woodward’s sequel? More leaked phone calls? Another impeachment hearing, and another impeachment vote? Schiff’s new version of a presidential call? One more Ivy League psychiatrist distance-diagnosing Trump as nuts? An emoluments clause do-over? More FISA warrants? A newly discovered Trump phone call to Poland, Romania, or Mexico? Lt. Colonel Vindman’s twin?

The Weakest Field in Decades

I mention these post-impeachment psychodramas because they are symptomatic of a sick Democratic patient. Yet the endless effort to destroy Trump before the election in the progressive mind has a certain logic given the current Democratic dilemma.

The Democratic Party is currently struggling with the weakest field of candidates since 1972 or 1984, well apart from the irony that a party that hectors the nation on proportional representation and disparate impact is fine with an all-white debating stage.

Joe Biden offers the only chance of winning the Midwest swing states. Yet he seems to be aging on the campaign trail exponentially, with 10 more—and more frantic—months of campaigning ahead.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) can certainly be nominated, but he cannot win, because the country knows that he would end the United States as we have known it. The scold Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), sanctimonious Pete Buttigieg, and chameleon billionaire Michael Bloomberg can only make the primary race interesting.

The Democratic platform will likely include the “Green New Deal,” a wealth tax, Medicare for All, tuition debt cancellation, higher income taxes, veritable open borders, an end to deportation and perhaps ICE as well, reparations, and a leftwing version of Obama’s failed foreign policy.

In other words, the Democratic agenda is weaker even than the unlucky candidate who will be expected to run on it.
Given those realities, there is a perverse logic in destroying Trump first, and worrying later about offering an alternative agenda. Democrats accept that if Trump is not removed from office, or is not mired in existential scandals, or not physically destroyed, he will likely win in November. The ensuing eight-year Trump reign would destroy not just the Obama legacy, but weaken the entire progressive project for a generation.

Because Trump is not a traditional Republican, the Democrats are bewildered over how to neuter him. His rally audiences are composed of about 40 percent Independents and Democrats. His entire China reset is predicated on saving manufacturing industries, blue-collar jobs, and the industrial heartland—the erstwhile heart of the old Democratic Party.

The supposedly racist Trump appeals to minorities in a way that previous Republican candidates have not, and in ways that transcend his record. For all his loudness and invective, Trump is seen as authentic. He is not condescending. The thought of Trump rolling his r’s or adopting a Hillary or Joe Biden inner-city patois is impossible. Being rough and genuine is usually seen as preferable to smooth and fake.

The Trump effort to stop illegal immigration and thus empower entry-level American job seekers, to fast track energy development, expand deregulation, recalibrate asymmetrical trade, and avoid expeditionary wars abroad have led not just to the strongest economy of the 21st century, but to a different sort of economy based on the idea of full-employment, energy independence, and changing the role of government from obstructer to promoter of free enterprise.

More, More, More

Democrats don’t talk up their alternate agenda because they know that more regulations, open borders, trade appeasement, banning fracking, and the green new deal, would be the very opposite of Trump’s plan and likely achieve the very opposite of Trump’s results. In this context, destroying Trump is not just the only viable trajectory for the Left, but it is also the only possible narrative. Again, to focus on the current left-wing agenda is slow-motion suicide.

The Democrats know that impeachment will not lead to a conviction. They accept that they are not gaining traction in the polls. They fear that Trump’s wounds heal quickly and what doesn’t destroy him can make him stronger.

So why continue? Again, there is little other alternative. Moreover, addicts do not act logically and the Left is hooked on Trump and cannot quit him. Finally, they hope to destroy Trump physically. He will be 74 in June. By the standards of senior medicine, they feel Trump is locked in a self-destructive cycle: little sleep, little exercise, poor diet, too heavy, too stressed.

Very few politicians in memory could physically endure the invective, hate, and furor aimed at Trump and his family daily over the last three years. Much less, could any president function with 90 percent negative media coverage, moles in the executive branch monitoring his every breath, and an unhinged opposition whose reason to get up in the morning is to end Trump.

The Democrats believe that one more whistleblower, just a bit more impeachment, a little more Nadler or Schiff, a pinch more of Pelosi, or another Ukrainian or Russian liar might finally give Trump a stroke or malignancy. With Trump debilitated, they might have a chance against a more traditional Republican.

We will be down to the elemental after impeachment: if you can’t beat Trump legislatively, judicially, or electorally, and if you can’t impeach, convict him and remove him, perhaps you can simply physically destroy him.

The best part about this lunacy is that for all the lefts claims of 'russian collusion' they seem to be ignorant of the fact that trying to force trump to get a psych eval and trip to the psych ward is literally the kind of thing the soviets did back in the day to problematic politicians. Something something political rehabilitation. The irony and lack of self awareness, and lack of understanding of history salon is showing is palpable

Funny thing that
 
In case you missed it, Alexanders statement on not needing witnesses means that he thinks that the democrats proved that did Trump did the bad thing, just that the bad thing is not impeachable.

We've been asking who could be stupid enough to fall for Schiffs bullshit, turns out its members of the United States Senate.

Makes me wonder if there are consequences for brining charges against Trump with no evidence. If not maybe there should be so we don't get this circus again next time a Republican is president.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------



As of now, impeachment has received many times the news coverage of everything else that has happened in the past couple of weeks combined. In America's newsrooms, impeachment is all that matters and that should tell you something. In fact, it ought to make you suspicious.

The world is changing incredibly fast out there, and it's fascinating and ominous and worth covering. But by and large, the media are all but ignoring it. Why are they doing that?

Well, consider the stories they're downplaying in favor of a protracted government hearing whose ending we already know. For starters, at this very moment, a serious viral outbreak is spreading across China, the world's biggest country. In just a matter of weeks, this new strain of coronavirus has generated almost as many new cases as SARS did in three full months. Remember SARS?

So two weeks versus three months. More than a hundred people have died so far, and that's just the official total. The real number is likely higher than that. Hong Kong has closed its borders with mainland China, but as of Tuesday night, for reasons that are not at all clear, planes are still landing in this country from Chinese cities.

So by any objective standard, that is the biggest story of the day, maybe of the moment -- a potential pandemic rising from Asia. But that's not all that is happening outside impeachment world.

According to a new CDC report, the suicide rate in this country has risen by an astounding 40 percent over the past 17 years. Last year alone, an additional 16,000 Americans killed themselves compared to the rate from 17 years ago. You likely know one of them; most people do know one of them.

To put it in perspective, that's more deaths in the entire Iraq and the entire Afghan wars combined. And the hardest hit sector of the population, you won't be surprised to learn, was blue collar workers. It's the same group being crushed by wage stagnation, unemployment and the opioid epidemic and being crushed, above all, by the loathing and the contempt our ruling class so clearly feels for them. Why are they dying? Neglect is one of the main causes.

Meanwhile, as if that weren't enough, all of that, a well-known Harvard University professor turns out to be a Chinese spy -- for real. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard's chemistry department, was arrested Tuesday for concealing millions of dollars in payments from the Chinese government and then hiding his involvement in a Chinese program to acquire foreign technology and expertise.

If those allegations against Lieber are true, he betrayed this country to assist our most dangerous enemy, and he wasn't alone. Authorities have also charged -- while you were watching impeachment -- a Boston University grad student who apparently was secretly serving as a lieutenant in the People's Liberation Army. She forwarded her research from this country straight to Beijing.

That researcher is already back in China, so she will likely never be punished for what she did. But yet another researcher here on a visa sponsored by yes, Harvard, was just caught trying to smuggle 21 vials of biological material out of Logan Airport in Boston. This is all happening right now.

Remember, when America was shocked when the Rosenbergs were caught stealing secrets and sending them to the Soviets? They went to the electric chair for that. Well, today, Chinese spies are so common in our colleges and in our government here in Washington, they would barely even notice them. It doesn't even rate a story on page one.

So there you have it -- three news stories, each more compelling and more inherently important than the impeachment farce we've endured for a week and a half. What do these stories have in common? Well, each one points up the selfish incompetence of the people in charge, and maybe that's why the media don't want to talk about them -- because their job is to protect the people in charge.

By the way, here's one more story they are not telling you about in any detail: the growing chaos within the Democratic Party.

With the first votes to the 2020 race less than a week from now, things are falling apart. Bernie Sanders is all of a sudden poised to win the first three contests in a row. Historically, that has been a guarantee of a presidential nomination.

Now, Bernie's rise has been happening for months now. But like every major new development in the world, it's been slow to dawn on official Washington, which has been wholly engaged in the emotionally satisfying ritual of hating Donald Trump.

But now Bernie has arrived and he's impossible to ignore. The Democratic establishment is waking up to a nightmare, and they're horrified.

No Democrat in Washington really believes Joe Biden is a strong candidate, no matter what they tell you. Talk to them privately -- talk to anyone who knows him -- and they'll admit Joe Biden shouldn't even be running or for that matter, driving. Everyone agrees it is sad to watch it.

Their solution -- their designated savior -- is finance mogul Michael Bloomberg. So an elderly white male billionaire riding to the rescue of a party that, as a matter of official policy, hates white male billionaires. Doesn't sound likely, does it? If this were a movie script, they'd be laughed out of the pitch meeting. "Come on. No one will believe it."

But this is Washington where purportedly smart people convince themselves of all kinds of unlikely things and then go with it. So Bloomberg is the candidate they're backing -- for now, anyway.

Oh, but please. Let's stop talking about depressing topics like Chinese spying, global pandemics and the imminent rise of socialism in our country. Let's get back to something we can handle, something small and fun, like John Bolton's catty new book. Good ol' John Bolton. They hated him once on cable television. Now, he is their hero.

Why? Why do they love John Bolton? Because his book and the sideshow it represents make it possible for the rest of us to ignore their failures. But it's still interesting.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Senate Republicans who oppose the Democrats' request to subpoena additional witnesses in President Trump's ongoing Senate impeachment trial could pose a major risk to the future of the party, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro said Wednesday.

“Heres the worst-case scenario for Republicans," Shapiro said on the "The Ben Shapiro Show." "They don’t call witnesses; two weeks before the election, witnesses come out and say a bunch of damaging things to Trump; Trump loses and the Republicans lose the Senate."

Shapiro was responding to reports that some Republican senators are planning to break ranks with the party and demand to hear from additional witnesses after The New York Times reported that the manuscript of former National Security Adviser John Bolton's forthcoming book that could prove pivotal in the trial. Democrats are hoping to subpoena Bolton to discuss his claim that Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.

"Trump’s not getting impeached [removed from office]," Shapiro said point-blank. "You need two-thirds of the Senate to impeach. They do not have it, it’s not going to happen, he’s not getting impeached."

"But, there’s another issue on the table here," he continued. "If senators look like they’re obstructing, they could lose the Senate and that is a problem for Republicans."

President Trump responded in a series of tweets Wednesday to the claims in Bolton's book, which Shapiro said puts him in a "factual conflict with a key witness."

"Trump has gotten into a firefight with one of the prospective chief witnesses," he explained. "The reason that's a problem is because then it looks like a Republican cover-up if they don't actually hear from ... John Bolton."

Shapiro then addressed Republican senators who oppose calling witnesses for fear of dragging out the trial.

"To the Republicans who are saying 'It’s going to drag this thing out ... ' then accelerate it," Shapiro said. "Just say 'We’re gonna do all witnesses ... we’re gonna have two hours of hearing from all the witnesses."

"The [House] Democrats did it ... they did all the hearings in two weeks," he added. "The notion that this has to take months on end ... I don’t see why."

Shapiro also said he doesn't anticipate major revelations from witness testimony.

“The reason I’m not worried about having witnesses is because I don’t actually think Trump did anything impeachable," he said.

"If you’re in favor of conservatism, you want Trump to get re-elected and also a Republican Senate, then what you would like here is for all the information to get out as early as possible, hear all of it," Shapiro explained.

"In all likelihood, there’s nothing there that’s impeachable and then we can move forward to the election."

--------------------------------------------------------------



The evening newscasts on ABC NBC and CBS gave significantly more favorable coverage to Democratic House impeachment managers’ opening arguments than President Trump’s legal team received, according to a new study.

The conservative Media Research Center examined ABC’s “World News Tonight,” “CBS Evening News” and “NBC Nightly News” from Jan. 22 to Jan. 28 to determine how the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump was covered.

“They gave Democrats double the airtime and showered their arguments with mostly praise, while expressing only criticism of the President’s legal team,” MRC news analyst Nicholas Fondacaro wrote.

The study found that the three networks “made a total of 34 evaluative statements about the merits and effectiveness of both sides,” with 21 of them being about Democratic impeachment managers.

“Of that total, 95 percent of those (20) touted their efforts and presentations, which means only one of their evaluative comments were negative,” Fondacaro wrote. “NBC had the lone negative comment.”

By comparison, the MRC found that “every evaluative statement from reporters and anchors about the merits and effectiveness of Trump’s defense team were negative,” with ABC and CBS having five negative comments each and NBC having three.

“The networks would roundly tear down the arguments Trump’s legal team was making despite the evidence they would present,” Fondacaro wrote. “Along with that heavy praise for House impeachment managers came a sizable boost in the amount of airtime allowed for their side. More than double, in fact.”

The study found that Democratic managers received nearly 25 minutes of airtime, compared to less than 12 minutes for Trump’s defense team.+

ABC gave Democrats nine minutes and 25 seconds and only five minutes and 21 seconds to Trump’s team, while NBC gave nearly eight minutes to Democrats and only three minutes and 47 seconds to the defense, according to the study.

“With the liberal media’s demand that Republicans be impartial in hearing the case, it was clearly more of a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ suggestion,” Fondacaro wrote.

The Media Research Center is a conservative organization that aims to “expose and neutralize” liberal bias in the news media.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly has enough votes among his Republican colleagues in the Senate to block votes for additional witnesses in the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump.

As Democrats have continued to push for additional witnesses in the Senate trial, McConnell reportedly believes his party will stick together and vote against having more witnesses, according to ABC News. The Majority Leader believes he has enough Republican support to defeat any motion brought forward by Democrats regarding additional witnesses in the trial.

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz confirmed Tuesday that he will vote against calling more witnesses to the Senate impeachment trial of Trump and explained why.

Cruz was asked by Fox News’ Sean Hannity about Trump’s defense lawyers’ performance in the Senate impeachment trial, to which he responded “I will tell you why he should be acquitted and why he will be acquitted. Quid pro quo doesn’t matter, it’s a red herring. It doesn’t matter if there was a quid pro quo or not. The reason is a president is always justified and in fact has a responsibility to investigate credible evidence of corruption.”

“On Friday, I’m going to vote that we don’t need any more witnesses with 17 witnesses in the House, we’ve heard all the evidence. The House Managers have failed,” Cruz said. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: We Asked Every GOP Senator About Impeachment. Seven Ruled It Out.)

The White House’s defense team had its first opportunity to deliver their opening arguments in the impeachment trial against Trump in the Senate on Saturday. The team had 24 hours over three days to make its arguments, but they did not use all 24 hours of their time.

The House of Representatives officially voted Jan. 15 to send the articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate and approved the House’s impeachment managers.

No one in the ruling cadre of any developed nation cares if the poor kill themselves. And the so-called “middle class” in America are poor. The wealth disparity between them and the upper class in America is a vast and growing chasm.

It is time for the populace to stop kidding itself that the rich of the First World are interested in anything other than perpetuating their own lofty and protected status. The reason they throw the poor cultural totems like abortion legislation and unskilled immigration controls is to distract them from questioning why the wealth inequality in rich nations is growing consistently wider year on year.

The “culture wars” were a deliberate tactical invention of neocon political thinkers in the Eighties and by god, look, how well it has worked.

The blue-collar poor are irrelevant in a world order where manufacturing is outsourced to the Third World in factories where the workers are close to serfs. The idea that the crisis in mental health, suicidal ideation and opioid abuse in deprived areas of America is some magically insoluble problem is disingenuous bullshit. The rich do not want to commit resources to dealing with widespread social problems, and they get the unaffected (as yet) poor to go along with them by painting the afflicted as suffering from moral failure as opposed to being depressed being natural and foreseeable consequence of being poor as fuck with limited opportunities.

The “gospel of prosperity” is a heresy that has been weaponised against the vulnerable in a nation that remains essentially religious.
 
The reason they throw the poor cultural totems like abortion legislation and unskilled immigration controls is to distract them from questioning why the wealth inequality in rich nations is growing consistently wider year on year.
Which is a measurement how far a society has advanded. Standard of living has gone up.
Yes there are people who got fucked very bad by some psycho-rich-fucks, but they still own smartphones and don't have to shit in the streets ( with the exception of San Francisco).
 
Back