So, here’s what we’re left with: speculation about an aid-based quid pro quo in a transcript — speculation openly rebutted by the whistleblower report, an NYT source, and this Ukrainian advisor to Zelenskyy. That’s pretty weak tea.
“In a now notorious July 25 conversation, President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “look into” Ukraine’s role in efforts to interfere in the 2016 election as well as the dealings of Joe Biden and his son Hunter with the notoriously corrupt country.
Whether or not Trump’s ham-fisted conversation with Zelensky rises to an impeachable offense, the American people have legitimate reasons to be curious about both issues — and especially the Biden family’s blatant conflicts of interest abroad as Joe Biden seeks the presidency.
Biden has been leading the Democratic field. The central case for his candidacy rests on the supposedly exemplary work he did as a senior member of Team Obama. Well, in 2016, acting as the Obama administration’s point man in Ukraine, the vice president — unlike Trump — openly threatened to withhold $1 billion in American loan guarantees if the embattled nation didn’t fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.
As Biden later bragged, “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.’ ”
Most of the media assure us that, though by the Democrats’ new standards this kind of intimidation constitutes a flagrant abuse of power, Biden’s reasons for threatening Ukraine were chaste.
But simply repeating this talking point doesn’t make it true. Granted, Shokin was a shady character. Yet at some point he had been investigating Burisma, the largest gas company in Ukraine, which also happened to be paying Hunter Biden a $50,000 monthly salary as a board member.
By coincidence, Hunter had landed this cushy gig in a foreign country only a few months after the Obama administration began dispatching his father, Joe, to the very same foreign country on a regular basis.
There was, of course, absolutely nothing in Hunter’s résumé to indicate that he would be a valuable addition to foreign energy interest. He didn’t speak the language, and he had no particular expertise in the energy industry. Oh, he did have one thing, though: his last name.
I suppose, that isn’t entirely fair. Hunter once ran a hedge fund with his dad’s brother, James Biden, and associated with a notorious Ponzi schemer. James would go on to snag a job as executive vice president of a construction company in 2010, despite having virtually no experience in the field. And only a few months into his tenure, the company would win one of its biggest contracts in its history, a $1.5 billion deal to build affordable homes in Iraq.
By pure happenstance, Joe was also the Obama administration’s point man in Iraq at the time. Funny how these things work out.”
“Politico: Say, Here’s Another Instance Of Biden Inc Selling Influence”
“Can we keep up with Biden Family Inc without a scorecard? While the nation grapples with Hunter Biden’s surprising $50K/month success in the Ukrainian energy business without any previous experience, Politico digs up another influence-peddling allegation involving Joe Biden’s brother James. A lawsuit accuses James of promising his brother’s endorsement if he could get favorable terms on a pending investment:
Joe Biden’s brother told executives at a healthcare firm that the former vice president’s cancer initiative would promote their business, according to a participant in the conversation, who said the promise came as part of a pitch on behalf of potential investors in the firm.
The allegation is the latest of many times Biden’s relatives have invoked the former vice president and his political clout to further their private business dealings. It is the first that involves the Biden Cancer Initiative, a project Joe Biden made the centerpiece of his post-White House life following the death of his son Beau.
Biden’s brother, James, made the promise to executives at Florida-based Integrate Oral Care during a phone call on or around November 8, 2018, according to Michael Frey, CEO of Diverse Medical Management, a health-care firm that is suing James Biden. At the time, James Biden’s business partners were pursuing a potential investment in Integrate, according to Frey and court records. Frey, who had a business relationship with James Biden and his associates, had introduced the group to Integrate.
James Biden told the Integrate executives that he would get the Biden Cancer Initiative to promote an oral rinse made by the firm and used by cancer patients, Frey, who said he participated in the call, told POLITICO. He added that James Biden directly invoked the former vice president on the call. “He said his brother would be very excited about this product,” Frey said.
The Bidens, they do get around. Politico’s Ben Schreckinger has done a lot of hard work this year to keep track of their attempts to peddle influence. Schreckinger broke the story in August about Hunter and James’ takeover of an investment fund and their apparent mission to use it as a way to curry foreign influence over Biden — or at least sell the fund as a means to do so. This new story from Schreckinger doesn’t have the foreign-influence angle but still alleges a corrupt intent, masked by the former VP’s efforts to support charitable work in honor of his eldest son’s tragic death from cancer.”
Fraudster Adam Schiff eagerly arranged a phone call to get (fake) dirt on Trump from what he thought was a senior Ukrainian official. Schiff "welcomed" the foreign help & ordered his personal staff to arrange it. How many phone calls like this did he have? pic.twitter.com/QnxldSOFyX
“What’s Behind the Democrats’ Impeachment Gambit?”
“They think anytime a Republican is elected president, there must have been something ‘illegitimate’ going on.
I suppose it is no secret that I never thought Donald Trump should have been elected president of these United States in the first place. He’s dim, dishonest, and doddering, both intellectually and morally unfit for the office.
But: He was elected.
And, contrary to the endless litany of Democratic complaints, he was legitimately elected. You may not like the way we elect presidents through the Electoral College — I do; if anything, I think the Founders erred on the side of making the presidency excessively democratic in character, with the disastrous results we see before us today — but the Electoral College was not invented in 2016, and it was not created to frustrate the ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Some Russians posted some bulls**t on Facebook. The votes were what they were.
There are a few different ways to react to that. The thing that a normal political party in a normal country with a functioning political culture would do would be to crawl under the porch for a couple of days to recuperate, admit that your candidate was terrible and ran a terrible race with terrible advisers, and start looking around for somebody to do better next time. You might even — if you were smart and in possession of a reasonable degree of intellectual honesty — ask yourselves what it was about that other guy that some voters liked so much.
That’s one thing you could do. Or you could come over and sit on my front porch and hear more than you probably really wanted to hear about the inevitable decadence of mass democracy, which may shine for a moment but “soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” And we would laugh a little at all the diehards on my street with their “Beto for Senate” signs up in their yards, still, after all this time.
That’s another thing you could do. Or you could insist that the 2016 election was illegitimate, not because of any real procedural questions but because of its outcome. And that, more or less, is what Democrats did. It is worth keeping in mind that the effort to impeach Donald Trump began before he was even sworn in, with Senator Elizabeth Warren et al. beginning to lay the legal groundwork in December of 2016.
Since that time, there have been demands to impeach Trump over this or that real or imagined offense every few weeks. This is Red Queen politics: sentence first, trial later. The Democrats have a solution in mind — impeachment — and have been searching since Election Day 2016 for a problem to which to apply it.
This week’s renewed enthusiasm for impeachment would be a great deal more persuasive if it were not No. 6,782 in a series. Democrats want to impeach Trump for leaning on the Ukrainians about the Biden’s family’s shady dealings — and they are shady — with that corrupt regime and its sycophants. Before that, they wanted to impeach Trump because favor-seekers book rooms in hotels with his name on them. Before that, they wanted to impeach him because of his Twitter habits. Etc.
The cynic in me guesses that the Ukrainian gambit serves a dual purpose: First: It provides a pretext for a pre-election impeachment inquiry against the incumbent president — which, given the current composition of the Senate, is unlikely to end in action before the election, or after that, either, unless there is a Democratic majority seated in the Senate. Second: The likely collateral damage to Joe Biden probably is not entirely unwelcome in some Democratic circles — he already is sliding vis-à-vis Senator Warren, and to many Democrats he already has the look of a likely loser should he be the nominee. If somebody has to be put on an ice floe, it’s going to be Joe Biden.”
“The days of buffet-style politics are no longer allowed”
“Dear Democrats, I’m mad at you. I was raised a die-hard, bleeding-heart liberal. My grandmother was an Irish Catholic New Englander who worshipped JFK almost as much as Jesus. My dad and his nine siblings sang for the Kennedys at Hammersmith Farm.
For decades, I was a loyal regular at your bar until suddenly you started ignoring me. You took my support for granted and dismissed my concerns, focusing instead on courting the young city hipsters with their scooters and their designer weed and their craft beers. You began overlooking pragmatic moderates and catering to loud extremists who favor rewriting the Constitution and accelerating our lurch towards socialism.
So in 2016, feeling politically homeless, I dropped my party affiliation. How did this happen? How did I go from being a lifetime Democrat to a registered independent? I am far from alone: why don’t you Democrats seem to care?”
——-
“Having been born and raised a liberal Democrat, I had only a vague sense of the truth behind America’s political divisions. This was because of the left’s firm domination of media, entertainment and education. I subscribed to what I now call ‘The Approved Message’, a sort of ‘right-think’ that meant you were one of the good guys: a Democrat. It made for a simpler life.
Then came Trumpism. The Approved Message grew louder and angrier. It coalesced into a progressive religion, ‘Wokeism’, which adopted increasingly complex rules. Suddenly, there was no limit on what someone might deem offensive. Certain opinions, words and ideas became unacceptable overnight. Citizens took to policing one another’s jokes, tone and internet histories.
It quickly became clear that anyone who supported Trump (to be clear, I am not a fan) should be shamed and ostracized. If they were a family member, disowned. In fact, coming out as anything other than anti-Trump could end your career, get you kicked out of your mommy group or land you on the wrong side of a virtual mob.
Like most Americans, I was suddenly playing catch-up. Speech is violence, capitalism and democracy are oppressive, critical thinking is ‘fence-sitting’.
If you try nuance or engage in ‘wrong-think’ on sacred issues, you won’t just get into a tiff with the neighbors; now there’s every chance you will have your personal life dragged into the public square in order to shame you into obscurity. The days of buffet-style politics are no longer allowed. You either check all the boxes of the ‘good’ party, or you belong to the ‘bad’ one. When I dared to push back by writing articles, I was struck by how quickly the left rejected me. Millions noticed this too: they watched in stunned silence as leftists demanded books be censored, scrutinized language and called anyone who disagreed a Nazi.
Flash forward three years into a Trump administration and instead of learning from mistakes, the loudest members of the party are heading for the same brick wall. At this point the 2020 Democratic platform feels like a barely veiled threat: ‘Vote for us or you’re racist.’”
I asked the following question and did not get any examples:
How about a couple of examples of things that discredit religious and social conservatives with young people, the press and the educated more than when religious and social conservative “leaders” excuse and defend the behavior of Trump?
Can anyone give a couple of examples? Can anyone give even one example?
As I have said here before, I had no problem with people voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils in 2016. I know many parents of young people I taught in Sunday School who voted that way and explained that vote to their children who voted the same way. I have no problem with people voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils in November, 2020 if he is still around. I have no problem with people saying they don’t think Trump should be impeached. I posted articles yesterday from conservatives Kevin Williamson, David Brooks and Jonah Goldberg who hold that view.
I have a big problem with religious and social conservative “leaders” who reflexively defend Trump’s dishonesty, ignorance, childishness, amorality and demagoguery. This makes them look stupid or hypocritical in the eyes of everyone, particularly the young, the press and the educated. I want the young and the educated to respect religious leaders. The press tilts liberal, but it is not monolithic. I recently heard a radio interview with a young, slightly liberal reporter who has known Robert Jeffress for years. He likes Jeffress, and still has some respect for him. However, he can not understand how Jeffress’ reflexive defenses of every Trump act or lie meshes with Jeffress’ faith.
Anon: I am one of those people who voted against Hillary.
But this time around (I can’t believe I’m saying this.) everyone on the Democratic list is really worse than Hillary. Only they are so far out, they don’t have a chance.
(Gateway Pundit) – What’s the latest trendy liberal outrage? URINALS! Those pesky symbols of the patriarchy, which white males use to assert their privilege over women and the other countless recognized genders, will soon be a thing of a past.
The city of Portland (where else) is now banning urinals in city-owned buildings and spending taxpayer money to remove them. The first urinal-free building is appropriately called The Portland Building, where countless paper-shuffling city bureaucrats congregate to waste oxygen and demand pay raises
Chas, I agree with you that the 2020 Democrats are worse than Hillary. Biden is a dumb version of Hillary and Sanders, Warren and Harris are far to her left. But they have a chance.
You said once here that the 2020 election is going to be about one thing: Trump. I think you were right, and if that is the case, then all of the Dems have a chance.
“The press and the much of the brainwashed “educated” as you call them should be ignored. They’re irrelevant and largely lost to secularism already. This is plainly obvious. They’ll never be on your side Ricky. You aren’t one of the cool kids, that’s reality. The longer the youth remain in our indoctrination system, the farther lost they’ll be as well. Their opinions on gay marriage, climate change, illegal immigration are all being influenced by their educations, not be their churches or their parents in most cases. That’s reality. Same goes for their politics. They aren’t drawn to Sanders and Warren and their socialist promises because of something someone on the right said or did. They’re drawn there because it’s what they’re taught to believe is best.
And that has jack squat to do with Trump. Started long before him, and it will continue long after him.
There are 2 choices here. While Trump isn’t ideal, the alternative isn’t really even an option for folks concerned with religion and social conservatism. It’s not excusing anything if you’re simply selecting the lesser of two evils. There are really only two choices. Your vote helps one or the other either way it goes. While the children may pretend that isn’t so, it is. When they grow up, they’ll see that in fact it is.”
8:58 is a response. It is not the example I asked for. SolarP indicated last night (with his “way down the list” comment) that he thought several such examples exist. All I’m asking for is one … from anyone.
Isn’t it mildly concerning that Adam Schiff was running around parroting the EXACT claim made by the whistleblower two weeks before Congress was allegedly notified by the inspector general of the intelligence community of the existence of such a complaint? https://t.co/qTPnkb1PlQ
That makes this sound more like the whistleblower may have been working with Schiff BEFORE the process had played out legally, and raises serious questions about leaks from the whistleblower or someone else in the intelligence community to Schiff.
UPDATE: We have now raised almost $15 million in small dollar donations (including 50,000 NEW donors) since @SpeakerPelosi started this impeachment charade 72 hrs ago! Unbelievable numbers!! Keep it going — you and the dems are handing @realDonaldTrump the win in 2020! 🤛👍🇺🇸
“Beto Goes to Kent State, Argues Only the Government Can Be Trusted With Guns
Someone should tell Beto who did the killing at Kent State.”
“Of all the places to argue that only the government should be trusted with guns, Beto O’Rourke picked…Kent State University.
Kent State is, of course, the location of the infamous 1970 shooting that left four students dead and nine others injured. The shots were fired not by private citizens but by members of the Ohio National Guard, who shot at a crowd protesting America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.
Invoking armed agents of the state gunning down unarmed civilians is an interesting way to argue that Americans would be better off if the government forcefully disarmed private citizens. But hey, I guess that’s why we keep being told Beto’s an “unconventional” candidate.”
“Puberty Blocking Drugs Used On “Trans Kids” Have Killed More Than 6,000 People”
“Here’s a horror show of a story that you’re probably not going to see on CNN anytime soon. A report emerged on Thursday indicating that the puberty-blocking drug Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron) has resulted in tens of thousands of serious “adverse reactions” in patients, including more than six thousand deaths. That’s bad enough, but it’s even more significant when you consider that this is one of the drugs being administered by doctors to so-called “transgender children” to unnaturally prevent their normal sexual development. And the testing done on the drug by the FDA for such applications appears to be thin at best. (Daily Wire)
More than 6,300 adults have died from reactions to a drug that is used as a puberty blocker in gender-confused children, Food & Drug Administration data reportedly shows.
“Between 2012 and June 30 of this year, the FDA documented over 40,764 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron), which is used as a hormone blocker. More than 25,500 reactions logged from 2014-2019 were considered ‘serious,’ including 6,370 deaths,” The Christian Post reported on Thursday.
“Lupron is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose,” the outlet explained.
You can do a search of the FDA’s incident reports here and enter the name of the drug (Lupron) to see their data.”
Despite the possible adverse side effects, there are approved uses for Lupron, but it tends to be administered only for serious conditions. It’s useful in treating prostate cancer in men and endometriosis in women. For children, it is sometimes used to treat precocious puberty, a condition where children begin puberty at an unusually early age, but only for a short time.
The list of potential side effects for the drug is alarming. It includes breast disorders, malignant neoplasms, and psychiatric and nervous disorders. Stop and think about that for a moment. If you have a child that is already so confused that they are questioning their “gender identity” before they’ve even reached the age where their body is dealing with such issues, do you want to give them a drug that can produce psychiatric or nervous disorders?
To top it all off, the FDA has never formally approved the use of Lupron for treating gender dysphoria in children. Two years ago the agency announced that it was beginning a study of “nervous system and psychiatric events in association with the use of … a class of drugs including Lupron, in pediatric patients.” We don’t know the results of that study yet.”
“It’s becoming clear that Democrats are widening the net when it comes to bringing in Trump administration officials involved in dealing with Ukraine. Secretary of State Pompeo was subpoenaed by Democratic chairs of three House committees Friday for documents they claim relate to Ukraine and the impeachment inquiries.
A story in the Daily Mail about the resignation submitted by President Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, a Special Representative just one day after the whistleblower’s complaint became public takes a turn. This whole impeachment inquiry now smacks of revenge against President Trump for the removal of the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. Volker was named in the complaint. He introduced Rudy Guiliani to President Volodymyr Zelensky. The complaint claims that along with the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, Volker advised Ukrainian officials on how to navigate pressure from Trump about cleaning up corruption.
Volker is Executive Director of the McCain Institute at ASU. He has served as special envoy to Ukraine since 2017 on a part-time, unpaid basis. He helped Ukraine’s government resolve its confrontation with Russia-sponsored separatists. Volker and Sondland were subpoenaed Friday, along with former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Deputy Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent.
On July 3 Volker tweeted about his “great” meeting with Zelensky. He tweeted about Zelensky’s “clear commitment to peace in Donbas, but Russia needs to do its part”. Volker said that Zelensky pledged his strong commitment to reforming Ukraine.
Then came the phone call from Trump on July 25 that put the complaint into play. It looks like the CIA agent who registered the complaint was upset about Trump’s dealings with Ambassador Yovanovitch.
Three weeks later, President Donald Trump said in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was ‘bad news’ and that she is ‘going to go through some things,’ according to the memo of the call released this week by the White House. But that characterization of her and her performance was contradicted by five current and former officials who spoke to The Associated Press.
Yovanovitch’s name may ring a bell. She was unceremoniously relieved from her position in May and brought back to Washington, D.C. The story didn’t get a lot of press coverage at the time but I do remember reading that she left her post in Ukraine. I thought at the time that she was another Never-Trumper resigning to protest President Trump.
Months before the call that set off an impeachment inquiry, many in the diplomatic community were alarmed by the Trump administration’s abrupt removal of the career diplomat from her post as ambassador to Ukraine.
The ambassador’s ouster, and the campaign against her that preceded it, are now emerging as a key sequence of events behind a whistleblower’s complaint alleging that the president pressured a foreign country to investigate his political rival Joe Biden’s son.
She served as an ambassador in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. Apparently the diplomatic community considered Trump’s remarks during the July 25 phone conversation to be of a threatening nature towards Yovanovitch. She was an Obama holdover in Ukraine.”
——
“The CIA agent noted the ambassador’s removal in the complaint. ‘I learned from U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department officials for ‘consultations’ and would most likely be removed from her position.’
Is it possible that impeachment proceedings have begun against President Trump because of a complaint from disgruntled members of the diplomatic community based on revenge? It sure looks like the phone call between Trump and Zelensky conveniently became a way to seek that revenge.”
“WAS THE “WHISTLEBLOWER” PART OF A PLAN?
The press has universally adopted the convention of referring to the person who started the Ukraine frenzy as “the whistleblower,” in part because his identity is unknown. Until we know his name–he reportedly is a CIA employee–I would rather call him “the Democratic Party loyalist.” Now that his complaint has been made public, along with the transcript of President Trump’s innocuous conversation with President Zelensky, and we have had a few days to observe the Democrats’ behavior, I am starting to think the Ukraine matter may have been orchestrated just as fully as the Steele dossier/Russia collusion hoax.
Fred Fleitz, a veteran of the CIA, the DIA, the Department of State and the House Intelligence Committee staff, as well as the National Security Council and the White House, has some interesting observations about the Ukraine complaint in the New York Post:
I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.
My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.
From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.
Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.
***
Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.
The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.
We now know that the “whistleblower” had nothing, just as Christopher Steele had nothing. His complaint consists of rumor and hearsay that turned out to be wrong. But, just as it didn’t matter that Steele’s dossier was nonsense, it hasn’t mattered that the “whistleblower’s” complaint was inaccurate, and perhaps fabricated out of whole cloth. It nevertheless serves the Democrats’ purposes.
It seems obvious that the Democrats have been planning for a while to proceed with impeachment against President Trump. I infer this from the fact that almost immediately after Nancy Pelosi announced publicly that House committees would proceed with impeachment inquiries, Democratic politicians of all kinds were sending out emails that recited nearly identical talking points and concluded with the assertion that President Trump must be impeached–not investigated, but impeached. This was not just a Nancy Pelosi operation, it was coordinated by the Democratic Party more broadly.
That coordination may have included the Democratic Party loyalist who made the Ukraine complaint. It may be, as Fred Fleitz suggests, that Democratic committee staff or Democratic lawyers helped him write it. In any event, it seems clear that the Democrats were aware of the complaint and coordinated their strategy to build impeachment proceedings around it.
It seems to me, in short, that we are seeing a replay of the Russia collusion hoax, with the “whistleblower” playing the part of Christopher Steele. He relates hearsay allegations that he may have heard from someone else, or may have simply made up, just as Steele did. The Democrats pretend to believe the whistleblower just as they pretended to believe Steele, even though in both cases, there is clear evidence that the claims against Trump are false.”
“DEEP STATE BLUES
The whistleblower blowout is a funny affair. A year in advance of the 2020 presidential election we are in rerun season. We didn’t get enough of Adam Schiff the first time around. Live with it, baby. And we didn’t get enough of journalism based on misinformation supplied to friendly reporters by people “familiar with the matter.” Here it comes again.
Andrew McCarthy captures a bit of the old-time quality of the thing in his NR column “Breaking Down the Whistleblower Frenzy.” He writes: “It stems from — what else? — anonymous leaks attributed to former intelligence officials. Whether they are among the stable of such retirees now on the payroll at anti-Trump cable outlets is not known.” He makes another point that somehow evades the crew at Lawfare: “While the media purport to be deeply concerned about Trump-administration law-breaking in classified matters, there is negligible interest in whether the intelligence officials leaking to them are flouting the law.”
We can now compare the leaked reports of the whistleblower complaint with the transcript of the call itself. The whistleblower complaint seems to illustrate the old party game “telephone.” Gregg Re observes discrepancies in the FOX News story “Republicans want whistleblower’s sources, as inconsistencies in complaint emerge.”
The “whistleblower” and his media allies make a big deal of the Trump administration’s alleged attempt to secure the transcript from the likes of him. Re makes the obvious point: “The Trump administration reportedly began placing transcripts of Trump’s calls with several foreign leaders in a highly classified repository after leakers publicly divulged the contents of Trump’s private calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia in 2017.” This escapes the savants at Lawfare.
Marc Thiessen makes the same point among others in his comparison of the complaint with the transcript in the Washington Post column “The rough transcript makes it clear that Dems got ahead of the evidence” (the link is to the column posted at Jewish World Review). Thiessen writes:
In his complaint, the whistleblower (who admits “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described”) describes Trump asking Zelensky to cooperate with this investigation as an effort “to advance his personal interests.” That is ridiculous. Since when is it inappropriate for the president of the United States to ask a foreign leader to cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation?
The transcript also backs up Trump’s claim that he put a temporary hold on some U.S. military aid to Ukraine because he was concerned that the European allies were not doing enough. During the call, Trump tells Zelensky the United States is doing “much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are.” Zelensky responds: “Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000%.””
“I asked the following question and did not get any examples:…”
Woops, sorry! Didn’t realize this was a timed test with a due date ‘n all! But AJ did provide an answer last night, and it was a decent one. He’s right. It didn’t take the advent of Donald Trump to cause a whole lot of unbelievers—young, old, educated or not—to adopt the view that social and religious conservatives are closed-minded, bigoted, racists, etc. Hadn’t you noticed that’s been the stereotypical view of Christians for decades, and had been getting more and more pervasive well before Trump, basically corresponding with the success of all those “educated” people in marginalizing Christianity from the social and political spheres? Have we forgotten that rejection of Christians by the world is something Christ, Himself, told us is a thing? Sure, hypocrisy puts people off a bit, but if we’re listing *trivial* reasons religious conservatives may be discredited, why not include snooty self-aggrandizing in online forums as one of them? They’re both turn-offs!
“8:58 is a response. It is not the example I asked for…”
The point is that the default view among many young people, the press and the educated (praise be to their names, and may we pray they be nicer to us someday) is essentially what it has been for a long time now, and that is the view that conservative Christianity = bad. It’s not as if young people and educated media-ites were in union with Christians in opposition to gay marriage, etc., etc., in 2015, but then Trump came along and blew that union all up. As if.
Nothing discredits social and religious conservatives more with young people, the press and the educated than when their “leaders” excuse and defend the dishonesty, ignorance, childishness, amorality and demagoguery of Donald Trump.
You disagreed.
I understand that evangelical Christianity has not been and may not ever be generally popular among the young, the educated and the press. That is a different point than the one I was making.
DJ provoked my initial comment by posting an article from Dreher about a negative story about kids at the school where Mrs. Pence teaches. I agree with her that the Christian community is in for rough treatment in the days ahead. The treatment of the Covington kids was outrageous.
The point I was making was that when Christian “leaders” reflexively defend Trump’s dishonesty, ignorance, amorality, etc. it makes us all look hypocritical and/or stupid. I am not quite saying we brought this on ourselves. I am saying that some of us brought this on all of us, and we should not be surprised about how we are viewed and treated over the next couple of decades.
HRW, I can’t figure out how to get you this Anne Applebaum column. It is one of her best.
"Think about what it means in the rest of the world. It’s almost as though President Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had set out to undermine…every single ideal that the United States has ever stood for."https://t.co/hvwSY2Wgun
Ricky, thanks for the reply. So I ask you (and I’m not being combative, just asking for clarification), when you say, “I am not quite saying we brought this on ourselves. I am saying that some of us brought this on all of us,” what is the “this” you’re referring to? Do you mean the treatment Pence’s wife and conservative Christians should expect from the media?
Good article…must have a few free articles a month. Applebaum is a conservative but an excellent historian and political analysts. And she’s right, credibility has been lost.
Speaking of credibility, evangelical association and approval of Trump has removed any legitimacy or credibility especially of its leadership. Sure the atheists might have had an already low opinion of Christianity or any religion but the vast majority of non religious are not atheist. They are unaffiliated and quite tolerant of “whatever gets people through the night”. Its here where the credibility and legitimacy will dissappear.
More importantly the bar for acceptable presidential behaviour is near the floor. Any attempt by evangelicals to raise the bar will be greeted with laughter. Moral legitimacy or authority is eroded.
AJ @8:53 That’s Tom Homan. He’s been a guest on Lou Dobbs or Tucker Carlson quite a few times. He’s a hoot—-a no nonsense kind of guy with firm opinions on immigration, based on years of experience. :–)
“Any attempt by evangelicals to raise the bar will be greeted with laughter. Moral legitimacy or authority is eroded.”
I’m sure we could spend hours looking through your post history here (and probably wherever) and see that you’ve never given any moral legitimacy or credence to a conservative/evangelical Christian argument, even before ol’ Donald Trump came along. Your approach to criticisms of left-sympathetic politicians is to point out how right-sympathetic ones do that stuff, but they do it hypocritically. It’s a bizarrely ironic shtick, because you can’t account for/believe in objective morality in the first place. It’s weird.
“he made military aid contingent on personal/political favours.”
I don’t like Trump. I’m skeptical of nearly everything he does and says. But the telephone transcript doesn’t demonstrate the above at all. Claiming it *with emphasis* doesn’t magically make it so.
Yeah, because your kids and all of them at church were in lock step with you before Trump, right?
No, they weren’t, and you know it. And part of the problem here is the inability of the youth you mention to discern the political and social realities of the day. 2 choices. Just because you pick one doesn’t mean you wholeheartedly agree with them on everything. Adults know this. So do discerning children. The ones you mention aren’t seeming to get that. With luck, reality and time will find them with a clue.
And this is why we don’t let children vote. They’re too emotional, immature, and easily swayed.
“So basically they want to impeach Trump for making the conversations more secure within the government control when they didn’t give a darn that Hillary Clinton put all her conversations on a private server to avoid government scrutiny. Insanity.”
“After the media spent days speculating that President Donald Trump demanded a “quid pro quo” agreement from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, only to learn no such agreement was made, the same outlets began pushing the notion that the Trump administration saved the conversation to a different, secret server.
Former national security adviser for the Obama administration, Susan Rice, however, acknowledged during a speaking engagement Friday night that the previous administration also saved transcripts of phone calls with world leaders this way.
“What [the Trump administration] did instead of storing it in the normal system, which is protected and classified, even though there was no classified substance in that actual discussion,” Rice told an audience at the Texas Tribune Festival. “Instead of putting it where it normally resides, they hid it on a very highly sensitive, highly compartmented server that very few people in the U.S. government have access to in order to bury it.”
Rice was then asked how many times the Obama administration saved conversations to the server. Rice responded by saying the administration only saved conversations that were actually of a classified nature.”
“A House conservative has introduced a measure to censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in an attempt to condemn the Democratic chairman for using “parody” when recounting details of President Trump’s call with the leader of Ukraine.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman-elect Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) introduced the resolution Friday shortly after Trump took to Twitter to demand Schiff’s resignation over his remarks, which focused on the president’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Schiff had pointed to a reconstituted transcript of the conversation released by the White House, but paraphrased some points and offered an exaggerated version of the discussion, including saying that Trump directed Zelensky to “make up dirt on my political opponent” a full “seven times.”
Let me try an analogy. Even Jesse Jackson once admitted that when he saw a young black man coming toward him at night, he might cross the street because young black men were more likely to commit crimes than other groups. Young black men oppose racial profiling, but they understand why many look at them with some fear, and this has led to the current situation between young blacks and police.
The knee-jerk support of Trump by many Christians and the constant ridiculous alibis they offer on his behalf has understandably led many to question our intelligence and sincerity. Just like police and other citizens may prejudge young blacks as criminals, other Americans, but particularly the young, the media and the educated, can be expected to prejudge us as ignorant and hypocritical.
Just as young blacks must make an extra effort to demonstrate they are law-abiding, Christians are going to need to go the extra mile to show we are rational and sincere.
An analogy isn’t necessary, Ricky, as your point is perfectly simple and clear. Regardless, I don’t find it persuasive. None of what you’ve claimed about disregard for Christians is anything new, not to most of us, at least, and I’m not aware of any conversation to be had with unbelievers that is any more difficult now than it was before Trump. Certainly the claim that “nothing” does more to discredit conservative Christians than support for Donald Trump is pretty overblown.
Bill Barr is going to learn that if you run with the wrong crowd, bad things can happen to you.
NEWS: AG Bill Barr was “surprised and angry” when he learned Trump lumped him together with Rudy Giuliani in a call with Ukraine’s president suggesting they would investigate Joe & Hunter Biden. https://t.co/fwmj5OJUQD
If John Kelly had still been Chief of Staff and Don McGahn had still been the President’s Counsel, I believe there is a good chance that the Ukraine Extortion would not have taken place. Those two kept Trump out of a lot of trouble.
NEW from @vmsalama@andrewrestuccia: On more than one occasion, then-chief of staff John Kelly, who was often in the room during calls with world leaders, briefly muted the line so he could caution Trump against continuing to talk about sensitive subjects. https://t.co/67eVD2EX1C
Starting to look like two possible outcomes: Trump and a number of others end up in jail, or thousands of journalists end up in prison camps https://t.co/I9DpBQFwtm
Ricky, the primary reason by far that conservative Christians are discredited in the eyes of youth, educated, and media is not Donald Trump or his supporters, but *because they’re conservative Christians.* If you were to attempt to make an argument opposing same sex marriage to the holy triumvirate of youth educated media, you would be given no credibility with those people. That condition is exactly the same now as it was before Trump. Nothing from nothing is nothing; or, if it *is* worse, it’s only because it has continued on the same trajectory it’s been going for years.
Solar P,
For over thirty years, I have taught Biblical sexual ethics to the young. Although I have taught them that the Bible was their ultimate authority on religious matters, the reality is that teenagers rely most on the teaching and behavior of their parents, their youth ministers and their pastors for moral guidance. For the most part, those young people (who are now young or even middle-aged adults) held orthodox views on theological and moral issues. After all, this is Texas. However, the worldview we were fighting against with those kids was portrayed in movies, books and often in the classroom. That opposing worldview taught the young that Christianity was for the ignorant and the hypocritical. Generally, when those young people looked at their parents, their pastors and their youth ministers, they saw flawed but sincere people who were not stupid. Christian support for Trump’s daily dishonesty, malevolence and ignorance is giving evidence that those liberal teachers and movies were right all along.
2:16 and 8:56 were both very enlightening to me. I live in a different country than some of the rest of you. Re: 2:16, My son, his wife and my sister’s children and their spouses (eight 30 somethings with 16 college and graduate degrees) are as conservative theologically, morally and politically as their parents and grandparents. All are Reagan Republicans and conservative Southern Baptists. The only one who is not in “lockstep” is my nephew who has a soft spot for both Alex Jones and Trump.
I get it now. Trumpism is for people who think the battle for the hearts and minds of young educated people is over and has been lost. If that is the case you might as well scrap your principles (such as “Character Matters”) and try to “own the libs”. I will admit that it is harder now. More people are sending children to private schools or are home schooling. There is a new threat. We must not only protect the children from liberals and secularists who would indoctrinate them, but also from Christian Trumpkins who would misinform and disillusion them.
However, here in North Texas we do not think the battle is over. We still think it is very harmful when Christian leaders excuse or defend dishonesty, ignorance and malevolence.
Probably 70% of America’s young adults do not even attend church.
So this is as inaccurate as you can get.
” the reality is that teenagers rely most on the teaching and behavior of their parents, their youth ministers and their pastors for moral guidance. ”
Most teens nowadays never receive such teachings and most parents aren’t teaching their children anything good.. The extent of their education is what they learn in public schools and on social media. The church plays no role for most of America’s youth. That’s reality.
———–
““own the libs””
You mean like you try to do every single day here, except with people you call Trumpkins. Get over yourself.
—————-
“There is a new threat. We must not only protect the children from liberals and secularists who would indoctrinate them, but also from Christian Trumpkins who would misinform and disillusion them.”
Every day you come here with the latest leftist takes and lies about the president and you have the nerve to accuse others of misinforming and disillusioning the youth? Are you serious?
Remove the log from your own eye first you hypocrite. You’ve become a parody (a rather unfunny one) of everything you claim to be against. Trump has broken you. Seek help.
Oh, you’re in North Texas? Gee, we hadn’t heard. Anyhow, your personal experience and repeating yourself don’t negate the fact that antipathy toward Christians and Christianity is not a new or new-ish phenomenon brought about by the age of Trump. There’s no need to be over-dramatic and interpret that observation as throwing in the towel and giving up the battle, nor to assume it somehow means advocacy of dishonesty in leaders. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. Listening to some folks, you’d think He just couldn’t have anticipated how tough things would be once scary ol’ malevolent Donald Trump arrived on the scene.
8:16 No need to be angry. I finally understand. We live in different countries. If Yankees want to defend Trump daily, who am I to say they are wrong considering the conditions in their states?
Question for Anon and other Never Trumpsters.
If not Trump, WHO?
Seriously. I am looking for someone better.
Speaking of that. I heard unsupported rumors that Hillary is coming back.
And when it comes time for the 2020 election, the Democrat (insert any name here) will win because Trump supporters have abandoned the party. You see, unlike NTers, there’s millions of us, and in the states that matter. R’s would never win another national election. If NTers leave, big deal. Didn’t matter the first time, won’t the second either. See the difference?
Chas asked: If not Trump, who? I was simply pointing out that if Trump is impeached and removed, Pence would become president. We would immediately have a conservative president who would not be a pathological liar, profoundly ignorant, etc.
Then, as Douthat pointed out, the Republican Party would have several options that don’t include renominating a lunatic. AJ is right @5:54 that The Cult would be in a major pout. But you would probably have people like Nikki Haley, Tom Cotton and maybe Dan Crenshaw challenging Pence. Each would promise to “Keep America Great Again” but none of them are crazy like Trump. Maybe the cult would continue to pout and the Dems would win, but I have to think Nikki Haley would have a better chance than Trump.
Haley has played her cards very well from a political standpoint. She never crossed Trump while UN Ambassador though she won a couple of public spats with his aides. She got out before she could be embroiled in a scandal. Today she is taking his side in the Ukraine dispute.
The Cult may not be satisfied with anyone but their Dear Leader, but Haley, Pence, Cotton and Crenshaw are well-positioned. Lindsey Graham has also played to The Cult after McCain died, but he is too big a wimp to have a chance.
As I have said before, I think the claim that President Trump’s phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine somehow constitutes an impeachable offense is ridiculous. But impeachment is a political act, not a legal one, and the Democrats’ motives are entirely political. They think that impeaching President Trump will cast a pall of discredit over him and weaken his chances for re-election in 2020. I think that calculation is probably right.
We will see a great deal of impeachment-related poll data in the months to come, but this early survey, reported in the New York Post, suggests that the Democrats are on the right track …
… Will there be a backlash against the Democrats’ overreaching? Sure, but only among Trump loyalists. The question is how news of impeachment impacts 1) swing voters, and 2) turnout. So I think endless yammering about impeaching the president, with wild accusations by the likes of Adam Schiff being reported daily, will indeed damage Trump’s chances of re-election, perhaps decisively.
_______________________________
Nixon wasn’t removed from office but he did resign. I don’t know as I see Trump doing that. And it would probably be too late to regroup for 2020 anyhow. Still, it could end up the only far-reaching hope for conservatives if the impeachment trajectory takes its toll.
Nikki Haley? The party could do much worse.
But a last-minute changeup sans Trump and featuring a new GOP candidate for president is pretty unlikely.
Select whoever you like, without Trump voters, they aren’t winning. That’s reality. If the party is so stupid and gun shy as to abandoned the president for no impeachable offense, just hoax after hoax, then that’s a party that can piss off as far as Trump supporters are concerned. It’s time to grow a spine. There is no crime here.
But Ricky, how could you possibly entertain the prospect of Mike Pence? If you want exhibit A of what you have been lamenting in regards to conservative Christians excusing and forgiving Donald Trump’s many transgressions, why is Mike Pence not it? *He’s the Vice Bleeping President*!
But whatever. Unlike AJ and a few others here, I share with you a similar (but probably not exact) disregard for Trump, and won’t be voting for him. But you’re so selective and unhinged in your outrage as to be almost without credibility for it. Sure, lying and “malevolence” (however you may mean that) are sins that shouldn’t be coddled. Why is this worse than Mitt Romney, who believes Jesus is a created person; who believes he (Romney) will one day be a god, equal with the god he believes created our world? During at least one extended era in history, God judged this kind of idolatry a capital crime. How can you favorably invoke John McCain, with his desertion of his first wife and unrepentant marriage to his current spouse? Were you as vocal about Christians not rejecting him for these things when he ran, or…*did you actually vote for him?* Etc., etc., with other R nominees and office holders and talking heads and the acceptance Christians extend to them despite egregious sins they’ve never repented of? You’re so off the handle with Trump, exclusively, I’m not sure what accounts for it other than TDS.
Pence is a Christian and former conservative Congressman and Governor who became unequally yoked with a lying con man, malicious unrepentant reprobate and sexual predator. Trump is the lying con man, malicious unrepentant reprobate and sexual predator. To me there is a difference.
Yeah. Trump, Romney and McCain had character flaws that are so similar that I always had trouble telling them apart. Seriously, after three years of constant dishonesty, ignorance, malevolence and childishness, if anyone can not see that Trump is uniquely horrible among all Republican Presidential candidates in history, including Nixon and Harding, all I can do is shrug my shoulders.
Wandering Views 
Weak tea.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/09/26/thats-pretty-weak-tea-ben-shapiro-sums-up-what-we-know-about-the-whistleblower-report/
———
LikeLike
Everywhere that Biden went his son made money. Coincidentally, of course…..
https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/wherever-joe-biden-went-son-hunter-cashed-in/
“In a now notorious July 25 conversation, President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “look into” Ukraine’s role in efforts to interfere in the 2016 election as well as the dealings of Joe Biden and his son Hunter with the notoriously corrupt country.
Whether or not Trump’s ham-fisted conversation with Zelensky rises to an impeachable offense, the American people have legitimate reasons to be curious about both issues — and especially the Biden family’s blatant conflicts of interest abroad as Joe Biden seeks the presidency.
Biden has been leading the Democratic field. The central case for his candidacy rests on the supposedly exemplary work he did as a senior member of Team Obama. Well, in 2016, acting as the Obama administration’s point man in Ukraine, the vice president — unlike Trump — openly threatened to withhold $1 billion in American loan guarantees if the embattled nation didn’t fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.
As Biden later bragged, “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.’ ”
Most of the media assure us that, though by the Democrats’ new standards this kind of intimidation constitutes a flagrant abuse of power, Biden’s reasons for threatening Ukraine were chaste.
But simply repeating this talking point doesn’t make it true. Granted, Shokin was a shady character. Yet at some point he had been investigating Burisma, the largest gas company in Ukraine, which also happened to be paying Hunter Biden a $50,000 monthly salary as a board member.
By coincidence, Hunter had landed this cushy gig in a foreign country only a few months after the Obama administration began dispatching his father, Joe, to the very same foreign country on a regular basis.
There was, of course, absolutely nothing in Hunter’s résumé to indicate that he would be a valuable addition to foreign energy interest. He didn’t speak the language, and he had no particular expertise in the energy industry. Oh, he did have one thing, though: his last name.
I suppose, that isn’t entirely fair. Hunter once ran a hedge fund with his dad’s brother, James Biden, and associated with a notorious Ponzi schemer. James would go on to snag a job as executive vice president of a construction company in 2010, despite having virtually no experience in the field. And only a few months into his tenure, the company would win one of its biggest contracts in its history, a $1.5 billion deal to build affordable homes in Iraq.
By pure happenstance, Joe was also the Obama administration’s point man in Iraq at the time. Funny how these things work out.”
—————
Ta Daaaaa! It’s like magic! 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, and yeah, there’s more.
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/09/26/politico-say-heres-another-biden-selling-influence-pharmaceutical-market/
“Politico: Say, Here’s Another Instance Of Biden Inc Selling Influence”
“Can we keep up with Biden Family Inc without a scorecard? While the nation grapples with Hunter Biden’s surprising $50K/month success in the Ukrainian energy business without any previous experience, Politico digs up another influence-peddling allegation involving Joe Biden’s brother James. A lawsuit accuses James of promising his brother’s endorsement if he could get favorable terms on a pending investment:
Joe Biden’s brother told executives at a healthcare firm that the former vice president’s cancer initiative would promote their business, according to a participant in the conversation, who said the promise came as part of a pitch on behalf of potential investors in the firm.
The allegation is the latest of many times Biden’s relatives have invoked the former vice president and his political clout to further their private business dealings. It is the first that involves the Biden Cancer Initiative, a project Joe Biden made the centerpiece of his post-White House life following the death of his son Beau.
Biden’s brother, James, made the promise to executives at Florida-based Integrate Oral Care during a phone call on or around November 8, 2018, according to Michael Frey, CEO of Diverse Medical Management, a health-care firm that is suing James Biden. At the time, James Biden’s business partners were pursuing a potential investment in Integrate, according to Frey and court records. Frey, who had a business relationship with James Biden and his associates, had introduced the group to Integrate.
James Biden told the Integrate executives that he would get the Biden Cancer Initiative to promote an oral rinse made by the firm and used by cancer patients, Frey, who said he participated in the call, told POLITICO. He added that James Biden directly invoked the former vice president on the call. “He said his brother would be very excited about this product,” Frey said.
The Bidens, they do get around. Politico’s Ben Schreckinger has done a lot of hard work this year to keep track of their attempts to peddle influence. Schreckinger broke the story in August about Hunter and James’ takeover of an investment fund and their apparent mission to use it as a way to curry foreign influence over Biden — or at least sell the fund as a means to do so. This new story from Schreckinger doesn’t have the foreign-influence angle but still alleges a corrupt intent, masked by the former VP’s efforts to support charitable work in honor of his eldest son’s tragic death from cancer.”
——–
The Politico piece.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/26/joe-biden-brother-cancer-initiative-investment-pitch-001675
LikeLike
Ewwww……..
Just when you think Democrats can’t go lower, they break out the shovels and start digging dirt.
————–
————–
————–
https://twitter.com/canmanTCB/status/1177294951903834113
LikeLike
They have a hard time excepting reality when it’s not to their liking.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/trump-impeachment-inquiry-democrats-refuse-to-accept-republican-electoral-victory/
“What’s Behind the Democrats’ Impeachment Gambit?”
“They think anytime a Republican is elected president, there must have been something ‘illegitimate’ going on.
I suppose it is no secret that I never thought Donald Trump should have been elected president of these United States in the first place. He’s dim, dishonest, and doddering, both intellectually and morally unfit for the office.
But: He was elected.
And, contrary to the endless litany of Democratic complaints, he was legitimately elected. You may not like the way we elect presidents through the Electoral College — I do; if anything, I think the Founders erred on the side of making the presidency excessively democratic in character, with the disastrous results we see before us today — but the Electoral College was not invented in 2016, and it was not created to frustrate the ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Some Russians posted some bulls**t on Facebook. The votes were what they were.
There are a few different ways to react to that. The thing that a normal political party in a normal country with a functioning political culture would do would be to crawl under the porch for a couple of days to recuperate, admit that your candidate was terrible and ran a terrible race with terrible advisers, and start looking around for somebody to do better next time. You might even — if you were smart and in possession of a reasonable degree of intellectual honesty — ask yourselves what it was about that other guy that some voters liked so much.
That’s one thing you could do. Or you could come over and sit on my front porch and hear more than you probably really wanted to hear about the inevitable decadence of mass democracy, which may shine for a moment but “soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” And we would laugh a little at all the diehards on my street with their “Beto for Senate” signs up in their yards, still, after all this time.
That’s another thing you could do. Or you could insist that the 2016 election was illegitimate, not because of any real procedural questions but because of its outcome. And that, more or less, is what Democrats did. It is worth keeping in mind that the effort to impeach Donald Trump began before he was even sworn in, with Senator Elizabeth Warren et al. beginning to lay the legal groundwork in December of 2016.
Since that time, there have been demands to impeach Trump over this or that real or imagined offense every few weeks. This is Red Queen politics: sentence first, trial later. The Democrats have a solution in mind — impeachment — and have been searching since Election Day 2016 for a problem to which to apply it.
This week’s renewed enthusiasm for impeachment would be a great deal more persuasive if it were not No. 6,782 in a series. Democrats want to impeach Trump for leaning on the Ukrainians about the Biden’s family’s shady dealings — and they are shady — with that corrupt regime and its sycophants. Before that, they wanted to impeach Trump because favor-seekers book rooms in hotels with his name on them. Before that, they wanted to impeach him because of his Twitter habits. Etc.
The cynic in me guesses that the Ukrainian gambit serves a dual purpose: First: It provides a pretext for a pre-election impeachment inquiry against the incumbent president — which, given the current composition of the Senate, is unlikely to end in action before the election, or after that, either, unless there is a Democratic majority seated in the Senate. Second: The likely collateral damage to Joe Biden probably is not entirely unwelcome in some Democratic circles — he already is sliding vis-à-vis Senator Warren, and to many Democrats he already has the look of a likely loser should he be the nominee. If somebody has to be put on an ice floe, it’s going to be Joe Biden.”
LikeLike
An open letter to Democrats….
https://spectator.us/open-letter-democratic-party/
“The days of buffet-style politics are no longer allowed”
“Dear Democrats, I’m mad at you. I was raised a die-hard, bleeding-heart liberal. My grandmother was an Irish Catholic New Englander who worshipped JFK almost as much as Jesus. My dad and his nine siblings sang for the Kennedys at Hammersmith Farm.
For decades, I was a loyal regular at your bar until suddenly you started ignoring me. You took my support for granted and dismissed my concerns, focusing instead on courting the young city hipsters with their scooters and their designer weed and their craft beers. You began overlooking pragmatic moderates and catering to loud extremists who favor rewriting the Constitution and accelerating our lurch towards socialism.
So in 2016, feeling politically homeless, I dropped my party affiliation. How did this happen? How did I go from being a lifetime Democrat to a registered independent? I am far from alone: why don’t you Democrats seem to care?”
——-
“Having been born and raised a liberal Democrat, I had only a vague sense of the truth behind America’s political divisions. This was because of the left’s firm domination of media, entertainment and education. I subscribed to what I now call ‘The Approved Message’, a sort of ‘right-think’ that meant you were one of the good guys: a Democrat. It made for a simpler life.
Then came Trumpism. The Approved Message grew louder and angrier. It coalesced into a progressive religion, ‘Wokeism’, which adopted increasingly complex rules. Suddenly, there was no limit on what someone might deem offensive. Certain opinions, words and ideas became unacceptable overnight. Citizens took to policing one another’s jokes, tone and internet histories.
It quickly became clear that anyone who supported Trump (to be clear, I am not a fan) should be shamed and ostracized. If they were a family member, disowned. In fact, coming out as anything other than anti-Trump could end your career, get you kicked out of your mommy group or land you on the wrong side of a virtual mob.
Like most Americans, I was suddenly playing catch-up. Speech is violence, capitalism and democracy are oppressive, critical thinking is ‘fence-sitting’.
If you try nuance or engage in ‘wrong-think’ on sacred issues, you won’t just get into a tiff with the neighbors; now there’s every chance you will have your personal life dragged into the public square in order to shame you into obscurity. The days of buffet-style politics are no longer allowed. You either check all the boxes of the ‘good’ party, or you belong to the ‘bad’ one. When I dared to push back by writing articles, I was struck by how quickly the left rejected me. Millions noticed this too: they watched in stunned silence as leftists demanded books be censored, scrutinized language and called anyone who disagreed a Nazi.
Flash forward three years into a Trump administration and instead of learning from mistakes, the loudest members of the party are heading for the same brick wall. At this point the 2020 Democratic platform feels like a barely veiled threat: ‘Vote for us or you’re racist.’”
LikeLike
From last night:
I asked the following question and did not get any examples:
How about a couple of examples of things that discredit religious and social conservatives with young people, the press and the educated more than when religious and social conservative “leaders” excuse and defend the behavior of Trump?
Can anyone give a couple of examples? Can anyone give even one example?
LikeLike
Here is the deal:
As I have said here before, I had no problem with people voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils in 2016. I know many parents of young people I taught in Sunday School who voted that way and explained that vote to their children who voted the same way. I have no problem with people voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils in November, 2020 if he is still around. I have no problem with people saying they don’t think Trump should be impeached. I posted articles yesterday from conservatives Kevin Williamson, David Brooks and Jonah Goldberg who hold that view.
I have a big problem with religious and social conservative “leaders” who reflexively defend Trump’s dishonesty, ignorance, childishness, amorality and demagoguery. This makes them look stupid or hypocritical in the eyes of everyone, particularly the young, the press and the educated. I want the young and the educated to respect religious leaders. The press tilts liberal, but it is not monolithic. I recently heard a radio interview with a young, slightly liberal reporter who has known Robert Jeffress for years. He likes Jeffress, and still has some respect for him. However, he can not understand how Jeffress’ reflexive defenses of every Trump act or lie meshes with Jeffress’ faith.
LikeLike
Anon: I am one of those people who voted against Hillary.
But this time around (I can’t believe I’m saying this.) everyone on the Democratic list is really worse than Hillary. Only they are so far out, they don’t have a chance.
LikeLike
This is what I mean:
(Gateway Pundit) – What’s the latest trendy liberal outrage? URINALS! Those pesky symbols of the patriarchy, which white males use to assert their privilege over women and the other countless recognized genders, will soon be a thing of a past.
The city of Portland (where else) is now banning urinals in city-owned buildings and spending taxpayer money to remove them. The first urinal-free building is appropriately called The Portland Building, where countless paper-shuffling city bureaucrats congregate to waste oxygen and demand pay raises
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chas, I agree with you that the 2020 Democrats are worse than Hillary. Biden is a dumb version of Hillary and Sanders, Warren and Harris are far to her left. But they have a chance.
You said once here that the 2020 election is going to be about one thing: Trump. I think you were right, and if that is the case, then all of the Dems have a chance.
LikeLike
Tychicus, Thanks for reminding me of Garry Kasparov. He and others who lived under communism have an interesting perspective.
LikeLike
Pathetic and sad is an accurate description of Congress.
https://twitter.com/arieljones411/status/1177300326963208193
Respect the hack in the Chair, but don’t expect it to be returned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And here’s Lizzy, to prove Chas’ point. 🙂
https://twitter.com/EddieDonovan/status/1177532327993495559
LikeLike
“It felt right…..”
To cancel your private insurance. But don’t worry, they’ll be exemptions for Congress and the Dem coffer stuffing unions.
LikeLike
Ricky at 6:00am…
You got an answer, just not one you like.
“The press and the much of the brainwashed “educated” as you call them should be ignored. They’re irrelevant and largely lost to secularism already. This is plainly obvious. They’ll never be on your side Ricky. You aren’t one of the cool kids, that’s reality. The longer the youth remain in our indoctrination system, the farther lost they’ll be as well. Their opinions on gay marriage, climate change, illegal immigration are all being influenced by their educations, not be their churches or their parents in most cases. That’s reality. Same goes for their politics. They aren’t drawn to Sanders and Warren and their socialist promises because of something someone on the right said or did. They’re drawn there because it’s what they’re taught to believe is best.
And that has jack squat to do with Trump. Started long before him, and it will continue long after him.
There are 2 choices here. While Trump isn’t ideal, the alternative isn’t really even an option for folks concerned with religion and social conservatism. It’s not excusing anything if you’re simply selecting the lesser of two evils. There are really only two choices. Your vote helps one or the other either way it goes. While the children may pretend that isn’t so, it is. When they grow up, they’ll see that in fact it is.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
8:58 is a response. It is not the example I asked for. SolarP indicated last night (with his “way down the list” comment) that he thought several such examples exist. All I’m asking for is one … from anyone.
LikeLike
Polly wanna a corrupt Democrat?
————–
LikeLike
Raking it in.
Thanks Dems and NTers. 🙂
You built this. 🙂
————-
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/republicans-rake-in-15-million-off-trump-impeachment-threat
LikeLike
I bet that was awkward, but then when you’re ignorant of history like Texas’ favorite son…..
https://reason.com/2019/09/27/beto-goes-to-kent-state-argues-only-the-government-can-be-trusted-with-guns/
“Beto Goes to Kent State, Argues Only the Government Can Be Trusted With Guns
Someone should tell Beto who did the killing at Kent State.”
“Of all the places to argue that only the government should be trusted with guns, Beto O’Rourke picked…Kent State University.
Kent State is, of course, the location of the infamous 1970 shooting that left four students dead and nine others injured. The shots were fired not by private citizens but by members of the Ohio National Guard, who shot at a crowd protesting America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.
Invoking armed agents of the state gunning down unarmed civilians is an interesting way to argue that Americans would be better off if the government forcefully disarmed private citizens. But hey, I guess that’s why we keep being told Beto’s an “unconventional” candidate.”
—————-
Around here he’s what we call an @#$hat.
LikeLike
And again, like Lizzy, Beto the beta proves Chas’ point.
LikeLike
Anyone surprised?
https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2019/09/28/puberty-blocking-drugs-used-trans-kids-killed-6000-people/
“Puberty Blocking Drugs Used On “Trans Kids” Have Killed More Than 6,000 People”
“Here’s a horror show of a story that you’re probably not going to see on CNN anytime soon. A report emerged on Thursday indicating that the puberty-blocking drug Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron) has resulted in tens of thousands of serious “adverse reactions” in patients, including more than six thousand deaths. That’s bad enough, but it’s even more significant when you consider that this is one of the drugs being administered by doctors to so-called “transgender children” to unnaturally prevent their normal sexual development. And the testing done on the drug by the FDA for such applications appears to be thin at best. (Daily Wire)
More than 6,300 adults have died from reactions to a drug that is used as a puberty blocker in gender-confused children, Food & Drug Administration data reportedly shows.
“Between 2012 and June 30 of this year, the FDA documented over 40,764 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron), which is used as a hormone blocker. More than 25,500 reactions logged from 2014-2019 were considered ‘serious,’ including 6,370 deaths,” The Christian Post reported on Thursday.
“Lupron is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose,” the outlet explained.
You can do a search of the FDA’s incident reports here and enter the name of the drug (Lupron) to see their data.”
Despite the possible adverse side effects, there are approved uses for Lupron, but it tends to be administered only for serious conditions. It’s useful in treating prostate cancer in men and endometriosis in women. For children, it is sometimes used to treat precocious puberty, a condition where children begin puberty at an unusually early age, but only for a short time.
The list of potential side effects for the drug is alarming. It includes breast disorders, malignant neoplasms, and psychiatric and nervous disorders. Stop and think about that for a moment. If you have a child that is already so confused that they are questioning their “gender identity” before they’ve even reached the age where their body is dealing with such issues, do you want to give them a drug that can produce psychiatric or nervous disorders?
To top it all off, the FDA has never formally approved the use of Lupron for treating gender dysphoria in children. Two years ago the agency announced that it was beginning a study of “nervous system and psychiatric events in association with the use of … a class of drugs including Lupron, in pediatric patients.” We don’t know the results of that study yet.”
LikeLike
Revenge of the Deep State.
https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2019/09/28/whistleblowers-complaint-revenge-ukraine-ambassadors-dismissal/
“It’s becoming clear that Democrats are widening the net when it comes to bringing in Trump administration officials involved in dealing with Ukraine. Secretary of State Pompeo was subpoenaed by Democratic chairs of three House committees Friday for documents they claim relate to Ukraine and the impeachment inquiries.
A story in the Daily Mail about the resignation submitted by President Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, a Special Representative just one day after the whistleblower’s complaint became public takes a turn. This whole impeachment inquiry now smacks of revenge against President Trump for the removal of the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. Volker was named in the complaint. He introduced Rudy Guiliani to President Volodymyr Zelensky. The complaint claims that along with the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, Volker advised Ukrainian officials on how to navigate pressure from Trump about cleaning up corruption.
Volker is Executive Director of the McCain Institute at ASU. He has served as special envoy to Ukraine since 2017 on a part-time, unpaid basis. He helped Ukraine’s government resolve its confrontation with Russia-sponsored separatists. Volker and Sondland were subpoenaed Friday, along with former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Deputy Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent.
On July 3 Volker tweeted about his “great” meeting with Zelensky. He tweeted about Zelensky’s “clear commitment to peace in Donbas, but Russia needs to do its part”. Volker said that Zelensky pledged his strong commitment to reforming Ukraine.
Then came the phone call from Trump on July 25 that put the complaint into play. It looks like the CIA agent who registered the complaint was upset about Trump’s dealings with Ambassador Yovanovitch.
Three weeks later, President Donald Trump said in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was ‘bad news’ and that she is ‘going to go through some things,’ according to the memo of the call released this week by the White House. But that characterization of her and her performance was contradicted by five current and former officials who spoke to The Associated Press.
Yovanovitch’s name may ring a bell. She was unceremoniously relieved from her position in May and brought back to Washington, D.C. The story didn’t get a lot of press coverage at the time but I do remember reading that she left her post in Ukraine. I thought at the time that she was another Never-Trumper resigning to protest President Trump.
Months before the call that set off an impeachment inquiry, many in the diplomatic community were alarmed by the Trump administration’s abrupt removal of the career diplomat from her post as ambassador to Ukraine.
The ambassador’s ouster, and the campaign against her that preceded it, are now emerging as a key sequence of events behind a whistleblower’s complaint alleging that the president pressured a foreign country to investigate his political rival Joe Biden’s son.
She served as an ambassador in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. Apparently the diplomatic community considered Trump’s remarks during the July 25 phone conversation to be of a threatening nature towards Yovanovitch. She was an Obama holdover in Ukraine.”
——
“The CIA agent noted the ambassador’s removal in the complaint. ‘I learned from U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department officials for ‘consultations’ and would most likely be removed from her position.’
Is it possible that impeachment proceedings have begun against President Trump because of a complaint from disgruntled members of the diplomatic community based on revenge? It sure looks like the phone call between Trump and Zelensky conveniently became a way to seek that revenge.”
LikeLike
Yep.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/was-the-whistleblower-part-of-a-plan.php
“WAS THE “WHISTLEBLOWER” PART OF A PLAN?
The press has universally adopted the convention of referring to the person who started the Ukraine frenzy as “the whistleblower,” in part because his identity is unknown. Until we know his name–he reportedly is a CIA employee–I would rather call him “the Democratic Party loyalist.” Now that his complaint has been made public, along with the transcript of President Trump’s innocuous conversation with President Zelensky, and we have had a few days to observe the Democrats’ behavior, I am starting to think the Ukraine matter may have been orchestrated just as fully as the Steele dossier/Russia collusion hoax.
Fred Fleitz, a veteran of the CIA, the DIA, the Department of State and the House Intelligence Committee staff, as well as the National Security Council and the White House, has some interesting observations about the Ukraine complaint in the New York Post:
I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.
My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.
From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.
Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.
***
Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.
The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.
We now know that the “whistleblower” had nothing, just as Christopher Steele had nothing. His complaint consists of rumor and hearsay that turned out to be wrong. But, just as it didn’t matter that Steele’s dossier was nonsense, it hasn’t mattered that the “whistleblower’s” complaint was inaccurate, and perhaps fabricated out of whole cloth. It nevertheless serves the Democrats’ purposes.
It seems obvious that the Democrats have been planning for a while to proceed with impeachment against President Trump. I infer this from the fact that almost immediately after Nancy Pelosi announced publicly that House committees would proceed with impeachment inquiries, Democratic politicians of all kinds were sending out emails that recited nearly identical talking points and concluded with the assertion that President Trump must be impeached–not investigated, but impeached. This was not just a Nancy Pelosi operation, it was coordinated by the Democratic Party more broadly.
That coordination may have included the Democratic Party loyalist who made the Ukraine complaint. It may be, as Fred Fleitz suggests, that Democratic committee staff or Democratic lawyers helped him write it. In any event, it seems clear that the Democrats were aware of the complaint and coordinated their strategy to build impeachment proceedings around it.
It seems to me, in short, that we are seeing a replay of the Russia collusion hoax, with the “whistleblower” playing the part of Christopher Steele. He relates hearsay allegations that he may have heard from someone else, or may have simply made up, just as Steele did. The Democrats pretend to believe the whistleblower just as they pretended to believe Steele, even though in both cases, there is clear evidence that the claims against Trump are false.”
LikeLike
A funny affair seems an understatement.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/deep-state-blues.php
“DEEP STATE BLUES
The whistleblower blowout is a funny affair. A year in advance of the 2020 presidential election we are in rerun season. We didn’t get enough of Adam Schiff the first time around. Live with it, baby. And we didn’t get enough of journalism based on misinformation supplied to friendly reporters by people “familiar with the matter.” Here it comes again.
Andrew McCarthy captures a bit of the old-time quality of the thing in his NR column “Breaking Down the Whistleblower Frenzy.” He writes: “It stems from — what else? — anonymous leaks attributed to former intelligence officials. Whether they are among the stable of such retirees now on the payroll at anti-Trump cable outlets is not known.” He makes another point that somehow evades the crew at Lawfare: “While the media purport to be deeply concerned about Trump-administration law-breaking in classified matters, there is negligible interest in whether the intelligence officials leaking to them are flouting the law.”
We can now compare the leaked reports of the whistleblower complaint with the transcript of the call itself. The whistleblower complaint seems to illustrate the old party game “telephone.” Gregg Re observes discrepancies in the FOX News story “Republicans want whistleblower’s sources, as inconsistencies in complaint emerge.”
The “whistleblower” and his media allies make a big deal of the Trump administration’s alleged attempt to secure the transcript from the likes of him. Re makes the obvious point: “The Trump administration reportedly began placing transcripts of Trump’s calls with several foreign leaders in a highly classified repository after leakers publicly divulged the contents of Trump’s private calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia in 2017.” This escapes the savants at Lawfare.
Marc Thiessen makes the same point among others in his comparison of the complaint with the transcript in the Washington Post column “The rough transcript makes it clear that Dems got ahead of the evidence” (the link is to the column posted at Jewish World Review). Thiessen writes:
In his complaint, the whistleblower (who admits “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described”) describes Trump asking Zelensky to cooperate with this investigation as an effort “to advance his personal interests.” That is ridiculous. Since when is it inappropriate for the president of the United States to ask a foreign leader to cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation?
The transcript also backs up Trump’s claim that he put a temporary hold on some U.S. military aid to Ukraine because he was concerned that the European allies were not doing enough. During the call, Trump tells Zelensky the United States is doing “much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are.” Zelensky responds: “Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000%.””
LikeLike
“I asked the following question and did not get any examples:…”
Woops, sorry! Didn’t realize this was a timed test with a due date ‘n all! But AJ did provide an answer last night, and it was a decent one. He’s right. It didn’t take the advent of Donald Trump to cause a whole lot of unbelievers—young, old, educated or not—to adopt the view that social and religious conservatives are closed-minded, bigoted, racists, etc. Hadn’t you noticed that’s been the stereotypical view of Christians for decades, and had been getting more and more pervasive well before Trump, basically corresponding with the success of all those “educated” people in marginalizing Christianity from the social and political spheres? Have we forgotten that rejection of Christians by the world is something Christ, Himself, told us is a thing? Sure, hypocrisy puts people off a bit, but if we’re listing *trivial* reasons religious conservatives may be discredited, why not include snooty self-aggrandizing in online forums as one of them? They’re both turn-offs!
“8:58 is a response. It is not the example I asked for…”
The point is that the default view among many young people, the press and the educated (praise be to their names, and may we pray they be nicer to us someday) is essentially what it has been for a long time now, and that is the view that conservative Christianity = bad. It’s not as if young people and educated media-ites were in union with Christians in opposition to gay marriage, etc., etc., in 2015, but then Trump came along and blew that union all up. As if.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SolarP,
This is what I said yesterday:
Nothing discredits social and religious conservatives more with young people, the press and the educated than when their “leaders” excuse and defend the dishonesty, ignorance, childishness, amorality and demagoguery of Donald Trump.
You disagreed.
I understand that evangelical Christianity has not been and may not ever be generally popular among the young, the educated and the press. That is a different point than the one I was making.
DJ provoked my initial comment by posting an article from Dreher about a negative story about kids at the school where Mrs. Pence teaches. I agree with her that the Christian community is in for rough treatment in the days ahead. The treatment of the Covington kids was outrageous.
The point I was making was that when Christian “leaders” reflexively defend Trump’s dishonesty, ignorance, amorality, etc. it makes us all look hypocritical and/or stupid. I am not quite saying we brought this on ourselves. I am saying that some of us brought this on all of us, and we should not be surprised about how we are viewed and treated over the next couple of decades.
LikeLike
By the way, Michelle’s Twitter feed (@michelleule) is really good and I should probably read all of her daily posts before I ever post anything here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HRW, I can’t figure out how to get you this Anne Applebaum column. It is one of her best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky, thanks for the reply. So I ask you (and I’m not being combative, just asking for clarification), when you say, “I am not quite saying we brought this on ourselves. I am saying that some of us brought this on all of us,” what is the “this” you’re referring to? Do you mean the treatment Pence’s wife and conservative Christians should expect from the media?
LikeLike
Good article…must have a few free articles a month. Applebaum is a conservative but an excellent historian and political analysts. And she’s right, credibility has been lost.
Speaking of credibility, evangelical association and approval of Trump has removed any legitimacy or credibility especially of its leadership. Sure the atheists might have had an already low opinion of Christianity or any religion but the vast majority of non religious are not atheist. They are unaffiliated and quite tolerant of “whatever gets people through the night”. Its here where the credibility and legitimacy will dissappear.
More importantly the bar for acceptable presidential behaviour is near the floor. Any attempt by evangelicals to raise the bar will be greeted with laughter. Moral legitimacy or authority is eroded.
LikeLike
Aj.
All your posts regarding Biden, Schiff, et al are mere distractions. The telephone conversation is enough ,
— We would like some Javellin missiles
— you need to do a favour though.
And thats enough; he made military aid contingent on personal/political favours.
LikeLike
AJ @8:53 That’s Tom Homan. He’s been a guest on Lou Dobbs or Tucker Carlson quite a few times. He’s a hoot—-a no nonsense kind of guy with firm opinions on immigration, based on years of experience. :–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
hwesseli,
“Any attempt by evangelicals to raise the bar will be greeted with laughter. Moral legitimacy or authority is eroded.”
I’m sure we could spend hours looking through your post history here (and probably wherever) and see that you’ve never given any moral legitimacy or credence to a conservative/evangelical Christian argument, even before ol’ Donald Trump came along. Your approach to criticisms of left-sympathetic politicians is to point out how right-sympathetic ones do that stuff, but they do it hypocritically. It’s a bizarrely ironic shtick, because you can’t account for/believe in objective morality in the first place. It’s weird.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“he made military aid contingent on personal/political favours.”
I don’t like Trump. I’m skeptical of nearly everything he does and says. But the telephone transcript doesn’t demonstrate the above at all. Claiming it *with emphasis* doesn’t magically make it so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, because your kids and all of them at church were in lock step with you before Trump, right?
No, they weren’t, and you know it. And part of the problem here is the inability of the youth you mention to discern the political and social realities of the day. 2 choices. Just because you pick one doesn’t mean you wholeheartedly agree with them on everything. Adults know this. So do discerning children. The ones you mention aren’t seeming to get that. With luck, reality and time will find them with a clue.
And this is why we don’t let children vote. They’re too emotional, immature, and easily swayed.
LikeLike
HRW,
“mere distractions”
Yeah, darn those pesky facts disproving your false narratives.
The nerve…..
LikeLike
And is this a mere distraction too? Or is it only bad when the Orange Man does it?
Another leftist narrative about unprecedented actions by Trump bites the dust.
These things have a shelf life of about 2 days before they’re mostly debunked.
————–
“So basically they want to impeach Trump for making the conversations more secure within the government control when they didn’t give a darn that Hillary Clinton put all her conversations on a private server to avoid government scrutiny. Insanity.”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-administration-saved-call-transcripts-on-same-secret-server-as-trump-administration
“After the media spent days speculating that President Donald Trump demanded a “quid pro quo” agreement from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, only to learn no such agreement was made, the same outlets began pushing the notion that the Trump administration saved the conversation to a different, secret server.
Former national security adviser for the Obama administration, Susan Rice, however, acknowledged during a speaking engagement Friday night that the previous administration also saved transcripts of phone calls with world leaders this way.
“What [the Trump administration] did instead of storing it in the normal system, which is protected and classified, even though there was no classified substance in that actual discussion,” Rice told an audience at the Texas Tribune Festival. “Instead of putting it where it normally resides, they hid it on a very highly sensitive, highly compartmented server that very few people in the U.S. government have access to in order to bury it.”
Rice was then asked how many times the Obama administration saved conversations to the server. Rice responded by saying the administration only saved conversations that were actually of a classified nature.”
LikeLike
Censure the fraud.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/463407-house-conservative-introduces-resolution-to-censure-schiff
“A House conservative has introduced a measure to censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in an attempt to condemn the Democratic chairman for using “parody” when recounting details of President Trump’s call with the leader of Ukraine.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman-elect Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) introduced the resolution Friday shortly after Trump took to Twitter to demand Schiff’s resignation over his remarks, which focused on the president’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Schiff had pointed to a reconstituted transcript of the conversation released by the White House, but paraphrased some points and offered an exaggerated version of the discussion, including saying that Trump directed Zelensky to “make up dirt on my political opponent” a full “seven times.”
————–
He lied. Again.
LikeLike
Calling someone an illegal alien is now a crime in NYC, regardless of whether it’s an accurate descriptiuon.
Sorry, it won’t stand a court challenge there you lousy Thought Police Nazis.
They are the fascists they claim to hate. And dissent will not be tolerated.
https://twitter.com/nycgov/status/1177310896344969217
LikeLike
SolarP @12:17 That is a good question.
Let me try an analogy. Even Jesse Jackson once admitted that when he saw a young black man coming toward him at night, he might cross the street because young black men were more likely to commit crimes than other groups. Young black men oppose racial profiling, but they understand why many look at them with some fear, and this has led to the current situation between young blacks and police.
The knee-jerk support of Trump by many Christians and the constant ridiculous alibis they offer on his behalf has understandably led many to question our intelligence and sincerity. Just like police and other citizens may prejudge young blacks as criminals, other Americans, but particularly the young, the media and the educated, can be expected to prejudge us as ignorant and hypocritical.
Just as young blacks must make an extra effort to demonstrate they are law-abiding, Christians are going to need to go the extra mile to show we are rational and sincere.
LikeLike
An analogy isn’t necessary, Ricky, as your point is perfectly simple and clear. Regardless, I don’t find it persuasive. None of what you’ve claimed about disregard for Christians is anything new, not to most of us, at least, and I’m not aware of any conversation to be had with unbelievers that is any more difficult now than it was before Trump. Certainly the claim that “nothing” does more to discredit conservative Christians than support for Donald Trump is pretty overblown.
LikeLike
So give me an example.
LikeLike
Bill Barr is going to learn that if you run with the wrong crowd, bad things can happen to you.
LikeLike
I never discuss politics on my Twitter feed. Thanks for your comments, Rickey. 🙂 I’m always happy to see you over there in the wild west.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I consider Michelle to be the Chaplain of Twitter to her followers, and that is a pretty important job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If John Kelly had still been Chief of Staff and Don McGahn had still been the President’s Counsel, I believe there is a good chance that the Ukraine Extortion would not have taken place. Those two kept Trump out of a lot of trouble.
LikeLike
Extortion?
Drama queen. 🙄
You’re as off your rocker as this guy.
Be very afraid! 😂🤣
LikeLike
When you’ve lost Bill Maher……
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-blasts-hunter-bidens-ukraine-ties-if-don-jr-did-it-rachel-maddow-would-be-all-over-it
“Maher blasts Hunter Biden’s Ukraine ties: If Don Jr. did it, Rachel Maddow would be all over it”
LikeLike
Ricky, the primary reason by far that conservative Christians are discredited in the eyes of youth, educated, and media is not Donald Trump or his supporters, but *because they’re conservative Christians.* If you were to attempt to make an argument opposing same sex marriage to the holy triumvirate of youth educated media, you would be given no credibility with those people. That condition is exactly the same now as it was before Trump. Nothing from nothing is nothing; or, if it *is* worse, it’s only because it has continued on the same trajectory it’s been going for years.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Solar P,
For over thirty years, I have taught Biblical sexual ethics to the young. Although I have taught them that the Bible was their ultimate authority on religious matters, the reality is that teenagers rely most on the teaching and behavior of their parents, their youth ministers and their pastors for moral guidance. For the most part, those young people (who are now young or even middle-aged adults) held orthodox views on theological and moral issues. After all, this is Texas. However, the worldview we were fighting against with those kids was portrayed in movies, books and often in the classroom. That opposing worldview taught the young that Christianity was for the ignorant and the hypocritical. Generally, when those young people looked at their parents, their pastors and their youth ministers, they saw flawed but sincere people who were not stupid. Christian support for Trump’s daily dishonesty, malevolence and ignorance is giving evidence that those liberal teachers and movies were right all along.
LikeLike
Douthat was truly brutally honest today.
LikeLike
2:16 and 8:56 were both very enlightening to me. I live in a different country than some of the rest of you. Re: 2:16, My son, his wife and my sister’s children and their spouses (eight 30 somethings with 16 college and graduate degrees) are as conservative theologically, morally and politically as their parents and grandparents. All are Reagan Republicans and conservative Southern Baptists. The only one who is not in “lockstep” is my nephew who has a soft spot for both Alex Jones and Trump.
I get it now. Trumpism is for people who think the battle for the hearts and minds of young educated people is over and has been lost. If that is the case you might as well scrap your principles (such as “Character Matters”) and try to “own the libs”. I will admit that it is harder now. More people are sending children to private schools or are home schooling. There is a new threat. We must not only protect the children from liberals and secularists who would indoctrinate them, but also from Christian Trumpkins who would misinform and disillusion them.
However, here in North Texas we do not think the battle is over. We still think it is very harmful when Christian leaders excuse or defend dishonesty, ignorance and malevolence.
LikeLike
Probably 70% of America’s young adults do not even attend church.
So this is as inaccurate as you can get.
” the reality is that teenagers rely most on the teaching and behavior of their parents, their youth ministers and their pastors for moral guidance. ”
Most teens nowadays never receive such teachings and most parents aren’t teaching their children anything good.. The extent of their education is what they learn in public schools and on social media. The church plays no role for most of America’s youth. That’s reality.
———–
““own the libs””
You mean like you try to do every single day here, except with people you call Trumpkins. Get over yourself.
—————-
“There is a new threat. We must not only protect the children from liberals and secularists who would indoctrinate them, but also from Christian Trumpkins who would misinform and disillusion them.”
Every day you come here with the latest leftist takes and lies about the president and you have the nerve to accuse others of misinforming and disillusioning the youth? Are you serious?
Remove the log from your own eye first you hypocrite. You’ve become a parody (a rather unfunny one) of everything you claim to be against. Trump has broken you. Seek help.
LikeLike
5:39 and elsewhere,
Oh, you’re in North Texas? Gee, we hadn’t heard. Anyhow, your personal experience and repeating yourself don’t negate the fact that antipathy toward Christians and Christianity is not a new or new-ish phenomenon brought about by the age of Trump. There’s no need to be over-dramatic and interpret that observation as throwing in the towel and giving up the battle, nor to assume it somehow means advocacy of dishonesty in leaders. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. Listening to some folks, you’d think He just couldn’t have anticipated how tough things would be once scary ol’ malevolent Donald Trump arrived on the scene.
LikeLiked by 2 people
8:16 No need to be angry. I finally understand. We live in different countries. If Yankees want to defend Trump daily, who am I to say they are wrong considering the conditions in their states?
LikeLike
Question for Anon and other Never Trumpsters.
If not Trump, WHO?
Seriously. I am looking for someone better.
Speaking of that. I heard unsupported rumors that Hillary is coming back.
LikeLike
12:54
If Trump is impeached and convicted, Mike Pence would be the President.
LikeLike
And when it comes time for the 2020 election, the Democrat (insert any name here) will win because Trump supporters have abandoned the party. You see, unlike NTers, there’s millions of us, and in the states that matter. R’s would never win another national election. If NTers leave, big deal. Didn’t matter the first time, won’t the second either. See the difference?
So your scenario is garbage.
LikeLike
And angry?
As if. 🙂
You unduly flatter yourself.
LikeLike
5:54
In other words, y’all are a cult.
LikeLike
Ricky, how is 2:47 an answer to 12:54?
LikeLike
Chas asked: If not Trump, who? I was simply pointing out that if Trump is impeached and removed, Pence would become president. We would immediately have a conservative president who would not be a pathological liar, profoundly ignorant, etc.
Then, as Douthat pointed out, the Republican Party would have several options that don’t include renominating a lunatic. AJ is right @5:54 that The Cult would be in a major pout. But you would probably have people like Nikki Haley, Tom Cotton and maybe Dan Crenshaw challenging Pence. Each would promise to “Keep America Great Again” but none of them are crazy like Trump. Maybe the cult would continue to pout and the Dems would win, but I have to think Nikki Haley would have a better chance than Trump.
LikeLike
Haley has played her cards very well from a political standpoint. She never crossed Trump while UN Ambassador though she won a couple of public spats with his aides. She got out before she could be embroiled in a scandal. Today she is taking his side in the Ukraine dispute.
The Cult may not be satisfied with anyone but their Dear Leader, but Haley, Pence, Cotton and Crenshaw are well-positioned. Lindsey Graham has also played to The Cult after McCain died, but he is too big a wimp to have a chance.
LikeLike
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/the-democrats-arent-wrong-about-impeachment.php
_________________________
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2019 BY JOHN HINDERAKER
THE DEMOCRATS AREN’T WRONG ABOUT IMPEACHMENT
As I have said before, I think the claim that President Trump’s phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine somehow constitutes an impeachable offense is ridiculous. But impeachment is a political act, not a legal one, and the Democrats’ motives are entirely political. They think that impeaching President Trump will cast a pall of discredit over him and weaken his chances for re-election in 2020. I think that calculation is probably right.
We will see a great deal of impeachment-related poll data in the months to come, but this early survey, reported in the New York Post, suggests that the Democrats are on the right track …
… Will there be a backlash against the Democrats’ overreaching? Sure, but only among Trump loyalists. The question is how news of impeachment impacts 1) swing voters, and 2) turnout. So I think endless yammering about impeaching the president, with wild accusations by the likes of Adam Schiff being reported daily, will indeed damage Trump’s chances of re-election, perhaps decisively.
_______________________________
LikeLike
Nixon wasn’t removed from office but he did resign. I don’t know as I see Trump doing that. And it would probably be too late to regroup for 2020 anyhow. Still, it could end up the only far-reaching hope for conservatives if the impeachment trajectory takes its toll.
Nikki Haley? The party could do much worse.
But a last-minute changeup sans Trump and featuring a new GOP candidate for president is pretty unlikely.
LikeLike
But would Nikki Haley provide this sort of entertainment on a daily basis?
LikeLike
DJ,
Select whoever you like, without Trump voters, they aren’t winning. That’s reality. If the party is so stupid and gun shy as to abandoned the president for no impeachable offense, just hoax after hoax, then that’s a party that can piss off as far as Trump supporters are concerned. It’s time to grow a spine. There is no crime here.
LikeLike
And no reason to abandon the most conservative president we’ve had in decades, even before Reagan.
LikeLike
But Ricky, how could you possibly entertain the prospect of Mike Pence? If you want exhibit A of what you have been lamenting in regards to conservative Christians excusing and forgiving Donald Trump’s many transgressions, why is Mike Pence not it? *He’s the Vice Bleeping President*!
But whatever. Unlike AJ and a few others here, I share with you a similar (but probably not exact) disregard for Trump, and won’t be voting for him. But you’re so selective and unhinged in your outrage as to be almost without credibility for it. Sure, lying and “malevolence” (however you may mean that) are sins that shouldn’t be coddled. Why is this worse than Mitt Romney, who believes Jesus is a created person; who believes he (Romney) will one day be a god, equal with the god he believes created our world? During at least one extended era in history, God judged this kind of idolatry a capital crime. How can you favorably invoke John McCain, with his desertion of his first wife and unrepentant marriage to his current spouse? Were you as vocal about Christians not rejecting him for these things when he ran, or…*did you actually vote for him?* Etc., etc., with other R nominees and office holders and talking heads and the acceptance Christians extend to them despite egregious sins they’ve never repented of? You’re so off the handle with Trump, exclusively, I’m not sure what accounts for it other than TDS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
10:41
Pence is a Christian and former conservative Congressman and Governor who became unequally yoked with a lying con man, malicious unrepentant reprobate and sexual predator. Trump is the lying con man, malicious unrepentant reprobate and sexual predator. To me there is a difference.
Yeah. Trump, Romney and McCain had character flaws that are so similar that I always had trouble telling them apart. Seriously, after three years of constant dishonesty, ignorance, malevolence and childishness, if anyone can not see that Trump is uniquely horrible among all Republican Presidential candidates in history, including Nixon and Harding, all I can do is shrug my shoulders.
LikeLike