Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Trump tried “to try to coerce that leader to manufacture dirt on his opponent and interfere in our election” which happened “at a time when the president is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to Ukraine”
““Resistance by Whistleblower” Was Part Of The Anti-Trump Plan From The Start
DOJ employee in February 2017 predicted resistance by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints”
“What is happening now to President Trump was predictable. The plans were laid in plain sight, including the use of whistleblowers to disrupt the administration.
It is instructive to look back and realize that there was plenty of advance warning of the various attempts to set up grounds for the impeachment of President Trump. The basic approach was clearly described, and it is difficult to avoid the notion that this was planned from the start.
Consider, for example, this excerpt from an article published in Vanity Fair on February 1, 2017, twelve days after Trump’s inauguration [emphasis mine]:
Others, however, view resistance as a part of the job. “Policy dissent is in our culture,” one diplomat in Africa, who signed the letter circulating among foreign diplomats, told The New York Times. “We even have awards for it,” this person added, in reference to the State Department’s “Constructive Dissent” award. One Justice Department employee told the Post, “You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” and added that “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints. Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda and attending workshops on how to effectively engage in civil disobedience, the Post reports.
Let me emphasize that again: whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints.
And then we have this, from the same article [emphasis added]:
When asked how the opposition emerging at this stage compares to past administrations, Tom Malinowski, who served as Obama’s assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, sarcastically told the Post, “Is it unusual? There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.”
The “nothing unusual” part was sarcasm, of course. But the rest was deadly serious. Indications are that a plan was in place from the start, and it’s not some wild conspiracy-mongering to say so because although this may be a clandestine conspiracy it is not a completely secret one in the sense that we were told about its general thrust in advance by the proud perpetrators themselves.
Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist also noticed the trend back in the beginning. She wrote the following in an article from January 17, 2017. That’s a few days before the inauguration:
Dwight Eisenhower warned that if we didn’t stay vigilant, the military-industrial complex would start creeping into politics with pernicious motives all its own. The intelligence community’s war of leaks against Trump before he’s even taken office is just the latest questionably politicized action in the decades since Eisenhower’s farewell address. And it’s safe to say that the intelligence community pushing unproven and absurd allegations about a president-elect’s sexual perversions is probably way worse than anything Ike imagined.
In order to understand how we got to this perilous place and get a handle on what’s going on, it’s worth taking a closer look at the motives and allegations of political operatives in intelligence agencies, as well as the basic timeline of allegations of Russian electoral interference in the last few months. Far from discrediting Trump, it paints a worrisome portrait of the deep state gone rogue, desperate to stop a man who, whatever his considerable flaws, is an outsider to Washington.
She then goes into a series of warnings issued to Trump to beware of ruffling the feathers of the intelligence community. The most famous one, with which you might be familiar, was issued by Chuck Schumer:”
“Biden campaign asks news networks to stop booking Giuliani: report”
“Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is asking top network executives to stop booking President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Biden campaign officials Anita Dunn and Kate Bedingfield wrote a letter to network news presidents, chief anchors and the executive producers of the Sunday shows for ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox News Channel, Deadline reported.
“We are writing today with grave concern that you continue to book Rudy Giuilani on your air to spread false, debunked conspiracy theories on behalf of Donald Trump,” the letter said.
“While you often fact check his statements in real time during your discussions, that is no longer enough. By giving him your air time, you are allowing him to introduce increasingly unhinged, unfounded and desperate lies into the national conversation.””
——————
Nikki Halley disagrees with Dems.
Leave Joe Biden alone? So are you telling us @KamalaHarris that what Biden did was ethical and moral? Where are the questions about the conflict of interest that occurred from Biden’s actions and the issues with his son? This response is embarrassing. https://t.co/AdUP38KinY
An actual constitutional scholar (who thinks this latest scam is a hoax too and that grounds for impeachment don’t exist) calls out Ed Henry for his dishonesty.
“Mark Levin to Ed Henry: It’s “not honest” to claim Trump asked Ukraine to “dig up dirt” on Biden
Ed Henry: “So, you’re okay with the president asking another president to dig up dirt on a candidate, you’re okay with that?” Levin: “Your question is not honest!””
—
“Mark Levin was on a roll Sunday when faced with a claim from Fox & Friends co-host Ed Henry about Trump supposedly asking Ukraine to “dig up dirt” on Joe Biden.
In a video that is quickly going viral, Henry badgers Levin about whether or not he’s “okay with the president asking another president to dig up dirt on a candidate.” Levin disputed that such a request was made and called the framing of the question “not honest.”
The Washington Examiner reports:
Conservative commentator Mark Levin accused Fox News anchor Ed Henry of being dishonest about President Trump’s controversial phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his appearance on Fox & Friends Sunday.
Trump, during the July 25 phone call in question, requested that Zelensky open up a new investigation into Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who worked for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company. The company has been investigated for corruption in the past, but the younger Biden was never implicated in any wrongdoing.”
Levin was quick to point out during his appearance that the president “didn’t do anything illegal.”
“So, you’re okay with the president asking another president to dig up dirt on a candidate, you’re okay with that?” Henry asked.
Levin responded, “Dirt on a candidate? What dirt are you talking about? He didn’t ask for it — are you reading the same …”
The host repeated his question, “Are you okay with a president asking his counterpart — this is a simple yes or no — to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden and his son? Are you okay with that?”
“Your question is not honest,” Levin shot back.
Needless to say, the president did not ask Zelensky to “dig up dirt” on Biden, so Levin was correct, the question was dishonest. Trump asked Zelensky to look into the allegation, one that then Vice President Biden bragged about, that Biden had threatened to withhold $1 billion in U. S. aid if the prosecutor was not fired.”
“State Department ramps up investigation into email records of former Clinton aides”
“The Trump administration’s State Department is intensifying its investigation into the email records of dozens of former department officials and aides to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As many as 130 officials have been recently contacted by investigators from the State Department, current and former officials told the Washington Post. According to the outlet, those targeted were contacted by the department about emails they sent years ago that have been retroactively classified and could now count as possible security violations. Investigators began communicating with former officials around 18 months ago, but they appeared to suspend the effort before ramping it back up in August.
Although some who are under scrutiny view the recent activity as the Trump administration’s decision to wield power against political adversaries, senior State Department officials said they are simply following standard protocol in an investigation that initially started during the Obama administration.
“This has nothing to do with who is in the White House,” one official said. “This is about the time it took to go through millions of emails, which is about 3 and a half years.”
“The process is set up in a manner to completely avoid any appearance of political bias,” another official added.
Former Obama administration officials, however, told the Post that the investigation is an “aggressive crackdown” by an administration that has had its own problems with handling classified information.
The list of State Department officials being questioned includes assistant secretaries of state responsible for U.S. policy in the Middle East, Europe, and Central Asia, as well as several ambassadors. It also includes many current and former bureaucrats who passed along important messages to Clinton from outside officials. Many of those targeted have been found “not culpable,” while some were sent follow-up letters saying that investigators “determined that the [security] incident is valid” but that they did not “bear any individual culpability.”
The State Department review began after the FBI investigated Clinton’s use of an unauthorized server, hosted in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, during her time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Former FBI Director James Comey publicly recommended in 2016 that no charges be brought against Clinton or anyone else involved with her private email network, but he admonished Clinton and her team for being “extremely careless” in handling classified information.”
“The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.”
“Aside from the emotional issue that Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and celebrities loathe Donald Trump, recently Representative Al Green (D-Texas) reminded us why the Democrats are trying to impeach the president rather than just defeat him in the 2020 general election.
“To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice, would do our nation a disservice,” Green said. “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.”
Translated, that means Green accepts either that Trump’s record is too formidable or that the agendas of his own party’s presidential candidates are too frightening for the American people to elect one of them. And that possibility is simply not permissible. Thus, impeachment is the only mechanism left to abort an eight-year Trump presidency—on a purely partisan vote to preclude an election, and thus contrary to the outlines of impeachment as set out by the Constitution.
Consider it another way: Why is it that the House is controlled by Democrats, yet its leadership is not pushing through any of the policy proposals voiced so openly on the Democratic primary stage?
Why aren’t progressive representatives introducing bills to pay reparations to African Americans, to legalize infanticide in some cases of late-term abortion, to offer free medical care to illegal aliens, to confiscate AR-15s, to extend Medicare for all, to impose a wealth tax and raise top rates to between 70 and 90 percent, to abolish student debt and ensure free college for all, or to grant blanket amnesty to those currently living in the country illegally?
Simple answer: none of those issues poll anywhere near 50 percent approval. And no Democratic candidate would expect to beat Trump as the emissary of such an agenda.
If the economy was in a recession, if we were embroiled in another Iraq-like or Vietnam-sort of war, and if Trump’s polls were below 40 percent, then the Democrats would just wait 13 months and defeat him at the polls.
But without a viable agenda and because they doubt they can stop Trump’s reelection bid, they feel they have no recourse but to impeach. If Trump were to be reelected, not a shred of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” would be left, and the strict constructionist Supreme Court would haunt progressives for a quarter-century.”
——————-
I love the smell of NTer and Democrat desperation in the morning. 🙂
“Assuming House Democrats ever manage to produce actual articles of impeachment.”
“Mitch McConnell told NPR last Friday that, if the House impeaches President Trump, “the Senate immediately goes into a trial.” This is music to Democratic ears, despite the infinitesimal chance of conviction, because they desperately need the sordid spectacle into which impeachment trials inevitably devolve. The Senate, however, isn’t required to try the President. That chamber possesses the “sole power to try all impeachments,” but is under no constitutional obligation to do so. The Democrats ignored House precedent and longstanding tradition to launch their “impeachment inquiry.” Why should Senate Republicans consider themselves bound by precedent and procedural rules where the trial is concerned?
The GOP can no longer afford to be timid about such niceties. The Democrats have long since declared war on Trump, the Republican Party, and the “deplorable” voters who support them. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) pointed out on the floor of the Senate last week that the Democrats began making plans for President Trump’s impeachment well before he was inaugurated. She noted that in December of 2016 the Democrats were already at work on a Senate bill whose sole purpose was to enable Democrats to exploit spurious conflict of interest allegations involving President-elect Trump’s business dealings and his official duties. The legislation was specifically conceived as an impeachment weapon:
The bill was tailor-made to transform conflict allegations into impeachable crimes. Keep in mind this bill was conceived before President Trump became President Trump. It was the beginning of a mission toward impeachment, even if they had to fabricate the means to get there. And let me tell you, they were determined to make it happen.… Yesterday, House Democrats, supported by their friends in the Senate, gathered to announce their intention to begin formal impeachment inquiries against President Trump.
This kind of skullduggery continues apace. The secret elimination of a requirement that whistleblowers provide first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings was clearly carried out so hearsay could be used to launch investigations into “scandals” like Trump’s July conversation with the Ukrainian president. Last week we all watched as Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, waved the transcript of that conversation in the air while he literally looked into the cameras and fabricated an excerpt. This is the man who will lead the impeachment inquiry. Must the Senate take his findings seriously? Bob Bauer, former White House Counsel in the Obama administration, thinks not:
The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate “the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms.… The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.
Moreover, his NPR interview notwithstanding, Majority Leader McConnell has enough constitutional flexibility to reject impeachment charges that the majority of the senators find baseless. And McConnell is none too impressed with the latest Democratic charges involving the Ukraine kerfuffle: “I’ve read the summary of the call. If this is the ‘launching point’ for House Democrats’ impeachment process, they’ve already overplayed their hand. It’s clear there is no quid pro quo that the Democrats were desperately praying for.” Keith E. Whittington, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University, describes how the Republican majority may handle a frivolous impeachment resolution:
The Senate could entertain a motion to dismiss the charges at the outset of a trial on the grounds that the allegations did not meet the constitutional standard of impeachable offenses, and a majority of the Senate could send the House packing without ever hearing a witness or seeing evidence. If a majority of the senators thought the House was abusing the impeachment power … there is no reason why the Senate would have to pay obeisance to the House by going through the motions of a pointless trial.”
—————–
But the question remains, are there enough R’s with a spine to do so?
We know traitor Romney would be a no, and there are other traitors as well…
Another “straight shooter” turns out to be just another Deep State fraud. And again, this is why people believe we have a two tiered justice system. Because we do.
“As Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz finalizes his probe of allegations of abuses surrounding the surveillance of a Trump campaign aide, some colleagues and Republican lawmakers say they have no doubt he’s conducted a tough, impartial investigation. They expect him to deliver a hard-hitting report, due for release next month.
Others are more skeptical. While acknowledging that Horowitz is widely respected, these critics say his work has long been hampered by biases, conflicts and a tendency to play favorites, as in past probes of former FBI Director James Comey, whom Horowitz worked under in New York.
Their main complaint is that he pulls his punches.
Horowitz’s investigation of the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email case, for example, concluded that many of Comey’s explanations for his dubious actions were “unconvincing,” while stopping short of saying that Comey lied to investigators. Comey asserted implausibly that he delayed acting on a mountain of new Clinton email evidence discovered on a laptop in New York because he was never briefed about it until nearly a month after his top aides found out about it in September 2016.
In probing whether Comey illegally leaked classified information to the New York Times, Horowitz in the end accepted his argument that the memo of a conversation with President Trump was sensitive but “not classified” – even though the memo contained information about the FBI’s ongoing counterintelligence investigation of the president’s national security adviser.
“I see a pattern of him pulling up short and trying to be a bit of a statesman instead of making the hard calls,” said Chris Swecker, a 24-year veteran of the FBI who served as assistant director of its criminal investigative division, where he oversaw public corruption cases.
“I’m afraid he’s going to do the same thing with the FISA report – a finding that sounds tough, but in the end, ‘No harm, no foul,’ ” Swecker added, in reference to Horowitz’s probe of possible Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses against Carter Page, the former Trump adviser.
Horowitz’s inquiry is separate from the wider one being pursued by prosecutor John Durham, whom Attorney General William Barr tapped shortly after taking office this year to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation and the “political surveillance” of the Trump campaign. Durham’s probe is also focused on the CIA’s role in the case.
Skeptics fear that Horowitz, a Democrat and Obama appointee, is more political than widely believed, and may be naturally inclined to protect the FBI and Justice despite possible corruption during the Obama administration.”
AG Barr is visiting Italy. No one knows why, but some people have thoughts. 🙂
AG Barr has been on official travel in Italy for the past two days. As I explained months ago, on Fox and in my book, Mifsud was an Italian operative handled by the CIA. Italy holds the keys to the kingdom. Right government, right time. 🇺🇸🇮🇹
The only reason AG Barr would personally travel to Italy for “official business” would be to tie up loose ends regarding #SpyGate “Spying did occur” AG Barr#Ukrainegate is part of #SpyGatehttps://t.co/26A9vSpPDV
Month after month, with one outrageous, norm-shattering comment or action giving way to another, Republicans who in the past could never have envisioned being Trump acolytes, have been ground down. Accommodation has kicked in, which is a psychological relief to many of them. For those who view Mr. Trump as a model politician who voices their grievances and fights with a viciousness they have long hoped for from Republicans, the accommodation is not just a relief but a source of delight.
As the psychologist I spoke to put it to me, many Republicans “are nearly unrecognizable versions of themselves pre-Trump. At this stage it’s less about defending Trump; they are defending their own defense of Trump.”
“At this point,” this person went on, “condemnation of Trump is condemnation of themselves. They’ve let too much go by to try and assert moral high ground now. Calling out another is one thing; calling out yourself is quite another.”
As a result, many in Mr. Trump’s party not only refuse to challenge his maliciousness; they have adopted his approach. They have embraced his “will to power” worldview. After dealing with Mr. Trump, “you’re definitely denuded and jaded,” one Republican who has interacted recently with members of Congress told me. “Your sense of perspective is totally warped.”
Many Republicans now find themselves in a place they never envisioned — not only defending Mr. Trump but doing so with gusto. Those who once defended traditional values now relish siding with the Great Transgressor. “Owning the libs” turns out to be a lot of fun. But it also comes at a high cost.
A person who was once an aide to a current Republican senator told me that his former boss, who in private will concede that he is quite troubled by Mr. Trump’s unethical conduct, will say “nothing that would cause the president to question his complete loyalty.” This individual went on to tell me, “The sad part about this is that no policy or new law is worth undercutting our norms and checks on power that will cause irreparable damage to our system.”
The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump, through and through. As such, it has become morally disfigured. The party finds itself deep in a dark alleyway. It can eventually find its way back. Renewal and regeneration are always possible. But that will require the Republican Party and its future leadership to repudiate much of what it now embodies. I happen to believe that this is an essential task. But it won’t be an easy one, and every day it is delayed, the harder it becomes.
Mr. Trump’s most recent abuse of power — pressuring the Ukrainian president to do his dirty work — is the latest link in a long chain of corruption. If Republicans don’t break with the president now, after all he has done and all he is likely to do, they will pay a fearsome price generationally, demographically and, above all, morally.
Ricky, you didn’t answer my question from last night, but your reply was a head-scratcher.
I asked how you could put up with a Pence presidency when he, himself, is THE prime example of the conservative Christian you get so made at up in these parts. Like those Christians, Pence, as VP, has tolerated and excused DT’s behavior from the beginning. For some reason, you thought I was asking whether Pence and Trump were the same person. So you didn’t address the question there.
I asked why you excuse the unrepentant behavior of other R candidates. You just shrugged your shoulders and said, basically, just because. Is there a reason you so often don’t give direct answers to questions?
Hey, thanks, Ricky. You helped me learn something today. I took your advice and asked my mom to review my question and your replies. She told me about a thing called “dodging the question.” Here’s how it worked in our exchange:
I asked how you could accept the presidency of a guy whose current job entails daily support of Donald Trump when, at the same time, you get all grouchy at Christians who continue to support Donald Trump. So you get mad a people who *give Trump a pass,* favorably refer to the man who, as much as anyone in the country, *gives Trump a pass on a daily basis.* See the tension there? Ask a four year old to clarify if you’re still confused. For reasons unclear, you replied that Donald Trump and Mike Pence are different persons. Not sure how that addresses what I asked.
I asked why you excuse the behavior of adulterers and idol worshipers, but have drawn the line at Donald Trump. You answered that…well, you didn’t answer. You just called those things “character flaws.” Hmm. Hey you guys. Guess we’re supposed to go to Ricky now to know what set of behavior we should get upset about.
Ricky, your TDS still has you living in a fact-free alternative universe. This Ukrainian ‘scandal’ is just another set-up job by folks in government who are motivated by their own TDS (and it’s clear what the real scandal was in the Ukraine).
Donald Trump is our president, and it’s actually in our best interest for him to succeed! I’d encourage you to judge him not on his past, but rather on his actual performance as president. He’s doing a great job – in fact, what previous president has accomplished as much as President Trump has in advancing a conservative agenda (and in less than three years!)?
US military base near Somalia's Baledogle town and Italian military convoy in capital Mogadishu come under attack. Al Shabab claims responsibility for first assault pic.twitter.com/JZvtc4PTuM
“A Somali official confirmed reports of an attack on a U.S. base in the country on Monday. Yusuf Abdourahman, a security official with the Lower Shabelle regional administration, told The Associated Press that a suicide car bomber detonated a vehicle packed with explosives at the gate of a military airstrip that serves as a base for U.S. and Somali forces.
He said a burst of gunfire could be heard across the base after the bombing, suggesting an ongoing attack on the facility.
Somalia’s Islamic extremist rebels, al-Shabab, claimed responsibility for the attack.”
I agree w your gist, Tychicus, even though I wouldn’t quite say he’s doing a “great” job. On policy alone, on the whole, relative to other presidents, and acknowledging errors, he’s basically been, IMO, not bad. But obviously, people can honestly differ on those kinds of judgments.
One of the silly things about TDS that we see here and elsewhere is the equating of support for Trump with *approval* of his faults–real or perceived–as if, say, agreement with his immigration policy means you condone the worst of him–his adulteries, his careless tweets, his over-the-top sense of himself. Then beyond that, it’s possible for people to sincerely disagree on things like the Ukraine call. One person says it’s treason; another makes the argument the communication was proper. But *nobody* is arguing that *if it was* treasonous, then it would be good. Nobody’s defending Trump by claiming his adulteries were good. No one is arguing that *if* Trump broke a law, it was good; at least, nobody here is, to my knowledge.
And why is it always necessary to assume the worst, when what he actually said isn’t?
The most recent example, Trump’s tweet supposedly threatening civil war. Even some R’s are doing it. They read way more into things than is actually in the text. Like with the Ukraine call, here’s yet another example.
Here’s the tweet that started the latest outrage among the outrageously outraged outragers. .
….If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
Now he is clearly not calling for a civil war. He is clearly not threatening violence. He is stating the simple fact that like it or not, we are already in a “Civil War like fracture ” with half the country for, and half against. Impeachment would exacerbate this already existing problem. And he’s right. It would also destroy the R party. But not by violence or force, by playing politics, and at the voting booth. There’s no threat, implied or otherwise here that says we will fight an actual civil war.
A thinking, rational, non-TDS sufferer can clearly see what Trump is saying.
And yet, even on our own “side” the drama queens have to make it something sinister and evil. I can’t take them or their criticisms seriously.
“President Trump sent out a barrage of tweets over the weekend defending his “perfect” phone call with the president of Ukraine and trying to shut down the House impeachment inquiry before it gets underway — including passing along a warning that removing him from office would lead to “a Civil War like fracture,” a threat that a Republican congressman called “beyond repugnant.”
“If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal,” Trump tweeted, adding his own parenthetical to a quote from Robert Jeffress, an evangelical pastor and ardent Trump supporter who appeared on “Fox & Friends Weekend.”
The invocation of a civil war was met with outrage from Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., an Air Force veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I have visited nations ravaged by civil war,” Kinzinger tweeted, tagging Trump’s Twitter handle. “I have never imagined such a quote to be repeated by a President. This is beyond repugnant.”
—————
And you Sir, are a Drama Queen with poor reading comprehension.
Drama queen is right, AJ, but that episode contains the worst of both sides. It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if DT could just stay a bit more above the fray. He’s so childish.
One very real possibility as impeachment launches is that many ‘average’ voters — those who are paying attention though perhaps not to all the day-to-day skirmishes and minutia — will finally become simply worn down by all the “noise,” all the national angst and drama. That could result in some sitting the election out or other reactions; accurate polling won’t be easy and my guess is that (assuming a Trump vs. current ‘known’ Dem nominee option in November) no one will have a good handle on the outcome until the morning after.
But politically, November 2020 remains a very long time away. Anything could happen.
I’m with Solar in agreeing very generally, most of the time, with policy calls and what Trump does — but not being very keen on the man himself or his character, which very definitely does (or should) matter. And, from the looks of it right now, I likely also will again not cast a vote for either option for president, but then I also have the luxury of living in a very partisan state that won’t sway a close election. There are a few states that will be crucial, but mine isn’t one of them.
That said, the anti-Trump vitriol, after 3 years, along with the media penchant for riding Trump as much as possible at every turn, has become wearisome.
One reason that polls are unreliable is that people who support Trump, like my lifelong blue-collar Democrat neighbors, won’t often tell pollsters that.
Then, surprise.
Flashback to our surprising election night in 2016.
~ As of Thursday afternoon, 220 members of the House (219 Democrats and one independent) said they supported the impeachment inquiry—above the 218-vote threshold needed to pass a bill. If the House eventually passes articles of impeachment, it would take 20 Republican senators joining all of their colleagues from across the aisle to convict the president.
So far, Republicans in Congress have either remained quiet or spoken out in Trump’s defense.
“The GOP will present a united front unless and until it becomes apparent that there is enough internal dissension to tip the scales, in which case there could be a bandwagon effect against Trump,” said Paul Miller, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a former National Security Council staff director during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “All you have to do is convince them that a President Mike Pence is more electable in 2020 than Trump.” ~
____________________________________________________
Fair point. He isn’t big on keeping quiet, even when it’s best to do so. 🙂
But part of me loves that about him too. 🙂
————
Tychicus,
Fiscal restraint isn’t big for either party anymore. It’s been a little shocking really. But whenever the issue of the debt ceiling and spending come up, anyone who tries to rein it in with cuts is mocked, ridiculed, and flogged in the media for doing so. They can’t win versus the media in the court of public opinion, so it seems R’s have decided to stop fighting it.
The R’s have a lot to figure out right now, including what is an ongoing identity crisis and the possibly even the party’s very survival. Not to mention impeachment and a national election to navigate
Statement of apology from the family of the 12 year old African American girl who now admits she made a false assault allegation against 3 white boys in her class. @nbcwashingtonpic.twitter.com/JfSVvOF9ZX
I have come to really like the President’s tweets. I rarely read them myself, but when I do, I am almost always amazed at the stupidity of the uproar over what was actually said, which is usually fairly innocuous, if not “presidential”.
(I am trying to supply the missing commas that so often bring angst to our never-Trumper friends.) :–)
Wandering Views 
Mitch says what everyone is thinking.
————
LikeLike
Frauds gotta defraud.
https://twitter.com/willbarrett_1/status/1178346239504592897
LikeLike
Unlike Dems and NTers, Rudy brought actual proof.
LikeLike
When you’ve lost George Stephanopoulos…..
————–
They don’t call him The Shifty One for no reason.
LikeLike
Resistance by not really a whistleblower. It was all predicted.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/resistance-by-whistleblower-was-part-of-the-anti-trump-plan-from-the-start/
““Resistance by Whistleblower” Was Part Of The Anti-Trump Plan From The Start
DOJ employee in February 2017 predicted resistance by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints”
“What is happening now to President Trump was predictable. The plans were laid in plain sight, including the use of whistleblowers to disrupt the administration.
It is instructive to look back and realize that there was plenty of advance warning of the various attempts to set up grounds for the impeachment of President Trump. The basic approach was clearly described, and it is difficult to avoid the notion that this was planned from the start.
Consider, for example, this excerpt from an article published in Vanity Fair on February 1, 2017, twelve days after Trump’s inauguration [emphasis mine]:
Others, however, view resistance as a part of the job. “Policy dissent is in our culture,” one diplomat in Africa, who signed the letter circulating among foreign diplomats, told The New York Times. “We even have awards for it,” this person added, in reference to the State Department’s “Constructive Dissent” award. One Justice Department employee told the Post, “You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” and added that “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable,” by whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints. Others are staying in contact with officials appointed by President Obama to learn more about how they can undermine Trump’s agenda and attending workshops on how to effectively engage in civil disobedience, the Post reports.
Let me emphasize that again: whistle-blowing, leaking to the press, and lodging internal complaints.
And then we have this, from the same article [emphasis added]:
When asked how the opposition emerging at this stage compares to past administrations, Tom Malinowski, who served as Obama’s assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, sarcastically told the Post, “Is it unusual? There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.”
The “nothing unusual” part was sarcasm, of course. But the rest was deadly serious. Indications are that a plan was in place from the start, and it’s not some wild conspiracy-mongering to say so because although this may be a clandestine conspiracy it is not a completely secret one in the sense that we were told about its general thrust in advance by the proud perpetrators themselves.
Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist also noticed the trend back in the beginning. She wrote the following in an article from January 17, 2017. That’s a few days before the inauguration:
Dwight Eisenhower warned that if we didn’t stay vigilant, the military-industrial complex would start creeping into politics with pernicious motives all its own. The intelligence community’s war of leaks against Trump before he’s even taken office is just the latest questionably politicized action in the decades since Eisenhower’s farewell address. And it’s safe to say that the intelligence community pushing unproven and absurd allegations about a president-elect’s sexual perversions is probably way worse than anything Ike imagined.
In order to understand how we got to this perilous place and get a handle on what’s going on, it’s worth taking a closer look at the motives and allegations of political operatives in intelligence agencies, as well as the basic timeline of allegations of Russian electoral interference in the last few months. Far from discrediting Trump, it paints a worrisome portrait of the deep state gone rogue, desperate to stop a man who, whatever his considerable flaws, is an outsider to Washington.
She then goes into a series of warnings issued to Trump to beware of ruffling the feathers of the intelligence community. The most famous one, with which you might be familiar, was issued by Chuck Schumer:”
LikeLike
The Biden campaign and Democrats don’t like Rudy showing the facts and truth about Biden’s corruption.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/29/biden-campaign-asks-news-networks-to-stop-booking-giuliani-report/
“Biden campaign asks news networks to stop booking Giuliani: report”
“Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is asking top network executives to stop booking President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Biden campaign officials Anita Dunn and Kate Bedingfield wrote a letter to network news presidents, chief anchors and the executive producers of the Sunday shows for ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox News Channel, Deadline reported.
“We are writing today with grave concern that you continue to book Rudy Giuilani on your air to spread false, debunked conspiracy theories on behalf of Donald Trump,” the letter said.
“While you often fact check his statements in real time during your discussions, that is no longer enough. By giving him your air time, you are allowing him to introduce increasingly unhinged, unfounded and desperate lies into the national conversation.””
——————
Nikki Halley disagrees with Dems.
LikeLike
An actual constitutional scholar (who thinks this latest scam is a hoax too and that grounds for impeachment don’t exist) calls out Ed Henry for his dishonesty.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/mark-levin-to-ed-henry-its-dishonest-to-claim-trump-asked-ukraine-to-dig-up-dirt-on-biden/
“Mark Levin to Ed Henry: It’s “not honest” to claim Trump asked Ukraine to “dig up dirt” on Biden
Ed Henry: “So, you’re okay with the president asking another president to dig up dirt on a candidate, you’re okay with that?” Levin: “Your question is not honest!””
—
“Mark Levin was on a roll Sunday when faced with a claim from Fox & Friends co-host Ed Henry about Trump supposedly asking Ukraine to “dig up dirt” on Joe Biden.
In a video that is quickly going viral, Henry badgers Levin about whether or not he’s “okay with the president asking another president to dig up dirt on a candidate.” Levin disputed that such a request was made and called the framing of the question “not honest.”
The Washington Examiner reports:
Conservative commentator Mark Levin accused Fox News anchor Ed Henry of being dishonest about President Trump’s controversial phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his appearance on Fox & Friends Sunday.
Trump, during the July 25 phone call in question, requested that Zelensky open up a new investigation into Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who worked for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company. The company has been investigated for corruption in the past, but the younger Biden was never implicated in any wrongdoing.”
https://twitter.com/TrumpPatriotPL/status/1178292510495576064
“The Washington Examiner continues:
Levin was quick to point out during his appearance that the president “didn’t do anything illegal.”
“So, you’re okay with the president asking another president to dig up dirt on a candidate, you’re okay with that?” Henry asked.
Levin responded, “Dirt on a candidate? What dirt are you talking about? He didn’t ask for it — are you reading the same …”
The host repeated his question, “Are you okay with a president asking his counterpart — this is a simple yes or no — to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden and his son? Are you okay with that?”
“Your question is not honest,” Levin shot back.
Needless to say, the president did not ask Zelensky to “dig up dirt” on Biden, so Levin was correct, the question was dishonest. Trump asked Zelensky to look into the allegation, one that then Vice President Biden bragged about, that Biden had threatened to withhold $1 billion in U. S. aid if the prosecutor was not fired.”
LikeLike
The whole episode.
LikeLike
Interesting…..
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/state-department-ramps-up-investigation-into-email-records-of-former-clinton-aides
“State Department ramps up investigation into email records of former Clinton aides”
“The Trump administration’s State Department is intensifying its investigation into the email records of dozens of former department officials and aides to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As many as 130 officials have been recently contacted by investigators from the State Department, current and former officials told the Washington Post. According to the outlet, those targeted were contacted by the department about emails they sent years ago that have been retroactively classified and could now count as possible security violations. Investigators began communicating with former officials around 18 months ago, but they appeared to suspend the effort before ramping it back up in August.
Although some who are under scrutiny view the recent activity as the Trump administration’s decision to wield power against political adversaries, senior State Department officials said they are simply following standard protocol in an investigation that initially started during the Obama administration.
“This has nothing to do with who is in the White House,” one official said. “This is about the time it took to go through millions of emails, which is about 3 and a half years.”
“The process is set up in a manner to completely avoid any appearance of political bias,” another official added.
Former Obama administration officials, however, told the Post that the investigation is an “aggressive crackdown” by an administration that has had its own problems with handling classified information.
The list of State Department officials being questioned includes assistant secretaries of state responsible for U.S. policy in the Middle East, Europe, and Central Asia, as well as several ambassadors. It also includes many current and former bureaucrats who passed along important messages to Clinton from outside officials. Many of those targeted have been found “not culpable,” while some were sent follow-up letters saying that investigators “determined that the [security] incident is valid” but that they did not “bear any individual culpability.”
The State Department review began after the FBI investigated Clinton’s use of an unauthorized server, hosted in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, during her time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Former FBI Director James Comey publicly recommended in 2016 that no charges be brought against Clinton or anyone else involved with her private email network, but he admonished Clinton and her team for being “extremely careless” in handling classified information.”
LikeLike
Victor Davis Hanson breaks down the Impeachment Coup Analytics.
“The Democrats have exhausted every other mechanism for destroying Trump—and they are running out of time before November 2020 election.”
“Aside from the emotional issue that Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and celebrities loathe Donald Trump, recently Representative Al Green (D-Texas) reminded us why the Democrats are trying to impeach the president rather than just defeat him in the 2020 general election.
“To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice, would do our nation a disservice,” Green said. “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.”
Translated, that means Green accepts either that Trump’s record is too formidable or that the agendas of his own party’s presidential candidates are too frightening for the American people to elect one of them. And that possibility is simply not permissible. Thus, impeachment is the only mechanism left to abort an eight-year Trump presidency—on a purely partisan vote to preclude an election, and thus contrary to the outlines of impeachment as set out by the Constitution.
Consider it another way: Why is it that the House is controlled by Democrats, yet its leadership is not pushing through any of the policy proposals voiced so openly on the Democratic primary stage?
Why aren’t progressive representatives introducing bills to pay reparations to African Americans, to legalize infanticide in some cases of late-term abortion, to offer free medical care to illegal aliens, to confiscate AR-15s, to extend Medicare for all, to impose a wealth tax and raise top rates to between 70 and 90 percent, to abolish student debt and ensure free college for all, or to grant blanket amnesty to those currently living in the country illegally?
Simple answer: none of those issues poll anywhere near 50 percent approval. And no Democratic candidate would expect to beat Trump as the emissary of such an agenda.
If the economy was in a recession, if we were embroiled in another Iraq-like or Vietnam-sort of war, and if Trump’s polls were below 40 percent, then the Democrats would just wait 13 months and defeat him at the polls.
But without a viable agenda and because they doubt they can stop Trump’s reelection bid, they feel they have no recourse but to impeach. If Trump were to be reelected, not a shred of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” would be left, and the strict constructionist Supreme Court would haunt progressives for a quarter-century.”
——————-
I love the smell of NTer and Democrat desperation in the morning. 🙂
LikeLike
“Senate Shouldn’t Dignify Impeachment Parody With a Trial”
https://spectator.org/senate-shouldnt-dignify-impeachment-parody-with-a-trial/
“Assuming House Democrats ever manage to produce actual articles of impeachment.”
“Mitch McConnell told NPR last Friday that, if the House impeaches President Trump, “the Senate immediately goes into a trial.” This is music to Democratic ears, despite the infinitesimal chance of conviction, because they desperately need the sordid spectacle into which impeachment trials inevitably devolve. The Senate, however, isn’t required to try the President. That chamber possesses the “sole power to try all impeachments,” but is under no constitutional obligation to do so. The Democrats ignored House precedent and longstanding tradition to launch their “impeachment inquiry.” Why should Senate Republicans consider themselves bound by precedent and procedural rules where the trial is concerned?
The GOP can no longer afford to be timid about such niceties. The Democrats have long since declared war on Trump, the Republican Party, and the “deplorable” voters who support them. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) pointed out on the floor of the Senate last week that the Democrats began making plans for President Trump’s impeachment well before he was inaugurated. She noted that in December of 2016 the Democrats were already at work on a Senate bill whose sole purpose was to enable Democrats to exploit spurious conflict of interest allegations involving President-elect Trump’s business dealings and his official duties. The legislation was specifically conceived as an impeachment weapon:
The bill was tailor-made to transform conflict allegations into impeachable crimes. Keep in mind this bill was conceived before President Trump became President Trump. It was the beginning of a mission toward impeachment, even if they had to fabricate the means to get there. And let me tell you, they were determined to make it happen.… Yesterday, House Democrats, supported by their friends in the Senate, gathered to announce their intention to begin formal impeachment inquiries against President Trump.
This kind of skullduggery continues apace. The secret elimination of a requirement that whistleblowers provide first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings was clearly carried out so hearsay could be used to launch investigations into “scandals” like Trump’s July conversation with the Ukrainian president. Last week we all watched as Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, waved the transcript of that conversation in the air while he literally looked into the cameras and fabricated an excerpt. This is the man who will lead the impeachment inquiry. Must the Senate take his findings seriously? Bob Bauer, former White House Counsel in the Obama administration, thinks not:
The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate “the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms.… The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.
Moreover, his NPR interview notwithstanding, Majority Leader McConnell has enough constitutional flexibility to reject impeachment charges that the majority of the senators find baseless. And McConnell is none too impressed with the latest Democratic charges involving the Ukraine kerfuffle: “I’ve read the summary of the call. If this is the ‘launching point’ for House Democrats’ impeachment process, they’ve already overplayed their hand. It’s clear there is no quid pro quo that the Democrats were desperately praying for.” Keith E. Whittington, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University, describes how the Republican majority may handle a frivolous impeachment resolution:
The Senate could entertain a motion to dismiss the charges at the outset of a trial on the grounds that the allegations did not meet the constitutional standard of impeachable offenses, and a majority of the Senate could send the House packing without ever hearing a witness or seeing evidence. If a majority of the senators thought the House was abusing the impeachment power … there is no reason why the Senate would have to pay obeisance to the House by going through the motions of a pointless trial.”
—————–
But the question remains, are there enough R’s with a spine to do so?
We know traitor Romney would be a no, and there are other traitors as well…
LikeLike
Another “straight shooter” turns out to be just another Deep State fraud. And again, this is why people believe we have a two tiered justice system. Because we do.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/09/30/straight_shooter_justice_dept_watchdog_has_held_his_fire_on_the_top_brass_120565.html
“As Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz finalizes his probe of allegations of abuses surrounding the surveillance of a Trump campaign aide, some colleagues and Republican lawmakers say they have no doubt he’s conducted a tough, impartial investigation. They expect him to deliver a hard-hitting report, due for release next month.
Others are more skeptical. While acknowledging that Horowitz is widely respected, these critics say his work has long been hampered by biases, conflicts and a tendency to play favorites, as in past probes of former FBI Director James Comey, whom Horowitz worked under in New York.
Their main complaint is that he pulls his punches.
Horowitz’s investigation of the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email case, for example, concluded that many of Comey’s explanations for his dubious actions were “unconvincing,” while stopping short of saying that Comey lied to investigators. Comey asserted implausibly that he delayed acting on a mountain of new Clinton email evidence discovered on a laptop in New York because he was never briefed about it until nearly a month after his top aides found out about it in September 2016.
In probing whether Comey illegally leaked classified information to the New York Times, Horowitz in the end accepted his argument that the memo of a conversation with President Trump was sensitive but “not classified” – even though the memo contained information about the FBI’s ongoing counterintelligence investigation of the president’s national security adviser.
“I see a pattern of him pulling up short and trying to be a bit of a statesman instead of making the hard calls,” said Chris Swecker, a 24-year veteran of the FBI who served as assistant director of its criminal investigative division, where he oversaw public corruption cases.
“I’m afraid he’s going to do the same thing with the FISA report – a finding that sounds tough, but in the end, ‘No harm, no foul,’ ” Swecker added, in reference to Horowitz’s probe of possible Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses against Carter Page, the former Trump adviser.
Horowitz’s inquiry is separate from the wider one being pursued by prosecutor John Durham, whom Attorney General William Barr tapped shortly after taking office this year to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation and the “political surveillance” of the Trump campaign. Durham’s probe is also focused on the CIA’s role in the case.
Skeptics fear that Horowitz, a Democrat and Obama appointee, is more political than widely believed, and may be naturally inclined to protect the FBI and Justice despite possible corruption during the Obama administration.”
LikeLike
AG Barr is visiting Italy. No one knows why, but some people have thoughts. 🙂
—————
LikeLike
John Solomon is tying it together.
https://youtu.be/s4fPWMloqRQ
LikeLike
LikeLike
Chas’ prediction.
He, hopefully” will not be around to see it fulfilled.
Nikki Haley will be our first female president.
LikeLike
From Wehner’s column:
Month after month, with one outrageous, norm-shattering comment or action giving way to another, Republicans who in the past could never have envisioned being Trump acolytes, have been ground down. Accommodation has kicked in, which is a psychological relief to many of them. For those who view Mr. Trump as a model politician who voices their grievances and fights with a viciousness they have long hoped for from Republicans, the accommodation is not just a relief but a source of delight.
As the psychologist I spoke to put it to me, many Republicans “are nearly unrecognizable versions of themselves pre-Trump. At this stage it’s less about defending Trump; they are defending their own defense of Trump.”
“At this point,” this person went on, “condemnation of Trump is condemnation of themselves. They’ve let too much go by to try and assert moral high ground now. Calling out another is one thing; calling out yourself is quite another.”
As a result, many in Mr. Trump’s party not only refuse to challenge his maliciousness; they have adopted his approach. They have embraced his “will to power” worldview. After dealing with Mr. Trump, “you’re definitely denuded and jaded,” one Republican who has interacted recently with members of Congress told me. “Your sense of perspective is totally warped.”
LikeLike
Wehner’s conclusion:
Many Republicans now find themselves in a place they never envisioned — not only defending Mr. Trump but doing so with gusto. Those who once defended traditional values now relish siding with the Great Transgressor. “Owning the libs” turns out to be a lot of fun. But it also comes at a high cost.
A person who was once an aide to a current Republican senator told me that his former boss, who in private will concede that he is quite troubled by Mr. Trump’s unethical conduct, will say “nothing that would cause the president to question his complete loyalty.” This individual went on to tell me, “The sad part about this is that no policy or new law is worth undercutting our norms and checks on power that will cause irreparable damage to our system.”
The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump, through and through. As such, it has become morally disfigured. The party finds itself deep in a dark alleyway. It can eventually find its way back. Renewal and regeneration are always possible. But that will require the Republican Party and its future leadership to repudiate much of what it now embodies. I happen to believe that this is an essential task. But it won’t be an easy one, and every day it is delayed, the harder it becomes.
Mr. Trump’s most recent abuse of power — pressuring the Ukrainian president to do his dirty work — is the latest link in a long chain of corruption. If Republicans don’t break with the president now, after all he has done and all he is likely to do, they will pay a fearsome price generationally, demographically and, above all, morally.
LikeLike
Ricky, you didn’t answer my question from last night, but your reply was a head-scratcher.
I asked how you could put up with a Pence presidency when he, himself, is THE prime example of the conservative Christian you get so made at up in these parts. Like those Christians, Pence, as VP, has tolerated and excused DT’s behavior from the beginning. For some reason, you thought I was asking whether Pence and Trump were the same person. So you didn’t address the question there.
I asked why you excuse the unrepentant behavior of other R candidates. You just shrugged your shoulders and said, basically, just because. Is there a reason you so often don’t give direct answers to questions?
LikeLiked by 1 person
SolarP, Go read my response again. If still flummoxed, ask a family member for help.
LikeLike
Hey, thanks, Ricky. You helped me learn something today. I took your advice and asked my mom to review my question and your replies. She told me about a thing called “dodging the question.” Here’s how it worked in our exchange:
I asked how you could accept the presidency of a guy whose current job entails daily support of Donald Trump when, at the same time, you get all grouchy at Christians who continue to support Donald Trump. So you get mad a people who *give Trump a pass,* favorably refer to the man who, as much as anyone in the country, *gives Trump a pass on a daily basis.* See the tension there? Ask a four year old to clarify if you’re still confused. For reasons unclear, you replied that Donald Trump and Mike Pence are different persons. Not sure how that addresses what I asked.
I asked why you excuse the behavior of adulterers and idol worshipers, but have drawn the line at Donald Trump. You answered that…well, you didn’t answer. You just called those things “character flaws.” Hmm. Hey you guys. Guess we’re supposed to go to Ricky now to know what set of behavior we should get upset about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky, your TDS still has you living in a fact-free alternative universe. This Ukrainian ‘scandal’ is just another set-up job by folks in government who are motivated by their own TDS (and it’s clear what the real scandal was in the Ukraine).
Donald Trump is our president, and it’s actually in our best interest for him to succeed! I’d encourage you to judge him not on his past, but rather on his actual performance as president. He’s doing a great job – in fact, what previous president has accomplished as much as President Trump has in advancing a conservative agenda (and in less than three years!)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a wise move.
———–
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/somalia-attack-al-shabab-us-base-belidogle-airstrip-lower-shabelle-region-today-2019-09-30/
“A Somali official confirmed reports of an attack on a U.S. base in the country on Monday. Yusuf Abdourahman, a security official with the Lower Shabelle regional administration, told The Associated Press that a suicide car bomber detonated a vehicle packed with explosives at the gate of a military airstrip that serves as a base for U.S. and Somali forces.
He said a burst of gunfire could be heard across the base after the bombing, suggesting an ongoing attack on the facility.
Somalia’s Islamic extremist rebels, al-Shabab, claimed responsibility for the attack.”
LikeLike
The left at it’s most pathetic.
https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1178645571306950656
LikeLike
Yep, that about sums it up.
From Branco, via Legal Insurrection
LikeLike
I agree w your gist, Tychicus, even though I wouldn’t quite say he’s doing a “great” job. On policy alone, on the whole, relative to other presidents, and acknowledging errors, he’s basically been, IMO, not bad. But obviously, people can honestly differ on those kinds of judgments.
One of the silly things about TDS that we see here and elsewhere is the equating of support for Trump with *approval* of his faults–real or perceived–as if, say, agreement with his immigration policy means you condone the worst of him–his adulteries, his careless tweets, his over-the-top sense of himself. Then beyond that, it’s possible for people to sincerely disagree on things like the Ukraine call. One person says it’s treason; another makes the argument the communication was proper. But *nobody* is arguing that *if it was* treasonous, then it would be good. Nobody’s defending Trump by claiming his adulteries were good. No one is arguing that *if* Trump broke a law, it was good; at least, nobody here is, to my knowledge.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And why is it always necessary to assume the worst, when what he actually said isn’t?
The most recent example, Trump’s tweet supposedly threatening civil war. Even some R’s are doing it. They read way more into things than is actually in the text. Like with the Ukraine call, here’s yet another example.
Here’s the tweet that started the latest outrage among the outrageously outraged outragers. .
————-
Now he is clearly not calling for a civil war. He is clearly not threatening violence. He is stating the simple fact that like it or not, we are already in a “Civil War like fracture ” with half the country for, and half against. Impeachment would exacerbate this already existing problem. And he’s right. It would also destroy the R party. But not by violence or force, by playing politics, and at the voting booth. There’s no threat, implied or otherwise here that says we will fight an actual civil war.
A thinking, rational, non-TDS sufferer can clearly see what Trump is saying.
And yet, even on our own “side” the drama queens have to make it something sinister and evil. I can’t take them or their criticisms seriously.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kinzinger-beyond-repugnant-trump-civil-war-tweet-135719975.html
“President Trump sent out a barrage of tweets over the weekend defending his “perfect” phone call with the president of Ukraine and trying to shut down the House impeachment inquiry before it gets underway — including passing along a warning that removing him from office would lead to “a Civil War like fracture,” a threat that a Republican congressman called “beyond repugnant.”
“If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal,” Trump tweeted, adding his own parenthetical to a quote from Robert Jeffress, an evangelical pastor and ardent Trump supporter who appeared on “Fox & Friends Weekend.”
The invocation of a civil war was met with outrage from Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., an Air Force veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I have visited nations ravaged by civil war,” Kinzinger tweeted, tagging Trump’s Twitter handle. “I have never imagined such a quote to be repeated by a President. This is beyond repugnant.”
—————
And you Sir, are a Drama Queen with poor reading comprehension.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Solar, I’ll tell you what I don’t like, and this administration is either unwilling or unable to do something about it…
Our soaring national debt: https://www.usdebtclock.org/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Drama queen is right, AJ, but that episode contains the worst of both sides. It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if DT could just stay a bit more above the fray. He’s so childish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One very real possibility as impeachment launches is that many ‘average’ voters — those who are paying attention though perhaps not to all the day-to-day skirmishes and minutia — will finally become simply worn down by all the “noise,” all the national angst and drama. That could result in some sitting the election out or other reactions; accurate polling won’t be easy and my guess is that (assuming a Trump vs. current ‘known’ Dem nominee option in November) no one will have a good handle on the outcome until the morning after.
But politically, November 2020 remains a very long time away. Anything could happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with Solar in agreeing very generally, most of the time, with policy calls and what Trump does — but not being very keen on the man himself or his character, which very definitely does (or should) matter. And, from the looks of it right now, I likely also will again not cast a vote for either option for president, but then I also have the luxury of living in a very partisan state that won’t sway a close election. There are a few states that will be crucial, but mine isn’t one of them.
That said, the anti-Trump vitriol, after 3 years, along with the media penchant for riding Trump as much as possible at every turn, has become wearisome.
One reason that polls are unreliable is that people who support Trump, like my lifelong blue-collar Democrat neighbors, won’t often tell pollsters that.
Then, surprise.
Flashback to our surprising election night in 2016.
LikeLiked by 2 people
______________________________________________________
~ As of Thursday afternoon, 220 members of the House (219 Democrats and one independent) said they supported the impeachment inquiry—above the 218-vote threshold needed to pass a bill. If the House eventually passes articles of impeachment, it would take 20 Republican senators joining all of their colleagues from across the aisle to convict the president.
So far, Republicans in Congress have either remained quiet or spoken out in Trump’s defense.
“The GOP will present a united front unless and until it becomes apparent that there is enough internal dissension to tip the scales, in which case there could be a bandwagon effect against Trump,” said Paul Miller, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a former National Security Council staff director during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “All you have to do is convince them that a President Mike Pence is more electable in 2020 than Trump.” ~
____________________________________________________
https://world.wng.org/content/pressure_points
LikeLike
Solar…
Fair point. He isn’t big on keeping quiet, even when it’s best to do so. 🙂
But part of me loves that about him too. 🙂
————
Tychicus,
Fiscal restraint isn’t big for either party anymore. It’s been a little shocking really. But whenever the issue of the debt ceiling and spending come up, anyone who tries to rein it in with cuts is mocked, ridiculed, and flogged in the media for doing so. They can’t win versus the media in the court of public opinion, so it seems R’s have decided to stop fighting it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The R’s have a lot to figure out right now, including what is an ongoing identity crisis and the possibly even the party’s very survival. Not to mention impeachment and a national election to navigate
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another hoax bites the dust.
This one had allegedly and falsely claimed to have happened at the school Mrs. Pence teaches at.
————–
LikeLike
I have come to really like the President’s tweets. I rarely read them myself, but when I do, I am almost always amazed at the stupidity of the uproar over what was actually said, which is usually fairly innocuous, if not “presidential”.
(I am trying to supply the missing commas that so often bring angst to our never-Trumper friends.) :–)
LikeLike
He likes exclamation points a lot!
LikeLiked by 1 person