- DLH concerned about those “quasi-optimists” as regards the Senate
- Adds information about Iowa’s US Senators, especially Joni Ernst
Responding to a post by DLH herein several days ago “designated2” aka “Q-o” wrote:
I am willing to give 2 or 3 or so of the 16 more credit on the matter (as in handicapping them as 4 on such a matter and presume the other Republicans at least the same, so I am more confident the Senate will hold. I also believe the House may never vote on impeachment but just use all this to torment. Call me Mister Quasi-optimist about one-third of the Senate.
DLH continues the discussion:
Joni still at a “3” in our book!
The Hill story with Washington Post Video* “Whistle Blowers should be protected (?)”!
Typical of Republican senators who may be swayed to vote for conviction?
Let’s Hope That “Mr. Quasi-optimist About One-third of the Senate” is correct.
“…willing to give 2 or 3 or so of the 16 more credit on the matter (as in handicapping them as 4…as in “lean not convict”);
“Mr. Q-o” presumes the Senate would not vote to remove President Trump from office (which would require at least 20 GOP senators to vote for conviction on impeachment charges).
Mr. Q-o also believes that the House may never vote on impeachment… to which I agree…at this point…
……….
Interesting, however, but also a bit alarming is the apparent enthusiasm with which Senator Joni Ernst sought to join her ‘senior’ colleague in the Senate, ‘Chuck’ Grassley, to declare that “Whistle blowers should be protected”!
As a general statement, the remark has some validity. However, maybe both Iowa senators should have held off their righteousness until more facts were known.
First of all, is the anonymous “CIA agent” that Congressman “Pencil Neck” Schiff and his House Democrat colleagues trotted out really a legitimate “whistle blower” (WB)? Claims that the ‘rules’ for WB status were recently changed to allow second hand information to qualify cast a very big shadow over the legitimacy of both the WB, as well as his/her “information”.
“Should be protected” is a pretty broad concept.
In the context of the statements by Iowa’s two senators “should be protected” endorses the anonymity of anyone, at any time, who wishes to make public any allegation based on information allegedly ‘overheard’, without any opportunity for objective assessment of the WB’s identity, political affiliation, or personal motivation.
Some may argue that that’s a small price to pay when relevant conditions are ‘so urgent, concerning, dangerous’ that the unverified information must be publicly released, acted upon immediately or not!
Maybe so. But there are some cases, and the two senators should be aware that the instant case may be one of them.
It would seem that there are other matters involved in this “Ukraine case” that Mr. Grassley and Ms. Ernst would find “concerning and urgent”. That is, the fact that there are people within our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and in the White House itself, who cannot be trusted with information at the highest levels of our government. Traditional restrictions against sharing intelligence beyond those with a need to know it are being swept away…in this case for very political purposes…to get rid of a validly elected president that members of the Democratic party don’t like!
Hopefully, these two GOP senators will consider that this whistle blower, a “CIA analyst”, and we’ve learned, a registered Democrat, was not a witness to events he/she reported. Instead he/she functioned as an “investigative reporter”, ‘working’ sources to develop the complaint.
Further, what future president will be able to keep confidential his/her private conversations with foreign leaders without some opportunistic congressional ‘hack’ successfully demanding public release of a ‘transcript’?
And, for that matter, what would the transcripts of calls with foreign leaders by other presidents reveal. In particular where was Senator Grassley when Barack Obama was overheard on an ‘open mic’ assuring the Russians that, it being his ‘last election’ coming up, Putin should ‘cut him some slack’ because after he’s elected he can be more “flexible” toward Mr. Putin’s demands and interests? Had Grassley been the lowlife that Congressman “Pencil Neck” is, he’d have demanded that all of Obama’s calls to foreign leaders be produced, and publicly released!
And shouldn’t US Senators be at least mildly concerned about who those several ‘anonymous’ White House and State Dept. “officials” were who provided the ‘information’ to the whistle blower? Who else do they share sensitive information with?
But, back to “Mr. Quasi-optimist”.
We noted some concern about Senator Ernst and how she might vote in the impeachment process…probably would rate her in a range of “3” and “2” (likely a ‘tossup’).
Ernst was one of 9 GOP senators to join with Democrats to condemn Trump’s effort, in Fiscal 2020, to halt the refugee ‘resettlement’ program that is overwhelming some communities, and to demand an increase in the number of refugees resettled in America above the current 30,000 ceiling on admissions.
We noted that it is likely that most of those 9 GOP senators, defying efforts by the president to put the brakes on the flood of migrants for awhile, as the Party promised in campaigns, could be expected to vote for conviction (they all seem to be “3’s” at least) if a House impeachment bill went to the upper chamber.
Ernst was also the only committee Republican to vote against Trump’s nominee for Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Ernst apparently based her vote on the sexual harassment she suffered in the service, when she had to endure “comments, passes, etc”. She joined Democratic senators Gillibrand, Warren, and Duckworth in what may be characterized as a “Me,Too movement” moment. This may suggest that Ernst has some lurking doubt that Trump is ‘morally unfit’. Hard to believe, but there are folks in the ‘swamp’ who would try mightily to exploit feelings in people born out of bad personal experiences.
The pretentious Ben Sasse (“2/1”) will be working to persuade fellow senators of Trump’s ‘unworthiness’ to lead such a ‘righteous republic’. And Willard “Mittens” Romney (“1+++”) certainly will try to convince the Republicans in the ‘greatest deliberative body’ that Trump lacks the ‘sophistication’ to represent this great country. No doubt the press and Democrats will play on emotions of senators who may have experienced events similar to Senator Ernst’s. Stories will continue to be cranked out on a daily basis by the left liberal media (i.e.. NY Times, 10/5: “2nd Official Is Weighing Whether to Blow the Whistle on Trump’s Ukraine Dealings”); each one will attempt to ‘move’ the GOP’s ‘weak-willed’ and “never quite Trump supporters (the “2&3’s”)” in the Republican senate.
In fairness, Ernst does seem to have some unshakeable conservative beliefs and moral positions; she did support defunding of Planned Parenthood and banning abortions after 20 weeks. She also opposes Democrat gun control measures.
As to Grassley, Sometimes he seems a little shaky on conservative issues but has generally been very strong on key GOP and Trump positions, in our view. He is probably as close to a “5” as anyone in the senate And Ernst, we’d consider, given current information, probably a “2 to 3”.
Among the 16 senators we listed, we share Mr. Q-o’s belief that they’d not be inclined to convict as it currently stands. We believe, though, that among the GOP senators beyond the 16, there are some who might be in the ‘3’ category. The pressure brought by the rabid Dems and the unconscionable press will be intense. As already noted, new, more ‘alarming’ stories will surface daily aimed to persuade that Trump is worse even then ‘climate change’.
Thus, we must remain “concerned” about the reliability of the GOP caucus. After all, there were some “Quasi-optimists” who believed that voters would never vote to ‘flip’ the House to “Pelosi domination” in 2018! DLH
———
…On a scale of 1- 5 with 1 – likely convict ; 2- lean convict; 3- toss-up; 4- lean not convict and 5 -likely not convict evaluate the list of usual suspect Republicans shown here. With 2/3 necessary (total 67) and 47 Democrats in the bag — 20 Republicans would be needed. A lot of 1, 2 and 3 votes for the sixteen shown leads to less confidence. With the sixteen add just five more not listed that you can rate 1,2, or 3 and you see DLH’s point. All of such effete Republicans may justify to the gullible a vote to convict as providing for a VP Pence ascension, which we see as a pathetic insult to Pence and an effort to handicap him as well
* please wait a few seconds after mousing play button for video to proceed
Indeed Sen.Joni Ernst gave a fumbled answer to a largely unintelligible question from a Democrat seminar questioner. Her response was way too defensive and failed to state to the audience that one should not assume that the “whistleblower” in question was legitimate (shades of “she must be believed”) . That said, at about the minute forty second point in the video responding to presumably the WaPo reporter she does say that the “whistleblower” info is second and third-hand (in our judgement legitimizing and “protecting” that would result in a circus and why shouldn’t a President be able to respond or call out his obviously partisan detractor “whistle blowers”?). She also says she sees no impeachable offense in the report but hedges that the whatever committee should look into it further. I think any Republican Senator who voted to convict based on this info is anticipating retirement, changing party registration, or thinks they can survive any primary challenge and then win in the general in a weakened condition. I do not see that for Joni Ernst at this point.