We are the drain the swamp people

• Regarding John Bolton’s book — Washington is that type of place – anything for a buck
• Will reporting on leaks from Bolton’s book cause Republican managers to accede to witnesses?
• Are the leaks accurate and in context?
• Could this be Democrats walking into  trap?
• Give them Bolton and then bring in Inspector General Michael Atkinson “the 18th witness” whose testimony Schiff has hidden, oh,  and both Bidens

So last night and all day today we have been hearing about the latest “bombshell” reported as such by the usual suspects.  It remains to be seen how close “revelations” are to reality. TownHall provides a straight report based on what the NYT was saying:

‘Bombshell’ Excerpt From Bolton Book Leaks, But The Timing Is Very Suspect              Dems Demand Bolton Testify in Impeachment Trial After ‘Bombshell’ Report 

An article with the benefit of a bit of time to analyze the matter and give perspective appears at RedState:

Another ‘Bombshell’ Involving Trump and John Bolton Dropped Last Night, Here Are the Details 

What we know in our bones is that there is little honor in 90% of Washington “insiders”.  Because Washington is primarily made up of Democrats that is not a hard number to defend. But it necessarily includes a large number of Republicans that “make it there”.  Even if it is not their home, it is their world of power and attention. The Republicans in the number can be self-absorbed swamp-dwellers insisting on their importance.

There is plenty to make one suspicious of the accuracy of the reporting (it being an NYT “scoop”).  There is also the matter of — so what —  because: 1) the Bidens are a crime family of influence peddlers on a grand scale, 2) Ukraine was rife with corruption, 3) knowing both key points it was the president’s duty to insure that there was some assurance that the aid was going to a country that was on the up and up, no matter if US co-conspirators with the corruption there were also political rivals.

Are political rivals given free passes or look-aways lest one in authority to do something about corruption be characterized as politically motivated? Politics is often how we find out about corruption and also involved in how things get done about it.

But as for quid-pro-quo, there was none.  Ukraine got aid, the president of Ukraine insists there was no pressure, no political announcement from Ukraine designed to embarrass the Bidens was forthcoming. There was never any inordinate action from Trump holding up aid, even if Trump did mouth-off.  The lesson, if the mouthing off happened, is do not trust John Bolton with any candid let-your-hair-down bombast.  He is a prig and a sniveling money grubber who does not have the country at heart regardless of his foreign policy beliefs.

Presumably knowing the privileges, immunities, necessity of confidentiality in foreign policy discussion,  how can someone like Bolton write a book scheduled to be released in a matter of months, so soon after his departure, reveal (or make up) Oval Office confidences? Knowing what is going on in the impeachment process, and knowing the lying ravenous nature of the press, whose side is Bolton on? The side of his bank account it seems. It would have to be about the money because how would his ideas come to be advanced in circles of power given what he has done.  Democrats already think his views anathema. Republicans won’t listen to him because no one with foreign policy responsibility will allow him in the room.

I tend to support the idea to the effect . . .  OK –  it did not have to go this way dear Democrats (because the fallout will not be limited to Biden) —  but you get your purported wish for witnesses but no way will you keep  Schiff, the whistleblower,  the testimony of Inspector General Michael Atkinson “the 18th witness” whose testimony Schiff has hidden, oh,  and both Bidens from the witness lineup. Trump legitimately should insist on anti-corruption measures from our foreign aid recipients and the Bidens are both fact witnesses to that effect.

A final memo to John Bolton – the people elected Donald Trump to run foreign policy, consistent with established treaties, not you. You held a confidential advisory capacity. You have not denied the NYT report as to what you said Trump said.  Unless you do,  you are a punk, an untrustworthy asshole.

I could fantasize that this is all rope-a-dope designed to give the coup de gras to Democrats and your testimony will exonerate Trump. If so I will buy your book and proclaim your honor.  But we have seen too many money grubbers and fame-seekers to hold to that. So when you get to the Senate witness stand, if you are not the person of integrity and scope we once gave you credit for being, we hope  Trump’s impeachment managers rip you a new one.       R Mall

Related reading:

John Bolton Needs to Step up and Go on Maddow to Say If New York Times Leak Is True

0

0

• KGB (er, FBI) restricts information obtained from Carter Page FISA surveillance

———————————————————————————————————
It seems to us…

The entire handling of the “surveillance” process against the Trump campaign and administration should scare the hell out of Americans.

And, if anyone thinks Christopher Wray is anything more than a corrupt Deep State operative, they haven’t been paying attention.

And the “FISA Court”? Which “way from Sunday” to destroy any political opponent of the Left in this nation, is it (1,2,3,4,5, or 6 ?) (Maybe Schumer knows)

How easy it must be to find and recruit corrupt judges and law enforcement elites in this country that they seem to permeate every aspect of life in this “free nation”. The FISA apparently aligns with the FBI, both when they are acting illegally…and when they’re caught doing so. This is the very definition of a ‘state security agency’.

One cannot make any statement regarding the shocking abuse of law enforcement and judicial power which has been revealed, without first disclaiming any possible lack of virtue on the part of any of the ‘hardworking, fully committed,, ‘life on the line’, rank and file current and former members of the FBI !

Really?! How many were ‘just following orders’? How did only the “rotten exceptions” among the bureau’s ‘long serving’ , hardworking, committed to their ‘high calling’ members, rise to the key leadership positions in the FBI?

And…where are all those “Efrem Zimbalists” now, when all the institutional rot has been disclosed? Where are the letters signed by hundreds…thousands of current and former agents decrying and condemning the actions of their current and former bosses?

The Left seems to have no shortage of ‘letter-signers’ condemning anything and everything Trump and his choices for leadership attempt to do, as example following :        dlh

“HUNDREDS OF FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ACCUSING TRUMP OF OBSTRUCTION” (May 17, 2019)

“Hundreds of additional former federal prosecutors have signed onto a statement asserting that President Trump would have been indicted for obstruction of justice were he not currently serving as president.

“The open letter organized by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy had roughly 400 signatures when it was initially posted Monday afternoon on Medium. The letter neared 700 signatures as of Tuesday afternoon.

“Among the new signatories are Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-Mass.), a former prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Philadelphia. Both lawmakers have been critical of Trump.” ( Link above to read more)

——————————————————————————————————-

FBI restricts information obtained from Carter Page FISA surveillance
by Daniel Chaitin (bold our emphasis)

Revealed in a Jan. 7  filing by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that was made public on Thursday, the government said the bureau chose to “sequester all collection the FBI acquired pursuant to the Court’s authorizations” to grant a warrant and three extensions for the electronic surveillance of Page, a U.S. citizen who was suspected of acting as an agent of Russia but was never charged with any wrongdoing.

The filing, signed off by presiding FISA court Judge James Boasberg, further stated that the “sequester” would remain in place until the completion of a further review of the DOJ inspector general report on the Page FISA warrants and the “outcome of related investigations and any litigation.”

“The government has not described what steps are involved in such sequestration or when it will be completed,” Boasberg wrote. “It has, however, undertaken to ‘provide an update to the court when the FBI completes the sequestration.'”

Boasberg’s filing made headlines on Thursday for showing the Justice Department conceded that there was insufficient evidence to justify the last two of four orders covering the final several months of electronic surveillance of Page during the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. The initial order came in October 2016, and the electronic surveillance stretched into the summer of 2017 with a trio of extensions at three-month intervals. It remains unclear whether the Justice Department believes the first two orders targeting Page were similarly flawed.

“Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system. I hope that this latest admission of guilt for these civil rights abuses by the Justice Department marks continued progress towards restoring justice and remedying these reputationally ruinous injuries,” Page said in a statement.

Another brief filing that quietly popped up on the FISA court website Thursday showed the Justice Department requested a deadline extension for the delivery of information regarding minimization procedures designed to stem the disclosure of information about U.S. citizens under surveillance. Boasberg, who seeks the information so that the FISA court can “assess whether the handling and disposition of the information acquired” comports with FISA provisions, wrote that the government’s request was granted, and a new deadline has been set for Feb. 5. The original deadline was Jan. 28.

In December, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report criticizing the DOJ and the FBI for 17 “significant errors and omissions” in its submissions to the FISA court seeking authority to surveil Page and the reliance on British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified dossier. The watchdog report showed that FBI interviews with Steele’s primary source, beginning in January 2017 after the first FISA renewal, “raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting.”

Following Horowitz’s investigation, FBI Director Christopher Wray ordered more than 40 “corrective steps” to address the watchdog’s report, including 12 reforms related to the FISA process.

In a Jan. 10 response to the court, Wray said he “deeply regrets” the FBI’s failures in the Page FISA process and offered a timetable of reforms and training the bureau is undertaking. David Kris, a former Justice Department lawyer picked to advise the FISA court on the reform process, submitted a brief that pushed for improved communications between FBI and DOJ attorneys on FISA matters beyond what the bureau has proposed.

The FISA court also ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer whoaltered a key document about Page in the process to obtain the third warrant renewal. He is now under criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham, a prosecutor from Connecticut who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr with investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry.

0

0

“Nursing home fugitive’ Robert DeNiro as Adam Schiff (actually interchangeable)

“I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it…”

“Class vs. Buffoonery”…a quick and accurate description of the difference between the President’s legal team and the “Clown Parade” of House Managers…     dlh

Trump Legal Team Lays Out 6-Point Case Crushing Democrats’ Impeachment Claims
By Ryan Saavedra  DailyWire.com (excerpts, bold our emphasis)

President Donald Trump’s legal defense team laid out an aggressive six-point case dismantling the Democrats’ impeachment case on Saturday that was simply built around highlighting the facts of what happened surrounding Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump’s defense team only used two of the 24 hours that they were allotted during their first of three days that they have to argue in front of the Senate that Trump should be acquitted from the Democrats’ partisan impeachment charges.

Laying out Trump’s six-point defense was deputy White House counsel Michael Purpura, who said the following:

“The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren’t even mentioned on the call.”

“President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have repeatedly said that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure on them to review anything.”

“President Zelensky and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know, did not even know, the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call.”

“Not a single witness testified that the President himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else.”

“The security assistance flowed on September 11 and a presidential meeting took place on September 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations.”

“The Democrats blind drive to impeach the president does not and cannot change the fact, as attested to by the Democrats own witnesses, that President Trump has been a better friend and stronger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor.”

“Those are the facts,” Purpura said. “Each one of these six facts standing alone is enough to sink the Democrats’ case. Combined they establish what we’ve known since the beginning, the president did absolutely nothing wrong.”

SIX FACTS that sink Dems’ case:

•Transcript shows no conditionality
•Zelensky: no quid pro quo/pressure
•Ukraine didn’t know of aid pause
•No Dem witness testified that POTUS said any conditionality
•Ukraine got aid, did nothing for it
•Trump strengthened Ukraine support

 Purpura later highlighted that Ambassador Kurt Volker, the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, who was not on the call but who met with Zelensky the day after the call, testified that in no way, shape, or form in either the readouts from the United States or Ukraine did [Zelensky] receive any indication that Trump was pursuing a quid pro quo.

Purpura cut back to Volker’s testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee last year where he confirmed under oath that there was no quid pro quo, no bribery, and Ukraine was not even aware that there was a temporary hold on U.S. financial assistance.

After playing the clip, Purpura said: “[Democrats] didn’t tell you about this testimony from Ambassador Volker. Why not? President Zelensky himself has confirmed on at least three separate occasions that his July 25 call with President Trump was a good phone call and normal and that nobody pushed me. When President Zelenksy’s advisor Andriy Yermak was asked if he had ever felt there was a connection between the US military aid in the request for investigations, he was adamant that we never had that feeling and we did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”

Purpura continued to hammer on the fact that all top Ukrainian officials indicated that there was no quid pro quo and later added that it was insulting to Ukraine that Democrats were essentially stating that Ukraine was not telling the truth about the situation.   . . .

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow noted that Democrats’ entire case was built on the notion that they were able to read “everybody’s thoughts, they can read everybody’s intention, even when the principal speakers, the witnesses themselves, insist that those interpretations are wrong.”

Sekulow spent a significant portion of time going after leftist Democrat Rep. Jason Crow (CO) for his dishonesty this week while presenting the Democrats’ case in front of the Senate.

“Manager Crow said this, ‘what’s most interesting to me about this is that president Trump was only interested in Ukraine aid.’ His words, nobody else, ‘the U.S. provides aids to dozens of countries around the world, lots of partners and allies, he didn’t ask about any of them asked he didn’t ask about any of them just Ukraine,’” Sekulow said as he highlighted Crow’s remarks. “Here’s what actually happened: President Trump has placed holds on aid a number of times, we can just take basic due diligence to figure this out.”

Sekulow gave the following examples of instances where the Trump administration has placed holds on foreign assistance:

Ed note: they are Afghanistan, South Korea, Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala Pakistan and Lebanon — more details in full article

Sekulow further noted that two of the Democrats’ witnesses said during their impeachment investigation that the Trump administration has withheld aid from numerous countries across the world for a wide variety of reasons.

“Manager Crow told you that the president’s Ukraine policy was not strong against Russia, noting that we help our partner fight Russia over there so we don’t have to fight Russia here, our friends on the frontlines in trenches and with sneakers and this was following the Russians invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the United States has stood by Ukraine, those are your words,” Sekulow continued. “While it’s true that the United States has stood by Ukraine since the invasion of 2014, only one president since then took a very concrete step, some of you supported it, and that step included actually providing Ukraine with lethal weapons including javelin missiles. That’s what President Trump did.”

“Here’s what Ambassador Taylor said that you didn’t hear in the 23 hours, you didn’t hear this, ‘javelin missiles are serious weapons, they will kill Russian tanks,’” Sekulow continued. “Ambassador Yovanovitch agreed stating, that Ukraine policy under President Trump actually got stronger, stronger than it was under President Obama.”

White House counsel Pat Cipollone noted that Trump’s defense team was going to go in-depth next week in examining evidence that Democrats intentionally did not present to the American public during there three days in front of the Senate.

“They’ve come here today and they’ve basically said, ‘Let’s cancel an election over a meeting with the Ukraine,’” Cipollone said. “It would be a completely irresponsible abuse of power to do what they’re asking you to do: to stop an election, to interfere in an election and to remove the president of the United States from the ballot.”

0

0

We were able to watch some of the presentations of the Trump defense team before the Senate today and will endeavor to post links to transcripts. In some cases the read may be more exciting than the delivery. We do not mean that as a slight as the ones we watched apparently were presenting with determined studiousness. The arguments they made as to facts and chain of events regarding the whole matter painted the Democrat case as mendacious calumny.

We also believe that Trump’s defenders should not shy away from political arguments.  Not threats, but warn of the political implications of what the Democrats are doing as to governance and comity. The practical destruction of the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances is important to bring home to the audience inside and outside the Senate chambers.

While intertwined heretofore, we presume more statements of law and constitutional implications are yet to come. Addressing those, including the loose/ridiculously elastic/unprecedented/baseless and dangerous articles of impeachment is a letter cosigned by 21 current (Republican) Attorneys General. Their letter is embedded below and through this link.  It is a great readable lesson in our Constitution’s history and the intentions and understanding of the wise and practical intentions of our founders.

The Wall Street Journal offered a constitutional analysis that also referenced the AG letter to the Senate.

https://www.israpundit.org/the-corrupt-purposes-impeachment/

0

0

Meme ripped from an HP posting:

Set forth earlier this week, National Review’s take on what the Trump defense strategy ought to be is naive to say the least. A number of that publications offerings have been pathetic in recent years.  John Daniel Davidson writing at The Federalist ably brings forth that “naivety” (excerpt below). A readers comment to his commentary serves as a useful litany of what Trump’s defense team ought to do.  But first the destruction of the National Review nonsense:

National Review’s Impeachment Advice To GOP Senators Is Deeply Naïve 
Admitting that Trump was wrong but he shouldn’t be impeached is a terrible idea that assumes too much goodwill from Democrats.

In an editorial published Wednesday at National Review, the editors argue that an “unspoken consensus” has emerged among Republican senators that what President Trump did was wrong but it doesn’t warrant his removal from office. The editors think this a “reasonable” position and that Republicans should make the case for it publicly, but they can’t because of the president’s “obstinacy” in defending his actions vis-à-vis Ukraine.

Instead of insisting that Trump “cannot be impeached for any abuse of power unless that abuse took the form of a criminal violation of a statute,” they write, “Republicans would be better off arguing that in this case the president’s behavior, while objectionable, should be left, as scheduled, to the judgment of the voters directly.”

My colleague David Marcus yesterday pointed out some serious problems with this argument, not least of which is that there is no evidence of an emerging unspoken consensus among GOP senators that what Trump did was objectionable—just the opposite, in fact, as the impeachment trial drags on.

But one aspect of Marcus’ argument deserves more fleshing out because it gets to the heart of the divisions on the right over Trump generally and impeachment specifically. He writes:

The notion that a Trump apology over his call, accompanied by grave-faced GOP officials decrying the act but begging that Trump be given a second chance, would have led to Democrats backing down on their impeachment push is pure fantasy. Just as Rep. Adam Schiff tried to do in his arguments yesterday, the Democrats would have seized on Trump’s admission of any flaw in his approach as just one in a chain of illegal acts they believe the president has committed.   . . .

Cleetus , commenting in response produces an excellent litany:

Trump’s defense is simple and obvious. Tell the truth.

• Show how money sent to Ukraine from the US was laundered through Latvia, then Malta, and finally paid out to Burisma and Hunter Biden in a corruption pay back scheme. This will prove the corruption.
• Cite the treaty with Ukraine that speaks to both countries working together to stop corruption, how Trump ran on stopping corruption, and how our laws demand we fight against it.
• Cite the phone call where Trump clearly refers to difficulties America had and how we (not Trump) need Ukraine’s help. Cite the numerous newspaper accounts of Ukraine being involved in the Trump Dossier and other actions that were performed in an effort to promote Hillary Clinton thus interfering in our election.
• Cite the blatant absence of due process during the House portion of the impeachment efforts.
• Show how the IG changed the whistle blower requirements to allow hearsay evidence immediately before this impeachment effort started.
• Demand to have the whistle blower identified and cite how the Democrats declared how his anonymity was guaranteed according to laws that do not exist anywhere except the minds of Democrats.
• Cite how the whistle blower never testified as to what he heard, his interactions with Adam Schiff and his staff in putting the complaint together, and cite reports of how coworkers reported on the whistle blower and allies planning of this impeachment effort started several years ago (https://www.realclearinvest… /articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html)
• Cite how there was no quid pro quo, how the Ukrainians never knew aid was being held up and that no actions in the alleged quid pro quo deal ever occurred.
• Cite other cases of aid being held up by Trump during this same time period for similar corruption reasons.
• Cite the corruption of Joe Biden and how his entire family has become fantastically rich off of it.
• Clearly demonstrate how not one witness for the Democrats could testify to anything they saw first hand and how everything they stated was either opinion of hearsay evidence.
• This is just a start for the list would go on and on. If this is what Trump’s team does, and likely will be, then the country will be shocked at how flimsy, even fabricated, this impeachment effort really is.

“Nicky” adds to Cleetus littany

Excellent!
And also cite how Obama held up payments to several countries during his tenure, including UKRAINE. I suspect Trump’s defense team will use your exact comments in In an their case, which I think will blow the Dem’s doors off. 

0

0

The argument lines of Democrats are incredible.

Out of one side of their collective mouths in the person of Adam Schiff as part of his opening statement ~~ by the information you are about to hear the case against Trump is overwhelming ~~ out of other side of the mouth: ~~ we must have more witnesses and documents ~~

About the documents — they falsely claim Clinton provided “92,000 pages” to Congress.  The truth is the documents were subpoenaed by the special prosecutor Ken Starr over a lengthy course of time and given to him as part of his criminal probe, with Clinton kicking and screaming the whole way. Clinton had to by court edict and precedent in such a criminal probe. Those document are what Congress got.

Remember the Mueller Russia probe –  we don’t know the numbers,  but as far as we know scads of  documents were provided and witnesses were interviewed and hundreds of pages of transcripts produced. So Schiff for brains has been able to review countless documents and witnesses as part of the Democrats ongoing impeachment effort beginning with Russia.

As regards  the Ukraine phone calls, Schiff had witness after witness with nothing to provide but hearsay and interpretation.  The only real fact witness as far as Ukraine, the country’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, his official response serves to exonerate President Trump and the only reference to quid pro quo and Ukraine aid in the relationship between the two comes from Trump saying “no quid pro quo” . . . and the fact that Ukraine got all military aid.

Of course Republicans in the House were not allowed to independently call witnesses or subpoena anything.  Any resistance by Trump to Democrat House political witch hunt is appropriate as a matter of separation of powers.  Otherwise, the House political majority could tie up any president endlessly as a tool of their political opposition.  Schiff declined to press his desire for select witnesses to the courts.  So no witnesses (or documents) were denied Democrats they really thought they had a right to.

As a separation of power matter, Schiff (or Trump) do not get SCOTUS chamber deliberations and Trump does not get to have House cloak room discussion transcripts for a fishing expedition unless a criminal indictment is brought (and not quashed by a judge). If Schiff thinks ha can get that then why hasn’t he? Because these are totally political “crimes” Schiff is alleging.

0

0

At least one aspect of Erick Erickson’s observations (he formerly of RedState now of Resurgent) provides an insightful factoid relevant to the House impeachment machinations. He also provides a debatable point or two about Schiffs performance vis a vi the Republicans.

Your Guide to Yesterday’s Impeachment Hearing For When You Hate Them All    (excerpt with our annotations in red, bold our emphasis)

On the format of it, contrary to the GOP partisan spin, Adam Schiff actually did a pretty admirable job making an articulable case for impeachment. The GOP side railed on process on the Democrats’ case for more witnesses. The Democrats used existing witness testimony to claim they had met the bar for removal already and just wanted to go deeper. Frankly, the GOP side was more of a clown show than I expected. . . .

Lesson: Never underestimate your enemy. Come basically prepared for all aspects of the battle. Anticipate the media opportunities.  We suspect the Presidents team was expecting lengthy procedural contentions that first day time period rather than case statements.  Their order of battle was flummoxed a bit.  They will get the final words but Schiff played the more attentive early media.

There are not enough votes to get the President convicted and, again, he should not be. The House failed to build a persuasive case and it is not the Senate’s job to help the House in this. There were twenty-one Republicans in the House, half of whom hate the President, who are leaving and no longer in need of Trump voter support. The House Democrats could not get those guys. They sure as hell won’t get two-thirds of the Senate. . . .

Telling point

Remember we are featuring comments — protocols here.

0

0

• “No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” – Mark Twain
• Applies to the Quad Cities Chamber of Commerce as well

We commented a few days ago on the dream-scheme of the  Quad Cities Chamber of Commerce to use local Illinois taxpayers to finance Iowa projects and vice versa. Emphasis on vice knowing Illinois politics. Ostensibly, and bad enough, each would have a say in the other’s civic affairs, except it would really be a nice little club of Chamber denizens hoping to push through tax and or spend initiatives that benefit their predilections of what’s good for the “Quad Cities”.  These people want to be the Quad City political machine.

But no one lives in the “Quad Cities” we live in a certain city and county and state and pay taxes to that chosen local for good and sufficient reason. Residents of Iowa choose this state for better schools, less taxes and more honest government, avoiding Illinois excesses and corruption. We welcome Illinois residents who prefer living in Iowa for its policies and we understand the problems of making the transition of those who cannot. We pray for their deliverance from Chicago which would greatly improve their situation.

But for now it is what it is and the encrusted ways of Rock Island County politics are not something we want to invite into our political decision making.  Nor do we welcome giving their favorite Chamber sons and daughters, supposedly business people without the good sense or essential civic virtue to have improved the political lot over there, say or influence over our priorities. Nor do we appreciate schemes to create another regulatory or taxing body emanating from Iowa or Illinois members of such a syndicate.

Friend of V’PAC Tom Nelson, (a spark-plug of the TEA party demonstrations here about a decade ago) provides us with some links to local government in Iowa.  It is easy to do as the various entities maintain web-sites for citizen contact. A typical online contact response form displaying a good talking point is set forth below:

Similar communications to Bettendorf, Davenport city officials needed as well.  Tom also addressed report of recent virtue preening action by the Rock Island County Board:

Rock Island County Board just voted YES to accept refugee resettlement.

Form link is to Scott County Board.

I just sent them a “one-liner” to vote NO on resettlement.

https://www.scottcountyiowa.com/content/contactus

The resolution is nothing more than virtue-signaling and ultimately involves claims or dispersion of taxes from various levels of government.  Such “invitations” implicate long-term spending obligations and should require more responsible budgetary authority.  Refugee resettlement should be focused on “incentivising” countries with closer physical and cultural situations. That is practical for many reasons for all involved including enhancing any chance for reclaiming, rebuilding, or the political reformation of the country being abandoned.

0

0

9:58 AM

Witnesses at the Impeachment Trial

Really quite amazing the hypocrisy of the dominant liberal media. One can only look at the clips below, compiled by the great folks at Media Research Center – News Busters, and realize how in-the-tank they were for Clinton. Their attitude now is collectively 180 degrees from then — now wanting the theater of witnesses, mostly to accentuate some, and any that don’t fit their predisposition, to discount or ignore.

Witnesses can make for great copy, (depending on the treatment, biased copy) and one would expect that editors, reporters, publishers would uniformly salivate over such, that is but for their biases. What would have made better copy than an extensive string of  witnesses at the Bill Clinton impeachment trial, so sensational the topics?  The thing is it also would have been harder to not report. And they wanted to protect Clinton.

They limited the digging and reporting about Clinton’s affairs and sexual abuse record, all the Clinton scandals. But the blue dress had to be acknowledged, even by them.  They did so as much to incredibly decry those sensation-monger Republicans out to hamstring this fine but flawed man who was just trying to do the people’s business, and to scandalize and denigrate the accusers.  Remember their treatment of Linda Tripp and Paula Jones.

Hypocritical ‘News’ Media Have Done a Complete Flip-Flop on impeachment     (allow a moment to load)

Back then the media was all “move on”, get back to the people’s business, all presidents are flawed. Clinton’s obstruction, witness tampering, abuses all excusable, bla bla bla. No need for witnesses.

0

0

• Ongoing feature:  Impeachment related discussion – concerns – observations – quips – whatever
• Twitter-like without the twits running Twitter in charge

Beginning today and everyday throughout the impeachment trial in the Senate we will post related comments, concerns, observations, links, memes — because that’s what we do.  As always we invite readers to partake as well but in this case submissions will be made part of the ongoing feature rather than relegated to the comment section unless you decline. It will appear something like a Twitter back and forth but you can feel free to offer more lengthy comments and if you have a pithy meme(s) to impart you can do so as well. If you want to be anonymous sign it as such.  Separate from this we will post on other topics as usual.

Responses to the previous post are not required but permitted, just post what triggers you here or elsewhere related to the impeachment ongoings. Each day we will have a new starter post identified as Coup On Trial – Day 1 — 2 — 3 — etc. until a Senate verdict is rendered. A faint line will separate impeachment related posts for that day. The name was chosen because that is what ought to be on trial and we believe posterity will render these days as such if our republic remains intact.

Text only (including links) can be submitted in the comment section and we will move them as soon as our schedule allows during the day. There will be one thread per day. We will impart a time stamp so as to recognize timeliness. Unrelated topics separately posted may be interspersed so scroll to the”Coup” posts for that day if you are following the feature.

Pictures or combinations should be sent to iowaveritas@gmail.com or to my personal e-mail if you have it. Contributors should assume a substantial amount of awareness of what is going on so as to not feel burdened with extensive explanation.    We will kick it off forthwith:

8:19 AM

From a piece in ‘Red State’ blog, reporting on David Perdue’s description of how the Senate impeachment process is to proceed. Perdue was responding to a question from NBC’s Chuck Todd:

“The Chief Justice decides whether or not they get asked, and how they get asked, and what sequence. And then we have, at that point, the opportunity to do exactly what we did after Phase 1 in the Clinton trial, and that is to decide where we go from here — do we have more witnesses, do we need clarification, whatever. Those motions will be done then. That’s our proposal.”

From what is known of Chief Justice Roberts’ and his earnest pursuit of approval from the Washington establishment…’nuff said!       dlh

10:25 AM

So Don you are saying Judge Roberts is not the guy:

10:30 AM

Roberts clarifying whether a huge regulation scheme is a tax even when the legislation said it was not. He can’t calm the seas but he can make the unconstitutional constitutional.

3:35 PM 1/21  Kathleen Kelly writes:

I’m having a hard time listening to the House managers during the impeachment trial without running to the bathroom to regurgitate. I can’t believe they can actually stand there and ask for a fair trial with a straight face. The facts of the origin of the impeachment proceedings have been presented by at least two senators which call for an immediate dismissal and for the managers to be laughed out of the place. Yet they keep standing up to present their lame disgusting case. I’m sorry but I’m not going to be able to listen to 24 hours more of their bilge.

If any Republican senator votes with the dDemocrats they should be tarred and feathered!

0

0