We are the drain the swamp people

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

WILL BARR’S WORDS SOON BECOME “LOST WORDS”?

“We have to be careful about the way we collect evidence. And we have to make sure that we have enough evidence to justify our actions. And we’re not going to cut corners in that respect,” Barr said before providing a hint about when Durham’s investigation may end. “You know, there’s some people who think this thing is going to drop in a few weeks. That’s not the case. I see this, perhaps, reaching an important watershed perhaps in the late spring, early summer.”

All this “investigating” going on. We’ve heard now for months, since AG Barr began his “inquiry” into the wide range of illegal, corrupt, possibly treasonous, certainly criminal activity which went on virtually throughout every agency, bureau, and department of the Obama administration, that ‘the truth will come out’, ‘it will be devastating’, former high to highest ranking members of the former president’s administration will go to jail, very serious wrongdoing by President Barack Obama and the nation’s entire federal law enforcement and national security apparatus will be exposed, etc, etc…

How many times have we heard that John Durham has been accumulating hard, undeniable evidence, even presenting it to a grand jury, that massive corruption’s been the everyday activity of the previous administration, the Democratic Party, and many of its highest profile officeholders and candidates?

But now, we hear from AG Barr himself that “perhaps” a “watershed” might be “reached” in the “late spring or early summer” ???!!

What does “watershed” even mean?

And, as we’ve speculated all along, “what if…however unlikely all the pundits and politicians claim…that the impeachment proceedings which begin their final phase Tuesday, somehow (literally by ‘hook or crook’) result in the conviction and removal from office of Donald Trump…what happens to all the documents, the ‘investigation’, the “watershed”…???

Just from what has been learned and reported by a sliver of the media (Fox and ‘Talk Radio”) so far, who can trust anything, by anybody in the current Washington ‘establishment’, or the “Deep State’ (whether you believe there is one or not)?

We’ve concluded that Christopher Wray, appointed by Trump, no doubt with confidence that he’d ‘clean up the FBI mess’, is nothing more than a committed ‘Deep State” operative!

Could Durham, Barr, et al be as well!!!???      dlh

0

0

First an overdue goodby from earlier this week and then some thematic items relevant to the Virginia Second Amendment march on Monday

0

0

So before politics gets you too worked up, let us know if this helps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=158&v=00ySZOPPDD4&feature=emb_logo

Now back to trying to understand —

Our dlh has warned repeatedly of the risk of putting too much faith in the Republican Senate as a whole protecting Trump from the House impeachment sham. This article at the Daily Caller reports on concerns of Senator Rand Paul. While witness game-playing by Trump’s detractors (Democrat and Republican) may not stop his exoneration it could be an attempt to inflict as much  unrequited damage as possible.

The pound of flesh people have already had their turn, the defense ought to have any and all witnesses it wants to call. Deals ought not be between senators when someone else’s honor is at stake.

V’PAC encourages readers to assume nothing and go beyond your state’s U.S. Senators and contact others as well, particularly the usual suspects, telling them to protect the presidency from political witch hunts, protect the separation of powers, stop the good-old-boy politics and allow Trump’s defense it’s fullest desired hearing. (excerpt below, bold our emphasis)

Rand Paul Fears Republicans Won’t Let Trump ‘Choose His Witnesses’ In Impeachment Trial 

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he’s worried that his fellow Republican senators will block testimonies from the witnesses President Donald Trump wants called in his impeachment trial, Paul told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday.

Trump previously said he wants Hunter Biden, Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff, and the whistleblower to testify if the Senate allows witnesses during the impeachment trial.

“Here’s the thing is, fair is fair, and if they’re going to put the president through this, they’re going to have to have witnesses on both sides,” Paul told Hannity.

“But I’ll tell you what my fear is, is that some Republicans are going to vote for witnesses, we’ll get those — the ones the Democrats want — and then when we have the votes on bringing witnesses or letting the president choose his witnesses, I think those will fail — not only because of those Republicans, but because a whole variety of Republicans may not allow the whistleblower, may not allow Biden for one reason or another, because they served with him,” Paul continued.

“But if it turns out, and the Republican base sees that this looks like only Democrat witnesses, and no presidential witnesses, I guarantee that the Republican base will punish those people who set up that scenario,” the Kentucky senator added.   . . .

And from the facepalm/what-the-heck-is-going-on department (also via the Daily Caller):

Top Military Media Outlet Puts A 28-Year-Old Who’s Touted Her Hatred For Trump In Charge 

Reading the article :

After interning for several Democrats, graduating Hofstra University in 2014, and contemplating art school, Sarah Sicard wrote for a marijuana publication called the “Bluntness,” served as communications director for a New York city council member, and worked in corporate PR, according to her resume and online bios.

As of Jan. 10, she occupies the top editorial position of the Army Times, which has been published since 1940 and is one of the preeminent publications for military men and veterans.  . . .

Included in the report by Luke Rosiak were some of her ignorant tweets demonstrating her lack of qualifications.  Nevertheless the publisher defended the choice ~~ because of her years of experience ~~ (she apparently wrote for 2 years for a different publication dealing with military matters).  But seriously, she is 28. We have shoes older than her. Doesn’t Army Times have some writers that have been on board for a couple of years?   A graduate of notorious liberal schools, a Trump hating Democrat, illogical in her Twitter analysis of events . The report mentions her expressed  SADness because she lost Twitter followers after her tirades. The same sadness should befall Army Times for this move.  Any current subscribers out there? What say you?

0

0

You can bet Trump haters are working these and others feverishly

You know the old saying: “don’t count your chickens . . .”  well the safe strategy for Republicans trying to protect Trump from the impeachment charade is to realize you are dealing with bird-brained chickens, proverbially as well. There is no Republican senator that need not receive calls in support of acquitting President Trump of the trumped up charges against him. The usual suspects ought to receive communications from around the country. See our link to legislators always available on our page bar above.

Pelosi’s Blunder: How The House Destroyed Its Own Case For Impeachment

LIBERAL LEGAL EXPERT JONATHON TURLEY HAS ISSUED ANOTHER COLUMN ESSENTIALLY CLAIMING THAT SPEAKER PELOSI’S ‘BLUNDER’ HAS VIRTUALLY ASSURED THAT THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS GOING NOWHERE.

——————-

VERITASPAC, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT THE HIGHLY RESPECTED LAW PROFESSOR UNDERESTIMATES THE TREACHERY AND INCOMPETENCE OF SOME GOP SENATORS!

However bumbling the pathetic Speaker of the House is, Professor Turley seems to not be willing to take into account such nefarious “Republican” solons as the nasally-challenged and wholly undependable Susan Collins, the most treacherous fake in either political party, “Mittens” Romney, the ‘vicious’ Lisa Murkowski, and the predictably unpredictable Mike Lee.

Their supporting cast, which sometimes includes Rand Paul, Ben Sasse, and a few others, however, have the capacity to make even the sad old “Fancy Nancy” seem coherent, if not sane, once in awhile.

If necessary to recount the antics of the named GOP bumblers, it would be a waste of posting space to go further. Any readers who are not acquainted with the likes of these characters haven’t been keeping up with the laughable impeachment “proceedings” of the past couple of months.

So, we’ll just leave it there.

dlh

0

0