Cuomo’s motives –“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?”

Cuomo’s “Deaths from Nowhere”

Cuomo’s expendables

When assessing a politician’s motives for making policy choices, I usually try to give them the benefit of the doubt. (actually, that’s untrue)

Let’s consider Governor Cuomo’s directive funneling COVID-19 patients into nursing homes. Was his decision based on a legitimate concern that NY’s hospital system would be overwhelmed, and beds would be needed?

Cuomo’s people would love for that to be the narrative.

I’m stepping back to the pandemic’s emergence. Franklin Graham’s organization, Samaritan’s Purse, had set up a field hospital in NYC’s Central Park. President Trump deployed the hospital ship USNS Comfort to NY harbor, and directed the Army Corps of Engineers to convert the Javits Center to a fully-capable hospital.

These facilities sat basically unused. Covid-positive patients could have been sent there instead of nursing homes, or could have remained hospitalized, with any overflow directed to one of these vacant assets.

Cynical Gene sees the influence of politics: NYC’s mayor De Blasio didn’t like the religious background of the Samaritans. Governor Cuomo was in a TV competition with President Trump, and might be loath to give him a success story.

The sad reality is: The conspiracy theory of high-ranking elected officials sentencing thousands to dismal, solitary deaths for political gain is actually Occam’s Razor.

Just like hydroxychloroquine.

Eugene Mattecheck Jr.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Rush Limbaugh has passed from earthly bounds, he was on loan from God

His broadcasts kept conservatives on track with information and humor. Providently he showed the way for others to have an impact, pursue excellence with courage and good will for the country while exposing liberalism.  One or more of his guest hosts who he generously provided auditions will pick up the baton.  We will be OK.

If flags were at half-staff for one hour in response to Rush Limbaugh’s passing, how should we interpret the imagery?












Storm clouds? Setting sun? Distress? Sadly limp? All could apply but we think his life, desires and legacy would relate best to this last one:


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 2 Comments

Moreon Mitch on raising money and political support

Bonnie writes:

Stunning to me that I”m still getting ‘desperate pleas for MONEY’ from the Repubs….
They will not get a cent from me, no volunteer work, signs or support.
McConnell is sitting pretty as he’s won re-elections, thanks to Trump. But….I hope he is isolated, reviled and shunned for his despicable choice to lambaste Trump.

DLH follows up:


“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking flak from former President Donald Trump’s closest allies after criticizing the former president and could be setting himself up for even more of a showdown in 2022 if Trump remains active in the GOP.”
“My goal is, in every way possible, to have nominees representing the Republican Party who can win in November,” McConnell told Politico. “Some of them may be people the former president likes. Some of them may not be. The only thing I care about is electability.”

So…ol’ Mitch wants candidates who are “electable”! (He sees the Democrats putting up all those “electable” candidates, and, he wants some just as good, just as of as high character, patriotic, loves America as ol’ Mitch does. In other words Mitch wants only the fine candidates that the American people want and will elect.

People of good will, even temperament, honest, wise, with good judgment…yessir, like those Democrats seem able to find, in abundance…that’s what Mitch wants…like:
Maxine Waters, Reverend Warnock, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Ilhan Omar, ‘Sandy’ Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Adam Schiff… we could go on, American people saw many of those ‘electable’ Democrats during the impeachment trial…highest character, wise, devout in their faiths, personable and very likable…the kind of people the average American voter can’t wait to get to the polls to ‘elect’ !

Amen, Mitch! (or should we say, “A-women”?) dlh

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 2 Comments

That dourness also hides pomposity in Mitch McConnell

McConnell’s Heart Dropped

Donald Trump issued a trenchant summation of Mitch McConnell as a “dour, sullen, unsmiling political hack,”.  More so it turns out he is a marginal constitutionalist (there was no “close call” as to the constitutionality of the impeachment of Trump after he left office nor of the charges of incitement, legally or morally as President.

Furthermore McConnell’s statement on the floor of the Senate was an egregious effort to convict Trump in the court of public opinion, to pull down a better leader who pursued moral and ethical  policies with more fervor than McConnell’s ilk would ever muster.

McConnell was not operating in love or to protect the Republican Party but rather in furtherance of the unity party, the swamp, the DC denizens the one that ratchets government control, enhances politicians at the expense of citizens, by compromising to oblivion with a truly despicable party and its intents.

McConnell was constrained by the Constitution but his performance ought not be characterized as a true or effective defense of it. McConnell’s  words indicating his belief (against any reason, only jealous swamp rage against Trump for not being of the political establishment McConnell is so enamored with) are those of someone bitterly disappointed that there was no practical way to get anything but a rump trial in the time frame the House provided. It would have been too embarrassing even for him in his swamp rage.

But even had it happened before Trump left office, in which McConnell by his words would have voted to convict (as it turns out don’t take a constitutional law of evidence class from this guy in his, we hope soon, retirement from the Senate). . .  and say Trump was convicted . . . the Senate and especially McConnell would not have ended Trump’s political support rather it would have “ignobled” the Senate.  And that would have made this more recent incredible communication from McConnell’s political action committee even more a pompous exercise of someone totally out of touch with the pulse of rank and file Republicans and their view of him..

Only Mitch McConnell could be so oblivious as to how most Republicans now likely view him and send out yet another email as set forth below.  We cannot imagine this guy raising much money from rank and file Republicans.  Maybe Trump was wrong, McConnell is also laughable, sadly so.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

DLH makes equally serious proposals in response to letters from Mitch

First off, in all seriousness, the GOP establishment in the Senate is going to have to make a choice –  Mitch McConnell or the hoards of Trump defenders.

Regarding McConnell’s email

Two possibilities here:

1) Mitch has snapped, and must be replaced as Minority Leader immediately (but not by “Mittens’ or “Sassy Ben”!)

2) This letter was actually sent out by Schumer!

Seriously…how about a Ben Sasse Testicle Festival?

And what about Sasse — Nebraska’s recently reelected senator…and another anti-Trump “Republican”:

His state is known for its “unique” festivals, in line with the State Motto, “Nebraska,Honestly, it’s not for everyone”. One of its most popular is one I would propose that Mr. Sasse be the “guest of honor” for…the annual “(Sasse) Testicle Festival”*, to continue to be held each year on Father’s Day. (Sasse was a GW Bush appointee to Health & Human Services. in 2007; isn’t that some weird s—“?)

(Nebraska’s other GOP senator, Deb Fischer voted to acquit Trump)


seriously…how about a Ben Sasse Testicle Festival?

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment


The GOP establishment in the Senate is going to have to make a choice –  Mitch McConnell or the hoards of Trump defenders.

Can you believe this email communication subject line from McConnell’s Senate PAC on February 13th, the day he back-stabbed Trump supporters MAGA supporters, true conservatives..  He wants to raise money to continue to be the king maker.  To say the least we recommend against giving to it.


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 2 Comments

Mitch, Lisa, Susan, ‘Mittens’, go join the “Lincoln Project”

The Turtle refers to sworn testimony regarding election fraud as “Conspiracy theories”, indeed!

Pardon us ‘benighted’ voters, but it sure looked like there was enough “evidence” to warrant an investigation “Lisa”, er, I mean, Mitch.

Were all those folks giving sworn affidavits ‘lying’ ? Were those video clips “photo-shopped”? Were those votes shown being delivered after hours and counted after Republican observers were sent away “imagined” by us “unhinged listeners”?

“Mitch Murkowski” and “Lisa McConnell”…two “nominal Republicans” that if the Party can’t do without, I can do without the Party

“The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things,” Mr. McConnell said. “Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors, we saw, that unhinged listeners might take literally. But that was different.…This was an intensifying crescendo of by an outgoing president who seems determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.”

WSJ Lindsay Wise opines:

Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial Sharpens Republican Divides 
Seven Republicans voted to convict, and several more, including Mitch McConnell, criticized the ex-president, who still commands loyalty

WASHINGTON—The dramatic conclusion of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial laid bare deep philosophical rifts between Republicans, as GOP senators splintered not only over the question of Mr. Trump’s guilt, but also the future of their party and Mr. Trump’s role in it.

Seven GOP senators voted to convict the former president of inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6—not enough to find him guilty but, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pointed out, the final tally was the most guilty votes cast by members of a president’s own party in any impeachment trial in American history.
The rest of the Senate Republican conference—43 senators in total—voted to acquit Mr. Trump, but not without some angst, reflecting a party schism that has also fractured the House and will likely play out in primary elections in 2022 and 2024.

“It’s been a tough day,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.), who voted to acquit.

Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said as he left the Capitol: “It’s an uncomfortable vote and time will tell, but…I don’t think there was a good outcome there for anybody.” Mr. Thune also voted to acquit Mr. Trump.

Senate Democrats were unanimous in voting to convict Trump, as House Democrats were in last month’s impeachment vote, but some in the party were left frustrated by the speed of the trial and the lack of witnesses—particularly the hasty agreement Saturday that didn’t result in testimony from Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. “Way to snatch hope,” tweeted Melissa Byrne, a progressive strategist.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, defended the decision to forgo witnesses, saying being able to enter Ms. Herrera Beutler’s statement into the record and read it out loud was all that the impeachment managers wanted. He said no matter how many witnesses they called, they would be unable to sway Republicans who argued that it was unconstitutional to try a former president or that Mr. Trump was protected by the First Amendment.

While some Democrats differed on tactics, the Republican rift was more profound, as GOP senators tried to distance themselves from Mr. Trump while stopping short of a step that would permanently exile the de facto leader of their party—a figure still very popular with their base—from future federal office. If the Senate had mustered 67 votes necessary to convict Mr. Trump, 51 senators in a subsequent vote could have barred him from holding office ever again.

Instead, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor to try to bury Mr. Trump’s political future and salvage the Republican Party’s brand from the legacy of Jan. 6.

Earlier in the afternoon, Mr. McConnell voted to acquit Mr. Trump. But in a harshly critical speech, the Kentucky Republican made it clear he had cut all ties to the former president—and suggested he might have voted differently had Mr. Trump still been in office.

Mr. McConnell called the mob’s Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol a disgrace and laid the blame squarely on Mr. Trump. “They did this because they’d been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth because he was angry he lost an election,” he said. “President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty.”

There is “no question, none,” he said, that Mr. Trump “is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.”

Mr. McConnell appeared to agree with the argument presented by House managers that the people who stormed the Capitol building believed they were acting on Mr. Trump’s wishes and instructions.

“The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things,” Mr. McConnell said. “Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors, we saw, that unhinged listeners might take literally. But that was different.…This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories by an outgoing president who seems determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.”

By strictly criminal standards, Mr. McConnell said, the president’s speech was probably not incitement. But in the context of impeachment, he said, the Senate might have decided that this was “acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riots.”

He argued, however, that the question is moot because Mr. Trump has left office—a view he said he came to after intense reflection on the text of the Constitution.
The Republican leader could have brought the Senate back early with agreement from the Democratic leader under a 2004 law that authorizes the emergency return of the Senate provided that both lawmakers agree.

Mr. McConnell also chose not to pressure Republican senators to vote one way or another, although in an email to his Republican colleagues Saturday morning, he had revealed that he would vote to acquit, and characterized the verdict as a vote of conscience for lawmakers.

With a tough Senate map on the horizon for Republicans in 2022, Mr. McConnell and other GOP senators face the thorny task of rebuilding a party still dominated by base voters who favor Mr. Trump, while winning back suburban, independent and college-educated voters who fled the party over the past four years, disgusted by Mr. Trump.

Saturday’s Republican divides stretched beyond the Senate. In the House, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.), a fierce Trump defender, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.), a Trump ally known for promoting conspiracy theories, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R., Ill.), an outspoken Trump critic, all took different tacks on Twitter over the role of Ms. Herrera Beutler and whether her testimony on Mr. Trump’s actions during the riot would be relevant or brave.

As Senate Republicans publicly wrestled with their decisions on impeachment this week, they also grappled with the prospect that Mr. Trump might roar back onto the political scene after being acquitted, newly emboldened.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R., N.D.) voted to acquit Saturday. But he said it would be harder for him personally to vote for Mr. Trump for president again, given what happened Jan. 6.

“That has got to be part of what weighs on me, what anybody would have to measure,” Mr. Cramer said. “But I can assure you that just as sure as that would measure negatively for me, there’s a whole lot of people who feel the opposite about it. And a lot of them are my constituents.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), who is up for re-election in 2022, told reporters she agonized over her decision to convict Mr. Trump.

“There’s consequences, I guess, with every vote, and this was consequential on many levels, but I cannot allow my vote—the significance of my vote—to be devalued by whether or not I feel that this is helpful to my political ambitions,” she said.

“What I’m taking home is that at the end of the day, right won,” Ms. Murkowski added, referring to Congress’s constitutional obligation to finish certifying Joe Biden’s electoral win after the riot. “And we did it because we had some extraordinary men and women that were willing to stand up and defend and protect, and that was good,” she said.
“I just wish that Donald Trump had been one of them.”
—Eliza Collins and Siobhan Hughes contributed to this article.

Reply Reply All Forward
© 2021 Verizon Media

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Good old Nikki

Same basic tactic by both, say/do whatever it takes to curry favor

Re: Biden*                                                             Re: Trump (see below)

With “friends” like this…

The Hill reported:

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley issued stunning remarks breaking with former President Trump, telling Politico in an interview published Friday that she believes he “let us down.”

“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” Haley, who served in her ambassador role under Trump, said. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

Haley’s remarks are her strongest yet against the former president in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and come as Trump’s legal team is set to continue its defense of Trump on Friday in his second Senate impeachment trial.

Apparently Nikki changed her mind…  (Fox News)

Haley says Trump has record ‘every American should be proud of,’ ahead of re-election campaign fundraiser

(Haley)…pointed to Trump’s foreign policy successes in areas such as fighting Islamic terrorism and pushing back against rogue regimes across the globe.
“If you look around the world, President Trump has a record every American should be proud of,” she said. “In the Middle East, the ISIS caliphate has been destroyed, and we’ve stopped handing billions in cash to Iran that it used to fund terrorism. The North Korean regime is no longer testing long-range missiles. America is once again treating the Cuban dictatorship like the pariah it is, and Maduro’s days are numbered in Venezuela.”(Nikki Haley)


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Democrats terrified and dismissive of legal voters! And, when all else has failed…

  • The democrats are the Wile E Coyotes of Constitutional jurisprudence

As long as ACME corporate is there to lend them credit, the Democrats will continue to pursue “Road Runner” Trump, never catching him, but destroying the country in the process.


…if, as widely predicted (though we never like to make “assumptions”) the current impeachment of former president, Donald Trump fails, there is a handful of Democrat congressmen who are so dismissive and fearful of legal American voters, that they are willing to resort to any measure in their desperation, to prevent the electorate from restoring President Trump to office in the next presidential election!

No other rational explanation is possible other than that.

And when you consider the Democrats who are advancing the “idea” as a way to prevent Mr. Trump’s election, you can’t be surprised.

Democrats in impeachment hearings hoist by their own petard

They are a band of Democrats of which their own party has got to be embarrassed. Rather than responsible legislators, they are closer to a pitifully amateurish act at a comedy club, managed by a small time editorial board of a third rate local “newspaper” like many of Veritaspac’s readers are most familiar with:

“The Democrats leading the charge on the Fourteenth Amendment gambit include Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Dick Durbin of Illinois, along with Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Steve Cohen of Tennessee.”

Like you, we wonder where the equally clownish Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and rodeo hat wearing, Frederica Wilson, are. Together with Schultz and Cohen (noted above), these five knock 10 to 15 points off the average IQ of the Democrat congressional caucus (in our opinion, of course).      dlh


At Front Page

With the Senate impeachment trial underway that is virtually certain to end in acquittal, the Democrats are already planning their next move against Donald Trump. They are looking to use an obscure clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, written in the aftermath of the Civil War and aimed at disqualifying ex-Confederate rebels from public office, to bar Trump from holding any future public office. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for the disqualification of individuals from holding federal or state office who both previously (1) took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution as a federal or state government legislator or officer, and (2) then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The Democrats leading the charge on the Fourteenth Amendment gambit include Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Dick Durbin of Illinois, along with Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Steve Cohen of Tennessee. They are being advised by leftist academics who believe that Congress has the unilateral power to pass a joint resolution invoking the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification provision against Trump. As far as the Trump-haters are concerned, it is perfectly all right to put aside due process and fundamental fairness, so long as Trump is barred from holding public office ever again.

The Democrats’ unconstitutional Senate show trial is bad enough. The House’s lead impeachment manager has even gone so far as to suggest that Trump’s refusal to testify be used as an inference of guilt – precisely the opposite of the presumption of innocence and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. But even that is not enough for the Trump-haters. Assuming the likely outcome of acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial on the incitement of insurrection charge, the Democrats want to further upend the Constitution by taking another bite at the apple. This time they want to do so by majority vote of both Democrat-controlled chambers under a perverted reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. They have one insurmountable problem. The Constitution includes a specific provision prohibiting bills of attainder (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3).

Bills of attainder have been described by the Supreme Court as legislative acts, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .” The Court explained the rationale for prohibiting such bills of attainder in a case that dealt specifically with a statute barring certain individuals Congress deemed guilty of “subversive activities” from ever engaging in any federal government work, except as jurors or soldiers:

Those who wrote our Constitution well knew the danger inherent in special legislative acts which take away the life, liberty, or property of particular named persons, because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment. They intended to safeguard the people of this country from punishment without trial by duly constituted courts.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was obviously written with those who served in the Confederacy’s military or government in mind. If ex-Confederates had previously taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution, they were automatically disqualified from serving in any federal or state office. There was an escape hatch. Congress could, by a vote of two-thirds of each chamber, remove the disqualification. Unless Trump has a time machine at his disposal, he was not an insurrectionist or rebel during the Civil War.

Congress has the power under the Fourteenth Amendment “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” its provisions. But this authority does not override or amend the Constitution’s bill of attainder clause.

What Congress can do is pass legislation criminalizing insurrection or rebellion, which is precisely what it has done (18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection). A violation of the law can result in fines, imprisonment, and disqualification from “holding any office under the United States.”

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment would extend that penalty to also bar individuals convicted of insurrection or rebellion, who had taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, from holding a state government office as well. However, The Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause would kick in only if Trump is first convicted of insurrection or rebellion in a court of law with full due process. Moreover, it would be a complete travesty of justice to say the least if Trump is acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial, only to then be disqualified from public office anyway by a joint congressional resolution.

There is a fundamental principle at stake here. The Democrats plotting yet another way to bar Donald Trump from holding any future public office are seeking retribution against Trump by any means they consider necessary. They believe that the end justifies the means. But that is not how the U.S. Constitution works. It has guardrails against abuses of power that trample on the rights of individuals. The Trump-haters’ obsession with the former president is so intense that they would first abuse the constitutional impeachment process and then twist the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Trump from ever holding federal office again. This is an affront to the Constitution and to the right of voters to cast their votes for the candidate of their choice.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Impeachment has become a tool for dirty Democrats

Stupendous article by Daniel Greenfiled writing at Front Page.  The Daily Caller (see previous post) should be ashamed. Forwarded thanks to TN

The Democrat Precedent for Impeaching Trump Comes From a Racist Senator Who Wanted to Kill All Black People

Democrats say you can impeach a president after leaving office. Where did they get that idea?

“We are not in favor of giving a vote to the negro, because we believe that he is not fit to enjoy that right,” Senator Thurman once said.

These days, even while Democrats topple the statues of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, two men that Thurman hated, the old dead racist has become the basis for the unconstitutional Democrat campaign to impeach President Trump after leaving office.

Thurman, who was picked by the Democrats as their nominee for Vice President, had played a major role in the sole case of the Senate deciding to impeach a public official after leaving office. The Democrat case for impeaching President Trump rests on that one case.

And on Thurman.

Legal partisans have spent weeks debating whether President Trump can be impeached after leaving office. Every single one of these analyses is heavy on rhetoric and light on precedent.

There’s a very good reason for that.

Impeachment exists to remove officials who are in office. The brilliant legal scholars who argue otherwise might want to put down their law books and check a dictionary. Impeachment shares its origin with the more commonplace word, ‘impede’. The whole point of impeachment is to impede public officials from holding office by using legislators as investigators and courts.

The post-office impeachment arguments remind me of the movie, Gus, where a mule is allowed to play professional football because the referee can’t find anything in the rulebook that says the players can’t be mules. Every argument for impeaching President Trump comes down to the same position that mules can play football because the Constitution never says they can’t. 

“It makes no sense whatsoever that the president or any official could commit heinous crimes against our country and then defeat our impeachment powers and avoid the vote on disqualification by simply resigning,” Senator Schumer argued.

Like saying, “You can’t fire me, I quit”, that gets the same result.

The purpose of impeachment is removing an official from office. If he quits, then he’s removed. And if he committed “heinous crimes” then a court of law could try him for those offenses.

Democrats are obsessed with removing President Trump from an office he no longer holds, but their only precedent for that is the impeachment of Belknap, Grant’s Secretary of War, who was tried and acquitted by the Senate after leaving office.

“The Senate convened a trial, and voted, as a chamber, that Mr. Belknap could be tried ‘for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.’ The language is crystal clear, without any ambiguity,” Schumer blotivated. “The history and precedent is clear: the Senate has the power to try former officials.”

Schumer is quoting a resolution by Senator Allen Thurman, who opposed President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation and campaigned against allowing black people to vote. But that’s just the old Democrat habit of refighting the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Even while accusing President Trump of sedition, the Democrat cause is wedded to sedition.

The Democrat precedent for impeaching President Trump is a resolution put forward by a Senate Democrat who had opposed the Grant administration because he was a violent racistSenator Thurman had previously delivered a speech to the Democratic State Convention in West Virginia declaring that Republicans wanted “to put the heel of the negro upon the neck of the white man” with the 14th Amendment.

That’s the Constitutional scholar on whose resolution the Democrat impeachment crusade rests.

If Schumer and the Democrats are going to use Thurman’s resolution as a constitutional precedent, making him the arbiter of what the Framers thought, then they must share his opinion of the 14th Amendment and allowing black people to vote. That would be consistent.

Eight years before the impeachment of Belknap, Thurman was warning that there would be another civil war, leading to “a war of races in the South and the extermination of the negro”.

Thurman went on to argue that black people were inferior, couldn’t be allowed to vote, and that they were little more than brutes who would be killed if they kept demanding equal rights.

This is the author of the Democrat precedent for trying President Trump after leaving office.

Senator Thurman’s opposition to President Grant and attempts to smear his administration had everything to do with his racism and support for the Confederacy, rather than the rule of law.

The sole Democrat precedent for post-office impeachment comes from a racist who was threatening the country with a second civil war, and the extermination of black people, and was waging a political war against President Grant because he had defeated the Confederacy.

It’s not just Schumer. The Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution have been widely quoted.

Every time the media trots out a legal expert to explain why President Trump can be impeached, he turns to the Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution as if they were the Constitution.

The legal experts, like Schumer, don’t discuss how the Belknap trial concluded.

There were only enough votes to impeach Secretary of War Belknap in the first place because legislators argued that Belknap had resigned to avoid impeachment. But the Senate acquitted Belknap because its members believed that a former official couldn’t actually be impeached.

Impeachment failed because 23 senators voted, “not guilty for want of jurisdiction.”

Not only did the Belknap trial fail because Schumer was wrong, but the entire premise doesn’t even apply. Had Belknap’s term naturally expired, there would have been no impeachment.

It was only because Belknap had so blatantly resigned to avoid impeachment that his behavior was so provocative that he was illegally impeached to avoid creating a bad example.

When your only real precedent for trying a former president in American history is one case from 1876 of a cabinet official that was highly controversial at the time and ultimately failed, you’re gonna need a whole lot more precedents to actually impeach a former president. 

Especially when your only real basis for it is a resolution by a Democrat racist seditionist. 

Impeaching elected officials can be political theater or serve a legitimate purpose. Impeaching former officials is never anything except political theater. That’s true of the campaign to paint the Grant administration as corrupt which helped pave the way for a Democrat revival by smearing a generation of Republican officials associated with the Grant administration as crooked thieves.

The ultimate goal of that plot was the restoration of Democrat power and of segregation.

Democrats failed to make their case in actual courts, but holding hearings and an absurd impeachment tainted President Grant and Republicans in the eyes of the American public. Grant would labor, even while dying of cancer, to finish his memoirs, provide for his family and redeem his reputation from the Democrat smear campaigns of Grant Derangement Syndrome.

That’s the playbook that Democrats are following in their campaign against President Trump.

If the Democrats believe that President Trump is actually guilty of committing the crimes for which the Constitution says that can be impeached, “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”, then why not bring them into a court of law?

Democrats and their legal hounds have generated numerous investigations. New York has been drowning in blood while Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance have spent their time inventing new Trump investigations. And those haven’t fared very well.

The US Attorney’s office in Manhattan is done with the “Individual-1” investigation that Democrats had been claiming would “lock up” President Trump. But surely if the Democrats claim to have evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, their allies in the FBI and among federal prosecutors would be happy to see them. Why settle for a mere impeachment and disqualification when the Democrats could finally fulfill their dream of seeing him behind bars?

Especially when they’re almost certain to lose their latest impeachment again in the Senate.

Instead, the Democrats claim that they have evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but clearly don’t expect these “high crimes and misdemeanors” to be actionable in an actual court.

Courts try people for actual crimes. Impeachments are political proceedings.

Every single presidential impeachment in our history was a political proceeding. The proliferation of impeachments and attempted impeachments in recent American history is a symptom of partisan abuse of legislative powers, not of higher ethical standards.

The Framers of the Constitution wanted impeachment to be taken seriously.   

Impeachment was meant to keep the government clean, instead the government is hopelessly dirty, and impeachment has become a tool for making it even dirtier and keeping it dirty.

The Democrats are turning America into Venezuela, endlessly borrowing and spending money that doesn’t exist, while keeping the streets full of soldiers, and using security powers against political opponents, while their Big Tech oligarchy suppresses opposition political speech.

Washington D.C. is full of razor wire and military checkpoints through impeachment. Impeachment may be doomed, but it provides another justification for extending a manufactured state of emergency. And if any violence does take place, that will extend the D.C. occupation.

Even Chief Justice Roberts, no friend of the Trump administration, has refused to preside over what he clearly doesn’t think is a legal presidential impeachment process. The same Democrats who universally voted for an unconstitutional 25th Amendment coup couldn’t care less. When you’ve got troops in the streets and control over the government, the law is what you make of it.

Those are high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe the impeachers should impeach themselves.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment