Archive for the ‘Accountability’ Category

I won’t dispute that President Trump has made mistakes. Pulling the troops out of Syria by itself wasn’t a mistake. Pulling out without consultations with the Kurds was a mistake.

Mick Mulvaney’s Friday afternoon press conference wasn’t a mistake. Mick Mulvaney’s Friday afternoon press conference was an in-your-face-things-have-changed masterpiece. That’s the gospel of Kevin McCullough:

I know that the mouth breathers mixed amongst the White House press corps acted as though acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney committed some set of cardinal sins on Friday. Excuse me if I disagree. It was a stroke of pure genius on the administration’s part. And for the record they would do themselves a huge favor by continuing this practice for the duration of Pelosi’s faux impeachment.

Since Pelosi and Schiff aren’t conducting a lawful impeachment nor observing the long held practices of past impeachments, there is absolutely zero rationale in participating in their charade. They want to interrogate everyone in secret and not make the exculpatory testimony (of nearly everyone they speak with) available to the people. They want to undo lawful elections and remove the overwhelming winner of those contests via illegitimate and fraudulent means. Hence the president should reserve the right of using his press briefings to more or less call his own witnesses and let them blister the media with testimony exactly the way Mulvaney did on Friday.

The first rule of dealing with schoolyard bullies is to punch them hard so they know that there’s a price to pay for being a bully. If there isn’t a price for bullying, the bullying will continue. Democrats in the media aren’t used to having the person from the podium punch back. Based on their reactions, those Democrats aren’t handling it that well.

I’m not sure what bothered the press more: that Mulvaney made it clear that he wouldn’t play their semantic word games or that he unloaded facts to the public with such force. He also irritated them to no end in blatantly explaining that the aid America gives to any group of people that are not American will be on a basis that is assessed on a primary consideration of how they cooperate with the interests of America!

In other words, President Trump is insisting that money is spent wisely. The Democrats’ media accomplices acted like Mulvaney committed multiple mortal sins. The vast majority of the White House press corps are a bunch of sniveling ninnies. It’s time for them to grow up.

Likewise, it’s time for Republicans to start standing up to the Democrats’ enablers.

George Mesires, Hunter Biden’s attorney, issued this statement regarding Hunter’s work for Burisma:

Despite extensive scrutiny, at no time has any law enforcement agency, either domestic or foreign, alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term.

That’s classic Swampspeak. Hunter’s dad was a Democrat senator before becoming a Democrat vice president. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would’ve had significant influence into ethics and conflict-of-influence laws. It wouldn’t have been difficult for anyone in that position to put in place provisions that would’ve made it difficult to do something illegal.

That’s like asking an arsonist to write laws regarding criminal arson. The principle is the same. Asking corrupt people to write laws that govern themselves is stupid. The chances of corrupt people writing legislation that’s friendly to corrupt people is 100%.

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are birds of corrupt feathering. That they didn’t do anything illegal is just proof that the Swamp protects its own. It isn’t proof that Swamp people are honest. Hunter isn’t too stable, either:

It’s one thing for a corrupt Ukrainian business to shovel $200,000 a month into Hunter’s bank account. It’s another when the Chinese government pays Hunter $450,000 a year for a high-profile person who’s been in-and-out of substance abuse rehabilitation centers more times than I’ve been to a grocery store in the last year. Why should I think that the Chinese would pay him $450,000 a year if not for influence-peddling?

Remember this oldie-but-goodie?

Biden insists that China is a nothing compared to the US. Right. Then we find out that his son is getting rich working for the Chinese. But, hey, everything’s on the up-and-up, Creepy Joe insists. R-I-I-I-G-H-T! What could possibly go wrong?

“Do It for the Kids”
By Ramblin’ Rose

That statement alone triggers such emotional reactions that sensible people often lose all sense of reason, especially in the current panic and mania of youth worldwide. This world is full of conservationists (or “good stewards” in Biblical terms), but their statements are not heard because they do not label themselves environmentalists.

Hundreds of thousands of youth around the world left classes to protest “climate change” on September 20, 2019, and activists, including their acclaimed leader Greta Thunberg from Sweden. Thunberg and some 700 youth activists continued the protest at the United Nations on Saturday, complete with demands for financial commitments and threats against the leaders if their agenda is not met. Komal Karishma Kumar from Fuji told UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “we will hold you accountable, and if you do not, remember we will mobilize to vote you out.” (Intimidation strategy from indoctrination—learned from adults or inherent in human DNA?)

Let’s try to follow this historically and logically.

First, what is the difference between weather and climate? According to the NASA:
“The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time.
“Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.
“In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.” [Editorial question: If climate relates to a long-term pattern of weather in a particular area, how can the environmentalists call it global?]
“Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It’s really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.” [Another question: Did the study of climate change only begin in 1989?]

NO!! NASA attributes interest in the topic to Thomas Jefferson in the late 1700s.

In mid-September, Breitbart published a chronology of the sensational predictions about ice ages, global warming, climate change. Please remember the definitions above—a particular area for a period of 30 years:

  1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975.
  2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
  3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
  4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
  5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
  6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
  7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
  8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
  9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
  10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
  11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life in Lakes
  12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
  13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
  14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
  15. 1988: Maldives Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
  16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels Will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
  17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
  18. 2000: Children Won’t Know What Snow Is
  19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
  20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
  21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
  22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
  23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
  24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet from Catastrophe’
  25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
  26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
  27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
  28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
  29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
  30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
  31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
  32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil Will Peak in 90s
  33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
  34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
  35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
  36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
  37. 2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015
  38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
  39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
  40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
  41. 1970s: Killer Bees!”

It appears that the dates listed cover more than 30 years and no particular area is listed in all 41 articles. Hmmm.

This link provides photocopies of many of the predictions when published, all filled with doom and gloom and not a single prediction came to fruition. There is certainly a divide between the environmentalists and the skeptics. Both sides agree that it is probably driven by financial greed and politicians seeking fame, fortune and power at a global level. However, the guilty parties are distinct for each side.

On the “green” side, we read: “Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, or IPBES, which contends nature “is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely.”

While on the other side that notes the lengthy list of failed predictions, we read:

“Scientist Art Robinson’s The Petition Project gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is ‘no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.'”

Al Gore still maintains that 99%+ of the scientists agree with him about the urgency of dealing with “an ice age,” and later it was “global warming” that transformed itself into “climate change.” [the power of linguists to transform scientific issues to fit the current set of selected data]

Many of the 2020 presidential candidates on the extreme left have embraced some very radical solutions to addressing this issue: having no children (and the birth rate is drastically lower across the world—and then abortion lowers the numbers even more), cannibalism, elimination of all fossil fuels. How do those politicians expect to travel or transport goods? Or will they have an exemption for personal travel in private jets? How will the environmentalists deal with the toxic/hazardous wastes in solar panels as they fail/break/deteriorate/age? How can the environmentalists justify solar panels that create 300 times more waste per energy unit than nuclear energy?

After the recent hurricane Dorian and the massive devastation that it caused, how did it rank among the deadliest hurricanes in US history?
These are the five deadliest hurricanes in American history:

  1. The Great Galveston Storm (1900) The deadliest storm in American history, the Galveston hurricane killed 8,000 to 12,000 people.
  2. Hurricane Maria (2017)
  3. The Okeechobee Hurricane (1928)
  4. Hurricane Katrina (2005)
  5. The Chenière Caminada Hurricane (1893)

Dorian did not make the list. Notice that only two occurred within the last 30 years. That magic 30-year window for climate change was not met with historical data and the scientific guidelines. However, the media acted as if Dorian was the ultimate proof positive of climate change caused by humans, portending the apocalypse of the world. Hurricanes have ravaged the USA long before fossil fuels were ever used for transportation or industry.

A similar claim could be made to refute the alarms and panic about the eruptions of volcanoes. They are not a novelty after the globalists claims of the last 60 years. What about some of the startling predictions?

In early May of this year, an IPBES from the UN predicted the potential loss of 1 million species since the extinction rate has accelerated in the last 10 million years. This is not the first prediction for the loss of species. In fact, in 1970, S. Dillon Ripley of the Smithsonian Institution predicted a loss of 75%-80% of all animal species before 1995. It did not happen. In 1979, Norman Myers, a biologist at Oxford University, predicted a loss of 25% of all species by 2000. It did not happen.

Some people are holding funerals for the glaciers that are disappearing. Swiss dressed in mourning black held a funeral complete with speeches and a wreath-laying ceremony for The Pizol in the Glarus Alps of northeastern Switzerland. Ironically, according to Matthias Huss, a glaciologist, since 1850, more than 500 glaciers have disappeared in Switzerland. Iceland also held a funeral for a lost glacier in August, 2019.

But, in 2016, a NASA study reported that 90% of the world’s glaciers are growing. The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) reported that since 2010, the sea ice areas of the Arctic have been growing. Despite the evidence of greater ice masses, since 2017, at least six polar research ships have had to abandon their expeditions at both poles due to thick ice impeding their travel. Some call this stupidity—repeating the same practice with different results expected. Others would call it Karma.

Apparently, the data have not been able to provide a definitive answer for scientists and glaciologists. Lunacy does seem to be an apropos term to describe the manifestations of 21st century alarmists. Let’s concern a couple of examples.

In mid-September of this year, an allegedly Christian seminary, the Union Theological Seminary, held a chapel service for Christians to confess their climate sins to plants. The hysteria of paganism and syncretism has entered religious institutions, calling traditional Christian theology “deplorable.” Even Pope Francis instructed the masses to “obey the United Nations.” The UN’s adherence to the climate change agenda is celebrated in late September in New York.

At Creation, God (Genesis 1:28) directed mankind to dominate the world and all that He created. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Good stewards believe that God created everything for good and as elements for mankind to employ in daily life. That would also include fossil fuels. Recently, the alarmists held a protest in Washington, D.C. While the protestors may consider their event successful, just consider how ridiculous it was to cause gridlock and increased carbon emissions.

Another progressive environmentalist solution is to “Don’t eat cows; Eat the Rich!” Yes, cannibalism is part of the green deal’s remedy for climate change. Yet, at the Iowa Polk County Steak Fry in mid-September, 17 Democrat presidential candidates grilled 10,500 steaks/burgers and 1000 vegan burgers.

At the UN, Greta Thunberg and 15 kids filed a lawsuit against 5 countries (Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey) for excessive carbon emissions. They did not include China in the lawsuit even though China is responsible for approximately a third of the carbon emissions in the world. These young people are telling the world leaders that they are more informed than scientists and world leaders and that they will hold the world leaders accountable for their future. It is more likely that they have been indoctrinated more than educated about nature.

I agree. “Instead of frightening young people with alarmist hyperbole that the world is ending, it would be better to offer them something truly constructive, such as an education.” If their interest in the future is genuine, then an informed mentor and classroom teacher could provide the accurate information—even from both extremes—and allow these kids to study and investigate and search for a real answer for becoming good stewards of the world instead of making unfounded claims and outrageous threats for actions that do not fit into their prescription for curing all the ills of the world through taxation and restriction of thought.

If the concerns were really about climate change and pollution, the countries under attack would be China, Mongolia, Botswana, Russia, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, and the UAE because they are the nations that are producing the man-made pollution. However, the activists are attacking the USA. The goal is to destroy this civilization and turn all control over to the globalists. The real story is about politics, power, control, social engineering, lies and deceit.

God help us all!

God help the young to learn and to not fall as innocent victims to the lies of those who seek to destroy those who seek to follow God’s commands to care for His Creation and know that they will be accountable to Him alone at the End of Time.

President Trump’s marathon political rally ran the gamut of emotions tonight. The word from the MSM was that it was a vitriolic speech. The MSM rightly noted that President Trump reserved his harshest words for Ilhan Omar, Joe and Hunter Biden.

I can’t dispute that this 102-minute speech was filled with red meat for the partisans, of which I’m one. Of Omar, President Trump asked “How the hell did that happen?” I’m sure lots of people wonder what they did that they deserve that. Of Democrat leadership, President Trump called them “Chuck and Nancy”, sarcastically adding that they’re “2 beauties.” Isn’t that a fact.

At one point, President Trump brought Officer Robert Kroll up onto the stage, to the enthusiastic approval of the audience. Later, Lt. Kroll appeared on Shannon Bream’s Fox News @ Night program:

Let’s be clear about this. The Trump campaign is going all-in with Minnesota. They came close with a shoestring budget. This time, Campaign Manager Brad Parscale announced that Republicans will spend tons of money to flip Minnesota:

The Trump/RNC team already have 20 paid staff in Minnesota. Parscale anticipates a full-time paid staff of almost 100 by the time the parties’ national conventions happen. Based on what I saw at last night’s Trump rally, Minnesota Republicans have never been this excited and motivated. Minnesota Republicans want to flip Minnesota this time. I think that’s definitely possible. President Trump also hit the hot-button issue of the Somali Refugee Resettlement issue:

“For many years, leaders in Washington brought large numbers of refugees to your state from Somalia without considering the impact on schools and communities and taxpayers. I promised you that as president I would give local communities a greater say in refugee policy and put in place enhanced vetting and responsible immigration control. And I’ve done that,” Trump said, touting a reduction of refugee settlement by 85% since taking office and his “travel ban” on certain Muslim-majority countries.

This isn’t just about keeping a campaign promise, which is a significant accomplishment. It’s about imposing accountability on the State Department and organizations that use the program as a cash cow. It also refutes the things that St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis told Councilman Jeff Johnson. This proves that Councilman Johnson is right.

Predictably, the haters, aka anarchists, aka #BlackLivesMatter and Antifa, were out causing trouble:

Despite their antics, the rally was a huge success. All of the estimates I heard last night put the combined crowd at almost 50,000 people. The campaign announced that they got almost 100,000 requests for tickets to last night’s rally.

DFL Chairman Ken Martin put out this dishonest statement after the rally:

“Tonight Donald Trump’s rally was all about Donald Trump , just like his Presidency. No talk about policy, no talk about his vision for America, no talk about what he would do to improve the lives of Americans. Just a bunch of attacks, deflection, and stroking the egos of the blindly-loyal Republican elected officials and candidates who have clearly put their oath to Trump ahead of the oath they took to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America. To paraphrase the late great Molly Ivins: Trump’s speech tonight was much better in the original German.

Despite Chairman Martin’s dishonesty, President Trump talked about the progress being made building the wall, the improvements already made in the refugee resettlement program, bringing troops home from the Middle East, cutting regulations that have produced the energy boom and providing veterans health care choice. Other than those substantive improvements, Chairman Martin is right.

Thus far, all the ‘testimony’ taken by the House Intel Committee has been taken behind closed doors. Thus far, Schiff’s Democrats have leaked Chairman-approved portions of the testimony. Thus far, Chairman Schiff has refused to publish the full transcript of any of the testifiers’ testimony.

By contrast, President Trump released the transcript of his call with Ukraine President Zelenskyy. By contrast, President Trump released all 9 pages of the informant’s complaint. By contrast, President Trump released the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion.

To summarize, President Trump has specialized in transparency while Democrats have specialized in leaking and secrecy. That’s before talking about the Democrats’ attempts to hide the identity of the whistleblower. Speaker Pelosi has frequently talked about protecting the Constitution from President Trump, which is a joke. The Constitution requires that a defendant be allowed to confront his accuser. This isn’t a suggestion. This isn’t proper etiquette. It’s required.

Schiff’s Democrats don’t want that to happen, perhaps because the Democrats’ faux whistleblower is compromised:

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson told lawmakers last week that the whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump and Ukraine has set off an impeachment inquiry previously had “some type of professional relationship” with one of the 2020 Democratic candidates, the Washington Examiner first reported and Axios’ Jonathan Swan has confirmed.

This isn’t a little detail. By itself, it demolishes the Democrats’ faux whistleblower. Let’s put it this way. If Trey Gowdy or John Ratcliffe cross-examined this political operative in public, that operative’s reputation would be nonexistent within 10 minutes. This faux impeachment inquiry would be on life support at best.

Perhaps that explains why Schiff’s Democrats have been so secretive. If the Democrats’ witnesses have been that pathetic, I wouldn’t want their witnesses’ testimony made public either. Then again, if that’s what I had to work with, I’d end the inquiry before I got embarrassed in public.

It’s time for Democrats to admit that they don’t have any evidence that President Trump has done anything worthy of impeachment. Their whistleblower/political operative isn’t credible. The transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call is a major nothingburger. The Mueller report was a much-anticipated dud.

To the Democrats: the first call to impeach Trump came the day after he was elected. There was another call for his impeachment in December, 2016. There have been calls for President Trump’s impeachment virtually every month since then. Give it up. President Trump has been under investigation his entire presidency. Thus far, the best investigators in the US haven’t found anything.

Perhaps, you should take that as a hint that there’s nothing there.

When it comes to explaining the House proceedings currently known as an impeachment inquiry, I trust Andy McCarthy’s insights. When it comes to legal matters, Andy’s insights should be sought because he’s a legal genius. This article is another masterpiece by Mr. McCarthy. As is always the case with Mr. McCarthy, it’s a lengthy read but it’s totally worth it.

For instance, McCarthy starts by saying this:

The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It’s right there in black-and-white: In article I, section 2, clause 5, our Constitution vests the entirety of the power to call for removal of the president of the United States in a single body — the House. Not in the Speaker of the House. In the House of Representatives. The institution, not one of its members.

To be sure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a very powerful government official: second in the line of succession to the presidency; arguably, the most powerful member of Congress. She wields decisive influence on the business of her chamber. She even has the power to induce the House to vote on whether to conduct an impeachment inquiry. But she does not have the power to impeach on her own.

In other words, what Pelosi, Schiff, Cummings, et al, have been calling an official impeachment inquiry isn’t an official impeachment inquiry until the House of Representatives votes, as an institution, the impeachment inquiry isn’t official. Or, to use Mr. McCarthy’s words, “In point of fact, the House has no impeachment inquiry; congressional Democrats have an impeachment political campaign.”

That’s why McCarthy makes this statement:

This exhibition includes strident letters from a cabal of committee chairs, all Democrats, falsely claiming that a refusal by Trump-administration officials to comply with their demands for information and testimony “shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.”

Next, McCarthy explains the definition of obstruction:

Obstruction happens when there is tampering with documents or witnesses.

He also explains what obstruction isn’t:

Presumptively, a person who refuses to comply with a lawful document demand is not tampering with the documents; to the contrary, the subpoena recipient is asserting a legal claim of privilege that excuses compliance. If I am a lawyer, for example, and a congressional committee subpoenas notes from my meeting with a client, my refusal to surrender the notes is not an obstruction of the House’s investigation. It is an assertion that the attorney–client privilege justifies my withholding of confidential communications. If I am right about that, the legal wrong is Congress’s issuance of a subpoena, not my refusal to honor it.

I won’t pretend to be the legal scholar that Mr. McCarthy is. I’ll just point you in his direction, then tell you that listening to him instead of Ms. Pelosi, Chairman Schiff or DFL Party Chair Ken Martin is a wise decision.

I’ll leave you with this parting thought:

The Framers designed impeachment as a political remedy, not a legal one. I argued not that President Obama was a bad person but that he was behaving as the kind of chief executive the Framers feared — i.e., defying, in several ways, the separation-of-powers structure of the Constitution. Nevertheless, because impeachment is political, it is not enough to have acts that arguably qualify as impeachable abuses of power; there must also be a public consensus that gives Congress the political will to remove the president from power.

It’s difficult figuring out whether DFL operative Mark Jaede, who moonlights as a non-teaching professor at St. Cloud State when he isn’t an activist, is dishonest or if he’s just stupid. It could go either direction. Both options have significant proof that would prove that option correct. I’m sitting at this point because Prof. Jaede’s comment seems more along the lines of DFL talking points than outright stupidity.

The situation starts with Dan Johnson’s monthly column in the SC Times. Johnson is the chairman of the Benton County Republican Party. This month, Johnson’s column was about the Democrats’ impeachment “witch hunt.” Johnson’s column was well-researched, which meant that comments needed to be either condescending or snarky. Here’s the comment that Prof. Jaede left:

Trump asked a foreign leader for a “favor” – going after a political rival. Despite all the Republican attempts at denial, that is corruption. We should hardly be surprised that Trump cannot recognize his own corruption and thinks the call was “perfect.”

I wrote about the transcript in this post. The word “favor” is only used once in the transcript. Here’s how it was used:

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your weal thy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people.

That’s the transcript published on the White House’s website. As any student would notice, the favor wasn’t to go after one of President Trump’s political rivals, least of all Joe Biden. If Jaede thinks Trump needs foreign dirt to take down Biden (or any potential Democrat rival, then he’s employing wishful thinking. There isn’t a Democrat who can beat Trump this year.)

The Democrats’ spin notwithstanding, the truth is that asking a foreign leader to help get to the bottom of the hacking of the DNC’s server is anything except corruption. If it’s anything, it’s President Trump taking election security seriously. It’s getting difficult to take Prof. Jaede seriously. He’s a professor who, at least until this year, didn’t teach. His time was mostly spent being an activist. Then again, SCSU isn’t that bright if they’re paying him not to teach.

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi will need a different point person for impeachment. that’s because Chairman Schiff just got caught lying about the whistleblower:

The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

That’s entirely different than what he told the crew of Morning Joe:

Early in the interview, Chairman Schiff told Sam Stein that “We have not spoken directly with the whistle-blower. We would like to but I’m sure that the whistle-blower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the Inspector General or the Director of National Intelligence.”

Mr. Schiff, this is the second time in the past 2 weeks where you’ve gotten caught lying. You first said that you haven’t spoken with the whistleblower. Now the NYTimes reports that you “learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer” filed an official complaint. I’m inclined to believe that you knew about this before the whistleblower went public because you said some things that mirrored things that the whistleblower said in his/her complaint.

It’s important to remember that this isn’t the first time that Schiff lived up to his nickname of Shiffty Schiff. At last week’s hearing with Acting Director of the DNI Joseph Maguire, Schiff made up an entire portion of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy:

Considering how frequently Chairman Schiff has gotten caught lying, shouldn’t he be dismissed by Speaker Pelosi as the person in charge of impeachment? With an issue as important and sensitive as impeachment, we need someone trustworthy steering the ship. That description doesn’t fit Chairman ‘Shiffty’ Schiff. It’s important to remember that Schiff also is famous for saying early in the Trump administration that he had evidence that was stronger than circumstantial evidence but that wasn’t direct evidence. We’re still waiting to see that.

Greg Jarrett’s op-ed is must reading if you want to know the difference between the Democrats’ definition of impeachment and the Constitution’s definition of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment as an act of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Anything less than that is not an impeachable offense. Were it otherwise, those who authored that esteemed document would have so stated.

Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

This was precisely what our framers did not intend. This is what they feared. They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Republicans better get their act together on this. Democrats have declared war on President Trump and Republicans. Senate Republicans better prepare for warfare. They should opt to shut down the trial, if the House of Representatives approves articles of impeachment.

Here’s why: Nothing that President Trump has done comes close to meeting the constitutional test of “treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.” In fact, President Trump hasn’t come close to committing a crime, much less a high crime. When Bill Clinton was impeached, a grand jury identified a series of felonies that he’d committed.

Let’s remember that, in the end, President Clinton paid Paula Jones a small ton of money and surrendered his law license in Arkansas. He wouldn’t have had to do those things if he hadn’t initially been indicted.

Mentioning Biden’s name and Biden’s son’s name in the phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy wasn’t the best thing to do but it doesn’t come close to a high crime. That isn’t just my opinion. That’s Alan Dershowitz’s opinion, too.

The charade may eventually succeed in the House, where Democrats holds a comfortable advantage and a simple majority is all that is needed to impeach. But conviction in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate will fail miserably because a two-thirds majority is constitutionally required.

This was the wisdom of the framers. They knew that unscrupulous politicians would inevitably try to subvert the democratic process for purely political reasons. The framers made it exceedingly difficult for such politicians to achieve that end.

I wrote about this recently because I’m convinced that governments shouldn’t be overthrown for “light and transient causes” any more than presidents should be impeached for light and transient causes. This isn’t a joke. This is serious stuff.

If, in addition to meddling, Ukraine possesses evidence that the former vice president’s bragging about a “quid pro quo” was a corrupt act intended to benefit his son by extorting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds, it is incumbent on Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate. Biden isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president. Hillary Clinton coveted such a card, and it should never happen again.

Vice President Biden shouldn’t get that get-out-of-jail-free card because nobody is above the law, not even former vice presidents. This video sums things up nicely:

Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma Holdings and paid $83,000 a month for 5 years. What’s worse is that he didn’t have any expertise in the energy industry or in the Ukraine. Then, when investigators started checking out potential corruption, Vice President Biden threatened to pull $1,000,000,000 in loan guarantees from Burisma if Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, wasn’t fired.

Impeachment is a political act because it involves the political branches of government. That being said, it also uses judicial principles if done properly. If articles of impeachment are passed on a straight party-line vote, Republicans should essentially throw the case out for not fitting the constitutional definition of impeachment.

Until this morning, I thought that the Senate had a constitutional obligation to hold a trial if the House approved articles of impeachment. At this point, I’m not sure of that anymore. Included in David Catron’s article is this quote from “Keith E. Whittington, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University.”

Prof. Whittington is quoted as saying “The Senate could entertain a motion to dismiss the charges at the outset of a trial on the grounds that the allegations did not meet the constitutional standard of impeachable offenses, and a majority of the Senate could send the House packing without ever hearing a witness or seeing evidence. If a majority of the senators thought the House was abusing the impeachment power … there is no reason why the Senate would have to pay obeisance to the House by going through the motions of a pointless trial.”

When Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, a trial was held in the Senate. At the time, then-Sen. Tom Harkin noted that senators were both judge and jury. Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled that Sen. Harkin was right.

If senators have judicial authorities in an impeachment trial, why can’t they dismiss the case? If I had a $100 bill for each time I’ve heard it said that impeachment is whatever Congress says it is, I’d be semi-wealthy. If the House has the authority to say that a president’s actions are an impeachable offense, why shouldn’t the Senate have the authority to rule otherwise? I’ve seen nothing in the Constitution that states the House and Senate must agree.

In fact, the Constitution’s text suggests the opposite. If the Senate was obligated to agree with the House, there wouldn’t be a need for a Senate trial. If the Constitution said that, the Senate trial in those circumstances would be a rubberstamp. I’m certain that isn’t what the men who wrote the Constitution had in mind since they steadfastly insisted on a system of checks and balances.

If the Senate slapped down the House’s articles of impeachment on the grounds that they thought didn’t fit the Constitution’s requirements of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, that’s a legitimate verdict. I can’t picture the Supreme Court overturning that verdict. I’m betting that they wouldn’t want to touch it.

It’s difficult to picture anyone on Capitol Hill taking impeachment seriously, especially when it starts with this clown show:

What’s frightening is that Schiff is the more competent one between he and Nadler. In either case, the Senate should vote to drop the case on the grounds that it doesn’t rise to the constitutional requirements.