Archive for the ‘Impeachment’ Category

Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi have accused President Trump of retaliating against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Lt. Col. Vindman testified against President Trump during Schiff’s public impeachment hearings.

What Pelosi and Schiff intentionally omit is the fact that Lt. Col. Vindman sidestepped his chain of command by talking to the NSC Counsel rather than talking to his boss, “Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.” Pelosi and Schiff intentionally omitted the fact that Jennifer Williams, who also listened in on the call, didn’t find anything inappropriate with the call that alarmed Lt. Col. Vindman. Check out John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Ms. Williams and Lt. Col. Vindman:

Predictably, there’s much more to this story than what Pelosi and Schiff are claiming. This isn’t retaliation. This is President Trump reassigning a disgruntled employee with a habit of ignoring his chain of command reporting responsibilities. For all his military heroics, Lt. Col. Vindman had a habit of insubordination and mutiny. That’s hardly a model employee.

During the hearings in November, his boss, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs, said that multiple other officials had cast doubt on Vindman’s judgment. Morrison said those colleagues had expressed concerns about whether Vindman had leaked information and confirmed that Vindman didn’t keep him “in the loop at all times.” Vindman also didn’t immediately speak to Morrison about his concerns about the July 25 phone call, Morrison said during the hearings.

Lt. Col. Vindman was thought to have been one of the NSC’s leakers. A person who’s insubordinate and who leaks hasn’t earned the right to serve on the NSC. Follow this link for more on the truth on Lt. Col. Vindman.

Sunday on At Issue, Ember Reichgott-Junge had a meltdown moment when discussing President Trump’s impeachment acquittal. In a mini-rant, Reichgott-Junge said “My biggest concern about what is happening now after the State of the Union is that we have Trump unleashed and now, he is emboldened to do whatever he wants to do for the next 9 months — start investigations that have no basis, hold aid back in the districts of the legislators that worked to impeach him. I mean this man has no mores and no sense of justice at all. So my concern is what we’re going to see in the future.”

Wow. That’s as paranoid of a rant as I’ve seen in years. Let’s put what she said under the microscope, starting with “start investigations that have no basis.” That’s what the Obama administration, through Jim Comey’s FBI and the FISC, did against Carter Page. That’s what Lois Lerner did against TEA Party organizations when the IRS delayed tax-exempt status applications.

Next, where did Reichgott-Junge come up with the thought of withholding aid to districts represented by impeachment managers? Is this another paranoid fantasy of Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s?

Finally, Ms. Reichgott-Junge admits that these are her concerns. She didn’t say where her concerns came from. Were they the product of an over-active imagination? I can’t eliminate that as a possibility? Perhaps, it’s something that Democrats have done in the past? That’s definitely possible.

What’s worst about Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s rant was that Tom Hauser didn’t interrupt her. He sat there like a potted plant. He didn’t say a thing. Mr. Truth Test sat there like he didn’t disagree with her. That’s a worse performance than Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s paranoid rantings.

I expect delusional rantings from DFL politicians. Prior to this winter, I’d expected more from Hauser. This winter, though, Hauser’s bias-proofing has slipped.

In this post, Jeff Dunetz laid out why Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reassigned to the Pentagon after President Trump was acquitted. John Kirby didn’t explain what happened to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Kirby’s CNN op-ed. This isn’t surprising. Jeff is a man of integrity. Kirby hangs around with Deep Staters.

Kirby wrote “[Lt. Col.] Vindman did his duty by not only testifying about the infamous July 25, 2019 White House phone call, in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Trump’s leading 2020 rival Joe Biden, Burisma (the Ukrainian energy company that had hired Hunter Biden), and the 2016 election–while $391 million in congressionally approved military aid was being withheld.”

President Trump didn’t press President Zelenskiy “to investigate” the Bidens. The transcript, not Lt. Col. Vindman, tells what actually happened:

The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

That’s an awfully casual pressure. That’s at the top of pg. 4 so it’s hardly a priority for President Trump. Watch Rep. John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

That drives a stake through the heart of Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. At minimum, it casts doubt on Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. Let’s compare that with what’s quoted in Jeff’s article:

In November 2019 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to Reps Jordan (R-OH) and Nunes (R-CA) at Jordan’s request which among other things raised questions about Lt. Col. Vindman’s credibility, and accused him of being an insubordinate leaker and confirmed the President’s reasons for the 55-day delay in Ukraine aid were the same as the President’s public statements.

Johnson went to Ukraine as part of the U.S. delegation to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20. Vindman was part of the delegation also. In the letter, the Senator suggested that Lt. Col. Vindman may be among the government bureaucrats who aim to push back on Trump’s policies “by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office.”

Lt. Col. Vindman gives new meaning to the cliché “going above and beyond the call of duty”:

[In Sen. Johnson’s letter, he wrote that Lt. Col. Vindman] “stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, “How in the world is that even possible?”

Lt. Col. Vindman continued, saying this:

Vindman testified that an “alternative narrative” pushed by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was “inconsistent with the consensus views of the” relevant federal agencies and was “undermining the consensus policy.”

According to the Constitution, there’s only one consensus view that matters — the President’s. As I wrote in this post, “The first sentence in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution emphatically states that ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'”

In another diatribe, RAdm. Kirby wrote “No, it is not the Vindman brothers who have been disgraced by this pettiness. It is President Trump. It is not they who will be remembered for putting personal needs above national interests. The President will. And it is not they who will in years to come be forced to qualify or explain or argue the case surrounding their behavior. In a final and outrageous act of vengefulness, White House security officials escorted the Vindmans off the grounds.”

That’s BS. The Vindman twins will be celebrated by CNN as having stood up to Orange Man Bad but it’s Lt. Col. Vindman who a) went around the chain of command, b) leaked information to the press and c) tried undermining US foreign policy because the President didn’t do what Lt. Col. Vindman told him to do. That sounds more like a mutiny than doing the honorable thing. Perhaps CNN has a different definition for doing the honorable thing.

President Trump shouldn’t have been impeached for multiple reasons. First, the record brought over was the thinnest in impeachment history. That isn’t just my opinion, though I certainly agree with that statement. That’s Jonathan Turley’s opinion, too.

During his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Prof. Turley said “If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.”

At a time when the nation is doing well on multiple fronts, especially the economic front, what’s required is a stabilizing agent. The Constitution is one of those stabilizing agents. We’d be wise to include the Declaration of Independence, too. There’s a specific part of the Declaration that I’m thinking about that fits into the impeachment discussion.

The second paragraph of the Declaration starts by saying this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The colonists talk about the usurpation of rights granted to them by “Nature’s God.” They passionately believed that the British monarchy wasn’t acting in good faith. In fact, the Declaration listed their items of contention later in the document. (We’ll return to that later.) The next part of this paragraph is important. Here’s the key part:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

Adam Schiff’s Democrats should’ve thought this through before injuring our republic. Were rights being violated? Were laws being broken? What was at the heart of this impeachment?

What was at the heart of this impeachment were 2 things. Democrats hate President Trump and Democrats disagreed with President Trump’s negotiating methods. Fighting a war to end slavery is a just cause. Impeaching a president because you don’t like him or you disagree with his handling of things is destabilizing. That’s dangerous and it shouldn’t be tolerated.

Impeachment should be reserved for Nixonian things. Nixon told the FBI that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters, a violation of the protesters’ Fourth Amendment rights. Nixon told members of his staff to lie to investigators, clearly a case of obstruction of justice. These are things that rise to the level of treason or bribery.

Compared to the things that Nixon did, the things included in the Schiff-Democrat impeachment of President Trump are trivial. To emphasize the Declaration of Independence’s cautionary note, we shouldn’t impeach a president “for light and transient causes.”

In this unserious op-ed, David Axelrod complained that “For all the righteous indignation about the outcome of Wednesday’s vote, I understand the reluctance of any senator to convict an elected president and forever ban them from the ballot. And if Donald Trump truly were “chastened” by impeachment, as several of the Republican senators who voted against removing him argued, it might have made their “let the people decide” argument more compelling.”

Democrats and some swampy Republicans aren’t the brightest people. President Trump wasn’t convicted because he shouldn’t have ever gotten impeached. The process in the House will forever be part of Nancy Pelosi’s, Adam Schiff’s and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry Nadler’s tarnished legacies. Let’s remember what happened in the House. Let’s start with the most disgusting part first.

Impeachment Article 2 is the product of an infantile temper tantrum. On Sept. 24, Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was starting an official impeachment inquiry. That’s a bald-faced lie. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It gives impeachment authority to “the House of Representatives” alone, not to the speaker, not to a committee. Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton didn’t want that authority resting in the hands of a Representative or a committee of representatives. They wanted everyone to share in the accountability.

When Democrats sent out the first set of what Democrats called “compulsory subpoenas”, the House hadn’t voted to authorize any committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry. In fact, the White House Counsel’s letter to House Democrats was sent 3 weeks before the vote authorizing impeachment. Ignoring long-settled precedent, which apparently is his specialty, Adam Schiff said that any delay in complying with the subpoenas would be considered an impeachable offense. The judiciary is there to settle privilege disputes between the legislative and executive branches.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he’s the exception to that ruling. He’s wrong about that. He isn’t the exception. Patrick Philbin laid out this reasoning in response to a question.

As for Impeachment Article 1, Abuse of Power, no high crime was alleged. In fact, no crime was alleged. What’s worse, most of the testimony provided to Mr. Schiff’s committee wasn’t provided by witnesses. Most of the testimony provided was provided by people who didn’t witness anything. That’s why I consistently called them testifiers, not witnesses.

The transcript of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy is the best evidence of what was said during the call. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call. He testified, reluctantly, that the transcript was “essentially correct.” The only fact witness called during the public HPSCI hearings was US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland. Here’s his testimony:

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler totally ignored this exculpatory evidence. They ignored this and other exculpatory evidence multiple times each. In a real court with rules of evidence, this wouldn’t have gotten to trial because the Democrats’ case had more holes than Swiss cheese. It would’ve gotten no-billed at the grand jury.

This isn’t surprising. Adam Schiff couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. Here’s the first of Schiff’s ‘golden oldies’:

When the Mueller Report came out, the evidence that Schiff allegedly saw wasn’t found. Here’s another of his biggest lies:

Axelrod also wrote this:

Even without the witnesses and documents Trump denied them, the House managers delivered a devastating circumstantial case that the President used the levers of his office to pressure Ukraine.

Hearsay testimony isn’t admissible in a real court, with a few exceptions, and Axelrod knows it. Then Axelrod said this:

He was, as Sen. Mitt Romney said in his courageous dissent from partisan orthodoxy, “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

This is the Mitt Romney that Axelrod accused of being a sexist who hated women. This is the Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign accused of tying the family pet to the roof of their vehicle. Forgive me if I don’t get a sense of sincerity with his statements about Romney.

President Trump isn’t chastened. “He’s triumphant.” He’s triumphant because a team of liars accused him of abusing his power. He’s triumphant because Democrats didn’t present evidence proving that allegation. Democrats lost because 30 allegations still doesn’t equal 1 piece of proof. Democrats lost because 5 allegations repeated 20 times each isn’t proof either.

Axelrod is still the same corrupt weasel that worked for President Obama. Good riddance.

We’ve all heard the cliché “too clever by half.” That applies to people who overthink things. What happens when people are too stupid to realize that they’re destroying themselves? There aren’t any clichés to fall back on so I created one. Democrats are too stupid by three-fourths.

Fresh off their thumping at the hands of President Trump’s legal team, Democrats Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are thinking about the self-immolation option by subpoenaing John Bolton to testify. What smart person thinks that’s a good idea? Apparently, there aren’t any smart Democrats in the House.

Let’s be blunt about something obvious. It’s been a terrible week for Democrats. Democrats failed at basic math when they couldn’t count after wrapping up the Iowa Caucuses. (They still haven’t gotten it right and it’s Friday.) During President Trump’s SOTU Address, Democrats couldn’t cheer for unprecedented prosperity for women and minority communities. What’s worst is that Ms. Pelosi thought it’d play well to rip up her copy of President Trump’s SOTU speech in front of the cameras:

I introduce you to the personification of too stupid by three-fourths. Her name is Nancy Pelosi. It could’ve just as easily have been Adam Schiff. Why think that Pelosi’s Democrats or Sen. Schumer’s shills are capable of anything beyond 2+2 = 4?

Senate Democrats aren’t any better. There wasn’t a Senate Democrat who voted against Article 2. Here’s what Article 2 says:

“In the history of the republic,” it reads, “no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.'”

The first set of compulsory subpoenas were sent out without House authorization. That’s why they were contested in court. President Trump doesn’t lose his right to contest subpoenas just because the House is intent on impeaching him. In other words, Senate Democrats, including many who are lawyers, think that following the Constitution’s path is unconstitutional. How stupid is that? These Democrats aren’t too bright. That’s why we need to throw them out en masse this November.

Apparently, Mitt Romney’s hatred of President Trump runs deep and cold. Today, Romney adopted the Democrats’ talking points, saying “What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values.”

Only an idiot or a liar could reach that conclusion. Mitt isn’t an idiot. Another thing he isn’t is a Republican. He’s a sanctimonious jackass. When Romney votes to convict President Trump, he’ll become the only Republican to vote with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, AOC and Ilhan Omar. That isn’t my definition of a Republican.

In a speech from the Senate floor, Romney invoked his religion, saying “As a senator juror, I swore a oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am,” Romney said, before getting choked up and taking a pause. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party would be the most difficult decision I have ever made. What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values, corrupting an election to keep oneself in office – is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”

I’m tired of hearing that President Trump “pressured” President Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. On 3 separate occasions, President Zelenskiy has stated that he wasn’t pressured. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko agreed with President Zelenskiy. If Romney wanted to “exercise impartial justice”, the first step in that exercise is to consider the evidence. The evidence is clear. The only people accusing President Trump of pressuring Ukraine are the impeachment managers and the fake whistleblower. Since the whistleblower never testified and was never mentioned by the impeachment managers, his statements are irrelevant.

President Zelenskiy was quoted by President Trump’s defense team. His statements weren’t questioned. That turns President Zelenskiy’s statements into evidence.

Sen. Romney’s hatred of President Trump hasn’t been hidden. Now he’s exposed himself as hating President Trump so much that he’s willing to stab President Trump in the back without a shred of evidence. When he’s up for re-election, count me in for contributing to his primary opponent.

I expect President Trump’s State of the Union Address, aka SOTU, to focus mostly on his accomplishments. That part should take up an hour of his speech. Further, I expect him to highlight the results of his criminal justice reform. Last year, he highlighted Alice Johnson from the First Lady’s box:

This year, Alice was featured in this Super Bowl ad:

It’s inevitable that President Trump’s SOTU Address will include a lengthy conversation about how his economic policies are leading a blue collar boom. That will let him talk about blue collar workers’ rising wages. It’ll start with him touting the lowest unemployment rates amongst minorities and women. Consider that portion of the speech to be the meat-and-potatoes section of the speech. Consider the Alice Johnson-criminal justice reform part of the speech the heart-and-soul section of the speech.

An election year SOTU isn’t complete without the President laying out his vision for his second term. That portion of the speech will talk about infrastructure, finishing the wall, cleaning up the antiquated immigration laws and additional middle class tax cuts, including making these tax cuts permanent.

I hope President Trump spends some time criticizing House Democrats for their hyperpartisan impeachment inquiry. I hope he scolds House Democrats for impeaching him for exercising his constitutional right to executive privilege. I hope he scolds them for not giving him the right to call witnesses during the House impeachment hearings. I hope he finishes that section by lecturing House Democrats for spending 3+ years on impeaching him rather than working with him on the people’s business.

Finally, I hope he finishes the SOTU by talking directly to the American people, essentially saying ‘You sent me here to drain the swamp, fix the economy, build the wall and make America great again. We’ve accomplished a lot but we’ve still got work to do. To finish that task, I need a congress that will work with me, not a congress that will fight me and investigate me.’

That won’t sit well with the nattering nabobs of negativism found throughout the Swamp. That’s ok. The Swamp isn’t his constituency. The American people are his constituents. That’s who this SOTU Address should address.

NBC News just made a stunning admission about impeachment when it said “American soap operas are not popular these days. And yet, the Senate trial to remove President Donald Trump from office is currently garnering fewer viewers than the soaps.” This isn’t surprising to most Americans. The Democrats’ partisan impeachment was seen as a travesty by fair-minded people.

Another contributing factor to the terrible ratings is the lack of star power on the House Democrats’ team of impeachment managers. When Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are the ‘star’ prosecutors, people will tune out. Couple that with 3 days of the Democrats repeating the same allegations over and over and over again and you have the makings of something exceptionally boring.

The good news is that this nightmare will finish on Wednesday:

The bad news is that the next round of impeachment is right around the corner:

The only thing that will prevent Democrats from attempting another impeachment is massive amounts of public pressure in the form of telling Pelosi that another round of impeachment will cost her the Speaker’s Gavel. It will require the American people telling Angie Craig and Dean Phillips that they’ll be one-term wonders if they support another round of impeachment. The NRSC and other campaign committees and PACs should spend boatloads of campaign cash into the 30 Trump districts where Democrats currently serve. It’s time to let them know there’s a steep price to pay for ignoring the people’s business while pursuing impeachment.

Let’s highlight the fact that Adam Schiff is a total liar. In March, 2017, he told Chuck Todd that he’d seen evidence “stronger than circumstantial” that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. This fall, he read into the congressional record a mythical conversation between President Trump and President Zelenskiy.

Do Democrats really want to hitch their wagon to Schiff’s star? Or to Jerry Nadler’s star? The Democrats’ other problem is that anyone with firsthand knowledge of anything is likely to be covered by executive privilege. Does Schiff think that he can get away with another impeachment investigation without giving the White House Counsel’s Office access to cross-examining Schiff’s witnesses? Does Schiff think that these vulnerable freshman Democrats will want to vote for starting another impeachment inquiry?

Last time, Speaker Pelosi coerced vulnerable freshmen into voting for initiating the impeachment investigation by holding USMCA over their head. USMCA is now the law of the land. Does anyone seriously think that those freshmen Democrats will willingly vote to end their political careers?

The only way to stop this impeachment charade is by vanquishing 50+ Democrats from the House this November. If Democrats still have gavels, we’ll keep getting one round of impeachment after another. It’s that simple.

Years ago, I coined a phrase about Democrats. In that phrase, I said that “Democrats always do the right thing — when it’s the only option left.” That cliché rang true to me when I saw Jason Lewis’s statement calling on Tina Smith “to do right thing for a change and acquit President Trump.” There’s a better chance of the Devil handing out figure skates in Hell this weekend than there is of Tina Smith doing the right thing.

Don’t mistake what I’m saying. It’s important (and right) for Jason to call Tina Smith out on this. Several times this past week, she’s stood right behind Sen. Schumer at his press conferences. How appropriate for Sen. Schumer’s shill. Sen. Smith is Sen. Schumer’s shill. She’s never voted against Sen. Schumer on anything. Why think that she’ll suddenly do the right thing? That’s as foolish as thinking that you’ll be ok taunting a cobra with quick movements.

It’s just the nature of the beast that Democrats won’t do the right thing. Tina Smith is a creature of the Resistance. She doesn’t dare cross Resistance activists. The Resist Movement activists are absolutists and anarchists. Here’s Jason Lewis’s statement in full:

The question facing Minnesota’s voters is whether they way to waste their vote on a do-nothing placeholder Democrat or whether they’d prefer a get-big-things-done senator with a history of tackling problems while protecting our constitutional rights. I’ve watched Jason Lewis in action. From a policy standpoint, he’s a man of stature while Tina Smith is a lightweight who does as she’s told by Sen. Schumer.

Electing Jason Lewis would mean having a senator who is part of the majority getting important things done. Re-electing Tina Smith means having a senator who will be in the minority for the next term while getting nothing done. Jason Lewis already voted for the Trump-GOP tax cuts that’ve lifted the economy, made the US energy independent while rebuilding the military.

In her time in office, Tina Smith voted against highly qualified judges and justices, voted against energy independence and wasn’t impartial as she claimed:

“Even in the Clinton impeachment, which was a pretty partisan time, the Democrats and the Republicans came together to agree on rules that were bipartisan, nonpartisan, and that is not happening here, which I think is a detriment to the overall fairness of the trial,” Smith said.

It’s obvious that Tina Smith wasn’t impartial before the trial started. She voted for each one of Sen. Schumer’s amendments the first Tuesday night of the impeachment trial. Each of those amendments was designed to force vulnerable Republicans to cast difficult votes.

After that night of voting, there’s no question whether Tina Smith is a partisan hack. That night of voting was about tipping control of the Senate to a Democrat majority and nothing more. That isn’t the definition of “overall fairness.”

On a totally different front, Tina Smith apparently won’t stand with the hard-working people of the Iron Range. Apparently, she’d rather team with Betty McCollum in preventing prosperity on the Iron Range: