Democrats Weaponize the 1st Lady Against Them

Can’t anybody play this game?

Casey Stengel

All Democrats had to do was not be crazy

Glenn Reynolds

OK so you’re the Democrats and you have a panel of law professors to start your impeachment panel in the house. You’re looking to create a few sound bites that you can spread to bolster the argument for impeachment legally or at the very least generate a few memorable lines.

What is it that you’re not looking to do? Weaponize the 1st Lady against you by bringing her 13 year old son into your hits on the President.

That’s going to play so well to the suburban moms that supposedly are not fans of Trump isn’t it?

That’s the Problem with being a Democrat Professor Living in a Liberal Bubble once you step out of that bubble you find that there is a real world that doesn’t play by your rules.

And frankly a snide apology might bring smiles to the left Twitter reverse iceberg but it’s not going to help their cause.

I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.

Amazing, simply amazing.

Impeachment is Happening Here’s how it will likely go

[Watching French Calvary deploy in front of them] Goodyear: What about it John Henry?

John Henry Thomas: Looks like we ourselves got mixed up in somebody’s else’s war.

Christian: Yeah Sure does.

Short Grub: What are we going to do now?

John Henry Thomas: Well that’s already been decided.

The Undefeated 1969

Because of the falling polls and the Wile-E-Coyote nature of impeachment there has been some speculation concerning if Democrats will in fact hold an impeachment vote and instead settle for censure.

Don’t count on it.

To be sure they will give it their best shot, in fact I suspect that the purpose of the scholarly witnesses that are going to be called before the judiciary committee’s primary job is not to justify impeachment but to provide the cover necessary for the Democrat votes against it.

Constitutionally Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one and “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not defined so, it doesn’t matter if the best the Democrats can do is prove that Donald Trump had a nose bleed on the White House carpet, under the rules the Democrats have the right to impeach him for that if they they want.

Nancy Pelosi knows and understands this which is why she tried so hard to avoid open impeachment, particularly after the Mueller goose egg. But once the process had begun she understands that there is no turning back politically. The question is only the best way to do it.

If the Schiff hearings had moved public opinion it would be easy. She might have grabbed a republican vote or two and presented it , with the media’s help, this as a solemn decision to remove a corrupt leader.

But without limited public support, a booming economy, polls showing that minorities that are vital to the Democrat election plans moving toward Trump she is down to playing the best hand she has in the hopes that the GOP in general or the President in particular make a mistake.

Her best hand is to make the best possible case for “censure” and pol test it among Democrat activists. If somehow after the hearings this week poll results tell them they’ve convinced enough democrat fire-eaters that censure is a valid alternative to impeachment (very unlikely) she will go full bore on a cencure vote with every Democrat and perhaps even a stray republican will take place and the left will declare victory.

This would be the 2nd best case for the Democrats and the 2nd least likely which is to say it ain’t gonna happen because while it’s the party’s smartest move it requires woke activists in the party to see reason and reality.

Good luck there.

Of course there is always the remote possibility that the Democrats actually find something that IS impeachable enough to convince the public it’s worth doing or that the White House does something so egregious as to change the polling on impeachment. That’s the best case scenario for the left and the least likely for the reasons.

  1. If the Democrat/Left/Deep State HAD something of this nature, they would have produced it, or leaked it over the last three years
  2. All the evidence so far suggests that the only impeachable acts that have taken place were the previous administrations attempts to corrupt this election, too much deep state digging might uncover this fact.
  3. President Trump has demonstrated that however the left might paint him, he’s much too savvy to make that kind of mistake.

With God all things are of course possible and if this miracle falls into Nancy Pelosi’s lap she will happily accept it but she’s smart enough to not count on it.

Finally there is the chance that enough Democrats will rebel to force her to abandon impeachment although rather than risk a vote that fails. This isn’t going to happen either. It would be the most destructive result for the left and would practically invite primary opponents or at worst 3rd party challengers on an “Impeach Now!” platform. The Damage to the left from such a result would be worse than anything else.

So what WILL happen? Here is the sequence:

  1. Dems make their best case for censure backed up by their report and the scholars who give them cover for it.
  2. Swing state Dems argue strongly for censure saying that this is where the evidence has taken them.
  3. Pelosi after confirming that the fire-eaters will not settle for censure holds the impeachment vote and passes it with 219 Democrats, not a single one from a swing district. Said vote is delayed as long as feasible to discourage primaries from the left on Swing democrats voting “No”.
  4. Democrats do their best to beg borrow or steal enough votes to keep Election 2020 from becoming an electoral disaster and/or hope some event (say Ginsberg’s death) takes place that galvanizes Democrats to the point where they can pull it off.

This is how I see it happening, it’s basically their 2012 Obamacare strategy which was able to work because:

  1. Black votes couldn’t bear the thought of the 1st black president failing to be re-elected
  2. Race trumped faith among Black Christians
  3. The GOP managed to nominate the weakest candidate in their field one that not had pushed for a state version of Obamacare (that I’m still living under) but was unwilling or unable to fight back against anyone but his own base.

Alas for them this time they have a candidate that not only has a strong economy and has proactively reached out to minority Democrat voters but one that is willing to fight back relentlessly.

Bottom line, the Democrats have dealt themselves a bad hand but will play it out the best they can and hope they get lucky. That’s the smartest political move they have left and whatever else you might say about Nancy Pelosi, you can count on her to play the best hand she has, with the media’s help of course.

Update: After Wednesday’s clown car weaponizing the 1st Lady Pelosi has apparently decided to fast track this to minimize the chance of her team providing any more ad material for the GOP in the hearings.

She wants this over and done.

Trump Did as much to earn Impeachment as Obama Did to Earn the Nobel

While the Washington Post’s assessment of Barack Obama as a conservative is nonsense there is in fact one thing he and Donald Trump had in common.

Both were, as Byron York reported, judged before they did a thing.

York Oct 2009:

This morning on MSNBC, presidential adviser David Axelrod was at pains to explain how his boss could possibly deserve this prize. “I think it’s an affirmation by the Nobel committee that the things he’s been working on and talking about around the world are important for humanity.”

Incredibly, “just words” appear to have been good enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Byron York Nov 2019

It’s worth noting that the deadline for being nominated for the Nobel was twelve days into Obama’s presidency so unless he was nominated before he took office it took 11 days less for Donald Trump to be considered worth of impeachment in office then it took Barack Obama to be considered worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize

or to put it another way:

Barack Obama Won the Nobel for not being George W Bush

Donald Trump was targeted for impeachment for not being Hillary Clinton.

That’s what it comes down to.

To ensure victory next year the Republicans desperately need to learn how to fight

The Republican party on a national level has one great failing; most of the members elected to office are spineless.  This failure has plagued the Republican party for decades.  In order to comfortably retake the House of Representatives and retain the Senate this must be fixed soon.

I’m by no means the first to bemoan the Repulican party members for being spineless.  It has been an all too frequent topic of discussion on conservative websites.  Check out this American Thinker article When will the timid GOP wussy boys step up to the plate?

As the Democrats plow ahead in their hollow quest to bring President Trump down, the absurdity of their pitiful scheme becomes ever more pathetic.  But we can say this for the Dems: they stick together, and they stick to their plan, no matter how futile it is.

The Republicans?  Not so much.  They do not stick together; they don’t stick to any plan.  They seem to barely agree on what conservatism is, let alone be true to it, to their party’s basic principles.  They cower.

The Democrats, on the other hand, will lie, cheat, and expose their monstrous hypocrisy for all to see while the Republicans quake in their boots and go wobbly for fear of being spoken of negatively by our moonbat lefty pseudo- journos in the media.  There are of course a few truly great, courageous Republicans in Congress: Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Doug Collins, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, and Ron Johnson come to mind.  Others who we thought would be great — Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, and Tom Cotton — are sitting on their hands as though they are scared to death of bad press. 

I am not advocating that the Republicans embrace the Democrats tactics of cheating, lying, or using strong arm tactics.  I am suggesting very strenuously that they stand up and fight back, something they seem loath to do.  The period leading up to the public impeachment hearings is a perfect example of this.

The faint-of-heart Republicans have decided to be bystanders in the passing parade of democrat chicanery in service to their goal of exorcising Donald Trump.  All of this points to the essential difference between left and right. 

The Left has no scruples, no allegiance to its constituents.  Leftists seek power above all else, and Trump is an impediment to that power.  The Republicans want to be nice, always nice.  They loathe the confrontation the Left purposefully generates and try to avoid it.

Why did no Republican jump to his feet in a rage when Schiff read his false narrative of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky of Ukraine?  Because they are always polite.  No Republican would ever bring fried chicken to eat in a House committee hearing room. Not in a million years.

There is hope.  During the public impeachment farce last week several Republicans demonstrated real fighting spirit and it made quite a difference.  This was noted by the Washington Examiner in this article When Republicans fight back.

Republicans grew a backbone in the hearing and pushed back against House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s impeachment narrative. This is the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from Rep. Jim Jordan, but the fact that Reps. Elise Stefanik and John Ratcliffe also came out swinging speak volumes. These three are all quite different breeds of Republican, but for once, disparate House Republicans all brought the same level of intensity to a high stakes hearing.

Republicans challenged the Left’s narrative not only on the facts but the process as well. They’ve done good work to expose this investigation as the sham impeachment hearing it really is. We haven’t seen this sort of energy and poise from Republicans since the Kavanaugh saga, and we have rarely seen it at all throughout President Trump’s time in office.

For so long, the GOP has been afraid of its shadow. When things get tough, they turn tail and run. We’ve seen it on budget votes, shutdown standoffs, and stunningly, Obamacare — the single issue they railed against for years on the campaign trail but failed to repeal under unified government.

The Republicans really need to build on the uncharacteristic performance that they showed last week.  They need to stand up to the Democrats in congress and they absolutely need to stand up to the corrupt and biased liberal media.  The Republicans need to learn that any coverage of them will always be negative no matter what they say.  They should just say what they believe to be right and say it loudly.  It has worked exceptionally well for President Trump. 

Bribery and the Constitution

By Christopher Harper

Bribery?

That’s the latest means the Democrats have tried to get rid of Donald Trump.

But there’s a Democrat congressman, Alcee Hastings, who might make a useful addition to the witness list because he’s only one of three federal officials who’s been charged with bribery under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Hastings, who is one of the longest-serving representatives in Congress, was elected in Florida in 1992. In fact, he almost got elected in 2006 as head of the House Intelligence Committee now holding the impeachment hearings.

But here’s what Hastings doesn’t want everyone to remember.

In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence against two defendants when he was a federal judge in Florida. He also was accused of perjury in his testimony about the case. 

In 1983, Hastings was acquitted by a jury after his co-conspirator refused to testify in court. 

In 1988, the Democrat-controlled House took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury a vote of 413–3. He was then convicted on October 20, 1989, by the U.S. Senate on eight articles of impeachment. 

His co-conspirator, attorney William Borders, went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Hastings’s conviction and removal were upheld.

Hastings’s impeachment and removal had to do with an out-and-out bribe. No similar comparison can be made with the current investigation of Trump.

Nancy Pelosi and some Obama lawyers are trying to peddle the notion that the founding fathers had some other definition of bribery, but I’ve been unable to find the distinctions in my research of sources on the Constitution.

The past precedents for bribery under the impeachment clause, particularly that of Democrat Hastings, were clear cut examples of taking money for doing something that was illegal. 

Hastings would make an excellent example of what bribery really is under the U.S. Constitution!

Profiles in cowardice: The Democrats’ push to impeach Trump

Andrew Johnson statue on the grounds of the Tennessee state capitol

By John Ruberry

One of the heroes in the Pulitzer Prize winning book, Profiles in Courage, which was credited to John F. Kennedy but largely written by Ted Sorensen, was Edmund G. Ross, a Radical Republican senator from Kansas who is credited as the deciding vote against the removal from office of President Andrew Johnson, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives.

Ross was appointed to the Senate in 1866, when, Sorensen wrote, “the two branches of government were at each other’s throats.” Such as it is now between the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and President Donald J. Trump.

Johnson, like the man he succeeded, Abraham Lincoln, favored a quick readmission of the former Confederate states into the Union. But Johnson had few of the political skills of the Great Emancipator, and compared to the Radical Republicans, Johnson was very weak on the Civil Rights. Johnson was impeached in 1868–an election year–for violating the recently enacted Tenure of Office Act for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The president deemed that law as unconstitutional, it was repealed a few years later and the courts later proved Johnson correct.

Ross, along with six other Republican senators voted to acquit Johnson. Sorensen, in Profiles in Courage notes Ross’ words, written years after the impeachment trial.

In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial…If…the president must step down…a disgraced man and a political outcast…upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations…the office of the president would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after subordinated to the legislative will.

If Johnson had been removed from office America would have seen a weakened office of the presidency. One subject to the whims of an emboldened Congress.

Trump’s crimes in regards to the Ukraine call, if any–and I don’t believe there are any–are subject to interpretation. Say what you will about the only other president to be impeached, Bill Clinton, but he clearly perjured himself when testifying about Monica Lewinsky.

If Trump is impeached by the House, the likelihood of his being convicted by the Senate and removed from office is remote. But a precedent could be set by future Congresses to impeach presidents, well, simply because member of the “loyal opposition” opposes him. Or her, of course.

As Wikipedia writes about the Johnson impeachment:

The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative–executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the President from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office. It also resulted in diminished presidential influence on public policy and overall governing power, fostering a system of governance which Woodrow Wilson referred to in the 1870s as “Congressional Government”.

But most of the current crop of Democrat members of the House don’t care about history. They simply want to, in the crass words of freshman congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, “Impeach the motherf—er.”

When impeachment comes to a full vote in the House, will any Democrats–and not just those from districts that are overwhelmingly pro-Trump–offer a profile in courage?

It seems right now that most House Democrats have profiles in cowardice–they answer only to the MSNBC–incited mob who fill their campaign coffers. 

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Very Quick Day 1 Impeachment Hearings Thoughts

Brock: And those are the facts, Madam Chairman.
Mena: Does that conclude the evidence?
4th Doctor: Evidence? Evidence? You couldn’t hang a hat on that.

Doctor Who The Leisure Hive 1980

Yesterday was likely the single most important day of hearings in the sense that it was the day most likely to draw eyeballs. Thus if there was ever a day to make the sale this was it.

They didn’t.


Given the media’s spin over the last several months concerning Ukraine and their efforts to ignore any kind of evidence that discredited the impeachment pitch I wonder how many people who tuned into CNN were shocked to discover that none of these witnesses actually had 1st hand information over what they were testifying on?

Well if you’re going to redefine “marriage” and “woman” I guess it’s not a problem redefining “witness” is it?


Speaking of redefining words how about “evidence“:

This defense of hearsay as superior to direct evidence is going to be played in a loop in ads and don’t think for one minute this didn’t jump out to viewers.


More things from yesterday that will be in GOP ads:

Perhaps that’s why Deval decided to jump in the race.


Some members of congress are having fun with it all:

The Daily Caller reported, “Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar tweeted out a cryptic series of impeachment-related tweets on Wednesday afternoon, but some noticed that they each starting with letters spelling out the phrase ‘Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself.'”

Keep it up.

Outing the Arkancide of Epstein is more likely than removing President Trump.

You can see the image here.


Finally consider this: The left has been pushing impeachment since the day Donald Trump was elected. They have had a special council investigation and the media completely behind them and after leaking closed door testimony over time. Yet with all of this time and effort to build a case Democrats decided these two men were the best opening salvo they had to convince people outside of the religion of liberalism that impeachment is justified.

Amazing.

Lessons from Watergate

By Christopher Harper

As a young reporter, I covered part of the Watergate story, including the offices of Howard Baker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee that investigated President Nixon and his administration.

What I remember most of all was the bipartisan nature and transparency of the hearings in the Senate and the later those in the House—a stark difference to what’s happening now.

On February 7, 1973, the U.S. Senate voted 77-to-0 to approve a resolution to establish the select committee to investigate Watergate, with Democrat Sam Ervin named chairman the next day.

The hearings held by the Senate committee were broadcast from May 17 to August 7, 1973. The three major networks of the time agreed to take turns covering the hearings live. An estimated 85 percent of Americans with television sets tuned in to at least one portion of the hearings.

Baker and Ervin, both Southern lawyers, shared the spotlight, with little pretense of partisan politics. Baker became well known for his question of Nixon aides: What did he (Nixon) know, and when did he know it?

As established under the Constitution, the House needed to consider the issues for impeachment. Here, too, the representatives put aside most partisan antics.

On February 6, 1974, the House voted 410-4 to authorize the Judiciary Committee to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president. During the debate over this measure, Chairman Peter Rodino, a Democrat said, “Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of the American people, and their children after them, will say: This was the right course. There was no other way.” House Republican leader John Rhodes said that Rodino’s vow was “good with me.”

Nevertheless, the House committee was not as transparent as the Senate investigation.

The House Judiciary Committee opened its formal impeachment hearings against the President on May 9, 1974. The first twenty minutes were televised on the major U.S. networks, after which the committee switched to closed sessions for the next two months. Altogether, there were only seven days of public hearings.

When the committee finally voted on articles of impeachment, the tallies included bipartisan support, with roughly one-third of the Republicans and all of the Democrats supporting the three articles that were passed.

Furthermore, a group of prominent GOP legislators convinced Nixon he should resign.

At almost every step of Watergate, Democrats and GOP may have disagreed. Ultimately, however, they sought the truth in a bipartisan and relatively transparent way.

That’s an important lesson the Democrats should consider.

The Fishbait Miller Significance to Elijah Cummings Death at this Time

Elijah Cummings death is causing a little slowdown in the schedule for impeachment but not for the reason you might think.

Yeah they’re going to go though the whole honoring him routine which is normal for a powerful congressman who served as long as he did, but if you really want to understand what this is taking as long as it is you have to remember the story I told you about Fishbait Miller the former doorman of the house as related in the autobiography of Tip O’Neil: Man of the House (a great book btw) and how it played during Obamacare

Tip told the story of a congressman who had promised legendary speaker of the house Sam Rayburn a vote because of a favor to a key constituent, but was getting killed at home over the highly unpopular issue. Once tip established that the man had given Rayburn his word he said his only option was to ask Rayburn’s permission to vote against it.

“…you gave me your word and I expect you to keep it. However I can certainly appreciate your situation, so here’s what I’ll do for you. On the day of the vote I want to see you in the front row. Keep your eye on the doorkeeper. If I don’t need your vote, Fishbait Miller will give you the sign and you’ll be free to vote your district.”…
…when Leo took his seat in the front row, he looked around and saw thirteen other guys that Sam had in his pocket in case he needed them. It wasn’t just Leo. The entire front row was sitting there and waiting for the nod from Fishbait Miller.”
This is the real question that we don’t know the answer to. Does Nancy Pelosi have the votes and is just deciding who sits in the front row or is she scrambling for votes? And if the media knows what the truth is will they tell us?

It turned out that for Obamacare thanks to the phony Stupak ammendment Nancy did have the votes.

Nancy Pelosi knows that Impeachment is the kiss of death for all those so called “moderates” in Trump districts who still think it’s worth pretending back to the voters at home that they are not the gun grabbing, church hating radicals who think Abortion and gay marriage are sacraments. So just as she did with Obamacare if she decides to take the plunge the idea is to get just enough votes to get impeachment over the finish line and allow every Democrat she can to vote “No”.

Elijah Cummings death means that there is one less vote for impeachment which means that there is one less Democrat that she has to force to jump off that impeachment bridge, incidentally why she is so anxious for GOP votes, it’s not just about the phony appearance of “bipartisanship” every single one she can nail is one Democrat in a swing state that doesn’t have to jump.

You can bet real money that there are a bunch of freshman democrats who want that safe Democrat seat filled ASAP. Their re-election hopes are tied to it.

Of course as you might remember that didn’t save Democrats the last time and I suspect won’t do so again.

Under the Fedora A reminder to Dem Debate Viewers, CNN vs Veritas, Beto vs Chief Joseph, No impeachment Inquiry vote says Pelosi, Washington to the Series

An important reminder to all those who watched the Democrat Debate.

The Democrat nominee will be decided by the Superdelegates on the 2nd ballot at the convention. I still think it will be Biden because by then they’ll figure out there is almost no chance to win and he’s the best shot for helping some down ballot races

You heard it here 1st


The expose of what’s going on at CNN by Project Veritas is having a lot less bang that you might normally expect. This is mainly because those of us on the right, particularly those of us who have watched and covered CNN, particularly during the Trump years already knew this was the case and those on the left who have become obsessed with removing the president by impeachment are happy to see Zucker demand all impeachment all the time and would consider this a feature.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s good journalism but it would be a real shock if any of it surprised anyone. Still it’s nice to have it on the record as to why they do what they do. I always thought it was the water


Beto O’Rourke’s treat to compel compliance by force to comply with a “buyback” program reminded me of bit of this quote from Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce

If we ever owned the land we own it still, for we never sold it. In the treaty councils the commissioners have claimed that our country had been sold to the Government. Suppose a white man should come to me and say, “Joseph, I like your horses, and I want to buy them.” I say to him, “No, my horses suit me, I will not sell them.” Then he goes to my neighbor, and says to him : “Joseph has some good horses. I want to buy them, but he refuses to sell.” My neighbor answers, “Pay me the money, and I will sell you Joseph’s horses.” The white man returns to me and says, “Joseph, I have bought your horses, and you must let me have them.” If we sold our lands to the Government, this is the way they were bought.

Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce indians

It doesn’t surprise me that younger people never heard this as high school & college don’t teach history anymore but I’m shocked Elizabeth Warren didn’t make this objection.


Nancy Pelsoi has stated there will be no vote to formally begin an impeachment inquiry in the house. This makes a lot of sense for her as such a formal vote will only cause trouble for the phony moderates that she needs to keep the gavel. Ideally any such vote on impeachment or even an inquiry would take place when it’s too late to primary any Democrat who votes against it.

Given how will this strategy worked in saving the “moderates” who voted for Obamacare I suspect it’s not going to make all that much difference but I suspect her odds of keeping seats are better with this crowd than with crew generated primary opponents in the general.


Finally The Washington Nationals after shocking the LA Dodgers made short work of the St. Louis Cardinals and are now going to their 1st World Series since they entered the league as the Montreal Expos in 1969. Of course there have been other Washington Teams the Texas Rangers were the expansion Washington Senators from 1961 to 1971 before moving to Texas and the original Washington Nationals moved to Minnesota and became the Twins, who were bounced by the Yankess in three straight in the 1st round.

The last time a Team from Washington went to the World Series was 1925 and the last time they won was the year before, both times the ace of the squad was Walter Johnson one of the best pitchers who ever lived and one of the charter inductees in the baseball hall of fame. They don’t have Johnson this time around but they do have a pitching staff that are worthy successors to him. It has the potential to be a really great world series no matter who they face.