As a result, Americans didn’t flock to the cause of removing the president after [...]]]>
As a result, Americans didn’t flock to the cause of removing the president after viewing the tiresome suits on TV, but instead were turned off by the Democrat partisanship and lack of substance.
A Rasmussen poll released in mid-November found 53 percent of likely voters believe the media were working with the Democrats to impeach Trump. So the deck looked stacked from the start to many Americans.
Mark Steyn (filling in for Tucker Carlson) recently noted Pelosi’s gambit with the impeachment drama:
MARK STEYN: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” I’m Mark Steyn, in for Tucker. I hope you had a terrific Christmas, Happy Boxing Day or as I believe it’s known in America — Thursday.
2019 was supposed to be the year of impeachment. The Democratic Party spent years promising it, and it looked like they were finally going to deliver. They called witnesses. They held hearings. They summoned academics to deliver dull, pseudo-constitutional lectures to any American bored enough to watch the proceedings live.
And finally last week, they voted to impeach President Trump. And yet, the President still isn’t actually impeached. A week after the vote, Nancy Pelosi still hasn’t forwarded the Articles to the Senate for a trial as is constitutionally required.
Impeachment has been put on hold, maybe it was all a charade from the start. Or maybe Speaker Pelosi is too busy basking in the fawning, drooling, sycophantic praise of cable news talking heads. . .
Following are some typical MSNBC commentors, spouting the usual anti-Trumpisms and Pelosi admiration.
Speaker Pelosi had insisted upon a speedy impeachment despite the looming presidential election in 2020, yet now she won’t send the Articles to the Senate. Is the inevitable outcome too embarrassing for her to face?
We shall see, as the New Year awaits.
]]>It’s not exactly news that the Republican-run Senate will not be friendly to [...]]]>
It’s not exactly news that the Republican-run Senate will not be friendly to the idea of removing a president who has made the economy hum like a bee. Did Nan really think that days of fake testimony from a bunch of snoozers during her inquiry phase was going to convince the public that Trump is a Putin puppet and/or Ukraine has undue influence in the White House?
It’s good to see Jeff Sessions out in public again since he is running for his old Senate seat (as I predicted he might when he was fired). He opined about the dynamics of the sudden withdrawal of the House from going forward with the wacko impeachment process that Pelosi initiated.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Jeff Sessions spent decades in the United States Senate before becoming the country’s Attorney General. He’s now running for Senate once again from the state of Alabama from which he joins us tonight. Senator, thanks so much for coming on. What do you make of this? What why are Democrats suddenly telling us after all these years that they don’t want to pass the articles on to the Senate?
JEFF SESSIONS: One reason may well be, Tucker, that they can imagine what it’s going to be like on the floor of the Senate. I remember when the Clinton impeachment went forward, and I was in the Senate.
Lindsey Graham was a congressman and one of the presenters, the managers of the case. They laid out, based on a record in the House, a detailed prosecution basically of three separate felonies that Clinton had committed, and I believe they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty, and I just can’t imagine what would happen when you end up with one of these vague charges like abuse of power or obstruction of justice.
It all could even be laughable — if they were going to back off, it would be so much better for America had they done it before they voted this impeachment. That does damage to our country to weaken the moral authority and the constitutional requirements of impeachment.
CARLSON: Well it’s also confusing as heck, if I can say, and bizarre — so they spend three years shouting about this, we go through the whole rigmarole of passing these charges in effect and now they’re telling us that they don’t want to press them. So why did they do that? Wouldn’t it have been easier is to keep screeching and not go through the process of impeachment?
SESSIONS: Absolutely. I thought they might even do that. Then it became clear to me, and the articles of impeachment themselves prove there’s not a basis for an impeachment here. It’s just an absolute abuse, and why they didn’t stop before they voted this way I cannot imagine. Now they made it even worse by voting impeachment, and now losing their nerve when they have to present on the weak case.
CARLSON: So you are running for Senate in Alabama, but as noted, you spent literally decades in the Senate. You know virtually everyone in it. So with the deep knowledge you have of the body, tell us how likely you think it is that if these charges make it to the Senate, the president will be convicted and removed.
SESSIONS: I think there’s zero chance. It’s so easy for Republicans to prove and establish, and they will in their speeches and in the record they produce that this is not a justifiable impeachment. The American people need to fully understand this is not a justifiable impeachment. Abuse of power because the president made me angry is not a basis for impeachment. (Continues)
The article noted that the filibuster was once a rare [...]]]>
The article noted that the filibuster was once a rare tactic, but now it is commonplace. In the same way, impeachment could become a normal strategy from overuse, since the Democrats have depended on it to remove Trump from Day #1 of his term.
Furthermore, some D-partiers like Al Green (D-TX) state openly that they hope to impeach the president again if the current effort does not work out. Apparently, one failure does not dissuade stubborn Dems from dismantling an election.
Below, Democrats held a press conference on Tuesday to discuss their impeachment intentions.
Indeed, author and TV personality Mark Levin recently recommended that Republicans should play impeachment hardball in the future.
He underlined the tactic, remarking, “The next Democrat president of the United States must be impeached. Not to get even, not because we are at their low level. But because the Republicans can’t live under one constitution when the Democrats live under another constitution.”
So Democrats have created another division in the country because they will not accept the choice of more than 62 million voters in 2016. The truth is that libs disapprove of anyone unlike them in political outlook and are willing to go to extreme lengths to get power.
]]>In a Polarized Era, Will Impeachment Become a ‘New Normal’?, New York Times, December 12, 2019
WASHINGTON — It was a powerful congressional weapon deployed in only the most extreme cases, so explosive that lawmakers feared the wider damage it could do if used for the wrong reasons. Today, the filibuster is an everyday part of Senate business, standard operating procedure in a polarized world where the once rare has become commonplace.
With the House poised to impeach President Trump on a mainly party-line vote and Republicans already threatening retribution, fears are mounting that presidential impeachment might, like the filibuster, become a regular feature of America’s weaponized politics, with members of the party out of the White House but in control of the House routinely trying to oust a president they find objectionable.
The escalating use of the filibuster and the rising toxicity of Supreme Court confirmation hearings are examples of how scorched-earth politics can be hard to extinguish once one party feels aggrieved and gets the opportunity to exact revenge.
“We’ve already got the forms, all we have to do is eliminate Donald Trump’s name and put Joe Biden’s name in there,” Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, declared Monday, suggesting that Republicans could easily go after a Democratic president if control of the White House and the House were flipped.
Presidential impeachment was once almost unthinkable because of the gravity of overturning the results of an election. For more than two centuries, only one president — Andrew Johnson in 1868 — was subjected to a Senate trial. It became more common in the political lexicon after President Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment in 1974.
After President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, trial and 1999 acquittal, some opponents of his next two successors, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, unsuccessfully raised calls to impeach them. In 2016, some top congressional Republicans discussed impeaching Hillary Clinton before the election was even held. And, as House Republicans have frequently mentioned, some liberal advocacy groups were calling for Mr. Trump’s impeachment in the days before his inauguration in January 2017.
“The question going forward, of course, will be whether the Trump impeachment conditions the public to understand impeachment as a tool of normal politics, or whether it retains its exceptional character,” said Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School. “The Clinton impeachment does not seem to have been enough to make it a tool of normal politics, but maybe this time will be different.”
Top Democrats acknowledge being torn. Speaker Nancy Pelosi recalled recently that she was under pressure to initiate impeachment proceedings against Mr. Bush for invading Iraq on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction, but she resisted.
“I just didn’t want it to be a way of life in our country,” she said during a town hall on CNN.
Rahm Emanuel, who served in the Clinton White House during the impeachment, agrees that there is a risk that “we are going to normalize impeachment and it is going to have a cascading effect in the way Bork became a term,” he said, referring to Robert H. Bork, the Supreme Court nominee rejected after a fiery 1987 hearing that inflames conservatives to this day.
But like Ms. Pelosi, with whom he later served in the House leadership, Mr. Emanuel said the greater risk was to ignore what he considered egregious and clearly impeachable behavior by the president.
“You have to weigh both of those and realize that you cannot as a country of laws allow someone to conduct themselves as if the law doesn’t apply to them,” Mr. Emanuel said.
Democrats believe the brazen acts of Mr. Trump, captured on a White House transcript pressing a foreign leader to investigate a presidential rival while he was withholding desperately needed military aid, were so blatant that an impeachment vote was required despite its potential future consequences. They see the case against Mr. Trump as a textbook example of why the founding fathers created impeachment, and consider it far worse than Mr. Clinton’s case, in which he was accused of lying about his sexual relationship with an intern.
Yet Republicans view the current episode through the opposite lens, saying that the Republican-led impeachment of Mr. Clinton was fully justified while the action against Mr. Trump is purely political and unsupported by the evidence.
“President Clinton committed a crime, perjury,” Representative Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican who voted to impeach Mr. Clinton in 1998, said Thursday as the House Judiciary Committee drafted articles of impeachment against the president. “This president isn’t even accused of committing a crime.” (Continues)
Prof. Robert Epstein has warned against Google’s use of its Search function to influence voters [...]]]>
Prof. Robert Epstein has warned against Google’s use of its Search function to influence voters to embrace the liberal side.
Last July, the Senate held a hearing titled Google and Censorship through Search Engines where Dennis Prager testified that Youtube (owned by Google) had restricted access to 56 of PragerU’s 320 five-minute videos that explain history and politics to young people because schools have become so deficient.
Silicon Valley investor and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel has accused Google of improperly working with Red China, including “the seemingly treasonous decision to work with the Chinese military and not with the US military.”
On Wednesday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Floyd Brown, co-author of the new book Big Tech Tyrants.
Brown says he is “terrified” at the unbridled power of Big Tech — as well he should be.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: So you’d think that we’d have a free press in this country — we’re guaranteed it in the Bill of Rights, but it’s not exactly free anymore. Big tech controls it and the tech companies are doing everything they can to shape the narrative, the storyline around impeachment.
For example, Facebook and YouTube, which control a much larger percentage of digital media than anyone realizes are now censoring, flat out censoring any material that mentions the name of the man believed to be the whistleblower. They’re not letting you know who this guy is.
Floyd Brown is co-author of “Big Tech Tyrants.” And he joins us tonight. So Floyd, it seems to me that we’ve moved to a stage a year out from a Presidential election, where the tech monopolies, which really control all of digital journalism in this country, are deciding what facts we’re allowed to know. Why should we not be terrified?
AUTHOR FLOYD BROWN: We should be terrified, and I am terrified. The truth is, is that over half of all news consumed by Americans is consumed on these social media platforms.
And when they can censor the way they’re censoring right now –both Facebook and Google around the name of this whistleblower — it’s chilling. It’s absolutely chilling.
They have such dominant power. In fact, you know, I know that Fox News isn’t saying the name of the whistleblower, but the name of the whistleblower was accidentally said by somebody on your network, and then that was posted on YouTube, which was immediately censored by Google.
So what you have — I’m the publisher of the Western Journal — we have decided to publish the name of the whistleblower, and we’ve done four stories on the whistleblower, and we have 43 million followers on Facebook. I don’t think ten of them have seen those particular stories.
CARLSON: So I mean, look, there’s a legitimate debate here. Let me just say that no one in Fox has told me what to do or not on that issue despite a lot of reporting to the contrary, I haven’t named the guy because I haven’t confirmed it. I can’t find anybody who will confirm it. But as soon as we do, we will I mean, that’s, you know — that’s journalism, and you may disagree.
But the point is this guy, whether he is the whistleblower or not, is at the center of a really important news story, and the average person ought to be able to make up his or her mind on that, but we’re not allowed to, because the tech monopolists won’t allow us. So why is Congress standing back and not saving us from this? Seriously.
BROWN: Yes, well, it’s amazing to me that a lot of the publications that you know, publish things like the Pentagon Papers, and have, you know, published almost all of what WikiLeaks released, and time and time again, they have been more than willing to publicize things that are the deepest secrets of the U.S. government.
But here this one particular secret, they’re so good at keeping the name of this whistleblower out of the media and you know, there’s been major changes in tech since Donald Trump was elected. And those major changes are all around keeping Donald Trump’s — really his ideas and his message — from reaching people.
CARLSON: Yes, I noticed that.
BROWN: I mean, when you look at Twitter, Twitter suppresses Donald Trump’s own tweets. And, you know, Facebook has limited the amount of people —
CARLSON: So this is much greater interference. I mean, this is an interference on a scale that Putin for all of his determination to hack our democracy never even approached or could have imagined. Purportedly American companies are putting a thumb on the scale of democracy and nobody is saying anything about it, why?
BROWN: They should be and Congress should be investigating them.
These companies have all grown incredibly large. You know, in my book, “Big Tech Tyrants,” I talk about the amount of data that has been collected on individuals. Americans don’t have any idea of the volume of information from medical records to you know, what they Google, to what they’re looking at, every single page of the internet that they visit is recorded somewhere.
And, yet people should be rebelling against that. And frankly, it’s a very dangerous situation.
CARLSON: Well, it is.
BROWN: When you see this kind of censorship, this is worse than what you would imagine from Putin and the Soviets.
Or the Russians.
CARLSON: These people are not your friends.
BROWN: No.
CARLSON: Meanwhile, I think Republicans control the Senate. I think it’s not just Josh Hawley, he is not the only U.S. Senator, where are the rest of them? It would be interesting to know.
BROWN: Well, as you know, as I. . .
CARLSON: I am sorry, but my lecturing is as put us over the edge, this this topic is worth being mad about. Thank you for your book. Thank you for coming on tonight. I appreciate it. I wish we had more time.
After all, the Dems have a Deep State to protect and re-empower.
The top-polling Democrat candidates are embarrassingly lame. Once the confident front-runner, Joe Biden has been sliding backwards because of his verbal gaffes, incidents of inappropriate touching and a general lack of sharpness about the issues.
The apparent up-and-comer Elizabeth Warren has problems too: she won’t say how she will finance her top goodie, Medicare For All (including illegal aliens) — because that particular item is so pricey that her proposed tax-the-rich plan comes nowhere close to paying the tab.
Warren is not the only Democrat with poor math skills. When a debate moderator requested of the Democrat candidates, “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide [medical] coverage for undocumented immigrants,” all responded affirmatively.
On Tuesday, Tucker Carlson included clips from lower-tier candidate Cory Booker reciting his “Politics be damned” motto, because Democrats apparently believe they have to keep tap-dancing as fast as they can to obscure their lack of appealing issues for the 2020 election.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Good evening, and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Not so long ago CNN President Jeff Zucker gathered his minions on a morning conference call and commanded them to play up the ongoing impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives. Impeachment, impeachment, impeachment — Zucker squeaked. Nothing else matters, yell about impeachment until your throat bleeds, that’s an order.
And with that he slithered off back to his lair, deep beneath CNN’s Center in the ice caves. And of course the minions obeyed. They were afraid not to obey. But we happen to disagree with Jeff Zucker. Now if you’re a committed partisan as he is, impeachment often looks like the most important story there is.
But if you’re not, sometimes it seems like about the fifth or sixth most important story playing out in America right now. There’s an awful lot else going on. So that’s pretty much how we’ve been covering the story on this show, which is to say not very closely. But tonight, there’s some actual news to report. We want to take a moment to assess what exactly is happening with impeachment.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that later this week, the House will hold a formal vote on procedures that could lead to a formal impeachment of the President at some point. And what exactly does that mean? Why is it happening? What will result from it? All of that, unfortunately, is still opaque tonight. It’s still not exactly clear what high crime the President supposedly committed. There’s some disagreement on that question actually, even on the left.
So to solve the riddle, we are taking you tonight as we often do when cloudy issues demand clarity to the pride of Yale Law School, the oracle of Newark, the single most famous bachelor vegan in the United States Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Cory A. Booker who will read to us tonight from his newly released spoken word prose poem entitled, “Politics Be Damned.” Dim the lights. Be still and listen to Cory:
SENATOR CORY BOOKER, (D-NJ): Politics be damned. I have a job to do, which is to hold the executive accountable.
Politics be damned. This is our country. This is our Constitution.
Politics be damned right now. This this is a sad day, a sad chapter in American history.
Politics be damned. It’s time to do what is right.
And politics be damned. I just want to get the truth. I want to do my job.
Politics be damned. I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I need to do that.
The politics of this be damned.
CARLSON: So there you have it. Politics be damned, more than sorrow than in anger, mister. This isn’t about politics, Cory Booker says. It is about doing what’s right, as it always is in Washington.
And if you’ve got any doubt about that, he will say it again and again and again and again until you are too exhausted or hypnotized to protest, which ought to be a tip off that in fact, the opposite is true.
Actually, this is entirely about politics. There is no real crime behind the impeachment proceedings. Instead, the President’s chief offense appears to be disagreeing with policies set by the bureaucratic state in Washington. How do we know that? Because they’ve essentially admitted it.
Over the past two weeks, the House has heard testimony from a diplomat called Bill Taylor, and then an Army Lieutenant Colonel called Alexander Vindman. Their statements we are told will sink President Trump, maybe.
So what have they said? Well, to start, both Taylor and Vindman are intense Russia hawks, both have testified that they want heavy American aid to Ukraine because they want to weaken Russia. Both have emphasized that they don’t want any debate in the U.S. about these policies. They’ve said that out loud.
In his remarks, Vindman said that he opposed President Trump’s phone call with the President of Ukraine for this reason, quote, “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Biden’s and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play, which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support. It is thus far maintained,” end quote.
And the implication is, that would be unacceptable. Now Taylor said something almost identical to that. Here it is, quote, “To restore Ukraine’s independence, Russia must leave Ukraine. This has been and should continue to be a bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goal,” end quote.
So in other words, Washington may have two parties, but only one position on Ukraine is allowed here — and Trump doesn’t have it. His phone call was unacceptable because it might prevent America from automatically unthinkingly spending billions of dollars over many years to prop up a country that most Americans could not find on a globe at gunpoint.
There’s just one problem with this arrangement. Voters disagree. We know this because when he ran three years ago, President Trump didn’t hide how he felt about U.S. foreign policy. He told voters that America was involved in too many pointless wars. He criticized the then President Obama for having bad relations with Russia.
The Trump administration, he promised would pursue better relations with Vladimir Putin.
Now, that may sound shocking, but in fact it was not an unprecedented idea. Obama ran on something close to this in 2012, and the public supported it then, too. He won.
But now that same idea isn’t simply unpopular in Washington, a ruling class considers it illegal. Former C.I.A. head, John Brennan put it this way on Twitter, quote, “As in previous times of national peril, we rely on our military, diplomats, Intelligence officials, law enforcement officers and other courageous patriots to protect our liberties, freedom and democracy. May they stay resolute and strong despite corrupt political headwinds they face,” end of quote.
Got that. Unelected bureaucrats uphold — wait for it — democracy. Elected officials subvert democracy. In John Brennan’s Orwellian world, the most pressing and imminent threat to this republic is voters.
Speaker Pelosi is acting alone as [...]]]>
Speaker Pelosi is acting alone as the leader/instigator-in-chief in order to protect her members who were elected in Trump-supporting districts. So she marches around firing up the media to treat her impeachment-lite campaign as the real thing, and they are complying.
Speaking of the media, on Wednesday the Rasmussen pollsters reported that the press ranks #1 in the public’s anger these days, worse than politicians even:
Voters Are Madder at the Media Than at Trump or His Foes, Rasmussen Reports, October 02, 2019
Voters are mad at President Trump and his political opponents, but they’re angriest at the media these days.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey shows that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters are angry at the president, with 39% who are Very Angry. Forty-six percent (46%) are not angry at Trump, including 34% who are Not At All Angry. [. . .]
But 61% of voters are angry at the media; 38% are not. This includes 40% who are Very Angry and just 19% who are Not At All Angry. Fifty-three percent (53%) were angry at the media in June of last year, but a high of 66% felt that way in June 2010, early in Barack Obama’s presidency. (Continues)
So the majority of voters know that the press is trying to manipulate them.
On Friday Tucker Carlson analyzed the media cheerleading about impeachment now happening, as well as what some members of the Democrat party are planning.
Pushing Pelosi to the far left is the Squad, a group of diverse freshmen women in the Congress who have appealed successfully to the press to magnify their effectiveness. As Tucker observed, Squad member Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michiganistan wants President Trump’s cabinet locked up.
This is your new Democrat Party, ready to imprison political opponents who have been accused of no crimes at all.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Well, good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” We’re nearing the end of our second full week of total saturation Ukraine coverage — that means every channel, every hour of the day.
So at this point, you’d think it would be obvious what exactly the fuss is about. After this much talking, you would assume every person in America would understand what crimes Donald Trump is being accused of committing.
But no, even now, the story still feels obscure and strangely light. There’s nothing mysterious or weighty about it. We already know all of the facts, there’s a transcript, and yet they still don’t seem very shocking.
And so maybe for that reason, our news anchors have been doing their very best to keep the blood pressure high. The game is boring, so the cheerleaders have to work overtime, twice as hard.
For example, here was MSNBC’s best attempt to get you to care:
MSNBC HOST CHUCK TODD: I don’t say this lightly. But let’s be frank, a national nightmare is upon us. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the President.
We begin tonight with a series of admissions by the President that all but assures his impeachment in the House of Representatives.
This moment should arguably be a national emergency. The Founding Fathers would have considered it a national emergency if the President publicly lobbied multiple foreign governments to interfere in the next election. It’s tough to say lightly. But this is the moment that we’re at.
CARLSON: Well, I think a good cliche bomb just went off. Try to ignore how hackneyed and badly written that speech was. The state of education in this country clearly is in rapid decline. Nobody can write a decent paragraph anymore. Someday we’re going to do a special on that.
But for now, consider the substance of what you just heard, to the sense, if there was any. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack — that’s what they’re telling you. So what exactly are the basic rules of our democracy? Well, the most basic rule of all, is that the people rule.
In a democracy, the big decisions are made by voters in elections. They are not made by left-wing talk show host or by the Washington Post, or even by high level C.I.A. employees acting anonymously as whistleblowers. No.
In a democracy, the main decisions are made by citizens casting ballots — that, for example, is how you remove a President by beating him in an election. That’s always the way we did it here in America. Not any more.
So yes, our democracy is under attack. They are right about that. And yet for all of his faults, Donald Trump is not the attacker. But wait a second, they’re telling you, we understand how grave a decision impeachment is, in fact, we’re praying over it — people of faith that we are.
But in this case, impeachment is avoidable. Soliciting information from foreign countries is corrupt and evil. That’s what they’re telling you. Okay, fine. But let’s at least acknowledge that this standard is a brand new standard, I mean, brand new standard, like 20 minutes ago, because it wasn’t that long ago, less than a year, you’ll remember this — that all of American politics revolved around information solicited from foreign countries. It was called the Steele dossier. And back then, the press corps strongly approved of it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The allegations in this Christopher Steele dossier, and you went through the timeline very well a few moments ago, are stunning.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They’re actually substantial portions of what was in the Steele dossier, which was a raw intelligence document that have indeed checked out.
CNN HOST JIM SCIUTTO: Based on our own reporting and word from numerous official sources, the dossier, in fact, is far from bogus.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we’re going to actually have to stop calling it the infamous dossier. Increasingly, it’s the accurate dossier. Increasingly, it’s the damning dossier. Increasingly, it’s the dossier that’s going to hang around the neck of the Trump administration and drag them down.
CARLSON: Oh, the dossier. It was totally fine. In case you forgotten, and you may have forgotten because, because why would you remember? But Christopher Steele, who wrote the dossier was a foreign intelligence operative. He gathered his material abroad in foreign countries, some of it clearly from foreign government officials.
At the time, that was absolutely fine with Democrats. They weren’t embarrassed to say so. Clinton campaign staffer, Brian Fallon tweeted this. We can give you many examples. Here’s one, here’s his tweet. “I regret I didn’t know about Christopher Steele’s hiring pre-election. If I had, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him.”
Oh, okay. And by the way, if foreign interference is such a concern — and by the way, it should be a concern — then why are we more worried about foreign companies sending de facto bribes to the family members of connected politicians? There are a lot of those. We’re picking on Joe Biden’s son because it’s in the news, but it could be a lot of people’s sons, trust me, but in the case of Biden’s son, nobody thinks he’s an expert on Ukrainian energy policy. He got the gig because of his dad. It was influenced peddling, obviously. In this case, that’s okay, though, for some reason.
So let’s just be totally honest. Let’s stop lying if we can, just for a second. I know it’s hard in modern America where everyone is required to lie all the time. But let’s just be honest, for this one moment.
In Washington right now, there are no actual rules. Partisans simply invent standards for the purpose of destroying their political enemies. Just today, Hillary Clinton tweeted this, from the late Democratic member of Congress, this quote. “If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder.” That’s Barbara Jordan, by the way.
In other words, if the process doesn’t reach the outcome that Hillary Clinton wants it to reach, she thinks we ought to scrap the Constitution. Oh. Probably not a question that that concept appeals to Michigan, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. This week, Tlaib told her constituents that the Democratic Party is now considering ways to arrest members of Trump’s cabinet. Jailing them in Detroit would be a good option, she explained, watch this.
REP. RASHIDA TLAIB, D-MI: So they’re trying to figure out, no joke. They’re trying to figure out well, is it the D.C. Police that goes and gets them? We don’t know. Where do we hold them?
So I just want you to know, I will relay your message. I will tell them they can hold off those people right here in Detroit, we will take care of them. And make sure they show up to the committee hearing. We won’t hurt them.
CARLSON: Yes. Just going to arrest them. That’s not Third World or anything. Arrest the cabinet. You’ve got to give Tlaib credit for honesty, anyway. She is not pretending to be prayerful, like Nancy Pelosi. She is just saying what she really thinks she speaks for, unfortunately, quite a few people in her party.
What we’re watching here, what you just watched in that clip is politics itself breaking down. That’s not politics, of course. That’s not the effort to persuade people, bring them over to your side through reason. No. That’s something different.
Modern partisans on the left don’t want to just win the next election. Electoral power is too transient. Voters might change their mind in the election after that. It happened by the way in 2016. Democrats don’t want to take that risk again.
So they moved on from the goal of winning votes to utterly destroying their opponents, their enemies. They want them imprisoned, as you just heard there. They want their families intimidated. They want their supporters humiliated and demoralized. They want to vanquish rather than win over.
That’s not a good way to run a country. But it’s an awfully effective way to maximize political power.
Others were impressed with the UN speech. Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd agreed the Trump was pleasantly specific about border enforcement, viewable in the video below:
LOU DOBBS: I don’t know if you knew how strong he would be on the issues of sovereignty and border security and illegal immigration, but I have to say it was an extraordinary speech in all respects, but on the subjects of immigration and sovereignty especially.
BRANDON JUDD: That couldn’t have been stated any more eloquently. He’s taking the case directly to the American public. He’s calling the Democrats out for their hypocrisy; they refuse to enter into an honest conversation because they know they are going to lose on the facts. so what he’s doing is he’s specifically going to the American public and making the case, and he’s giving them the facts and letting them decide. That’s a very good day for Border Patrol agents.
There’s a clip of Trump at 3:24 speaking to the world community:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: To anyone conducting crossing of our border illegally, please hear these words: do not pay the smugglers; do not pay the coyotes; do not put yourself in danger; do not put your children in danger. If you make it here, you will not be allowed in. You will be promptly returned home. You will not be released into our country.
Radio talker Rush Limbaugh concurred about the speech, remarking:
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I mean, it was fantastic. The content of this speech was a grand-slam home run. I think it was purposely delivered in a more low-key than usual manner so as to make sure that Trump’s personality did not step on the content because he was dead serious during all of this. He was not loud. There was no braggadocios or bombastic personality in this speech. There were no off-the-prompter ad-libs. This was solid from beginning to end and it was intended for every word to be heard, for every word to register, for every word to be noted.
But a few hours later, Speaker Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry in the House, so the evening news was filled with Pelosi’s demand for his removal rather than Trump’s defense of American sovereignty. The historic UN speech just disappeared.
Some reports note Pelosi’s rapid change of mind on the impeachment issue — was it Trump’s effective UN address that flipped the switch at that time? Possibly.
Interestingly, recent polls show the public opposed to impeaching the president, but the Dems are proceeding anyway. Pelosi has said she is willing to lose the House majority over it. The left party wants Trump out really bad and is will to do whatever it takes to make it happen.
Limbaugh opined on Friday that the impeachment is “about making sure the American people do not learn the extent of the corruption in the Obama administration and the Democrat Party at large.”
Being able to portray the D-Party as a legitimate not-totally-corrupt representative of the American people would be a major motivator to destroy the Trump administration.
Here’s the Trump speech at the UN and a transcript:
]]>Democrat 2020 candidates may come to regret their enthusiasm for taking Trump out in a non-election manner so close to the actual voting event. They seem not to have confidence in winning without disrupting the system with their scam: as early impeachment enthusiast Rep. Al Green remarked, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get reelected.”
It doesn’t help that several 2020 Dems also want to impeach Justice Kavanaugh, among them Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro, Bernie Sanders and Beto.
You might get the impression that Democrats are incapable of losing graciously, and “impeach” has become their new favorite strategy of dealing with the opposition. Integrity in elections — trusting governance to those darn unpredictable voters — is just too chancy for today’s Dems. Also, Hillary Clinton’s continuing complaints about the election she lost nearly three years ago reinforce the public perception of Democrats as Poor Losers, which they certainly are.
On Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi announced the House would hold an impeachment inquiry — but the legislators would not vote on formal impeachment proceedings.
Here’s the New York Times article explaining how Democrat candidates would “promote a clear and exciting agenda” rather than concentrate on impeaching Trump — good luck with that!
]]>Democrats’ 2020 Campaign Message: Not Impeachment, They Insist, New York Times, September 28, 2019
After the 2016 election, Democratic leaders reached an all but unanimous conclusion: To defeat President Trump in 2020, they would have to do more than condemn his offensive behavior and far-right ideology, as Hillary Clinton had done. They would need, above all, to promote a clear and exciting agenda of their own.
They took that lesson to heart in the midterm elections and afterward, capturing the House of Representatives with a focus on health care and then attempting to impress the electorate by passing legislation on matters like campaign finance reform and the minimum wage. As Democratic presidential contenders pushed campaigns built on big ideas, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi resisted a chorus of calls for impeachment, even from some of her party’s leading 2020 candidates.
Yet 13 months before the next election, Democratic leaders are now steering into a protracted, head-on clash with Mr. Trump. By seeking the Ukrainian government’s help in tarring former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Trump left them no choice, they say, but to pursue an impeachment inquiry that could consume the country’s attention for months.
Ms. Pelosi has indicated she aims to move the process along with haste, in part to avoid an election-year conflagration, but the exact course of the inquiry is impossible to foresee.
All 19 Democratic presidential candidates now support the impeachment inquiry, and many Democrats are optimistic that voters will as well, because Mr. Trump is so unpopular and the allegations against him are grave and easily grasped. For now, Republicans are the party on the defensive, flummoxed by the cascading disclosures about Mr. Trump that have threatened to upend his re-election campaign.
But there is also a general recognition, at every level of the Democratic Party, that impeachment could complicate their candidates’ efforts to explain their policy ideas to the country and persuade voters they have a vision beyond ousting Mr. Trump. The party has been disappointed too many times, its leaders say, by betting that Mr. Trump’s violations of political and cultural norms would bring about his downfall.
On Friday evening, Ms. Pelosi declared at a conference of New Jersey Democrats in Atlantic City that she would not allow the 2020 election to become a campaign about impeachment. Insisting the inquiry “has nothing to do with the election,” she said the campaign would be fought on other terms.
“That’s about facts and the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said of the impeachment process. “The election is about all of the issues and policies that we have a difference of opinion with the Republicans on, and they are very drastic — and they have nothing to do with impeachment.” (Continues)
On Sunday, the congressman observed that “there is nothing that has turned up that truly is impeachable.”
Rep. Van Drew appeared with Tucker Carlson earlier this week:
It’s nice to see that not every Democrat has fallen under the thrall of AOC and the Squad of left extremists.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Well, until just the other day, Democrats appeared to be divided on the question of impeaching the President. This week, they appear to be nearly unanimous. But if you hold out, we’re warning that an impeachment push is a mistake, bad for the country and possibly kind of productive politically. One of them is Congressman Jeff Van Drew. He represents New Jersey. He is one of those holdouts, he joins us tonight. Congressman, thanks so much for coming on.
REP. JEFF VAN DREW, D-N.J.: It’s my pleasure to be with you.
CARLSON: You’re a Democrat, I will say conservative Democrat, but you’re a Democrat. And the easy thing would be to go along with your party’s leadership on this question. But you’re not. Why?
VAN DREW: I’ve never been good at that to begin with. You know, just you know, very briefly, people say, you know, your job is to be a good Democrat or a good Republican, and I keep emphasizing your responsibility in the job is to be a good American.
So I go what I believe my heart is right and in my brain. And it seems to me at this point in time, we really do want to accomplish some goals. Infrastructure needs to be dealt with. Healthcare needs to be dealt with. Prescription drugs need to be dealt with. You know, election — you know, elections need to be dealt with as far as making sure that they’re secure. I can give you a whole long list, Tucker.
The point is, I really believe the more that we delve into this, the more time we spend on it, especially at a macro level, the more we’re not going to be able to spend time on these other issues that are important. And it’s not because we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time because somebody brought that up. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The problem is when we’re this divided, when we’re this split, these two political parties, and this is all going on, people aren’t going to work together. So the President is not going to be signing bills. The Senate bills aren’t going to be going through the House. The House bills aren’t going to be going through the Senate.
And at the end of the day, I’m afraid that all we’re going to have is a failed impeachment because folks need to understand. I mean, maybe there are those that want to punish the President or make a point and I understand that, but the bottom line is, he is still going to be the President of the United States.
And the bottom line is, he is still going to be the candidate for the Republican Party. So why don’t we let the people do the impeachment by voting in the electoral process the way that we usually do.
CARLSON: Oh, you mean democracy? Okay.
VAN DREW: Yes, absolutely. I love it.
CARLSON: Not a popular concept in Washington. So, but I mean, I guess the political question, of course, I agree with everything that you’ve said, and I commend you for caring about those issues, because I think they are bipartisan fundamentally.
But everything you said is pretty obvious. I mean, no offense to either one of us. But you know, anyone can figure it out, including the smart people who run your party. So they know they’re not going to get a conviction, this isn’t going to work. There’s no chance of it working. So why are they doing it?
VAN DREW: I’m not sure I can answer that. I think part of it is they believe that the President should be held accountable for some things that he has done. And, you know, by all accounts, nobody ever pretended that he is perfect or there aren’t some issues.
But you know, I always use the example even during the Clinton administration, and when that impeachment, by the way, I was also not for that, and we saw that it didn’t really bear any fruit. It wasted a lot of time and money.
But it was — he had some serious issues there, and he even lost his ability to practice law. He was disbarred. But with all of that happening, it still wasn’t nearly enough for impeachment to go through.
Here is what folks have to understand. Impeachment is a very, very serious, serious move to take by any political party or political entity. You know, we have to realize that when you impeach somebody, it has to be for really strong reasons, because you are also, you know, removing the power of the people, you’re disenfranchising their vote.
Whether we like it or not, whether we like who won or not, you’re disenfranchising their vote. And it has to be serious to do that.
So my worries are getting stuff done. I really want to do good things, and I want to do it in a bipartisan way. I really want to see the country move forward. I really know that you know, this — and abroad, I think that people could look at this and think that our country is disorganized and in turmoil and that we’re split apart. And I think it’ll split people in society apart.
I think folks in literally, in the United States of America are even going to get angrier at each other. I don’t believe it’s going to bring people together. And that’s what we need to do.
And then we have the election. And the other issue, by the way is these are the midterm elections that are going to be going on now. And then we’re rolling right into the full elections for President and Congress, et cetera and I don’t know that we need to have all of this going on at the same time.
CARLSON: I have to agree with that. And again, as you just pointed out, voters get to render a judgment in a little over a year, you know, we are going to have that.
VAN DREW: They sure do. They sure do.
CARLSON: Congressman, thanks so much for joining us tonight. I really appreciate it.
VAN DREW: It was great to be here. Thank you.
The next election is a little over a year away, yet the D-elites want to erase the 2016 one with the biggest weapon they have. The Dems are pushing impeachment rather than responding with thoughtful policies for their 2020 presidential candidate to take which is how things are meant to work.
Politicians are supposed to accept the people’s decision in elections, but Democrats have been plotting against Trump since Day One. This is not how the citizens want their country run.
Ned Ryun appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show Friday, discussing how the far left has taken over the D-party.
Tucker agreed that the four Squad members are “really in charge of the Democratic Party” rather than Speaker Pelosi.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a genius, she doesn’t know a lot, but what she lacks in impressive quality, she makes up for with pure aggression and moxie, and as a result, she and her friends now dominate and to some extent, control the Democratic Party. They’re the ones pushing impeachment.
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): A corrupt President who violates his oath in office must and will be impeached.
REP. AYANNA PRESSLEY (D-MA): It is absolutely time to start formal impeachment proceedings.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): What he has admitted to is already impeachable, regardless of future developments.
REP. RASHIDA TLAIB (D-MI): I know it’s time, it’s been time. We must impeach this lawless President.
CARLSON: Well, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, she is a charmer. The last one you saw there is selling impeach the mother-effer t-shirts online. Now, that of course echoes a promise she made well before the Ukraine controversy even existed.
Ned Ryun is the Founder of American Majority, and he joins us tonight. So, Ned, you know, for the first I would say, a couple months that the squad became prominent, it was a Republican talking point to say for obvious reasons that they’re really in charge of the Democratic Party. But it’s starting to kind of seem true.
RYUN: Oh, absolutely. I think with every passing day, Nancy Pelosi is really Speaker in name only. The inmates have taken over the asylum, which isn’t really that surprising, Tucker.
The parasitic far left has been eating the Democratic Party from within for years, and now it’s coming to the surface. And you’re right, they are an amazing blend of ignorance and petulance and stupidity and hatred.
I mean, the fact that they’re selling shirts for $19.99, to which I say, knock yourselves out, since Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment, Trump has raised $13 million for his re-elect.
But then you have Adam Schiff out there deciding that the chairmanship of the House Intel Committee is now platform for parody. It’s pretty amazing to watch.
The thing that’s crazy to me is Dems are willing to destroy all of these norms because orange man bad. If you think about what’s taken place over the last two and a half years, Russia-gate, collusion, Ukraine-gate — all of this stuff. It’s about one thing, Tucker. It’s about policy differences.
They cannot stand the fact that they are not in power and that Trump has a different approach to governing, not only domestically, but on foreign policy as well. And so now their new approach in all of this — we shall impeach all things. We will impeach Kavanaugh. We will impeach Trump. Based off what? Nothing. Policy differences.
CARLSON: So you’ve got to kind of wonder once these people take full control, formal control of the party and that’s only a cycle or two away —
RYUN: That’s right.
CARLSON: Do people like Adam Schiff really believe they’re going to continue to run committees? I mean, what does it mean, at least for Adam Schiff?
RYUN: No, no, no, the amazing part is, if you study history, these revolutions have a way of eating themselves, just look at the French Revolution and Robespierre.
So I think they’re going to start to realize this will eat — they’ll start eating each other. But as you go down this path, I think they are — it shows how deranged they are. Look at the impeachment polls this week in the midst of all of this hysteria about Ukraine-gate, POLITICO/Morning Consult only showed 36 percent of the American people supporting impeachment of Trump.
And if you get into the heartland, where I grew up, Tucker, impeachment dropped to the low 20s, and you start to think about how stupid they are when you get to the swing districts of Oklahoma 5 and Illinois 14, which are real pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2020. They’re going to make those members watch walk the impeachment plank and lose the majority, I really do think so in 2020 if they continue to push this because I think impeaching Trump is a fool’s errand being pushed by fools.
CARLSON: We will see. Ned Ryun, great to see you tonight. Thanks so much for that.