Senator Cruz Unloads On Rosenstein
"Your Handling Of Mueller Probe Proves You Were Either Corrupt Or Incompetent"
Madeline Osburn
The Federalist
[The following piece reveals the extent to which some of the opponents of Donald Trump and his staff had become subject to secretive, conniving "Group Think" where integrity and truth had long ago made a disgraceful exit.]
When questioned by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that at the time of his involvement in the FBI’s Russia investigation, he was unaware of the ongoing misbehavior at the highest levels of law enforcement.
“You came into a profoundly politicized world [at DOJ], and yet all of this was allowed to go forward under your leadership. That unfortunately only leads to two possible conclusions,” Cruz said. “Either you were complicit in the wrongdoing, which I don’t believe is the case, or that the performance of your duties was grossly negligent.”
In getting to the bottom of Rosenstein’s alleged negligence to the crimes committed at the highest levels of law enforcement under his watch, Cruz asked, “Was there any more important case the Department of Justice had than an investigation into whether the president of the United States is a Russian asset colluding against the United States?”
“There was certainly lots of important investigations, but I viewed this as one of the most important,” Rosenstein said.
Rosenstein’s involvement at the top of the Department of Justice included appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel and signing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant renewals based off fraudulent material, but he testified Wednesday he was unaware at the time of much of the wrongdoing he signed off on.
“At the time you read the FISA application, did you know the primary source behind the Steele dossier had disavowed it and said it’s not true?” Cruz asked.
“At the time I reviewed it, no I did not know that,” Rosenstein said.
“Did you know there was significant exculpatory evidence omitted from it?” Cruz asked.
“Absolutely not,” Rosenstein said.
“Did you know a lawyer on your staff had fraudulently altered material as a basis for a FISA application?” Cruz asked.
“That lawyer was not on my staff, but I was not aware of it,” Rosenstein said.
Showing posts with label Trump Impeachment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump Impeachment. Show all posts
Friday, 5 June 2020
Wednesday, 25 March 2020
Let’s Be Honest.
Impeachment Hurt Trump’s Response to Coronavirus.
Henry Olsen
Columnist
Washington Post
President Trump has been roundly criticized for allegedly failing to prepare for the coronavirus crisis before it arrived in the United States. Those critics conveniently overlook something else that could have been distracting the president’s attention during that crucial period: impeachment.
It seems forever ago, but Trump’s impeachment was the major story in January and early February — the same time that disease was forcing China to lock down cities. Despite the near certainty that Republicans would not vote to convict the president, Democrats and most of the major media were almost entirely focused on impeachment. As a result, the White House was focused on addressing this threat to its survival, not on preparing for a threat from China that might never even materialize.
Trump’s efforts to prepare the nation for this pandemic has been far from perfect, but the one thing the president did do to stop the virus’s spread to the United States during that period — stopping air travel from China — was heavily criticized.
Henry Olsen
Columnist
Washington Post
President Trump has been roundly criticized for allegedly failing to prepare for the coronavirus crisis before it arrived in the United States. Those critics conveniently overlook something else that could have been distracting the president’s attention during that crucial period: impeachment.
It seems forever ago, but Trump’s impeachment was the major story in January and early February — the same time that disease was forcing China to lock down cities. Despite the near certainty that Republicans would not vote to convict the president, Democrats and most of the major media were almost entirely focused on impeachment. As a result, the White House was focused on addressing this threat to its survival, not on preparing for a threat from China that might never even materialize.
Trump’s efforts to prepare the nation for this pandemic has been far from perfect, but the one thing the president did do to stop the virus’s spread to the United States during that period — stopping air travel from China — was heavily criticized.
Monday, 24 February 2020
We Love the Historical References
Booting Alex Vindman
President Trump directed the transfer of both Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny Vindman from the National Security Council.
Adam Mill
The Federalist
Barely a day passed after the president’s acquittal in the Senate before he took action to transfer three figures connected with the effort to oust him. President Trump directed the transfer of both Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny Vindman from the National Security Council. He also directed the recall of Ambassador Gordon Sondland.
The president had a duty to make these changes to ensure the integrity of our system of self-government the same way presidents have immediately acted to expel past administration officials who used their posts to undermine and criticize the policies of the elected president.
10 U.S.C. 888, Article 88 makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use contemptuous words against the president. The importance of this law can be traced back to the destruction of representative democracy in Rome, when the man who would be later crowned Julius Caesar used his military post to delegitimize and neuter the Roman Senate.
Roman law specified that only elected magistrates (consuls and praetors) could command armies within Italy. Any unelected commander who led forces within striking distance of Rome itself (by crossing the boundary set at the Rubicon River) would be considered a traitor.
The founding fathers similarly demanded the military submit to its elected leader. Article II, Section 2 provides that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” The founders feared a military that answered only to itself. To preserve self-government, the military must subordinate to elections. That means upholding the primacy of civilian control over the military.
Vindman is not a whistleblower. He’s an officer who attempted to usurp presidential leadership on Ukraine policy. He did not identify a rule, law, or regulation that the president violated. He was unable to identify any “crime” he thought the president might have committed. Vindman held a strong opinion that what the president did was “wrong” under Vindman’s conception of proper U.S. foreign policy.
“My core function is to coordinate U.S. government policy,” Vindman testified. That’s wrong. The president is the focal point of all foreign policy.
Perhaps the next president might seek Vindman’s policy expertise regarding Ukraine. But this president does not agree with Vindman’s conception of policy. Further, Vindman couldn’t content himself with registering a confidential objection to the president’s legal actions. He put on his military uniform to criticize the president’s policies to another branch of government. Vindman crossed the Rubicon, and he should not be allowed to do it again.
Many Americans do not agree with Vindman’s belief that the Bidens should be immune from inquiry. I want to abolish the two-tiered justice system that protects powerful people from the same laws under which the rest of us live. The Bidens should be investigated. That might offend the swamp. But there are legitimate swamp-draining reasons for asking about the Bidens.
Maybe Vindman can run for president to set different policy goals. But until then, Vidman should not be allowed to abuse his sensitive advisory position to thwart and criticize the president’s policies. He’s free to exercise his freedom of speech criticizing the president, but not as a military officer. Vindman hasn’t been “fired,” as the talking heads misleadingly report. He was transferred out of the sensitive National Security Council because he’s proven that he cannot be trusted to provide confidential advice to the president.
The voters, not Vindman, should have ultimate control over U.S. policy towards Ukraine. The golden thread connecting the ballot box to Ukraine policy passes through the president. Vindman’s attempt to break free of that control is counter to the Constitution and he should not be left in a position to do it again.
The president’s actions are consistent with historical precedent. For example, President Lincoln feared the impetuousness of his generals. He wrote to Gen. Joseph Hooker, “I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which, I am not quite satisfied with you. …you have taken counsel of your ambition…What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship…I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the Army of criticizing their Commander, and withholding confidence from him….”
We can also recall the examples of Gen. Douglas MacArthur defying President Truman and Gen. Stanley McChrystal criticizing President Obama. We can add to the list generals fired for criticizing President Clinton. The president, and through him the voters, are in charge of American foreign policy. That principle must be jealously guarded.
Whether they admit it or not, future Democrat presidents will benefit from this president’s bold action to protect the supremacy of civilian control over the military. All countries have elections. In most countries, however, those elections do not change power. For elections to matter, the elected leaders must be allowed to wield control; men like Vindman must be shown the door.
Adam Mill is a pen name. He works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. Adam has contributed to The Federalist, American Greatness, and The Daily Caller.
President Trump directed the transfer of both Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny Vindman from the National Security Council.
Adam Mill
The Federalist
Barely a day passed after the president’s acquittal in the Senate before he took action to transfer three figures connected with the effort to oust him. President Trump directed the transfer of both Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny Vindman from the National Security Council. He also directed the recall of Ambassador Gordon Sondland.
The president had a duty to make these changes to ensure the integrity of our system of self-government the same way presidents have immediately acted to expel past administration officials who used their posts to undermine and criticize the policies of the elected president.
10 U.S.C. 888, Article 88 makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use contemptuous words against the president. The importance of this law can be traced back to the destruction of representative democracy in Rome, when the man who would be later crowned Julius Caesar used his military post to delegitimize and neuter the Roman Senate.
Roman law specified that only elected magistrates (consuls and praetors) could command armies within Italy. Any unelected commander who led forces within striking distance of Rome itself (by crossing the boundary set at the Rubicon River) would be considered a traitor.
The founding fathers similarly demanded the military submit to its elected leader. Article II, Section 2 provides that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” The founders feared a military that answered only to itself. To preserve self-government, the military must subordinate to elections. That means upholding the primacy of civilian control over the military.
Vindman is not a whistleblower. He’s an officer who attempted to usurp presidential leadership on Ukraine policy. He did not identify a rule, law, or regulation that the president violated. He was unable to identify any “crime” he thought the president might have committed. Vindman held a strong opinion that what the president did was “wrong” under Vindman’s conception of proper U.S. foreign policy.
“My core function is to coordinate U.S. government policy,” Vindman testified. That’s wrong. The president is the focal point of all foreign policy.
Perhaps the next president might seek Vindman’s policy expertise regarding Ukraine. But this president does not agree with Vindman’s conception of policy. Further, Vindman couldn’t content himself with registering a confidential objection to the president’s legal actions. He put on his military uniform to criticize the president’s policies to another branch of government. Vindman crossed the Rubicon, and he should not be allowed to do it again.
Many Americans do not agree with Vindman’s belief that the Bidens should be immune from inquiry. I want to abolish the two-tiered justice system that protects powerful people from the same laws under which the rest of us live. The Bidens should be investigated. That might offend the swamp. But there are legitimate swamp-draining reasons for asking about the Bidens.
Maybe Vindman can run for president to set different policy goals. But until then, Vidman should not be allowed to abuse his sensitive advisory position to thwart and criticize the president’s policies. He’s free to exercise his freedom of speech criticizing the president, but not as a military officer. Vindman hasn’t been “fired,” as the talking heads misleadingly report. He was transferred out of the sensitive National Security Council because he’s proven that he cannot be trusted to provide confidential advice to the president.
The voters, not Vindman, should have ultimate control over U.S. policy towards Ukraine. The golden thread connecting the ballot box to Ukraine policy passes through the president. Vindman’s attempt to break free of that control is counter to the Constitution and he should not be left in a position to do it again.
The president’s actions are consistent with historical precedent. For example, President Lincoln feared the impetuousness of his generals. He wrote to Gen. Joseph Hooker, “I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which, I am not quite satisfied with you. …you have taken counsel of your ambition…What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship…I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the Army of criticizing their Commander, and withholding confidence from him….”
We can also recall the examples of Gen. Douglas MacArthur defying President Truman and Gen. Stanley McChrystal criticizing President Obama. We can add to the list generals fired for criticizing President Clinton. The president, and through him the voters, are in charge of American foreign policy. That principle must be jealously guarded.
Whether they admit it or not, future Democrat presidents will benefit from this president’s bold action to protect the supremacy of civilian control over the military. All countries have elections. In most countries, however, those elections do not change power. For elections to matter, the elected leaders must be allowed to wield control; men like Vindman must be shown the door.
Adam Mill is a pen name. He works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. Adam has contributed to The Federalist, American Greatness, and The Daily Caller.
Monday, 10 February 2020
Unbearable Vanity of a Terrible Prosecutor
Impeachment Opened With Primal Screams, And Died With A Whimper
The Get-Trump forces have deflated. Like a primal scream ending in soft whimpers, the impeachment charade has been a bust.
Adam Mill
The Federalist
On Friday, the arguable climax of Rep. Adam Schiff’s Senate trial of Donald Trump, The New York Times and The Washington Post published barely anything regarding impeachment. CNN published not one but two editorials suggesting it was time to move on.
The Get-Trump forces have deflated. Like a primal scream ending in soft whimpers, the impeachment charade has been a bust. “We are lost,” moaned Dana Milbank in his article in the Washington Post.
Milbank seems to have forgotten there’s an election in just a few months. The Democratic Party will soon have the opportunity to legally unseat the president. Milbank apparently hoped to skip a competitive election to award the presidency to his political ally. The Constitution can be so inconvenient to those seeking permanent power.
Milbank, like so many others in the left, argued that president’s Senate acquittal will be illegitimate. He argues, in the same article, no less, that “Once…prospects faded that [John] Bolton would be called as a witness. The trial degenerated into farce,” but that, “House managers tried their case too well. Evidence piled up on the Senate floor over the past 10 days that the president withheld military aid to force Ukraine to announce probes of his political foes. And former national security adviser John Bolton’s firsthand account leaked about the quid pro quo.”
Just to recap, he’s arguing the House managers proved their case so well that they were denied a fair opportunity to prove their case.
The Get-Trump forces have deflated. Like a primal scream ending in soft whimpers, the impeachment charade has been a bust.
Adam Mill
The Federalist
On Friday, the arguable climax of Rep. Adam Schiff’s Senate trial of Donald Trump, The New York Times and The Washington Post published barely anything regarding impeachment. CNN published not one but two editorials suggesting it was time to move on.
The Get-Trump forces have deflated. Like a primal scream ending in soft whimpers, the impeachment charade has been a bust. “We are lost,” moaned Dana Milbank in his article in the Washington Post.
Milbank seems to have forgotten there’s an election in just a few months. The Democratic Party will soon have the opportunity to legally unseat the president. Milbank apparently hoped to skip a competitive election to award the presidency to his political ally. The Constitution can be so inconvenient to those seeking permanent power.
Milbank, like so many others in the left, argued that president’s Senate acquittal will be illegitimate. He argues, in the same article, no less, that “Once…prospects faded that [John] Bolton would be called as a witness. The trial degenerated into farce,” but that, “House managers tried their case too well. Evidence piled up on the Senate floor over the past 10 days that the president withheld military aid to force Ukraine to announce probes of his political foes. And former national security adviser John Bolton’s firsthand account leaked about the quid pro quo.”
Just to recap, he’s arguing the House managers proved their case so well that they were denied a fair opportunity to prove their case.
Saturday, 8 February 2020
Teddy Roosevelt Redux?
Carrying a Big Stick
After the failure to impeach Donald Trump, the President metaphorically knee-capped his political opponents and publicly thanked his supporters in the House and Senate, along with those whom he hopes will tick the box for him in the next presidential elections.
President Donald Trump delivered a speech to the nation Thursday celebrating his impeachment trial acquittal the day before, blasting the process as “crooked” and thanking the “incredible warriors” who sided with him during the ordeal.
Trump described the event as a celebration of another victory over the “evil” forces allied against him. “Today is the day to celebrate these great warriors, right?” Trump said. “These are great warriors. They really fought hard for us.” . . . .
The president’s address was populated with Cabinet members and staffers, as well as activists and allies. “We’ve all been through a lot together,” said Trump thanking his supporters who gave him a standing ovation as he entered the room. “We went through hell, unfairly,” Trump said, repeating that he did “nothing wrong” to deserve impeachment. Trump’s legal team was also present and got a standing ovation. “Great job,” he told them.
He joked that his acquittal headlines in the Washington Post about his acquittal were the best his administration ever got.
Thursday, 6 February 2020
"His Kind Must Not Rise Again . . . "
Loosing Touch With Reality
US President Donald Trump seems to have a knack of causing his political opponents to go loopy. They become so fixated with destroying Trump and his presidency that they lose reasonable perspective. This loss of touch with reality and reasonableness was on perfect display during the recent "Trump Trial".
Here is a description of what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like in action.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
. . . Even before the Mueller probe, Democrats have been angling to destroy Trump. Four months before the 2016 election, President Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in a since-deleted tweet, “It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.” Elaborating on this to a New York Times reporter, Plouffe said, “This could still be a relatively close race, but it’s more likely to be a blowout than a Trump win.” (Funnily enough, Plouffe has a book coming out in March called, “A Citizen’s Guide to Defeating Donald Trump.”)
The point is that Democrats are not interested in subtle arguments about what’s an impeachable offense and what isn’t. They aren’t even interested in basic details of their own case against the president, like whether there was a legitimate basis for Trump to ask for an investigation into a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company. Did Trump ask President Zelensky of Ukraine for an investigation, or did he ask him to fabricate dirt on a political rival?
As National Review’s own Andrew McCarthy pointed out this week, Rep. Adam Schiff has from the start ignored that distinction, instead simply asserting that there was no legitimate reason for Trump’s request—as if his say-so should be enough to put the matter to rest and move forward with the removal of a duly elected president.
Only the most rabid partisan would find that convincing in the least—the sort of partisan who would take any admission by Senate Republicans of Trump’s wrongdoing as proof positive that he must be removed from office, niceties about what constitutes an impeachable offense be damned. As it happens, those are precisely the kind of partisans now in charge of the Democratic Party, and they won’t stop until Trump has been destroyed thoroughly.
An excerpt from an article published in The Federalist.
John is the Political Editor at The Federalist.
US President Donald Trump seems to have a knack of causing his political opponents to go loopy. They become so fixated with destroying Trump and his presidency that they lose reasonable perspective. This loss of touch with reality and reasonableness was on perfect display during the recent "Trump Trial".
Here is a description of what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like in action.
John Daniel Davidson
The Federalist
. . . Even before the Mueller probe, Democrats have been angling to destroy Trump. Four months before the 2016 election, President Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in a since-deleted tweet, “It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.” Elaborating on this to a New York Times reporter, Plouffe said, “This could still be a relatively close race, but it’s more likely to be a blowout than a Trump win.” (Funnily enough, Plouffe has a book coming out in March called, “A Citizen’s Guide to Defeating Donald Trump.”)
The point is that Democrats are not interested in subtle arguments about what’s an impeachable offense and what isn’t. They aren’t even interested in basic details of their own case against the president, like whether there was a legitimate basis for Trump to ask for an investigation into a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company. Did Trump ask President Zelensky of Ukraine for an investigation, or did he ask him to fabricate dirt on a political rival?
As National Review’s own Andrew McCarthy pointed out this week, Rep. Adam Schiff has from the start ignored that distinction, instead simply asserting that there was no legitimate reason for Trump’s request—as if his say-so should be enough to put the matter to rest and move forward with the removal of a duly elected president.
Only the most rabid partisan would find that convincing in the least—the sort of partisan who would take any admission by Senate Republicans of Trump’s wrongdoing as proof positive that he must be removed from office, niceties about what constitutes an impeachable offense be damned. As it happens, those are precisely the kind of partisans now in charge of the Democratic Party, and they won’t stop until Trump has been destroyed thoroughly.
An excerpt from an article published in The Federalist.
John is the Political Editor at The Federalist.
Tuesday, 4 February 2020
Lazy and Inept
Why Impeachment Failed
By David Harsanyi
National Review Online
House Democrats rushed through a botched process and then complained bitterly and endlessly that Senate Republicans wouldn’t do their work for them.
Unless more incriminating evidence emerges to dramatically alter public perception, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is effectively over. . . .
The chances of any party’s removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible. It’s never happened in American history — unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon — and probably never will. Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards that no party has ever lived by.
Perhaps if the public hadn’t been subjected to four years of interminable hysteria over the United States’ imaginary decent into fascism, it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of “vital” Ukrainian aid that most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president.
And perhaps if institutional media hadn’t spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion — a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial — the public wouldn’t be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency.
You simply can’t expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.
Beyond the public’s mood, the Democrats’ strategy was a mess.
By David Harsanyi
National Review Online
House Democrats rushed through a botched process and then complained bitterly and endlessly that Senate Republicans wouldn’t do their work for them.
Unless more incriminating evidence emerges to dramatically alter public perception, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is effectively over. . . .
The chances of any party’s removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible. It’s never happened in American history — unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon — and probably never will. Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards that no party has ever lived by.
Perhaps if the public hadn’t been subjected to four years of interminable hysteria over the United States’ imaginary decent into fascism, it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of “vital” Ukrainian aid that most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president.
And perhaps if institutional media hadn’t spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion — a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial — the public wouldn’t be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency.
You simply can’t expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.
Beyond the public’s mood, the Democrats’ strategy was a mess.
Saturday, 25 January 2020
"It Takes One to Know One"
White House Counsel Nukes Jerry Nadler
‘This Is the United States Senate. You’re Not in Charge Here.’
Joel B. Pollak
Breitbart News
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone blasted House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on the floor of the Senate early Wednesday morning during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump for making “false accusations” against the president and the Senate.
“The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you, for the way you addressed this body. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here,” Cipollone said.
The White House counsel was responding to Nadler’s lengthy speech advocating for an amendment to subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Bolton has said he would be willing to testify, though the House failed to call him to testify during its own impeachment inquiry. Democrats hope that he will shed light on what impeachment managers called a “scheme” by the president to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.
But Nadler began by accusing the White House counsel of lying — a striking breach that would likely have been disciplined in any ordinary court of law. “They lie,” he claimed. “And lie, and lie, and lie,” he repeated.
Nadler went on to argue that if the Senate voted against the Democrats’ proposed amendment to a procedural resolution — which would only accelerate the decision on Bolton to an earlier stage of the trial — they would be “voting against the United States.” When it was Cipollone’s turn to respond, he had clearly had enough.
He said:
‘This Is the United States Senate. You’re Not in Charge Here.’
Joel B. Pollak
Breitbart News
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone blasted House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on the floor of the Senate early Wednesday morning during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump for making “false accusations” against the president and the Senate.
“The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you, for the way you addressed this body. This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here,” Cipollone said.
The White House counsel was responding to Nadler’s lengthy speech advocating for an amendment to subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Bolton has said he would be willing to testify, though the House failed to call him to testify during its own impeachment inquiry. Democrats hope that he will shed light on what impeachment managers called a “scheme” by the president to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.
But Nadler began by accusing the White House counsel of lying — a striking breach that would likely have been disciplined in any ordinary court of law. “They lie,” he claimed. “And lie, and lie, and lie,” he repeated.
Nadler went on to argue that if the Senate voted against the Democrats’ proposed amendment to a procedural resolution — which would only accelerate the decision on Bolton to an earlier stage of the trial — they would be “voting against the United States.” When it was Cipollone’s turn to respond, he had clearly had enough.
He said:
Friday, 24 January 2020
A Velvet Glove Revolution
The New Post-Trump Constitution
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
The new normal: Impeachment as a routine partisan tool, endless investigations, lying under oath with impunity, surveillance of political enemies, zero accountability …
The Left sees Donald Trump’s comportment, rallies, and tweets as a new low in presidential behavior that justifies extraordinary countermeasures. But Trump’s personal characteristics are idiosyncratic and may or may not become institutionalized by subsequent presidents. And it is not as if liberal icons such as FDR, LBJ, JFK, and Bill Clinton suddenly became saintly in office.
What is far scarier is the reaction to Trump, in both the constitutional and political sense. What follows are likely the new norms for the next generation of presidents, and they will probably be equally applied to Democrats who implemented them in the Trump era.
1) Private presidential phone calls with foreign leaders will be leaked and printed in the major media. The point will be not so much to air breaking news as to embarrass the president or to use such disclosures to stymie his foreign policy. Those who leak such information will be canonized as part of a “resistance.” Prominent officials in government will publish anonymous op-eds in the New York Times bragging about how they are daily undermining a new president’s administration.
2) Impeachment is now a casual affair. It requires no report of illegal or unethical behavior by a special counsel or special prosecutor. It will not be bipartisan but solely the action of the opposition party in the House when it is in the majority.
Public support will not matter. Much less will it be needed. Impeachment will be applied equally to a first- or second-term presidency. And it will become useful in a reelection year to help drive down an incumbent’s popularity.
Even when there is no chance of conviction in the Senate — as when the impeachment indictment is weak and the president’s own party controls the upper House — impeachment will nonetheless proceed, because it is now seen as a banal, politicized vote of no confidence and thus an occasionally useful political tool.
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
The new normal: Impeachment as a routine partisan tool, endless investigations, lying under oath with impunity, surveillance of political enemies, zero accountability …
The Left sees Donald Trump’s comportment, rallies, and tweets as a new low in presidential behavior that justifies extraordinary countermeasures. But Trump’s personal characteristics are idiosyncratic and may or may not become institutionalized by subsequent presidents. And it is not as if liberal icons such as FDR, LBJ, JFK, and Bill Clinton suddenly became saintly in office.
What is far scarier is the reaction to Trump, in both the constitutional and political sense. What follows are likely the new norms for the next generation of presidents, and they will probably be equally applied to Democrats who implemented them in the Trump era.
1) Private presidential phone calls with foreign leaders will be leaked and printed in the major media. The point will be not so much to air breaking news as to embarrass the president or to use such disclosures to stymie his foreign policy. Those who leak such information will be canonized as part of a “resistance.” Prominent officials in government will publish anonymous op-eds in the New York Times bragging about how they are daily undermining a new president’s administration.
2) Impeachment is now a casual affair. It requires no report of illegal or unethical behavior by a special counsel or special prosecutor. It will not be bipartisan but solely the action of the opposition party in the House when it is in the majority.
Public support will not matter. Much less will it be needed. Impeachment will be applied equally to a first- or second-term presidency. And it will become useful in a reelection year to help drive down an incumbent’s popularity.
Even when there is no chance of conviction in the Senate — as when the impeachment indictment is weak and the president’s own party controls the upper House — impeachment will nonetheless proceed, because it is now seen as a banal, politicized vote of no confidence and thus an occasionally useful political tool.
Living In An Alternative Universe
The Impeachment Trial Begins
Democrats Are Losing Their Minds
The Federalist
On Monday, as senators and House impeachment managers prepared for the opening of President Trump’s impeachment trial Tuesday, Democrats and their courtiers in the mainstream press decided to ratchet up the their rhetoric to the point of delusional hysteria.
The House managers—led by Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler—issued a statement that essentially accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of a coverup, saying his proposed rules for the trial are “rigged,” nothing more than an “effort to prevent the full truth of the President’s misconduct from coming to light.”
That wasn’t all. Schiff and the impeachment managers also called on Trump’s lead impeachment lawyer, Pat A. Cipollone, to disclose what he knows about the president’s alleged behavior underlying the two articles of impeachment, saying Cipollone is a “material fact witness,” and that, “The ethical rules generally preclude a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial in which he is likely also a necessary witness.”
Funny they should mention that. As my colleague Mollie Hemingway pointed out on Twitter, Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower.
Democrats Are Losing Their Minds
Having realized their impeachment gambit is failing, Democrats have resorted to accusing Sen. Mitch McConnell of a coverup and calling the trial 'rigged.'
John Daniel DavidsonThe Federalist
On Monday, as senators and House impeachment managers prepared for the opening of President Trump’s impeachment trial Tuesday, Democrats and their courtiers in the mainstream press decided to ratchet up the their rhetoric to the point of delusional hysteria.
The House managers—led by Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler—issued a statement that essentially accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of a coverup, saying his proposed rules for the trial are “rigged,” nothing more than an “effort to prevent the full truth of the President’s misconduct from coming to light.”
That wasn’t all. Schiff and the impeachment managers also called on Trump’s lead impeachment lawyer, Pat A. Cipollone, to disclose what he knows about the president’s alleged behavior underlying the two articles of impeachment, saying Cipollone is a “material fact witness,” and that, “The ethical rules generally preclude a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial in which he is likely also a necessary witness.”
Funny they should mention that. As my colleague Mollie Hemingway pointed out on Twitter, Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower.
Thursday, 23 January 2020
A Hopeful Bunch
John Bolton’s Testimony Vs Democratic Derangement
No Smoking Guns Here. Never Mind. Let's Move On, Shall We?
David Marcus
The Federalist
You have to give credit to congressional Democrats for one thing: They are an extremely hopeful bunch. After years of Russia investigations aimed at toppling Donald Trump, they came away with what Grandmother would have called “bupkis.” But, not daunted, they quickly latched onto a whistleblower report about a phone call with Ukraine, and launched an up tempo effort, one last-ditch attempt to take the president down.
The result of this exertion did include a vote to impeach Trump, but did not attract a single GOP vote. This is also almost certain to the result in the senate trial as well. But wait! Now former National Security Adviser John Bolton has agreed to testify if called, and the Democrats are racing toward Lucy again, confident this time she won’t move the football.
The excitement from Democrats comes from the fact that Bolton in the past few months has sent a few mysterious tweets and said through lawyers that he does have information that did not come up in impeachment. Bolton may well have new information, but the idea that he is going walk into the Senate chamber if subpoenaed with a smoking gun is pure wish casting.
No Smoking Guns Here. Never Mind. Let's Move On, Shall We?
David Marcus
The Federalist
You have to give credit to congressional Democrats for one thing: They are an extremely hopeful bunch. After years of Russia investigations aimed at toppling Donald Trump, they came away with what Grandmother would have called “bupkis.” But, not daunted, they quickly latched onto a whistleblower report about a phone call with Ukraine, and launched an up tempo effort, one last-ditch attempt to take the president down.
The result of this exertion did include a vote to impeach Trump, but did not attract a single GOP vote. This is also almost certain to the result in the senate trial as well. But wait! Now former National Security Adviser John Bolton has agreed to testify if called, and the Democrats are racing toward Lucy again, confident this time she won’t move the football.
The excitement from Democrats comes from the fact that Bolton in the past few months has sent a few mysterious tweets and said through lawyers that he does have information that did not come up in impeachment. Bolton may well have new information, but the idea that he is going walk into the Senate chamber if subpoenaed with a smoking gun is pure wish casting.
Thursday, 2 January 2020
Polls Becoming More and More Unreliable in the US
Impeachment Fallouts
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
‘I hate the people who hate him.’
Quietly, the approval ratings of Trump have been rising to pre-impeachment levels and are nearing a RealClearPolitics average of 45. Support for impeaching Trump and/or removing him is not increasing as the House Democrats expected. It is essentially static, or slowly eroding, depending on how polls phrase such questions. . . .
The reality may be the very opposite of what Democrats planned. The more the Left tries to abort the Trump presidency before the election, the more it bleeds from each of its own inflicted nicks. As an example, Rachel Maddow’s reputation has not been enhanced by her neurotic assertions that Trump’s tax returns would soon appear, or that the Steele dossier was steadily gaining credibility, or that yet another tell-tale Russian colluder had emerged from under another American bed.
The past three years of Trump mania did not induce a recession, despite last summer’s sudden hysteria that “recession” was on the horizon. It is hard to envision a looming recession when real wages of workers continue to rise, unemployment is at historic lows, U.S. energy production is at record highs, inflation is low, interest rates are manageable, and growth is moderate but steady. We collectively have an appointment with the staggering national debt and stock-market exuberance, but probably not until after 2020. And the Left has completely nullified that issue by proposing trillions of dollars in new spending.
For now, the Democrats in extremis have redefined impeachment for the first time in American history as a Sword of Damocles, now permanently hanging by a horse’s hair over Trump’s head. Impeachment is being reinvented as way of presidential life that will supposedly impale Trump one day or at least constrain him, as occasional additional writs are added on, as the polls, media, and Democratic fancy dictate. Nancy Pelosi has rewritten the U.S. Constitution after reading a few op-eds by Trump-hating academics. Most Americans accept that if the Republican Congress had tried the same with Barack Obama (at a time when just wearing an Obama mask got a rodeo clown fired for life from a state fair), we would have had a revolution.
Most presidents need 50 percent approval ratings in the lead-up to a reelection bid to win another four years. But Trump, who won the election without 50 percent approval, may not.
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
‘I hate the people who hate him.’
Quietly, the approval ratings of Trump have been rising to pre-impeachment levels and are nearing a RealClearPolitics average of 45. Support for impeaching Trump and/or removing him is not increasing as the House Democrats expected. It is essentially static, or slowly eroding, depending on how polls phrase such questions. . . .
The reality may be the very opposite of what Democrats planned. The more the Left tries to abort the Trump presidency before the election, the more it bleeds from each of its own inflicted nicks. As an example, Rachel Maddow’s reputation has not been enhanced by her neurotic assertions that Trump’s tax returns would soon appear, or that the Steele dossier was steadily gaining credibility, or that yet another tell-tale Russian colluder had emerged from under another American bed.
The past three years of Trump mania did not induce a recession, despite last summer’s sudden hysteria that “recession” was on the horizon. It is hard to envision a looming recession when real wages of workers continue to rise, unemployment is at historic lows, U.S. energy production is at record highs, inflation is low, interest rates are manageable, and growth is moderate but steady. We collectively have an appointment with the staggering national debt and stock-market exuberance, but probably not until after 2020. And the Left has completely nullified that issue by proposing trillions of dollars in new spending.
For now, the Democrats in extremis have redefined impeachment for the first time in American history as a Sword of Damocles, now permanently hanging by a horse’s hair over Trump’s head. Impeachment is being reinvented as way of presidential life that will supposedly impale Trump one day or at least constrain him, as occasional additional writs are added on, as the polls, media, and Democratic fancy dictate. Nancy Pelosi has rewritten the U.S. Constitution after reading a few op-eds by Trump-hating academics. Most Americans accept that if the Republican Congress had tried the same with Barack Obama (at a time when just wearing an Obama mask got a rodeo clown fired for life from a state fair), we would have had a revolution.
Most presidents need 50 percent approval ratings in the lead-up to a reelection bid to win another four years. But Trump, who won the election without 50 percent approval, may not.
Thursday, 26 December 2019
Wickedness and Corruption Endorsed by "Christianity Today"
Due Process for a Scavenger Landfill Dog
Douglas Wilson
Blog and Mablog
[An article in which Douglas Wilson exposes the Editor of Christianity Today as being guilty of vacuous nonsense.]
Introduction
So I would like to take a few moments to write about the Trump impeachment fiasco, and to do so without actually talking about Trump himself, or his character, or his tweets, or his hair. For the sake of the argument, allow me to grant all the emotional distaste that your righteous spleen might be able to generate.
A friend of mine recently wrote, apparently pleased with the aftermath of the impeachment vote, that no one should ever be considered to be above the law. This bromide is of course correct, but it was so wildly wide of the mark that I felt like I had to reply. It was a true bromide, but badly and baldly thrown.
And my reply was that while nobody should ever be considered to be above the law, it is even more important that we recognize what is actually occurring here, and state firmly for the record that no one should be considered to be beneath it either. And I wouldn’t hang a landfill scavenger dog on the basis of the kind of wicked and corrupt processes we have witnessed over the last several months.
But CT Wants to Throw the Bum Out
What I intend to do in this space is take a look at the Christianity Today editorial by Mark Galli, the recent one that called for the removal of Trump, and thereby broke the Internet. Whether that removal happens by means of the electoral process or by impeachment, CT has kindly left to our prudential judgment. More about that in just a wee bit.
In the editorial, CT says this:
Douglas Wilson
Blog and Mablog
[An article in which Douglas Wilson exposes the Editor of Christianity Today as being guilty of vacuous nonsense.]
Introduction
So I would like to take a few moments to write about the Trump impeachment fiasco, and to do so without actually talking about Trump himself, or his character, or his tweets, or his hair. For the sake of the argument, allow me to grant all the emotional distaste that your righteous spleen might be able to generate.
A friend of mine recently wrote, apparently pleased with the aftermath of the impeachment vote, that no one should ever be considered to be above the law. This bromide is of course correct, but it was so wildly wide of the mark that I felt like I had to reply. It was a true bromide, but badly and baldly thrown.
And my reply was that while nobody should ever be considered to be above the law, it is even more important that we recognize what is actually occurring here, and state firmly for the record that no one should be considered to be beneath it either. And I wouldn’t hang a landfill scavenger dog on the basis of the kind of wicked and corrupt processes we have witnessed over the last several months.
But CT Wants to Throw the Bum Out
What I intend to do in this space is take a look at the Christianity Today editorial by Mark Galli, the recent one that called for the removal of Trump, and thereby broke the Internet. Whether that removal happens by means of the electoral process or by impeachment, CT has kindly left to our prudential judgment. More about that in just a wee bit.
In the editorial, CT says this:
“We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve.”Reserve, nothing. This is where I want to throw a flag, and penalize CT for unsportsmanlike conduct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)