"It depends on a delicate political calculation — that a Republican-held Senate would never follow a Democratic House and vote to remove Trump, and that voters tired of the long-running Russia scandal will, as they did in the late 1990s with Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky scandal, want to move on. The notion has surfaced spontaneously among a diverse set of conservatives, including politicians with Trump’s ear and young ultraloyalists of the president whose institutional knowledge of the GOP begins with its new standard-bearer. They’re also the die-hards who aren’t afraid to align themselves with pro-Trump positions even before the president has warmed to them himself."
Politico says.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६८ टिप्पण्या:
Lets say for the instance, that PDT is impeached and removed from office before 2020. Can he run again? Don't you think he would just to stick it to the Dems and Rinos? And wouldn't he win like 40 states?
Much, much better to keep the house.
"Lets say for the instance, that PDT is impeached and removed from office before 2020."
That is the most likely route to genuine political instability.
Yeah, nobody knows Trump and his supporters like the Liberals at Politico. They're almost as good as CNN and the WaPo.
Nobody will care if a Democrat House "Impeaches" Trump on a party-line vote. If the D's win the House in November, it will be by a razor-thin margin. And they got nothing on Trump anyway.
Some R Senators would *LOVE* an impeachment trial. You can just hear "Mitt" pompously intoning about how he will "hear all the evidence with an open mind" while Miss Lindsey would grab the microphone at every opportunity.
Ditto Buwaya. Have the duly-elected President impeached and removed from office for no better reason (no matter what figleaf they use to justify it) than a tantrum by the Democrats and their imbedded loyalists because he defeated Hilary?
The "Not my President" movement will pale in comparison to the "Not my President..Not my Congress, not my FBI/DOJ/IRS/FedGov" reaction from millions of people who voted for him precisely because he was an alternative to more of the same from the usual suspects in both parties.
That is the most likely route to genuine political instability.
You don't think the troops would just quickly move on to President Pence? A sizeable number of republicans would be much happier with Pence anyway.
I just curious what would be the pretense for such an impeachment? What high crimes and misdemeanors has Trump committed?
When Trump's impeachment comes it will not rest on the purported Russian conspiracy or obstruction of justice (because if sound evidence existed the rough outlines would already have leaked), but rather on something in Trump's tax filings and the web of relationships they represent. As I've said before, if a corrupt prosecutor can't find something in Trump's complex business dealings to exploit, he belongs in a more honest line of work.
67 senators or 51 senators to convict?
As I've said before, if a corrupt prosecutor can't find something in Trump's complex business dealings to exploit, he belongs in a more honest line of work.
"Corrupt Prosecutor" is the key word. Have you read "Ham Sandwich Nation?"
I doubt the Republicans will lose the House. If they do, it will be by a small margin. I think Martha McSally will be elected Senator but her House seat may be lost. Lots of lefties in Tucson.
Much, much better to keep the house.
...and isn't the assumption lefties take the House the same kind of second order posturing that exposes people we once thought of as stable to be certifiably insane when it doesn't happen?
What high crimes and misdemeanors has Trump committed?
Andrew Johnson had not committed any. He was just weak and ran afoul of the radical Congress. The "Tenure in Office Act" was unconstitutional.
John: "You don't think the troops would just quickly move on to President Pence? A sizeable number of republicans would be much happier with Pence anyway."
LOL
You think giving the lefties Trump will satisfy them? How dumb/naive are you? They are already saying that Pence should not be seated and must step down AND Trump's SC picks have to be removed.
John thinks if you feed the insane lefty mob that they won't come back even more ravenous than before. And worse, having successfully removed a duly elected President just because they weren't happy about it, they would have learned they can simply do this ANYTIME they want....as they tried to do with Reagan, HW Bush and GW Bush as well.
You don't think the troops would just quickly move on to President Pence? A sizeable number of republicans would be much happier with Pence anyway.
But would a majority of VOTERS? I think not.
Nonapod: "I just curious what would be the pretense for such an impeachment? What high crimes and misdemeanors has Trump committed"
He legally and properly defeated Hillary and is accomplishing what all the dems/lefties/LLR's said was not possible.
That alone is quite enough as you can now plainly see.
John said...
That is the most likely route to genuine political instability.
You don't think the troops would just quickly move on to President Pence? A sizeable number of republicans would be much happier with Pence anyway.
No. They wouldn’t.
For impeachment to be successful republicans would have to betray their voters.
Not that we are not used to that.
Trump is the warning shot. If Trump is removed the republicans in DC are first on the block.
Assumes facts NOT in evidence. Who says the Dems are going to win the House? What would be in the Articles of Impeachment?
This is all insane.
Dave Begley: "What would be in the Articles of Impeachment?"
They would just copy and paste from articles in the paper that were written at their own behest...just like the hoax dossier provided by LLR Chuck's heroes on the left.
Dave Begley: "This is all insane."
Yeah, well, they wear p****-hats and there's no running water half the time in Venezuela now and the lefties think socialism "works".
The left/dems/LLR allies are, by definition, insane.
Kristian Holvoet said...
Lets say for the instance, that PDT is impeached and removed from office before 2020. Can he run again? Don't you think he would just to stick it to the Dems and Rinos? And wouldn't he win like 40 states?
He would if it made it that far.
But it wouldn’t make it that far.
DC knows this and that is why it hasn’t happened.
Achilles: "DC knows this and that is why it hasn’t happened."
I don't agree. This is a political fight to the death.
I think Mueller will wait until September and then subpeona Trump. I think Mueller and his merry band of dem hacks will indict Don Jr in early to mid-Oct. I think Mueller and Rosenstein will offer up about 50 more Russians/Ukrainians/whatever's in late Oct to drive a message home.
I think Mueller will also release a report thoroughly designed to insinuate and conflate and tar Trump and all that information will be immediately (having already been scrubbed for the purpose) integrated into nationwide democrat campaign ads and talking points.
What does the deep state have to lose by going all in? Today's laughable 350 news paper editorial lock-step messaging is just a trial run along with the now daily scrubbing of conservative social media sites by Big Tech.
We are witnessing in real time the complete, open Pravda-ization of the MSM, openly, aggressively, proudly, siding with the dems.
This entire coordinated effort is going to happen.
Guaranteed.
It's a muddled and clumsy piece, but has a grain of truth. Clinton lost the House in 94, won big in 96, then got impeached, but not removed.
It'd be nice if these asshole Dem and media lapdogs would articulate the things he did warranting impeachment. Firing Comey doesn't cut it.
This entire coordinated effort is going to happen.
And how many people to the right of Che are going to be fooled by that?
Since GWB's drunk driving arrest, Rather Gate and Obama's unseal sealed divorces, Trumps ET tapes, etc. right before elections, this shtick of an October surprise is played out.
"This entire coordinated effort is going to happen. "
Yes, that's exactly as it is, and will be. We know how the machine works.
Mostly predictable, save for the precise nature of the ammunition they will feed into the machine. The ammunition is not that important though, other than to know that there will be some sort of ammunition.
What remains less predictable is what Trump & co. are going to do.
This is a pretty good column in The Hill.
Read the comments. Insane (except for mine, of course)
The left is very loud. How many there are is the question.
Trumps ET tapes, etc. right before elections, this shtick of an October surprise is played out.
His tax returns will be leaked in late October. Bet on it.
Not every page. Just enough.
The notion has surfaced spontaneously among a diverse set of conservatives
Must seem weird to Democrats who are used to getting "talking points" delivered daily to their fax machines from a war room funded by some foreign billionaire.
Just enough.
I doubt it. At this point, Bill Clinton is going, "I can't believe he is surviving this."
They had evidence against Nixon. They had evidence against Clinton. They have no evidence against Trump. Of course, these days Democrats don't need evidence because they rely on their own feelings and wishful thinking to connect invisible dots.
If there is evidence that Trump conspired with Russian intelligence to steal the DNC emails or hack state election boards then let's see it. Mueller needs to put it on the table. If all they got is the Trump Tower meeting. IF they have evidence that Trump actually obstructed justice by doing something illegal or outside the scope of his presidential prerogative, then let's see it!
I any event, it takes 67 votes to convict. No way the Dems will have that many seats and there probably won't be enough Republicans to get them to 67 without substantial evidence that Trump conspired with the Russian government.
It's still an open question whether Nixon would have been convicted in the Senate, though he probably would have been. While Nixon was probably more popular among Senate Republicans in 1974 than Trump is now, these GOP Senators aren't dumb. They know that convicting Trump on flimsy charges could get them tossed from office. Plus, Trump being kinda a scoundrel is baked into the cake. Only new and damning evidence will suffice to make Trump unpopular among most Republicans.
The Dems held firm in 1998 because they saw the impeachment of Clinton was largely political and not based on real criminal conduct. The GOP was out to get Clinton from the beginning - as soon as he was elected and there was nothing in Whitewater to use, so they used the perjury and obstruction from the Paul Jones case as the basis of the charges. While those charges were true, they didn't work politically because Clinton was otherwise popular and folks weren't looking to remove him for his low crimes and misdemeanors. The public largely bought into the "it's about sex" narrative and Clinton was spared.
Trump isn't as popular as Clinton was, but, again, there was actual evidence against Clinton. They got nothing on Trump!
But I am guessing that the headline came from that same war room.
"How do we counter this?? Oooh oooh! Mr Kottere! We will make it sound like a cult!"
"Brilliant! Fire up the blast fax machines and let Democrats know what to think, they are waiting!"
"this shtick of an October surprise is played out."
It is probably still effective in the sense of moving the vote a few points from where it would otherwise be.
We can't say for certain whether such a thing is effective or not, or how effective, as we cannot conduct an experiment where it does not happen.
Also, regarding the numbers in the senate to convict... 2020 has way more Republicans defending seats than Democrats. Unless they are Corking Flaky McCains and quit, they won't convict, because they'll want to win re-election.
Republicans aren't going to vote to remove unless they want to burn the party to the ground, which is what Democrats are hoping for, of course.
Just enough.
I know my way around complex returns but I can't imagine what 'just enough' would be. If it was there wouldn't it have leaked long ago, back when Trump had not yet nominated The Supremes? Not like the lefties at IR don't already know what every page looks like...
Boomers wanted Bubba, they’ll NEVER admit they’re wrong AND it’s the economy, stupid. And talk about STUPID, fauxahontas. I think we should apply her desires to university endowments.
Kristian Holvoet: "And how many people to the right of Che are going to be fooled by that?
Since GWB's drunk driving arrest, Rather Gate and Obama's unseal sealed divorces, Trumps ET tapes, etc. right before elections, this shtick of an October surprise is played out"
Doesn't matter.
They are going to do it anyway.
And now Elizabeth Warren is campaigning on warmed over textbook fascism, because we need to save "good jobs."
"...ultraloyalists..."
I don't think I've ever seen "ultraloyalist" (or any form of "-loyalist") used to describe supporters of Dem pols, though it's at least as applicable there.
I continue to be impressed by the ham-handedness of the propaganda these days. (Our great&good are not a subtle-minded lot.)
The Dems held firm in 1998 because they saw the impeachment of Clinton was largely political and not based on real criminal conduct.
Me too! It was they didn’t care.
What high crimes and misdemeanors has Trump committed?
He won an election he wasn't supposed to win.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
The notion that Mueller would wrap up his investigation prior to the 2018 mid-term election season was always fanciful. The whole point of the Special Prosecutor is to impeach Trump based on electing Dems to control the House (and counting on "Statesmen" in the Republican Senate to do a Nixon on him so no vote would be required). Even Strozk recognized that any actual evidence of collusion was not in the cards.
"Republicans aren't going to vote to remove unless they want to burn the party to the ground"
Its not a party, it is a small number of individuals who will be approached and offered enormous bribes (by various deniable methods), or threatened, blackmailed. I believe that the fix is already in among those likely to be taking part in the exercise. There may be some last minute negotiations.
It is in cases like this that one must exercise maximum cynicism.
How exactly would Trump be removed?
Bubba set the standard.
Dems won’t show? No one gets paid?
Its not a party, it is a small number of individuals who will be approached and offered enormous bribes (by various deniable methods), or threatened, blackmailed.
How unlikely. I mean, that would require spying on the the legislature by the executive branch agencies. That would never happen! Can I get a non-denominational "Amen!" Judge Roberts?
" If it was there wouldn't it have leaked long ago"
Good point. The IRS is not a safe repository for private information. Perhaps its better than the CIA (which seems permeable to teenage boys), but certainly not proof from a great-power level intelligence operation.
Half of these lefty loonies think that if Trump is impeached Hillary becomes president.
they didn't work politically because Clinton was otherwise popular and folks weren't looking to remove him for his low crimes and misdemeanors. The public largely bought into the "it's about sex" narrative and Clinton was spared.
I agree.
I don't think the tax returns will show anything real but it is the same as Manafort's ostrich coat.
OMG! Look at all that money !
MadCow misfired because she had the page showing how much tax he paid. That page won't be leaked.
Something about deductions, I expect.
One time, after a landslide at my home, I got a letter from the IRS saying I owed $100,000 in additional tax. After the audit was over, I got another letter saying "Additional Tax Owed $0."
I had them framed side by side on the wall for years.
The first letter will be leaked.
Never take advice from your enemies, like politico.
Mountain Maven: "Never take advice from your enemies, like politico."
Or those that have your enemies interests at heart, like LLR Chuck.
(that was for walter)
Don't you need a reason to impeach a president beyond "I really, really don't like him"?
I think Drago and buwaya are correct. I think the social media companies are just beginning to prepare the battle space by censoring conservative political sites, just like the IRS neutered the the Tea Party prior to an election.
The Senete can flip D and they still cannot impeach him. That requires 66 votes. Not happening.
That requires 66 votes.
67, right?
"Don't you need a reason to impeach a president beyond "I really, really don't like him"?
No. It is a political process, not a criminal one.
I don't think he will be impeached if the Dems take the House. They do not want to open Pandora's box when it comes to the actions of the FBI, DOJ, CIA and DNC.
It's better for them to keep up the unsupported narrative that Trump is a racist, woman hating criminal. That keeps the base happy and puts doubts in the minds of independents who are unable to sort through the muck.
Also, the House cannot vote Articles of Impeachment for acts prior to being elected President, by their own rules.
They could try to change that, but the adults in the Democratic Party (yes, there are still quite a few) know how badly that could come back against them in the future. See “Reed changes rules for confirmations” for a recent example.
@Kristian - well, 2/3, so 67, if all Senators are in attendance, less if there are less there. But I did I speak when I said 66
They will probably only impeach if they win both the Senate and House.
But if they don't control the Senate, this causes any issue. Republicans would control the trial portion of the impeachment and could get a lot of good publicity out of it. Especially if Trump hired some really good lawyers.
You do need to have a reason for impeachment.
I don't think I've ever seen "ultraloyalist" (or any form of "-loyalist") used to describe supporters of Dem pols, though it's at least as applicable there.
It's all about making support for Trump appear as a cult.
Trump has caused the left to lose their minds. Cuomo's father would never have said that America was never great. He loved America. That left is gone now.
"“If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
Trump wouldn't be the first person to do that.
Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Al Sharpton
Stormy Daniels
Omarosa
Jews
me
AustinRoth: "Also, the House cannot vote Articles of Impeachment for acts prior to being elected President, by their own rules."
Why do you think LLR Chuck's hero, dem hack senator Blumenthal, was on TV just this morning saying that revoking Brennan's security clearance is an unconstitutional act?
The dems have been lining up insane talking points that only a LLR Chuck or gadfly could parrot with a straight-face asserting perfectly normal Presidential actions are unconstitutional.
Remember what LLR Chuck's lefty MSM allies did with Sarah Palin when they launched a hundred stupid lawsuits against her as Gov (things like, wore a jacket with a logo on it to the start of an snow machine race in Alaska). All the media reported was the number of lawsuits in grave tones.
No different than we see gadfly and others parroting the nonsensical "indictment" number for Mueller's team of hacks which include Russians that will never be tried (duh!) just to inflate the seeming importance and then making sure to conflate those with Trump.
Lefties/LLR's gonna lefty/LLR-y. It's like a law of nature.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home: "You do need to have a reason for impeachment."
LOL
How utterly quaint.
Well, the Constitution says 2/3 of the Senators in attendance. Murder enough Republican senators and you can get to 2/3 pretty quickly. Then get set for Armageddon.
I think Drago and buwaya are correct. I think the social media companies are just beginning to prepare the battle space by censoring conservative political sites, just like the IRS neutered the the Tea Party prior to an election.
And now they’re paying, fire up the lawsuits.
I have come to accept that everybody is pretty much a racist, in reality, but especially by today's definition, but I really don't see the charge fitting Trump much. The label of "misogynist" is the same way off-target. He's like me who is also accused of that all the time. We both employ women at the highest levels of our organizations, and rely upon them for important advice, work and responsibilities. We really can't live without them. It's our honesty, however, and challenges to PC talk that gets you called that. You have to either shut up or lie to avoid it. Which method do you all use to avoid the label?
Folks we are in brand new territory here. Hugo Chavez/East German territory.
The left and their LLR lapdogs cannot allow Trump to survive, for if he survives it puts the lie to everything they've been saying and provides the opportunity for the truth to get its pants on and catch up to the hurricane of lies the left and the LLR's have been spewing for 2 years.
They can't let that happen.
That Trump and our nation is succeeding in so many other ways these lefty/LLR rocket scientists told us was impossible for 2 years makes it even more imperative that they take Trump down by any means necessary, lest everyone get too used to that success.
Which is why LLR Chuck and all the lefties argue so much for obama to get all the credit for the economy they told us would forever be at 1.5% growth and that Trump would destroy.
To speak of "loyalty" to a party or a politician is to betray ourselves. Our loyalty should be only to our own sovereignty as citizens, and we rightly should view our representatives only as our (temporary) hired servants.
But...that's not how they see themselves--or us--and that's not, apparently, how most Americans of either party see things.
Robert Cook: "But...that's not how they see themselves--or us--and that's not, apparently, how most Americans of either party see things."
LOL
One party weaponizes the entire federal govt to smear, frame and destroy domestic political opponent.
The domestic political opponent says, hey wait just a minute there buddy....!
Robert Cook: These reactions are the same and lets not quibble about who shot who.....
....(by the way, that tactic is precisely how you know when the lefties know they've been exposed...they immediately revert to the Animal House "lets blame everyone in Society" mode....which is usually more effective then their other tried and true tactic of employing The Wookie Defense)
I'm looking for the part of the Constitution that says the people who voted for someone just have to sit quietly and accept the official's removal. Where can I find that?
The Dems held firm in 1998 because they saw the impeachment of Clinton was largely political and not based on real criminal conduct.
@“Real” American, so you don’t regard commission of a felony as “real criminal conduct”?
Impeachment? On what grounds? Not that they need grounds. It's an exception to the Universal Theory of Progressive Instrumentalism: everything is a tool; but if you got nothing, pretend.
Anyway, Politico, take it from this conservative circle of one: no, we would prefer to hold the House. Thanks.
"No different than we see gadfly and others parroting the nonsensical "indictment" number for Mueller's team of hacks..."
Which should be balanced by the number of people related to the investigation who have been fired or reassigned, and we're just starting to discover the mess underneath it all. Unless the Dems win The House, there will end up being far more heads rolling on side of the attempted coup.
If they try to remove Trump from office then Pence will be targeted next, unless he agrees to play ball. But what's the end game? OK, you have removed Trump from office and ruined him and his family as an object lesson on who really holds the power. What happens next? You now have approximately half the population who feel that the US Government and its institutions are illegitimate. We're talking crossing the Rubicon territory here.
bagoh20: "Unless the Dems win The House, there will end up being far more heads rolling on side of the attempted coup."
Trump still has the legal authority and power to declassify and release documents exposing much of this (which will immediately be added to the hoax obstruction of justice charges LLR Chuck's dem pals will make and added to any dem house articles of impeachment).
Immediately.
But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective and cause more of the guilty coup plotters heads to roll....politically.
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
You do need to have a reason for impeachment.
Well, a rationalization, anyways.
Ron: "We're talking crossing the Rubicon territory here."
The left/LLR's don't care.
They'd rather burn it all down than have to admit they were wrong and have Trump remain.
Go ahead and take a poll of the lefties/LLR's: Tear the country down into a shooting war or Trump serves out the remainder of his term....
I think we all know which way that poll would go, even without including all the illegal aliens and dead voters who routinely vote democrat.
If they try to remove Trump from office then Pence will be targeted next, unless he agrees to play ball.
With Nixon they tried to prevent Nixon from replacing Agnew so that Democrats would seize the presidency through the Speaker of the House. But they still had quaint notions of the limits of the tolerance of the American People. Not any more.
Well, the Constitution says 2/3 of the Senators in attendance. Murder enough Republican senators and you can get to 2/3 pretty quickly. Then get set for Armageddon.
I'm old enough to remember when excitability was considered unmanly.
The notion has surfaced spontaneously among a diverse set of conservatives, including politicians with Trump’s ear and young ultraloyalists of the president whose institutional knowledge of the GOP begins with its new standard-bearer.
They omitted one category: anyone who knows anything about American politics. Apparently no one from that group was available to Politico.
There's not going to be any attempt to impeach Trump. The Dems are aware the attempt would fail, especially given there's no hard evidence so far that would support impeachment. They're just pandering to their loyal supporters.
What would be the trigger that turns this cold civil war hot?
To speak of "loyalty" to a party or a politician is to betray ourselves
You talking to the mouse in your pocket?
Trump has been under investigation for "collusion" with the Kremlin for at least two years, and nothing -- NOTHING -- has been made public or leaked to support that charge. Quite the contrary. Yet if you read the headlines in the WaPo (for some reason I get an email every day from WaPo called the "Post Most" with almost nothing but headlines of anti-Trump paranoia), you'd think that his collusion with the Russians was an established fact. Brennan's screed today after his security clearance was revoked is the same. If the Democrats take the House, even by a couple of votes, the true believers will force them to impeach Trump, or at least to try. But eventually, you need to come up with what lawyers call "evidence". Either in the House or in the Senate the anti-Trumpers are going to be forced to face the reality that there is no there, there.
And how will the Democrats be positioned for 2020 after that?
There's not going to be any attempt to impeach Trump.
I agree. It's GOTV kabuki, and both sides get to participate.
In the case of a trial in the Senate, CJUS presides. Can he decide that there is no evidence of a crime and dismiss the charges? Not saying he would, but could he? Do the recognized rules and procedures of trials all translate into a Senate trial? Directed verdict, etc?
Half of these lefty loonies think that if Trump is impeached Hillary becomes president.
Well she was first runner up...
Off topic: I just read the reader comments to the La Crosse Tribune editorial today on the "free press/fake news" controversy. The reader comments are strongly supportive of Trump's position. This is surprising in liberal La Crosse. Could the media be out of touch with their readers?
It's officially a blast fax coordinated attack:
Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” NBC analyst John Heilemann posed the scenario of a pollster asking members of the GOP that think it would be OK for President Donald Trump to kill their parents or grandparents,
Cookie is correct. Our elected representatives feel they are not our servants, but rather a new aristocracy that will tell us what to do. For our own good, of course.
And Drago is correct that one side shows this behavior much more than the other.
The real divide in this country is not left or right, it up/down. The people at the top consider themselves superior in every way to their fellow citizens, and thus not subject to the rules they make for others.
There be dragons.
In Brennan's oped today he states there is proof of Trump Russian collusion, because he read it in the newspapers ( probably from his leaking the fake Steele BS ). This fuck wad was Director of the CIA? Where do I apply, I can read newspapers.
Half of these lefty loonies think that if Trump is impeached Hillary becomes president.
Well she was first runner up...
But not Miss Congeniality. The Lefties I know, and I know quite a few, hate Hillary almost as much as they hate Trump.
Trump's idea is always to win. And his followers' idea is that the elected President stays in office. And he will. So, figure out the politics based on those facts. None of these people opposing the President seem able to understand how much damage they have done TO THEMSELVES over the past two years. And their extraordinary political campaign - Make America Crap Again -?
If you follow Trump you get a job, you can keep your home on the lake, you can go hunting, you can have a wife, you can have children, you can to church, you can barbecue, you can travel in your car to cities or mountains.
If you follow Make America Crap Again you get job training for jobs which your city and state leaders are working to destroy; you certainly don't need a second house even if you could afford it on a job training allowance; nor can you drive to the lake on your electric scooter, which is lucky because there is no place on the scooter for a wife and kids; and there will be no vacation trips either because no car; but that's OK because the parks will be closed to people and saved for the animals; and don't try to fool the government and sneak in because your iphone will track you and phone the Green Jackboots. Meat is fine several times a month but don't even think of barbecue, pollution, charred meat, sugar in the barbecue sauce like as not, good god, don't even mention barbecue near Alexa. And forget church, you damn bigot toxic male with your wife (ugh) that you've indoctrinated in false consciousness; she'll be required to repudiate your "vows" or they'll take the children who belong to the state already and are just on loan to you.
Don't like? Get out and vote for Republicans in 2018 and next year watch the idiots blow up and blow away as you head for the lake in your car with your family and your barbecue provisions.
Impeachment will never happen. It’s a death knell for Dems to even attempt it. And they know it. My greatest fear is the ultimate removal of Trump. Dems would quietly wink at it ... just like they showed no outrage at the Scalise/Republican softball practice shooting.
If The Swamp™ removes Trump, the people who elected him will respond with organized violence. Count on it. Democrats will have succeeded in making the US a third world country, which is all they ever wanted.
'Bout time!
Not agreeing with everything the man does, but overall well satisfied. Such a refreshing change from the customary hogwash (if you will) promises and failed performances of the career political class.
I hope for nothing more than another four years of the same, if the man can bear up to it physically. Pls pick a libertarian minded VP, 'cause the top job is a killer.
Meanwhile, the Press continues to beclown and devalue itself, the swamp to drain ever so slowly.
To coin a phrase: Faster, please.
I'd almost - almost - hope for the House to switch simply to see the Democrats attempt to control the monster they created.
Because they wouldn't be able to.
They're just pandering to their loyal supporters.
I agree, Cookie, but their supporters are nuts.
With Nixon they tried to prevent Nixon from replacing Agnew
Agnew was such a tragedy. Buchanan loved the guy. He was one of the few mourners when he died.
He could not believe that Agnew kept taking cash even when he was VP.
"Those whom the gods would destroy..."
In Brennan's oped today he states there is proof of Trump Russian collusion, because he read it in the newspapers ( probably from his leaking the fake Steele BS ). This fuck wad was Director of the CIA? Where do I apply, I can read newspapers.
Barry found out a lot of stuff from TV.
Never, ever forget that if James Hodgkinson, the Scalise shooter, had had any skill and managed to kill the Republicans there.... it would have flipped the House to Democrats.
And never forget that Democrat Senator Dick Durbin had been emailing Hodgkinson and has never revealed what, exactly, was in those emails.
So while Robert Cook tries to pour water on the "Murder a lot of Republicans and then impeach" idea.... Hodgkinson a Democrat partisan and Bernie Bro tried to do exactly that. And the left pretty much said "Damn, too bad he didn't succeed."
Vance: "And never forget that Democrat Senator Dick Durbin had been emailing Hodgkinson and has never revealed what, exactly, was in those emails"
Careful!!
Once you bring Li'l Dickie "us troops are gestapo!" Durbin into the conversation, you will likely have to deal with a Fully Operational LLR Chuck Dem Defense Death Star.
Two years and $ millions ( $ of $ hot $ meals $ for $ the $ poor $ ) later. They got zip. But hey, rich D.C. lawyers gotta eat too, right?
wildswan @ 4:57
Tell it, brother.
I'd be interested to know what direction the stock markets would take in the lead up to an impeachment vote, and what influence that would have on the vote in the House.
Uh oh. MORE bad news for LLR Chuck and his mini-me gadfly (evergreen headline these days):
Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) released a statement regarding LLR Chuck's favorite CIA-Gus Hall voter John Brennan’s claims in his op-ed which asserted flatly that President Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia.
“Director Brennan’s recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan’s statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn’t he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017?” Senator Burr said in a statement.
Senator Burr continued, “If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times.”
“If, however, Director Brennan’s statement is purely political and based on conjecture, the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance as head of the Executive Branch,” Mr. Burr concluded.
"Down goes LLR Chuck (and Frasier!),
down goes LLR Chuck,
down goes LLR Chuck!!"
And that tweet is from Rep Sen Richard Burr, who is basically a fully-owned asset for Dem Sen Mark Warner (he of the wanting to collude with dems/fusionGPS/Deripaska fame)...
So, here are the options for Brennan: Lied under oath, creating an intelligence breach, or, my personal favorite and odds-on winner to be: just another lefty political hack who has been exposed.
Not even a solid dem-deflection effort by LLR Chuck could sufficiently deflect from this foot in mouth Brennan moment.
They’re also the die-hards who aren’t afraid to align themselves with pro-Trump positions even before the president has warmed to them himself.
Does that make them pre-Trump instead of pro-Trump?
yes when you've lost Richard burr, you know you bobbled the ball, the jurors needed clarification on the charges against manafort, for activities that happened 12 years
"Does that make them pre-Trump instead of pro-Trump?"
I think Trump saw the pre-Trump parade moving, and ran in front to lead it.
The corollary is that Trump's survival or reelection is evidence of Soviet collusion. Devious. Insidious, really.
Democrat's entire agenda
A Trump vote is an anti-Deep State vote more than anything. Deep State is not one party.
So holding an opinion that is backed by recent precedent is a way of demonstrating loyalty to Trump and the GOP? What kind of bizarre argument is that? I'm guessing a lot of Democrats hold that opinion too. I'm guessing the point of the article is to prevent Democrats from thinking that impeachment is futile.
Nate Silver is predicting the Dems have a 75% chance of retaking the House.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/
Dream on...
"His tax returns will be leaked in late October. Bet on it."
How many of Trump's voters are going to parse his tax returns? How many are going to believe what the media and the Donks claim the returns reveal? Next to none.
As has been observed many times in these pages, every time the Left falls into hysterics they spray another coat of Teflon on Trump. A Democrat Congress would absolutely ensure his re-election.
Nate Silver is predicting the Dems have a 75% chance of retaking the House.
The same Nate Silver who had about a 70% chance of Hillary winning the presidential election?
Why didn't Trump just walk over to MSNBC and say "B****, get the f*** out of my house" like the democrat candidate for MN Attorney General said to his girlfriend as he beat her up and drug her out of his house?
It's also important for the lefties/LLR's to continue showing loyalty to their democrat lawmakers who appoint lefty judges who are always willing to let islamic supremacist terrorists run child terrorist training centers in the NM desert and be let off on a signature bond.....even though a childs remains are found on the property.
Sometimes you've got to break a few eggs to make a lefty-approved underage school shooter...
> and that's not, apparently, how most Americans of either party see things.
It is still the case that we hang together or hang separately. The main danger to humans is other humans, and usually the biggest and most unified group wins. The virtue of our system of government is not that it changes that fundamental aspect of human nature, but that it has been largely successful in limiting the violence.
What time does the candlelight vigil for the loss of "John Brennan's Guaranteed Lifetime Constitutionally Protected Top Secret Security Clearance" and "Loss Of Our Republic Complimentary Clam Bake" begin?
What goes around comes around; and I would love to see my very own Congress Critter Adam Schiff (Headcase California Dem) lead the floor fight to impeach Trump in 2019.
Way back in the way back (1998 or so) my then Congress Critter Jim Rogin (R-California) led the floor fight to impeach Billy Jeff.
The Democrat National Committee declared Jihad on Jim Rogan and made it their Holy Mission (not that they would know Holy from their bum or third base) to "Get Rogin!. And get him they did. They pungled up boatloads of dough and beat Rogin in the 2000 Congressional race in what was then the most expensive Congressional House of Representatives in history. They even proved you can beat something with a nothing named Adam Schiff.
Now 20 years later Adam Schiff may lead the floor fight to impeach Trump. History repeats itself--sort of. And if the Schiffster leads the impeachment floor fight in 2019, I hope he gets what's coming to him in 2020--and I hope he gets it good and hard.
Proponents of the go-for-broke scenario
What a strange formulation.
I could be wrong, but I don't think any Republican, brokish or not, is arguing in favor of losing the House on purpose.
Blogger James K said...
Nate Silver is predicting the Dems have a 75% chance of retaking the House.
I suspect that Nate will take criticism from the left for given the Democrats such relatively low odds -- just as he did in the Summer of 2016.
They pungled up boatloads of dough and beat Rogin in the 2000 Congressional race in what was then the most expensive Congressional House of Representatives in history.
I think he has been a federal judge for years.
Schiff is a piece of.... well Schiff. A friend of my son ran against him in the subsequent election.
Senator Burr is correct. The first sentence of Article Two, Section 1, Clause 1 reads “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” There’s nothing in that clause about “unless what he coed is unpopular with CNN or MSNBC or, God help us, The New York Times. Demonstrate that you are not fit to hold a position or a clearance then he can and should exercise that power.
The difference is the press hammered starr and by extension, robin, the get Mueller a frappacino and a scone.
Impeachment based on What, bill Clinton lied in a,courtroom based on a law he himself punished for, the predicate crime of that special counsel was mishandling of funds 're Madison guarantee, that's an actual offense.
"I think Trump saw the pre-Trump parade moving, and ran in front to lead it."
That sounds silly on the surface, but when you think about it, you are right. Trump found a niche and exploited it.
I remain pleasantly surprised that he has governed as a conservative. I did not expect that.
when you think about it, you are right. Trump found a niche and exploited it.
I agree but think he has been thinking about this for years.
He seems to have been able to connect with blue collar types for years.
Reagan could, too.
I think it's partially reactive to his circumstances, but also the niche is to actually follow the people's concerns fancythat. The other ones were basically a cup de sac.
Michael K---George W. Bush nominated Rogin for a seat on the Federal District Court for the Central District of California in January 2007. Diane Feinstein's Judiciary Committee---(the Dems held both the House and the Senate) gave him a unanimous bipartisan recommendation out of the Committee.
But Baghdad Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer pulled the old blue slip trick---and Rogin's nomination was never voted on by the full Senate. The nomination expired when that Congressional Term expired at the end of 2008.
You'll recall that the Dems howled when the full Senate refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing for a whole danged six or seven months. But Rogin was denied a hearing for two years.
Rogin continues to sit as an Orange County Superior Court Judge.
A growing list of folks like Adm William McRaven who said:"Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency," will lessen any connection Trump has to the blue collar types
Adm William McRaven is a piece of shit that just outed himself. Go to military blogs and see what real people think.
McRaven doesn't have any need for a security clearance as a retired admiral. By all means revoke it.
He's part of the academic milieu in Austin, that encourages category error.
So like Trumpers to call a Navy Seal a piece of shit.
Back six years ago the takedown in abbotabad was a big thing, but then Brennan selectively released the take from the raid, painting an incomplete picture, at the time he assured us, alqueda was on its last legs before benghazi and their rampage in southwest africa.
I have no problem calling you a piece of shit, too, RV. The Left only loves military personnel when they turn traitor and serve their purposes.
A Trump-supporting Pentagon analyst was stripped of his security clearance by Obama-appointed officials after he complained of questionable government contracts to Stefan Halper, the FBI informant who spied on the Trump presidential campaign.
Adam Lovinger, a 12-year strategist in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, complained to his bosses about Halper contracts in the fall of 2016, his attorney, Sean M. Bigley, told The Washington Times.
On May 1, 2017, his superiors yanked his security clearance and relegated him to clerical chores.
Mr. Bigley filed a complaint July 18 with the Pentagon's senior ethics official, charging that Mr. Lovinger’s superiors misused the security clearance process to punish him. He said his client complained about excessive "sweetheart" deals for Mr. Halper and for a "best friend" of Chelsea Clinton.
"As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper," Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts "cronyism and corruption."
Politico is trying to ratfuck the President. Any movement toward impeachment is good; each step will add momentum to their goal of impeachment.
Politico is worse than I thought. One of their other articles is about the 'movement' to abolish prison.
The McRaven was the poorly received predecessor to the McRib.
Security clearances should be revoked from anyone and everyone who does not have a current need for them, rV. It is atrocious that this is not SOP.
roesch/voltaire said...
A growing list of folks like Adm William McRaven who said:"Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency," will lessen any connection Trump has to the blue collar types
As a retired CPO, and a blue collar boiler operator, ADM McRaven has just beclowned himself. Security clearances aren't forever, and can and should be revoked for what Brennan did. In fact, the more I read of his history, the more I wonder how he received even a confidential clearance. With a history like that, I'd have not received my secret clearance. My wife's TS, as a Navy civilian employee, was held up for extra scrutiny because her brother- not her- had multiple DUI offenses.
Want the opinion of a Navy officer on the clearance being pulled? Ask ADM Rogers, who's been silent on it. He's going to be the one that history credits with revealing the big stink in the FBI/CIA and their attempted overthrow of an elected POTUS. https://themarketswork.com/2018/05/05/a-quiet-hero-nsa-director-admiral-mike-rogers-retires/
What's the point of a security clearance if it has been determined at the highest level that there is no penalty for compromising classified material? No sensible prosecutor would pursue it.
What bribe will buy needed Republicans?
Well ask Christian saucer about That, the trick with Brennan, is does he leak anything that's true, that's a,harder question.
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
You do need to have a reason for impeachment.
Well, a rationalization, anyways.
OK, but the law says a Special Counsel requires a named crime. If the Dems get the House, rules be dammed (more than usual)
Anyone who expects the president, any POTUS but President Trump no less than any, in the fulfilment of what he has been strongly elected to do - to govern, to execute, and, in his particular case, to hire and fire - but expects him to do so under unreasonable constraint in the matter of firing people, should understand that if he has a mandate from the election to do anything he has a mandate to fix or get rid of non performers, low performers and performers of evil. He owes no one their jobs. Certainly not with the nation at stake.
IOW, PDJT can fire anybody he wants. I wish sometimes he may fire everybody. Everybody can be replaced. What's a burden is the difficulty of staffing, worse were PDT not as good as he is at it. If he fired a general a week in Afghanistan, maybe we wouldn't be dragging things out for so long. If JFK had sacked McNamara and Dulles and McCone and his brother and all the rest ...now that would be so bad?
Comanche Voter,
Impeach Schlump! Down with the GOP! Reverse the tax cuts for the rich!
You don't get it. Sad!
roesch/voltaire: "So like Trumpers to call a Navy Seal a piece of shit."
Any military officer who goes to bat for Brennan has no one to blame but themselves.
Brennan lied repeatedlyunder oath to congress regarding spying on American citizens, including against legislators.
Brennan politicized intel and himself silenced dissenting whistle-blower voices.
So yeah, if any officer stands up and says hey, I like that guy, then that officer is going to catch a ration of crap.
Hey r/v, perhaps your time would be better spent telling Li'l Dickie Durbin to apologize for calline US troops "gestapo" and the rest of the dems calling ICE agents "terrorists".
The lefties hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds.
At all.
roesch/voltaire said...
A growing list of folks like Adm William McRaven who said:"Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency," will lessen any connection Trump has to the blue collar types
Do you actually know any "blue collar types"? Maybe read about them in a book?
Perhaps you do not remember, before the election, Team Hillary parading military types in front of a camera to give anti-endorsements of Trump?
Stupid.
Is this opposed to Feminists showing their loyalty by standing by President Herassing (sic)Rapist in defiance of their principles and against the clear rule of law?
Just so we are comparing apples to apples.
It's a never ceasing source of amazement that the Left seems to think they're the only people who could do what they do, and their enemies won't ever learn from them
Now, if Ted Cruz was VP, I'd happily push for the Senate to remove Trump from office after House Democrats impeached him
But, with Pence?
Democrat rules hold. You don't vote against your own side, no matter what. And the Dems chances of getting > 10 GOP Senators to vote to impeach Trump?
Slim
And, even if they did?
Then they'd have President Pence, and a new GOP VP, and it'd be w/ less than 2 years left in the term, so President Pence would be eligible for two more whole terms.
So, what is it that the Democrats think they're going to accomplish?
Now, if Ted Cruz was VP, I'd happily push for the Senate to remove Trump from office after House Democrats impeached him
This is why I hate Cardinal Cruz.
Do you actually know any "blue collar types"? Maybe read about them in a book?
+1
What bribe will buy needed Republicans?
Remember that Senator from Nebraska who got "bribed" into voting for Obamacare and then went back to his district and people threw rolls at him in a restaurant? He didn't run again. How much is leaving from the Senate with honor worth? Why are we talking about a money coup anyway? Because Trump is crude? Well Obama was a moron and that didn't bother anybody.
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
You do need to have a reason for impeachment.
Only one? So easy! Lets start with emoluments.
"Security clearances should be revoked from anyone and everyone who does not have a current need for them, rV. It is atrocious that this is not SOP."
I agree.
The Rs in the Senate want to impeach PDT just as much or more than the Ds. Would they do it? Not today. PDT base is still with him and many other Rs are seeing he is effective. If PDT looses his base I think would certain impeach.
"Do you actually know any "blue collar types"? Maybe read about them in a book?"
The vast majority of people who claim to be for "the working man" have no idea what working people do or what they want from life. It is just more leftist condecention.
So like Trumpers to call a Navy Seal a piece of shit. - R/V
So like a leftist to stop spitting on the troops long enough to use them for political pawns.
"Only one? So easy! Lets start with emoluments."
Do you really want to bring up the Clinton Global Initiative? Conservatives LOVE to talk about the CGI & Hillary's role in directing foreign donations to it while she was Secretary of State.
Maybe we can talk about how much more the Obama's are worth now than they were in 2008.
"The Emoluments clause" was brought up early in the Trump presidency & discarded as an attack vector because it had no traction with the public & it raised uncomfortable questions about Democrats.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा