October 21, 2019

"... 98 percent of Fox-citing Republicans oppose impeaching and removing Trump... 90 percent of non-Fox-citing Republicans oppose impeaching and removing him — which is overwhelmingly high..."

"... but suggests that among this group, at least, Trump could suffer losses on the margins as the inquiry turns up worse revelations. And here’s another real doozy: In response to my inquiry, PRRI tells me that 71 percent of Fox-citing Republicans strongly approve of Trump, while only 39 percent of non-Fox-citing Republicans strongly approve of him.... On impeachment, Fox News figures have put out nonstop disinformation. They regularly claim the inquiry is invalid absent a full House vote (which is baseless); that Trump did nothing wrong in the Ukraine scandal (he pressured a foreign leader to help him rig our election by investigating potential opponent Joe Biden); that the whistleblower has been discredited (his complaint perfectly captured what Trump actually did); and that Biden did the same or worse (which is based on a fabricated narrative).... "

From "Want Trump removed? New data shows Fox News is a huge obstacle" by Greg Sargent at WaPo (which is trying to be a huge obstacle to Trump's staying in office).

Here's the top-rated comment: "Fox should be labeled a national security threat, a seditious organization and a Russian asset." I can't tell if that was written as sarcasm or what percent of the up-voters are perceiving it as sarcasm.

79 comments:

The Bergall said...

I'm so happy the Washington Post has a pay wall. Just another excuse not to read it................/s

Nonapod said...

By the look of it, WaPo (and the entire non-FNC media) as well as their readers must really envy the power Chinese government wields to silence all dissenting voices. But there's certainly plenty of people at FNC who almost certainly want Trump impeached, Chris Wallace being the most notable.

Birkel said...

"...turns up worse..."

Given that what we have so far is nothing. Nothing marginally bothersome. Nothing beyond intense hatred from insiders against an outsider (and his voters) then perhaps there will be something worse.

I doubt it.

chickelit said...

Everything's at stake for these WaPo journalists. There's no face left to even save. One by one, each will double down. They're trapped. I might be interesting see a Saul-to-Paul moment for at least one of them: A damascene conversion would be a great drama scene and would sell.

Kay said...

Why do people still trust polls after the 2016 election?

cubanbob said...

"... 98 percent of Fox-citing Republicans oppose impeaching and removing Trump... 90 percent of non-Fox-citing Republicans oppose impeaching and removing him — which is overwhelmingly high..."

Those republicans know the difference between a crime and a coup. So far the only crimes that have been demonstrated to be credible have been committed by the Democrats.

MayBee said...

The "impeachment inquiry" may be valid....but what is it, exactly? It's just a label Democrats and their media friends have slapped on Democratic "investigations" into Trump, right? They already tried their hand at a special investigator and now need to try another method, but don't want to expend a ton of political capital.

(also, it's funny to me that 90% somehow shows him there is room for Republicans moving over to the removal side. Talk about seeing what you want to see!)

daskol said...

Greg Sargent and other anti-Fox crusaders make Mark Zuckerberg, on his current PR campaign to prevent the disassembly of FaceBook, look like a reliable champion of free speech and the public commons. Imagine if these journalists had the kind of power they think they deserve. Thankfully they're just a bunch of carpers.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

"Fox should be labeled a national security threat, a seditious organization and a Russian asset."

Each and every Trump voter in 2016 - IS A RUSSIAN BOT! A RUSSIAN ASSET!

It's not a joke. This is what the corrupt CNN-MSDNC Maddow-Hillary Schitt show have wrought.

rcocean said...

Democrat Greg Sargent is one of the most biased anti-conservative voices in the WaPo. I assume he's an opinion guy, he's so left-wing, but he could be a "News analyst" too.

Yeah, its not surprising that Trump voters who get all their news from the Left-wing Democrat Media (exuding Fox) would be less likely to STRONGLY support him. Bottom line: the 92% negative coverage has a real life impact, and is costing Trump approval ratings. And might cost him the election.

rcocean said...

BTW, you have two things going on. You have the self-selection among Fox Viewers. People who strongly support Trump are more likely to watch and secondly, the IMPACT of Fox's coverage on people. Its impossible to separate the two groups.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Why is it illegal to discuss Joe Biden's obvious corruption?

Oh right- he's the next Hillary Clinton. He is owed power, and he will not be denied. MSM are in bed with that schitt.

Fernandistein said...

(he pressured a foreign leader to help him rig our election by investigating potential opponent Joe Biden)

"Rig" = expose the corruption of politicians which the Whappo likes; a good idea.

Dunno about the "pressure", probably none, eh?

wild chicken said...

My how they love that "Russian asset" meme. Makes them sound so, well, in the know, like nobody can pull the wool over their eyes, by God!

traditionalguy said...

Drudge and half of Fox News has gone full CIA Disinformation. The show down battle must happen soon. Because if Trump gets his well earned 4 more years, the CIA and the FBI infested by CIA operatives, and the Obama secret agents in the State Department are all going down.

And Trump tweets "No surrender."

Amadeus 48 said...

In other news, inmates at Arkham Mental Asylum cite Greg Sargent and his readers as the greatest Americans ever.

Mutaman said...

Its the old uneducated know-nothings versus everybody else. And the old uneducated know-nothings watch Fox.

Kevin said...

Researcher : The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.

Pig Vomit : How can that be?

Researcher : Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next."

Pig Vomit : Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?

Researcher : Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.

Pig Vomit : But... if they hate him, why do they listen?

Researcher : Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next."

Yancey Ward said...

That top comment would have been sarcasm 10 years ago with 95% certainty. Today, it would only be mirroring mainstream progressive thought, so I put it about 50/50 it being a sincere belief. In any case, almost all of the upvotes are going to be from people who think the comment states the truth.

Our society is crumbling before our eyes.

robother said...

"I'm so Fox-cited, that I just can't hide it, I'm about to lose control, and I think I like it."

Bay Area Guy said...

The author of the WaPo piece, Greg Sargent, is obviously a Russian asset.

Kevin said...

"Want Trump removed? New data shows Fox News is a huge obstacle"

Dissenting opinions are always a problem for the dominant meme.

That's why so many left-leaning people are demanding the regulation of speech.

Amadeus 48 said...

"I can't tell if that was written as sarcasm or what percent of the up-voters are perceiving it as sarcasm."

Use your imagination. We are talking WaPoop, Greg Sargent, and their readers. What do you think?

Kevin said...

If only the Democrats could control ALL the media!!!

Anything else is just so unsatisfying for them...

Michael K said...

Another blogger burp.

glacial erratic said...

I still wish someone could define exactly what "high crime or misdemeanor" Trump has committed.

Todd said...

Trump could suffer losses on the margins as the inquiry turns up worse revelations.

Worst revelations than what? That he had a perfectly legitimate phone call with another country? Greg Sargent at WaPo needs his clutching pearls! Get the feinting couch stat!

These clowns had 2 plus years and millions of dollars to get something, ANYTHING on Trump and they came up with ZERO but this time, they will catch that wascally wabbit!

Where the hell was he for the prior 8 years when actual, actionable crimes and illegalities were occurring? Oh, right. He could not see any of that due to his head being so far up Obama's rear-end.

jaydub said...

Whenever I'm looking for an honest, unbiased opinion on Trump, Greg Sargent is always my first choice.

Wince said...

"Rig our election" by investigating a "potential opponent" ... "and that Biden did the same or worse".

Notice the asymmetry between starting an investigation and preventing one.

Ending an investigation by firing a prosecutor is determinative of the investigation's outcome.

Starting an investigation is not determinative of outcome, and affords the accused his defense.

iowan2 said...

The House has enumerated power to investigate impeachment and to impeach, separately. The House also has the power to investigate to carry out the enumerated power of oversight Schiff has said he is no longer investigating the complaint, has switched to oversight of the State Dept.
We have a federal judge writing in dissent that the request for Trumps information from his accountants does not fall under oversight. Would, if it were an impeachment inquiry, but she had zero evidence of an impeachment inquiry being held. Absent hearsay and press accounts, neither hitting constitutional requirements.

The Trump administration asked the Ukraine to investigate corruption. Democrats, and Biden have said the Bidens have been investigated and found no wrong doing by Biden. So by that fact alone, Trumps ask would not investigate the (Cleared) Bidens.

Critter said...

Wow! This guy Sargent puts out as facts the claims of Democrats that have not been proven or are not at all true:

1. Inquiry is invalid without full House vote - since the whole process is political, how is it wrong to express a political optioning of the inquiry?
2. Trump did nothing wrong - the claim that Trump asked the Ukrainians to rig the election by investigating Biden is so misleading and unproven that it's a clear attempt at a hoax.
3. That the whistleblower has been discredited - the Democrats don't want him/her to testify because they know the credibility is under serious question, so what is wrong with the political opinion that the whistleblower is discredited? I suppose the journalist/Democrat operative would also say that Blase Ford has also not been discredited.
4. Biden did the same or worse - if Biden is so clean then why do Democrats oppose an investigation? It sue looks and smells like Biden did something highly unethical and/or illegal.

This is a great example of how the Democrat operatives in the media work, and how they keep fellow Democrats in the bubble, not knowing reality.

JPS said...

Yancey Ward,

"That top comment would have been sarcasm 10 years ago with 95% certainty. Today, it would only be mirroring mainstream progressive thought, so I put it about 50/50 it being a sincere belief."

Definitions of Poe's Law should link that top comment, it's a great example.

I am coming to appreciate how many liberals are entirely fine with McCarthy's tactics, objecting only to his choice of targets.

narciso said...

indeed,

https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/21/the-media-turns-fake-whistleblowers-into-heroes-while-real-ones-get-punished-and-ignored/

'in a time of deceit (what progs practice) telling the truth is a revolutionary act,

Sam L. said...

I despise, detest, and distrust the WaPoo.

gilbar said...

On impeachment, WaPoo figures have put out nonstop disinformation.
fify!

chuck said...

I can't tell if that was written as sarcasm

Narrator voice: it wasn't sarcasm.

Mike Sylwester said...

Democracy Dies in Darkness!

TreeJoe said...

Ukraine-Trump is the best example of the country "seeing two movies" because the actual facts around it are pretty much out there. There's only questions around the margins of the case of what did/did not happen.

- Biden very clearly and publicly declared a quid pro quo on camera whereby he dictated the position of the US, as VP, that we would withhold $1 billion unless a specific person was terminated. That person was involved in investigating Biden's Son's employer. None of this is disputed. This was a direct quid pro quo of aid for action and it's being blown off because "the prosecutor was corrupt" or other excuses. The prosecutor may have been corrupt and may ALSO have been trying to use actual criminal acts by Burisma to extort Burisma - or Biden. The prosecutor being corrupt does not betray the fact Biden committed, as VP, a quid pro quo of payment for a specific act. There is no " read between the lines" or stretched logic here - this is a simple reading of the facts.

- Trump asked for the president of ukraine to investigate two potential acts of corruption AND DID NOT BRING UP withholding aid. At best, there is a very stretched case to be made that he intended to withhold aid at the time and then provided the aid WITHOUT ANY FURTHER COMMITMENT OR ACTION FROM the Ukrainian President.

- It appears that Trump using Biden's name on a call with Ukraine's president made some people nervous.

- Ukraine leadership was publicly working to hurt Trump prior to election and that was just fine?

- The leader of the "Impeachment inquiry", Adam Schiff, publicly and repeatedly lied about trump during the russian investigation. Including making statements of evidence that didn't exist. Shouldn't that be a problem? No?

- There are multiple sitting US Senators running for President. Should they not recuse themselves from an impeachment vote?

Once upon a time conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest meant something. Guess not anymore.

rcocean said...

The great thing about calling someone a "Russian Asset" is it sounds bad and sinister, but what does it mean PRECISELY?

Answer: Nothing - precisely. There's no definition of what a "Russian Asset" is, so it can mean anything and everything, or anything you want. The Russians like you - you're an asset. You spy for Russia - you're an asset. Its a GREAT smear.

Francisco D said...

I still wish someone could define exactly what "high crime or misdemeanor" Trump has committed.

Four obvious ones come to mind:

1. He beat Hillary;

2. He threatens the system that makes politicians rich from influence peddling;

3. He threatens the power of the Deep State and;

4. He is not a Democrat.

readering said...

Trying to separate sarcasm from sincerity in comments. Wish there was an app.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

FoxNews appears to be hypersensitive to the sort of criticism posed by Sargent, since they are careening headlong into the Never-Trump camp. In five years the Murdoch boys will be the proud owners of an also-ran news network, competing with CNN for third place, because people like me will be watching OAN.

Dave Begley said...

The Dems just talk in sound bites about impeachment. What exactly did Trump do that was bad enough and wrong enough to deserve impeachment? What are the undisputed facts?

Any fair and objective view of this who Ukraine-Biden thing leads to the conclusion that Trump just wanted to see the Ukrainians cooperate into the origins of the Russia hoax.

If there was a judge in the House, the Articles of Impeachment wouldn't survive a 12(b)(6) Motion.

Temujin said...

Forget it, Jake. It's WaPo.

RNB said...

Is it even worth it to point out that the 'reasoning' behind this meme is a logical fallacy of the crudest, most elementary sort? No? Oh, well... (Slinks away.)

Michael K said...

Blogger is now eating comments. Best to save them before posting. Moderation prevents you from seeing that it is gone.

walter said...

10-21-19 Final Letter to Comm Chairs re Deposition Rules:

https://biggs.house.gov/sites/biggs.house.gov/files/10-21-19%20Final%20Letter%20to%20Comm%20Chairs%20re%20Deposition%20Rules.pdf

elkh1 said...

If WaPo has confidence in the rightness of the "whistleblower" and the legitimacy of the basement impeachment, why doesn't WaPo force Pelosi to hold a vote to make the Impeachment legit?

Or WaPo knows the impeachment gambit is a way to suppress Trump's approval and may let Dems gain a majority in both the Senate and the House next year?

Bruce Hayden said...

“The House has enumerated power to investigate impeachment and to impeach, separately. The House also has the power to investigate to carry out the enumerated power of oversight Schiff has said he is no longer investigating the complaint, has switched to oversight of the State Dept.”

I really couldn’t see where you found the power to investigate impeachment and impeachment itself listed separately. Rather, as I read it, impeachment is listed in A1S2, and the power to investigate is implied by the power to impeach. Of course the House hasn’t voted to initiate a impeachment inquiry, so what you have is a fake impeachment inquiry purportedly utilizing the House’s A1S1 implied oversight power. That doesn’t work for a number of reasons. First, they are separate Legislative Powers - Oversight is A1S1 and Impeachment is A1S2. Secondly, oversight doesn’t extend to the White House (for the most part) nor to foreign relations (both Article II Presidential Powers). Moreover, Shifty Schiff chairs the HSCI (Intelligence Committee), and he doesn’t have jurisdiction because of the above, plus, the Ukrainian telephone call has nothing to do with the Intelligence Committee (except that his staff worked with the ICIG to file the “whistleblower” complaint). And, no, he doesn’t have oversight over the State Department either. Keep in mind that the House only can have oversight where explicitly provided I A1S8. That does it include foreig relations (again, reserved to the President in A2S1).

Unknown said...

“They regularly claim the inquiry is invalid absent a full House vote (which is baseless); ”

Oh well if you say so. Our democrat propaganda media will literally tear this country apart.

GingerBeer said...

No, that's a pretty typical comment at WaPo. "Repuglicans are afraid of AOC" is as close to sarcasm as you'll find there. Pointing out that it's difficult to be frightened when you're doubled over w/ laughter invokes howls of "sexism." One trick ponies at WaPo.

Michael K said...


Blogger readering said...

Trying to separate sarcasm from sincerity in comments. Wish there was an app.


I try to separate Babylon Bee from the NY Times. Wish there was an app.

My sympathy

gilbar said...

Staff: Every other Impeachment proceeding has at least TRIED to seem sorta nonpartisan

Shifty Schift:That is EXACTLY WHY we NEED to do it this way! It is Imperative that All of America recognize this as a partisan witch hunt; otherwise, they won't rally behind us

Staff: Ummm, yes sir; your logic is impeccable

grimson said...

Even giving Washington Post commenters the benefit of the doubt, I think the most charitable interpretation is that it is intended and viewed as hyperbole. If instead the comment appeared on a Trump-supporting site in response to a Trump critic's comment blasting Fox, then I would call it sarcasm.

rcocean said...

I always comment on the these Cable TV news topics, yet I rarely watch TV. Usually I just watch clips on the internet of something of interest. Whenever its about Trump, I go directly to his tweets or his press conferences online, because you can't trust the MSM to paraphrase or summarize him accurately.

And when its a live DC event, I just watch C-SPAN. You get the even without some damn scroll at the bottom trying to influence you.

rcocean said...

OT: R's always fail to understand who bat-shit crazy the left is. And i'm talking about the Hillary Clinton got 47% of the votes Left. Go read some liberal/left sites on Hillary's Stein and Tulsi are Russian spies comments. THEY AGREE WITH HER.

Senator R. Paul just got attacked in a restaurant by some nutty Left-wing actress called Zimberg or Zimmerman or something. They're crazy and they're getting dangerously crazy.

JaimeRoberto said...

Last week Sargent wrote a column that stated that Schiff's quotes about the conversation with Zelensky were accurate. I can't take him seriously after that.

gilbar said...

iowan2 said...
The House has enumerated power to investigate impeachment and to impeach, separately

The House has enumerated power to investigate impeachment?

I'd like to know/see WHERE that power is "enumerated"
As Al Smith would say, let's take a look at the record:
Here is EVERY mention of impeachment in the US Constitution

*The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

*The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

*judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

*he (the President) shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

*The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

*The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;

The only one that EVEN mentions the House, is the first one
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment


There's Not Even ANYTHING in the US Constitution that says that the House should have ANY role in the Trial.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

YES, the House can chuse their Speaker, and pick their own rules; but NO ONE has to pay ANY ATTENTION to those rules out of the House... But their ONLY role in Impeachment (according to the Constitution is voting for or against. There are NO enumerated powers, because their ONLY ROLL is the VOTE.

The SENATE has the SOLE POWER to try Impeachments. If you believe the Constitution, they're not just the judges, THEY ARE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS

Please correct me if i'm wrong? I've been wrong before

iowan2 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bilwick said...

"Liberals" (by which I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators") certainly seem far more obsessed with Fox than people on the pro-freedom side of the aisle.

iowan2 said...

impeachment is listed in A1S2, and the power to investigate is implied by the power to impeach. Of course the House hasn’t voted to initiate a impeachment inquiry, so what you have is a fake impeachment inquiry purportedly utilizing the House’s A1S1 implied oversight power. That doesn’t work for a number of reasons. First, they are separate Legislative Powers - Oversight is A1S1 and Impeachment is A1S2..

1:50, Bruce Hayden has the facts I was too lazy to investigate, above. Article I sect. 2 is the power to vote on impeachment. Again, I think SCOTUS ruling(s) have extended the AIS2 powers to investigate. That impeachment power exceeds the power from Article I sect 1, oversight. Oversight is limited to legislative purpose, and keeps all the committees in their proper lane.
What Schiff has been doing has nothing to do with oversight, and exceeds his power of oversight of the Intelligence Community
This is why it important for the House to vote on an impeachment inquiry, because it gives their Subpoenas legal heft and removes the limitations that would normally hinder oversight power.

Static Ping said...

Arguments are so easy to make when you live in a bubble and never question your assumptions. From merely what Ann quoted I can tell the author lives in a bubble.

The Washington Post is not worth reading anymore.

FullMoon said...

February 10, 2017

"Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed."

Jim at said...

It never ceases to amaze me the left's obsession with FOX News.

Not only don't I watch it, I probably couldn't find it on 300+ channels on my cable.

Yet, they constantly waste energy attacking it and think it's some sort of dispenser of elixir for all Republicans and conservatives.

iowan2 said...

I have deleted part of this post, as I made a terrible mess of explaining my understanding of Impeachment powers and oversight powers. I made another attempt, with help from Bruce Hayden.
It's important to get to the reasons why this latest witch hunt is playing out in this manner

Notice that Schiff, of Intelligence committee, is leading, not Judiciary. The Ukraine telephone call WB complaint came from the IC IG. Even though the WB complaint touched no function of the Itelligence Community. Reason? ONLY WB complaints from the IC that are labled "Urgent,Credible" are by law forced to get forwarded to congress. Pay attention to the reporting surrounding this and insiders slipped up and said the reason this WB (CIA employee) filed with the IC IG, was because the CIA IG, was taking too long to respond. If the Senate SSCI committee wasn't part of the coup, they would call the CIA IG into testify why he did not advance the complaint when he had it in his hands. Reason? Again it has been reported, the CIA IG refered it to CIA counsel, because no part of the complaint touched CIA operations or personnel, thus the CIA IG had no jurisdiction to investigate
The unasked question, is how did the IC IG interview White House personnel? The IG was way outside his jurisdiction interviewing White House personnel, about a matter that never touched the Intelligence Community.

All of this and more explain the total reason regular procedures have been tossed aside to get this far.

wildswan said...

The story says that 90% of those Republicans who do not watch Fox News oppose impeachment. 90% of Republicans who do not watch Fox News oppose impeachment. 90% of Republicans watching 24/7 fake news oppose impeachment. If Fox news was gone, 90% of Republicans would oppose impeachment.

How is this an opportunity? How is this anything but a colossal PR failure? 90% of the news supports impeachment; 90% of Republicans watching it oppose impeachment.

The DNC/media repeatedly send useless, defenseless media bobbleheads, armed at best with easily punctured errors, concoctions with the toughness of angel-food cake or an omelette, up against Trump's loyal legion of fact-checkers and real reporters. The only real effect is to hammer and weld Trump and his followers together. And a secondary effect is a slowly rising realization on the part of regular citizens that the media is indeed fake news and that the DC political class is indeed in the pocket of foreign billionaires.

Now the battle order has been enlarged and we see political Rip van Winkles walking down our main street of discourse unaware of all that has changed. Trump and all his family and all his Cabinet and his generals and his PR people and his supporters in the House (some of who were shot down) and distant supporters in the Senate (one of whom has had his ribs broken and suffered from punctured lungs) have all been savaged as if they were just people at his rallies (who have been beaten and spit upon and that might happen to any of us). I voted for Mitt Romney and learned a lot from Peggy Noonan. In the old days. But now I only see two people who have avoided battle striding onto the field of battle and barking out orders to surrender. They have observed the melee from a comfortable distance. That's OK, I understand what you believe. But don't come out talking as if this was 2012 and you still have my support just because you once had it. It's embarrassing, if you want to know the truth.

Rusty said...

Try some critical thinking. It does wonders for your sense of humor.

Kirk Parker said...

Althouse,

" I can't tell if that was written as sarcasm or what percent of the up-voters are perceiving it as sarcasm."

Poe's Law is not going away any time soon.

"Greg Sargent... feinting couch"

Typo of the week, and it's only Monday...

cubanbob said...

The House will probably not impeach and if it did the Senate may simply dismiss the charge out of hand or proceed with the sham and have the defense crucify the prosecution on live TV. Also McConnell is sly, he might be able to demand any Senator running for President to recuse themselves from the trial.

gilbar said...

here's a Fun Fact
Bernie Sanders was Bragging and Boasting today, that they'd had a rally with a permit for 20,000 people.... And they had to turn people Away!

WOW! According to Bernie(!) this is The First Time Ever that this has happened
(to a democrat, in this race)
Think of it?!? If his Average Crowds increase, until they are Half AGAIN as big as this (record breaking, first time EVER(!))crowd was...
Then his crowds would be NEARLY as big as Trumps Everyday rallies are!!!!!

tim in vermont said...

The real problem is that the MSM lies only work if the obvious holes in them are not pointed out. This requires 100% control of all information dissemination. Of course it never occurs to him that maybe Fox watching Republicans are different than non Fox watching Repubicans....

See people, critical thinking. ESPECIALLY about statistics.

tim in vermont said...

Romney should recuse himself because he has a kid collecting graft from Burisma himself.

Danno said...

I can't tell if that was written as sarcasm or what percent of the up-voters are perceiving it as sarcasm.

It is simply TDS being displayed.

Ken B said...

The power gilbar seeks is in the first thing he quotes. The power of impeachment includes the power to investigate the grounds. Actually, it kinda requires it, since the grounds for impeachment are limited.
This is like the lefties chortling that the second amendment allows them to ban bullets; no it does not as bullets are part of what makes guns arms.

Milwaukie guy said...

One of the most interesting things to me is that Trump is barnstorming. When is the last time a candidate for president, especially an incumbent, went out barnstorming?

No other modern politician can be compared to Trump.

Impeach Trump? Molon labe.

iowan2 said...

KenB. The debate is if the house needs to vote to start an impeachment inquiry. Some of us contend that without a vote, its impossible to sort out an impeachment inquiry A1 S2, from oversight A1 S1.

Ray - SoCal said...

I'm frustrated at the lack of GOP Action on this the violence at Trump Rallies. This is so wrong. If Trump has a rally again in So CA, I would love to go, but I am scared to attend, due to the violence that will probably happen.

If I was in charge, I would be forcing it down the Dems and MSM throats as accessories. Till they finally tell their allies to stop.

Mostly Peaceful Indeed.

There is still a court case going on with San Jose, that is getting zero publicity.
Hernandez v. San Jose, 16-cv-03957, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose)

Judge was appointed by Obama, so potentially biased. It's a shame that often the President who appoints you, tells a lot of a Judges court decisions.

>savaged as if they were just people at his rallies (who have been beaten and spit
> upon and that might happen to any of us).

Gk1 said...

Boy the liberal Jor-no-list guys look winded after throwing a tantrum for 3+ years. I think they are terrified how quickly the Ukrainian nonsense blew over. They really expected a Mueller 2 ride but it gave out after a week.

It really reminds me of security footage I saw of a guy wigging out in prison and he kept punching a concrete wall until he completely drained his strength and then slid down a corner of the wall into a heap. After all they have thrown at Trump and he keeps forging ahead not even noticing while they meekly ask republicans "have you no decency?" There is nothing more pathetic than a strong man no one fears.

dbp said...

"On impeachment, Fox News figures have put out nonstop disinformation."

Says Sargent, who immediately follows with 5 pieces of disinformation.