November 29, 2019

"Trump impeachment drive has similarities to Wisconsin recall."

ABC News is just noticing.

I don't need a refresher on the Wisconsin uprising against Scott Walker, but the key similarities lie in the future. After Walker-haters stormed their way to a recall election, they not only lost the recall, they lost the next regular election.

The ABC article tells us:
Walker ultimately won the recall election in June 2012, becoming a conservative hero on his way to a short-lived run for president in 2015. In a testament to Wisconsin’s political division, just five months after Walker won the recall vote, Obama cruised to victory in Wisconsin on his way to reelection....
Yeah, but Walker won his next election. That fact is tucked away in the article, here:

But Stephan Thompson, who led the state GOP during the recalls and went on to manage Walker’s successful 2014 reelection campaign, said impeachment is “such a monumental event in history and politics” that it will hang over Democrats the rest of the cycle and make it difficult for them to bring moderate voters back to their side.

“When the left pushes this hard and overreaches, it helps you band together with people because you’re all in the foxhole together,” Thompson said. “I think that’s something they don’t realize.”
I don't know about banding together. I never band together. But I do resist the partisans who push too hard, especially when they try to do something disruptive and abnormal like a recall or an impeachment. Just let the next election roll around.
“People may not like impeachment, simply because it adds to the drama of his presidency, but that doesn’t mean they are on the fence or sympathetic to Trump,” said Jon Erpenbach, a Democratic Wisconsin state senator... [who] was among those who fled to Illinois for two weeks to try to kill the anti-union bill. He argues that unlike the recall, which was motivated by a policy disagreement, Congress was forced to hold impeachment hearings because Trump is alleged to have violated the Constitution.
Oh! The Constitution! As if the anti-Walker movement lacked any constitutional arguments that were as good as the House has against Trump! I know it's hard to remember the substance of the legal challenges Walker's opponents made, but some of them were constitutional. Either Erpenbach forgets or he's just being outright deceptive:
Democrats are taking a political chance, Erpenbach said, but they’re doing what the Constitution requires, a key distinction from the recall.
On that one, it's easy to say outright deceptive. Who believes the Constitution requires the impeachment of Trump? It's political, and saying that it's required is part of the politics, not a reason to believe these impeachers are above politics.
“It worries me that it could backfire,” Erpenbach said, “but that’s not the point.”

82 comments:

Sebastian said...

No one knows what to make of the similarities.

tcrosse said...

Congress was forced to hold impeachment hearings because Trump is alleged to have violated the Constitution.

Much as they would rather not, Trump made them do it.

cubanbob said...

Both efforts are predicated on bullshit. There wasn't and there isn't any constitutional arguments.

Beasts of England said...

’It worries me that it could backfire,” Erpenbach said, “but that’s not the point.’

Oh, no, of course not!! It’s the solemn duty of the House. You can tell the Dems are humbled by having to fulfill this funereal task. That and the messaging focus groups. But mostly the latter.

rcocean said...

Oh Gosh, the D Pol doesn't WANT to impeach Trump. Gosh, he'd like to do anything but THAT. But duty calls. The Constitution FORCES him to support the Trump impeachment. The Constitution is a stern task master that doesn't care for your feelings.

What a fucking liar. He's lying. We know he's lying -and he knows we know he's lying. Its absurd. Why do we even have to go into the details? This is a purely partisan Democrat driven impeachment that has no basis in the Constitution, and is against all of American tradition, which is to only impeach for SERIOUS Reasons. Nixon and Clinton committed actual crimes, and Johnson was locked in a death struggle with the Radical Republicans over the powers of the Presidency. This is just made up crap.

Mike Sylwester said...

New Study: "Russian Trolls" Did Not "Sow Discord" - They Influenced No One, an article published by the Moon of Alabama website two days ago.

Excerpts:

The IRA [International Research Agency] hired people in Leningrad for little money and asked them to open accounts on U.S. social media. The virtual persona they created and ran were to attract as many persons to those accounts as possible. They did that by posting funny dog pictures or by taking strong political positions. They were 'influencers' who sold their customers' products to the people they attracted.

The sole purpose was the same as in any commercial media. Create content to attract 'eyeballs', then sell those eyeballs to advertisers. ....

The was no Russian government campaign to influence the 2016 election. There was only a Russian commercial media enterprise that used sock-puppet accounts with quirky content to attract viewers and sold advertisement space to U.S. companies.

The IRA also bought advertisement to attract more people to its accounts. But the amount it spent was tiny. The final price tag for the 2016 election was $6.5 billion for the presidential and congressional elections combined. The IRA spend a total of $100,000 to promote its own accounts. But only some $45,000 of that was spend before the election. It was 0.000007 cent for every election dollar that was spend during that time. It is statistically impossible that the mostly apolitical IRA spending had any effect on the election.

That the IRA ran a marketing machine and not a political operation was also obvious when one analyzed the content that those sock puppet accounts posted. Most of it was apolitical. Where it was political it covered both sides. Some IRA accounts posted pro-Trump content, others posted anti-Trump stuff. Some were pro-Clinton others against her.

U.S. intelligence services tried to explain that away by claiming that the Russians wanted to "sow discord". There is zero evidence that this was really the case. It is simply an explanation that was made up because they failed to find a better one. ....

The "Russian trolls" were virtual persona created to cover -in total- a wide spectrum. Some persona played hardcore Republican, other played hardcore Democrats. They created and posted content that fit to the role they played. Each attracted followers with opinions similar to those the virtual persona pretended to have. No opinion was changed through those contacts. No discord was sown.

The IRA then sold advertisement space to vendors to monetize all eyeballs its virtual personas attracted.

The U.S. intelligence agencies pretended that the commercial IRA was a political agency. It helped them to sell animosity against Russia and to pretend that Trump was somehow colluding with Putin.

But it all never made any sense.

Wince said...

Somebody please explain to these people on the left how being situational constitutionalist is an oxymoron.

mockturtle said...

Spin is an amazing phenomenon.

narciso said...

in the end, Chisholm accomplished his goal, they put in a mannikin like tony evers, that's what they wanted, although he has the personality of William hickey,

Mike Sylwester said...

The US Government still intends to go to trial against Concord Management, a food-catering company in Russia. It looks like the trial might take place in April 2020.

Concord Management was founded by Yevgeny Prigozhin. In order to deal with criticism posted on the Internet about his food-catering company, he founded the Internet Research Agency. The basic business is to help other Russian business deal with criticisms on the Internet.

When Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller and his gang of Trump-hating lawyers indicted the IRA for meddling in the USA's 2016 election and undermining Americans' faith in their Democracy, the indictment included Prigozhin's food-catering company, Concord Management.

Unfortunately for Mueller and his gang, Concord Management hired a US law firm and appeared in response to the indictment. This prosecution and trial are absurd.

Here are the legal filings.

Kevin said...

Judge Smails: I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

Mike Sylwester said...

The Moon of Alabama article is followed by a comment (#31) that provides some interesting information about Yury Prigozhin, the owner of the Internet Research Agency and of the food-catering company Concord Management.

-------

Evgeny Progozhin .... was the man who re-introduced fine restaurants to St Petersburg. In the nineties he opened several very good restaurants in a city which hadn’t seen a decent meal since the Revolution - a bit like England before it joined the Common Market. He was a great perfectionist with a tremendous eye for detail. His difficulty was in finding staff in a city which had no history of training staff beyond the very low levels demanded by the Intourist hotels - and as soon as he trained them they were poached by would-be rivals, so often he gave the top places to French and English specialists.

The very best of his restaurants was the Old Customs House on the University Embankment. I haven’t been there for a couple of years but in its hey-day it could match any restaurant in Europe.

He would also fly his staff to other Russian cities to lay on banquets for the President. He then went into mass catering and by the sounds of it different fields altogether. An admirable man, one of those who helped Russia into the 21st Century.

Brayan said...

Hi
its Great

telegram groups link

Biff said...

It's amazing what gets called a "news story" these days.

Also, "In a testament to Wisconsin’s political division, just five months after Walker won the recall vote, Obama cruised to victory in Wisconsin on his way to reelection." Just how is that a testament to division? It seems more like a testament to Wisconsin voters being not so easily divided by political party preference.

narciso said...

he also set up the wagner group, a private merc group that helped take over western Ukraine, but who were waxed in eastern Syria,

MadTownGuy said...

I think the last gubernatorial election in WI was a test run for 2020. Wonder how many magic votes will appear from Racine County at the last minute to tip the next election?

narciso said...

remember chisholms tactics against archer (one of walker's staff) was endorsed by the 7th circuit, because the info was used to indict others,

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Congress was forced to hold impeachment hearings because Trump is alleged to have violated the Constitution.

That's the Dems off ramp. We didn't want to do the impeachment thing but we were forced to do it. So pretty please don't hold it against us! We were only forced to do it against our wills.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The impeachment of Bill Clinton the better comparison. That didn’t work out so bad for Republicans. Was it really so divisive?

rcocean said...

Gov Kemp has appointed a "Financial Executive" to the GA Senate Seat. What an idiot. Like the dumbass in Alabama, he's setting the R party up for a brutal primary fight. You can NEVER get these Establish R's to care about anything but $$$.

rcocean said...

"The impeachment of Bill Clinton the better comparison. That didn’t work out so bad for Republicans. Was it really so divisive?"

Has the election of Trump worked out so bad for the Democrats? Why all the fuss?

hstad said...

The "Walker Impeachment" added more to the facts of a bankrupt system, i.e., the Prosecutor's abuse of the Law and the complete moronic rulings by courts, including the 7th Circuit. We are seeing that again with Trump. Government via "Lawfare" by the opposition. Courts have lost so much creditability with their anti-Trump rulings one wonders if they will ever again regain the trust of people.

NCMoss said...

I don't recall Walker making any beautiful phone calls but other than that it's exactly the same.

narciso said...

largely, Chisholm had the collusion with Koch angle, and he was chasing walker with it, he didn't have any evidence but what does that matter, mueller had 'Russian collusion' derived from crowdstrike and fusion handouts,

Unknown said...

Ann, I don't remember you having ever commented on Walker's 2018 defeat, and I've been curious about your opinion. You had seemed confident that he would win.

Rory said...

Impeachment isn't a tenth of the trouble caused by the Left in the last few years.

Gospace said...

Biff said...
.....
Also, "In a testament to Wisconsin’s political division, just five months after Walker won the recall vote, Obama cruised to victory in Wisconsin on his way to reelection." Just how is that a testament to division? It seems more like a testament to Wisconsin voters being not so easily divided by political party preference.


I see it as the vast middle not actually bothering to look at issues but voting on such extraneous matters as personality and perception. Voting for Obama then Walker or vice versa reveals someone doesn't pay attention to ideology.

My name goes here. said...

"But I do resist the partisans who push too hard, especially when they try to do something disruptive and abnormal like a recall or an impeachment. Just let the next election roll around."

I love you Althouse. Read you everyday. But can you point me to your repeated objections to same sex marriage being pushed too hard, especially when the proponents were doing something disruptive and abnormal like overturning a California ballot initiative, or taking a process that was working through the legislative process and having courts discover new ways that James Madison wanted same sex marriage?

Because if you can point me to those times when you were not banding together and resisting the disruption and abnormal extra-legislative processes I will apologize here on this thread for this post.

FullMoon said...

Richard Jewell movie coming in December. I am look forward to similarities in how FBI and media fucked this guy and how they attempt the same with Trump and associates.

Think it will be an eye opener for a lot of innocently ignorant citizens.

Original Mike said...

"He argues that unlike the recall, which was motivated by a policy disagreement, Congress was forced to hold impeachment hearings because Trump is alleged to have violated the Constitution."

"It's different this time."

Famous last words.

narciso said...

doug jones, the prosecutor in that case is in the senate, instead of roy moore, thank the people of alabama who fell for Gloria allred's trick bag,

Michael K said...

The U.S. intelligence agencies pretended that the commercial IRA was a political agency. It helped them to sell animosity against Russia and to pretend that Trump was somehow colluding with Putin.

This brings up then current status of the CIA and FBI.

Soon after the Central Intelligence Agency’s founding in 1947, Hanson Baldwin, the New York Times’ legendary military correspondent, had already noticed that the agency was using perfunctorily vetted-sources, or the officers’ own opinions, to fill the gap between the few modest secrets of which it could be sure, and the many big questions on which it was pronouncing itself.

This goes way back.

The FBI used to be different. Unlike the CIA’s faux aristos, the first generations of FBI agents were cops first. They had graduated from places like Fordham, a blue-collar Catholic university in the Bronx. Like all good cops, they knew the difference between the people on whose behalf they worked, and those who threatened them. Like TV’s Sergeant Joe Friday, they wore white shirts and said, “Yes, sir,” and “Yes, ma’am.” Unlike CIA case officers, FBI officers mixed with the kinds of people they investigated, and often went undercover themselves.

Not any more. Now we have the Strzok type, who invent stories, and whose wives are part of the plot.

Later in June & July (2016), FBI agents requested Mr. Byrne to focus on developing a closer romantic relationship with Ms. Butina and to use his influence to target her to closer proximity with the Trump family and Trump campaign.

It was within these June and July 2016 engagements where FBI agents were apologetic about the requests and specifically mentioned their instructions were coming from three principle FBI officials Byrne described as “X, Y and Z”. Later Byrne identified FBI Director James Comey as “Z”. Mr. Byrne said the specific instructions were coming to the agents from Special Agent Peter Strzok as he relayed the requests of those above him [X, Y and Z (Comey)].

This FBI contact structure highlights an arms-length operation; perhaps intentionally constructed to create plausible deniability for those above the directly instructing agents.


And,

I’m sure it is just a coincidence, but FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, happens to be the Assoc. Director of the SEC Enforcement Division, who happened to be leading the SEC investigation of Patrick Byrne’s company. [LINK]

So the wife of the FBI agent who was directing Patrick Byrne in the sketchy FBI operation targeting Donald Trump… just happens to open an investigation of Byrne shortly after the corrupt FBI operation containing her husband first hit the headlines in early 2018.

I wonder if the elimination of that SEC investigation was worth, oh, say $1 billion.


The bribe offered to Byrne,.

mccullough said...

If the polls are accurate, this impeachment is backfiring in the states Trump and Obama won.

This is the problem when your leadership is from New York, LA, and San Francisco.

MadisonMan said...

I don't remember you having ever commented on Walker's 2018 defeat

Evers is a very bland and boring bureaucrat. Voters reward a lack of drama. Also, state-wide WI voters do get tired of Governors (Except TT, apparently).

MadisonMan said...

After WI Democrats failed in the recall, and then in the Supreme Ct race that was pegged as anti-Walker, and then in Walker's 1st re-election bid, you would think that National Democrats *might* have noticed what happens to voters when Party tries to trump -- so to speak -- their wishes. Sadly for the Democrats, leadership did not notice this. And now they're stuck with an Impeachment Millstone. Hard to tread water with the electorate in such a case.

TJM said...

The Democratic Party has been a crime organization masquerading as a political party since the Clintoon Crime Organization took over. My father, a lifelong Democrat and fundraiser, stopped working for the Party and fundraising, once it was clear these grifters were calling the shots. You truly have to be braindead to support the Dems at this point. They stand for infanticide, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, open borders, and making its politicians rich (Clintoons and Obozos, par example). The hardworking little guy can just naff off

Gahrie said...

I love you Althouse. Read you everyday. But can you point me to your repeated objections to same sex marriage being pushed too hard, especially when the proponents were doing something disruptive and abnormal like overturning a California ballot initiative,

I doubt it. She seems to be fine with last minute lies against conservative Supreme Court nominees too.

Gahrie said...

This is the problem when your leadership is from New York, LA, and San Francisco.

More importantly, that's where most of your money comes from...

Sebastian said...

"But can you point me to your repeated objections to same sex marriage being pushed too hard"

Uh, oh. Careful, My name. SSM and abortion are untouchable around here. And you aren't implying that Althouse might, umm contradict herself every once in a while, are you? That she might occasionally be totally fine with antidemocratic hard-pushing for causes that fit with her own ideology?

Paco Wové said...

"The bribe offered to Byrne"

Speaking of bribery... how is this not bribery?

[Nevada's Attorney General Office] said it would withdraw from the lawsuit in exchange for early deployment of the next generation of wireless in the state, creation of 450 jobs for six years and a $30 million donation to be distributed by Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford and aimed at helping women and minorities, Ford’s office said.

Or, as Steve Sailer put it, Nevada Attorney General Is Given $30 Million Slush Fund to Drop Antitrust Lawsuit.

Dang, this privileged white boy sure wishes he could pressure people into giving me 30 million in walking around money.

Seeing Red said...


Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
The impeachment of Bill Clinton the better comparison. That didn’t work out so bad for Republicans. Was it really so divisive?


That’s how you got Trump.

I’ll let you decide.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler idiots are like my salivating dog chasing the impeachment car, but not knowing what to do once he catches it.......

My name goes here. said...

"Uh, oh. Careful, My name. SSM and abortion are untouchable around here. And you aren't implying that Althouse might, umm contradict herself every once in a while, are you?..."

My question was earnest as is the offer of apology. And if Althouse has some issues (no matter what they are) that contradict her statement of not being part of a band that would make her nothing more than human. We all do that.

There are three places I go to every day for news. Instapundit, Drudge, and Althouse. She is more important to me than the New York Times. Her opinions are better thought out and explained (even when she has her blinders on, and even when she is, in my opinion, wrong) than I can find anywhere else on the internet. That and the commentariat is pretty good (I miss Titus).

No matter if she answers me or not, I will be reading Althouse tomorrow, and the day after.

rhhardin said...

Think of it as an annulment.

Mother of the Bride: Given my vast experience with divorce, and it is vast, my guess is that there's a lot of wiggle room. Hell, you could probably get it annulled as long as you didn't...

...never mind.

Forces of Attraction (2004)

Leland said...

Also similar is the Rick Perry trial, where has indicted for using his state constitutional power of veto to rein in a drunk and abusive Travis County DA. Supposedly Perry couldn't do that to the DA, since the DA had authority to investigate Perry (although no investigation was active).

The Mueller Investigation was like the Wisconsin John Doe Investigation.

Democrats just seem to enjoy abusing judicial power.

Big Mike said...

Over in The New Yorker Adam Gropnik is upset that people keep saying that impeachment is a political act. Meanwhile, the other Adam, the “Honorable” Mr. Schiff said that he needs to consult with colleagues and constituents how to proceed. But impeachment isn’t political. Nope. Of course not.

narciso said...

there's also the warren hastings impeachment, that I've remarked on occasion,

wildswan said...

Trump on impeachment:

Make my Day

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

Gahrie: I doubt it. She seems to be fine with last minute lies against conservative Supreme Court nominees too.

What's great about Althouse is that she's also fine with us saying that right to her (virtual) face.

Bruce Hayden said...

A little OT - but it all revolves around The Coup.

Apparently, it wasn’t great investigatory work by the FBI, nor was it through the NSA fighting the Coup, that gave away the existence of the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, that got them booted from the Mueller investigation. Instead, apparently his wife, Melissa Hodgman, found them on his phone, confronted Page, then took them to the FBI.

Making things even more interesting, she is apparently the Assoc. Director of the SEC Enforcement Division, who happened to have been leading the SEC investigation of Peter Byrne's company, while her husband was running Byrne as a spy against the Trump campaign, at the behest of three FBI higher ups, including former Director Comey (my guess is that another of the FBI leaders implicated is DD McCabe). Also, she apparently was in charge of the SEC investigation of the Clinton Foundation, and effectively was blocking the FBI investigation into it - at the same time that her husband was effectively blocking investigation into Crooked Hillary’s illegal private email usage.

Such incestuous relationships, much of it hidden from view because so many of the the wives kept their maiden names. Wonder where we would be in the investigation if Nellie Ohr had done so, her using her husband’s name having made the jump between Fusion GPS (and Steele) with the top of the DOJ and FBI so easy to detect.

“ [Flynn attorney] Sidney Powell summed it up – “There is some justice in that!””

Mattman26 said...

“ Trump is alleged to have violated the Constitution.”

Really? That is flat-out false. I don’t mean flimsy or weak, but just made-up bullshit.

Michael K said...

she is apparently the Assoc. Director of the SEC Enforcement Division, who happened to have been leading the SEC investigation of Peter Byrne's company

That is the CTH post that I have quoted a couple of places. Very interesting., I didn't know about her being the source of the texts.

Blogger is really annoying today,

Fernandistein said...

Speaking of bribery... how is this not bribery?

That's exactly what I called it earlier today; also anti-white racism. For the deep state, or even better "the done right out in the the open" state, it's business as usual.

mesquito said...

I’m no law professor, but if Trump violated the Constitution isn’t that a matter for the Federal Judiciary?

Bay Area Guy said...

It'd be very interesting, if:

(1) Nancy Pants calls for an impeachment vote, but it fails. If so, she takes the heat, and probably has to resign the Speakership.

(2) Nancy Pants doesn't call for an impeachment vote, because it will fail. Then, AOC and Bernie call her out, and Bernie breaks ties with the Dems to run as a third-party.

(3) Nancy Pants calls for impeachment vote, it passes, and Dems are buoyed for precisely 1 week. Then, a legal massacre in the Senate, Trump acquitted, his 2020 numbers surge to 51%, he coasts to reelection. Dems start second-guessing Nancy-Pants - why did you even bring up the vote in the first place?!!?

Fun times!

AllenS said...

Had Walker not went on that fool's errand for the Republican nominee for 2016 POTUS, he'd still be the Gov of WI.

Michael K said...

I still think Nancy will try to divert to a censure resolution. She may face a revolt that will stop her but that way lies craziness.

I think there are still sane Democrats. We hear from the crazies. I do wish there were a few of the Democrats on this blog that did not sound crazy. Inga is still on the Russia thing.

More blogger crap

Michael K said...


Blogger AllenS said...
Had Walker not went on that fool's errand for the Republican nominee for 2016 POTUS, he'd still be the Gov of WI.


Probably. I think the Kochs pulled the plug on him.

AllenS said...

MK, Walker did not need the Kochs to still be Gov of WI.

Bruce Hayden said...

Someone above mentioned Lawfare, and I agree, this has the Lawfare stench all over it. Not surprising, since newly elected Speaker Palsi hired a couple of them to rewrite the committee rules in December of 2018, and both Schifty and Wadler each hired one for their impeachment push.

One of Lawfare’s hallmarks is to look to the letter, and not spirit or history of laws, or in this case, Article I of the Constitution. Similar to the use of the Logan Act, still on the books after better than two centuries, with two unsuccessful prosecutions over a century ago, and no successful ones, ever. The important thing though is that it is still on the books, and has never been overturned by the courts - because it obviously would be, with modern 1st Amdt jurisprudence. It worked nicely, on multiple occasions whenever the SpyGate perps needed to move between the National Security (Strzok’s Counterintelligence Division) and the criminal side of the FBI and DOJ. this required citation of a statute ostensibly violated by their targets, and the Logan Act sufficed.

In this case, all the Constitution requires for an impeachment is a high Crime or Misdemeanor, but let the House determine what that means. Which, in this case, means whatever Palsi, Schifty, and Wadler want it to mean. We have better than 230 years interpreting it to mean serious crimes. But there is nothing in the text that says that they can’t define it to mean whatever they want, so they did. And that is why I believe that the impeachment has Lawfare written all over it. Moreover, the committee rules voted into effect by the Dem caucus in 2018, and the impeachment rules enacted by a party line vote this year, strip committee power from the Republicans, and eliminated all due precessions rights from the President in the first phase before Schifty’s HSCI. Again, because they could.

Another facet is that it is strongly implied that Congress discover a High Crime or Misdemeanor before initiating impeachment. But that isn’t explicitly stated, since it is so obvious. But that means that the House Democrats could set up an impeachment investigation, which they did, then go searching for a justification later. But, with the untimely demise of the Mueller investigation, they were bereft of High Crimes or Misdemeanors. No problem - Schifty had his staffers fabricate one with a CIA buddy of theirs who had been thrown off the NSC and out of the White House. They wrote up a whistleblower complaint, which he filed with the IC IG, and then brought it back to Schifty’s staff, for his use as the predicate for his impeachment inquiry. Never mind that Trump was well within his Article II powers with the call to the Ukrainian President, and despite iron fisted run hearing by Schifty, they still couldn’t even semi plausibly assert a crime had been committed on the call that they had no Constitutional right to even know about. Didn’t matter. The MSM dutifully repeated Schifty’s prepared talking points every day indicating that they had found smoking gun after smoking gun. Which was total BS. Didn’t matter, because they found their High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Or that was what the American public was told by the MSM every day. All because they could, because the Constitution didn’t forbid it, and our founders never really envisioned that Lawfare and the like would be so close to power.

Keep this in mind - if Trump actually did anything wrong, the Dems haven’t come close to finding it yet. What they have so far found is Trump exercising his plenary power to engage in foreign relations with other countries, and the “quid pro quo” that they try to paint as so criminal is identical to how his 44 predecessors operated as President. That is how foreign relations is conducted - through quid pro quo. That is an unreviewable, plenary, core Executive power given to the President and the President alone, under our Constitution. And, yes, some butt hurt bureaucrats who haven’t, apparently read the Constitution that gives their jobs legal justification. BFD.

Bruce Hayden said...

“That is the CTH post that I have quoted a couple of places. Very interesting., I didn't know about her being the source of the texts.”

Must read: Did U.S. Attorney John Durham Interview Patrick Byrne? – If So, How Does DOJ/FBI Reconcile Running Russian Operative Into Trump Campaign in 2015?…

The billion dollar bribe of Patrick Byrne to spy on the Trump campaign sure seems likely to have been the SEC investigation into his company, Overstock, run by Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, which they were legally required to disclose.

Byrne’s job as to run purported Russian spy, Maria Butina, at the Trump campaign, including getting her into the Trump Tower meeting that had Trump’s son and son in law in attendance. He was, of course, being run by the ubiquitous Peter Strzok, Melissa Hodgman‘s husband.

It was within these June and July 2016 engagements where FBI agents were apologetic about the requests and specifically mentioned their instructions were coming from three principle FBI officials Byrne described as “X, Y and Z”. Later Byrne identified FBI Director James Comey as “Z”. Mr. Byrne said the specific instructions were coming to the agents from Special Agent Peter Strzok as he relayed the requests of those above him [X, Y and Z (Comey)].

narciso said...

that is interesting of course miss Hodgeman worked with khuzaimi, then at sec, future inquisitor at the southern district of new York, where he carried out his vendetta against cohen and manafort, Stephen McIntyre noted miss Atkinson, of the money laundering concerned firm, miller and chevalier, meeting with mary jacoby, glenn simpson's better half at a conference in 2017?

narciso said...

try again:


https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1200250455571480577

Michael K said...

I know he didn't need the Koch's to be gov but he needed funding to run for pres.

I am listening and semi-watching news in Chicago now and there is a Bloomberg commercial every ten minutes.

Trump got it for free, which is probably why the Media hates him so much. They were tricked.

The old game of "You hold my money and I'll hold yours."

narciso said...


https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1200541761652826112

narciso said...

does Illinois, broadcast into iowa, I think he will wear poorly,

narciso said...

you can't make this up,

Hey Skipper said...

Bruce Hayden:

It is obvious you spend a great deal of time and effort composing your comments.

I, for one, greatly appreciate it.

gilbar said...

our beloved professor Alhouse said..
but Walker won his next election. That fact is tucked away in the article,



As Jo Biden was So Fond of saying; We Choose Truth, over Facts!

Bill Peschel said...

Bay Area Guy, I still like option 4:

4) House GOP vote for impeachment. Senate GOP immediately begin issuing subpoenas to Schifft, Pelosi, and the swamp denizens to testify about their role in the process.

Everything gets released. Trump gets re-elected with mandate to drain the swamp and introduce legal reforms.

Democrats and GOPe hardest hit.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

but but but...

BRIBERY! MoveOn.org and Rachel told me. I beeeeleeeeeeeeve!

narciso said...


Seriously

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-attacker-identity-usman-khan-attack-stabbing-incident-latest-a9227076.html%3famp

Ann Althouse said...

“ Ann, I don't remember you having ever commented on Walker's 2018 defeat, and I've been curious about your opinion. You had seemed confident that he would win.”

Point me to what I said that seemed to express confidence in the outcome. That doesn’t sound like me.

And what’s to say afterwards? What happened happened. I always accept the result and adapt.

Jon Ericson said...

What Hey Skipper said... @ 11/29/19, 6:48 PM
Hear! Hear!

Michael K said...

Hey Skipper said...
Bruce Hayden:

It is obvious you spend a great deal of time and effort composing your comments.


I do, too. My kind of lawyer. I spent years acting as an expert witness. It is depressing how often the quality of lawyering was more important than the facts,

Unknown said...

"Point me to what I said that seemed to express confidence in the outcome. That doesn’t sound like me."


Not trying to make an issue of it, but just following your commentary on the race over the last year and a half or so gave me the impression that Walker wasn't likely to lose. Examples.

April 23, 2018—Yes, this is a reach, but your rhetorical question made an impression on me: “Do any of the 11 already in the race have "fresh ideas"? …Your face is an unfresh face, and we should love that old face. Old faces are lovable too. And if you're destined to lose to Scott Walker — which I think you are — why not go down gracefully with the man who's got the most experience losing to Scott Walker?”

August 15, 2018—"I don't see how he needs to do anything more than this:" Ad follows

August 13, 2018—Not a lot of confidence in any of the Dem hopefuls

April 23, 2018—"I don't see how the Democrat has a chance."

November 15, 2017—"I've been feeling that he's destined to win because the Democrats have no one."

A couple of posts after the election never caught my eye (November 11, 2018, and November 7, 2018), so you had commented on Walker’s defeat. I stand corrected.

Bruce Hayden said...

“I think there are still sane Democrats. We hear from the crazies. I do wish there were a few of the Democrats on this blog that did not sound crazy. Inga is still on the Russia thing”.

To be completely honest here, the counter example is right in front of us every day - our honored hostess Ann. A couple of weeks ago, she even confessed to having voted for Crooked Hillary. After months of reading here continuously about Clinton’s use of her private email server to send and receive classified material in order to avoid FOIA, destruction of those emails under Congressional subpoena, her pay-to-play scheme at the State Department that netted the Clinton family foundation and slush fund better than a billion dollars, etc. Ann actually surprised me there. I had expected either a Trump vote,nor alternatively one for Jill Stein (though Ann doesn’t seem to have the environmental obsessions of her class and profession). Though, looking back, it probably was a bit to expect, that a college professor, living in the PRM (People’s Republic of Madison) would have gone against her tribe and class, and voted for Trump over Clinton.

FIDO said...

Bruce Hayden

‘Crewl Newtrality’ is for hypothetical discussions, to justify attacking Republican Supreme Court nominees and to maintain a patina of objectivity.

It is not used to influence one’s actual voting fealty.

Nichevo said...

Paco Wové said...
"The bribe offered to Byrne"

Speaking of bribery... how is this not bribery?

[Nevada's Attorney General Office] said it would withdraw from the lawsuit in exchange for ... a $30 million donation to be distributed by Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford


That's not bribery, it's extortion.

Matt Sablan said...

"National Democrats *might* have noticed what happens to voters when Party tries to trump -- so to speak -- their wishes."

-- Isn't the message: "Just keep trying, eventually you'll win?" Because that's what happened to Walker.

Matt Sablan said...

"Trump got it for free, which is probably why the Media hates him so much. They were tricked."

-- The worst part? It is Hillary Clinton who tricked them into promoting him over the others, under the belief he'd be the easiest for her to beat (at least, that's what I glean from the released Podesta et al emails.)

Birkel said...

The biggest similarity:

Walker went after the sources of funding for Democratics in Wisconsin.
Public sector employees did not want to fund the unions that in turn fund Democratics.
Democratics went to the mattresses for their money.

Trump is threatening the international money making interests of Democratics and select RINOs.
Therefore, Democratics are going to the mattresses for their moneyed interests.

In Trump's second term, I hope he decertified federal unions.
And maybe kills the Department of Mis-Education while he's at it.

One can dream.