December 7, 2019

"[M]oderate Democrats are worried that liberals in their own party are going to put forward articles of impeachment that are hard to vote for and even harder to explain voting for..."

"Democrats in politically difficult districts tend to favor writing charges that most closely hew to the Ukraine affair and might be most easy to explain to voters, while lawmakers from more solidly Democratic turf are feeling more adventurous and tend to want to reach out toward former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe and other matters.... 'Judiciary’s not really reaching out to the people' whose political fates could rest on their impeachment votes, one senior Democratic aide close to party moderates said. 'There are 31 Democrats who are going to have to live, breathe and die this vote for the next year.'... Meanwhile Republican-aligned outside groups... have been trying to influence Democratic lawmakers by running advertisements and conducting polling in their districts..."

From "Why moderates are holding back on impeachment/Analysis: Some Democrats say they don't want to commit to articles they haven't seen" (NBC).

199 comments:

rehajm said...

As has been explained, impeachment is a political act. Now we're learning just how political it is...

Big Mike said...

Hell, if I was a drooling, mouth-breathing, Never-Trumper, I’d still want to see what I’m voting on before I commit to voting on it.

CWJ said...

"...worried that liberals..." Why worry about something that barely exists?

Original Mike said...

"Some Democrats say they don't want to commit to articles they haven't seen"

Can this thing get any more ridiculous?

Yancey Ward said...

You have to pass articles of impeachment to find out what is in them.

Ok, I know I am about 1 millionth on the list of people who have probably made this joke on the internet this morning.

rehajm said...

If Democrats are worried about what could come out in the Senate, this is signaling the out...

Wince said...

Impeachment has become a Kobayashi Maru for moderate Democrats.

chickelit said...

They'll have to vote for it to see what's in it.

chickelit said...

Damn! I'm number 1,000,001

Gahrie said...

This impeachment farce really seems to be an own goal.

every day seems to bring more evidence that the Left truly has lost touch with the American people and has no idea how outrageous their behavior and ideas are to most Americans.

I really am getting rather apprehensive about how the Left is going to respond when Trump wins, especially if it is the biggest landslide since Reagan in 84 as I predict it will be.

Beasts of England said...

Damn the torpedoes, right Dems? 🤣

Original Mike said...

Inga was here yesterday (or the day before) crowing that Russian collusion will be included in articles of impeachment. Incredible.

elkh1 said...

If I were one of the 31, I would vote against, then declare I would switch Party: I didn't leave the Party, the extreme Party left me.

Drago said...

Well, how can this be?!!

According to our fearless lefties and LLR-lefties the crimes are literally endless in number and scope!!

You know, I am starting to get the idea that Inga and LLR-lefty Chuck and the rest of the lefty Dead-ender Gang are just making this all up....and it breaks my heart..as an American....

LOL

n.n said...

The president is a clear and progressive burden, but is he [politically] viable? What choice do they have, but to cancel him and find out. #ImPeachTheOrange

chuck said...

Missing explanation: the whole procedure is BS.

Michael K said...

If I were one of the 31, I would vote against, then declare I would switch Party: I didn't leave the Party, the extreme Party left me.

One theory posted here by someone, is that they will have 5 or 6 articles and the moderates can vote no on one or two and claim they voted no.

Reasonable idea but I doubt it would work.

Also I find it hilarious they are complaining that the GOP is polling in their districts. OMG ! What will they find out ?

Beasts of England said...

They’ve released the impeachment document (it’s at The Hill).

Spoiler alert: one of the charges is Treason.

Sebastian said...

"Democrats in politically difficult districts tend to favor writing charges that most closely hew to the Ukraine affaire"

So they can say: we are not as vile and insane as the rest of the vile and insane Dems?

hstad said...


"[M]oderate Democrats are worried that liberals in their own party are going to put forward articles of impeachment that are hard to vote for and even harder to explain voting for..."

I think the time to worry about this was back in 2017. The horse is out of the barn and the Democrats come November 2020 will feel the voters impact when they vote out these charlatans. 'Pelosi il Comico' will rue the day she hitched the Democratic Party's brand to her Leftists Impeachment Screed. "Turn out the lights the [Party's] over"!

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Political masturbation.

narciso said...

'blimey I didn't expect the Spanish inquisition'

Bruce Hayden said...

Four impeachment threads in one morning. Can’t say if this is good or bad. The bad is that it is hard to keep up. The first one seems to have petered out, after several rather large diatribes on my part. No doubt some on the left here think that there is a cause and effect relationship here. I don’t think so but...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Come on you cowards. Schitt put on a great show. You gotta do it! Impeach!

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

It's illegal to say Biden or Hillary to anyone. Says so in the declaration of Independence.

MBunge said...

You know, I kind of lost my bearings after 9/11 and it took me a while to recover them. If you think of Trump's election in those terms, it's somewhat understandable that some people would freak out. We've reached this point, however, because people who knew better not only egged on the freak in others but spent so much time fanning the flames that they eventually freaked themselves out.

The two most likely scenarios now are Trump gets impeached by the House but the Senate refuses to convict or impeachment actually fails in the House. What impact will that have on the Presidential campaign? Do you think it will make Dem primary voters more likely to support a "moderate" like Biden or Klobuchar or will it enrage them and make the nomination of somebody like Bernie Sanders more likely?

Mike

Bruce Hayden said...

“ Spoiler alert: one of the charges is Treason.”

So much projection.

Still, this is another one of the norms that the Dems seem so willing to transgress. What do they do when one of theirs does something that may not be in the nation’s best interests. Like taking out Quadaffi in Lybia, or shipping pallets of money to the Iranians, that everyone knew was going to be used to fund terrorism throughout the region? Using FISA to spy on your political opponents? Or allowing your two Secretaries of State to sell American foreign policy for cash.

The critical thing here is that the President is the only one who gets to determine executive branch actions. To have moral legitimacy, a government has to govern with the consent of the governed. And the person who was elected to lead this country, under the rules that have essentially in place for over two centuries, was Trump. Pretty much in each and every example given of supposed Treason by Trump, it wasn’t Trump committing Treason, but rather it was his enemies. They do not morally have the right to determine what our government does. That is Trump’s prerogative. Not theirs.

Limited blogger said...

I live in one of those districts. New York 18th.

Problem is, the 'pubs are running some retread candidate, who I believe lost to Gillibrand in the last senate election.

Clyde said...

Suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes...

Big Mike said...

One theory posted here by someone, is that they will have 5 or 6 articles and the moderates can vote no on one or two and claim they voted no.

Reasonable idea but I doubt it would work
.

I’m with Dr. Michael K., it won’t work. People are just too angry, and I don't just mean Republican voters. If where I live is indicative, independents have about had enough of the charade. But the general election is still eleven months away.i

Char Char Binks said...

They got Trump dead to rights on obstruction of Democrats. Sure as shootin’!

chuck said...

I find the predictions of Trump victory premature, it will be a fight. About 40-45% of the electorate will likely vote Democratic no matter what, the fight is over the sliver of voters whose minds aren't made up.

Char Char Binks said...

Is it treason against Ukraine, or against Kurdistan?

Limited blogger said...

If the dems thought they had any chance to beat Trump in the voting booth, you think they'd be running this impeachment sham? Get real.

Achilles said...

One thing is for certain: Many Americans will never accept a democrat junta again even if they somehow win an election.

Fuck democrats. Fuck the GOPe.

War.

WisRich said...

Bruce Hayden said...
“ Spoiler alert: one of the charges is Treason.”
------------

Just wow.

Limited blogger said...

Well if you're gonna throw some bogus charges against POTUS might as well go all in with the Big Kahuna - Treason.

Leland said...

Some Democrats say they don't want to commit to articles they haven't seen.

Shouldn't that be the default position?

pacwest said...

"Spoiler alert: one of the charges is Treason.”

I can't find anything with the actual charges. The Hill, WAPO, Times. Any body got a link to the document?

Jersey Fled said...

Some Dems are saying that if this fails in the Senate, they'll do it again in the new Senate in 2020.

A few weeks ago I would have doubted that they would try it.

But now, I'm not sure. They are just that hateful, and certainly crazy enough.

Gahrie said...

Could somebody please give me an example of a "moderate Democrat"? Seriously I'd love to know who is considered moderate today. Could you imagine Joe Lieberman as a Democrat today? He was their vice presidential candidate in 2000! Hell as far as I can tell, today JFK would be a Republican.

And there are no "liberals" left in the Democratic Party. Hell they don't even call themselves that anymore. The correct term is "progressive".

Gahrie said...

Some Dems are saying that if this fails in the Senate, they'll do it again in the new Senate in 2020.

A few weeks ago I would have doubted that they would try it.

But now, I'm not sure. They are just that hateful, and certainly crazy enough.


If my prediction is right, the Democrats are going to lose control of the House, and not take control of the Senate.

Bay Area Guy said...

Predictions (Mark this post):

1. Nancy Pants will hold a vote and pass Aricles of Impeachment. But 15 Dems defect and it only barely passes.

2. In response, Trump's approval hits 53 or 54.

3. In response, Trump raises a couple hundred million

4. The Senate acquits. Schiff, Pelosi, the CIA "whistleblower" Eric Ciarmarella and Hunter Biden are made to look like idiots.

5. Trump wins reelection in 2020.

6. The House goes GOP.

Have a nice day!

Gahrie said...

The Democrats and GOP Establishment appear to be having a Marie Antoinette moment. Let's hope things turn out differently for all of our sakes.

Inga said...

“Inga was here yesterday (or the day before) crowing that Russian collusion will be included in articles of impeachment. Incredible.”

Incredibly wrong. I said that Obstruction of Justice in the Russia investigation is being considered to be included in the articles of impeachment. If you’re going to mention my name, at least get your reporting straight. Fake News OM.

Gahrie said...

I find the predictions of Trump victory premature, it will be a fight. About 40-45% of the electorate will likely vote Democratic no matter what,

In a normal election this would be true. But I'm predicting a low turnout for the Democrats and a huge turnout for the Republicans. Trump will win by the biggest margin since Reagan in 84. 40 states.

Mary Beth (the commenter) said...

Any of them not voting for impeachment just because they know it's malarkey?

Original Mike said...

Part and parcel of the same thing, Inga.

Inga said...


Blogger Inga said...
It’s very possible that Trump’s obstruction of justice from the Mueller probe will be added to articles of impeachment. You reap what you sow.

12/5/19, 8:18 PM Delete

Paul said...

There are currently 47 Senate Democrats, so it would take at least 20 Republican votes to remove President Trump from office.

A. MAYBE one or two liberal Republicans will vote for it.
B. MAYBE a few conservative Democrats will not vote for it.
C. The charges are very hard to prove .. especially proving 'intent'.

Hence... they will never convict Trump. And with a super economy, troops coming home, jobs jobs jobs, stock market up, etc.... no, they won't since voters would then come for their scalps.

So come on Dems.. I dare you. Impeach him.

Inga said...

Blogger Original Mike said...
Part and parcel of the same thing, Inga.

No. Obstruction of justice is a separate charge. If it was part and parcel, collusion would be added along with obstruction of justice.

Paul said...

Gahrie said...

"In a normal election this would be true. But I'm predicting a low turnout for the Democrats and a huge turnout for the Republicans. Trump will win by the biggest margin since Reagan in 84. 40 states."

And with a super economy, troops coming home, jobs jobs jobs, stock market up, etc....

Plus Gingsberg is gonna go and a new SCOTUS pick...

I agree. Big win for Trump. Might even see the House flip.

Beasts of England said...

Link:

https://www.scribd.com/document/438700279/Judiciary-Impeachment-Process

Qwinn said...

Um, Inga, if there wasn't any Russian collusion, then what Justice was Trump obstructing?

Original Mike said...

"No. Obstruction of justice is a separate charge."

Only in your mind.

Paul said...

Blogger Bay Area Guy.

100 percent agree. The hard left is gonna self destruct.

Inga said...

So much big brave talk from Trumpists, “daring” Democrats to impeach. Be careful of what you dare. What are you going to do? Start a shooting war? So many of you sound like lunatics, similar to Achilles.

Leland said...

one of the charges is Treason.

They actually quote the Constitutional definition of Treason.

Are Democrats ready to claim that Trump levied War with the United States? Do they really want to insist the other side is actually fighting a war against the US?

Is Russia a declared Enemy of the United States? When did Congress make this declaration?

Was Trump providing Aid and Comfort to Russia when he allowed the sell of defense missiles to Poland? Was Trump providing Aid and Comfort to Ukraine when he supplied more military aid to the country than his predecessor?

I guess not, because by the end of the section; they attempt to redefine Treason as betrayal of the national security or national interest or foreign policy.

I'm wondering how Democrats on the campaign trail are going to square Trump's betrayal of national security with their unwillingness to build the wall and their support of open borders.

Leland said...

Be careful of what you dare. What are you going to do? Start a shooting war?

Your advice... have you considered following it?

minnesota farm guy said...

First: "well, duh". If NBC had been paying any attention ( actually I have seen a few pieces that indicate they have been) they will have known this was a big issue from the get-go. Most of the conservative blogs have been pointing this problem out since mad Nancy let the hounds loose in October - or whenever it was.

Qwinn said...

"Betrayal of national security"? Seriously? I have been assured that that is something no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.

minnesota farm guy said...

"Treason"?!? Seriously? Well I guess if you are going to jump off the building you might as well jump from the top story.

Inga said...

“what Justice was Trump obstructing?”

An investigation (that deserves a duh)Trump isn’t King, he isn’t above the law. As the legal process spelled out in the Constitution proceeds, you Trumpists are outraged that Americans dare to follow the Law of the Land against the president.

Leland said...

Qwinn, it seems the view of Democrats is that if a defendant attempts to defend themselves or assert their rights; they have obstructed justice even if no evidence is found of the alleged crime or, in the case of Mike Flynn, evidence is found to support the defense and the prosecution hides it.

Everything here begins with the premise that it is self-evident a crime was committed because Hillary lost the election. The only reason a special counsel hasn't found other evidence of how the crime was committed is because Trump prevented the special counsel from finding it.

Leland said...

An investigation (that deserves a duh)Trump isn’t King

Inga actually believes Trump attempted to make his son a Baron. Hey Inga, his name is Barron, like John Barron (a Trump pen name) or Charles Barron or Barron Hilton. Hint, Barron Hilton is also not a Baron.

rcocean said...

What the D's will do is figure out how many votes they need (its not always 218) and let as many of their "Moderates" as they can vote against impeachment. The others will stay in the background and squeak out a few noises about how "They were torn on the issue, but reluctantly had to stand by the constitution, blah blah".

As for the Senate R's. Collins will be helped by a vote against Trump. The other RINO sister - Lisa M - voted against Kavanaugh and will run as D or Independent in 2022. And then there's Mittens. Who's stated he may not run for reelection, and if he does, he'll gamble that no one will care in 2024. There may be handful of others. Gardner of CO for example.

Original Mike said...

Isn't treason a hanging offense?

Qwinn said...

Treason is a hanging offense. The problem is what to do when an entire party and half the country continually commits it for 3 years.

rcocean said...

Back-stabbers like Mitch McConnell are in the drivers seat. They can help the D's out by prolonging the Trial, and giving the D's their witness list - and making things hard for Trump. "Gosh, we just don't have the votes..."

BUT still vote against Impeachment - and escape punishment. That's their usual game.

Inga said...

“Inga actually believes Trump attempted to make his son a Baron. Hey Inga, his name is Barron, like John Barron (a Trump pen name) or Charles Barron or Barron Hilton. Hint, Barron Hilton is also not a Baron.”

I don’t have any opinion on what Trump named one of his children. Trump’s lawyers argue that because of Article 2 that he cannot be indicted, or even investigated. I guess you haven’t followed any of the court cases against Trump and the Judge’s opinion on that line of argumentation. Trump himself said because of article 2 he could do whatever he wanted.

Inga said...

"I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." – President Donald Trump, July 23, 2019

gspencer said...

"Politics ain't beanbag" --- Finley Peter Dunne

"Meanwhile Republican-aligned outside groups... have been trying to influence Democratic lawmakers by running advertisements and conducting polling in their districts"

Isn't that what they supposa do?

DavidUW said...

“Moderate” Democrats will never learn - they are pelosi’s crash test dummies just like with Obamacare. They’re there to vote the party line for 2 years. If they don’t, they get ostracized by the dominant left. If they do, they lose re election. Nancy don’t care. She figures the progressive ratchet will be back another time.

Yancey Ward said...

"Damn! I'm number 1,000,001"

😛



Qwinn said...

Inga: When it comes to establishing foreign policy, that's true. It's a plenary power of the Executive. It's his call, not that of bureaucrats left over from the previous administration. The entire show trial so far has been an attempt to argue that the President is bound to follow the dictates of the bureaucracy. That's bullshit, and it is what Trump was addressing.

Oh, why do I even bother.

Mark said...

'Judiciary’s not really reaching out to the people' whose political fates could rest on their impeachment votes

So much for considering the case on the merits.

gilbar said...

serious question
So, THIS is the hill the democrats chose to die on?
Wow!

minnesota farm guy said...

I love quotes taken out of context, Inga.

Here's what Kevin Drum at Mother Jones -of all places- thought the context was.
"So what was Trump talking about? As always, there’s no telling, really, but I assume he was referring to the fact that he’s allowed to fire executive branch officers if he wants to. In other words, firing James Comey was within his Article II powers, so it can’t represent obstruction of justice. Likewise, he could have fired Mueller if he’d wanted to."

Mark said...

Democrats in politically difficult districts tend to favor writing charges that most closely hew to the Ukraine affair

Guess they're not paying any attention to Fat, who watches MS-NBC and is a Warren supporter, who when it comes to Ukraine, wanted to know about Hunter Biden, not Trump.

Dad29 said...

What are you going to do? Start a shooting war?

Reality, Inga, is that the Lefties are the violence-users. Recently, it's been Antifa, but there's Bull Connor and the KKK, too.

So when you guys start the shooting after Trump wins again and the Democrats lose the House, having studied history, the Right will be prepared. There are somewhere north of 400 million small arms in US households.

Come and get them!

Inga said...

“When it comes to establishing foreign policy, that's true. It's a plenary power of the Executive. It's his call, not that of bureaucrats left over from the previous administration. The entire show trial so far has been an attempt to argue that the President is bound to follow the dictates of the bureaucracy. That's bullshit, and it is what Trump was addressing.”

Bribery for personal gain is not an accepted foreign policy of the USA.Trump cannot bribe a foreign government to provide to him things (a public announcement of an investigation into his political opponent), by holding back military aid that was already voted on by the Congress in order to get that thing.

It breaks Election laws.
It is an abuse of his Office.
He cannot obstruct a legal investigation and ignore subpoenas.

hombre said...

Moderate Democrats? Where are they as this insult to due process and the intelligence of the American people progresses?

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

Yeah only Joe Biden can do those kind of things!!! It says so in Inga’s copy of the constitution!!!!

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

Only Obama is allowed to ignore subpoenas!!!

wholelottasplainin' said...

The cited House Judiciary article doesn't include any articles of impeachment, only a strained and contorted analysis of the Constitution's provisions for the process.

So...no charge of Treason....yet.

YoungHegelian said...

Judiciary’s not really reaching out to the people' whose political fates could rest on their impeachment votes, one senior Democratic aide close to party moderates said.

Well, duh! The reason is probably because the lefties really don't give a shit about what happens to those heretical "moderates".

If there's one thing I learned from reading The New Republic for 21 years, it's that the real enemies of the left wing were Democratic moderates & vice versa. In other words, the chief enemy of the readers of TNR were the readers of The Nation & vice-versa. I suspect "moderate" Democrats have forgotten these earlier intra-party struggles.

It all makes sense historically. I mean, the Stalinists hated the Trotskyites more than they hated the capitalists.

Dad29 said...

"I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." – President Donald Trump, July 23, 2019

........what Minnesota Farm Guy said.

Here's a question for you: are you THAT stupid, or do you really think that WE are that stupid?

Greg Hlatky said...

Oh, they'll vote for impeachment all right. If they do and lose they'll be taken care of. If they don't they'll never work in DC again.

This is not a quid pro quo, though.

Inga said...

“There is no power in the Constitution that a President can exercise immune from legal consequence. The existence of any such unchecked and uncheckable authority in the federal government would offend the bedrock principle that nobody is above the law,” the panel. [T]he exact forms of Presidential wrongdoing that they discussed in Philadelphia could be committed through use of executive powers, and it is unthinkable that the Framers left the Nation defenseless in such cases.”

House Judiciary Committee

Beasts of England said...

’The cited House Judiciary article doesn't include any articles of impeachment, only a strained and contorted analysis of the Constitution's provisions for the process.’

Did I misread that? Sorry. I’ll blame college football and Bloody Marys. But mostly Bloody Marys.

Leland said...

As a matter of settled constitutional law, and contrary to recent suggestions otherwise, attempted Presidential wrongdoing can be impeachable.

Doesn't seem so settled.

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

Yes she really is that stupid.

Michael K said...

It's OK. Nadler can read Trump's mind. No, I'm serious.

“The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate. Where the House discovers persuasive evidence of corrupt wrongdoing, it is entitled to rely upon that evidence to impeach.

Mind reading.

One concern is what Mitch will do. CTH is concerned about Mitch's alliance with the Chamber Of Commerce.

Could he try to bargain Trump out of the China tariffs in return for acquittal ? I don't thin k it would fly but Mitch lost the Alabama Senate seat by supporting the appointed Senator who was a crony over Mo Brooks who should have had it.

chickelit said...

gilbar said...serious question
So, THIS is the hill the democrats chose to die on?
Wow!


More precisely: This is the Hillary that some democrats chose to die on. This has always been about whitekighting her royal thighness.

Michael K said...

Inga and Ritmo are on a tear today,. Please don't make moderation come back.

Qwinn said...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2019/05/17/hysterical-behar-claims-shes-never-heard-ignoring-subpoenas

"The Obama administration ignored congressional subpoenas numerous times. Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt for refusing to turn over documents about the Fast and Furious scandal. Former Assistant Attorney General and current DNC chair Tom Perez ignored subpoenas about using his private e-mail for government business. Obama’s HHS ignored subpoenas about ObamaCare. Where was Behar’s outrage then?"

Where was your outrage then, Inga?

chickelit said...

Gahrie said...In a normal election this would be true. But I'm predicting a low turnout for the Democrats and a huge turnout for the Republicans. Trump will win by the biggest margin since Reagan in 84. 40 states.

If the democrats actually allowed a normal person to run under their tent, they wouldn't have a turnout problem. Instead they still allow Queen Butthurt to call the shots -- cf. Hillary taking down Gabbard who dared speak against her.

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

Inga’s checking Twitter now Qwinn

Leland said...

’The cited House Judiciary article doesn't include any articles of impeachment, only a strained and contorted analysis of the Constitution's provisions for the process.’

I agree with this. It includes quite a bit of innuendo to suggest what Trump supposedly did wrong. Mostly, it is a document trying to explain that the House can impeach. It takes 52 pages to make this argument.

Leland said...

There is no power in the Constitution that a President can exercise immune from legal consequence.

I look forward to AG Barr reopening the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious and DOJ misconduct in not prosecuting Congress' referral of AG Holder's contempt of Congress.

wholelottasplainin' said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
walter said...

I think this vote is in large part about establishing damning terms to throw around in negative political ads.

Amadeus 48 said...

The world's smallest violin playing "My Heart Bleeds for You".🎻 💔

wholelottasplainin' said...

Inga said:
Bribery for personal gain is not an accepted foreign policy of the USA.Trump cannot bribe a foreign government to provide to him things (a public announcement of an investigation into his political opponent), by holding back military aid that was already voted on by the Congress in order to get that thing.

It breaks Election laws.
It is an abuse of his Office.
He cannot obstruct a legal investigation and ignore subpoenas.

*******************

Inga, Mark Levin would be only too happy to tear you another ragged orifice by correcting your utterly ignorant and ahistorical reading of "Bribery", which in a constitutional context meant ONLY that a POTUS who accepted actual money from a foreign government and thus sided with it over his own country would be guilty of an impeachable offense.

None of this other bullshit about receiving a nebulous and speculative "thing of value" or alleged violation of election laws.

As usual, you are trying to put fifty pounds of shit into a five-pound bag.

You really are a world-class dumbass.

Narayanan said...

Blogger rcocean said...
Back-stabbers like Mitch McConnell are in the drivers seat
______&&&&&------


On this point: quite a bit complicated analysis and gaming.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/05/the-senate-and-impeachment-dynamic/

Leland said...

Trump cannot bribe a foreign government to provide to him things (a public announcement of an investigation into his political opponent), by holding back military aid that was already voted on by the Congress in order to get that thing.

You are aware that Biden is on video bragging about him and Obama holding back aid to Ukraine that was already voted on by the Congress in order to get concessions from the Ukraine. So if that's the Democrats argument, I look forward to President Trump's investigation of Obama's and Biden's bribery of the Ukraine.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

the 'Articles of Impeachment' are most likely a list

of Dem's crimes/malfeasance projected.

("the beat defense is a good* offense")

Qwinn said...

Indeed. The entire point of this sham is that when Barr hands down indictments for actual crimes overflowing with actual incontrovertible evidence, the Dems will scream "retaliation!!!" from the rooftops. Won't matter (to them) that the Dem crimes have been under investigation for years.

If you view this as damage control, a way for Dems to use projection to muddy the waters surrounding their own massive crimes, the Dem decision process makes a lot more sense. And by "a lot more sense", I mean "any sense at all", which the Dems' decisions make none at all in any other context.

Michael K said...

I took a quick look at Nadler's report. I see no "Articles of Impeachment." Maybe this is the last act. Nancy, "Vote for impeachment so we can finds out what the reasons are."

Francisco D said...

Inga and Ritmo are on a tear today,. Please don't make moderation come back.

Ritmo is unhinged and probably drug addled. Inga is stupid and has no consistent and coherent thoughts of her own - a perfect Democrat voter.

Most of the time that should dissuade people from responding. Every now and then, one might want to point out the obvious to them, but there is no point in getting into an angry discussion.

Jim at said...

I really am getting rather apprehensive about how the Left is going to respond when Trump wins...

I'm not. I'm preparing for it.

Original Mike said...

I'm more concerned about what happens if they win.

mockturtle said...

Go Badgers!!!

mockturtle said...

Boy, Baylor almost beat the Sooners today. Went into OT.

daskol said...

Santa, the Easter Bunny and a moderate Democrat are all chasing a $100 bill. Which one gets to it first?

Jim at said...

Not commenting here is NO loss to me. - Inga

It's truly unfortunate you don't heed your own advice, shut your mouth and post your bullshit somewhere else.

Krumhorn said...

Bribery for personal gain is not an accepted foreign policy of the USA.Trump cannot bribe a foreign government to provide to him things (a public announcement of an investigation into his political opponent), by holding back military aid that was already voted on by the Congress in order to get that thing.

It breaks Election laws.
It is an abuse of his Office.
He cannot obstruct a legal investigation and ignore subpoenas.


I know that you braindead lefties think this is a winning argument...but it’s not. And you look ridiculous and venal making it. Its nothing more than waaaaaaaa! Orangeman Bad!

- Krumhorn

Original Mike said...

I think Inga provides a service. If it wasn't for our lefty posters, I'd be in the dark as to what the loony left thinks.

Michael K said...

If it wasn't for our lefty posters, I'd be in the dark as to what the loony left thinks.

Good point. I see them in letters to the editor in Tucson but Inga does provide a service.

Ritmo is useless. Just crazy.

Qwinn said...

Since the subject is BRIBERY, why exactly did Burisma pay Hunter Biden a million bucks a year? He couldn't even speak the language, never mind know a thing about the energy business.

And Joe shut down an investigation into Burisma. He bragged about it.

So why was Hunter paid a million bucks a year, Inga? Since bribery bothers you so.

Qwinn said...

"I'd be in the dark as to what the loony left thinks"

Whatever Inga is demonstrating here, it sure isn't "thinking".

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

Parasite Inga can’t live without this place. Couldn’t exist. Desperately thirsty without Althouse’s audience; no one would pay the least attention to her if she stuck to her own blog, exactly the same as in her life. Pours a crappy white and tries to convince herself her endless faults are actually those of her enemies.

Jim at said...

If it wasn't for our lefty posters, I'd be in the dark as to what the loony left thinks.

You mean you don't get enough from your local news, your daily newspapers, sports columnists, commercials, Hollywood, academia ....

I need to hear less from leftist assholes.

Original Mike said...

"Since the subject is BRIBERY, why exactly did Burisma pay Hunter Biden a million bucks a year? He couldn't even speak the language, never mind know a thing about the energy business."

Damn good question. I doubt Inga will touch it in public, but you have to wonder what she tells herself.

walter said...

Qwinn said...He couldn't even speak the language, never mind know a thing about the energy business.
--
In his defense, Hunter said the others on the board were equally unqualified...

Original Mike said...

I avoid most of those Jim.

wildswan said...

From the palace come the fatal words of a laughing Dem:

"They have no evidence? Why then do they not use hearsay?"

daskol said...

There are times when hearsay is even better than first hand evidence. I think one of our exalted elite said that.

wildswan said...

No malarkey impeachment? Phooey on that. It's all phoney baloney.

Morkoth4682 said...

I don't know why everyone here keeps acting like 2020 is in the bag... No one want's to talk about the white elephant in room... The Dem's are going to roll-out cheating unlike this country has ever seen before if they fail to impeach Trump... We need to talk about how we are going to stop this from happening. 2018 showed just how it's going to happen. How do we ensure the validity of the vote if the voting machines are all controlled by Democrat / Soros-linked entities?

wild chicken said...

"It includes quite a bit of innuendo to suggest what Trump supposedly did wrong"

Well, pffft, if you don't know by NOW, well, I just can't even, etc

Original Mike said...

2020 is not in the bag.

Michael K said...

. The Dem's are going to roll-out cheating unlike this country has ever seen before if they fail to impeach Trump...

Yes, but it is usually more effective in local races like House and Senate. Also DA and Secretary of State which Soros has been targeting because they control voting rules.

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Since the subject is BRIBERY, why exactly did Burisma pay Hunter Biden a million bucks a year? He couldn't even speak the language, never mind know a thing about the energy business.

Hey, that's a million bucks a year of laundered money. Now it looks clean and up-front because Hunter pocketed it for "services rendered."

The thing to watch (and nobody's watching it) is HB's paternity case; requests for financials were made which are legitimate since the Court needs to know how much the father is actually worth. The MSM will cover this one with pillow until it's dead. I wouldn't be surprised if the mother and innocent child are "disappeared" as well.

stevew said...

There is a long road to travel until election 2020. Anything can happen.

Jon Ericson said...

Inga has fallen silent.
control F says she last posted at 3:16.
Somebody send out a search party.
*looks sideways at AA's delete key*

Skeptical Voter said...

Fat Jer is going to hold hands with Nancy and Adam and lead the Democrat lemmings over the cliff. The good news is that Jer is large and round enough so that those who land on him are not as likely to get hurt. That is relative to those who land on Pelsoi and Schiff. Not much cushion on their scraggly bones.

Kevin said...

Maybe they should ask Nancy how to find Bart Stupak's office.

I'm sure he'd help them sort out their concerns.

h said...

Pelosi made clear the underlying rationale as Dems see it: Trump is a coward, and he is cruel. Those are articles I and II.

Laurence Tribe writes article III: "president has tried to get something of value from a crucial ally (Ukraine) by using the official powers of his office and military funds that were approved by Congress to help that ally in its struggle with our principal global adversary (Russia)." That thing of value was a public statement by Ukrainian President Zelensky. The public statement (if I understand Tribe correctly) was to contain statements detrimental to Joe Biden, which would be of value to Trump by helping him in an election. Back to Tribe: "To be clear, what Trump requested wasn’t anything to be done “for the United States.” There was no benefit to the nation." I think Tribe recognizes that Trump could have requested Zelensky for help with an investigation into corrupt uses of US aid to Ukraine (including investigation into the allegations that BIden friends and family received indirect kickbacks from the US aid to Ukraine), and that such a request would have been something done "for the US". Tribe hangs his argument on the "fact" or allegation that Trump's request was not for action but simply for a statement by the Ukrainian President.

I've tried to lay out this argument carefully. My explication makes clear: It's a pretty fine splitting of hairs regarding whether or not Trump's request was for something of benefit to the nation. And that means it will be very difficult for pro-impeachment forces to present the argument in a clear and convincing way.

The best hope of the pro-impeachment forces is the the apparent incompetence of Trump supporters to make this critical argument. I was very disappointed that Republican questioners failed to elicit from the Law Prof panel the simple conclusion that it is not an impeachable offense for a President to use the powers of government to seek actions that might help the President politically, if those actions are sought in pursuit of a legitimate policy objective.

narciso said...


https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/the-week-in-pictures-narwhal-tusk-edition.php?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw&fbclid=IwAR2W3E7-CVxz4nfF3HJsOpmgNhmuHybYtuU8Yev5xdl0lGU-1TfDSIKYsgU

Kevin said...

I was very disappointed that Republican questioners failed to elicit from the Law Prof panel the simple conclusion that it is not an impeachable offense for a President to use the powers of government to seek actions that might help the President politically, if those actions are sought in pursuit of a legitimate policy objective.

It wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Better to argue this in the Senate and make the House affair look like the circus it was.

Americans will be left thinking if the House had run a fair hearing this all could have been avoided.

At this point, it's not enough for Trump to win. That has been all but assured from the outset.

The point now is for the Dems to look foolish in their defeat.

Qwinn said...

Another thing I noticed is Inga's screeching that Trump is not ABOVE THE LAW.

Yet, investigating Hunter Biden is impeachable.

How does that not make the Bidens ABOVE THE LAW?

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
h said...

Thanks Kevin for the response. I agree it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it would have created a basis for questioning in future hearings or trials. "Your own experts agreed that it's not impeachable if the President was pursuing a legitimate policy objective. We seek testimony from Bidens to determine whether or not there was a legitimate policy objective." Or "Do you dispute that investigating corruption in US aid is a legitimate policy objective?" In my opinion this kind of building up a video record of steps in an argument would be helpful in a TV story exposing the weakness of the pro-impeachment argument.

mockturtle said...

Great collection, narciso at 5:46! :-D

Skylark said...

Biden is not above the law because the law does not apply to powerful Democrats.

Let me quote the "emoluments" clause of the U.S. Constitution”

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State unless that person is a powerful Democrat.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

This was in Thursday's WaPo:

Pelosi may have signed a political death warrant for moderate Democrats in Trump districts

Guess the Jour-o-List server must be down and they can't keep their spin straight.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Trump asked New Ukrainian leader to look into corruption. He cannot do that!
But dems can set up a false operation to help ensure they win an election.


Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Why are democrats allowed to do anything they want to take political advantage? or to enrich themselves personally by way of international connections and graft? Biden did it openly, on camera. Why are dems allowed to lie so much?
and to use lies that produce outcomes that benefit them politically?

The democrat party is all lies - all the time.

why are dems allowed to do everything they accuse others of doing?

Inga said...


“Inga has fallen silent.
control F says she last posted at 3:16.
Somebody send out a search party.
*looks sideways at AA's delete key*”

Inga has better things to do than argue with those who are unable to reason. I said what I wanted to and didn’t need to say more. But I see you are still a little jerk who seems to care more for drama than the subject matter of a blogpost.

Inga said...

As far as moderate Dems go, I would say that the bigger danger is to the GOP and moderate Republican suburban voters who left Trump in droves in 2018.

Michael K said...

More Inga wisdom.

Jon Ericson said...

Do I detect sarcasm, Dr. K?
We should all strive to not ruffle the feathers of our Diva du département de véhicule à moteur lest we suffer the consequences.

Seeing Red said...

Bribery for personal gain is not an accepted foreign policy of the USA.

Joe got $900k.

Drago said...

Inga: "As far as moderate Dems go, I would say that the bigger danger is to the GOP and moderate Republican suburban voters who left Trump in droves in 2018."

Inga thinks its still 2018!!

Excellent.

Qwinn said...

At least Inga seems aware enough to know she cannot even acknowledge the existence of the possibility of Biden corruption, since that would completely destroy her entire narrative.

Drago said...

Trump coming on shortly to address a raucus and pro-Trump group of Israeli-American in Florida tonight.

Worst anti-semite ever!

Trump approval up amongst African-Americans and Hispanics double and triple previous republicans.

Worst racist ever!

Trump economic performance, in the words of the NYT from just today and CNBC yesterday, unprecedented in a positive way and forces all the so-called experts to re-evalute their basic economic assumptions about America's economic potential...
.....PLUS....according to economic experts, this economic performance puts America COMPLETELY in the drivers seat for all future China negotiations and regardless of what choices China makes, America HAS ALREADY WON.

Oh my, now that is something.

It's almost like Inga and LLR-lefty Chuck and HoaxPPT have no idea what they are talking about.

LOL

Qwinn said...

Every single lefty MSM source, and the House Intelligence Report, only mentions Hunter Biden long enough to append "debunked" or "smear" to it. They never link to any debunking or explain why it's a smear, they just assert it and move on.

Joe himself just states that no one has ever accused him or Hunter of anything. Period. Certainly not MSNBC!

Has anyone else seen this debunking? This evidence that Hunter Biden's position was in fact not corrupt? Cause NO ONE seems to be able to find it.

Drago said...

Inga: "As far as moderate Dems go, I would say that the bigger danger is to the GOP and moderate Republican suburban voters who left Trump in droves in 2018."

Previous Inga "nuggets of wisdom":
- Trump conspired with Russia
- The hoax dossier is real and verified
- Kavanaugh is a gang rapist who raped hundreds
"Trump will never..."
- Complete the primary
- Make it to the Iowa caucus
- Make it thru the primary
- Make it to the convention
- Make it to the general election
- Win the election
- Make it to the inauguration
- Last...
- 3 months
- 6 months
- 9 months
- 12 months
- 18 months
- 24 months
- 3 years
- to 2020

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

So you know, when Inga speaks you really should listen.......

......if you want to laugh your a** off!

bagoh20 said...

"...Republican suburban voters who left Trump in droves in 2018."

Actually, it was even worse than that. Trump got zero votes in 2018.

Drago said...

Trump acknowledging Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

Trump moving America's embassy to Jerusalem.

Israel naming geographic areas, streets and train stations after Trump.

Just. Like. Hitler.

LOLOLOLOL

Guildofcannonballs said...

"Four impeachment threads in one morning. Can’t say if this is good or bad. The bad is that it is hard to keep up. The first one seems to have petered out, after several rather large diatribes on my part. No doubt some on the left here think that there is a cause and effect relationship here. I don’t think so but..."

You're a top ten commentator. Everyone knows it.

False humility could end it though, maybe.

David Allan Coe would know.

Seeing Red said...

Don’t forget she believed Hillary’s video tape explanation of Benghazi.

Giovan Pietro Bellori said...

Inga has better things to do than argue with those who are unable to reason.

But you just had to, anyway, because you really don’t have anything better to do.
90 IQ. At most.

Qwinn said...

Wait a minute. It just occurred to me

Joe Biden said (when talking to "Look, Fat") that no one ever said he or Hunter did anything wrong.

If that's the case, then Trump couldn't have asked the Ukranian President to investigate that wrongdoing.

Which means, per Joe Biden, the entire Dem impeachment is a lie.

Jon Ericson said...

we came we saw he died

Original Mike said...

"Every single lefty MSM source, and the House Intelligence Report, only mentions Hunter Biden long enough to append "debunked" or "smear" to it. They never link to any debunking or explain why it's a smear, they just assert it and move on."

Yeah, it's really something to watch. Biden is so obviously dirty, by their own criteria, that it's inevitable they're going to have throw Biden under the bus. What surprises me is their foot dragging.

Guildofcannonballs said...

I've called Barry Alvarez a better person than Hugh Hewitt.

And yet I named my dog after Dean Barnett.

Seeing Red said...

We had another terrorist attack on 1 of our bases.

This penny ante IMpeachment bullshit is a diversion and Trump should come out strongly.

Narayanan said...

How to get this to moderate D's?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/defining-theory-bribery-impeachment

minnesota farm guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
minnesota farm guy said...

I know it's late, but I thought you should know that during the LSU/GA game one of our local stations ran a Republican add encouraging the local WI D congressman - a rabid lefty - to "Vote NO" on impeachment and end the "witch hunt".

Recently, to my surprise and delight, I have seen a lot of "we're hiring" adds on the local stations, but this was the first anti-impeachment ad I had seen. Clearly the money that the impeachment farce is generating is not sitting idle.

narciso said...


Well then:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7768107/FBI-hunt-missing-Saudi-soldiers-Pensacola-Naval-base-shooting.html?ico=pushly-notifcation-small

TJM said...

There are no moderate Democrats, that breed died long ago.

Automatic_Wing said...

This is kind of like the Obamacare vote. These reluctant Dems will line up and vote as Nancy tells them to, even if it costs them their seats. That's just how they roll, with the Republicans it's every weasel politician for him/her/xerself.

chickelit said...

Drago said...Previous Inga "nuggets of wisdom":

Don't forget her insistence that Benghazi was caused by the filmmaker. She tag-teamed with Cedarford on that one -- much like she used to tag-team with Ritmo. It's in the archives. You can look it up.

chickelit said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...why are dems allowed to do everything they accuse others of doing?

Look at the D-party's historical race relations.

The Gipper Lives said...

John Hindraker: "A time-honored method of taking bribes is having them paid to a family member, usually in exchange for nominal or nonexistent services. It is comical to watch “reporters” pretend not to understand this."

Its not even "digging for dirt". It's on the surface--prima facia. There is NO non-corrupt way for the Bidens to collect millions while handing out billions in money and policy in Ukraine, China and elsewhere. NONE.

Original Mike said...

"John Hindraker: "A time-honored method of taking bribes is having them paid to a family member, usually in exchange for nominal or nonexistent services. It is comical to watch “reporters” pretend not to understand this.""

It's such horseshit. I had to do conflict of interest and oversight committees for decades. We had to avoid "even the appearance" of a conflict. Money paid to a family member was the same as paid to you. It makes me angry to listen to these apologists. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

The Vault Dweller said...

Strategically this looks like a no-brainer for me. If I were in Pelosi's shoes, I would say we are instead moving to censure. And I would blame it completely on republicans with talk of them abdicating their duty blah blah. This looks like there is only risk and no gain for democrats. There hasn't been one Republican senator who has said yeah, this looks like impeachable conduct. So why force your party moderates to vote for something that will make it really hard to retain their seat come next election season? The only explanation I can come up with is that there must an incredible amount of pressure from the left and far left of the Democrat party, so much so that she thinks she would lose her speakership if she doesn't bring impeachment to a vote, or maybe there would an actual party schism.

Qwinn said...

Vault Dweller: An alternate explanation, requiring no pressure, is that they expect indictments with a ton of evidence to come down against them, and they want to be able to play the "this is retaliation for impeachment!!!" card. It's pure projection, intended to keep their own asses out of jail. Sad part is, I'm still waiting to see an example of it not working.

jnseward said...

Many people I know are very frightened by what is happening. They believe Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Greta Thunberg that civilization is at stake and the world is coming to an end because Donald Trump is the President. They believe that the 2016 election was stolen and a dictatorship is imminent if not already immanent. They believe that global warming will destroy life on Earth in the near future.

If this were only a few marginal hysterics it would not be a big deal. The psychologically damaged ye shall always have with you. But this is different. This is, I would estimate, 30% or more of the American population, and it is hard to see any kind of cure happening in the foreseeable future. When President Trump is reelected it is only going to get worse.

I don’t know what the answer is. Some kind of fundamental shift is due to take place, one way or another.

God help us.

chickelit said...

The only explanation I can come up with is that there must an incredible amount of pressure from the left and far left of the Democrat party, so much so that she thinks she would lose her speakership if she doesn't bring impeachment to a vote, or maybe there would an actual party schism.

Don't blame the lefties entirely -- there are other shadowy players out there who contribute money to politics and would like to see Trump kneecapped. For example, drug cartels. They need to launder tons and tons of money. What better way than to funnel it into American politics? It's a twofer or even a threefer. Did anyone ever even look into who was paying migrants to ride trains through Mexico?

The Gipper Lives said...

The wiretapping. The frame-ups. The Smear Campaigns. The entire weight of the crooked bureaucracy brought to bear. The evisceration of attorney/client confidentiality. The use of counter-intelligence spying instead of regular legal procedure. The gutting of Due Process. The insertion of double agents and foreign spies. Agit-Prop Media lies. Dirty Money, Dirty Cops, Dirty Prosecutors, Dirty Judges, Dirty Politicians and Dirty Spies.

Remember this: Everything they have used against President Trump and his allies, they one day plan to use on regular citizens.

Leland said...

Inga @ 2:48PM:
"I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." – President Donald Trump, July 23, 2019

That supposed quote comes from a video edit of Trump. It is Schiff level lying.

Republicans should provide a report on the history of perjury.

Drago said...

Inga: "Inga has better things to do than argue with those who are unable to reason. I said what I wanted to and didn’t need to say more."

Yes, like post deceptively edited fake transcripts.

How democrat of you.

The saddest part?

Inga is so dumb she has no idea that was falsely edited by the dems!! Like the hoax dossier Inga actually thinks its real! She STILL thinks Kavanaugh is a gang rapist!!

2020 is looking better and better each day.

Greg the class traitor said...

Inga said...
So much big brave talk from Trumpists, “daring” Democrats to impeach. Be careful of what you dare. What are you going to do? Start a shooting war? So many of you sound like lunatics, similar to Achilles.


What are we going to do? Bring the Democrats to the Senate trial, under oath, and expose their criminal actions for the entire public to see.

Then absolutely crush them in the 2020 elections.

Then gerrymander the hell out of the House for the next ten years

walter said...

Think Mitch is up to the task?

Steven said...

If obstruction of justice in a case with no underlying crime were an impeachable offense in the mind of Democrats, Bill Clinton would have been removed from office in February 1999. If that charge is included in an impeachment bill, it's absolute, unassailable proof that the Democrats are engaged in purely hypocritical partisan hackery.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
"I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." – President Donald Trump, July 23, 2019

Of course Inga uses a deceptively edited video and complete lie to support her case.

Trump never said that. Not even anything close.

You are a piece of shit just like every other dishonest democrat leader and the people that support them.

We will never accept you or any of your kind in power. You are terrible people who only mean harm.

Fuck you.

War.

JMW Turner said...

I agree that all of this is looking bad for the Democrats. However, one caveat, election fraud by the Democrats is going to be massive. Georgia, Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other heavily contested states could see shenanigans such as vote. harvesting and organized drives to surreptitiously enable non citizens to vote. Trump needs to win overwhelmingly in a decisive way in order to prevail.

Michael K said...

Interesting that Clyburn is now saying he won't whip the impeachment vote.

My guess is FINALLY some Dem moderate leaders found their gonads checked them out of the safe deposit box Nancy kept them and actually made Madame listen to non coastal public opinion reality.

If she goes down we would know retroactively that the "impeach non impeach" gambit was actually naked politics to keep her speakership. As in there was rebellion and the only way to keep her gavel. She had to throw red meat to the AOC crazy left wing to keep them onboad because the middle Dems were bailing.

Again we will see how this plays out. But THIS is why they didn't push the subpoena issue in the courts. Most likely due to House Rules they knew it required a very specific worded resolution.

So in effect Nancy Lied (as she did in Obamacare) she called it an Impeachment Inquiry but it really was not because it WAS NOT WORDED CORRECTLY. AOC and company fell for it.


No wonder she was pissed to be accused of hating Trump.

Michael K said...

Don't blame the lefties entirely -- there are other shadowy players out there who contribute money to politics and would like to see Trump kneecapped. For example, drug cartels. They need to launder tons and tons of money. What better way than to funnel it into American politics? It's a twofer or even a threefer. Did anyone ever even look into who was paying migrants to ride trains through Mexico?

Exactly. I consider drug cartels big "Dark Money" donors to Democrats. Why else the opposition to the border enforcement, let alone the wall.

The Climate thing is also a huge scam involving billions if not trillions of dollars in subsidies.

chickelit said...

No wonder she was pissed to be accused of hating Trump.

She hates the truth and she does hate Trump. Also, she's a very phony Catholic. These are not truths to be tested in court; they are truths already tested in the court of public opinion. I think a plurality of Americans would agree with me. These truths are self-evident.

TJM said...

Here's something for "moderate" Dems to chew on:

Bill Barr on Friday indicted eight individuals for illegally funneling millions of dollars in foreign money to Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic senators.

TJM said...

Bill Barr on Friday indicted eight individuals for illegally funneling millions of dollars in foreign money to Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic senators.