January 31, 2020

"Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said late Thursday that although he believed that Democrats had proved their case that President Trump acted 'inappropriately' in his dealings with Ukraine..."

"... he did not think the president’s actions were impeachable and would vote against considering new evidence in the impeachment trial. Mr. Alexander’s statement was a strong indication that Republicans had lined up the votes to block a call for more witnesses and documents on Friday and press toward a quick acquittal in the third presidential impeachment trial in history.... 'The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did,' Mr. Alexander said... 'I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.'... His announcement capped a day of intense lobbying both on the floor of the Senate and off as each side sought to appeal to a shrinking group of undecided Republicans. Shortly before Mr. Alexander declared his intentions, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, another moderate, became the second Republican to say definitively that she would vote in favor of considering new evidence, after Senator Mitt Romney of Utah... After Mr. Alexander and Ms. Collins made their positions clear on Thursday night, all eyes turned to a fourth possible Republican swing vote, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who said she would announce her decision on Friday."

The NYT reports.

181 comments:

danoso said...

You may not ask tough questions about his former senate colleague. That's inappropriate in the world of Lamar!

Rick.T. said...

I guess our call to his office worked. Only 10 months until he’s gone!

Oso Negro said...

Fucking Republican drama queens. I hate them. I just hate the Democrats more. Maybe a lucky generation gets a wise king, but I fear the common run of humanity is stuck with grifters, clowns, and charlatans for politicians always and forever.

gilbar said...

i'll go on the record, that This will be the Last Time a President is Impeached without there being Plenty Enough votes to Remove (70%? 80%?)

The only other option, is that Impeachment becomes something that happens WHENEVER an opposition party controls the House... Which would make it Completely meaningless.

So, i predict; that Impeachment goes the way of the dodo (or, the hula hoop).
Something that people Used To Do, that is stupid and pointless now.
If you don't remove, you haven't done shit

Temujin said...

What in Chattanooga is Lamar Alexander still doing in the Senate?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Duh.

rhhardin said...

He declares he's an idiot before he says anything else, which is good.

Clyde said...

They may have proved their case, but their case was a load of bullSchiff.

MadisonMan said...

My question for any Senator is always going to be the same: Do you think Hunter Biden's behavior should be investigated?

Shouting Thomas said...

Get this show trial over so we can get on with the important business of re-electing Prez Trump.

rhhardin said...

A course in structural analysis and dynamics would be good preparation for elective office. Don't build a system that can't work.

rhhardin said...

My question is why is there no mp3 source of the senate hearings out there. Except C-Span which will sell you one.

Helps to locate the head idiots to actually listen.

Big Mike said...

I presume Lamar Alexander thinks Trump acted “inappropriately” because he thinks senators and former senators should not be investigated for participating in graft, fraud, and corruption.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

MadisonMan said...
My question for any Senator is always going to be the same: Do you think Hunter Biden's behavior should be investigated?


The answer should be every politician's relatives should be investigated, starting with the leadership of the Senate.

h said...

This is from the WaPo, describing a Q&A from THurday's trial: "Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin responded with a very broad assertion: that regardless of personal motives, as long as Trump had any official motive, “we think it follows even more clearly that cannot possibly be the basis for an impeachable offense.” Philbin argued that senators would then be put in the position of trying to deduce how much of a motive for a decision was personal vs. official."

It sounds to me as though the President's lawyers are admitting (or stipulating to) the asserted fact that Trump sought a quid-pro-quo, and that the Ukrainian action might benefit Trump politically. But Trump had a legitimate official motive, so shouldn't be impeached (because all Presidents seek such quid-pro-quos. (is that the plural?)

So Sen. Alexander reasonably asks: What are the factual differences that we need to resolve by calling witnesses?

rhhardin said...

The phone call was a target of opportunity after the previous scam failed. There was nothing special about it except that repetition stirs up the base.

Leland said...

It's a weird letter. Other than the conclusion, it doesn't really satisfy anybody. For him, the first article was proven and the second wasn't, but that it is only inappropriate not impeachable. How did such a passive aggressive beta become a senator?

JPS said...

I'm of two minds here.

On the one hand, I don't feel like listening to the left bitch from now until the election - which, after Trump wins, they will insist was stolen - that he would have been removed if only the Republican Senate hadn't pulled procedural maneuvers and played shameless politics to protect him. Call witnesses. Call them all. Let Bolton say that Trump is a terrible guy who wanted Ukraine to announce that it was investigating the Bidens. Let the Republicans call The Whistleblower(TM) and ask him about his coordinations with Schiff's staff; let them call LTC Vindman and ask him just what the hell gives a military officer of his or any rank the right to dime out his commander in chief over a disagreement on policy; and let them call Hunter Biden.

Call all the witnesses both sides want, and at the end of it all Trump will come out just as he is: with the left hating him, a huge majority on the right supporting him, and more and more people in the middle thinking correctly that the country's doing largely OK, and that the Democrats have hated him and wanted a reason to get rid of him since the get-go.

On the other hand, nothing short of 20 Republicans voting their way would have the Democrats saying they were given a fair shake. So, the hell with it. Call the vote.

Gk1 said...

All kabuki theater. Zzzzz. It's true, politics is just show business for ugly people.

tim maguire said...

I'd like witnesses, but mostly as a way to explore Ukraine as a focus of corruption among American politicians (as in, the Ukraine is where the American political class goes to get rich). But if we're to stick to the topic--impeachment, then Alexander is absolutely right--nothing witnesses can say matters because the House Democrats have simply not stated a valid claim.

It's time to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

henry said...

Leland, the Chamber of Commerce prefers betas.

rhhardin said...

Quid pro quo is how everything works. It it illegitimate quid pro quo. No, everybody wants to know what the fuck went on in great 2016 coup attempt.

It's ridiculous to think Trump needs help against Biden. He's after information to prosecute treason.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

h said...
It sounds to me as though the President's lawyers are admitting (or stipulating to) the asserted fact that Trump sought a quid-pro-quo, and that the Ukrainian action might benefit Trump politically.


This was always their only defensible position. But McConnell was never going to allow witnesses, because once he opened the door to the Biden's family's finances then his own family would have come under intense scrutiny.

hawkeyedjb said...

"the people should make that decision in the presidential election..."

Well no, they shouldn't. They might -again- choose incorrectly. That's what this impeachment is about. But don't worry, the impeachers may get their chance again. Perhaps if Trump wins, and the House remains Democratic, we will have an annual impeachment. Maybe they'll do it like the budget, just a big Omnibus Impeachment bill every year.

Article 1: Orange Man Bad
Article 2: People Stupid

tim in vermont said...

"But McConnell was never going to allow witnesses,”

Sadly true. This is why they all hate Trump, including probably 80% of Republican Senators. He won’t play ball. His crime was looking into their corruption.

tim in vermont said...

Plus it’s time to move on to a “rape" case that happened in a public place where the woman never seemed to have objected, more described it as some kind of “zipless fuck,” which was a thing then among elite New Yorkers.

bagoh20 said...

This episode with the Biden's clear corruption and graft being off limits to investigate is the perfect example of what everyone agrees is wrong with government and politicians. If we could just agree that party doesn't matter we could actually clean up a lot of the mess. Trump dared to act as an outsider, not part of the circle back-scratch, and he was as open about it as possible. Yes, a perfect call. Can any President in the future try to clean up such a thing? Not now. Thanks, Democrats. Now you run any corrupt pol you have, since you have now made them untouchable. Good job!

Tom T. said...

"It sounds to me as though the President's lawyers are admitting (or stipulating to) the asserted fact that Trump sought a quid-pro-quo"

It doesn't sound that way to anyone else here. Find yourself a dumber crowd to listen to that particular spin.

MikeR said...

@h "It sounds to me as though the President's lawyers are admitting (or stipulating to) the asserted fact that Trump sought a quid-pro-quo, and that the Ukrainian action might benefit Trump politically. But Trump had a legitimate official motive, so shouldn't be impeached (because all Presidents seek such quid-pro-quos. (is that the plural?)"
I agree with all of that except for the "shouldn't be impeached". If he had a legitimate official motive, than what he did was fine. If he had a legitimate official motive, then he can and should use whatever pressure he can bring to bear. If he had a legitimate official motive, of course it can also benefit him politically.
If he had a legitimate official motive, the case against him never starts.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
This episode with the Biden's clear corruption and graft being off limits to investigate is the perfect example of what everyone agrees is wrong with government and politicians. If we could just agree that party doesn't matter we could actually clean up a lot of the mess.


You get half way there and then fall back into partisan rhetoric. Trump is a politician and the Republicans control the senate.

bagoh20 said...

The idea that a President can't do anything that helps him politically and may hurt his potential opponents is just a ridiculously clueless standard that nobody ever bought before. If Biden was clean, it would have hurt Trump and helped Biden, but the Democrats know he wasn't clean. Everybody does.

tim in vermont said...

The biggest victim of Eric Ciaramella, the ham-fisted Machiavelli, is his old boss Joe Biden who Warren supporters and Bernie supporters now see as a corrupt tool of the old guard they want gone.


"Trump is a politician and the Republicans control the senate.”

Yes, and the entire impeachment was a coverup for Democratic corruption in Ukraine.

MikeR said...

"Inappropriately". Huh. Never heard that about Donald Trump before. Also never heard that I need some Senators to tell me so.

bagoh20 said...

" Trump is a politician and the Republicans control the senate."

So what? How does that make the Bidens immune from investigation? It shouldn't matter who is President, or who runs the Congress. It's our money and we voted for someone who we expected to protect it from being sunk in the swamp. I'd be in favor of what Trump did if it was done by President Hilary in the same position. Would you?

rehajm said...

I presume Lamar Alexander thinks Trump acted “inappropriately” because he thinks senators and former senators should not be investigated for participating in graft, fraud, and corruption.

Exactly. What he hell was inappropriate about it?

Of course no mention of inappropriate action by the players in the house, the 'whistleblower' or other actors in this farce. The senate could hold its own hearings in a post mortem of this fiasco but to do so would expose too many corrupt actors...

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The democrats are corrupt and they are protected in their corruption. Indeed.

Look at Adam Schitt and his coordination with the corrupt insider hack leaker whistleblower. Who by the way - is not protected by any document.

bagoh20 said...

I also would expect President Hillary to demand a clear quid pro quo, even if Trump did not. You want our money? Clean up your house a little.

I'm pretty sure that under President Hillary, if Biden was challenging her, or the Trumps did what the Bidens did, that she would have done exactly that, and I'd support it and nobody would be calling for impeachment.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

ARM said: "The answer should be every politician's relatives should be investigated, starting with the leadership of the Senate."

We have a bi-partisan agreement What can't Trump do?

Now ARM go talk to the Dems and tell them Trump was right and we need to clean up all this backdoor corruption.

H said...

@Mike R who says, "I agree with all of that except for the "shouldn't be impeached"....If he had a legitimate official motive, the case against him never starts." You give more credit to the Dems than I do on this. I think the grassroots ground swell was so large that Pelosi had to move to impeach (just because Orange Man Bad), and then left her sidekicks to try to find some basis, and this was the best they could find. However, on a note of possible agreement: I do think the Dems could have justified calling Bolton as witness to testify on the question "Was there a legitimate official motive?" That's not (in my opinion) why they wanted to call him, and I'm afraid they wouldn't like the answer he would give to that question. And then it opens up the whole Hunter BIden Burisma story and leaves to door open to call lots of other witness who are not keeping the impeachment narrative on track.

Drago said...

h: "It sounds to me as though the President's lawyers are admitting (or stipulating to) the asserted fact that Trump sought a quid-pro-quo, and that the Ukrainian action might benefit Trump politically. But Trump had a legitimate official motive, so shouldn't be impeached (because all Presidents seek such quid-pro-quos. (is that the plural?)"

You cant be that dumb.

Meanwhile, Alexander hates Trump with a passion but I believe he made a deal to help out his good friend Collins specifically.

The deal: vote against witnesses thus freeing up Collins to vote for witnesses to help her in her reelection campaign while criticizing Trump publicly because NeverTrump and not receiving criticism from other republican Senators for buying into this democrat/LLR sham proceeding.

A very typical swamp arrangement.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Adam Schitt promised repeatedly to offer up the whistle-blower on national news.

Rory said...

At this point, the statement only raises questions about what Alexander and his family have been up to.

"the entire impeachment was a coverup for Democratic corruption in Ukraine."

The impeachment is a cover-up for the Mueller report. The trial is a cover-up for the FISA abuse report. The cover-up for the corruption kicks off on Sunday.

Tommy Duncan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TJM said...

Fox News reported today Joe Biden's comments from 1998 that NO witnesses were needed for the Clintoon Impeachment proceedings in the Senate. What is different now, other than the Clintooon Articles of Impeachment alleged 11 felonies and Trump's 0 felonies?

bagoh20 said...

ARM said: "The answer should be every politician's relatives should be investigated, starting with the leadership of the Senate."

Sounds good to me, but why just the Senate? If we had a fair functioning Press, this would be happening for all candidates on both sides before we elect them to driving the graft wagons.

Beasts of England said...

Sad trombone prices spike in early trading...

Tommy Duncan said...

Lamar Alexander ran for President in 1996. Imagine what a decisive and dynamic leader he would have been.

gilbar said...

Aunty Trump said...
Plus it’s time to move on to a “rape" case that happened in a public place where the woman never seemed to have objected


You know as well as we do, that The Law EXPLICITLY STATES that a woman has up to 99 years to raise any objections to any sex act she may or may not have been involved in
(unless, of course, the accused rapist is a DEMOCRAT President; in which case All accusations are null and void).

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Hunter Biden
Joe Biden
Eric Chariamella
and
Adam Schitt(D) must be called as witnesses under oath

Adam Schitt(D) will lie under oath.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Adam Schitt promised repeatedly to offer up the whistle-blower on national news.

Unpossible. I've been told by my intellectual and moral superiors that would be illegal.

Someone must have explained it to Schiff right about the time it was learned that Schiff lied about his interactions with the so-called whistle blower and we learned the gossiper also lied to the IG about his interactions with the Democratics.

Yes! That must it. That must have been what happened.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The next coup attempt will be to get the Republican electors to vote for Pence instead of Trump next December.

roesch/voltaire said...

Bolton would have told us what we already know: Trump lies about what he does and acted basically in his own interests in the Ukraine aid hold until they announced a Biden investigation. After all the noise about procedure etc. the core of the argument was and is does this rise to an impeachable action? Unfortunately the answer seems to lie along party lines. Does this bode well for possible future impeachment actions? Only time will tell.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

the whistle-blower was overheard discussing ways to remove Trump

bagoh20 said...

What gave the Bidens the confidence to do what they did without concern for the political consequences to Joe's future? If you want to be President someday why would you take such a risk?

Jersey Fled said...

The question is did the impeachment help Pelosi solidify her base more than it helped Trump solidify his. I'm voting for the latter.

bagoh20 said...

"Trump lies about what he does and acted basically in his own interests in the Ukraine aid hold until they announced a Biden investigation..."

Except that never happened at all, and Trump immediately released the call transcript, which I doubt any other President would have done.

Chuck said...

Dear Senator Alexander,

Please have one of your staff go to the Althouse blog. And have them copy all of the comments. Look at them. They aren’t all the same of course but note how the hardest-core Trump fans feel about you. They loathe you as just another RINO. You’ll get no credit from them for your dubious decision to prevent witnesses.

And now, with no friends among the Trump cultists — you had the nerve to suggest that Trump and his calls were not perfect — and with no friends among anti-Trump movement conservatives, you will nonetheless spend the rest of your days being forced to defend Trump in each new revelation and each new scandal as it arises in coming weeks and months. The Bolton book may be as bad a nightmare for you as for Trump.

Bay Area Guy said...

Romney is such a weenie. Is there anyone who affirmatively likes the guy?

Let's end this farce, Murkowsky and get back to the "normal" presidential campaign, where the 140 Million voters decide who will lead us, not Shifty Adam Schiff.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Back to corruption. Isn't it odd that a small out of the way country like Ukraine is giving millions of dollars to children of high ranking politicians?

Short list of the top of my head:

Biden's kid
Pelosi's kid
Kerry's kid
Mittens staffer

Can you imagine the billions being paid by China, middle Eastern, African, and south and Central America?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Loyal leftists buy Adam's Schitt.

Jersey Fled said...

There are 31 Democrats who won election in 2018 in districts Trump won in 2016, sometimes by big margins. They all voted for impeachment. Pelosi handed their challengers a ready made issue to hammer them with in 2020.

narciso said...

Romneys handler, who was?? A vice predident of black water and fmr head of the counterterror section

Lurker21 said...

Alas, for "Lamar!" and "Jeb!"

Careers undone by that ill-chosen exclamation point.

The lumberjack look do much for Lamar, either.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

C'mon RV join all of us in our non-partisan denouncing of the corruption in our political system.

Don't be "that guy." Even ARM agrees we need to get this corruption investigated and ended.

Jersey Fled said...

I see the Bolton book is Chuck's new holy grail. How many has that been now?

AllenS said...

Call witnesses? Nonsense. Not one more day of this bullshit.

bagoh20 said...

The Bolton book is the new shinny squirrel. I guess you got to focus on something, when the facts keep slapping those squirrels down one after another, but 3 years of this stuff and you still fall for the next thing with no hesitation. Lots of people have made a lot of money off of TDS.

Drago said...

This is clearly a devastating day for banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck.

Acquittal and complete exoneration for Trump against Chuck's beloved dems and a personal defeat for Adam Schiff-ty whom LLR-lefty Chuck expressed adoration.

On top of that, Brexit, which Chuck ridiculed and said would never happen.

On top of that Chuck's beloved dem candidates are completely imploding.

On top of that, Chuck told us our economy is exactly the same as the End Stage Soviet Union economy (yes, he wrote exactly that)!

So you can see our violent and vulgar Chuck is going to have a very bad day.

Francisco D said...

It doesn't sound that way to anyone else here. Find yourself a dumber crowd to listen to that particular spin.

Those were my words yesterday watching Adam Schiff respond to questions. He really thinks that people are stupid, so he says anything that advances his agenda.

He really reminds me of Lil' Chuckles. They are both obsessive, lying, loathsome toads.

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, nothing short of 20 Republicans voting their way would have the Democrats saying they were given a fair shake. So, the hell with it. Call the vote."

The dems prove, again and again, that they are always going to claim they were cheated when they lose an election or a vote. I used to give them a hearing but no longer. I'd largely reached that point before 16, but the open hostility to the electoral college took me to 98%; after Kavanaugh, I'll never listen to another democrat whine for the rest of my life.

You assholes bought this and paid way more than full price. I'm not Achilles-level angry with you, but I'm not far behind.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...


Read His Letter: Joe Biden Argued Against Impeachment Witnesses In 1999

Hilarious.

narciso said...

Ive tried to post 10 types.

mockturtle said...

I'm sure Murkowski will bask in her sudden importance, holding Senators and reporters on the edges of their seats and hoping for last minute deals for her vote. But the truth is that there are several Democrats who may go maverick on this vote and, at any rate, the Dems lack the vote to pass.

narciso said...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2020/01/30/cbs-sees-demss-worst-nightmare-coming-true-senate-trial-flounders

Jersey Fled said...

Trump has survived a rigged Special Consul investigation and a half witted impeachment attempt. Yet I don't think the Democrats will give up even after he wins the next election.

What's next?

Jersey Fled said...

BTW Chuck, I'll see your Bolton book and raise you a Durham investigation.

AllenS said...

If the Democrats thought for one minute that Bolt-on was such an important witness, they should have requested his testimony in the House trial, or whatever that shit was called.

mccullough said...

Someone ask The Senators why they didn’t vote to expel Robert Menendez.

The Senate loves corruption. They are corruption.

donald said...

I also would expect President Hillary to demand a clear quid pro quo, even if Trump did not. You want our money? Clean up your house a little

More like, “Where’s my cut”?

rightguy said...

All foreign aid is a sort of quid pro quo.

Rory said...

"If we had a fair functioning Press, this would be happening for all candidates on both sides before we elect them to driving the graft wagons."

Pelosi had one kid taking money, one go to NBC, and one is following her path through the Party. It's like Olden Days, when the aristocracy contributed one son to the military, one to the diplomatic corps, and one to the priesthood.

Francisco D said...

What's next?

This impeachment sham was a trial run for the 2022 impeachment when Trump is a lame duck and the GOP has no one with his backbone.

They have to destroy his legacy or it will destroy them.

rehajm said...

I'm not Achilles-level angry with you, but I'm not far behind.

Heh. I'd like to see the rest of this scale. Do you also do boulder sizes?

Meade said...

Durham investigation, Bolton book, Whistleciaramellablower all aside... I thought we all learned the enduring political lesson after the Clinton impeachment fiasco: IF NOT BIPARTISAN AND NO 67 SENATE SUPERMAJORITY, IMPEACHMENT IS NOTHING BUT AN OWN GOAL AND THERE BE DRAGONS!

Guess not.

tim in vermont said...

"Dear Senator Alexander,

Please have one of your staff go to the Althouse blog. And have them copy all of the comments. Look at them. They aren’t all the same of course but note how the hardest-core Trump fans feel about you.”

Maybe that’s why he’s not running again?

tim in vermont said...

Chuck want’s us drummed out of the party to limit the size of the Republican base. Not coincidentally, in golf, he thinks that a four putt is kind of sneaky because it is really two extra turns.

Sam L. said...

I believe nothing, NOTHING, in the NYT.

Howard said...

Yes Auntie Trump. You people want the GOPe LLRs out of the Republican party as well. Neither strategy is sustainable.

IgnatzEsq said...

The idea that senators will vote *against* an opportunity to meaninglessly bloviate for days, nay weeks, seems small.

Inga said...

“It sounds to me as though the President's lawyers are admitting (or stipulating to) the asserted fact that Trump sought a quid-pro-quo"

Indeed. And we are being told to “Get used to it” by Mulvaney.

Anonymous said...

For all the people saying, "Yeah, call witnesses!": This won't change, or clarify, or prove anything. Do you really think there's any way in hell you're going to get any satisfaction from the Republican senators re Biden et al/Burisma business? If the 'pubs weren't happy to allow the Dems to try to do all the damage to Trump that they could, they would have long since shut the farce down. With the exception of a few individuals with (R) after their names, this kabuki of pretending to defend the prez is just to save their own skins with the voters.

When (or rather, if) the senate finally euthanizes this farce, the Dems will immediately start up another (what number are we on now?), and the 'pubs will pull long faces, and either pretend the fresh accusations are Very Serious Matters which of course they are honor bound to investigate (being the great patriots and defenders of Rule of Law and Our Institutions that they are), or pretend to defend the prez, but in either case doing nothing to bring the non-stop Dem lunatic rampaging to heel.

The one bright spot on the political horizon is the high probability of Trump's re-election. It won't make any difference in the long run, as the same venal sub-mediocrities overseeing our devolution into a straight-up banana republic will still be at it when he's gone. But I will enjoy it for what it is, nonetheless.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

OK for Biden to brag about Quid Pro Quo. OK for his idiot son to get our laundered tax dollars thru Ukrainian gas company.

Not OK for Trump to ask about corruption... esp if that corruption leads to Biden.

Got it, folks. up next on Maddow. Russia!

Chuck said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Read His Letter: Joe Biden Argued Against Impeachment Witnesses In 1999

Hilarious


And Lindsey Graham argued for witnesses at that same time.

That leaves lifelong Republicans like me, who never supported Clinton and who have hated Trump since the 2016 primaries, as the consistent, true, values-based non-hypocrites.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

witnesses needed:

Hunter Biden
Joe Biden
Pelosi's son
Kerry's grandson or who the flip ever... some other D money whore

Eric Chariielellmo
and corrupt Rat liar Adam Schitt.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Chuck - we know you hate Trump. and you've sold your soul to the left and its lies. We're bored by it.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Ive tried to post 10 types.

Good. We don't need more sunrise photos.

etbass said...

Seems a mistake to me for Alexander to announce his intentions in advance. Unless he is fishing for a bribe from the Donks. He brings down all manner of wrath from the deranged. If he made a deal with Collins, it could have been on the QT and been just as effective.

Beasts of England said...

’...the consistent, true, values-based non-hypocrites.’

Is that what you tell your ‘Peg Me Maddow’ doll?

Howard said...

All kidding aside, dragging this thing out for as long as possible may be more beneficial to the president than to the Democratic opposition. However that's a risky maneuver so hopefully this thing will be over today so we can get back to real issues like who will win the super bowl

n.n said...

Due diligence, fiduciary responsibility, and mitigating progress are impeachable offenses.

Drago said...

Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "That leaves lifelong Republicans like me, who never supported Clinton and who have hated Trump since the 2016 primaries, as the consistent, true, values-based non-hypocrites."

LOLOLOLOLOL

For the last 4 years ALL your supposed GOPe heroes have literally been endorsing and supporting and calling for the election of democrats at all levels for the next several generations.....to "conserve conservatism" and they are ALL, every single one of them, funded by leftists.

LOL

There is not a single person alive fooled any longer by Conservative Inc. and their serial betrayals of all things conservative.

And it is glorious.

Now go back to giving Adam Schiff-ty the rhetorical tongue bath you been laying on him for the past 4 months. Its so very very instructive.

The "Conservative" Case For Supporting Everything Adam Schiff Does!!!

Meade said...

"You people want the GOPe LLRs out of the Republican party as well."

Only the ones who are pro-slavery (i.e. open borders).

SDaly said...

Back to corruption. Isn't it odd that a small out of the way country like Ukraine is giving millions of dollars to children of high ranking politicians?

Short list of the top of my head:

Biden's kid
Pelosi's kid
Kerry's kid
Mittens staffer

Can you imagine the billions being paid by China, middle Eastern, African, and south and Central America?


Just as big a scandal re Ukraine is that the money funneled to U.S. politicians' families was skimmed off of foreign aid from the U.S. The entire system has to be shut down.

Drago said...

Admiral Inga: "Indeed. And we are being told to “Get used to it” by Mulvaney."

LOL

Completely wrong again!! Which is inexplicable since you can read minds......

Btw, STILL no apology for calling Carter Page a russian spy AND calling Kavanaugh a gang rapist?

STILL?

After all this time?

Anonymous said...

"Do you also do boulder sizes?"

"boulder" is a size. DD.

stevew said...

@Drago: on the Alexander arrangement with Collins, I think you are exactly correct.

Drago said...

Quick question: How many LLR-lefty Chuck tears are needed to make the perfect gin and tonic?

Asking for a friend.

Leland said...

Only the ones who are pro-slavery (i.e. open borders).

Indeed

Beasts of England said...

Trump War Room released a video of Nadler outrunning Schiff to the microphone. Slow motion, with the ‘Chariots of Fire’ theme playing in the background. So much winning!!

n.n said...

Only the ones who are pro-slavery (i.e. open borders).

Labor arbitrage. Open borders is also about shared responsibility.

Drago said...

"Only the ones who are pro-slavery (i.e. open borders)."

This brings up an interesting question.

It is already proven beyond debate that Trump has been our most conservative President in 80 years and easily the most successful in terms of conservative policy enactment (which makes the FakeCon "secret"-lefties like Chuck insane) during that time.

So which successful conservative policy does LLR-lefty and his far left dem allies hate the most?

I'll start things off by saying that Trumps battle against LLR-lefty Chuck's/Dems Open Borders gambit to overwhelm US society and deliver permanent LLR-lefty Chuck-approved democrat control of our nation is the conservative policy most hated by LLR-lefty Chuck and his far left allies.

Other thoughts?

Krumhorn said...

I don’t think the lefties proved their case. Didn’t come close to proving it. One doesn’t even have to get to the question of what to do about it had they proved it up.

- Krumhorn

Drago said...

Howard: "Yes Auntie Trump. You people want the GOPe LLRs out of the Republican party as well. Neither strategy is sustainable."

The GOPe LLR's left the GOP in the fall of 2016.

There arent any left in the party so there is no need to root them out. They are all hanging with their dem pals.

etbass said...

Drago, don't know how much the lefties hate the most but it, for sure, is the one I LOVE the most.

Night Owl said...

Trump's big mistake was in asking for the investigation of possible Biden corruption out in the open in front of witnesses. That was very inappropriate!

If he wanted to investigate Biden he should have had the RNC hire a foreign spy to write a phony dossier and submit it to the FISA court so that he could spy on Bider Jr. in order to spy on Biden Sr. That's how a professional DC public servant does it!

Big Mike said...

so hopefully this thing will be over today so we can get back to real issues like who will win the super bowl

Does Mahomes get to call witnesses?

Chuck said...

The great question that I am seeing for Alexander is this; “Since you agree that the House’s allegations were proven, but you disagree with the severity of impeachment as a remedy, what is a lesser penalty that you might agree to be imposed, to place Trump on notice that a majority of the Senate views as improper and inappropriate conduct in office?”

Drago said...

Lets see, its now 11:20am ET or so and thus the question must be asked: How many brand new fake hoax Trump quotes has LLR-lefty Chuck-adored Adam Schiff-ty created so far today?

Whats the over/under on new hoax fake quotes noon today?

I am going to go with 17.

Night Owl said...

I wouldn't mind hearing Bolton testify. Because even if he declares that Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate possible Biden corruption in order to get aid, I want to hear the Dems explain why this particular quid pro quo is impeachable. Bribery is illegal, but quid pro quo is not. It's the oil that runs the political machine; "vote for me and I'll give/do X for you". Very telling that the Dems didn't impeach Trump on bribery.

On the other hand there's a possibly illegal "quid pro quo" that no one in DC/media seems interested in, namely what did those Ukrainians get, or expect to get, from Biden Sr. by paying millions to Biden Jr.?

Every serious person knows this impeachment is a joke. So let's run with it; let's drag in Bolton and the Bidens, and Mitt's kid and Polosi's kid, hell let's drag in Trump's grandkids. Let 'em all speak. To quote from "I, Claudius", let all the poison that lurks in the mud, hatch out.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck now extremely desperate for his dem pals and allies to achieve some sort of impeachment "win" before next Tuesday's SOTU!!

LOLOLOL

Sorry Chuckie!! Not even a Participation Trophy for your heroes Schiff-ty and Sprinter-Man Nads Nadler!!

Johnny, please tell our dem/LLR contestants what they did win......hey!! Look at that!! The Home Version of The Impeachment Game!! Hurray!! Fun for the whole family! (Ages 12 and up)

Drago said...

Next up for LLR-lefty Chuck: The US Judicial system is EXACTLY like End Stage Soviet Union Judicial system.

narciso said...

well the privat bank went belly up, less than a year after shokin was removed, because he went after zylochevsky's properties, as Stephen McIntyre pointed out,

Crazy World said...

Many a melt down in the works for today, delicious.

stevew said...

"what is a lesser penalty that you might agree to be imposed, to place Trump on notice that a majority of the Senate views as improper and inappropriate conduct in office?"

Idiocy. This is an impeachment proceeding. That question is irrelevant. If you want to pursue some other sort of sanction or penalty, then start a new proceeding, for censure or whatever that we can debate and vote on.

Drago said...

Crazy World: "Many a melt down in the works for today, delicious."

Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck is already far along the Meltdown Path.

If I were a blues singer I would say something like: Chucky boy is melting down about....wrote a song about it...goes something like this....

Drago said...

If I were a poet writing about Chucky-boy, i would begin by writing:

Stopping by the LLR-lefty Meltdown on a snowy evening.....

narciso said...

of course in the Ukrainian nesting dolls paradigm burisma is owned by kolomoisky, who owns half of the Rada (parliament) zylochevsky is more like no. 2, the contact with the Europeans,

Drago said...

If I were a drag racer (autos, not dudes), I would say:

Gentlemen, start your Meltdown engines!!

Drago said...

If I were a LLR-lefty Meltdown Urologist, I would say:

Turn your head and weep....

Gusty Winds said...

I'm disappointed. I want witnesses and an extension to this shit-show. It would completely screw up the upcoming Iowa Caucus. It's like a great campy movie.

Anonymous said...

Krumhorn: I don’t think the lefties proved their case. Didn’t come close to proving it. One doesn’t even have to get to the question of what to do about it had they proved it up.

Didn't prove their case? They never had a case. What's going on here has long since been obvious to anybody with rudimentary reasoning skills. Yet here we are. Why are people still discussing this as if it were about "the case"?

Forget it, Krum. It's Clown World.

pacwest said...

@ARM,
It looks like you have a lot of support for cleaning up corruption in government, but I find it odd that you would call for the starting point to be Republicans in the Senate considering the free for all that occurred during the Obama Presidency. Go for the big easy targets first would seem more logical to me.

Drago said...

Uh oh LLR-lefty Chuck!!!

Uh...OH!! Trump approval among blacks pops to 42%!!!

And this ------

NFL STAR WEARS TRUMP SWAG TO SUPER BOWL🔥🇺🇸

Kansas City Chiefs DE Frank Clark wore a TRUMP sweater to his Super Bowl press conference.

“Never forget. Y’all know the moment when @realDonaldTrump met Kanye. You know very historical moment in our history”

THIS is counter culture https://t.co/A5YBjfSmB0

On top of the Israeli-Arab deal pitched this week, I would have to say LLR-lefty Chuck's/dems "anti-semitic/racist/KKK" ploy is "working out" just as "effectively" as the hoax impeachment ploy!!!

Drago said...

Is it just me or is the sun even more sunny today than usual?

Nichevo said...


The answer should be every politician's relatives should be investigated, starting with the leadership of the Senate.


No "starting with." Do them all, Senate and House alike. That's fine. Divulge simultaneously or in alphabetical order.

Sebastian said...

"Blogger SDaly said...
Back to corruption. Isn't it odd that a small out of the way country like Ukraine is giving millions of dollars to children of high ranking politicians?"

Hey, Dems and GOPers: how many kids of high-ranking politicians in Denmark, Belgium, and Austria got those big bucks? If none, why might that be? And what lesson would you draw from that fact?

Sebastian said...

Hey, Susan and Mittens: what additional witness evidence on Trump's thought crime would make it an impeachable offense?

Seeing Red said...

Only the ones who are pro-slavery (i.e. open borders).

And pro-pandemic which open borders facilitates.

Seriously at this point, where’The Peoples’ Houses Leadership?

Where are the we’re working with the Administration?

I might have missed this I agree.

But the Neros are fiddling.

Seeing Red said...

Via Insty:

Twenty-three nations embrace Trump peace plan, 7 in Middle East
by Paul Bedard
| January 30, 2020 02:36 PM
Print this article

robother said...

Now that all eyes are on Lisa Murkowski, will she appear on the Senate floor in the nude? How can we have a Trump Impeachment without a nude female body offering its mute testimony? Roberts will have to rule immediately from the bench on whether it's a Constitutionally protected artistic statement or pornography. Lisa, if you're reading this do it, just do it!

Birkel said...

Alexander should be arguing in the alternative.

The argument is "even if everything alleged is true, it is not impeachable."

It's a directed verdict.

narciso said...

good question, there was a polish prime minister, a (green) fmr german foreign minister, with baader times, a corrupt tory osce chief, and fmr gov, mary Landrieu, from louisiana

LA_Bob said...

“Since you agree that the House’s allegations were proven, but you disagree with the severity of impeachment as a remedy, what is a lesser penalty that you might agree to be imposed, to place Trump on notice that a majority of the Senate views as improper and inappropriate conduct in office?”

That Trump stand still while each senator walks by and slaps his wrist?

narciso said...

those were all members at the year soiree, that burisma had in Monaco, they even had an opera performed there, although not Verdi's aida, as in quantum of solace,

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

God... the remaining Globalist RINO's in the Senate can't retire fast enough... Please, go away and take your culture of back-room, cigar-smoking kickbacks and corruption with you...

Yancey Ward said...

ARM,

Schumer was never going to allow witnesses to be called either. This was a bipartisan effort in the Senate to block witnesses- the only effort against each other was to see who would get the blame for no witnesses being called. If you believe your first comment, then you have to agree with this argument.

Yancey Ward said...

Schumer could have had Bolton and Mulvaney- all he had to do was to agree to the White House's list of witnesses, too. This was the deal, probably explicitly made, by the four fence-sitters (there were probably more than 4, but 4 was enough to make the proffer). The reason I think this is true is that Romney, a couple of days ago, made a point of publicly stating that Bolton and Mulvaney couldn't be the only witnesses- this was directed at Schumer and no one else. Romney had the votes at that time, but to keep Alexander and a few others, he had to have a public commitment from Schumer, and Schumer refused to give it- indeed, Schumer literally torpedoed it later that day by again reiterating he wouldn't support the defense's witness lists.

JAORE said...

"Dear Senator Alexander,

Please have one of your staff go to the Althouse blog. And have them copy all of the comments. Look at them. They aren’t all the same of course but note how the hardest-core Trump fans feel about you. They loathe you as just another RINO. You’ll get no credit from them for your dubious decision to prevent witnesses."

Pullezzzz you putz:

Yeah, Senator. Vote for witnesses and the left will love you. For all of 17 minutes.

Then they'll consider you another Hitler (lite) racist, homophobic... in other words Republican.

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
MadisonMan said...
My question for any Senator is always going to be the same: Do you think Hunter Biden's behavior should be investigated?

The answer should be every politician's relatives should be investigated, starting with the leadership of the Senate.

BS.

Everyone in DC should get the Manafort treatment.

Every single law firm and lobbyist with an office within 100 miles of DC.

4 in the morning. Turn them out. Ball them up. Grab their records. Bank accounts. Tax filings. Everything.

I guarantee 99% of the population in DC violated at least 1 federal law in the last 5 years. 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the nation are adjacent to DC. They are criminals getting rich off the people of this country.

These douchey fucks let the Chinese have my SF86. They have zero right to privacy at this point.

They are ticks sucking the life out of the rest of the country and now they are trying to pull a coup because Trump is revealing their criminality.

I am sad today. I wanted the circus to continue and a part of me wanted them to remove Trump from office with this sham.

JAORE said...

By the way if the if the left thought Bolton's testimony would actually result in Trump's removal they would toss Biden under the bus, run it over him five or six times and pave over the spot.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

@JPS said...
I'm of two minds here...

------

The issue though isn't really getting Trump removed from office. They know this is probably impossible (barring some miracle uncovering of Trump in bed with a live boy or a dead girl).

Instead, this entire charade is about trying to damage Trump as much as possible in the court of public opinion, thereby hopefully derailing the electoral freight-train that steaming towards their entire field of prospective candidates... they know, especially after today's poll showing 42% support for Trump from Blacks (5X his 2016 #'s), that there's not enough trunks full of missing ballots in the world to overcome the MAGA-lanche falling on their heads...

*IF** the Dem's somehow manage to get to the "Witness" stage, (which would itself be a complete and under perversion of the Constitutional impeachment process), they will GUARANTEE that none of Trump's witnesses ever get called. We've already see this with Robert's refusal to allow Senator Rand Paul's question re: Schiff and Ciaramella...

Also, the MSM news outlets have completely embargoed Trump's lawyers and their statements of defense, ensuring that the average voter only hears the Dem's outrageous accusations... By controlling these two aspects, the Dem's plan is to keep dribbling out last-minute accusations / lies / slander over the next 6 MONTHS, hamstringing the President in his ability to defend himself by denying any witnesses that make them look bad, and by blockading any testimony or exonerating evidence from every being mentioned in the news.

Make no mistake... This impeachment is about the 2020 election... I would be all for witnesses if I thought it would truly be fair, as I think the corruption in our Government needs to be laid out bare for all to see, regardless of the party affiliation... But Roberts has just shown that this will NEVER be allowed... And so, we must end this farce as quickly as possible and not give the Dem's the show trial they so desperately need...

Todd said...

roesch/voltaire said...

Bolton would have told us what we already know: Trump lies about what he does and acted basically in his own interests in the Ukraine aid hold until they announced a Biden investigation.

1/31/20, 8:09 AM


You can continue to beat that dead horse of a lie all you want. All it is accomplishing is getting your arms tired. EVERYONE even the Democrats know that is not true. I believe you do not believe it either and are just stuck like a broken record, skipping continually in that track. NO one on the call said it was that. The only people that said that were people that were NOT on the call.

As others have said, even though it is NOT needed, if there was a valid justification for the "ask" it was proper and there was OVERWHELMING evidence that the ask was more than called for (i.e. see Biden tape).

Just. Stop. Already.

Achilles said...

Morkoth4682 said...

Instead, this entire charade is about trying to damage Trump as much as possible in the court of public opinion, thereby hopefully derailing the electoral freight-train that steaming towards their entire field of prospective candidates... they know, especially after today's poll showing 42% support for Trump from Blacks (5X his 2016 #'s), that there's not enough trunks full of missing ballots in the world to overcome the MAGA-lanche falling on their heads...

Exactly.

And Lamar Alexander could not have done more to hurt Trump today.

A vote to call witnesses would have been better for justice and for Trump.

But he gave the democrats the best possible outcome from this sham.

Because Alexander is on the other team. I am curious how much money he made in Ukraine and how much of the 1.5 billion in small bills and gold sent to Iran he got.

walter said...

Chuck said...what is a lesser penalty that you might agree to be imposed, to place Trump on notice that a majority of the Senate views as improper and inappropriate conduct in office?”
--
Wait..so Alexander now speaks for majority of Senate?

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

You get half way there and then fall back into partisan rhetoric. Trump is a politician and the Republicans control the senate.

-----

How about your side pulls the plank out of its own eye FIRST, then we’ll talk about getting that mote in ours. If you REALLY cared about corruption, you’d focus on cleanup your own house first, regardless of anything else...

And in case you didn’t notice, the vast majority of Trump supporters are just as sick to death of the Republican party as the Bernie Bro’s are of the Dem’s...

We’re doing everything we can to try and slowly primary these Mo-Fo’s and flush out the stables... but it’s a Herculean task and isn’t made any easier with the Democrat’s Sword of Damocles ready to start swinging the second they get back control of Congress / WH.

walter said...

Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
·
4m
BREAKING: Senate impeachment trial extended to WEDNESDAY

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The problem with defending Trump is that there is always another shoe.

Leland said...

Until you arrest the maker of Avenatti shoes and then it stops.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Pretty sure the even deeper state has already done that, yet the shoes keep on coming.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Pretty sure the even deeper state has already done that, yet the shoes keep on coming.
----
Just like trunk-loads of "ballots", the Democrat’s will continue to manufacture... er, I mean find, whatever allegations they need if it means even the slimmest hope of taking out Trump... And if you were sincere and honest about your principles, you’d see that... its not a partisan issue... Trump, whatever his flaws, is outside the DC swamp and has single-handedly exposed the depths of corruption in our government for all to see... Even if he accomplishes nothing else, he will be remembered as the President who un-masked the depravity of the deep state.

Chuck said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
The problem with defending Trump is that there is always another shoe.


Yes! And with each drop, it will be another moment requiring Republicans in purple states and districts to defend not only Trump, but the concealment/secrecy/coverup of all of the information related to Trump.

And while the defense of Trump to finish a term might be successful, it will be at a cost to Republicans. The cost might be horrific. It may be more, or it may be less. But that cost, however great, buys Republicans nothing in terms policy. We get nothing in terms of new legislative wins or advances.

All that we Republicans are getting as a “win,” is the personal defense of Trump. Republicans get nothing by way of policy, nothing in terms of electoral gains; only Donald Trump gets something. Trump gets away with what he has done.

Anonymous said...

There are no shoes. There are, however, plenty of Blasey-Fords, and Swetnicks, and tax returns, and Mueller Reports, and any other imbecilic doomed-from-the-start fucktardery that you jackasses can find laying around.

You're the kind of handymen that use the handle of a screwdriver to drive a nail because you're too goddamned lazy to go find a hammer. And then you complain when the picture falls off the wall, and blame that on Trump too.

Seeing Red said...

No matter who is president there will always be shoes.

The rats hide them tho.

Drago said...

ARM: "Pretty sure the even deeper state has already done that, yet the shoes keep on coming."

The NEXT time spells the end of Trump, for sure!

But always the NEXT time, never actually THIS time.

Always the next.....

Browndog said...

Ukraine, being one of the poorest of developed nations, contributed more to the Clinton Foundation than any other nation, primarily when Hillary was Sec. of State.

Not even a smidgen of corruption, and Trump had no reason whatsoever to investigate Ukrainian corruption?

Howard said...

The nation suffers from shoe fatigue. MSNBC and CNN needs to quit chasing that high.

YoungHegelian said...

I'm betting dollars to donuts that Romney will be getting a Republican opponent in the primaries. Yes, Romney's a Mormon in Utah, but there's no shortage of other Mormons in Utah who can run against him.

Romney doesn't come across as principled. He comes across as petty & vain. When the Dems are doing a full-court press against the Republicans in the Senate isn't the time to sit on your hands and go "well, I just don't know...".

Anonymous said...

YoungHegelian, it's four years before he stands for reelection. People are stupid and forget much more rapidly than that. And like McCain, he'll get right with the base for a year in front of the election, say all the right things on the campaign trail, and the damn fools will buy his bullshit just like they bought McCain's.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Howard said...
The nation suffers from shoe fatigue. MSNBC and CNN needs to quit chasing that high.


Not really sure how people can watch these, or FOX. I read the WSJ in print each day, and Drudge and (forgive me) the Daily Mail on the web. That is largely it for me unless I am looking to irritate Drago, in which case I am have to read all the fucking neocons.

Drago said...

ARM: "That is largely it for me unless I am looking to irritate Drago, in which case I am have to read all the fucking neocons."

In my defense, most people find the neocons irritating.

Shouting Thomas said...

The problem with defending Trump is that there is always another shoe.

Piling fake accusation on to top of fake accusation doesn't make the ancestor fake accusation true.

You're a liar, ARM... not that there's anything new about that.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

ST, let's try to get your incoherent cries for help into a form that other humans might understand. What exactly am I 'lying' about? What exact formulation of mine do you believe to be a lie? In this instance I was referring to new statements from Bolton's book. Do you believe Bolton to be 'lying'? Do you believe Kelly's statements backing him up to be lies? These men worked closely with Trump. At best you watch FOX.

Shouting Thomas said...

You're lying that any of the accusations against the president have had any validity.

You're a pathological liar.

Let's start with Russia collusion was a hoax.

I cut the cord on cable 7 years ago, liar.

You see, at best, you're a reflexive liar.

There has been no testimony, thus no facts established re Bolton. So, you're lying about that, too.

Shouting Thomas said...

And, cut the condescending bullshit, liar.

You're just a bullshitting asshole. A dumb one at that.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I think we are making progress here. When you say I am lying about Bolton, I am simply reflecting what is in the media regarding Bolton's book. This account of the books contents appears to be broadly accepted as true (since Bolton has not denied this) and true regarding what Bolton and Kelly believe.

Do you believe the media are lying or Bolton and Kelly are lying? If the media are lying why have Bolton and Kelly not corrected the record?

Shouting Thomas said...

You're asking an irrelevant question that is in itself simply a lie.

So, you're lying again. We're not going to make any progress so long as you continue to lie.

Media reports of what you imagine are in a book, while they may "appear" to you to prove something, are in fact dispositive of nothing.

Which you know, liar.

There is no "record." So, that's another lie.

Now, dummy, try to cease the condescension. If you can. It's a stupid tactic to use with me. I'm your intellectual (and moral) superior.

Shouting Thomas said...

Do I believe the media are lying?

Well, the NY Times and The New Yorker lied for 3-1/2 years that something called "Russia collusion" actually happened.

So, there's that.

Shouting Thomas said...

I think we are making progress here.

What a manipulative, obnoxious, stupid bastard you are, ARM.

You think I'm going to buy into this shit, you dumb lout?

Gospace said...

I see several people have written"Trump is a politician.

No, he's not. He's a businessman who ran for the presidency and won. Much to the consternation of professional politicians on both sides of the aisle, few of whom have ever had to meet a payroll or make a profit. He's also an entertainer.

What continues to upset the nomenklatura is that he insists on running the government as if he were actually the chief executive. He doesn't do as he's told. He wants things done his way. How many presidents promised to move our embassy to Jerusalem? How many backed off when the state department warned them of the fire consequences of doing so? Trump moved our embassy there. Hey! No dire consequences!

The state department is infested with professionals who think they work for the country they're assigned to, not the United States. Vinkman being a prime example. Trump is shaking things up. That's what a businessman does to turn things around.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

There very definitely is a record, this is what newspapers are. When future historians refer to this era they will rely heavily on these same newspapers. What they record may or may not be true but they are definitely the record. How does referring to this record make me a liar? At worst I am a gullible old fool who fails to adequately discern the duplicity of the legacy media. But once you go down this route you have to demonstrate that some source of information is superior to the WSJ. Good luck with that.

Shouting Thomas said...

... that is what newspapers are.

The NY Times and The New Yorker lied for three years that something called Russia collusion actually happened and that they had absolute proof.

The were relying on a document manufactured by an English spy that even the FBI didn't trust.

The NY Times and The New York conspired with the FBI to creat a round robin of anonymous sources, each fake, that claimed that the Steele dossier was factual.

So, you're lying again, in asserting that "that is what newspapers are."

How do you know what future historians will do? I suspect they will do original research using tech tools that we currently don't have.

For instance, anthropologists, using DNA testing that didn't exist until recently, have discovered that the first humans evolved thousands of years earlier than anthropologists believed some decades ago.