January 23, 2020

"The Democrat House would not give us lawyers, or not one witness, but now demand that the Republican Senate produce the witnesses that the House never sought, or even asked for?"

"They had their chance, but pretended to rush. Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history!"/"No matter what you give to the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, it will never be enough!"

Trump tweets this morning.

179 comments:

gspencer said...

Trump nails it.

Skeptical Voter said...

True,

urpower said...

It’s the maiden voyage for the social media court of thought crimes.

rhhardin said...

MSM bypass route.

Nichevo said...

As a poet, I can say that the President is gifted in his ability to distill issues to the smallest number of the most impactful words.

EdwdLny said...

Fact. True. Acurrate.

AllenS said...

So true. Trump 2020.

Kevin said...

I'm starting to think the most interesting part of this who thing may be the 16 hours of questions to the President's team and House Managers.

They're not going to call witnesses because the Dems have no interest in putting Hunter on the stand to take the fifth.

But some well-crafted questions might at least provide some entertainment and raise issues like Trump brings up for Schiff and Nadler to answer in front of the cameras.

Given the admonishments they've handed out to the Senators, I think they've earned it.

Kevin said...

Maybe a bunch of questions to the House Managers can just be Trump tweets printed out and handed in?

Lance said...

Do Romney, Murkowski, Collins, Alexander and the other mugwump Republicans care about any of this? They're hot to make the Senate trial "fair", but do they acknowledge the inherent unfairness of the House proceedings?

Heartless Aztec said...

Concur with the Prez.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The coup is only going to be slowed down by witnesses. That Trump argued against witnesses will be funny in retrospect.

Jim Gust said...

Any fair minded person must see that Trump is correct in his analysis. But is anyone really paying attention? Outside of Althouse commentariat that is?

rcocean said...

True. But we need to get this boring crap over. Lets vote and move on. Hopefully the RINO sisters and Mittens are sitting and suffering in their seats. They wanted to this farce, let them squirm with boredom.

Michael K said...

They're not going to call witnesses because the Dems have no interest in putting Hunter on the stand to take the fifth.

The baby momma judge is going to take care of this on 1/29, next week. That's a civil matter (child support) so I see no way to take the 5th.

I'm just getting started on the Schweizer book. Interesting that there is a Klobocar chapter.

tim in vermont said...

It was fiercely urgent that Trump be impeached on the anniversary of the Clinton impeachment, because the real message was “leave Democrats alone."

tim in vermont said...

"That Trump argued against witnesses will be funny in retrospect.”

Schiff denied Trump his witnesses already. Now we are just working with the nonsense that Schiff offered up.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Adam Schitti is the most corrupt pol to come down the sewer pipe in along time. No outrage from anyone in the hack-D press. Instead, they love him. The media is corrupt as well.

tim in vermont said...

Democrats are already drawing lines in the sand that they would rather have no witnesses than allow Trump to have his. But you go ahead and believe what you want.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Schumer saying NO to Biden and/in exchange NO to Bolton.

I would NOT take that deal.

Insist YRS to both. Tell corruptoctrats to go to hell.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

YES

Sebastian said...

"The Democrat House would not give us lawyers, or not one witness, but now demand that the Republican Senate produce the witnesses that the House never sought, or even asked for?"

"They had their chance, but pretended to rush. Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history!"/"No matter what you give to the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, it will never be enough!"

People used to complain about Trump's uncouth tweets. But we now know that his outrage at the collusion hoax was righteous and true. As is his outrage at the impeachment theater.

Owen said...

Nichevo @ 8:09: What you said. Trump tweets make haiku read like Ginsberg.

Odi said...

He's not wrong

Left Bank of the Charles said...

It occurs to me that getting 20 Republican Senators to vote for impeachment is not much of a coup, where’s the trick in that? But there’s a way Pelosi could pull off with just 4 Republican Senators voting for impeachment. I know, you’re thinking 51 is ony a majority and two-thirds is needed. But the Constitutional standard is two-thirds of Senators present and voting. So if 24 Republicans can be persuaded to stay away from the vote, 51 is two-thirds of the remaining 76. Isn’t that a great trick? A perfectly good coup.

Now who, you ask, will be able to persuade the 24 to stay away? Mike Pence, of course. Did you forget that he is a coup plotter? He was the essential participant in the 25th Amendment coup attempt. The trick will be to get Trump, backed by Hannity and Dershowitz, to call for a Republican boycott of the Senate trial. Trump might even be able to get 49 Republican Senators to walk out. If only 25 come back when the vote is called ...

It will be very dramatic in a slow moving way. McConnell will ask Roberts to hold the vote open while waiting for the Senators to return. And they will wait, and they will wait, but the 24 Senators won’t come. How long will they wait? An hour, a day, a week? Trump will start tweeting. The slow realization of his tweeting that he is going to be convicted and removed from office will be exquisite. Then Pence enters the Senate chamber and Roberts swears him in.

Amadeus 48 said...

Trump sounds about right. I am boycotting this farce. From what I hear from others, how can this be anything other than an extended campaign stunt?

The only question in my mind is whether it is the Dems's stunt or Trump's. Nah...that is wrong. It is the Dems's stunt. They like this banana republic stuff.

Philip Bobbitt should be embarrassed to be involved in this stunt. It is not gentlemanly. It is low and mean.

traditionalguy said...

Our Bad Orange Man President, that usually talks at 6th grade level, has revealed himself to have become a very wise politician. He has a quick learning curve.

TJM said...

Inga,

Why not unpack President Trump’s statement for us?

Dave Begley said...

Pat Cipollone wrote that tweet.

narayanan said...

Blogger Kevin said...

Maybe a bunch of questions to the House Managers can just be Trump tweets printed out and handed in?
_________++++++++++++++
R senators should volunteer to turned into twitter-bots

TJM said...

Fyi folks,

Even Diane Feinstein has had enough. She left early while Schitt for Brains was haranguing the Senate

Dave Begley said...

I think that it is extremely interesting that a constitutional law expert at a top law school who didn't vote for Trump doesn't think much of this whole Dem impeachment thing.

Ann Althouse should go on TV and enlighten the world.

Dave Begley said...

The Dems want Bolton to be CBF. Ain't going to happen.

Beasts of England said...

I hate to interrupt your screenplay, Left Bank, but Sen. Paul already has 45 votes for dismissal after opening statements. This show is over, dude.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Also
"Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower."

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower.

mockturtle said...

The Senate should have taken the opportunity to nip this in the bud. The absurdity will only increase. I still don't understand why the House is still dominating the proceedings.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump

narciso said...

he was a conspirator, and he has a record of flawed prosecutions going back 30 years, from that link I included on the other thread

tim in vermont said...

What are you smoking LBoC? I haven’t heard anything about Pence being a coup plotter, for example, and that other stuff is lefty phantasmagoria, and I guess probably, so is the Pence bit.

"It will be very dramatic in a slow moving way. McConnell will ask Roberts to hold the vote open while waiting for the Senators to return. And they will wait, and they will wait, but the 24 Senators won’t come. How long will they wait?”

Maddow? Morning Joe? Where is this nonsense coming from?

narciso said...

in other news,


https://babalublog.com/2020/01/22/russian-soldiers-carrying-out-military-missions-in-venezuela-disguised-as-venezuelan-army/#comments

MadisonMan said...

It's different when Democrats do it because the Press cheers them on. When Republicans do the same thing, the Press is Outraged! With a Capital O!

Michael K said...

This is what I think will be the heart of Trump's defense.

Last year House Democrat leadership took a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they would not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

Those "subpoenas" that Schiff is complaining about were not legal.

“Lawful subpoenas”, literally require an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word. The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry, and charged the House Judiciary Committee with the authority therein.

Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempted to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger Dave Begley said...

"Ann Althouse should go on TV and enlighten the world."

Does "Blogging Heads" still exist?

Clyde said...

Give ‘em all the new Wuhan coronavirus. That should be enough.

Greg the class traitor said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Schumer saying NO to Biden and/in exchange NO to Bolton.

I would NOT take that deal.

Insist YRS to both. Tell corruptoctrats to go to hell.


Um, no

If the House wants witnesses, the House can get them during House hearings. Just like they did with all their other witnesses

The Defense was not able to get its witnesses, and to question the Democrat witnesses, during hte House hearings.

So the Defense gets witnesses, the House does not

AllenS said...

Dave Begley said...
Ann Althouse should go on TV and enlighten the world.

What if half way through her oration, she went all Emotional Althouse?

Nonapod said...

"You'll get nothing and like it!" - Judge Smails

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The Dems are yelling and screaming for witnesses... Teh rules dont' matter to Dems, Greg.
You know this.
They are screaming "no fair" at every turn to confuse Maddow and CNN shoppers.

Give the what they want - with a Biden on top.

Phil said...

"Pelosi announced they would not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance."

I've been arguing this all along. The "House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence" does not have the authority to compel testimony on topics other than the conduct, makeup, funding etc. of our Intelligence agencies. Standing committees have subpoena power in their area of responsibility. Any other business can only obtain subpoena power after the full House votes to authorize the investigation. Otherwise, any House committee chair could subpoena any citizen on any topic for any reason. Fuck that. I don't work for those fools, they work for me.

It's why Schiff et al didn't wait for the process to wend through the courts; they knew they were going to lose anyway.

exhelodrvr1 said...

He's right. And the media is complicit in all of it.

JAORE said...

We have an open and shut case. Our witnesses PROVE Trump did.... stuff we don't like.

AND:

It's not fair we can't have witnesses to prove our case.

Sorry Chuck S, it's one from column A OR one from column B.


Beasts of England said...

I just watched a clip of Sen. Blumenthal and he said the Republican senators would be on ‘the wrong side of history’ if they didn’t vote for witnesses. He knows it’s over.

Gk1 said...

Pretty much. I wondered if the democrats ever considered how galvanizing this would be during a election year?

Greg the class traitor said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
The Dems are yelling and screaming for witnesses... Teh rules dont' matter to Dems, Greg.
You know this.
They are screaming "no fair" at every turn to confuse Maddow and CNN shoppers.

Give the what they want - with a Biden on top.


No. Don't give them what they want.

Don't pretend what they're doing is reasonable, it is.

Say "if you want witnesses, subpoena them in the House", and then subpoena Trump's requested witnesses.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Of course it's not reasonable, Greg. But you must fight fire with fire.
This is all about Joe Biden, in reality. It's about Joe, and Schitt's corruption, it's about the skeevy corrupt whistle-blower who coordinated the entire effort from the get go . . .

I'm not fearful of what Bolton might say.

The Dems are plenty fearful of the Bidens.

Otto said...

"For President Trump, that list of policy victories is extensive. No conservative can deny it. The Republican Party knows it. And they know you should never throw an effective leader under the bus for the sake of niceties, or so that people who hate you will pretend to like you, even for a moment.
This was from a Federalist article about National Review.
It reminded me of Ann. Beware .

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Schitt and his whistleblower should have their balls nailed to a wall, while we heat up the tar, and bag the feathers.

Bay Area Guy said...

Waiting for Sen. Pierre Delecto from the great State of Utah to tweet us his thoughts/impressions of the trial.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Niceties gets you Julie Swetnick and Michael Avanatti. with a Romney turd on top, wearing tampon ear-rings.

Sam L. said...

WHY do we like Trump? He FIGHTS.

Bruce Hayden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

Adam Schiff is a dangerous propagandist. He should have been forced to resign after peddling the Russia Hoax, but instead he was allowed/encouraged to perpetuate this Ukraine Hoax even further!

Bruce Hayden said...

“I've been arguing this all along. The "House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence" does not have the authority to compel testimony on topics other than the conduct, makeup, funding etc. of our Intelligence agencies. Standing committees have subpoena power in their area of responsibility. Any other business can only obtain subpoena power after the full House votes to authorize the investigation. Otherwise, any House committee chair could subpoena any citizen on any topic for any reason. Fuck that. I don't work for those fools, they work for me.”

Essentially accurate, but that is because only the entire House can issue subpoenas, but that can be delegated, and is in their rules every Congress for A1S1 Oversight. The quasi permanent House rules have conferred subpoena power on the designated subject matter committees. Neither the HPSCI nor the Judiciary committee have oversight authority delegated to them by the House over the President conducting foreign policy in the White House. While the foreign relations committee might have oversight authority under House rules, they don't under the Constitution, since the sought for information has nothing to do with any agency or department created by Congress - the Presidency is a coequal branch created by the Constitution. The House might have permanently delegated subpoena power to a formally authorized S1A2 impeachment investigation, but that was never done by the House rules. And there is better than 200 years of precedent that delegation of subpoena power has to be done formally, with a vote of the entire House. In this case, the House apparently didn’t confer subpoena power for the impeachment until October 31, after Schifty and his HPSCI had quit calling witnesses, and the impeachment resolution did not have a retroactive clause, which the House has inserted in impeachment authorizing motions in the past, so there can be no claim that this was An oversight.

The bottom line there is that Schifty and Wadler did not have Legal subpoena power when they were issuing these fake subpoenas. It had not been delegated to them at that time. And that is why those fake “subpenas” never actually threatened court enforcement (because they legally could not), and, thus no enforceable “poena”. Instead, they threatened to hold the President in Contempt of Congress, which, of course is their second Article of Impeachment.

walter said...

Even shorter: They want a redo.

Kevin said...

I just watched a clip of Sen. Blumenthal and he said the Republican senators would be on ‘the wrong side of history’ if they didn’t vote for witnesses.

Democrat Parent to child: "You'd better eat your broccoli! You don't want to be on the wrong side of history!"

Bruce Hayden said...

“The bottom line there is that Schifty and Wadler did not have Legal subpoena power when they were issuing these fake subpoenas. It had not been delegated to them at that time. And that is why those fake “subpenas” never actually threatened court enforcement (because they legally could not), and, thus no enforceable “poena”. Instead, they threatened to hold the President in Contempt of Congress, which, of course is their second Article of Impeachment”

Let me add that this is the problem with the second Article of Impeachment - all it is is an attempt to essentially criminalize the House’s attempt to bypass the delegation and use of formal subpoena power by the impeachment committees. Moreover, by bypassing the courts, they eliminated the President’s ability to formally object to witness testimony and document discovery on the basis of Executive Privilege and Immunity, which have been successfully asserted by every President from George Washington to the Trump, who lived longer than a month or two into his President. This is also why Schifty would not allow White House lawyers to attend the (mostly) closed hearings where the witnesses would be interviewed. Asserting those executive privileges is why President after President wouldn’t allow their close aides to testify before Congress without a White House lawyer present. Schifty probably could have gotten those aides to show up before his committee if he had allowed the WH to have an attorney there at the hearings. Schifty didn’t want that though, but instead wanted impeachment instead for denying him witnesses - despite every President in our lifetimes probably making the same decision As Trump did.

Dave Begley said...

The net result of this impeachment will be Trump's re-election, GOP control of the Congress and the Dems in the wilderness for a decade.

n.n said...

Abortion... cancel culture. Will this effort be the sequel or prequel to their last botched attempt? I think that Governor Blackface would advise to leave the baby to its fate. While others would say that 12 trimesters is a gross indulgence of liberal license.

Browndog said...

Everyone is pretending

House Democrats are pretending to try to persuade

Senators are pretending to listen

The Media is pretending it matters


-Will Chamberlain

Krumhorn said...

WHY do we like Trump? He FIGHTS.

Yes!! And he grins when he fights. Churchill liked that.

- Krumhorn

Michael K said...

There is an interesting interview by Hugh Hewitt of Jonah Goldberg, who I used to respect

Goldberg spouts the Democrats' talking points and has nothing more.

it also doesn’t deal with the fact that the things Rudy Giuliani actually admitted to on CNN and to the New York Times that he is, you know, he has defended the fact that Barr has said he had absolutely nothing to do with this. This was all an off-book operation. The only time Barr comes up in this is when Trump brings him up in a conversation. And then for the rest of it, it’s just Rudy Giuliani being paid for, you know, out of the President’s pocket to do all of these things where Rudy Giuliani says that they are meddling in the investigation. There’s no evidence to support his idea that the prosecutor was, that Biden pushed the prosecutor to protect his son. There is so much gaslighting and smokecreening. And again, I’m not saying that this is impeachable. I mean, I think it’s impeachable. I’m not saying he should be impeached for it, or that he should be removed for it. But the storyline that everybody is being forced to support, that the President did absolutely nothing wrong, do you thin, his phone call was perfect?

LLR Chuck could not have said it better. Hewitt asked him if he knew about Harry Hopkins who did about what Giuliani did.

wholelottasplainin' said...

I know this is off-topic, but...

Every time I go to the Comments, I am sent straight to the bottom, to "Leave Your Comment".

Since I want to read other comments first, I have to scroll up to the first.

Any way I can be sent automatically to the top?

Bruce Hayden said...

""The Democrat House would not give us lawyers, or not one witness, but now demand that the Republican Senate produce the witnesses that the House never sought, or even asked for?"“

This is the genius of Trump. Tens of millions of his supporters will ultimately see that Tweet, and that will drive their understanding of the entire impeachment process. And that is that the process in the House was completely unfair to Him, and they are trying to clean up the mess that they made in the House. And note - any witness called by the Senate will be called by a legitimate subpoena, since calling the witnesses would require a vote of the entire Senate, which was the essential step bypassed in the House.

This tweet makes it dangerous for any Republican Senator to vote for additional witnesses, because by voting for such, they would show themselves to their constituents as being supportive of The way that Schifty, Wadler, and Palsi cheated in order to impeach Trump for purely political reasons. And thus be party traitors. I think that it might bring a couple of Dem Senators over to the bright side in their votes.

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

Michael K said...I'm just getting started on the Schweizer book.
--
I've heard him on Berno's fam and media buy skimming. Good money in this campaigning thing.

Phil said...

"Blogger Dave Begley said...
The net result of this impeachment will be .. the Dems in the wilderness for a decade."

That's just wishful thinking I'm afraid. It'd be nice, but the Dems have a number of advantages. They're the guys promising free stuff to the stupid, and unlimited abortion. They have the degree mills on their side and the majority of the media. That will always guarantee them lots of votes.

walter said...

Came across this looking at Bloomie/Bobby Rush:
https://nlpc.org/2018/03/27/slaps-wrist-corrupt-chicago-reps-rush-gutierrez/
Congressman Gutierrez, also in his 13th term, represents the heavily Hispanic 4th District of Illinois, located north of downtown Chicago. He is outspoken in his support for open borders, and repeatedly has denounced deportations of persons illegally residing in this country (especially by the Trump administration) as wrong and racially-motivated. This view is related to an accusation by the House Ethics Committee concerning a contract maintained by Rep. Gutierrez during 2003-13 with a communications firm operated by a lobbyist, Doug Scofield, who also happened to be Gutierrez’ former chief of staff.
<
That sum is a pittance compared to what Luis Gutierrez, along with his wife, Soriada, pulled in by way of another conflict of interest. Last July, a variety of media outlets reported that the couple had enriched themselves by more than $400,000 from campaign donations. Soriada Gutierrez is not your average congressional wife. Federal Election Commission documents indicate that she began working on her husband’s campaigns in 2010, serving as office manager, treasurer and chief fundraiser. Mrs. Gutierrez alone received over $100,000 during the 2016 election cycle. The couple’s daughters also have worked as bookkeepers for campaign fundraising.

The practice of congressmen hiring family members, whether for the staff or the campaign payroll, is ethically questionable. Unfortunately, it is also legal. That’s because more than 15 years ago, another Chicago-based member of Congress, then-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., persuaded the Congressional Ethics Committee to rule in favor of such arrangements. Fittingly, in February 2013, as National Legal and Policy Center described at length, Jackson pleaded guilty to embezzling about $750,000 in campaign funds, a portion of which he reportedly diverted to the consulting firm of wife Sandi, who was a former Chicago alderwoman, and another person identified as “Co-conspirator 1.” Both he and Mrs. Jackson wound up serving time and are now going through a testy divorce. Rep. Jackson had resigned from Congress a few months prior to his plea.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Every time I go to the Comments, I am sent straight to the bottom, to "Leave Your Comment".”

“Since I want to read other comments first, I have to scroll up to the first.”

For me, running Chrome on an iPad, I see it about half the time. I don’t get the jump to the bottom if the first thing I do on the page is highlight text. That often doesn’t work, but after the jump to the bottom, touching the screen at the top, above the tabs, jumps the screen back to the top. Using Firefox on a PC, I have installed Top and Bottom buttons that jump to the top or bottom, as required.

pacwest said...

Whistleblower and associate, Shiff, and IG are the material witnesses here, not the Bidens. Although they do need investigated. Any deal for witnesses needs to include Schiff and associates. Otherwise no witnesses.

John henry said...

LOVE TRUMP'S HATE

(the apostrophe is important)

John Henry

Kevin said...

Any way I can be sent automatically to the top?

You have to buy a lot more through the Althouse Amazon portal.

Static Ping said...

He's not wrong.

Anyone with an ounce of impartiality can see this is a sham, even if they like it personally.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

Turn off Javascript. Then you will start the comments at the top, and furthermore, when you hit refresh, you will stay positioned to see the new comments under the last one you read without being sent to the bottom then either. Or at least this is how it works if you click on the 'xxx comments' link of a post. Not sure if clicking on the post title to get the post & comments on the same page works the same way.

CWJ said...

Michael K,

1/29 will just be a bump in the road for Hunter and the "D"s. They've stalled so far, what makes you think anything substantive will be revealed this time that can be used prior to any Senate vote.

Greg the class traitor said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Of course it's not reasonable, Greg. But you must fight fire with fire.

Yes, you must fight fire with fire.

The Democrats ran the House side of this as their playpen. Therefore the Republicans must run the Senate side of this as "only the GOP wins".

You abuse the rules when you are in control, then the rules get "abused" against you when the other side is in control.

Democrats get 0 witnesses, Trump gets every witness he wants. The exact mirror image of the House hearings. Except, unlike in the House hearings, the Democrats get a better deal: they actually get to ask questions without Trump's attorney deciding what questions are out of order.

It is a moral imperative: you never, ever, treat the other side better than they treat you

Dave Begley said...

Fun topic. Written questions from the Senators.

Mr. Schiff, why do you lie so much?

Mr. Schiff, why didn't you get Bolton's testimony in the House?

Mr. Nadler, what evidence do you have of a Senate cover-up?

Etc.

Dave Begley said...

Mr. Schiff, why doesn't anyone like you?

Mr. Schiff, why didn't you allow the President's lawyers to appear in the House hearings?

Francisco D said...

Mr. Schiff, why didn't you allow the President's lawyers to appear in the House hearings?

Mr Schiff, you said that your "transcript" report before the House was a parody. Is that how you would describe your statements before the Senate?

Big Mike said...

@Bruce Hayden, Trump and McConnell saw immediately that the true target of this whole operation was not really Trump but the GOP majority in the Senate. And they’ve totally turned it back on the Democrats. The goal was to make life miserable for Joni Ernst and Sean Collins and probably a few others. That’s what words like “coverup” and “wrong side of history” are all about. But now Doug Jones and Gary Peters and probably others, plus a lot of Blue Dog Democrats in the House, are going to have to worry if the don’t demonstrate independence.

Browndog said...

Mr. Schiff-as both a lawyer and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee you stated publicly that you had direct evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

Where is it?

Murph said...

Fyi, I'm running Chrome on a docked laptop:

When I click on the OP title, I get the OP and the-first-one-at-the-top comments running down the middle of the screen.

When I click on the "xxx comments" link at the bottom of the OP, I get bumped to the bottom of the comment thread, right to the comment box, with the comments pushed to the left side of the screen. ...and when I scroll up to the top of the comment thread, I have to click on "see original post" to see the OP.

Beasts of England said...

’...not really Trump but the GOP majority in the Senate.’

And proof that Mitch is aware of the true target is the lack of defectors, re: Schumer’s proposed amendments.

walter said...

It seems McSpadden, that judge in Humper's paternity suit never explained his recusal.

Yancey Ward said...

You get sent to the bottom of the page because that is where the text box is and is where the cursor's default position is. I don't know how to change this. Bugs me, too, but I have gotten used to it. I just take the cursor out of the box and hit the home button.

Dave Begley said...

Why would anyone believe a word from Danang Dick?

He lied about his Vietnam service.

Yancey Ward said...

Of course, you can just open the individual blog post before you read it- then there is no comments box- you can then read the comments.

Calypso Facto said...

"Mr Schiff, you said that your "transcript" report before the House was a parody. Is that how you would describe your statements before the Senate?"

Ooh, I like that.

"It seems McSpadden, that judge in Humper's paternity suit never explained his recusal."

"Suicide" prevention needs no explanation!

Browndog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Browndog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

CWJ said...
Michael K,

1/29 will just be a bump in the road for Hunter and the "D"s. They've stalled so far, what makes you think anything substantive will be revealed this time that can be used prior to any Senate vote.


You could be right. I'm reading "Profiles in Corruption" and it certainly does not give one confidence. Still, maybe the judge will not be bought.

Seeing Red said...

True dat.

Mike Sylwester said...

The US House of Representatives -- in particular its Democrat majority -- is on trial.

Murph said...

Mike K: you're a lucky one. Amazon tells me that my pre-ordered copy of PofC is delayed (indefinitely, apparently) and they'll tell me when it ships. I'm still waiting.

I hope that this indicates a wild and crazy market for it. : )

Seeing Red said...

There’s a reason CBS went back to regular programming.

Big Mike said...

Joni Ernst and Sean Collins

Should have been “Joni Ernst and Susan Collins.” A combination of a typo and, probably, autocorrect with poor proofreading skills.

Yancey Ward said...

There aren't going to be any witnesses because neither party in the Senate really want witnesses. It is all a Kabuki theater until the first dismissal vote. I wouldn't go for a dismissal, though- I would move directly to a acquittal vote after the questions section.

As for Hunter Biden's paternity problem- he won't appear on January 29th just like he refused to provide the financial disclosures to the same court. His problem is going to be that his finances are far more damaging to his father's campaign than is presently known. There will be no way to explain away the sums of money he received- it isn't just Burisma money.

Murph said...

If you're losing Murkowski.... On Fox:

The first sign of a backlash among that critical group came Wednesday when Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, a moderate member of the conference, said she was offended by House manager Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s assertion that GOP members voting against allowing new testimony and evidence were engaged in a “cover-up.”

Gimme more Nadler!

walter said...

Apparently his abundant charisma didn't soften the claim.
I hope Team Trump plays a few vintage Nadler clips.

walter said...

As well as that of Schitt swallowing the Russian prank like a pelican.

Michael K said...

His problem is going to be that his finances are far more damaging to his father's campaign than is presently known. There will be no way to explain away the sums of money he received- it isn't just Burisma money.

I'm into the Biden section of "Profiles in Corruption." Ukraine is small beer in the Biden corrupt empire. Hunter and Kerry's family (while he was SoS) did multibillion dollar deals with China, the government, not a private firm. One or more of the Chinese firms have been accused of espionage.

China owns Biden. And his family as they are all involved.

narciso said...

and Kazakhstan and Russian and who knows who else,


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/23/pollak-did-adam-schiff-out-himself-as-leaker-to-washington-post/

Skeptical Voter said...

Yo Nadless! Keep it up huge fella.

I live in Adam Schiff's district. (I must have been really bad in a previous life). Yesterday I saw a poster on a lamp post. It was from a candidate who said "No More Schiff" and will presumably run against him in November. Fat chance there--this district will elect a "D" until the cows come home. OTOH it was one of those splendidly futile gestures so beloved in the movie Animal House.

Achilles said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...

It will be very dramatic in a slow moving way. McConnell will ask Roberts to hold the vote open while waiting for the Senators to return. And they will wait, and they will wait, but the 24 Senators won’t come. How long will they wait? An hour, a day, a week? Trump will start tweeting. The slow realization of his tweeting that he is going to be convicted and removed from office will be exquisite. Then Pence enters the Senate chamber and Roberts swears him in.


Please please please do this...

Michael K said...

Amazon tells me that my pre-ordered copy of PofC is delayed

I pre-ordered a while ago. Maybe that is it. It arrived UPS on Monday,. I interrupted "Great Society" to read it.

These books are a hard slog for me, just as "Clinton Cash" was. The level of corruption and massive theft of public money is just too depressing.

I had a limited involvement in local politics in CA before I moved. It is so hard to prevent corruption. I was part of a reform group that fought entrenched local officials. A city council that was doing sweetheart deals. We recruited candidates, supported them and got them elected, throwing out the old guard. Our candidates made new friends and turned on us. The reform group disbanded soon after.

I spent years on the state medical association's political commission, reviewing medical legislation.

Same thing. I knew Jesse Unruh who said, "If you can't drink our whiskey, eat our, food and fuck our women and then vote against us the next morning, you don't belong here." He would not understand the present CA politicians.

The first chapter of Schweizer's book is about Kamala Harris. Totally corrupt. As DA never prosecuted one of her lawyer husband's clients.

Achilles said...

Dave Begley said...

Ann Althouse should go on TV and enlighten the world.

Watching her explain her vote for Hillary and her exculpatory post on the subject would kick off a Repeal the 19th movement by itself. There would need to be a strong producer present.

Birkel said...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/laura-ingraham-shows-emails-tying-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma

So Obama had questions about Biden at Burisma?
And Ciaramella was involved?

Big Mike said...

Here’s what Piers Morgan had to say:

“For the Democrats to pursue an impeachment they know they can’t win is mind-blowingly stupid politics.

And they will find out just how mind-blowing when Trump embarks on his lengthy victory tour and rubs their noses in it.”

Trump has to do something himself to turn impeachment into “mind-blowingly stupid politics.” He has to campaign for vulnerable GOP senators and representatives, and he has to help beat vulnerable Blue Dogs and Democrat senators. He needs a 58-42 split in the Senate and McCarthy as Speaker of a House that is not merely a GOP majority, but a 2010-like majority. Nothing less will burst the Dumbocrat bubbles.

mockturtle said...

Skeptical Voter asserts: Fat chance there--this district will elect a "D" until the cows come home.

But mightn't the cows come home at some point?

Murph said...

I pre-ordered a while ago.

I pre-ordered on Jan 11. Maybe they just need to re-stock their [new-ish] Prime warehouse on I-25 north of Denver from some more centralized location.
OTOH, the price has been reduced since 1/21..., and I presume I'll save those pennies whenever it ships & I get charged.

TestTube said...

Nancy Pelosi is almost 80. She needs a successor.

The impeachment gives Schiff and Nadler an opportunity to prove themselves. Nancy got the impeachment passed, but it is Schiff and Nadler that need to push it and reap some sort of political benefit. I think they are blowing it, but my predictions are pretty poor.

The real test is in November, in the house. If this does not result in a pick up of seats for the Democrats, I think Nancy is going to groom another heir. The question is: Who?

It should be someone who complements Nancy's strengths and can learn from her. Nancy is good at fundraising, winning house seats, and pushing legislation through the house. She is not good at producing quality legislation.

Jim at said...

Left Bank trying to outdo America's Politico.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Martin said...

Trump is right. The Dems totally controlled the process in the House, where they shat all over the GOPs and rushed through something they now admit was half-baked, and they now insist that the Senate help them fix it, on their own terms (call Bolton but not Biden, for example).

Back in grammar school, we would give someone like that a wedgie or far worse. And I am reasonably confident that about 60-70% of the country will see it that way.

iowan2 said...

I wouldn't go for a dismissal, though- I would move directly to a acquittal vote after the questions section.

Can Senators vote "Present" and what would that do to the 2/3 needed?

Brian said...

The bottom line there is that Schifty and Wadler did not have Legal subpoena power when they were issuing these fake subpoenas.

I think they think that's a feature for them not a bug. This way when Trump says he was acquitted they will say it was a technicality. That he was guilty but "got off" on a technicality that was covered up by the GOP. Elect more Dem Senators and we'll take him down for real next time.

JML said...

Profiles in Corruption: I always take a look at ABE books before I buy. Often they have hard to find and used at reasonable prices.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-home-_-Results&kn=&an=&tn=%22Profiles+in+Corruption%22&isbn=

Todd said...

JML said...

ABE books

1/23/20, 2:32 PM


This! I have been able to acquire a few very nice, first editions of out of print books through their service. I have a fondness for 17th and 18th century books on mechanical motion; gears, pulley systems, etc. ABE has been ideal for me being able to locate those I have been interested in.

TJM said...

In a just world, Abortion Queen Pelosi, Schitt for Brains and Jerry Wadler would be lined up against a wall and shot. I am fairly certain George Washington would have hung them as traitors

narciso said...

instead we're in an alternate reality, earth 38


http://patterico.com/2020/01/23/tulsi-gabbard-sues-hillary-clinton-for-defamation/#comment-2297233

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

"What if half way through her oration, she went all Emotional Althouse?"

LOL... or broke into extolling the virtues of Marc Bolan. It's why we lurvs her.

Matt Sablan said...

They wasted time with lawyers saying if Trump was guilty his actions were impeachable, but couldn't use time on material witnesses.

Beasts of England said...

’Sen. Susan Collins was “stunned” by Rep. Jerry Nadler’s late-night diatribe this week against what he deemed a “cover-up” by Senate Republicans for President Donald Trump — so much so that she wrote a note to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.’

Keep up the good work, Nonads!!

Michael K said...

The Biden corrupt empire is the second chapter in Schweizer's book.

I had to take a break. I'll take a shower after finishing the chapter. The whole family is crooked.

Beasts of England said...

’The Justice Department is conceding that two of the four FISA applications it used to conduct surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were not lawful, and it’s not defending the legality of its other two applications.’

Insufficient predication for the win.

Iman said...

Hey, narciso... I visit Patterico when I need to be reminded that common sense is not so common. The host will sometimes post in the morning before heading into his cubicle at work and given the usual temperament displayed, I pity any defendant, guilty or not.

narciso said...

pasdaran liz doesn't disappoint,

I picked the less crazy thread



https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/elizabeth-warren-i-will-launch-investigations-into-the-trump-administration-on-day-one-if-elected/

narciso said...


but Murkowski is still a fool, I lean toward knave,

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2020/01/23/cnn-analyst-defends-making-story-about-gop-senators-talking

BUMBLE BEE said...

My wife got her copy of profiles yesterday. She's starting it soon. Thanks for the synopsis you guys. I gotta get more popcorn. BTW He who must not be taunted's Sen. Peters want the "Dark Money" out of politics. Must be talkin Epstein, Weinstein, Ed Buck, China, Burisma, and don't forget Obama's credit card routine. Gotta get more popcorn. This IS Monty Python level stuff.

narciso said...

you mean mugshots, the irony is enough to open up a hellmouth, it's just incredibly insane,

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Impeachment is about Democrats accusing Trump of massively horrible things ... Media dutifully carrying the democrat's water.

Like phone calls asking about Biden's corruption. Illegal!

narciso said...

so Russians, Saudis Chinese, hydra?


https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/23/report-ghislaine-maxwells-jeffrey-epstein-emails-hacked/

Michael K said...

I pity any defendant, guilty or not.

That's been my thought about him. He has a problem.

tim in vermont said...

Is Hillary president yet?

Seeing Red said...

For the sake of his own impeachment dreams, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, ought to shut up and stop saying the quiet part out loud.The House Judiciary chairman began the second day of the Senate's impeachment trial by admitting the unconscionable. "If not remedied by his conviction in the Senate and removal from office, President Trump’s abuse of his office and obstruction of Congress will permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of government," the lead impeachment manager said. "For precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won."


Hunter Biden, the youngest son of former Vice President and presidential candidate Joe Biden, is reportedly “prepping” at his Hollywood Hills residence for potential testimony in the Senate’s impeachment trial.“Hunter is taking no chances, he knows that he could get called as a witness any day so he wants to be fully prepared, he’s going over every fine detail,” a source told the Daily Mail on Wednesday.“He’s taking the trial very seriously and wants to make sure he’s ready for whatever the Republicans throw at him,” the source added.Biden, whose business activities in Ukraine are at the center of the impeachment trial, has been floated as a possible witness


Via Lucianne.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

It will be very dramatic in a slow moving way. McConnell will ask Roberts to hold the vote open while waiting for the Senators to return. And they will wait, and they will wait, but the 24 Senators won’t come. How long will they wait? An hour, a day, a week? Trump will start tweeting. The slow realization of his tweeting that he is going to be convicted and removed from office will be exquisite. Then Pence enters the Senate chamber and Roberts swears him in.

1/23/20, 8:54 AM

Left Bank of the Charles has a rich fantasy life.

tim in vermont said...

The Daily Mail got the headline wrong:

Ghislaine Maxwell's personal emails were HACKED sparking fears that damaging information about high-profile individuals linked to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case

It should have read “sparking hopes”!

tim in vermont said...

“He’s taking the trial very seriously and wants to make sure he’s ready for whatever the Republicans throw at him,”

He is experimenting with different size rocks of crack to see which one makes him perform the best.

Murph said...

That's been my thought about him. He has a problem.

His anti-Trump screeds about the most trivial Trump-y things are all he posts anymore, and his co-bloggers aren't that much better. Further, he's driven away [blocked] just about every commenter who disagreed with his points and/or conclusions. All he's got now is an echo chamber of denial-driven like-thinkers.

'Tis a pity. He used to have an interesting blog.

tim in vermont said...

https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1220472884193349632

The guy next to Biden laughing about it worked with the whistleblower.

Gospace said...

Murkowski continued: "We didn't, but we need you to."

In direct reference to the witness issue. If Murkowski is questioning "why?" then Dems have lost the issue.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Two Years Ago Today:

BIDEN: “If the prosecutor is not fired you’re not getting the money.”

“Well son of a b*tch, he got fired”

(thanks - Aunty Trump)

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

Nothing weird at all about Hunter Biden, who knows nothing about the energy industry, and admits as much, is making $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian energy company getting funding from the US government!

but Trump is the criminal.

Never mind the am-trak money and the Chase Visa money the Chinese money... and never mind Pelosi's son and John Kerry's relatives... all rich thru government made money laundering

Michael K said...

'Tis a pity. He used to have an interesting blog.

Yes, I read it for years. Mostly he refuted LA Times stories. I have read recently that he said 85% of his readers and commenters have left. And those that remain hate him. Once in while I take a look. Too bad.

narciso said...



Yes hes lost it


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/russiagate-spy-paid-1-million-obama-admin-was-wapo-deep-throat

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

who had an interesting blog - Michael k?

jeremyabrams said...

After the 2 years of Mueller and now this, Trump is being cast in the role of Jesus. Even post-Christians know a crucifixion when they see one.

Beasts of England said...

Patterico is the blog in question.

narciso said...

it's a shame, but like james joyners blog which used to be sane, allen Ginsburg ended up ironically right, it took nearly 70 years,

Beasts of England said...

Ted Cruz has a new podcast (Verdict with Ted Cruz). Two episodes in the books and it’s interesting. He’s a brilliant guy - perhaps the most so of any elected official in the swamp. One nugget: he really wants Hunter Stripper Dust to testify and said he thinks he has the votes to make it happen. The Senate could also grant him transactional immunity, precluding him from invoking the 5th.

Mark said...

Still not watching, but still clicking over to Martha MacCallum.

narciso said...

I vaguely recall this blog


http://theglitteringeye.com/criminalizing-politics/#comments

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

thanks, beasts.

narciso said...


one needs to keep a gimlet eye:

https://www.steynonline.com/10005/objection-sad

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Narciso

thanks. Styen is great and correct.

" The left, being not terribly imaginative, always accuse you of what they're doing themselves. So, in this case, President Trump is charged with interfering with the 2020 election by men who have been interfering with the 2016 and 2020 elections for over three-and-a-half years now. Which is why we have the preposterous spectacle of four Democrat presidential candidates preparing to vote to remove from office the guy they're running against.

This is a joke. I gave up on it when, on the eve of the trial, the laughably named "Government Accountability Office" released its supposedly entirely separate conclusion that Trump had acted "illegally". Aside from the fact that that "finding" is flat out wrong, I wonder whether the permanent bureaucracy ever thinks, "Gee, maybe we should be a little more subtle about putting our Deep State thumbs on the scale."

But no. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? To whom is the "Accountability Office" accountable? Apparently nobody - just as with James Comey's FBI and Rod Rosenstein's DoJ and Lois Lerner's IRS and all the rest. If bureaucrats want to get political, they should do what politicians do and run for office. But why bother if, simply by being a "career public servant", you have a license to obstruct mere elected transients and their "policies"? The permanent state is one reason we have so many permanent problems.
"

gadfly said...

Way back on November 17, Nancy Pelosi invited Trump and his team to the House Impeachment Party:

“If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward to seeing it,” she said in an interview . . . on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Trump “could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants,” she said.

narciso said...

indeed it's the interagency consensus, they say doesn't exist,

Qwinn said...

First, Shokin WAS investigating Burisma right up until he was fired. Ukrainians provided the documentary evidence. Dems just pretend it doesn't exist, and lie claiming he wasn't investigating them.

If that, plus useless Hunter getting paid 4x what an Exxon board members gets, plus Biden bragging about getting Shokin fired doesn't qualify to justify Biden being brought up as a secondary issue in "the phone call"... if that isn't "exculpatory"...

WHAT THE FUCKING HELL EVER POSSIBLY COULD BE?

Qwinn said...

I mean seriously, it's a fucking trifecta of establishing Biden's corruption. Every single facet of a primary face bribery is present. What could you even add to it? Video of him bragging about it? Oh, wait, we have that too!

Stephen said...

1. That tweet is factually false. Althouse knows it, but chooses not to comment, and, as she usually does, to label the lie as "rhetoric." The category of "things not believed," used for Hillary, has been abandoned.

2. The Althouse commentariat, however, universally regards it as true.

3. I think the two phenomena are related. Althouse is temperamentally a moderate, but her readership is almost exclusively conservative and locked into Trump's "rhetoric." If she says what she actually thinks about Trump--or at least does so too often--she loses her audience, which largely derives from her being a token moderate who hangs out with the hard right. Kind of like a moderate Republican Senator faced with being primaried by a Trump enthusiast.

4. Althouse may respond: "I don't publish everything I think." But if a person routinely writes defenses of one side, while not bothering to write up or think through criticisms of that side, that person will drift in the direction of what is written, and away from what that person deliberately chooses not to write. And that has happened here, to the disappointment of many who have in the past admired Althouse for intellectual independence.

Rusty said...

gadfly said...
"Way back on November 17, Nancy Pelosi invited Trump and his team to the House Impeachment Party:"
And you see nothing wrong with that at all? Nothing. At all. Right?

tim in vermont said...

"That tweet is factually false.”

So which witnesses did Schiff allow the Republicans to call?
Was counsel allowed to attend the depositions in the House?

Sorry Stephan, but you are full of shit.

madAsHell said...

Any way I can be sent automatically to the top?

Affirmative action?

Impudent Warwick said...

Where have I seen this before?

1. Dems trumpet the necessity of their unpopular action with lies and half-truths
2. Dismiss Republican objections as foolish or malign
3. Pass the measure on a one-party vote
4. Blow the implementation
5. Blame Republicans for its shortcomings and failures, declaring that it’s their responsibility to fix

They have shown what they will do with power, and yet we keep giving it to them.

Greg the class traitor said...

1: It wasn't "the international community" that wanted Shokin gone, it was Biden:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/16/top-diplomat-testified-that-obama-admin-not-international-community-orchestrated-ukraine-prosecutors-firing/:
A top U.S. diplomat and expert on Ukraine testified to Congress yesterday that the Obama administration — with former Vice President Joe Biden as its point man — orchestrated the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a company connected to the Biden family, sources familiar with the testimony told The Federalist.

The testimony of George Kent, a State Department official who works on the agency’s Ukraine portfolio, directly contradicts claims that the Obama administration was merely following the lead of the so-called international community in demanding the firing of Viktor Shokin, a controversial Ukrainian prosecutor who was reportedly investigating Burisma, a global energy company long suspected of corruption and money laundering.

2: John Solomon on what Shokin was and wasn't doing:
https://johnsolomonreports.com/joe-bidens-conspiracy-theory-memo-to-u-s-media-doesnt-match-the-facts/

3: Stephen: Were Trump's counsel invited to attend every single deposition taken by Schiff during his investigation? No?
Were Republicans allowed to call witnesses that Schiff didn't want? No?
Did Schiff cut off Republican members asking questions Schiff didn't want asked? Yes?

Then yes, the tweet is entirely correct, and you are the one lying.

Bunkypotatohead said...

"But if a person routinely writes defenses of one side, while not bothering to write up or think through criticisms of that side, that person will drift in the direction of what is written, and away from what that person deliberately chooses not to write."

Maybe she's changing her mind about who the bad guys are in this scenario.
Growing...

Stephen said...

Falsity 1: No witnesses. Republicans called Sondland. More important they clearly could have called anyone with direct knowledge of Trump's thinking--which is what is in issue--such as Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, or Giuliani. Any one of those witnesses could have brought with them files from the executive branch that exculpated the President or showed corruption in office on Biden's part. In short, nothing was preventing Trump from presenting allegedly exculpating evidence except Trumps' refusal to do so.

Falsity 2: Lawyers barred. Trump's lawyers were invited to participate in hearings and refused.

To the extent Trump's tweet contends otherwise, it is knowingly false.