Only Fools Rush In . . .

This is what happens when you try to play 4-D chess with the Trumpster and you’re barely proficient in checkers.

It should be clear by now that Speaker Pelosi didn’t think this thing through. To be sure, her initial instincts were right on the money when the BolshDemocrats got control of the House last year and she told them that impeachment was off the table. She rightly said that it could only proceed if there was widespread, bipartisan support for such a drastic measure. And make no mistake, in the ordinary course of things, impeachment is very much a drastic measure.

Unfortunately, when you have a political party that is morally bankrupt and has long given up representing the working and middle classes, this is what you get. Alexis de Tocqueville predicted this almost two hundred years ago in his seminal Democracy in America. He wrote that when a nation succumbs to immorality, that is to say when republican virtue is moribund, then political parties will resort to impeachment to get their way. Essentially, an end-run around elections.

This is precisely what we are seeing presently.

The Democrat Party has degenerated into a coalition of the fringes. It no longer represents the historic American nation but a gaggle of hostile minorities –sexual, racial, religious or ethnic–that not only have no truck with the American nation as it was constituted but who unfortunately are hostile to each other as well. One only has to pick up the newspaper and read how black supremacists are regularly beating up Jews on the street or how violent Mesoamericans are raping and murdering single women or Muslim youth are targeting homosexuals for assaults. And yet each of these groups constitutes the core of the Democrat Party. Go figure.

And they are angry. Their paladins, the so-called Squad of non-European, Third-world harridans are the angriest of all. Trump to them represents everything they resent about America: patriarchy, hierarchy and middle America. To add insult to injury, he is the ultimate alpha-male. And Pelosi foolishly gave in to their rage. Truthfully, I imagine she didn’t have much of a choice if she wanted to hold on to power; but this wouldn’t have been her problem had she done the honorable thing and resigned back in 2014 when she lost her majority. (That’s what Newt Gingrich did in 1999 when he failed to take down President Clinton. Even though the GOP still held the majority.)

Indeed, she had one reason after another to swat down motions for impeachment. The Mueller Report was to be the crown jewel in the impeachment saga and when it became blisteringly obvious that it was the biggest nothing-burger of all time, she should have called in the crazies in the party and told them to work on Medicare for all or gun control or some such nonsense. But no. That’s what happens when you use too much Botox and drink round-the-clock. (As a pharmacist, I recognize a Xanax-and-alcohol combo when I see it.) Don’t believe me? Take a gander at this clip from her press conference (go to 37 sec and play until 1:11. Or watch the whole thing.).

Now, to be honest, the Democrats salivated when they heard about a phone call between Presidents Zelinsky and Trump which took place on July 25th. According to a “whistleblower” Trump threatened Zelinsky with withholding military aid to Ukraine unless he gave him the goods on Joe Biden. Had that been the case, that would have probably been impeachable or at least risen pretty darn close to it. Pelosi jumped. Unfortunately for them, Trump released the transcript of the call the next day. And there was nothing of the sort in it. Worse, Zelinsky said that he had been under no pressure by Trump and to top it all off, he never knew that the aid had been withheld. And to add insult to injury, the money and materiel went through without a hitch.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that Trump and Zelinsky had set a trap and Pelosi walked right into it. Just sayin’. Long story short, Pelosi couldn’t hold back the dogs of war any longer. Committee meetings were held, some in complete secrecy, and in complete violation of all normal American jurisprudence, Trump was impeached. The verdict was foreordained.

So why do I think that they didn’t think this thing through? For a variety of reasons. First of all, even though the entire impeachment was conducted by Alice in Wonderland fashion (“Verdict first, trial later”), when it came time to come up with the actual charges, all they could arrive at were nebulosities: “Obstruction of Congress” and “Abuse of power”. Not real crimes mind you –after all, the President “obstructs” Congress every time he vetoes a bill–but when you go chasing after wisps of air, that’s all you’re going to get in the end. I imagine that the Democrats think that such ethereal charges can still make it into the history books when the Senate acquits Trump.

But when it came time to pull the trigger, to actually send these two *ahem* “articles” to the Senate (because, you know, that’s what the Constitution mandates), Pelosi and her chief lieutenants choked. They couldn’t do it. The excuse they gave was that there was no way that the Senate would vote to convict. Newsflash: Then you shouldn’t have voted to impeach in the first place. Impeachment is both a legal process and a political one.

Politically, you don’t vote to impeach unless the crimes are so manifest and the guilt is so preponderant that the Senate has no choice but to convict. To be sure, that wasn’t the case with Andrew Johnson but his unpopularity was overwhelming; as for Nixon it did rise to that level. In any event, both men presided over a nation that was convulsed by the aftermaths of two massively unpopular wars and rotten economies. This threshold wasn’t met with Bill Clinton, who, although he was charged with eleven different criminal counts, the nature of the crimes did not rise to the level of “high crimes” (as they were the result of personal peccadilloes).

And it certainly isn’t the case with President Trump. Not only are there no actual crimes that he actually committed, but the economy is humming along rather nicely.

So now we’re left with a real puzzler. And to make things worse, we may be standing at the brink of an actual constitutional crisis. Because here’s the thing: Unless the articles are transmitted to the Senate (there’s an actual protocol for that), then the President isn’t impeached. It’s like getting a marriage license; in that you’re not really married until the pastor actually performs the marriage. So what did Pelosi do? She adjourned Congress yesterday and they won’t return until January 7th, when they might or might not vote to send them to the Senate. In any event, President Trump is not impeached and he won’t be until the House votes to do so.

Confused? Well, that’s what happens during a constitutional crisis. And that’s what I mean by the Democrats not thinking things through.

But there’s more! The official story as to why Pelosi and company choked is that they’re playing for time. They think by pulling this stunt that they can increase their leverage over the Senate. I’m hearing rumblings that they are hoping that they can get the courts to release grand jury transcripts from the Mueller hearings. (According to this line of thought, they really want to find out who ratted out the Deep State.) Others are saying that this is a gambit to prevent Trump from appointing another Supreme Court pick. Some or all of this may be true.

However, I think that there may be another play going on here. I think that somebody on Trump’s team “got” to Pelosi and told her to do this. That unless she wanted the FBI to come knocking on her door, she better fly right. There’s also the possibility that some Democrat Senators got to her and told her that a trial would be the greatest Charlie Foxtrot of all time, with so much blood and guts spilling out on the Senate floor that no Democrat would be left standing. If you think that Hunter Biden is a household word by now, a certain Paul Pelosi could very well become just as notorious.

Or maybe she’s hoping that by keeping the impeachment in her back pocket, she can pull it out closer to election time. If so, then she’s a fool as this would do nothing but suck up all the oxygen out of the race and permanently damage Joe Biden, the likely nominee (unless of course, Hillary swoops in to “save” the Democrats).

Anything is possible. Unfortunately, time is not on the Democrats’ side. The euphoria that they felt Wednesday night has all but dissipated. And it will continue to erode the longer she doesn’t do what is mandated by the Constitution. And all those 30-plus Democrats from swing districts that fell on their sword for Pelosi and the crazies are going to be royally pissed. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they started turning on each other.

But that’s on them. What options does Trump have? Well, for one, they’ve given him (and the Republicans in the Congress) the ultimate in-kind campaign gift. Although he’s the incumbent, he’s still very much an outsider; this sham impeachment seals this in the people’s minds. It’s just more proof that Trump is right: The game is rigged –very much so. Second, it has unified the Republicans in the Congress in ways that haven’t been seen in my lifetime. Money is literally rolling into to GOP coffers and will continue to do so as long as the Democrats continue to misplay their miserable hand.

But here’s the best part: By ignoring all the customary protocols, Pelosi is taking the nation into uncharted territory. What’s then to stop Trump and his legal team from going to the Supreme Court? They could ask that the charges be dropped. Why not? The Supremes may have to take it up, after all, if this illegal impeachment is allowed to stand, then every president from this point forward will be subject to such politicized impeachments. The Executive will be hollowed out and insignificant. I have a feeling that even the Democrats on the Court might take this eventuality into account and therefore rule in the President’s favor.

At any rate, the Democrats will continue to look like fools. They will have wasted three years accomplishing nothing; one of those years in which they controlled the House. What did they do? Did they enact the New Green Deal (whatever the hell that is)? Did they raise the minimum wage? How about Medicare for all? No, no and no. On the other hand, did they stop Trump’s dreaded Wall? No, actually they funded it! They even gave him the USMCA trade deal. And for all their caterwauling about Orange Hitler, they couldn’t even get rid of him, the worst human being who ever walked the face of the earth. Do any of these look like winning campaign issues to you?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

So yeah, I gotta believe that The Golden Don is grinning like a Cheshire cat right about now. In the meantime, please take the time to read this excellently-worded letter that the President and his team put together. Its eloquence ensures that as far as the historical record is concerned, it will probably be the final word.



  1. I would love to see Trump say that he identifies as a woman so he can take that “first woman president” out of the Dems toolbox. He has made a mockery of them so far and the MSM and I would love to see them attack this self identifying craziness. Grab some popcorn and a half rack of beer for that one!

    • Miles Berkedge says

      Pelosi wants the impeachment trial to keep all the senators away from the Iowa caucuses to elect Biden, but it will backfire and elect Buttigieg. Brzezinski pushed Biden for Veep because he is Catholic. Biden was the key legislator in favor of bombing the Serbs, thanks to Trump’s lawyer Tom Boland and a McGovernite Irish Catholic lawyer from AIG named Davis. I say, Pelosi is dirty in Ukraine just like Biden.

  2. But here is the scariest part. Almost every college student in America, after being brainwashed in school for a dozen years or so…are buying into everything that the MSM, Hollyweird, and the Bolshecrat party are feeding them. It is truly horrifying.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      I think about this, too, Mikhail. They are trained NOT to look too deeply into anything or come up with their own take on anything. They are taught to Google the answers and if you Google something like “Trump impeachment”, the first stuff that will come up (probably by design) is the BS.

      • Yes Gail….or they parrot what their psycho-communist professors tell them.

        • Monk James Silver says

          Yes. And many of the faculty in our contemporary American (at least) universities are still lost in the social rebellions of the 1960s. I would adduce my experiences while pursuing a PhD in the 1990s, but it would be more boring than shocking, just more of the same.

          It’s time and past time that the universities — and the rest of us — wake up to the meaning of real and serious education in the humanities and sciences, and return to teaching our young people to develop the skills needed for critical thinking.

          • Amen.

          • George C Michalopulos says

            And we have the gall to call the Middle Ages “dark”.  The education that a scholar received back then was infinitely better than what is proffered in the humanities today.  And back then, students didn’t have to go $50,000 into debt for the pleasure of having a diploma which they display at the coffee shop where they work.

    • Tim R. Mortiss says

      I have four grandchildren in college right now, and three who have graduated therefrom in the last four years. None of them meet this description; in fact, the contrary is true. I think one of the seven calls herself a liberal, for contrarianism purposes!
      Of course, none of the bunch was allowed a smart phone up through high school graduation by their various parents, among other things…
      With respect, I’m not much for this ‘almost every’ kind of thing. And I’m no Panglossian by a long shot.
      And I know several other solid college kids, as well.
      My attitude toward the world, in general: not optimistic, not pessimistic, but hopeful.

      • tim you always a steady sane voice between extremes. Thank You 

      • Michael Bauman says

        Tim, speaks more to their rasing than the virtue of the education systems.  

        • Michael,
          I believe that Tim speaks to the exception. Virtually every college interview I have seen depicts the kids mimicking the socialist talking points and lies of the extreme far left. Sometimes the parents can counter the brainwashing if they are undauntingly vigilant. But the schools have a captive audience…eight hours per day for five days per week for nine months out of the year for twelve years. By the time they reach college, they are already on the same page as their communist professors. Tim speaks of being hopeful. I believe there is one hope remaining…….home school.

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            Indeed, my five senior grandchildren were homeschooled. As they grew older, through junior high, it was a mix of public and home school; by high school, mostly public– but the groundwork had been laid. 
            Yes, ‘undaunting vigilance’ is a part of it. And it can still take place with kids in the public schools. But there can be no hiding your head in the sand– but this has been true for at least a generation now.

            • Sadly, although home schooling is increasing in this country, I think it may not be increasing enough to undo the generations of socialist brainwash.

            • George C Michalopulos says

              I bet they were taught to think critically as well.  That’s something you’re not going to be trained for in most public schools and colleges.

              • Michael Bauman says

                There is a “critical thinking” curriculum that has a presence in public schools and some of it’s initial premises are not bad. BUT, it quickly devolves into a full throated assault on anything Divine.  If it is not epirically provable by empiricists standards, it is “uncritical thinking” and must be excluded.
                In the long line of public school advocates since Horace Mann who quite openly say their goal was to remove allegiance to God and family and replace that with allegiance to the state.  

    • And what’s especially confusing is Trump’s Executive Order barring free speech on college campuses. Not a peep from the media, no student protests, no professor strikes, no ANTIFA tossing bricks through windows, not a word. There’s not a peep from the right OR left, which might tell us a few things!

      • Gail Sheppard says

        Trump signed an executive order protecting free speech on college campuses.

        • Ronda Wintheiser says

          It’s true.  :)

  3. More accurately, President Trump issued an executive order LIMITING free speech on campus. The President should be protecting free speech on campus-badly needed.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      I guess you could say the executive order to protect free speech limits the “free speech” of those who are drowning out the free speech of others. Sorry, kid. They should have called it the “stop the obnoxious behavior in the classrooms” order. – George is a big proponent of free speech but I suspect if another post comes through where someone makes a blanket statement that obscures the truth, it won’t see the light of day.

      • George C Michalopulos says

        Thank you, Gail.  Free speech is definitely what is not happening on most campuses today.  Whenever Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, whoever shows up violence erupts.  
        What a difference from back when (OK:  I’m gonna sound like some old fuddy-duddy here) I went to college.  My university (Tulsa) was affiliated with the Presbyterian Church and we had people like Germaine Greer and Allen Ginsburg (a notorious beatnik/homosexual poet) come and speak.  Nobody gave a rat’s ass.  
        University back then was for the exposure to offending views.  Now, it’s all commie/all the time.  The totalitarian stench is so great that I’m not sure Trump’s E.O. will be able to turn things around.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he did it but things will only turn around when 1/3 of our colleges close up shop and young men and women realize that they can get a head start on life by going into trade schools or things like STEM programs.  

        • Michael Bauman says

          To reiterate Mark Levin’s cogent observation: “Tyrants use freedom to destroy it.”
          …and George you are buying the line that education has to be utilitarian to have value. Think? You don’t need to think. Just learn how to service robots. (I am sure millions will be made on designing and servicing sex robots, geriatric care robots, etc.

          • George Michalopulos says

            I see your point. Clearly, I imagine (in my naivete) that people would use a gainful education for gainful employment and pursuits. Generally speaking anyway.

      • Fan of Black Comedy says

        Gail, such a blessing that George protects us from posting of blanket statements, obscuring the truth. Whew! Thanks so much for all you do to protect us from that Gail.
        I guess that Peter’s clearly noting Trump’s threat to cut federal funding to colleges for allowing criticism of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, as anti-semitism, and allowing speech supporting BDS, as anti-semitic, obscure the truth blanketly!

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Trump did not threaten to cut federal spending to colleges for allowing criticism of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Students are free to express their opinions and criticize whomever they please just like any other American but they can no longer hijack their audience on campuses. They can’t take entire classrooms hostage, shouting down their teachers and fellow students. You know you are deliberately obfuscating. More importantly, everybody else knows it, too. Too bad you don’t have it in you to discuss this rationally. Too bad for the Palestinians, too, because people who do what you seem to want to protect are only turning off everyone within earshot. If the funding is drying up, is it any wonder why?

          Thanks for the compliment. In this case, I deserve it.

  4. Michael Bauman says

    Assault, intimidation and vandalism are not free speech.  Those who claim that  do not have the brain power or the ability to think that is natural to humanity.  
    Free speech is the right to express opinions for and against the government without fear of disruption or harm.  That has been expanded by the SCOTUS following Justice William O Douglas et. al. 
    If the ACLU had any character remaining–they would be the ones demanding the colleges stand up to the bullies.

  5. I don’t agree with everything John Mark says in this video but it serves as an example of how the democrats have started a wild fire and it’s too late to contain it.

  6. I do hope and pray things turn around for this country. On the other hand, one social anthropologist found, in a study of 89 different advanced civilizations in history, that once they embrace sexual license they are gone within three generations without exception. Lose their energy, fall into irrationality, and either collapse or are taken over by another stronger civilization. And what’s the use of a strong economy if our education system continues to brainwash and destroy the young. 

    By his reckoning of a generation (33 years), we are now embarking on the third generation since the introduction of the Pill, which changed our sexual mores totally. So we will know within three decades if we’ve turned around, or are facing the worst. Though if we fall, for the fist time in my life I hope it will be Russia who comes for us…..

    • Gail Sheppard says

      The “pill” definitely changed everything.

    • Thanks for the reference.

    • As Exodus 4:7 tells:
      “…He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished,
      visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren
      to the third and fourth generations.”

      • George C Michalopulos says

        If I may add, the Pill was an accelerant to the loosening of mores that began during WWII.   The Playboy philosophy together with feminism “emancipated” women and men gave up being protectors of women.  What was once a choice became a necessity vis-à-vis women in the workplace.  The loss of coverture resulted.  
        What we are living with presently is the last (or perhaps penultimate) stage in which testosterone levels have plummeted in young men and as a result, young women uglify themselves as a reaction to the loss of patriarchy.  

        And because homosexualism/transsexualism is now exalted, we can expect a quicker collapse.  As for mainstream Christianity, it’s now a joke and has no redemptive power.   No chance of a bulwark there.  

        Therefore, by my estimation, we have another 20+ years before a complete collapse into anarchy.  Ordinarily, we could expect a conquest by a more virile group of people –Muslims, barbarians, etc.–but because of our geographic isolation I expect a desultory slide into oblivion.  

      • ErrorWatch!!!
        The quotation is from Exodus 34:7, not 4:7
        Again, I typed in haste.
        I shall try to do better in future.

    • In the interests of accuracy, Unwin studied eighty uncivilised tribes and six civilised societies: “the Sumerians, the Babylonians (to the twentieth century BC), Hellenes, Romans, Anglo-Saxons and English”.

      He found ‘a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe’.

      • Thanks, Brendan. I came of age during the “Sexual Revolution” and could not be more sorry for what I and my generation did. At least I woke up from that nightmare and can now repent and pray for all who have not, especially those who just want to keep pushing it further and further.

  7. President Trump broadened the definition of anti-semitism to include some criticism of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. It would also make illegal demonstrating in favor of the BDS boycot against Israeli products manufactured in the West Bank. All these demonstrations will now be in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and would allow the federal government to withhold aid to colleges where such anti-Israel demonstrations take place.Interestingly, this executive order for campus free speech was issued during a Hanukkah party at the White House  this past Wednesday.

  8. Rather too early to tell how impeachment will affect the 2020 election. Be skeptical of people shouting it is all good for the Dems or all good for Trump.

    So far Pelosi holding the articles for a bit is shaping up to be some solid political hardball. It has gotten under Trump’s skin, which makes him say ill advised things. It also gives breathing room for bombshells like this to further pressure the Senate GOP leadership:

    One downside to the White House strategy of taking a hardline against providing documents or testimony is that it didn’t stop impeachment, the Dems gathered enough to make a convincing case anyway, and now there will be a slow roll of damaging revelations throughout 2020 as cases like this make their way through the courts. But that die is cast.

    • A convincing case?!? What planet have YOU been living on? Also….holding back on the articles of impeachment was a strategy reminiscent of something I might have expected from a circus clown.

    • George C Michalopulos says

      My immediate take Thursday when I heard about her holding up the articles of impeachment was that she blinked.  Hence my essay “They didn’t think this thing through”.  

      I say this because her caucus is vitriolic in their bloodlust and they want Trump gone yesterday.  By holding up the articles, Trump is not officially impeached and this is going to drive them to further distraction.  It’s a big “never mind” and they won’t be happy.
      Worse, they have lost the momentum.  

      • Evaluating Pelosi through the entirety of 2019 does not suggest to me that she engages in impulsive behavior lacking political calculation. You obviously differ in opinion.

        The Dem caucus might wish Trump were gone yesterday, but I can tell you none them are so far gone in “bloodlust” as to expect the Senate to actually remove him.

        Suggesting Trump has not been officially impeached is an unconvincing academic argument that seems about as sound as suggesting adultery hasn’t been committed until the husband withdraws himself from the harlot.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Flavius, you raise some interesting points.   May I take your first one?

          In Jan of this year, Pelosi made the correct political calculation that impeachment should only be enacted if there was bipartisan support.  What changed was the “whistleblower” complaint and she immediately jumped into the trap of launching an “inquiry”.  Unfortunately, within 24 hrs, Trump released the transcript of the supposedly impeachable call to Zelinsky.   That neutralized the toxicity of that nefarious phone call, so much so that no actual “high crime” or “misdemeanor” could be reported out of Congress.

          Second point:  I maintain that there is a bloodlust against Trump among several of the Dems in Congress.  There certainly is such in the country at large among their side of the electorate.  Whether the Congresscritters are able to maintain their nerve or not remains to be seen.  Especially since many of them were severely “whipped” by Clyburn (the majority whip) into falling on their electoral swords.

          Third point:  there is a difference between moral law and civil/criminal law.  

          • Attempts by the White House to paper over the actual contents of the notorious Zelensky phone call settle the matter only in the minds of loyal trump cultists like yourself, George. Your psychic merger with the leedurrr seems to be utter at this stage.    

            • George Michalopulos says

              Please tell me what in that phone call was a “high crime or misdemeanor”? And then tell me why it (or they) wasn’t put into the articles?

              It’s a simple question. I’m sure there is a simple answer.

            • George Michalopulos says

              Lance, you will kindly refer to The Golden Don as “Glorious Leader” if you please.

          • George Michalopulos says

            I just came across this: Pelosi has committed accusatio interrupta (or premature withdrawal).

          • Afraid I have to respectfully disagree with a few things. In January Congress was still waiting for Mueller to finish. The Mueller Report was an impeachment referral, but Pelosi pragmatically calculated that without bipartisan support, which was not going to happen, that it was going to be too esoteric for the American public and would more likely to be politically damaging for the Dems. The caucus was pretty divided on the issue, there was certainly a strong impeachment faction, but bloodlust is perhaps a bit hyperbolic.

            I listened to and read much of the proceedings. Considering the phone call in the context of all that, we disagree whether a “high crime” or “misdemeanor” could be reported out of Congress. All really Lance needs to do to answer you is to point to the text of the articles of impeachment. Personally, my take is Trump took the lack of action following Mueller to be free reign and did something that Pelosi could no longer ignore.

            I read the man’s twitter, we are at another disagreement over his temperament. I do not see a strategist with thick skin but an easily wounded and aggrieved ego with poor impulse control. Perhaps I simply listen to him more than you do.

            Adultery used to be a civil/criminal law before progressive activism. I think given how Trump has been able to reshape the judiciary it will be again soon so call it distinction without a difference. Unless we disagree and you think it shouldn’t be a crime.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Flavius, one of the major weakness of the Trump-haters is that they underestimate him (constantly).  Very little “gets under his skin”.   It’s all artifice.  

      You can take this to the bank:  whenever Trump says something scandalous or uncharitable, he has something in his back pocket to back it up.  It’s a shot across the bow to a potential political enemy that says in essence “back off”.  We are seeing this lately with the Widow Dingle.  The outrage lasted for a 24 hrs –then it died.  Why?  Because a little research into the Dingle crime family exposed some startling results.  Likewise when he called Carl Bernstein “a degenerate fool”.  Crickets from that quarter.

      This all started back in Oct of 2015, when he said that Obama had “schlonged” Hillary.  The outrage was immediate because that word had never been used to castigate a political adversary.  And then, after 48 hrs, numerous tapes from years past on NPR surfaced in which this very same word was used in the very same context.   I realized then that Trump knows how to play hardball but that he only winds up when he’s attacked first.

      Personally, I find all this offensive.  But I’m not president, he is.  And he’s never held political office before.   He’s a master troll; he knows how to get under his enemies’ skin and he does it every time.  This wouldn’t have been happening if his enemies were not consumed with rage.  It’s a tenet of military strategy that generals have to keep their heads and not be consumed by hatred for the enemy but to try and get into their heads and thus, have a healthy respect for them.  Precious few in the Democrat Party/Establishment/MSM  have respect for Trump’s capabilities, hence they consistently “misunderestimate” him.

      And they do so with those who voted for Trump.  Case in point:  I was watching Tucker last week and Frank Luntz was on.  He was conducting a focus group in California of a dozen or so middle-aged, middle-class white Democrats.  Seemingly normal people.  These people were beyond clueless.  He asked them to describe in one word the typical Trump voter.  The three most popular refrains were “stupid”, “evil”, “racists”, repeat.  I wanted to shake these people by the shoulders and say “ARE YOU [EXPLETIVE] SERIOUS?  

      Nobody on the Right views Democrats, liberals or progressives in this way.  (OK, we do view Antifa that way but they are stark raving mad.)

      My advice is for those on the Left to do some serious soul-searching.  (Sorry for the rant.)

  9. Pelosi cannot even speak clearly. She always sounds drunk. Her political maneuvering is laughable.
    And nor should they expect the Senate to remove him. He has not done anything impeachable. In their bloodlust, they’ve been trying to impeach him since he was elected.
    And lastly, he is not impeached until the articles are sent, regardless of your perception on the matter. 

    • George Michalopulos says

      Mikhail, more and more people are coming to the same conclusion regarding the transmittal of the actual articles of impeachment. Leaving aside the fact that the withholding of said articles violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, what is to stop Trump’s team from going to the Supreme Court for redress? The Supreme Court is presently poised to undercut one of the articles (“Obstruction of Congress”) because it has taken up Trump’s referral re his claims of Executive Privilege.

      Again, I ask in all honesty: what are the actual crimes that Trump is accused of committing. And how come they were not listed in the articles?

  10. GCU Ultimate Ship the Second says

    If you think Pelosi isn’t going to send the articles to the Senate you are in for a profound disappointment.
    Given your ill-fated prediction that impeachment wasn’t going to happen in the first place, a better course of action might have been to admit you don’t know how things are going to play out rather than pivot immediately to fresh conspiracy theories and proclaiming this was yet another 4D Trump Chess plan all along.
    Does Pelosi have to immediately send them to the Senate? No. Are there tactical political reasons to have delayed it? Yes. And they don’t involve lurid crazy conspiracy theories that presumably involve further impeachable actions on the part of the President. If I am reading your speculation about the FBI correctly, you seem to be implying that the delay might due to Trump using the FBI to blackmail the Speaker of the House in an impeachment inquiry where one of the articles was abuse of power!
    Leaving aside *that*, one primary probable reason for the delay is to put some heat on McConnell. McConnell, of course, has the task of trying to minimize fallout for Senate Republicans in acquitting the President by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that he is guilty of the articles of impeachment. Putting some spotlight on his recent words and actions and the back and forth over the mechanics of the trial gets some highlighting by holding onto the articles for a bit.
    It goes without saying that the GOP doesn’t want that sunshine.
    But, in the near future, the articles will be sent over and the Senate will have to have a trial.
    I don’t envy the Senate Republicans who aren’t in iron-clad safe seats for 2020. Not only are they obligated to acquit Trump even though his guilt is evident to everyone who doesn’t have the knob broken off at right-wing media, but they have own whatever awful stuff Trump does after the acquittal in the run-up to the election.
    That Trump letter you linked is a piece of deranged writing demonstrating his unfitness that is exactly why the Senate is squirming right now. Reading it uncomfortably reminds me that the man responsible for it is still the Nuclear Command Authority with the unilateral executive authority to open up the canned sunshine. May God have mercy on us all.

    • George Michalopulos says

      I never said that Pelosi was “never” going to send the articles over to the Senate. (Although I would not be surprised if she doesn’t.) All I did was hypothesize why she didn’t send them over in a timely manner. Let’s be honest, if her case was rock solid, then she would have run in her stilletos the 200 or so feet separating the House from the Senate and shoved them up McConnell’s keister. Instead, she shocked everybody with this stunt.

      Let’s assume however she’s doing this to gain leverage. OK, then you must assume that McConnell is going to bite. And if he doesn’t? Then where’s her “leverage” then? My basic point is this: the case for impeachment has lost momentum and the longer she drags this out, the more momentum she loses each and every day.

      Now I know you’re not going to answer this question but I’ll ask anyway: what are the actual crimes that Trump committed? And why weren’t they put into the actual articles? In the impeachment of Johnson, there was an actual “trap door” crime that was jury-rigged ex post facto to accuse Johnson of. With Clinton, there were actually eleven criminal counts –including perjury–of which he was credibly accused of. Trump? Crickets.

      But I’ll let you go ahead and answer me.

      • George Michalopulos says
      • GCU Ultimate Ship the Second says

        Impeachment is inherently political, and politics in our system involve conflict in the public sphere to attempt to influence and shape public opinion.

        You are correct in that you didn’t say “never” for the articles being sent, but neither did I say that you did, merely that you were in for a disappointment if that was your hope. Especially considering what I think is faulty hypothesizing as to the *why*.

        As best I can try to summarize your hypothesizing (and feel free to correct me here if you think I am misstating it), it seemed to boil down to 1) she got cold feet thinking she made a mistake or 2) the President committed a further abuse of power after already being impeached for abuse of power by blackmailing the Speaker of the House into not sending over the articles. Under those circumstances, maybe not “never” but “highly unlikely” could be assumed to be your opinion as to the ultimate disposition of the articles going to the Senate.

        The House impeaches, the Senate has a trial. Pelosi does not have power over the nature or structure of the Senate trial in any formal governmental or constitutional capacity. But again, there is the battle for public opinion, and for the public perception of whether or not the Senate is conducting anything resembling a fair trial, or if it merely a sham exercise where acquitting Trump is preordained. McConnell has literally been publicly signalling the latter in conflict with the oath he is going to have to take, for that matter the GOP even floated the idea of having a trial with no witnesses whatsoever!

        So, again, I submit that Pelosi is using the delay as a bit of a lever, not because as you suggest “McConnell is going to bite”, but to help make sure he pays a political price in the public sphere for doing what he has already said he is going to do.

        Your argument about momentum is misguided because there is no more momentum in the House. They voted to impeach. Now if the House had decided to broaden the inquiry and keep going, there was absolutely a momentum argument to be made as to whether Pelosi could sustain the support of the entire caucus for months and months in an election year. But they didn’t do that, they focused on a simple, understandable, crystal-clear major violation by the President, even though it was but a small sampling of the impeachable offences he has engaged in since taking office. And there have been a lot!

        Right now the question of the moment isn’t whether or not the House is going to impeach, but what is the trial in the Senate going to look like?

        Impeachable offences and things that are crimes in the US Criminal Code are two circles that are not the same. Treat them as a Venn Diagram. When you ask me what crimes Trump has committed, and expect me not to answer, I can give you an answer, but you aren’t going to like it: there is adequate evidence that Trump committed perjury to Mueller, engaged in obstruction of justice, engaged in campaign finance violations, etc. etc, all things that are federal crimes that the DOJ holds he cannot be prosecuted for while in office. The Democrats decided to leave those out of the impeachment proceedings and articles.

        Now, what the actual articles of impeachment are for, are far graver political crimes against his oath of office and against the Constitution than a mere 18 USC § 1001. Could one construct a legal argument for criminal charges relating to the Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress charges? I’m sure there are pundits willing to do that. But it isn’t necessary or relevant.

        What is relevant is that the abuse of official power for personal gain must absolutely be an impeachable offence for the impeachment provision to have any meaning whatsoever. Otherwise you might as well pretend it doesn’t exist in the Constitution. Same thing for obstructing Congress.

        Now for crickets, we could go to whatever justification could there be in not having Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, Blair and Duffey not participate in the Senate trial after the White House blocked them from appearing before the House. Trump certainly earned that Obstruction of Congress charge. But I’m sure Trump is playing 73-D chess and holding on to all the exculpatory evidence until *after* the GOP Senate appears to acquit him without it!

        • George Michalopulos says

          If impeachment is “inherently political” then it is only political. Both assertions fly in the face of the Constitution, which reserves this remedy only for legal crimes (i.e. bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors). Indeed, it accords with what George Mason wanted: that impeachment could be administered for “maladministration”. That would be a political remedy. And the other Founding Fathers abjectly rejected Mason’s request.

          Having said that, by making it only political (as you insist), then it is essentially a nullity. You might as well call the king “a fink” or criticize the First Lady because she wears stiletto heels. You may be right to call her out because you are concerned about her posture and thus her health (as well as for the poor image she encourages to young women to emulate, thereby endangering their health) but it is not criminal. And thus by reducing impeachment to merely political status you are depriving it of its seriousness.

          And make no mistake, in making this a purely political stunt, she is playing into the hands of those who do view it as a nullity. It is in fact a farce.

          You yourself are engaging in “special pleading” by saying that these two articles are a “Venn diagram”. That is laughable on its face. The fact that you have to resort to such a nonsensical argument proves that there is/was no crime which President Trump committed. Again, I choose to view impeachment with the gravity in which it is intended and thus actual, real crimes must be apparent. The fact that you (or real prosecutors) cannot proffer any proves that this entire process is a sham.

          Impeachment succeeds on its own merits in the face of actual criminality. It fails if it is based only on purely political terms. The Dems are not doing themselves any favors and worse, they are hurting the Republic in that they are depleting impeachment qua impeachment of any of its intrinsic power for the future.

          It’s really that simple.

          • If they make Trump look like one of the Gracchi, what do they look like?

            • George Michalopulos says

              Not optimates for sure.  Though the optimates could not recognize the modest reforms of the Gracchi (I for one can see how the grain dole would lead to indolence but their land reforms were spot on), they at least believed in the Republic.  The Deep State of which we speak only believes in a banana republic.   (They don’t even believe in the letter of the law much less its spirit.  I view the Beltway as Versailles on steroids.)

              They are instead more like the Bourbons of France, who having regained the throne after the Terror and Napoleon, “learned nothing and forgot nothing”. 

          • Michael Bauman says

            George, you are correct in all particulars.

            • George Michalopulos says


            • GCU Ultimate Ship the Second says

              (alas Mr. Bauman, among many other things, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 likely says otherwise)

              • Michael Bauman says

                Constitutionally the Executive Branch and the Congressional Branch have as a function the right and responsibility to obstruct each other.  
                Clearly the Congressional Branch has the over all power of the purse.  A power which they have largely abrogated since LBJ along with the concomitant authority to say whether or not we go to war.  
                Hmmmmm wonder what would have happened if “Abuse of Power” articles had been drawn up against Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.  Each of them and every other POTUS has something they have done that could be, under that standard, impeachable.  It is too vague. 
                My favorite historical abuse is Woodrow Wilson capriciously imprisoning Suffragettes who were exercising their Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  It is also reported that he had one such woman illegally held in the basement of the White House and tortured.
                There is no end to such shenanigans in the Executive and Legislative Branches now and through history.  Pick your poison. 
                Bottom line is that there simply is not a clear cut reason let alone an actual case for impeachment other than the Democrats think Trump and anyone who opposes their ideology is an irredeemable deplorable. 
                Sorry if I am not anxious to support a party who publicly despises me and much of what I hold dear.  
                At least Pres. Trump acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  That is just another reason to impeach him for the Democrat Socialist Revolutionary Party of the costal elites. 

                • GCU Ultimate Ship the Second says

                  The assertion that Congress has largely abrogated the power of the purse since LBJ is somewhat undercut by my previous post directly citing a post-Nixon law that was Congress directly putting its foot down over perceived inappropriate meddling in congressional appropriations by the executive.
                  And, for that matter, so is the impeachment of Trump, in part.
                  Abuse of power is not terribly hard to understand nor too vague. I would continue to assert that Trump crossed a line in abusing the office for personal gain to an extent unmatched by any other president in modern American history.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    Really CGU? Even though he is likely to be the only President in US history to leave office with fewer assets than when he entered office? Certainly he will not come anywhere near the gargantuan gains in personal wealth evidenced by the Clintons and Obamas. Not to mention the “Clinton Foundation”. Seems clearly to be influence peddling at best. Hillary’s sale of US strategic uranium to Russia is more “collusion” with Russia than Trump ever thought about let alone did and is reminiscent of Teapot Dome except Teapot Dome was not done with foreign powers.

                    Then there are the campaign funds Uncle Billy solicited from China (a violation of campaign finance law in and of itself) Once in office, he transferred strategic information to Chinese companies. That was a quid pro quo and possibly even treason.

                    The Democrats are projecting.

                    The Congress has done nothing with their budgetary control–statue or not. Democrat or Republican Congress.

                    More to the point, the Congress has abrogated its Constitutional authority to declare war (or not declare war). Every President since Eisenhower has abused their authority in that regard without a peep from Congress.

                    But you see, I am of the firm belief, given the 10th Amendment to the Constitution that about 90% of what the federal government does is un-Constitutional. The Executive and Legislative branches and the Judicial branch have colluded with each other rather than obstructing each other as intended.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Truman started us down the path of the Executive “declaring” war. For the life of me, I can’t understand why Taft and the other Republicans in the Congress didn’t put their foot down on that one. A horrible precedent.

                    • Tim R. Mortiss says

                      Well, Michael, it may be so, but I predict that Trump’s book will put the others in the shade, income-wise, when that time comes.
                      In another post, you said:
                      ” It is also reported….” 
                      These are weasel words, as my high school teachers long ago would have said. I have had direct experience of newspaper reporters who have told me that they know the substance of an article is false, but that the “it is reported” is true; so they run the article. 
                      The more serious the charge, the greater the problem.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Nate, you do know that Trump has not drawn a salary every since he was inaugurated, don’t you?   That he gives it away to a different charity every quarter? 

              • Michael Bauman says

                Oh CGU, (sarcasm on) Everybody of quality knows George is perfectly correct and only the hoi poloi, the irredeemable and hide bound suppressors of human freedom would believe otherwise. Surely, it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. (sarcasm off) 

  11. Michael Bauman says

    Tim R, As far as the report on Wilson, I read it along time ago. It was an article by a respected Wilsonian scholar in a reputable historical publication but I cannot give the citation. 

    Trump is not impoverishing himself and after he leaves office who knows. He started way ahead of anyone previously.

    I will reiterate that the primary reason that I support him is because his opposition is anti – Christian in a manner that is quite personal. Their public statements make it clear they despise me, personally.