Pelosi Reaffirms No Impeachment . . . Because Trump Wants To Be Impeached

Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference today that left far more questions than she answered . . . except for some members of the press. While CNN asked the more obvious question of why Pelosi keeps saying that Trump is committing impeachable acts but barring impeachment, the other reporters quickly moved to softball questions and the short time ran out, as did Pelosi. However, Pelosi did reaffirm that Trump should not be impeached because he wants it too much. That is consistent with those other principled stances like (1) serial killers should not be arrested if police think that they really want to be caught; (2) suicide jumpers should not be stopped if they really want to be rescued; and (3) bulimia victims should be given more food if you think that they just want you to intervene. The original question is still the operative question: if Trump is committing crimes and a cover up, as Pelosi alleges, why does it matter what Trump wants as opposed to what the Constitution says.

In reality, Pelosi’s claimed crimes are dubious if not clearly unfounded (as with alleged perjury by Attorney General Bill Barr). However, Pelosi wants to be able to claim criminal conduct but not shoulder the constitutional duty to act upon those beliefs. Indeed, while refusing to move ahead on impeachment, she called on the Trump family to intervene. The Constitution has an intervention process, it is called impeachment. Either you believe your past allegations or you do not. As I have previously written, the Constitution demands impeachment for impeachable offenses. Trump’s desires are not relevant to the constitutional duty imposed on the House in such cases.

Just for the record, here is the standard (which does not have a provision for refusing to impeach or removal when a president might like it):

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Indeed, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., was on CNN before Pelosi’s press conference and insisted that true “patriots” have no choice but to start an impeachment inquiry. He said that members could not continue to act our politics rather than patriotism. When pressed on whether Pelosi was acting out of politics not patriotism, Cohen demurred and said that he would not answer to protect his relationship with the Speaker. Not a single reporter however asked Pelosi about that statement.

In the press conference, Pelosi said again that Trump’s impeachable conduct “cannot be denied” but apparently impeachment can.

In a bizarre exchange, CNN’s Manu Raju asked a direct question on why Pelosi continues to claim that Trump is committing crimes but refuses to allow for an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi stumbled badly. Raju tried to follow up with his excellent question with whether Pelosi still believes that Trump is committing crimes. He was cut off by a reporter who asked a soft ball question of whether Pelosi is prepared to meet with the President again. It is obvious that the answer must be yes, but Pelosi spent a huge amount of time on that meaningless question and then returned to the same reporter. The next question was little better.

For a press core that rightfully asks Trump tough and probing questions, these press conferences with Democratic leaders are remarkably mild. Raju and CNN are to be credited with pressing Pelosi and, had Raju been allowed to follow up, the public might have been given more than a repeated soundbite.

177 thoughts on “Pelosi Reaffirms No Impeachment . . . Because Trump Wants To Be Impeached”

  1. The bottom line is that Pelosi lacks a credible impeachment case (or offense) and she knows it–her repeated talking points are that impeachment can’t be viewed as politically motivated and that it would be divisive to the country. Actually, those are quite revealing sentiments. If, after all that evidence in “plain sight” on collusion, conspiracy, coordination and/or obstruction is presented to the American public, you’re worried that it will be viewed as politically motivated in the aftermath and that it would still divide the country–you flat out don’t have a credible case.

    It’s interesting if you circle back to Barr’s summary of principal conclusions (as distinct from summation, report summary or executive summary): 1) the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities and 2) the report does not make a traditional prosecutorial determination one way or the other regarding obstruction of justice. The bottom line is that Mueller did not bring charges on “collusion” or obstruction. Period.
    What has changed now that the public and Congress have had the opportunity to review 92+% or 99.9% of the report respectively? The short, long or any answer in between is that nothing has changed regarding the report’s bottom line.

    Yet the Dems are effectively trying to sell the idea that if you stare at the trees or the moss on the sides of the trees long enough in some sort of bizarre, political Rohrschach test, the forest isn’t really green as it was originally purported to be. Then, why didn’t Mueller bring charges? Therein lies the only real upside for Dems regarding Mueller testifying–that he will say that he would have brought charges but for OLC guidance on indicting a President. However, Barr has testified under oath that Mueller on at least 3 separate occasions assured him that was not the case. That leaves Dems with the highly unlikely possibility that a lawyer as astute as Barr would unequivocally state something that was knowingly false under oath with Mueller forecasted to testify. This situation is why Dems are not exactly beating down the door to get Mueller to testify: there is significantly more downside than upside to the narrative.

    Regarding Article 2, Section 4 on impeachment, the worst answer and the one that would make the Founding Fathers stir more than uneasily from the beyond is “impeachment is whatever Congress says it is”. This specious line of reasoning (and the absolutely perfect politician’s answer) would simply open the door to brazen political abuse. Congress could simply overturn the will of the people for any reason whatsoever as long as one party had the sufficient and prevailing political tailwinds to pull it off.

    This is why the Founders gave specific examples and a catchall sentence to delineate the foundations of what constitutes an impeachable offense. In my view, the most overlooked but telling word in that entire section is the word “other”. Consider the following shopping list: buy apples, oranges or other fruits. It’s clear that the word other denotes a specific commonality or congruency amongst the items (try substituting an incongruent word instead of fruits in the sentence like vegetables etc.) . The same holds true in Art 2, Sec 2–high crimes and misdemeanors must share specific commonality or congruency with treason and bribery. In this case, those would certainly be criminal, serious (in the context of constitutional power) and potentially abuse of power (depending on how one defines the originalist meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors). The Clinton impeachment establishes that the all the characteristics should be met–for example, there was clearly a criminal aspect (perjury, obstruction) and arguably abuse of power but the transgressions hardly posed a national security risk, a threat to national affairs so to speak (or serious violations of constitutional power and scope).

    Bottom line, the case for impeachment is politically, legally and constitutionally languid and the way forward is not engaging in novel and broadly expansive interpretations of law and fact to achieve some sort of end around because the end justifies the mean for some but to trust our democratic processes and, in particular, the power of the ballot box.

  2. Another murder of an American child caused by Democrats. Nancy Pelosi plays politics while Americans die. This death may or may not be prominent in the MSM like the illegal that died of the flu.

    “Last year, Fuentes-Ponce and Escobar were released from custody by Prince George’s County officials after being charged with attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, participation in gang activity, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted robbery.

    At the time, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency had requested that the two illegal alien gang members not be released back into the community and instead be turned over to their custody for deportation.

    Prince George’s County, a sanctuary city, released the illegal aliens anyway, and they were never able to be arrested or deported by ICE.”

    STOP THE KILLING VOTE AGAINST DEMOCRATS!

    MS-13 Illegal Aliens Charged with Murdering Teen Girl After Being Released by Sanctuary City
    21 May 2019
    illegals
    (PGCPD)
    Last week, illegal alien MS-13 gang members Josue Rafael Fuentes-Ponce, 16-years-old, and Joel Ernesto Escobar, 17-years-old, were charged with first-degree murder — along with 14-year-old Cynthia Hernandez-Nucamendi — in the death of 14-year-old Ariana Funes-Diaz in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

    According to police, the two illegal alien MS-13 gang members and Hernandez-Nucamendi met the 14-year-old victim at an apartment complex before taking her into a wooded area nearby. In the wooded area, police say the three beat the girl with a baseball bat and stabbed her to death with a machete.

    Now, the pair of illegal alien MS-13 gang members and Hernandez-Nucamendi have been charged with murdering Funes-Diaz.

    Last year, Fuentes-Ponce and Escobar were released from custody by Prince George’s County officials after being charged with attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, participation in gang activity, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted robbery.

    At the time, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency had requested that the two illegal alien gang members not be released back into the community and instead be turned over to their custody for deportation.

    Prince George’s County, a sanctuary city, released the illegal aliens anyway, and they were never able to be arrested or deported by ICE.

    “These individuals had demonstrated violent criminal behavior before, and because they were released in spite of the lawful detainer, they were afforded an opportunity to take a life,” an ICE official said in a statement.

    Fuentes first arrived in the U.S. at the Texas-Mexico border in December 2015 as part of a family unit. He and the other family members were paroled into the U.S. Though a judge requested that the illegal alien be deported in March 2017, he never arrived for his court hearing and was subsequently never deported.

    Likewise, Escobar entered the Texas-Mexico border as an unaccompanied juvenile in August 2016. Instead of being deported, he was released to family members living in Washington, D.C. where he has lived since illegally entering the country.

    1. Alan, we have no idea where your article is from. Nor do we have any idea when these events occurred. Nor can we guess why Prince George County released these boys. If they were charged with a host of violent crimes, most Sanctuary Cities would hold them anyway.

      1. Didn’t the Washington Post provide that news? Perhaps not or perhaps it was on a back page not to be noticed. This information can be cross checked by you. Your anonymous sources from WaPo can’t be cross checked and they have been proven to be wrong over and over again.

        You can see this news on Fox News and all publications that aren’t soley for leftist consumption.

        1. Alan, I don’t use any anonymous sources! This is another of those lies you crank out several times per day. It’s like somehow you feel a perfect license to lie repeatedly when exchanging with the liberals on this forum.

          1. “I don’t use any anonymous sources!”

            Every time you post a WaPo article that uses anonymous sources you are using anonymous sources. There is no lie. You have a lack of critical skills including thinking skills which causes you to go off the deep end and say things that aren’t true and are frequently downright stupid.

            1. L4D says–It’s time to give the obstreperous one a new moniker. I propose,” Allanasty.” What do you think?

          2. New, there’s something wrong with Allan. I don’t waste my time responding unless he mistates supposed facts which may confuse others.

            1. “there’s something wrong with Allan” -Anon

              Let me fix that:

              There is something very, very wrong with Allan.

              1. I think Alan is a conservative activist going back to the Goldwater campaign. And his main obsession is discrediting ‘liberal communists’. In that pursuit, Alan feels entitled to lie because he’s trying to stop the communist threat.

                1. Another fool that as usual lacks the needed facts. Actually I’m a liberal and don’t like either party. I like freedom and believe in America though at times America has strayed off its goal. You on the other hand knowingly or unknowningly have little regard for America or its citizens. You play your games and virtue signal while others suffer. How can you live with yourself?

                    1. Brainless Wonder. Do you know what the world liberal means and how it the word was taken over by progressives when that word started to stink? Now that the word Liberal is starting to stink the term is moving towards progressive again. Liberal used to stand for the classical liberal. Today the left has taken over the Democratic Party and one of the Presidential candidates refers to himself as a socialist. You know the one that had his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.

                      If your not married I hope you have someone else at home to help take care of you.

                    2. Allan said this, among other things:

                      “If your not married I hope you have someone else at home to help take care of you.”

                      This might help you, Allan.

                    3. I’m guessing that twice won’t be enough for Allan.

                      (My apologies to others for the duplication.)

            2. Anon, you don’t deal in facts. You deal in talking points and data that have little to do with the subject matter. You have the support of Brainless Anonymous who always will jump in as she did below but her lack of brains added to whatever you might have doesn’t add anything to your intellectual stature. I suggest you go to the books and start learning about what you would like to talk about.

              1. Alan says: “Actually I’m a liberal and don’t like either party”.

                Alan claims to be a ‘liberal’ because that’s an ‘official’ view of Libertarians. They claim to be the ‘real liberals’ while progressive liberals are really ‘Nazis’ or whatever. It’s part of a disingenuous campaign by Libertarians who love to paint themselves as the hippest of the hip.

                I have found, in my extensive dealings with Libertarians, that they are chronically disingenuous. And one can see that in the comments of Tabby AKA Absurd. Libertarians love to play endless games where they’re not really Republicans or conservatives. Yet they just happen to tow the Republican line on every single issue.

                1. Peter, though classical liberals and libertarians are often thought of as the same one has to remember that there is a spectrum of libertarianism. The classical liberal precedes Today’s Liberal in history so go back to the history books and start reading. The Liberal of today has adopted a good deal of socialism and the Liberalism I hear from some on the blog smacks of Stalinism.

                  Unlike you I judge a person based on what he does, not what he says. I am not concerned with all the petty stuff that controls your life and I don’t treat party politics as if the parties were baseball teams. I have voted on both sides of the aisle though in today’s world that is impossible.

                    1. A cute cartoon, but a little off on the data. Most Republicans will permit abortion under certain circumstances and they represent the spectrum of views that most Americans hold. The outlier is the far left of the Democratic Party that will kill babies already born or drag them out of the womb leg by leg until these leftists can crush the skull and end the life. Fine people you associate with anonymous. I didn’t bother with the hint of anti-Semitism displayed but that is how people like anonymous think.

                  1. What’s in a name or label?

                    Allan’s political leanings are crystal clear to anyone who spends much time on JT’s blog.

                    1. L4D says–Allanasty is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals seek the restoration of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is often regarded as the brainchild of one Adam Smith. Allanasty will soon admit this and deny it at one and the same time. Because, it’s always different when Allanasty says it.

                    2. Diane, you can call me a classical liberal if you understand what one is. I know it is hard for you to imagine that some people like freedom, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You prefer Stalinism even after seeing the tens of millions killed by Stalin. That is your nature. Quietly you probably even support infanticide and the enslavement of individuals to the State.

                    3. L4D says–I forgot to mention that Trump is the foremost neo-merchantilist in the world today. Ha-Ha!

                      Did you know that Adam Smith wrote a big book decrying the supposed folly of the merchantile system?

                      Dance, Allanasty. Dance!

                    4. Diane, you live in a bi-polar world. There are no shades to black and white and definitely no color. Trump is essentially a free trader, but he recognizes the pain of the working class when another nation destroys their ability to work. You only recognize black and white. Why should our IT be stolen by China? You don’t bother thinking more than a half a level deep. Your rantings are just the expression of a sick mind.

                    5. “Allan’s political leanings are crystal clear”

                      They are crystal clear to anyone with a brain and they represent freedom, capitalism, free markets, the Constitution and the DOI with significant bend.

                  2. nah, local Democrats are often decent leaders and worthy of a vote especially in Dem controlled areas where the Republicans can only field dingbats

                    at the national level, forget it. i think the last one I would have voted for in his district (which I was not) was Robert Byrd. The days when Dems could elevate good leaders like that are over.

                    1. Come again?

                      He was an elected-official-for-life who set about in his later years moving government offices to West Virginia because reasons.

                      I’ll check, but I think he’s in the odd minority of the 1917 cohort who had no military service. He spent a fat chunk of time in the early 1940’s organizing klaverns. It was a rather passe activity at that time (the 2d incarnation of the Klan’s membership went into vertiginous decline after 1924, and the organization formally dissolved in 1944), and just plain strange in an area of the country with a modest and dispersed black population (< 4% of the total). Byrd is just about the only consequential West Virginia politician active prior to 1965 known to have been hostile to blacks.

                      He had a law degree but never practiced. Prior to that, he worked in a butcher shop. He never held an executive position of any kind.

                      He's a great example of the value of certain practices: age floors to occupy public office, mandatory retirement, and rotary systems (e.g. no one holds a given office more than 10 years in any bloc of 12, or runs of an office if they'll hit that wall during their term).

                    2. ha i knew that would piss somebody off. well maybe so but I liked him anyhow.

                    3. i hear the FCI in Morgantown WV is a swell spot to do a bid
                      hope i never have to find out in person, lol

                      prolly Byrd engineered that build, too
                      West Virginians cherish his memory
                      he served the people of his state quite well
                      do contemporary Democrats manage that or not?

                    4. “nah, local Democrats are often decent leaders and worthy of a vote especially in Dem controlled areas ”

                      Kurtz, in the past I thought that as well but today Democrats have become the Borg led by some really crazy leftists that care little for the people they represent. One has to look and say where do these crazy Democrats come from? They sometimes start as decent leaders but the end product is dangerous.

                      Dave Aronberg is a nice guy, very well educated that did a heck of a good job prosecuting the illicit drug industry. I think he became Attorney General in the State of Florida. Suddenly he is out looking to get Trump or at least that is what I surmise. He is the one that OK’ed the bugging of massage parlors and the arrest of Kraft a friend of Trump. That has a certain flavor that is similar to the entrapments we saw of people that became involved in Trump’s candidacy for the Presidency. This is not the first time something like this happened in Florida. Previously another Prosecutor (?) I think from PB County prosecuted Rush Limbaugh for doctor shopping (oxycodone) using questionable behavior. Interesting fact: That is the same prosecutor that gave Epstein a minimal sentence.

                      Democrats are unreliable and grow up to be dirty because to them politics Trump’s the law. Both of these prosecutors are nice guys but mislead by power.

  3. Remember when the media laughed at the notion that Obama spied on Trump and everyone denied it? LOL.

    1. Ivan, why didn’t Republicans investigate that spying while they still controlled both houses of Congress?

      1. New, I’m sure you noticed the GOP didn’t do a lot of things they promised when they controlled both houses. Now Trump proposes zero new legislation and the Senate does ….. wtf are they doing? The House has passed a lot of new bills since the 2018 election, but of course they’ll die there until the next election.

      2. I’m not a mind reader but I would guess it had something to do with all the anti-trumpets in the party- remember Paul Ryan? All that is irrelevant now. I’ll joyously take a criminal investigation over a Congressional inquiry. Barr gives me confidence that everything the government(FBI,CIA,NSA,WH) did to spy on Trump and his associates will be made public. That’s all I want. The rest flows like sweet water down the hill.

        1. I’m so happy having watched the dems fall flat on their faces. It’s a good time to be a Trump supporter. Disclosure is going to be a b*tch. Summer has arrived early.

        2. Ivan,
          More specifically, I think it had to do more with the lack of cooperation from the Sessions’ DOJ and the FBI.
          The House is no longer controlled by the GOP, but the DOJ no longer has a “recused” and hobbled Attorney General at the top.
          I mentioned in the comment to Peter that the committees did not seem to be kept informed by the OSC during their investigation.
          I’ll add that former FBI Director Mueller was probably not interested in looking into anything that would negatively reflect on the FBI.

      3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/is-there-an-investigationgraham-demands-answers-from-fbi-on-russia/2017/03/15/9d98c330-097a-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.7676488bca54
        There were repeated complaints from House and Senate Committees that the FBI and DOJ were either ignoring their requests for information, or delaying even
        a response to the requests for month after month.
        The OSC team was probably more difficult to stonewall than Congressional Committees, but there seemed to be very little communication from the OSC to the committees.
        So there were a variety of different paths a committee might try to explore, and a lot if ways they can be stymied.
        Grassley’s complaint here was not specifically about FBI spying, but it’s just one example of the frustration of Congressional Committees when they’re being stonewalled by an agency.

  4. There is Good news after all. The Left are commitimg $uicide in $tupendou$ ways

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/continuing_plunge_of_cnn_msnbc_ratings_reveals_that_fake_news_is_a_bad_business_strategy_.html

    Continuing plunge of CNN, MSNBC ratings reveals that fake news is a bad business strategy

    The catastrophic ratings decline for both CNN and MSNBC was no temporary blip following publication of the Mueller report. Both cable news outlets had heavily promoted the hoax of Russian collusion with the Trump administration, teasing the hopes of Trump-haters for impeachment and prosecution for treason. Now, those disappointed viewers have gone away, and continue to stay away.

    TV Newser reveals the continuing loss of a substantial portion of the viewership for both cable news networks in the third week of May:

    CNN experienced its lowest-rated week since November 2015 in the 25-54 demo. Additionally, MSNBC marked its lowest-rated prime time week of the year in the demo. Rachel Maddow delivered her lowest-rated week of the year in both total viewers and the 25-54 demo.

    The most dramatic decline was in the prized demo, age 25 – 54, with MSNBC down 42% and CNN down 43%. Advertisers are getting barely more than half as many potential consumers watching their ads in both cable news outlets.

    To be fair, last year was an election year, and Fox News also experienced a decline of 22%, but that is roughly half the decline of the two progressive outlets.

    Fox News lost the crown of the most-viewed cable channel to ESPN, which benefitted from the NBA playoffs.

    Overall cable channels rankings:

    PRIME TIME

    ESPN (2,720,000)
    Fox News Channel (2,333,000)
    TNT (2,123,000)
    MSNBC (1,487,000)
    HGTV (1,160,000)
    NBC Sports Network (1,133,000)
    USA (1,076,000)
    TBS (934,000)
    Hallmark Channel (893,000)
    History (893,000)
    TOTAL DAY (6a – 6a)

    Fox News (1,313,000)
    ESPN (887,000)
    MSNBC (848,000)
    TNT (799,000)
    HGTV (665,000)
    Investigation Discovery (641,000)
    Nickelodeon (638,000)
    USA (536,000)
    CNN (520,000)
    History (507,000)
    John Nolte of Breitbart points out that the unmasking of the Russia Hoax is only the latest example of fake news purveyed by both progressive cable networks (as well as most of the MSM). He lists the fake news frauds of recent memory:

    George Zimmerman: White Racist Killer
    Hands Up, Don’t Shoot
    Trump Can’t Win
    Brett Kavanaugh: Serial Rapist
    The KKKids from KKKovington High School
    Trump Colluded with Russia

    To that list must be added the incredible on-air promotion of Michael Avenatti, just indicted for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from his client Stormy Daniels, adding to his existing indictments in New York and Los Angeles for attempting to shake down Nike.

    Both CNN and MSNBC are subsidiaries of large publicly-held corporations, AT&T and Comcast, respectively. It is time for the grown-ups at the corporate level to recognize that each of their subsidiaries have adopted a losing business strategy of focusing on left-wing propaganda, a declining market niche. Shareholders need to demand that existing management be replaced at both cable news operations. They have squandered their credibility and need to provide former viewers with visible evidence that they have learned their lessons.

    The move of CNN’s New York operations from Columbus Circle to Hudson Yards has already been used as an excuse to lay off more than a hundred staffers, a typical move of companies in decline. But that cost-saving measure will not persuade former viewers to return, much less add new viewers. Firing Jeff Zucker, head of CNN who was promoted by AT&T and given broader responsibilities, would be a visible sign that corporate understands the need to change and to win back lost viewers.

    1. Unknown assailants assassinated John Jones, Seth Rich and Joseph Rago from April ’16 to September ’17.
      _________________________________________________________________________

      John Jones, Julian Assange’s Lawyer, Found Dead After Being Struck by Train

      “Here’s more news you don’t get in the US’ mainstream media: John Jones 48, one of Britain’s top human rights lawyers, who represented Julian Assange was killed last Monday, when he was run over by a commuter train. The death is being called a suicide.
      British Transport Police were called to the West Hampstead train station in North London at 7:07 AM on Monday April 18, 2016 after a man was struck by a train. He was reportedly pronounced dead at the scene and his death is not being treated as suspicious. The event occurred almost one month to the day that the first batch of Clinton emails were released by his client from WikiLeaks.
      Jones worked on the same team as actor, George Clooney’s wife Amal. He specialized in extradition, war crimes and counter-terrorism; taking cases from the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Lebanon and Cambodia.
      Jones lived in an expensive home in North London, with wife Misa Zgonec-Rozej, 40 a director of an international law consultancy, and his two children. The news is particularly disturbing, as Democratic Strategist and CNN host, Bob Beckel appeared in a FOXTV interview and called for the assassination of Julian Assange (or more accurately, “Just kill the sonofabitch!”) Assange is believed to be planning a strategic “October Surprise” leak of a Hillary Clinton email, just prior the US Presidential Election.

      It purportedly contains information that will definitively put her behind bars.”

    1. WikiLeaks tweet @ 1:21 PM – 23 May 2019

      “This is madness. It is the end of national security journalism and the first amendment.”

      1. here’s a question. does the first amendment apply to a foreign national or a foreign publication?

        (we had always assumed that it had but what if….?)

        i guess we are going to find out

        if it doesn’t, then, what about all the foreigners running around the US who think they have free speech? hmmmmm

        i am not sure why they are biting this off to try and chew now. Unless they have plans to majorly and dramatically increase the censorship of “foreign agents” in the US in the future

        which the public has been primed for by all the incessant repetition of the false russiagate allegations. (see how that works?)

        you liberals should be careful what you wish for, you never know where the ball ends up once it’s in play

    2. L4D says–The one and only original anonymous has posted links to two important stories that really need to be put together in order to understand what’s going on. What’s going on.

      Trump has given Barr the authority to engage in highly selective cherry-picking of classified evidence that will bolster Trump’s Spy-Gate counter-narrative while suppressing exculpatory classified evidence that would put the lie to Trump’s Spy-Gate counter-narrative.

      In related news, the Trump Justice Dep’t has added seventeen additional counts under The Espionage Act to the previous indictment against Julian Assange that will make any and all of Crazy George’s dreaded deep-state operatives think long and hard about leaking any classified information that would put the lie to Trump’s Spy-Gate counter-narrative.

      But wait. There’s more. Any journalist who publishes any classified information that puts the lie to Trump’s Spy-Gate counter-narrative will also be arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, sentenced and jailed for the exact sort of violations of The Espionage Act that have just been added to the indictment against Julian Assange.

      Surely Turley will find some way of excusing this “politicization” of classified evidence to pursue a partisan witch hunt against Trump’s supposed political opponents based upon a hoax concocted by our very own Crazy George.

      And then there’s the third link that Big Sister provided about Trump fixing on selling arms to various Gulf States. Don’t forget that one. It will eventually be folded into the batter before the cake goes into the oven.

  5. The Constitution has an intervention process, it is called impeachment. Either you believe your past allegations or you do not.

    It really doesn’t matter if they believe the allegations or not. This is not about impeaching the President in Congress. This is about Impeaching the President in the minds of the voters. As we saw with the Kavanaugh hearings, Democrats were doing well in the smear campaign, but they failed spectacularly once they had to prove it. So now they had the same process failure with the Mueller investigation. What now? Well, allege more crimes, allege a cover up, allege this and allege that. Just as with the OSC, they don’t even have a crime. But by golly, let’s issue some subpoenas, gets some bank records, tax returns, loan applications, let’s scorch the Earth and find something.

    Let’s call this what it is: A U.S. publicly-funded conspiracy by the Left to undermine the 2020 election. This is makes whatever foreign interference there has been in our democratic process seem like child’s play.

  6. Just when you think Pelosilllyni can’t get any more ridiculous….. that last statement with her left hand around the left side pretense of being a Constitutionalist after OK-ing how many who refused to take the Constitutionally required oath of office should have got her impeached at the least. We do not need these phony play pretend Americans interfering in our system of government when they openly violate the laws of OUR country and that goes for their sponsors and followers. Their will be a lot of room for decent people to emigrate from their former situation and immigrate to the USA once the Fineslimes are ejected.

    Go ahead make your case why these violaters of our laws should be alowed to get away with it instead of – dumped.

  7. JT: “Pelosi did reaffirm that Trump should not be impeached because he wants it too much.”

    This is proof that the dems are pathetic and their supporters are lemmings.

  8. Turley wrote, “However, Pelosi did reaffirm that Trump should not be impeached because he wants it too much. That is consistent with those other principled stances like (1) serial killers should not be arrested if police think that they really want to be caught; (2) suicide jumpers should not be stopped if they really want to be rescued; and (3) bulimia victims should be given more food if you think that they just want you to intervene.

    So Gramma Nancy has really got Turley in a tizzy fit to be tied. Why? Just look at it. Truly accuse Pelosi of 1) preventing the arrest of serial killers, 2) preventing the rescue of suicide jumpers and 3) feeding more food to bulimia victims. I’m not making that up. Those are Turley’s own words–plain as day. What’s going on? What’s going on?

    Does Turley think that Trump is a serial killer thumbing his nose in Gramma Nancy’s face while taunting “Come and get me you Coppers”? (I doubt it.) Does Turley think that Trump is a suicide jumper secretly begging for Gramma Nancy to “talk him down”? (Actually, that one almost makes at least a little bit of sense–sort of, kind of, maybe.) But what about that last one. To quote Judge T. S. Ellis, “Oh! C’mon Man!” Trump as a bulimia victim? Trump as a victim of a White House that has the best chocolate cake served up with two scoops of ice cream for Trump but only one scoop for Gramma Nancy who then gives both her piece of cake and her scoop of ice cream to Trump to feed his bulimia?

    Surely Turley is under the influence of psychotropic substances addling his brain. Does Turley need another impeachment gig oh so very badly that he is willing to accuse Gramma Nancy of letting the notorious serial killer Donald John Trump get away with MURDER?

    Why doesn’t Turley just file a lawsuit against House Democrats and Speaker Pelosi for tortious interference with a contract to defend the President of the United States at an Impeachment Trial in the United States Senate already????? This drug-addled red herring straw-man routine that Turley is pantomiming is an embarrassment even to the likes of Oky1.

    Contributed by The L4D–Somebody Help Talk Turley Down Off That Ledge Already Before It’s Too Late–Project

    1. You know what? It might be possible that, after The Labor Day recess, during the “back-to-school period,” the House Democrats might get around to opening an Impeachment inquiry into Trump. If all went well, then Articles of Impeachment against Trump might be voted out of The House Judiciary Committee by All Hallows Eve of this year. If the full House then voted to Impeach Trump shortly thereafter, then the Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump in the United States Senate could, in theory, be concluded shortly before The Thanksgiving Holiday and recess. Or else The Senate could delay the Impeachment Trial until the period in between Thanksgiving and Christmas. And that would leave Trump basically the month of January in the year 2020 to strut and fret the boards of The Iowa Caucuses on February 3rd, 2020, and The New Hampshire Primary on February 11th, 2020.

      And if that doesn’t get the job done, then it might be necessary to remind Turley of the historical precedent set when The Republicans Impeached Andrew Johnson in March of 1868–which was a Presidential election year–although they had no primary elections nor any direct election of Senators back then. All they had were the proverbial “smoke-filled rooms” and none of those “smoke-filled rooms” were going to nominate Andrew Johnson for a second term of office as Chief Dog Catcher of East Keokuk Iowa, let alone, President of the United States. (FTR, East Keokuk Iowa is the portion of Keokuk that is, ordinarily under the waters of The Mississippi River.)

      If Trump’s Impeachment Trial were to be conducted in, March, or April, or even May of 2020, then . . . Well, The Majority Leader of The Republican Senate, Mitch McConnell, could just send the Articles of Impeachment to a Committee to study, and study, and study again, until sometime after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 2020. I’m sure that Senator McConnell will have no trouble whatsoever getting reelected as Senator from Kentucky even while bottling up in committee an Impeachment Trial of the President of the United States. However, I’m not sure how many of Senator McConnell’s Republican colleagues who are up for reelection in 2020 will manage to get reelected while McConnell bottles up in committee an Impeachment Trial of the President of the United States.

      Contribute by The L4D–There’s A First Time For Everything Don’t You Know–Project

  9. Democrats are setting a dangerous precedent. When a Democrat becomes President he will go through this. So will his family, including Grandchildren. Johnson was a wealthy President and no one questioned his wealth. Kennedy’s family finances were never investigated.

    1. Bill Clinton was impeached for far less so I have no idea what you’re getting at. This isn’t about his wealth it’s about blatant obstruction and collusion with a foreign entity. It’s about a coverup. Trump pressed Obama to become the first president to show his long form birth certificate, yet he won’t even show his tax returns. All this “Democrats are setting a dangerous precedent” talk is nonsense. If Obama was out paying off prostitutes, insulting our generals, and conspiring to help a foreign government influence our elections he’d have been assassinated. Your logic is like saying we shouldn’t arrest criminals for murder because then we may get arrested for jay walking. No president since Nixon has had such disregard for the oath of office. If a Democrat does anything close to this, then they deserve to get impeached.

      1. Bill Clinton was impeached for far less so I have no idea what you’re getting at.

        Only in your imagination. Clinton suborned perjury in a civil lawsuit. You may think that a minor crime, but it actually is a discrete crime. He also had a credible charge of rape hanging over him. Not to mention his wife’s involvement in the Whitewater matter. There were four criminal convictions logged with that on substantive crimes, two of their business partners and one of Mrs. Clinton’s law partners. HRC salted away Rose firm billing records in the White House residence while subpoenas for them were stonewalled. Susan McDougal cooled her heels in jail for 18 months rather than answer questions with a grant of immunity.

        1. Tabby, during the height of the impeachment crisis in 1998, Bill Clinton’s approval rating was near 70%. So however serious you think the charges against Clinton were, the vast majority of Americans didn’t honestly care.

          Yet Trump’s current approval rating is where it’s always been: in the low to mid 40’s. Those numbers aren’t good for a president whose economy is near full employment. With an economy like this, Trump should be polling where Clinton was.

            1. The paid left wing trolls on this forum (Anon, L4D, Peter Shill/the new PH, , et al), after being repeatedly blocked by the webmaster and getting new IP addresses to circumvent the blocks, are desperate to interact with the rest of the forum commenters. They want to distract, change the subject, and redirect discussion. With all the bad news that the Democrats are creating and have created these past three years, I’d be surprised if they could win a seat for dogcatcher. that would be insulting for dogs.

              hang em high

              1. Estovir, tell us why readers should prefer your posts to those of the so-called ‘trolls’.

                1. L4D says–Ogresses don’t do flashy graphics and videos. That’s the true trolls who do that flashy graphic video thing.

                  P. S. At least he picked up on the dog catcher trope. Maybe he’ll become an Ogress someday, too.

            2. Ivan, only idiots believe this current president has majority support. If it was there it would show up in the polls.

              1. This is great. There’s some logic formula here, but let me see if I have this correct.

                2016 polling was completely wrong on the 2016 election.

                Ivan says: Only idiots believe modern political polling.

                PH says in his best I’m your huckleberry voice: only idiots believe this current president has majority support. If it was there it would show up in the polls.

                I’m not sure PH intended to prove Ivan correct, but he sure didn’t disappoint.

                1. Interestingly the WSJ believes Nancy Pelosi agrees with Bill Barr in ignoring staff. Barr ignored Congressional staff and Pelosi ignores White House staff.

                  Helluva way to run the most “powerful” country.

                  —-

                  Nancy Pelosi Backs William Barr

                  The Speaker agrees that senior government officials don’t answer to staff.

                  https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosi-backs-barr-11558635085

                  It’s not easy keeping up with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s shifting position on the conduct of President Donald Trump. But at least for the moment the California Democrat seems to be in agreement with Attorney General William Barr on a key question regarding our co-equal branches of government.

                  Perhaps she has no explanation, which may be why today she was observed on Capitol Hill backpedaling at a speed that would make Stephon Gilmore jealous. The Journal’s Natalie Andrews and Rebecca Ballhaus report:

                  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said House Democrats aren’t moving to impeach President Trump, but cautioned the findings of congressional investigations probing the president’s conduct could change their stance.
                  The current investigations “may take us to a place that is unavoidable in terms of impeachment, or not, but we’re not at that place,” Mrs. Pelosi told reporters Thursday.
                  This would seem to warrant a retraction of her Wednesday remarks, but the President has probably learned by now not to expect too much in the way of congressional courtesy.

                  As for the courtesy Mrs. Pelosi is extending to Mr. Barr, the evidence comes courtesy of the New York Times. Peter Baker, Katie Rogers and Emily Cochrane report:

                  President Trump abruptly blew up a meeting with Democratic congressional leaders on Wednesday, declaring that he could not work with them until they stopped investigating him and lashing out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi for accusing him of a cover-up…
                  After Mr. Trump walked out, Ms. Pelosi turned to other Democrats there and recounted a story about how Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt had each brought people together to solve infrastructure problems.
                  “I knew he was looking for a way out,” Ms. Pelosi concluded. “We were expecting this.”
                  Kellyanne Conway, the counselor to the president, was in the room. “Respectfully, Madam Speaker,” she asked, “do you have a direct response to the president?”
                  Ms. Pelosi said she was responding to the president, not members of his staff.
                  “Really great,” Ms. Conway replied sarcastically. “That’s really pro-woman of you.”
                  This column thinks that Mrs. Pelosi might have benefited from a conversation with the President’s clever counselor. But as the duly elected Speaker of the House, the California lawmaker is free to insist on dealing directly with the principal executive. Constitutionally, Mrs. Pelosi does not answer to the White House staff. She is a leader of the legislative branch, which is not inferior to the executive.

                  Similarly, the Attorney General of the United States is not inferior to the lawyers who work on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee. Earlier this month, Mrs. Pelosi’s Democratic colleagues attempted to set a precedent. The National Law Journal reported on May 1:

                  In preparation for a Thursday hearing with Barr, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to allow Republican and Democratic staff to question the attorney general. It was just the move the Justice Department warned would deter Barr from appearing. Hours after his Senate testimony, Barr announced he wouldn’t be showing up Thursday.
                  In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson described the conditions set by the committee’s chairman, U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, as “unprecedented and unnecessary.”
                  “Congress and the executive branch are co-equal branches of government, and each have a constitutional obligation to respect and accommodate one another’s legitimate interests. Chairman Nadler’s insistence on having staff question the attorney general, a Senate-confirmed cabinet member, is inappropriate,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said. “Further, in light of the fact that the majority of the House Judiciary Committee—including Chairman Nadler—are themselves attorneys, and the chairman has the ability and authority to fashion the hearing in a way that allows for efficient and thorough questioning by the members themselves, the chairman’s request is also unnecessary.”
                  More recently, Journal reader Greg Woods wrote in a letter to the editor:

                  Imagine for a moment that the House invites the leadership of the Senate over to discuss pending legislation. When the senators arrive, they find only staff waiting for them. They would no doubt walk out the door in a huff. The way Congress acknowledges that the executive branch is a coequal branch is by following this simple rule: staff meets with staff, and principals meet with principals.
                  Rep. Nadler’s violation of this rule isn’t just an insult to Bill Barr, it is a constitutional insult to the Office of the Attorney General, implying that Congress has supremacy over the executive branch. If, when Mr. Barr does meet with the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Nadler allows a staff member to ask questions, Mr. Barr should direct a member of his staff to replace him at the table and direct that staff member to answer each question with: “I am not authorized by the attorney general to answer that question.”
                  Disappointed as Mrs. Conway surely was at not being able to enjoy a conversation with Mrs. Pelosi, the President’s counselor was no doubt gratified to hear that the Speaker agrees with the executive branch on an important principle.

                2. Olly, polling wasn’t wrong in 2016, however often Trumpers like to repeat that claim. We saw Hillary’s numbers fall off dramatically after Comey sent that letter to Congress. Yet Hillary still won the Popular Vote by 2%. Trump’s ‘big victory’ was nothing of the sort.

                  And if Trump is so popular now, what aren’t the conservative polls showing that?? And how did Democrats take The House last year?? If Trump is as popular as you think, Republicans should have held The House. ..’You’ and Ivan are the idiots..!

                3. L4D says–The 2016 election polls were wrong because the pollsters were not yet aware of the effects that the Russian active measures and informational warfare campaign would have on the 2016 election.

                  Nor were the 2016 pollsters yet aware of the fact that Manafort and Gates had given $767,000 worth of Tony Fabrizio’s sophisticated in-house trump polling data with detail demographic analyses of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota to Deripaska’s henchmen Kilimnik and Boyarkin to forward to the GRU who conducted the Russian active measures informational warfare campaign in the 2016 election.

                  Only a denialist would deny it.

  10. TRUMP’S WALL OF CONCEALMENT CRACKING

    So far, Trump has been successful in erecting walls of concealment around his finances. But those walls are beginning to crack.

    Look at what happened to Trump just in the past few days:

    On Wednesday, a federal judge in New York rejected Trump’s attempt to block Deutsche Bank and Capital One from complying with a congressional subpoena for records relating to his dealings with the banks, and Deutsche Bank said that it would abide by the court order and supply the requested documents. Deutsche Bank might be the real mother lode here, since for years it was the only major bank that would lend to Trump, under circumstances that appear shady at best. It was recently reported that officers in the bank flagged transactions by legal entities controlled by both Trump and Jared Kushner as suspicious, saying they should be reported to the government as potentially involving money laundering, but more senior bank officials overruled them.

    NBC reports that Wells Fargo and TD Bank have already turned over records to the House Financial Services Committee regarding their dealings with Trump.

    Also on Wednesday, the New York state legislature passed a bill to turn over Trump’s state tax returns to congressional committees upon request.

    On Monday, another federal judge rejected Trump’s suit attempting to block his accounting firm, Mazars USA, from complying with a congressional subpoena for his financial records.

    In both the federal cases, Trump’s attorneys attempted to argue that Congress has no right to demand these kinds of records or even investigate the president at all, claims the judges found almost laughable. “The court concludes that the plaintiffs have not raised any serious questions,” the judge in one case wrote. “It is simply not fathomable,” the judge in the other case said, “that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present.”

    Edited from: “The Wall Of Concealment That Trump Built Around His Finances Is Beginning To Crack”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. the flak gets heavy over the target ya know
      trumps our bombadier and the Pelosi faction is dresden

    2. L4D cites a classic rock tune for The New PH:

      Turn, turn any corner
      Hear, you must hear what the people say
      You know there’s something that’s goin’ on around here
      That surely, surely, surely won’t stand the light of day, no

      And it appears to be a long (yes it does)
      Appears to be a long (mm)
      Appears to be a long time
      Such a long, long time before the dawn

      Speak out, you got to speak out against the madness
      You got to speak your mind, if you dare
      But don’t—no, don’t no—try to get yourself elected
      If you do you had better cut your hair, mm

      And it appears to be a long (yes it does)
      Appears to be a long (mm)
      Appears to be a long time
      Such a long, long, long, long time before the dawn

  11. DNC “RUSSIA HACK” A TOTAL LIE

    Anti Trumpers have fallen for propaganda BS. Just wake up and understand the truth

    It was a LEAK not a HACK

    proof explained by Bill Binney, former NSA technical director, who had tested and retested and elaborated on his previous proofs that there was no “Hack”

    https://youtu.be/HxAjxTKoSW4?t=513

    please excuse the fact that this appears on the Larouchie channel but apparently the mass media finds scientific and technical proof and expert evidence too boring to inform the public

    1. L4D poses questions for Bill Binney and his scientific and technical proof apparatus:

      1) How did the Deep State manage to get Aras and Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone to set up the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting in New York, New York?

      2) How did the Deep State manage to get The Prosecutor General of The Russian Federation, Yuri Chaika, to send evidence fabricated against Bill Browder and The Ziff Brothers through Natalia Veselnitskaya to the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting in New York, New York??

      3) Having accomplished those ends (arguendo), why didn’t The Dread Deep State leak the details of the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting to The New York Times on, say, June 10th, 2016, or June 11th, 2016, or even any other day before Tuesday November 8th, 2016, rather than waiting over a whole year to leak the big story to The NYT on July 8th, 2017???

      Surely a scientific and technical Wizard of Binney’s stature can answer the questions posed above without breaking so little as one tiny bead of sweat off the top of his scientific and technical proof apparatus. Can’t he? And if not, then why not?

Leave a Reply