Is Pelosi Saving Trump By Shaping Impeachment To Fail In The Senate?

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the curious profile of the emerging impeachment against President Donald Trump. Notably, while Democratic members have been saying for three years that there are established crimes and impeachable offenses found by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, reports indicate that none of those allegations will be the basis for impeachment. Instead, Democratic members are saying that they want to limit impeachment to the Ukrainian controversy. Not only that, but they want to hold just a couple weeks of public hearings and vote an impeachment vote. If so, this would be the most narrow and least developed impeachment of a president in our history.

Here is the column:

As President Donald Trump continues to counterpunch his way into an impeachment, many Republicans appear conspicuously and ominously silent about the Ukrainian scandal. That would normally spell growing danger for an increasingly isolated president looking at a Senate trial.

Trump, however, may have a curious ally in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When she held a press conference to announce the impeachment inquiry, some of us expressed doubt that she had dropped her opposition to it. Since then, every move she has made strongly supports suspicions that Pelosi is less of a convert than a collaborator in the House impeachment effort. While Trump aides such as Rudy Giuliani have now caused untold damage to the White House position, Pelosi repeatedly has intervened to steer impeachment efforts into either a wall or, more recently, over a cliff.

For three years, Pelosi has been widely credited with slowing down the impeachment efforts despite many of her fellow Democrats campaigning on an impeachment pledge in 2018. Pelosi has struggled to maintain the appearance of wanting to impeach the president while preventing any meaningful steps toward actual impeachment. She wants Trump mortally wounded but still alive in 2020. Moreover, she understood the Russia investigation was not producing clear criminal or impeachable conduct.

Indeed, earlier this year, I wrote a column exploring whether the real scandal was not likely Russian but Ukrainian in its origins. I noted that various Trump figures, along with Democrats including Hunter Biden, were involved in suspect dealings in Ukraine. The investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy or collusion with the Russians. The Justice Department correctly rejected obstruction. Pelosi moved to put impeachment to bed, saying she would not accept one that was not based on articles with “overwhelming and bipartisan” support.

Everything was going according to plan, until Trump called the Ukrainian president. The danger of pretending that you want to impeach Trump is that you may accidentally stumble over a potentially impeachable offense. Moreover, with a whistleblower complaint, Pelosi lost all her control. The Democratic base was simply not going to accept another bait and switch.

So Pelosi was forced to hold her bizarre press conference to announce that an impeachment inquiry would begin in the House, despite other Democrats declaring for weeks that they already were conducting such an inquiry. Despite her recent pledge, she pushed through an impeachment vote with no support from Republicans, and the country divided right down the middle on the issue. Pelosi then took two unexpected steps.

She reportedly said she wanted to limit any impeachment investigation to Ukraine, not the stuff that she and others claimed was clearly criminal and impeachable for three years. She also removed the investigation from the House Judiciary Committee, which was looking more broadly at Russian matters with special impeachment counsel, and then gave it to the House Intelligence Committee to hold hearings behind closed doors. After single handedly slowing down impeachment efforts for years, Pelosi now is pushing for a quick impeachment vote by the end of the year. Why?

The day this story broke, I stated on air that the greatest threat to Trump would be White House national security adviser John Bolton, a disgruntled former aide who was the most likely witness to have damaging evidence of any quid pro quo. Yet Democrats have done relatively little to get his testimony. Bolton seemed willing to testify but he wanted to be legally compelled to do so. On Friday, his attorney even dangled a promise of “relevant” undisclosed evidence. Democrats have subpoenaed various officials but refused to do so with Bolton. They shrugged off his refusal to testify and said they simply had no time to go to court for an order. Why?

The reason appears to be Pelosi. While she reluctantly agreed to allow members to impeach, she wants to submit an anemic impeachment to the Senate by the start of 2020. After moving for years at a glacial pace, she now wants an abbreviated and expedited impeachment process with just a few weeks of evidentiary preparation. Such an impeachment would go forward with a significantly undeveloped record with a couple of slapdash articles, along with ample room to acquit Trump in the Senate.

The term for all of this is planned, or programmed, obsolescence. The term was created by former General Motors head Alfred Sloan Jr. to refer to products that suddenly stop functioning and have to be replaced. This was the basis of a huge class action lawsuit against Hewlett Packard over inkjet printers and cartridges allegedly designed to shut down at some undisclosed date. The company settled the case for millions of dollars.

Similarly, this impeachment is looking like something designed to fail, to suddenly stop functioning in the Senate so Trump survives and Democrats can once run again on a “lesser of two evils” campaign. The design flaw is found in the artificially narrow foundation of articles on abuse of power. It is not true, as was suggested by former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, that abuse of power cannot be the sole basis for impeachment because abuse of power is not a crime. Not only can abuse of power be impeachable, but a proven quid pro quo can qualify as such an abuse.

However, there is a reason why members of Congress have never sought the impeachment of a president on such a narrow ground. The Clinton impeachment was relatively narrow but involved the president lying under oath, which is a clearly defined criminal act. Abuse of power is stronger in the context of other offenses. The reason is that it is often very difficult to distinguish between the problematic statements or conduct of presidents. All politicians deal in their self interests, including members of Congress.

To focus on this narrow abuse of power claim as the foundation for this impeachment, Pelosi maximizes the chances of acquittal for Trump. By pushing for an impeachment by December, with limited hearings and no compelled testimony by key witnesses, she would achieve her original goal to guarantee that Trump will stay in office at the start of primaries. That is indeed the perfect planned obsolescence product, one designed to fail just in time for the voters to be offered a product “upgrade” in the form of the Democratic presidential candidate and a Senate majority.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He also served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial and testified as a constitutional expert in the Clinton impeachment hearings. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

205 thoughts on “Is Pelosi Saving Trump By Shaping Impeachment To Fail In The Senate?”

  1. Say my name, say my name


    Schiff’s Committee Published Name Of Alleged Whistleblower Last Week
    Madeline Osburn

    Schiff’s Committee Published Name Of Alleged Whistleblower Last Week
    Last Wednesday, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, published the unredacted name of a man alleged to be the so-called whistleblower who helped launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

    During HPSCI testimony, William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, was asked by a staff lawyer on the committee whether the name Eric Ciaramella was familiar to him.

    “Does a person by the name of Eric Ciaramella ring a bell for you?” asked Steve Castor, a committee staff counsel asked Taylor during a deposition on October 22.

    “It doesn’t,” Taylor responded.

    “So, to your knowledge, you never had any communications with somebody by that name?”

    “Correct,” Taylor said.

    The transcript of that exchange, which was not redacted, was published and publicly released by Schiff’s committee last Wednesday.

    On October 30, Real Clear Investigations published a lengthy article alleging that Ciaramella was the official who filed a formal complaint against Trump on August 12.

    “Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media,” Real Clear Investigations reported in October. “He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.”

    In September, The New York Times all but outed the alleged whistleblower, identifying him as a CIA employee and Ukraine expert who had been detailed to the White House by former Obama CIA director John Brennan.

    When news of the whistleblower’s complaint first broke, Schiff demanded repeatedly that the anti-Trump bureaucrat should come forward and testify to his committee.

    “We‘re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week,” Schiff tweeted at the time.

    Schiff and two other Democratic committee chairmen even issued a joint press release explaining why the anti-Trump complainant needed to testify to Congress.

    “We need to speak with the whistleblower,” the top Democratic lawmakers wrote.

    But when it was revealed that Schiff and his staff had secretly coordinated with the whistleblower and urged him to file a formal complaint against Trump, Schiff and his media allies immediately changed course, declaring it would be dangerous and unprecedented for the complainant to testify publicly. Schiff then flip-flopped and insisted that the anti-Trump complainant be hidden from scrutiny.

    Prior to the revelation that Schiff and his staff had secretly worked with the anti-Trump complainant before he even filed a complaint against Trump, Schiff repeatedly denied any contact with the complainant. To date, he has not explained why he lied about his secret interactions with the complainant, nor has he detailed the full extent of his coordination with him.

    Congressional Republicans have vowed to call the complainant as a witness in impeachment proceedings, but it is unclear whether he will be required to testify, as House Democrats passed rules requiring Schiff to approve all subpoenas and even questions asked of witnesses.

    1. What is his name!?!?

      Done Busy
      Done Busy
      1 day ago
      Is it Eric Ciaremella? I think it’s Eric Ciaremella. I believe it’s first name Eric, and last name Ciaremella. Eric Ciaremella.


      Hide replies
      Despair Gumshoe
      Despair Gumshoe
      1 day ago
      It is Eric Ciarmella Cartman.


      T Beck
      T Beck
      1 day ago
      Haha, perfect 😂😂


      Jane – – –
      Jane – – –
      1 day ago
      Who ? Eric Ciaremella ? Is that what you said ? Eric Ciaremella ? Ah, thought that was the name, Eric Ciarmella …


      Frank H Bergeron
      Frank H Bergeron
      1 day ago
      He is the face and name of a treasonous coup attempt so the others involved will try to protect themselves 😉


      1 day ago
      read that in Kronk voice, from Emperor’s New Groove lol


      1 day ago
      Rumor has it that Eric Ciaremella & Barbra Streisand have teamed up so well.


      1 day ago
      I think you guys are wrong. Isn’t it Ciaramella? You’re replacing an A with an E compared to what I’ve seen on other sources.

      1 day ago
      Eric Ciaremella? Is that his name? I wasn’t sure if his name was Eric Ciaremella. Thank you for informing us of his name. Which is Eric Ciaremella.


      Dee Smith
      Dee Smith
      1 day ago
      I typed the name “eric” into Google and the first name that popped up was Eric Ciaremella. lol Also the headlines “Facebook Scrubbing Any and All Mentions of Alleged Whistleblower Eric Ciaremella”. Gotta’ love that they put his name in the headline about not using his name. Ha ha ha!


      Kekit Plebbitstan
      Kekit Plebbitstan
      1 day ago
      @Dee Smith sometimes I think the left created the left to oppose the left. 🥴


      John P. Conley
      John P. Conley
      1 day ago


      Mesolithic Man
      Mesolithic Man
      23 hours ago
      Could you just clarify who it might be please?

      Pteronarcys californica
      Pteronarcys californica
      10 hours ago
      His name is Ciaramella, aka Charlie.


      Magnus Ludvigsen
      Magnus Ludvigsen
      8 hours ago
      I’m not up to speed on this whole case, so just to make sure Eric Ciarmella is the name I am not allowed to speak? No worries he spells Eric with a C, in Norway we spell it with K. But it makes his last name easier to remember because it too starts with a C… but it’s very oddly written, so I can’t pronounce it. So Great Leader Zucherberg is safe, I cannot speak the name Eric Ciarmella anyways.

      Shiarmella? Chioarmella? Ciarmella? Yup not sure
      Read more


      3 hours ago (edited)
      Too funny!

      1. Hysterical….Priapism alert!

        Helm 108
        Helm 108
        1 day ago
        “I imagine YouTube and Facebook’s headquarters must be on fire”

        Stop, I can only get so erect


        Hide replies
        P Davis
        P Davis
        1 day ago
        This just in: “…Priapism rates are skyrocketing!!”


        1 day ago
        call a doctor if that lasts more than four hours…


        1 day ago
        , emergency, a large asteroid has struck Americas largest Democrat gathering, a witness states that the centre of impact was directly on AOC


        1 day ago
        @KingCosworth This just in: A handful of survivors have emerged from the crater. They were all wearing racist “It’s ok to be white” shirts.

        “Racist Shirts Proven To Be Satanic Protection Runes”


        Barbarella Alpha
        Barbarella Alpha
        1 day ago
        would be funny if folks should make accounts on tumblr using vpns and spam all their popular fandom tags with his name 😉 give their mods a workout.


        Soldier Kek-e-sans
        Soldier Kek-e-sans
        1 day ago
        @Barbarella Alpha
        post that on a 4chan board


        Benjamin Rood
        Benjamin Rood
        1 day ago
        Facebook was partially funded by the CIA.


        Ronald Blackburn
        Ronald Blackburn
        1 day ago
        @Barbarella Alpha excellent idea I have several reddit accounts . All 100% troll accounts the snow flake factor drove me to it .

      1. Those gals appear to be just the special snowflakes that’ll hook up with some of these Islamic nut jobs flooding the US.

        The fact is most likely they’d be better off dating & getting relationship advise from some one like the Rick James guy someone posted here earlier today.

        I better stop here lol

          1. Beyonce, that’s who that was? LOL:) I didn’t know.

            Ok, I’m a bit out of touch on whos who, but the response was correct. She or other US/EU gals get mouthy with Islamic nut jobs, that many of them are supportive of, those nut jobs will/are cutting their heads off, throw them off a building.

  2. Happy 3rd Year Anniversary to the United States 2016 Presidential Election Results


    The curious timeline for taking down Trump

    It’s three full years since President Trump was elected.

    Among those who predicted he could never win the election — or that he might have been conspiring with Hillary Clinton all along, worked for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, would crash the U.S. stock market his first week in office, would ban all Muslims, would send illegal immigrants home en masse on buses and trains, and would start a nuclear war — there have been real concerns.

    But to others, there are different concerns that have borne out. We continue to get evidence of an orchestrated effort among government insiders and the well-connected to take down President Trump at all costs. The public evidence indicates that the effort was hatched even before he took office.

    Trump critics would argue that there was good reason to devise plots against him before he was inaugurated. His supporters would argue that the opposition has crossed the line into unlawful actions involving wiretapping and attempts to frame Trump and his associates.

    In any event, we can build an oversimplified timeline to make the point:

    Aug. 15, 2016: After FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texts Page that they couldn’t take the risk of Trump getting elected without having “an insurance policy” in place.

    October 2016: Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — writes, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.” Wittes writes that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He even mentions impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected.

    Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel.

    October 2016: The FBI begins a yearlong secret wiretap on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which would have allowed intel officials access to information and conversations involving other Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. Page was never charged with any offense. The FBI never apologized for the unwarranted privacy intrusions. The lawfulness of the wiretap has been questioned.

    Jan. 3, 2017: Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) publicly warns Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you.”

    Jan. 11, 2017: A Politico investigation concludes that Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump in the 2016 election with help from a Ukrainian American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee.

    Jan. 30, 2017: Days after President Trump takes office, attorney Mark Zaid tweets that a “coup has started” and “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Zaid often deals with government investigations and clients in the intelligence community.

    A few months later, still in 2017, Zaid tweets: “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president” and “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.” Zaid also tweets that “as one falls, two more will take their place” and the “coup” would occur in “many steps.”

    Zaid went on to represent the alleged whistleblower in the Trump impeachment effort. (Zaid has stated, in his own defense, that his mention of a “coup” simply referred to what he saw as a lawful attempt by attorneys to remove an unlawful president from office.)

    May 17, 2017: Special counsel Robert Mueller begins investigating Trump.

    August 2017: Trump critic and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is hired as an analyst at CNN. He attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.

    Jan. 23, 2018: Former Vice President Joe Biden publicly brags that he got Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by threatening to withhold U.S. aid. The prosecutor was investigating Burisma, an energy company where Biden’s son had served on the board since 2014, when his father was vice president.

    Feb. 1, 2018: Trump critic and former CIA Director John Brennan is hired as an analyst for NBC and MSNBC, where he attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.

    March 22, 2019: The special counsel’s probe ends without concluding that Trump or his associates conspired with Russia, despite what critics such as Brennan and Clapper long had claimed. Democrats are unable to unite on an impeachment push over the findings.

    April 2019: Ukraine elects a new president. Former Vice President Biden’s son Hunter Biden steps down from the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

    July 25, 2019: President Trump calls the newly elected president of Ukraine and asks for cooperation in a probe involving long-standing corruption in Ukraine along with alleged ties to U.S. Democrats and the 2016 campaign.

    Aug. 12, 2019: Someone alleging to be a whistleblower files a complaint about the phone call with the intelligence community’s inspector general. The anonymous person alleges President Trump sought political dirt to use against Biden in 2020 as part of a “quid pro quo.” Quids pro quo aren’t inherently illegal or improper and are, in fact, a key component of most foreign aid. However, the whistleblower claims Trump is improperly withholding military aid from Ukraine for his own political purposes.

    Sept. 9, 2019: The inspector general notifies the House Intelligence Committee about the complaint. Although Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) initially denies doing so, it turns out that he and his staff already had met with — or conspired with, depending on your view — the alleged whistleblower.

    Sept. 24, 2019: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announces an impeachment inquiry based on the alleged whistleblower’s claims.

    On the same date, President Trump releases the transcript of his call with Ukraine’s president. There is no mention of a quid pro quo, political dirt, withholding aid or campaign 2020. Trump’s critics counter that these things were implicit. There is no evidence, however, that Ukraine provided Trump with “dirt” on Biden — a necessary component of an alleged quid pro quo.

    Sept. 25, 2019: The president of Ukraine says he did not feel pushed by President Trump to investigate Biden or to take other action.

    Oct. 31, 2019: The House approves impeachment process rules. The vote is largely along party lines, with two Democrats siding with Republicans.

    It could be a coincidence that so many key names in this timeline — from John Brennan and James Comey, to Ukraine and CNN — factor into the Trump impeachment push. And, further, it could be a coincidence that we have ended up where some Trump critics said they hoped to be, even before he was sworn in.

    On the other hand, in retrospect, the biggest surprise might be that, all things considered, it took them so long to get to this point.


      Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

      Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


      Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

      A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.



    If the Trump campaign wanted to make Hunter Biden a talking point, they didnt really need Zelensky’s assistance. There really was no justification for holding up military aid. What’s more, Joe Biden’s nomination was by no means assured. So-called ‘front runners’ often wash out in the primaries.

    Trump defenders like to keep flogging Hunter Biden. But Trump was also pursuing a debunked conspiracy theory regarding Crowd Strike and Hillary’s server. Trump, it appears, wanted to stick Ukraine with the blame for foreign meddling in the 2016 race. That part of the scandal is more ominous.

    One needn’t be too cynical to suggest that Trump’s real motivation here was to intimidate Ukraine on Putin’s behalf. The idea, perhaps, was to force Ukraine to make peace with Russia on Putin’s terms.

      1. Her hair is so gorgeous. She’s very fit. Posts her workouts on insta. Love her voice. So calm and peaceful, so positive, so confident and upbeat. Never heard a Dem woman like this. So different than the pantsuit mafia and the screeching harridans. Wow, I’m pining away after her, crushing hard.

  4. The only saving grace of politicians attacking each other is they are distracted from attacking ordinary citizens.

  5. Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey will prove that Trump IS above the law, and political power IS above the constitution and country.

  6. Hunter Biden is Rick James

    The New Yorker kneecapped Joe Biden today by profiling his 49-year-old son, Hunter Biden.

    The interview was meant to inoculate him against the inevitable outing by a Democrat rival of his dad.

    But the summary by ABC showed just how terrible the son is.

    ABC said, “Hunter Biden spoke candidly about his struggle with alcohol and drug addiction, his complicated relationships with women, his lucrative overseas work – and the implications those controversies could have on his father’s political fortunes, even as the former vice president remains atop the gaggle of Democratic presidential candidates.”

    Cocaine was his drug of choice.

    His brother’s widow was his woman of choice.

    Under-the-table dealings with Ukraine and Red China were his scandal of choice.

    His pa had to threaten to withhold one billion dollars in aid to Ukraine to stop the prosecution of his son.

    Mollie Hemingway tweeted, “This is a successful attempt to dump all of Hunter Biden’s baggage with one of the friendliest/reporter/outlets available. But holy cow is the scandal per paragraph ratio high, despite reading like pro-Biden propaganda. My mouth was agape through much.”

    Hunter Biden told the New Yorker, “I’m saying sorry to him, and he says, ‘I’m the one who’s sorry,’ and we have an ongoing debate about who should be more sorry. And we both realize that the only true antidote to any of this is winning. He says, ‘Look, it’s going to go away.’ There is truly a higher purpose here, and this will go away. So can you survive the assault?”

    A 49-year-old man commits drug and business-related felonies and a liberal says he’s the victim.

    1. The problem, really, is that the Democratic Party is the electoral vehicle for a sociopathic cultural nexus. You can read Natacha, Anon1, and Shill and see how their ‘minds’ work.

    2. That’s false. VP Biden did not withhold aid to stop prosecution of his son. As public US policy, as well as EU and IMF policy, he threatened to withhold US aid because the prosecutor was not fighting corruption and was in fact protecting the owner of the gas company Hunter was being paid by. There have been no specific allegations of wrong doing by Hunter Biden while on the board of that company, a position he almost undoubtedly got add window dressing. That is the common and legal practice of paying someone with a valuable name to be associated with a company for influence and publicity purposes.

      1. Anon, wait. So it was laudable for Biden to withhold US aid to combat corruption, but an impeachable offense for Trump to withhold aid to combat corruption?

        Also, Hunter Biden was $600,000 a year of “window dressing?” For what? What was the benefit? Joe Biden bragged about the one to control money and policy in Ukraine, not Obama. He said that on camera. Burisma was being investigated until Joe got him fired.

        So…what did Burisma buy with Hunter? What did they get that was worth $600,000 a year, minimum? What does “window dressing” mean to you? The appearance that they had channels to Ukraine thought the VP?

        1. Karen, this isn’t hard. Biden publicly withheld aid for reasons made public by the US government, having to do with the fitness of the Ukrainian government to receive aid and IMF investments. Trump withheld aid secretly to help himself win an election by smearing his perceived strongest opponent. Given that neither Hunter or Joe had any presence in the Ukraine at the time, or that Trump has shown no similar interest in corruption of any kind, his motives are clear to anyone not brain damaged or actively trying to avoid the truth.

          1. Anon:

            You’re right. It’s not hard.

            Biden withheld aid until the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden’s company was fired…the company that paid Hunter Biden at least $50,000 a month with no experience, and nothing to offer other than the fact that his father managed policy and aid to Ukraine. That same father used $1 billion leverage to get that prosecutor fired. Worked out well for them.

            “Trump withheld aid secretly to help himself win an election” You yourself wrote that corruption has been a problem in the Ukraine. In addition, it is obviously political gyrations to pretend that you cannot investigate a Democrat presidential candidate for alleged crimes because it might benefit you or your party in the next election.

            After all, Obama had no problem investigating Trump, even though it might benefit Democrats in the election.

            But you excuse the allegations because Hunter Biden is no longer located in Ukraine. You’re not even trying to make this look like justice anymore. It’s just another coup attempt fueled by the useful idiots willing to suspend their conscience.

            Obviously you investigate alleged criminal wrongdoing. Even when it’s against a Democrat.

            1. Since Karen knows the following facts and does not challenge them, she’s a liar:

              1. It was public US, EU, and IMF policy that aid and investments in the Ukraine after the 2014 change in their government needed to be preceded by reforms aimed at rampant corruption, and specifically Prosecutor Shokin – who was protecting oligarches, not prosecuting corruption – had to go.

              2. VP Biden was publicly assigned implementing this position, which he did during multiple trips and interactions with Ukrainian officials.

              3. Numerous respected news sources, including the WSJ, Bloomberg, the WaPo, and recently the NYTs have investigated Joe Biden’s actions in the Ukraine and confirmed that Shokin was not investigating Hunter’s employer and if anything was protecting it’s owner.

              4. A sitting GOP congressman was FBI assigned to the Ukraine during this period and recently confirmed – Karen was provided the clip – that Shokin was part of the corruption problem and was not working to investigate it.

              Since Karen does know all this, yet persists in making false statements which this information disproves, once again she is guilty of being a lying SOS.

              By the way, you only “investigate alleged criminal wrongdoing” when it is credible and specific. Karen is not credible and offers no specific allegation.

              1. “Confirmed” by a single person who had only derivative information and ‘investigated’ by sketchy news organization with imploding reportorial staffs.

                I guess the talking-point meisters have to scrape by with what they can.

                1. “confirmed” by the entire western world governments and IMF, the Ukrainian parliament, and the GOP FBI agent who was in the Ukraine specifically working with the new government on anti-corruption practices. First I’ve heard that the WSJ, Bloomberg, the WaPo, and NYTs were “sketchy”

                  Read a newspaper you ignoramus.

                  1. First I’ve heard that the WSJ, Bloomberg, the WaPo, and NYTs were “sketchy”

                    Well that’s a shocker. You’ve been wrong for 3 years and you’re just discovering your trusted news sources neglected to tell you they haven’t been the most reliable? LOL! Guess what, you’re going to hear some other firsts once the IG and Durham reports drop. 🙂

              2. Anon1 – Shokin has submitted an affidavit saying he was going after Burisma when he was asked to step down so the country could get the money. You are not on the right side of history here.

                1. Paul, Shokin’s affadavit was produced for Genovese and Toensing, the Fox jerks who are lawyers for a corrupt oligarch being held in Austria for extradition to the US. They were introduced to him by the two Maralago-Guiliani sleazebags who were just busted leaving the country. John Solomon, who promotes Shokin’s BS also has that pait for lawyers.

                  You can believe him or you can believe reporters who would love to break a scandal and a sitting GOP congressman who worked with him as an FBI corruption expert.

                  1. Anon1 – John Solomon has his fair share of awards:
                    Solomon has received a number of prestigious awards for investigative journalism, among them the 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the Society of Professional Journalists’ National Investigative Award together with CBS News’ 60 Minutes for Evidence of Injustice;[5][48] in 2002, the Associated Press’s Managing Editors Enterprise Reporting Award for What The FBI Knew Before Sept. 11, 2001, and the Gramling Journalism Achievement Award for his coverage of the war on terrorism;[48] in 1992, the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Raymond Clapper Memorial Award for an investigative series on Ross Perot.[49]

                    The affidavit is from Guilani, Genovese and Toesing are representing other people in the Ukraine.

                    1. “…On Friday, the Kyiv Post reported another notable client: Dmitry Firtash, former business partner of Paul Manafort, who fled Ukraine after the 2014 revolution as Viktor Yanukovych’s government was swept out of power. Firtash is fighting extradition to the United States on bribery charges. DiGenova and Toensing’s firm didn’t immediately respond to TPM’s request to confirm their representation of Firtash.

                      Firtash’s case recently benefitted from an affidavit signed by none other than Viktor Shokin, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general whose ouster Trump allies have tried, unsuccessfully, to prove was an effort by Joe Biden to protect his son Hunter Biden…..

                      … the storylines appear to be somewhat connected: Just before Hannity interviewed diGenova and Toensing on Thursday about their views on the Ukraine story, Hannity had on another guest: John Solomon.

                      Earlier Thursday, Solomon wrote a post in The Hill that included the affidavit from Shokin.

                      In it, Shokin made the case that the Obama administration had shown a political bias against Firtash.

                      “Tonight, I’ve posted for the first time a sworn affidavit obtained by lawyers for a Ukrainian oligarch,” Solomon told Hannity on Thursday, referring to Firtash. Two minutes later, lawyers reportedly representing that same oligarch — diGenova and Toensing — appeared as Hannity’s next interviewees….”

                      diGenova and Toensing are also Solomon’s lawyers.


              3. Anon1 – according to some sources one diplomat has committed perjury. Now the question becomes how much perjury? And just because Karen doesn’t answer you, doesn’t make her a liar. It just shows your bad critical thinking skills.

  7. The wicked witch of the west knows that this was a fiasco before she even got involved with it. What are you going to impeach he for, having a nasty disposition?

  8. The Federal Elections Commission can be pretty strict about candidates’ access to mass media – except, of course, news reporting. Most fo the Democrat candidates for the Presidency are also elected officials of one sort of another, and their utterances are news as long as the impeachment story remains alive.

    So Pelosi doesn’t have to seriously lay the stage for a successful impeachment to occur. The free publicity for the Democratic Party’s efforts to regain the White House probably runs into billions of dollars’ worth of air time if the DNC had to buy it in 30-second slots.

    That the press lends the appearance of fair comment to poorly-substantiated charges and has done so since late 2016, free of charge to the DNC, is something the FEC would have a difficult time regulating.

    1. The Democratc apoplexy over Citizens United is that it allows corporate bodies who might favor the opposition to organize to promote their viewpoint. Democrats think the only corporate bodies who should be allowed to do that are the media and the unions.

    1. UnWoke – I have. Still, it really has no bearing on an impeachment other than they couldn’t figure out a better way to do it.

    2. Does the Federalist 65 or any other concept, law or statute hold dominion in the United States of America? I could be wrong but I understood that the U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law in this country.

  9. Queen Pelosi is yet another communistic false construct and product of affirmative action who has never accomplished anything of her own device and acumen.

    “We make money the old-fashioned way: We EARN it.”

    – Smith Barney

    The eminently hysterical and incoherent Queen Pelosi would not have even been allowed to vote by the American Founders who would have encouraged Queen Pelosi to her fulfill her natural role of making new Americans…lots and lots of new Americans; sufficient to defend and grow the nation. The American fertility rate being in a “death spiral” suggests a different and deleterious path was taken.

    Who will “Save the Republic?”

  10. As all but the willfully blind know, this is a political ploy masquerading as an impeachment. I predict the Dims will rue the day they started this since Trump now has full sway to call all the Dims to task for their misdeeds including Hunter Biden, Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe and the Witch Queen herself, Hillary. It’s like a defamation case where the one on trial isn’t the Defendant but the Plaintiff.

    1. And tell me, Hunter, what DID you do for the $83,000.00 a month in a country where the average annual income is $8,800 a year and where you don’t speak the language?

      1. Is Hunter Biden an elected or appointed government official?

        Have you ever heard of window dressing?

        Do the Trump kids have any opportunities for personal enrichment or questionable income based on their fathers position?


        1. Do the Trump kids have any opportunities for personal enrichment or questionable income based on their fathers position?

          Chuckles. They haven’t done anything, but because you can imagine they might, it renders Hunter’s scamming around of no consequence. There must be an ancient proper name for this fallacy more astringent than tu quoque.

          1. Except for Ivanka, who acts in a quasi official capacity, it is absolutely irrelevant to congressional, or other governmental oversight what the dos dummies or Hunter Biden do.

            You don’t understand that?

            As to Ivanka and Jared and Donald, we don’t know what they do business wiser, anymore than we know what Hunter got paid for.

            1. Anon, several of us have told you this, so you already know why Hunter matters.

              It is illegal for the Vice President to allegedly use his position of power to enrich yourself or your children, in dealings with a foreign government.

              We’re not talking about the surge in cache in those related to any sitting President. In fact, Trump’s family have suffered open harassment and death threats due to their association, and there was an open call to throw his son in a cage with pedophiles.

              Any relative of a sitting president will become more popular, usually, because the connection is a novelty.

              However, Joe Biden admitted, on camera, that he withheld over $1 billion in US foreign aid to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor. He would leave in 6 hours if they didn’t do it. He said he was in charge of the money, not Obama. None of that is disputed, as it’s on camera.

              It’s not an inference. It’s not a read-between-the-lines. It was openly stated. You fire him, and you get $1 billion plus dollars. If you do not fire him, you get nothing.

              What was Burisma paying for when they gave Hunter Biden upwards of $50,000 a month? He was a cocaine addict recently dishonorably discharged from the military. He had no experience with Ukraine. Nothing in the industry foreign or domestic. No relevant work history. Essentially, he was an entry level hire.

              What was Burisma buying? The only way to know would be an investigation, the very suggestion of which drive Democrats like Anon wild.

              Clearly, if this was Trump instead of Joe, they would grease the wheels of impeachment. But it’s Joe Biden, a Democrat, so the mere mention of an investigation is motivation for impeachment.

              This is total lawlessness. The abuse of what is fast becoming a Single Party State. There is a coordination in the abuse of power of the alphabet soup against dissenters. Project this forward a decade. Where will we be?

              1. Karen is knowingly lying again. There is no evidence that VP Biden did anything to enrich himself or his progeny while VP and she offers nothing to show otherwise.

                1. Of course Hunter is guilty as frack.

                  But Hillary hooking you up with that drug cartel that provides you a potent batch of peyote from her Global Initiative…a-ok!

            2. Except for Ivanka, who acts in a quasi official capacity,

              You seem to have lost the thread of your argument.

        2. It is illegal for the VP to use his authority in foreign countries to financially benefit his son. Otherwise known as corruption.

          This is entirely different from people seeking out the relatives of sitting presidents due to the cache or novelty of the name.

          There is a difference between hiring someone at your company over other applicants, because they have a famous relative, and paying a new hire orders of magnitude over the usual salary commensurate with their qualifications. If you pay more for a new hire than usual, what are you getting? Experience? No. Being able to brag that you have a novelty among your employee roster is not worth 12 to 15 times the usual salary. No. What did you pay for?

          Influence. Intervention.

          Take the Trump hotel. If any foreigner books a conference room or hotel room, and pays the going rate, that is just business as usual. There is no financial gain for Trump compared with anyone else booking that room.

          However, if a Sheik booked a room in the Trump hotel, and left an emerald the size of a goose egg, addressed to Melania, hired her for $1 million to email him decorating advice, and tipped the hotel $1 million, that would raise serious concerns about what influence he thought he was buying. Compound that with a critical treaty on Trump’s desk, and you may have a quid pro quo.

          You appear to be deliberately obtuse on the Biden matter, so obviously this is not an effort to talk sense into you. Perhaps there will be someone reading who does not understand the big deal about Hunter Biden, or who thinks the transcript was an impeachable offense rather than Democrats trying to overturn a lawful election or damage Trump’s chances in reelection.

          Clearly, the Democrats have no faith in their Socialist candidates. They can’t win on policy. Can’t win on Socialism, which would impoverish the country. So they’ve turned to abuse of power and outright cheating.

          Otherwise, they’d defer to the will of the people next year.

          1. There is no evidence Joe Biden used his power to help his son and Karen knows that. She’s a liar.

            1. LOL! Had the great explorers of world history had your intellectual curiosity, they would be neither great nor explorers. Damn.

      2. Corruption has been normalized and legalized. The democrat position is that “influence peddling” and “pay-for-play” by officials of “high office” is ethical, legal and honorable. As Secretary of State, Hillary was the queen of pay-for-play. The Founders intended for brief “public service” by successful wealth creators followed by a return to private enterprise. By contrast, the communist American welfare state requires legions of apparatchiks.

  11. I In the face of the unprecedented extortion of a foreign leader for personal gain, JT writers about his 20th column focusing on Pelosi and process while ignoring the ah in chief who committed it. Then liars like Karen ignore the evidence which compels an impeachment.If that extortion for personal gain using federal funds is not just cause, what is?

    1. well it wasnt extortion, nor a QPQ, but if it was, that would be about as common as rainfall in London. big deal. pffft. see how this sabotage flies at the polls. in 2020.

      1. And the sky is green Kurtz.

        The evidence will be presented as it should be, and is clear.

        1. The evidence presented tells us it was another red herring cooked up by people who work in the security state apparatus.

          1. TIA:

            “The evidence presented tells us it was another red herring cooked up by people who work in the security state apparatus.”

            Ain’t it scary how incompetent our spooks truly are? They couldn’t bring down a third world tribal chief with this schtick.

          2. So, corroboration of the evidence by both appointed and elected GOP officials, by career military and diplomats, and hard evidence doesn’t exist. Is that your position?

            You’re not really an attorney either, are you?

            1. The transcript of the call is available. The ‘evidence’ provided by these stooges consists of recounting the chatter they had with each other. Which is of scant interest.

              1. The memo describing the phone call – it is not a transcript – confirms the crime, as do the series of state dept memos between Trump appointees and career diplomats, as well as their Ukrainian counterpart, and we have the testimony of Trump’s appointed ambassador, first person witnesses to the phone call – by the way, the phone call is not the only event in the extortion attempt – and the accounting by a GOP senator.

                Read a newspaper before commenting you ignorant f….

                1. Read a newspaper before commenting you ignorant f….

                  Wow, did Kant have you and your ilk accurate or what.

                  If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.

                  After 3 years of you being wrong, which newspaper is your best source?

                2. The memo describing the phone call – it is not a transcript – c

                  Oh, yes it was. Four civil service employees transcribed the call and produced a harmonized document.

                  confirms the crime,

                  It does nothing of the kind. Your wishes do not make it so. You’ve assessed all data so far with the assumption that they do.

        2. “evidence will be presented”… “and is clear”….hahahahaha…hoo boy….hahahahaha. You can’t be serious, Anon1.

            1. Anon, the Trumpers Are basically arguing that ‘What Abouts’ should be recognized as legitimate defenses in trial.

              1. No, we’re arguing the obvious. The President did nothing wrong, as you can see from the transcript.

                You and Anon1 are fountainheads of motivated reasoning.

                1. Your Honor, before we proceed with trial, I have some ‘What Abouts’ to offer the court.

                  1. here’s a couple maxims that you may find are actually “what aboutisms” in the law (equity) that actually work sometimes, having been in a court where the words came out of my mouth and had the intended effect

                    “he who wants equity must come with clean hands”

                    “he who wants equity must do equity”

      1. Paul, clear evidence of wrong doing compels an impeachment or the process should be removed from our constitution.

        Following the constitution is not a coup.

        1. on the contrary, impeachment is inherently a political process, and the constitution protects and elevates it as such. it is a calculation and the calculations have often proved wrong. as in clinton’s. we’ll see.

          and the hearsay only alleged whistleblower’s lawyer was calling it a COUP on day 3

          look up his name, Zaid, representing ERIC CIARAMELLA, who is a spy and a saboteur

            1. The ‘whistleblower’ is just the instigator of a public relations campaign. The transcript of the call discredits your case.

            1. see there’s whistleblowers like Shipp or Kiriakou, who get a kick in the pants, because they say something the Agency wants to hide, then there’s whistleblowers who say what the former CIA boss John Brennan wants them to say. They’re called “heroes”


              In this week’s episode of our Useful Idiots podcast, Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper talk with guest John Kiriakou on his experience in the CIA and being charged with breaking the Espionage Act for speaking out about the torture program in 2012.

              Kiriakou also gives his opinion on the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower. He notes that as a former CIA analyst, he didn’t find that the whistleblower’s report was written in the CIA’s writing style. “I think the whole process was hijacked by the CIA’s leadership and the CIA’s attorneys.” His own status as a whistleblower has influenced his decision to leave the Democratic party. He says, “It took my lawyers a year to get CNN and MSNBC to stop calling me CIA-leaker John Kiriakou and to start calling me CIA-whistleblower.”

      2. Come on, Paul. He’s been analyzing evidence in criminal cases and charging decisions for years! In between cement pours and running to Lowes, I mean. What do lawyers know? We got contractors!!

            1. “Wrongful Death: In the most extreme cases, personal injuries can result in fatalities. When this occurs, close loved ones are left behind to deal with the aftermath.”

              Maybe MESPO can help the accused of the “slashing and knifing” (read: murder) of the Baby Trump Balloon. the guy is rolling in Money until they pulled the account

              “ The page aimed to raise $6,000, but by 1:30 p.m. Monday, it had raised more than $40,000. That is, until the GoFundMe reportedly said those donations could not be used to help the defendant.

              “We have been reported by the sympathizers,” the creator wrote. “Apparently we didn’t read the fine print. Gofundme is not going to allow these generous donations to help Hoyt. They will soon likely refund all your support. Apologize for the inconvenience folks.”


              1. Torrey:

                Hoyt will get his money. He’s a folk hero to the consternation of the Left. He needs a local lawyer with a feel for the court. He’ll do fine. If not, you’ll see the backlash.

            2. Anon1 can’t stand it that I see through his flimsy pretenses. Thirty-five years of hundreds of trials, thousands of depositions and generally dealing with prevaricators does that to you.

        1. A friend told me recently & I believe him, that there are no more real contractors/builders, most us have or are about to retired.

          Now days what passes for a contractor/builders is a guy, that can’t physically do anything & never did, with a truck big with even a bigger truck payment, a cell phone & a line of credit at a bank that’s max all the time.

          BTW: Lowes/Homedepot/Autoparts, etc….. just look at how Wallst, over the past 40/50 years, used financial leverage to go from market to market , what’s the legal term for selling below cost? Monopolist practices that ran Mom/Pop outfits out of business til almost none are left.

          Those Mom/Pop outfits were the glue that helped hold those communities together.

          Now it’s all Wallst fiat paper & slave illegals with a declining middle class.

          Zerohedge had some stats up last week, WalMart in some towns have 80% + or – of that areas grocery markets.

    2. If that extortion for personal gain using federal funds is not just cause, what is?

      A lot of things. Gang-raping a high school girl at a party. Using your intel agencies for spying on political opposition. Using your IRS to target conservative groups. Using your DEA to sell guns to Mexican cartels. Lying and then jailing a videographer to coverup a foreign policy failure (and lack of response) to a terrorist attack that killed a US ambassador, aide and 2 of their security force. Delivering literally pallets of money to a state sponsor of terrorism because reasons… Trading 5 terrorists for 1 US Army deserter, effectively aiding and abetting the enemy.

      All but one of those things were proven to have happened. Guess which one the Left would consider an impeachable offense? And still believes should have the person impeached?

      So yeah, it’s one thing to imagine an impeachable offense; but it is another to prove it actually happened.

      1. Olly’s problem is almost all of those were investigated by the either the FBI or GOP led congressional committees and drew blanks.


        1. almost all of those were investigated by the either the FBI or GOP led congressional committees and drew blanks.

          Drew blanks? So investigated and proven they never happened? Or is it they were investigated and despite the evidence, no criminal referrals were made?

        2. The Democrats would sell what’s left of their souls to have just one of those proven events to lay on President Trump. If they had all of them, the full house would have overwhelmingly voted to impeach and the Senate would have an abundance of evidence to convict.

        3. Chuckles. The IRS played hide-the-ball with Congress and their own inspector-general because there was nothing there. Lois Lerner took the Fifth because there was nothing there. Eric Holder assigned the case to an Obama donor because there was nothing there.

    3. Anon – why do you keep lying about me? Can’t argue the message so attack the messenger?

  12. Easily gotten rid of by asking the Supreme Court to throw it out on at least two valid grounds.

    1. The lock out of one side and refusal to allow them full participation when the Constitution clearly states the requirement to be faced by the accuser.

    2. Ask the Justice to ask the left to explain how the following does not negate their whole weak effort.

    From The Presidential Oath of Office a line which only Presidents have. “to the best of my ability.”

    Case closed and rejected, probably the accusers admonished and perhaps even turned over for a grand jury indictment themselves.

    1. Unfortunately, according to Nixon v. US (1993), how Congress impeaches someone isn’t justiciable outside Congress. This was the US Supreme Court iself saying “Hey, if Congress calls it a trial, the Constitution allows whatever they want to do”.

      In former Federal judge Walter Nixon’s case, that was the US Senate referring articles of impeachment from the House to a subcommittee, then accepting that subcommittee’s recommendations by a routine vote, not the formal impeachment trial former judge Nixon felt he was entitled to bt law.

  13. The Democrats are not exactly in a good place either with the IG and Durham reports creeping towards them. There are lists of Obama’s quid pro quo starting to appear. The Biden quid pro quo issue is not going away. The whistleblower’s Twitter feed is full of suggestions of a coup. Then there is the whistleblower name that has been lurking around turning up in accounts of relations with Biden and many of the people in the Russian scam against Trump. I think it’s better to be Trump than Pelosi right now.

    1. Funny how in spite of the liberal media saying everything to the contrary. the facts look grim for the Democrats yet again. Much like their narrative of all of the other bogus “constitutional crisis”, the non-whistleblower issue is blowing up in their face. How dumb do you have to be to use a 33 year old kid as their point man for such a weighty, public relations fiasco?

      Durham will release his bomb before Thanksgiving which will “trump” Pelosi’s impeachment inquiry.

      Remember how the liberals were convinced the 2016 would go their way? same applies here….they learned nothing from their manic madness

      1. Don’t be assured that the coup will fail. They have tremendous energy and resolve to keep up the hoaxes this long. I give them and A for effort.

        Effort will be required for any victory, never forget that and never let yourself off the hook from work.

        1. Mr Kurtz – they may get an A for effort, however an E for strategy. There strategy is losing them the country.

        2. LBJ and FDR (and later, Obama) got away with every act of Nixon’s specified by the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate media circus.

          You expect politicians to be shameless hypocrites. The journalists of America lost no time accepting credit for bringing Nixon down, but their failure to act on the same alleged misdeeds by Barack Obama gives the game away. As Cersei Lannister called it, the “Game of Thrones”. This “impeachment crisis” could have been written by George R.R. Martin.

  14. This is around he dozenth coup attempt by Democrats who will not accept the outcome of a lawful election.

    Of course, Democrats will vote for removal even when no crime has been proven. This was never about justice. It was about removing Trump. Democrats ran on that very issue, that they would remove Trump at any cost. Would you want a juror who claimed they would vote guilty before seeing the evidence? The fact that this does not trouble Democrats should chill everyone.

    If the impeachment fails, they will have obtained opposition research at taxpayer expense. This is an effort to damage him in 2020. It really doesn’t matter that each of these “crimes” is disproven. Voters who watch the MSM hear accusation after accusation, each conveniently forgotten. They will take that bias to the polls.

  15. Notably, while Democratic members have been saying for three years that there are established crimes and impeachable offenses found by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, reports indicate that none of those allegations will be the basis for impeachment. Instead, Democratic members are saying that they want to limit impeachment to the Ukrainian controversy. Not only that, but they want to hold just a couple weeks of public hearings and vote an impeachment vote. If so, this would be the most narrow and least developed impeachment of a president in our history.

    Chuckles. You’re pretending the Mueller report gave them a basis that they’ve elected to forego because they’re throwing the game. No clue why you’re doing this. See 1:50. Wasn’t persuasive when the Carrot tried that excuse on Gilda Radner.

  16. Pelosi is moving fast because this is a simple case. The important facts are undisputed and the impeachable conduct is clear. Trump withheld congressionally approved critical foreign aid money in order to pressure another government to investigate his political opposition.

    The Russia case was messy and complicated, this one is clean and easy to understand.

    1. Pelosi is moving fast because this is a simple case.

      Thanks for the Dunning-Kruger display.

      1. “The Russia case was messy and complicated, this one is clean and easy to understand.”

        written by a woman or someone on Molly and G combination


    2. How do you propose they get around the Constitutional escape hatch all President’s have. Especially since most of your comment is bogus and is why the left is trying to illegally block it but the important part is just six words.

      ‘to the best of my ability.’

      the case is simple. The left needs to be given their own grand jury trial, indicted and then convicted for violationt the Constitution and the rule of law.

      and that trulyu is clean and easy to understand for a real citizen …

      what’s that got to do with a socialist?.

      1. Clint Walker had the most amazing voice. Like magic. If he had made a record of him reading the phone book, it would have sold out.

        Some of my favorites are of course the Duke and Eastwood, but also Audie Murphy. I liked the latter’s personal story. It was a tragedy that he died so soon. One of my favorite modern Westerns is Tom Selleck’s Crocodile Down Under. Selleck can really ride, and if I recall correctly, bought that big chestnut from the movie. His daughter is a very talented and bold rider.

        The good Westerns had the alpha males. Whether hero or complicated antihero, they handled crisis. They had a sense of direction. Knew what to do. Did the right thing even when it was hard. Many were considered role models. The best had nuanced characters that had flaws, but you could wholeheartedly get behind.

        Today, there is an entire movie genre built around criminals as the main characters audiences root for. I have to admit that I love the movie Snatch, but so often the main characters aren’t someone I would root for, and certainly not aspire to be.

    1. That’s a good clip Jerry.

      Some are saying Prez Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a democratic Republic type of govt has failed.

      I ask how many decades has it been since we practised Jefferson’s vision?

      Many are wondering if it is that the US is now nothing more then another Roman Empire that has Lost it’s way & that it’s in the middle of it’s collapse.

      IE: Exhibit A: Last week Virginia voters knowingly or unknowingly voted,(or Rigged) for Commie/Nazi type authoritarian type of govt.

      But don’t count Jefferson’s Republic out just yet as he pointed out, that the beautiful thing about the 2 amendment is that you really never need it until they come to take the cannons & guns, well, they coming for them.

  17. I think they would have impeached him if Melania wore the wrong shoes (although she would never do that). It is important that they impeach him, hopefully wounding him. However, his numbers seem to be going up any. They have been trying to do this since Jan 2017 and now they finally have a non-case to work with. However, I don’t think there is a there there. They have the votes, But it will never fly in the Senate.

      1. Karen S – well, it didn’t work for the Republicans when they impeached Clinton, I am not sure why the Democrats think history is going to change for them.

        1. they think it will work because the mass media is lock stock and barrel with them not against em

          the people will have to have much organization and effort to do before the election or it certainly can go against trump. there is no substitute for work in this conflict.

            1. they think they can turn out the vote in sufficient numbers from people who are too young and naive to understand the blatant falsehood and bias of the mass legacy media and also the Silicon Valley lockdown social media.

              there is no guarantee that Republicans will win.I have seen piss poor organization on the local level among Republicans out here in flyover, it’s very unimpressive how lazy they are.

              1. Mr Kurtz – at this point I think Trump has a 90% chance of winning, more so if a recession doesn’t start. Trump is getting more organized than he was before.
                On the otherside, the Bernie Bros say that if Bernie is not nominated they are either going to vote for Trump or not vote. Results of Trump speeches show he is picking up a lot of first time voters. If I was the Democrats, I would be very nervous about who got nominated.

                1. I’m not as confident as you are. Trump’s having trouble closing the deal with swing voters.

                  One thing you have to remember about Anon1, Peter, and some others, is that they don’t conceive of themselves as living in a matrix where there are competing viewpoints and rules of competition. They think about the political opposition much as inept schoolteachers think about unruly children in their classrooms.

                  1. In order for Trump to win, he and the Republican Party must reach swing voters directly to deliver their message and a list of accomplishments.

                    As it stands, Demcorats have been allowed to define what the Republican Party stands for. The MSM is a Democrat propaganda machine. Democrats have politicized the public education system. Democrats in Hollywood reinforce their message.

                    We have permitted an entire generation to be brainwashed. So few of them even think to question what they see on the news or hear in college.

                    You have got to reach voters who are not actively seeking conservative news sites or to inform themselves about the other side. In debate, learning the other side’s position is as critical to understanding your own. That skill is not taught today. The MSM brings a talking point, and their audience absorbs it. They typically do not question it and actively seek out the other side.

                    How do you reach someone whose lines of communication are closed to you, and who does not seek truth?

        2. The Republicans’ long game in the late 1980s worked pretty well. Al Gore was as unconnected to the Clintons as a vice-president could be, and his running mate Joe Liebermabn could with justice be called a “DINO” (the DNC actually backed a rich kid against him in the Connecticut primaries for the Senate race – and lost). They lost to George W. Bush with Dick Cheney at his 2000,

          While Clinton wasn’t convicted by the Senate, neither did his party escape unscathed. Any pretense to gravitas or any other form of seriousness went away with Clinton’s own machinations and fast-stepping around the truth during Monicagate, and it cost the Democrats the 2000 election.

      2. yes but in this case in the direction of destruction of the falsely named democrats. Remember when the GOP impeached Clinton the party was largely controlled by the left through their RINO agents. It wasn’t really a two party system as it should have been. and that’s your answer.

        1. don’t think Pelosi is saving Trump. I think she is protecting O’bama by giving up Biden. The IG report and Durham will reveal the origins that started during the O’bama administration.

          1. That would be nice, but I doubt the Department of Justice will be vigorous about the pursuit of wrongdoing. A Democrat has to do something fairly crude for the prosecutocracy to take an interest in him. The last set of politically-connected Democrats I can recall being raked over the coals for a fairly complicated crime were Clinton’s chums the McDougals. They went on trial in 1995.

Comments are closed.