How The House Lost The Witnesses Along With The Impeachment

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the continued effort to ignore the obvious and catastrophic decision of the House leadership to rush the impeachment vote by Christmas rather than complete the record against President Donald Trump. This denial continues despite the fact that, after saying that they had no time to seek witnesses or favorable court orders, the House leadership then waited a month before released the articles of impeachment. Clearly, the record would have been stronger if the House waited and sought to compel witnesses. It also would have kept control of the record and the case. I encouraged them to vote in March or April, which would have given them plenty of time to secure additional testimony and certainly a number of favorable court orders. However, recognizing this obvious blunder would take away from the narrative that the case failed only because the Republicans were protecting Trump in the Senate.

Here is the column:

NBC host Chuck Todd recently asked guests on his show if supporters of President Trump just want to be lied to. It is a question that many in the media would never ask about Democrats, even in the face of overtly false claims. This week is an example. After the Senate rejected witnesses and effectively ended the impeachment trial on Friday, the media ignored the primary reason for the defeat, which is the insistence of House leaders to impeach Trump by Christmas. Critics of the president simply do not want to hear that the blind rush to impeach guaranteed not only an acquittal but an easy case for acquittal. It is after all important for some members of the media to maintain that fools dwell only in Republican red states.

When I appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in November, I opposed four proposed articles of impeachment as legally flawed and explained that two would be legitimate if they were proven. The House Judiciary Committee rejected the challenged articles and accepted the two articles on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That left one fundamental area of disagreement. I warned the panel that it was rushing to a failed impeachment by insisting on a vote by Christmas. This was the shortest impeachment investigation in American history. It was also the narrowest grounds and thinnest record for trial. I have previously noted that witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton indicated that they were willing to testify if subpoenaed, and that a couple months would have likely secured more testimony and supportive court orders.

Indeed, in the impeachment case of President Nixon, it took only a few months to go all the way to the Supreme Court for the final decision. So absent such a delay, the impeachment of Trump was guaranteed to fail, due to an incomplete and insufficient record. Yet the House insisted this was a “crime in progress” and there was no time to delay a submission to the Senate. It then immediately contradicted its rationale by waiting more than a month to submit articles of impeachment to the Senate. The House simply could not have made it easier on the president and his legal team.

The media ignored the obvious catastrophic blunder by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership. The media instead suggested that it was all some grand and brilliant scheme. They even credited the strategy with Bolton eventually coming forward to say he would testify with a subpoena, even though the same offer was made during the House investigation. The media also ignored the unexplained decision by the House to withdraw a subpoena for top Bolton aide Charles Kupperman, who went to court as a prerequisite for testimony, the same position taken by Bolton. Before the courts could even rule, the House mooted the case by withdrawing the subpoena. That made no sense, and the court dismissed the case after concluding that the House appeared to have no interest in the witness.

No harm would have come from pursuing testimony by Kupperman. Yet lead House manager Adam Schiff offered a facially dubious explanation that Kupperman had said he would litigate the issue. If Kupperman truly wanted to drag out litigation, he could have refused to appear before the House and waited for it to seek to compel his testimony. Instead, he said he just wanted a court order in favor of testifying for his own protection. Moreover, House Democrats continued to seek to compel the testimony of former White House counsel Donald McGahn, despite his continued litigation. It won that case as the House was voting on impeachment.

As these blunders by the House became more and more obvious, all the efforts to excuse them became more and more absurd. One main defense heard in the media was that it did not matter, given the Senate Republican majority. Yet if the House was certain to lose on that record, why end the investigation prematurely with a case that would be so easy to defeat? By waiting only a few months, the record would have been stronger. Instead, House Democrats surrendered control of the record to the opposing party and adopted a ridiculous strategy of demanding concessions to end with this trial that Senate Republicans loathed. That strategy failed miserably.

This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. This very series of events was expressly laid out before the vote, and House Democrats made a decision to choose certain failure over completing their impeachment case. There was no reason to expect Senate Republicans to assist House managers in making their case, particularly in calling witnesses not subpoenaed by the House. Democrats had opposed any witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Clinton and voted as a bloc for a summary acquittal. There was no reason to expect Republicans to adopt an entirely different approach.

We will never know how this impeachment trial would have unfolded if the House had waited to secure additional testimony and court orders. One thing, however, is certain. The case against the president could only have become stronger. The vote for witnesses failed by one for a tie and by two for a majority. A more complete record could well have tipped the balance and certainly would have made the vote against witnesses more difficult for some senators. Instead, the House submitted an incomplete record and failed to subpoena important witnesses like Bolton, making it quite easy for the Senate to refuse to do what the House had never even tried.

None of the explanations offered by House Democrats make any logical sense. That, however, does not matter. As Todd said of supporters of the president, people “want to be lied to sometimes” and “do not always love being told hard truths.” The hard truth is that House Democrats lost this case the minute they rushed an impeachment vote, and they knew it. With the approaching Iowa caucuses, they chose a failed impeachment rather than taking a few more months to work on a more complete case against Trump, a case more difficult to summarily dismiss. That is the hard truth.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

247 thoughts on “How The House Lost The Witnesses Along With The Impeachment”

  1. Unlike the phony charges from the House, here are some real criminal activities by the highest office holder in the land, courtesy of Larry Elder. But, as the criminal acts are by Deep State criminals within the US Government, they are above the law and, indeed, are exempt from any punishment whatsoever:

    1. Why wasn’t Obama impeached for defrauding the Constitution?

      Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

      Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of Barack’s birth.

      – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

      – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

      – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

      – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

      – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

      – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.


      Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

      Book 1, Ch. 19

      § 212. Citizens and natives.

      “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


      Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

      “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”


      To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

      From John Jay

      New York 25 July 1787

      Dear Sir

      I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

      Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

      Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

      which sailed Yesterday.

      Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

      provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

      administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

      of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

      Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

      Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

      I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

      John Jay

  2. Ironically, the sheer recklessness of this impeachment pushed me and my family in a direction we would not have gone but for their efforts. None of us voted for Trump in 2016. None of us had any intention of voting for him in 2020, but now all of us are.

    No, Chuck Todd, we don’t like being lied to. That’s why we didn’t go to CNN to figure out what was going on. We did our own digging. We read the Transcripts and the emails. We listened carefully to testimonies in the House, the report on FISA, and to others’ perspectives. We watched what was going on. What we were confronted with was the abuse of power and persecution of an intemperate and designing majority in the House of Representatives, and the bald-faced bias and rank dishonesty not only of the media, but of House representatives and Senators as well – senators who swore an oath of impartiality then promptly broke it.

    This debacle encouraged us to take a good hard look at the what the President’s done since his election, and frankly, we’re a lot more impressed with his accomplishments than his adversaries’. Along the way we also became acquainted with admirable people like Professor Turley, and numerous members of Congress who we didn’t know before. So all in all, I’m glad this happened. We’re better for it.

    Nothing forces you to seek the light so much as darkness.

  3. You continue to assume the Democrats’ objective was to successfully have Trump removed from office. Watching them, I don’t agree. They just wanted a taxpayer-paid platform for a month’s long campaign ad, and they got it. And we will remember…

    1. They just wanted a taxpayer-paid platform for a month’s long campaign ad, and they got it. And we will remember…
      You convinced me.
      It was all just a campaign ad that benefits Trump.

    2. Yes Bob, the American hating Commie/Nazi Dems got more then our tax payer money paid for.

      The C/N Dems Blue City Sholes, crapping on the streets, needles, our control crime, their rampant paedophilia, murdering pre/post born babies and then the illegal, scam impeach of Trump.

      Then to top it all at the super bowl half-time show, when Grandpa/grandma have their families over for a family gathering, Grand daughters/Grandsons, religious, Pentecostals, Baptist, Catholics, and then those disgusting Anti-American Commie/Nazi Democrats/NFL blast their living rooms with video from a nudy bar displaying their Hedonism.

      Hell yes, those Commie/Nazis Democrats did a great job in Oklahoma & elsewhere USA.

      We are now hardened like concrete, we’ll have no part in their debauchery other then speeding their journey to the devils hell they seek.

  4. Politically (and for that matter legally) you hold hearings on this. The appropriations process was interfered with and proper procedures were not followed. So it is entirely appropriate to hold hearings. You set a political time table for the hearings during the election year that suits you. You note that the way Trump behaved here is the same way he runs his businesses — slimy. Then run someone against him who is not equated with the same kind of sliminess as your last nominee.

    That is the politically (and for that matter legally) smart way to have approached this. But I guess its just too much to ask of the Democratic party — at least for the time being.

    1. You note that the way Trump behaved here is the same way he runs his businesses — slimy. Then run someone against him who is not equated with the same kind of sliminess as your last nominee.
      Well sure. And what do you conclude from the fact it appears they trying instead to run somebody who appears to be just as crooked?

  5. Jon, the thrust of your piece relies on the absurd idea that Republicans, who know they’ve been losing ground for years and will continue to do so, would ever, under any circumstances, vote to remove that fat turd who cheated his way into the White House, who disdains the truth and American ideals, and who trashes anyone who is not a syncophant. They wouldn’t vote to remove him not matter what the facts and evidence, but never let it be said that you wouldn’t take an opportunity to pivot and blame the Democrats.

    Republicans have power right now and know that their days are numbered. They will do anything, everything to hang onto it for as long as possible, including gerrymandering, voter suppression, purging voter rolls, poll watching, and even acquitting the biggest loser and least-qualified person ever to occupy the White House in the face of overwhelming evidence of abuse of power and obstruction of justice. They have created a template for future Presidents to thumb their nose at Congressional investigations and leverage aid to allies in exchange for political assistance. They won’t even approve legislation to help keep future elections secure from interference. The mere sight of Trump is disgusting to most Americans.

    And for true believers like Karen, even Lamar Alexander said aloud what everyone knows, and that is that Trump is indeed guilty. The evidence was overwhelming. They know it, but just won’t pull the trigger because they are Republicans first and patriots second. The Constitution means little to nothing to a party on its way to the bottom. Trump will cheat again, maybe even more egregiously. But, according to Turley, it will be the fault of Democrats, not Trump, and certainly not Republicans.

    1. Natacha — so what are your thoughts on the methods and means by which Adam Schiff handled himself and all of his proceedings? With honor?
      With integrity? Honesty? Fairness? Transparency?

      What he and his fellow Democrats did, and the way they did it, makes President Trump look like an innocent angel.

      1. “What he and his fellow Democrats did, and the way they did it, makes President Trump look like an innocent angel.”

        Only to those who are partisan.

      2. Read “A Very Stable Genius”, now out in hardback, by Phil Rucker and Carol Leonnig for facts about what Trump’s “own people” observed and reported about this person, about his interactions with military brass, about little Ivanka and Jared, and about his temperament, knowledge of U.S. History, knowledge of world history, geography and governmental operations, his handling of dissent and advice, his refusal to read briefings or otherwise be informed, etc.. Then report back to me about Trump. Bear in mind, none of this book contains opinions, just facts, as reported by people in Trump’s administration and members of Congress. No name-calling, no rhetoric. Just facts since he took office. Nothing about the scandalous way he cheated contractors or his cheating on his wives, or his draft-dodging. Read it and then tell me whether this person is “an innocent angel” disabused, in your opinion, by Adam Schiff. This book ought to scare the hell out of you. One example: Trump didn’t even know the history of Pearl Harbor or why there is a U.S. Arizona Memorial there. He said he had heard there was a “Pearl Harbor”.

        There is literally nothing Trump could do that would cause Republicans to remove him from office.

        1. go read a very boring book, so you can feel reassured in your false beliefs.

          dont think so, zzzz

        2. Natacha — I asked for your thoughts on Adam Schiff. I didn’t ask you to tell me more about what you think about Donald Trump. I asked you what you thought about Adam Schiff and the Democrats, using lies, disingenuous means and tactics, a lack of transparency, one-sided bulldozing, setups, hitjobs, conniving, lying, blocking, etc, in order to “prove” their case that Donald Trump is a disingenous, lying, corrupt individual. Ironic don’t you think? Rest assured that I, and millions of Americans, are not buying Schiff’s schtick. Not one little bit.

          1. Let’s see, now. You’re complaining about lying? Really? You support the biggest liar ever to occupy the White House. He even lies about unimportant things, like his father being born in Germany, when his birth certificate says he was born in the Bronx. He alters maps to try to change a weather forecast about a hurricane that he got wrong. He insisted Barak Obama was not born in Hawaii and that he had investigators there digging up proof that, of course, doesn’t exist.

            “Disingenuous means and tactics, a lack of transparency, one-sided bulldozing, set ups hit jobs conniving, lying and blocking”? Really? Trump refused to cooperate with either Mueller or Congress, claiming that Article II of the Constitution says he can do whatever he wants, he commanded witnesses not to appear and refused to produce documents, hides transcripts of telephone conversations with foreign leaders in a server set up for top level military secrets, tried to bully American intelligence officials to deny Russia helped him cheat, and when they wouldn’t, he fired them, but you, being a true Fox disciple buy into the schtick that whatever Trump’s opponents say about him, they are actually guilty of too. That’s what’s truly frightening.

            Another thing Fox has gotten Trumpsters to do: attack personally anyone who says anything negative about Trumpy Bear. First of all, you disciples are taught to assume any Trump opponent must be lying or mentally ill with a made-up condition called “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. Yeah, that’s an easy way to get you sheep to simply not listen and, importantly, not to think for yourselves. Next, even when there’s irrefutable proof, deny the facts, but if that doesn’t work, then pivot away to attack some Democrat for being guilty of the same thing or attack the media as biased. Lastly, when someone has knowledge that could sink Trump, do everything possible to prevent his/her testimony from coming out.

            Trump’s lawyers lied when they said that Republicans were not allowed to question witnesses who testified before the House. They distorted the law, too. There is no requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of a criminal offense. Fox has done quite the job of convincing you Trumpsters that the problem is Adam Schiff, who his honest, bright, articulate and a true patriot.

            1. Natacha — I see you think Adam Schiff is “honest, bright, articulate and a true patriot.”

              Care to rethink using that word, “honest” in the same sentence as Schiff’s name?

                1. Oh Natacha, for real? It’s gonna be easier to list what he did NOT lie about. Did you hear him say they must remove Trump before he gives Alaska away to Russia? Come on Natacha, don’t play this dumb.

        3. Natacha, considering the socialist baby killing lying deflecting establishment loving alternative, you may be right.


            1. Anon, What kinda help? Oh I get it. I left out fascist control freaks in my post. 🙂


        4. Natacha — you should be talking about Obama when you say he lacks “knowledge of U.S. History, knowledge of world history, geography and governmental operations, his handling of dissent and advice, his refusal to read briefings or otherwise be informed, etc.” Obama thought corpsman is was pronounced ‘corpse’man. Obama only knew about Pearl Harbor because he spent some time there growing up. Did you mean to assert that Obama, the former slacker and head of the Choom Gang, had more worldly knowledge and executive experience than Donald Trump? Please, no. Don’t do that to my brain sweetheart. Reading your words makes my head hurt.

          1. Tell you what: read the book, check out the bibliography (the notes at the end of the book that cite where the information was obtained), and then decide for yourself.

            It’s amazing. Your post is proof-positive of the Fox effect on Trumpsters. You haven’t read the book, but are already pivoting to accuse Barak Obama of things. You don’t even know what sources were cited in the book, but you don’t need to because you are a true disciple, meaning that your beliefs aren’t fact-based.

    2. A very intellectual comment. The name calling and lack of substance are well done.

    3. If it was overwhelming evidence of abuse of power and obstruction of justice then why call witnesses. Also why did the house do such a crappy job gathering witnesses? If you watched the trial you would know that the subpoenas for witnesses submitted by the house were all flawed and denied. Why can the house do a half sassed job and then blame the Senate for not calling more testimonies when the “The evidence was overwhelming”?

    4. From the crystal ball, another pronouncement!

      “The mere sight of Trump is disgusting to most Americans.”

      1. This might be more accurate:

        “The mere sight of Trump is disgusting to many Americans.”

        1. Or….the mere sight of Trump’s beautiful hair-sprayed hair blowing in the wind is a sight to behold and fills ‘most’ with joy and gratitude, that this great man, is OUR president, working so hard, day and night, to Make America Great! Trump 2020!

        2. Anon, the ‘most’ and ‘many’ Americans is getting whittled down to “…is disgusting to some Americans.” Most of those just aren’t paying attention. Closed minds are difficult to communicate with.


    5. Natch, what you put up is a good outline for the dimms. Your deflection didn’t work. We have seen dimm accuse others for what they do & how the operate for years.

      The only problem is that until Mr. Trump came along neither the RINO repub & lying deceitful dimm establishment always gave US crappy candidates, especially for POTUS.

      Eat your heart out. Dimms are on the way out. I take it you can prove that Larry Elder in the video above is lying. That would a fun kabullki theater to watch.


      1. Yeah, Sam, the Democrats are on the way out, and you, of course, know this from the 2018 midterms that Trump requested to be treated as a referendum on him. Hint: it was an historic turnover in the House. The Senate would have gone blue, too, but for Republican gerrymandering.

        1. The Senate would have gone blue, too, but for Republican gerrymandering.

          LOL! You should quit while your behind. How does gerrymandering impact a statewide election?

          I’ll wait.

    6. Natacha, cheat? You mean like motor voter to give drivers licenses to illegals? You mean that kind of election meddling & interference?


  6. Jonathan: I guess your verdict is in. The House impeached Trump on the “narrowest of grounds and the thinnest record for trial” and should have “waited to secure additional testimony and court orders”. We should remember that 17 witnesses testified in the House impeachment inquiry and confirmed that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to get political dirt on the Bidens. The evidence was overwhelming. In an ordinary criminal trial 17 witnesses would be a big deal. That doesn’t appear to be the “thinnest record for trial”. On the question of Bolton’s testimony Trump tweeted on 1/27 that the House “never even asked John Bolton to testify”. Facts don’t matter to Trump. The fact is that the House did request Bolton’s testimony but he refused on instructions from the White House and would testify only under court order. Even with a House subpoena Trump would have fought any court order–all the way up to the Supreme Court. That would have taken months. So the House decided it had a compelling case without Bolton’s testimony. There is no requirement that the House seek a subpoena for witness testimony. It will be “easy”, as you say, for the Senate to acquit Trump on Wednesday, not because the House didn’t do its work (even some Republicans admit the House managers presented a compelling case) but because Senate Republicans don’t want to hear from Bolton or any other administration official because they know such testimony would be devastating for Trump’s case. Senate Republicans also argue that compelling testimony from witnesses would drag the process out for months–right into the 2020 election- and Trump would fight any subpoenas in the courts. A strange argument to make but one you make against the House : “Democrats lost this case the minute they rushed an impeachment vote…” So how is it that the Senate can rush to judgment by acquitting Trump on Wednesday without hearing from witnesses but you want to apply a different standard to the House? The Senate is supposed to be America’s greatest “deliberative body”. Senate Republicans have made a mockery of that adage!

    1. Chronic TDS. Trump won the election (the only one that mattered). Wednesday @ 4pm ET Trump is acquitted in Peeloser’s impeachment trial.

      Go ahead and say it, the official mantra of TDS victims like yourself: “acquittal = conviction.” If Orwell was alive, he’d feature TDS in a “1984” re-write.

      I can hardly wait for Don Jr.’s January 2029 inauguration (his 2nd; TDS affects brain function and math skills). Then 2 terms of Ivanka and 2 terms of Baron (he’ll just make the age cut me thinks). Bronze statues of all, Don Sr. on the thousand dollar bill, etc.

      Oh, and don’t we all just LOVE how suddenly Bloomberg is the DNC savior! Suddenly Jesus REALLY IS an old wrinkled white billionaire after all!!! And, “What emoluments clause?”

      1. Princess T, I’d kinda like to see a Pence/Palin ticket in 2024.

        What are you trying to do? Give the TDSers an overload shock to their tiny brains? 🙂


    2. Dennis, You’re not suppose to point out the facts, no sir, not on this site. Truth isn’t truth, alternative facts only, please.

      1. Yo Fishy, I got a hotel room for ya in Paris (Virginia). Ya might see the EyeFill Tower there too. After a few bottles of vino. He haw.

    3. @Dennis, in your echo chamber world, there were 17 witnesses proving something… even though:
      * NONE of them had any first hand knowledge,
      * NONE of them were even willing to say that Trump had done anything impeachable
      * And NONE of the facts exonerating Trump were allowed in the hearings. (In fact, the 6th Amendment protections were essentially all ignored.

      In the USA, people are innocent until proven guilty. Water cooler accusations don’t count.

      1. In the USA, people are innocent until proven guilty. Water cooler accusations don’t count.
        They count at the ballot box. That is why Joe Biden can’t win 2020.

    4. don’t want to hear from Bolton or any other administration official because they know such testimony would be devastating for Trump’s case.
      That is just plain silly. How would you know that?

      To believe that you have to believe that the people working in the WH are a bunch of amateurs that have no clue what they are doing. And yeah you do probably believe that, but like I said that is just silly.

    5. ” So the House decided it had a compelling case ”

      The Democrats lied. The case was not compelling. It was a fraud. That is why the Senate will vote not guilty on Wednesday.

    6. Dennis, yeah it was so ‘overwhelming’ Bull Schiff left it in the basement. He just couldn’t carry all that paperwork eh?


  7. Quote: “By waiting only a few months, the record would have been stronger…. We will never know how this impeachment trial would have unfolded if the House had waited to secure additional testimony and court orders. One thing, however, is certain. The case against the president could only have become stronger.”

    That makes no sense. If we can “never know,” which one of your comments, then we certainly can’t know that “the case against the president could only have become stronger.” If Trump has done nothing worthy of impeachment, which is certainly a possibility, then more investigations and additional testimonies would have only driven that point home more powerfully, particularly to an open-minded public. To give one example of that, the Mueller investigation seemed stronger at the beginning than it did at the end.

    No, the Democrats did the best they could from their perspective. They are being forced to offer up arguments so flawed that only their true believers can accept them. Why? Because, given the booming ‘Trump economy,’ coming on the heels of the lack-luster ‘Obama economy,’ the Democrats are desperate to do whatever it takes to hold on to their usual voting blocks. The same is true of their racism allegations, which are being made against a Trump who is quite proud to have presided over the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded.

    The Democratic party is blundering badly because it’s desperately afraid of losing badly in Election 2020.

    1. I should hope they lose badly (wait, they are bad losers already!). They found they could run an impeachment hearing without a vote, hide it in the secret basement of the Intel committee, restrict any communications about it except for Schiff popping up out back on the coffee breaks to leak only tidbits that sounded supportive (where is the IG transcript you scumbag?), call only witnesses that support their accusations, twist what they say, refuse any other witnesses, and…they still lost. Holy crap. These guys are not competent to run a high school debate, much less a country. If they could do ALL of that (and they did) and still lose, they should quit their jobs in shame.

    2. If the Democrats had allowed the Republicans to drag out the process for months and months and months with court battles over subpoenas and witnesses, then they’d be accused of trying to steal headlines and disabuse poor little Donnie during the run up to 2020. They moved as quickly as they could have, and they proved their case.

      As to Mueller, what do you think he would have uncovered if Trump had cooperated and at least sat for an interview? Do you really think that he had no idea that the Russians were helping him win by cheating? His campaign fed them the information on where it would do the most good. Do you really believe Trump didn’t know this was going on? In the Ukrainian investigation, what evidence do you think would have been disclosed if Trump hadn’t obstructed justice? What would Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, et al, have testified to and how long would it have taken to get their testimony? Here’s one way those who lie by the billable hour work: try to delay a deposition for as long as possible, (busy schedule, don’t you know), then when it starts, when a question about something sensitive is asked, advise the witness not to answer on the grounds of privilege. Next, the objections go before a court on a motion to compel, and a hearing is demanded, but due to the billable hour liars’ heavy schedule, it will take at least 3-4 months to get scheduled. Then, the judge takes a couple of weeks to rule, or maybe even more if additional briefing is required. Time lost: maybe up to a year. Lawyers know this. When did the Democrats learn about the call with the Ukrainian President? Just last July when the whistleblower turned Trump in. They moved quickly, and there is definitely a “there” there, but Trump lies, obstructs, bullies, intimidates and confers regularly with Hannity on how to handle himself for the Fox audience. So, when the Republicans give him yet another free pass for his crimes, Fox will crow about “vindication” and those horrible Democrats who are trying to take away the votes of the Trumpsters. You’d really have to be stupid to believe this, but then, those with TDS don’t see the obnoxious, lying, incompetent, misogynist racist with the fake spray tan and bad comb-over for what he is.

      1. Did someone cut a fart in here? No?

        Oh that was Natacha, she opened her mouth and let out an explosion of methane gas.

        1. “Anonymous says:February 3, 2020 at 5:23 PM
          Did someone cut a fart in here? No?

          Oh that was Natacha, she opened her mouth and let out an explosion of methane gas.”

          Another comment that’s merely a reflection of the maturity level of some (many or most?) of those who comment here.

          1. Another comment that’s merely a reflection of the maturity level of some (many or most?) of those who comment here.

            No, it’s a comment which reflects someone who is actually familiar with the content of what she posts, much of which she recycles from one post to another, cut and paste.

            1. Like I said:

              Another comment that’s merely a reflection of the maturity level of some (many or most?) of those who comment here.

              1. Trumpers post these comments then wonder why MAGA hats get no respect. Go figure.

            2. Hey Tabby, did you see that post about the house Trump sold for $13 million? The house faces Will Roger’s Park. The same Will Roger’s Park you seemed to disparage in your snippy comments to me on Saturday. It helps to know what you’re disparaging so people dont think you’re some rube in the sticks.

              1. i saw it. he picked that place up in 2007 for half the price. hard to believe he got it so cheaply but that was during the big real estate implosion.

                slick move big don. well done

                1. Yeah, Kurtz, that spot is the very heart of B.H. But Absurd got it in his head that that park is sleazy.

                  1. I’ve never been there but the aerial picture is like wow

                    LA’s on my list for travel, whenever i pry myself loose, eventually

                    right now I’m bringing in the sheaves, rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves

                    1. I’ve never been there but the aerial picture is like wow

                      George Michael could say he’d been there.

                    2. Absurd, does that mean Donald Trump is gay for owning a home across the street?

      2. natacha:

        “If the Democrats had allowed the Republicans to drag out the process for months and months and months with court battles over subpoenas and witnesses … blah, blah, blah”
        Give it up Natty, even ol’ Boz Skaggs gets it:

        “Why can’t you just get it through your head it’s over, it’s over now … You might say that I can’t take it. I can’t take. Lord, I swear, I just can’t take it no more…” … “Go away (far away) ….” LOL

        1. What in the world is that revolving disc with the red label, one of those rumored UFO’s?

          1. George – those revolving discs with the red label are RCA Red Label 33 1/3 vinyls.

      3. Natacha — I see him for what he is. President.

        PS and Hillary is NOT! hahahahahaha

      4. Is Natacha a real person? Or is this some bot that strings together Fox and Hannity obsessive rants like some sort of talking point Mad Lib?

      5. Natacha, some one is peddling Bull Schiff. That would by you. If there were any real & true evidence against Mr. T, I would support investigating him.

        In light of all the jive during the 0bama Bull Schiff Show, did you ever speak up THEN? Didn’t think so. You Media Matters Soros shills are soooo lost!!

        Someone already posted some of the 0bama Bull Schiff. Did you reply that 0bama should have been impeached or that Holder should have been accountable? How about the sale of part of Uranium 1 to Russia. That wasn’t done during Mr. T’s time. Did you say anything then?

        In contrast to 0bama & HRC ignoring Benghazi & letting Americans die, Mr. Trump actually sent troops to protect the most recent attack on a US embassy.

        Like has been said a kajillion times, if it were not for double standards, you lefty fascist lovers would have none.


  8. “Suing is Hell. Discovery is a M———–!”

    – Anonymous

    This impeachment scam sans crime, aside from being an egregious abuse of power, was a well-chiseled campaign event, a melodrama. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) would never allow the likes of the Bidens, Eric Ciaramella and Adam Schiff on the stand.

  9. ” A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. For the traitor appears not a traitor. He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared” Cicero, Roman statesman,42 BC.

    1. Abraham Lincoln to a tee – treason from within! Secession was constitutional. The suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional. “Crazy Abe” destroyed America from within, lawlessly and illegitimately, through executive orders, proclamations, brutality and total war. No nation in history ever ended slavery by war; except America during “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror.”

      “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

      – Abraham Lincoln

      “Crazy Abe” surely got that right!

  10. Off topic. We need a blog on the issues of Israel and the so called Palestinians and the Holocaust which is approaching. The magazine named the Economist came today. There was a stupid article which blasts Israel and Netanyahu and Trump for the new settlement plan. The Economist ignores the fact that Palestinians send missles into Israel every day. The Economists and much of the U.S. media ignores this every day. They want a two state solution which puts the Palestinians or arabs all over Israel.
    I cancelled my subscription to the Economist.

    1. Israel: a nation of zero national and/or security interest to the US.

      In the 40s the US and League of Nations invented modern Israel out of thin air and by threat of force for the primary purpose of securing Western (non-Arab/non-Muslim) military presence in the ME, to maintain ME oil flow to Western industry, ME oil then being the life blood of Western industry and hegemony. The stated cause was a lie, being the alleged safe heaven for so-called “Jews.” Today most Jews (over 50%) live outside Israel and do not need Israel for safety.

      When TPTB say, “It’s for the children,” replace “children” with “elite wealth and Western hegemony.”

      Israel lost its significance to the West around the time the US started being a net exporter of oil.

      It’s long past time to let Arabs and Israeli Jews figure it out alone, and stop shedding American blood and spending American money in picking sides. If Israel disappeared off the map tomorrow (nations disappear off the map all the time, a regular and ordinary occurrence, e.g. where once was Palestine is now Israel), the sum total difference to the US is absolutely sum total nada, nothing, zero, zilch.

      Look at all the Sun and NYT newspaper stories from 1915 to 1938 alleging “6 million dead.” Which stories are true? All? Some? None?

      The above text came from this video YT removed for hate speech, comprising solely an apparently elderly man reading and displaying text from original copies of the newspapers:

      “The truth shall set you free.”

      Anti-Semite definition: a term of derision used by those lacking cogent, reasonable, non-ad hominem attack; not one who hates Jews, but rather one hated by certain Jews.

      1. And yet again Princess Trohar appears here to advocate firing up the gas ovens. Feel some sympathy for the unfortunates who encounter you in meat space.

        1. Thanks for bringing up the ovens. You act like you know about ovens, yet you only use the term as an epithet, and refuse to discuss it otherwise. Maybe you don’t really know JS about ovens. Again I ask: Which of the several “6 million dead jew” holocaust stories is true, as reported in the Sun and NYT? All, some, none? The fact you won’t answer implies you don’t really know JS about the subject of ovens.

          If you want to play, you have to discuss the subject. Hurling epithets is bad form, for loser, and proves your ignorance. So far you confirm only that you have absolutely not one word to contradict what I posted.

          I feel sympathy for Americans who have been conned into shedding blood and giving $5 billion annually to one of the wealthiest nations on earth.

          The US Dept. of War is the largest employer on planet earth, 3.2 million:

          To war mongers like yourself, some of whom benefit financially through war, every world problem is solved by a war waiting to start.

          If America needs Israel, how and why did the US exist for 170 years without Israel? You need a lot more than accusations about ovens to convince readers that the US can’t exist without Israel.

          D for effort, F for argument content.

          1. Israel is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. The person you pretend to respond to has never made a serious post and for several years now posted lame attempts at humor that every other participant ignores. With you, it’s like hitting a switch. That part is actually funny.

          2. The Jews are indigenous to Israel, but anti-Semites like to change history. Not only did Jews live in Israel for thousands of years but according to modern international law Israel has rightful ownership to Judea and Samaria. Most “Palestinians” came to Israel from other Arab nations only after the Jews started to build Israel up starting in the mid 1,800’s. (I guess they needed jobs and certain freedoms they couldn’t get in their native countries.) In fact around the time of WW2 those people that were called Palestinians were actually the Jews.

            The oven saleswoman should get her dates right and learn history. Unfortunately, real history doesn’t enhance the sale of ovens.

            “the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine… is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community… [T]he Jewish people… is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.” ___Churchill 1922

            1. Lots of disputes about migration and natural increase in those particular Ottoman subprefectures during the period running from 1882 to 1946. UNRWA defined ‘refugee’ quite broadly as incorporating any Arab who had logged at least two years in the territory, which does suggest that the rough data they collected in the camps suggested many people there didn’t have a long pedigree in the area. Wouldn’t say much too categorical about it. IIRC, the expert is supposed to be Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville.

              Prior to 1949, the Arab population would not have been under a Jewish government. The Yishuv was the self-governing authority for the Jewish settlements of that time, which subsisted within the British mandatory authority. Prior to 1918, the Arabs and Jews were under Ottoman authority.

              And the local Arabs did not generally adopt the self-understanding ‘Palestinian’ until about 1968. It was promoted by Arab governments prior to that date, especially Nasser’s Egypt. Identity was something in flux in the Arab World ca. 1943. In the territories, some understood themselves with reference to a village or a lineage, some as Syrians, some as Arabs. You saw a mix of referent points in Lebanon as well.

              1. DSS, always interesting to get your point of view.

                The official definition of refugee by the UN means that there are very few Arab refugees remaining in Israel.

                Ownership: Wars create a lot of changes and the Ottomans lost the war. Looking at international law one has to conclude that Judea and Sumaria are legally Israeli territory. That territory is not ‘occupied’.

                All of this is very confusing. If we accept international law we recognize Israeli rights. If we don’t we have to give Manhattan back to the Manhattoes.

            2. The oven saleswoman should get her dates right and learn history. Unfortunately, real history doesn’t enhance the sale of ovens.

              I don’t think history per se is an interest of hers.

          3. Princess:

            Which Holocaust stories are true? My family served in WWII. I’d say their personal recollections of the atrocities of the Nazis against Jews and government critics were true. We have war memorabilia, some of it captured from the enemy. The Holocaust was well documented, and observed by thousands of our military who liberated sick, wasted, emaciated poor souls from the concentration camps. Then there were the lampshades made out of human skin, pillows stuffed with human hair.

            What, do you think the Nazis themselves were lying in their well documented medical experiments upon Jews? Their well-documented extermination efforts against Jews?

            This wasn’t one person’s account, taken as Gospel. It was the accounts of survivors. When I was a kid, a Holocaust survivor with the tattoo still on her forearm talked with our school. It was the disappearance of millions of people. The mass graves. The testimony. The materials made out of human tissue. The medical experiments documented with painstaking care in medical journals. The published articles. The eye witness account of our own military and that of our allies. The corroboration among disparate groups. The video, for God’s sake, of some of the mass murders.

            There are some whose personal beliefs or religion demands anti-semitism and the denial that the Holocaust ever happened. That requires the suspension of reason and intellect.

            What does the US get our of our alliance with Israel?
            1. A steadfast ally in the Middle East with the only country in the region with Western values and Judeo Christian values.
            2. Israel comprises 0.1% of the worldwide population but has published 0.9% of scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals
            3. Our aid agreement with Israel requires them to use all of our aid money to buy American-made military technology.
            4. Israel has one of the highest ratio of scientists and technicians per capita in the world, turning out myriad advancements and inventions
            5. They are members of a pan European research organization
            6. They send search and rescue teams to the US during disasters
            7. Israel shares its own military innovations with the US
            8. Israel shares intelligence on terrorism and nukes with the US
            9. In addition to using its American aid to buy military tech, Israel also invests its own funds in buying from our military complex
            10. Many Israeli companies operate here in the US and sell their products here
            11. Intel’s microprocessors were developed in Israel. “If you’ve made a secure financial transaction on the Internet, sent an instant message, or bought something using PayPal, you can thank Israeli IT researchers.”

            When you research this issue, I suggest you begin here:


            A lot of Middle Easterners have a terrible inferiority complex with Israel, with the little country’s extraordinarily high rate of contribution to science and technology. The rest of the Middle East contributes very little novel ideas and innovations to science. Many American Progressives have taken a decidedly antisemitic view. It’s a bit ironic, how they want the country with the greatest freedoms for women in the Middle East to be destroyed, to be replaced by yet another ME country with subjugated, veiled women. It’s the New Antisemitism.

        2. But Bernie was just saved with an Israeli made pacemaker! Also the root word for “palestinian” is Jewish for INVADER. Things that make you go Hmmmm.

          1. it is not. it is a cognate of philistine. which hebrew cognate means person


            The English word Philistine comes from Old French Philistin, from Classical Latin Philistinus, from Late Greek Philistinoi, from Hebrew פלשתי (Pəlištî, plural פלשתים Pəlištîm), meaning person of פלשת (Pəlešeth); and there are cognates in Akkadian Palastu and Egyptian Palusata;[10] the term “Palestine” has the same derivation.[11]

    2. The Palestinians send missiles because they also have roots in Jerusalem that go back as far as Israel’s but Israel takes their territory, makes it appear that the US supports them over the Palestinians, Israel tries to ram a 2 state solution down their throat that doesn’t even allow them land areas that are contiguous, and there’s not much else they can do about it. Then, you have dumbass Jared getting involved and calling the Palestinians names when they refuse the bad deal. The rest of the world condemns Israel for simply taking the West Bank when it belongs to the Palestinians and refusing to vacate. None of the proposals includes returning the West Bank to the Palestinians.

      1. The Palestinians send missiles because they also have roots in Jerusalem that go back as far as Israel’s

        Here’s someone who flunked her world history class in the 9th grade.

        1. Since you know so much, why don’t you educate people. Come on. Give us your “facts.”

          1. The Palestinians are just Arabs. They are not distinct in language or culture from any other Arab. Their ancestors lived in the Ottoman Empire. When that was busted up, the British Mandate was to create the nation of Israel to solve the centuries old problem of the diaspora and persecution of the Jews. There never was a country named Palestine. It was a region, so named for the Jews who lived there. The Romans took a poor view of a Jewish uprising that tried to shake off their rule. They changed the name to Palestine at that point to punish the Jews. But Palestine was never a country, never a region, never a group of like minded people living according to their own laws. Palestine was a region that was part of the Ottoman Empire.

            According to the records of the Ottoman Empire, the area that now makes up Israel was sparsely populated by Arabs and Jews. The British Mandate created jobs in a poor region, so many Arabs came for the jobs. However, as anti-Semitism is encoded in the Qur’an, they refused to accept any non-Muslim state on their continent, or frankly, anywhere on Earth.

            The Arabs were given the lion’s share of land, in what is now known as Jordan. The Jews were given a minuscule piece of land that became Israel, the Jewish state.

            Israel is like Mecca. If the Arabs were driven from Mecca, there is no time span long enough for them not to strive to return to it. The Arabs have Mecca as their holy land. The Muslims living in the region formerly known as Palestine were given more land, Jordan. The Jews were given less land, Israel, but a square centimeter is too much for the Muslims to accept.

            The PA launches missiles because it wants to destroy Israel. They have been offered a two state solution many times and refused. Israel has been willing to give up more and more of its tiny country to people who will be satisfied with nothing less than another Holocaust.

            Dennis Prager once said, what would happen if the Palestinians laid down their weapons, and said they would fight no more? Israel would welcome peace. What would happen if Israel laid down their weapons, and said they would fight no more? Every Muslim majority country in thousands of miles would immediately destroy their entire country, as they have repeatedly promised to do.

            1. Karen,

              You would have made my friend proud with your post.

              I forget plenty he taught, hell, stuff I already knew…..

              Works of Daniel Pearl…. From Time Immemorial….

              House of Saud & the Secret Petrol Dollar Connection….

              There was so much more.

              But Wallace & I agreed the Jewish people shouldn’t give up a damn inch of Judea/Samaria to those Bedouin Arab Gypsies that even the other Islamic/Muslim nut jobs can’t stand.

              In 1919 the deal agreed to was the Arabs/Persians agreed to take 98-99% of the lands of the middle east & the jews got their 1-1 1/2 %

              Well, the Arabs/Persians got their part of the deal but soon reneged on the Jewish part of the deal.

              As far as Wallace & I are concerned those Bedouins can go piss up a rope & move back to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, etc.

              RIP Wallace!



              1. BTW:

                It’s been a while since I was communicating with Wallace.

                I don’t want to substitute my words/opinions for his words.

                If you wish here is a piece I believe he once wrote on the subject above:


        2. Both claim to be ancestors of Abraham and thus they both claim that God gave then ( the descendants of Abraham) the “promised land”
          But of course,
          Back then the place was not a desert like it is today.

          1. arabs claim descent from abraham through ishmael but i find the jewish genealogical records more credible

            arabs seem to have arisen somewhat later in history


            personally i don’t take ancient history as definitive for modern land claims, that would be ridiculous

            however it is a culturally relevant consideration, just not a source of title.

        3. TAB: you might also try reading the Bible. What people do you think Hebrews were fighting with all of the time over land, besides the Egyptians? They were the ancestors of the Palestinians, who were there, too. At the end of the day, what business does the U.S. have in siding with one faction over this region anyway? Cynics would say that Trump is seeking campaign contributions from wealthy Jews, but Muslims in other countries don’t like this one bit, either, and that’s at least one source of strife with Islamic extremists. Conflicts will continue so long as the Palestinians are denied a state of their own and while Israel occupies and continues building homes on the West Bank.

          1. What are you basing your assertions are? Because it’s not the Bible nor is it any recorded history. Are you implying that “ze Jews” are buying Trump? A bit of a reversal from when it was insisted Trump wan an antisemite. Now, is it all about the Benjamins? It is ironic that you scold someone for not understanding history, and then promptly go on to spout misinformation.

            The Left’s antisemitism is so off putting.

            The Palestinians are just Arabs, whose ancestors were the same nomadic Arabs who populated the rest of the Ottoman Empire. They were given a state of their own. It’s called Jordan, and it’s much bigger than Israel. They have also been offered even more land from Israel but declined it multiple times.

            The Philistines were a sea faring tribe who attacked Egypt from Crete and Cyprus. They were related to the Greeks. After the Romans defeated the Jewish revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba in the year 132 AD, they renamed Judea Palestine, to punish the Jews. The Romans did so like to rename things. Palestine referred to the Jewish homeland even then. In fact, Arabs never referred to themselves as Palestinian, because that was what the Jews were called. They started doing that after the state of Israel was created to try to make the claim that they were a separate people whose country was taken away. Totally untrue. The Ottoman Empire was broken up, and the Muslims were given Jordan while the Jews were given tiny Israel. But the Muslims won’t suffer a non Muslim country to exist in the ME, and certainly not a Jewish one. Did you know that in Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for a Jew to set foot there? You know, the Saudi Arabia where Mecca is located?


            1. I’m half expecting her to say Sara Netanyahu has rubber boobs, but I don’t think she’s set up a macro for that.

            2. Socialism is coming! Leftists are antisemitic!

              Not true, but Karen keeps ranting…

            3. I never said Trump was anti-Semite, but he did praise White Supremacists, and if you watched media other than Fox you might have noticed the flags with swasticas they were carrying in Charlottesville, along with their torches, to emulate the Nazi marches in “Triumph of the Will”, choreographed by Leni Refenstahl.. Do I need to explain the significance of this further?

              You keep trying to act like an educated person with superior knowledge, but you cannot or will not provide your educational background. For references, you cite some You Tube video or some partisan website that provides confirmation bias to your opinions (see above). You cannot dispute that Israel simply took the West Bank and started building housing, and refuses to return it to the Palestinians. You seem to think that the Muslims who live in Jerusalem should simply go away because Israel wants them to, but they have ancient mosques in Jerusalem. Catholics have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Jerusalem is home to all 3 major religious groups.

              Anyway, here’s my question again to you Trumpsters: what business does the U.S. have in getting involved in disputes over the governance of ancient Palestine, which includes Jerusalem, and which go back for several millennia? Another: how does moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem benefit the average American, and why is Trump so keen to provide the optics that the U.S. is on Israel’s side in its disputes with the Palestinian people?

              1. Triumph of the Will for anybody who has watched it as a work of art is actually impressive and movie critics acknowledge Leni for her cinematic genius. Ditto Olympia by her.

                I am not sure why this is always tossed out there in totally irrelevant contexts.

                People like Natch want to say on the one hand Trump is an antisemite even as they just got done saying he is a philosemite. They simply cant be fair to the man!

            4. From Wikipedia:

              Prior to 1923

              The earliest major settlement in the area was at Tell El Sakan and Tall al-Ajjul, two Bronze Age settlements that served as administrative outposts for Ancient Egyptian governance. The Philistines, mentioned frequently in The Bible, were located in the region, and the city was captured by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE during his Egyptian campaign. Following the death of Alexander, Gaza, along with Egypt, fell under the administration of the Ptolemaic dynasty, before passing to the Seleucid dynasty after about 200 BCE. The city of Gaza was destroyed by the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus in 96 BCE, and re-established under Roman administration during the 1st century CE. The Gaza region was moved between different Roman provinces over time, from Judea to Syria Palaestina to Palaestina Prima. During the 7th century the territory was passed back and forth between the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the Persian (Sasanian) Empires before the Rashidun Caliphate was established during the great Islamic expansions of the 7th century.

              During the Crusades, the city of Gaza was reported to be mostly abandoned and in ruins; the region was placed under the direct administration of the Knights Templar during the Kingdom of Jerusalem; it was traded back and forth several times between Christian and Muslim rule during the 12th century, before the Crusader founded kingdom lost control permanently and the land became part of the Ayyubid dynasty’s lands for a century until the Mongol ruler Hulagu Khan destroyed the city. In the wake of the Mongols, the Mamluk Sultanate established control over Egypt and the eastern Levant, and would control Gaza until the 16th century, when the Ottoman Empire absorbed the Mamluk territories. Ottoman rule continued until the years following World War I, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and Gaza formed part of the League of Nations British Mandate of Palestine.

              So, yes, Karen, there were non-Israelis there going back to the Bronze Age.

              1. Natasha, Jews and Arabs were both displaced in the region in approximately the same numbers. The Jews by force with the threat of death and an usurpation of all their property. The Arabs that left did so based on what they were told by Arab leaders not at the point of a gun. They weren’t killed if they didn’t leave and their property was not stolen.

                Why your concern with only Arab refugees and not one peep about Jewish refugees.

                1. Why your concern with only Arab refugees and not one peep about Jewish refugees.

                  She isn’t concerned with anything going on outside her skin. She knows nothing of Arabs or Jews. All discussions are a hook for a display of her emotional problems.

          2. Natch ignores what information i just posted about “philistines” and who were they.
            I know she doesn’t really care but I’ll give a capsule of history here now.

            Canaanites refers to various tribes that were before the Israel kingdom.

            The Arabs were a tribal agglomeration taking definitive ethnic shape rather later than the Kingdom of Israel, from southeast of Palestine, and actually NOT arising from the Philistines, who were according to DNA testing a European-Levantine mixture. To say the Arabs are ancestral successors to the Philistines is probably not valid in the national sense. I can’t agree with that even if there are some Arabs who may be descended in part from Philistines. I suppose I am descended from some English but that gives me no claim of land to England nor even to the notion of being a British.

            Back to the overview. Philistines took land from Canaanites. Babylon took it from all of them and crushed the kingdom of Israel. Persians crushed Babylon and Cyrus repatriated the Judeans and rebuilt the temple. The Greeks and Alexander took all of it and then were then called the Seleukids and then the Romans took it from them. Jewish kings such as Herod were tributaries. Sovereign Jewish rebels had a small interlude in the Roman period (Bar Kochkba) but that was crushed and the Temple destroyed again by the Romans. The Arabs eventually took Byzantine Palestine from them and then you have the Persians and the Turks and then the division of the Ottoman Empire into parts after it collapsed, the British Mandate of Palestine, and then the modern day Israel and so forth.

            None of these facts of ancient history illuminate legal title to land. The worst thing that one can say about title to land, if you ask me, is that the Israelis is that the confiscated a lot of Arab homes during the early wars and did not pay any compensation. That has nothing to do with the ancient world at all. And sorting that out to some degree, is part of what needs to happen in any long term successful deal there. But it never seems to go much farther than a proposal!

            yes America should be fair but our national interests need to be considered and the Israelis apparently are more congenial partners than their adversaries over the past many decades. Please allow me to suggest that we Americans are not here on Earth to rectify all the unhappy claims of disgruntled descendants of one group or another. As to that last proposition, we can see how the Left constantly is angry about the whole topic and becomes unhinged at constructive proposals such as the Trump administration recently advanced.

            Now that’s a similar rundown to what my real estate professor said by way of example to us in law school, if i recall correctly from many years ago, although it could have been said of any part of the world or another. I wonder did Natch not get that sort of informative instruction in law school? And clearly she doesnt work much with title agencies.

      2. Judea and Sumaria legally belong to Israel. Read my comment responding to the one that sells ovens.

        1. All references to international law are vacuous. Angela Channing explains at 1:32 what belongs to whom:

  11. Turley Chides House For Its Failure

    But Senate Failed On Bigger Scale

    Imagine the following scenario: This weekend, Trump tweets that he will pardon anyone who engages in blatant voter suppression or voter intimidation before the November election. Hundreds of henchmen take it upon themselves to act, helping ensure his reelection. Trump’s legal and constitutional authority to pardon them is unquestioned. It would be a corrupt abuse of presidential power, but not a crime. Now that Republicans have established their new standard, such behavior would not be an impeachable offense. Trump now has a blank check. We all know that he will try to cash it.

    Moreover, Senate Republicans have also endorsed Trump’s refusal to hand over relevant documents to a legitimate impeachment investigation. They simultaneously affirmed that presidents can block key witnesses without consequence. In the next scandal — and there will be another scandal — Trump will again try to block key evidence and witnesses, all with the blessing of his pals in the Republican caucus. The Senate has neutered itself. That shift in power isn’t temporary — it sets a new orthodoxy of what presidents can get away with.

    Edited from: “Senate Republicans Just Paved The Road To American Authoritarianism”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. What Is Paranoia?

      Paranoia is the feeling that you’re being threatened in some way, such as people watching you or acting against you, even though there’s no proof that it’s true. It happens to a lot of people at some point. Even when you know that your concerns aren’t based in reality, they can be troubling if they happen too often.

      1. “What is paranoia?”

        Heightened sensitivity for some — though there are people who are truly paranoid. It’s an overused term.

    2. Imaginary scenarios are invalid on their face. All actions are case by case despite precedent. Wapo pays to put holes in buckets. Worthless. Trump is not guilty of anything remotely resembling a dictator in chief. He has been principled and lawful. The same cannot be said of his accusers.

    3. Quote from (apparently) the Washington Post: “Imagine the following scenario: This weekend, Trump tweets that he will pardon anyone who engages in blatant voter suppression or voter intimidation before the November election. Hundreds of henchmen take it upon themselves to act, helping ensure his reelection.”

      The Washington Post can imagine what it likes, leaving the rest of us free to assume that it has descended into utter madness. Why would Trump, who’s quite likely headed for a landslide win in November, want to encourage voter intimidation? Even more unlikely, why would he do so openly and so far in advance (“this weekend”) that legal action could be taken against actions that are clearly illegal and unconstitutional. After all, this isn’t 1874 Alabama, when the Democratic party murdered my great-great-great-grandfather in a violent campaign to re-establish white supremacy that it open vowed would be won “by ballots or by bullets.”

      It’s easy to suspect that many Democrats are engaging in projection. They assume that Trump will do what they would like to do.

      –Michael W. Perry, co-author of Lily’s Ride, a modern adaptation of the best-selling 1879 novel, A Fool’s Errand by Albion Tourgee, the foremost civil rights lawyer of the nineteenth century.

      1. Nothing to worry about, Michael? No precedents set? Next time the Senate will be rightly vigilant?

  12. None of the explanations offered by House Democrats make any logical sense.

    That is because the reality is that the Democrats were doing impeachment to “satisfy the rubes.” And, since hte rubes want to be lied to, it worked out just fine for the Democrats.

    They didn’t delay out to March or April because their majority comes from “moderate Democrats” in Trump districts, who just want the whole insane clownshow to go away

  13. The facts were on the POTUS’S side. How would the case against get stronger with more witnesses?

    1. More witnesses to what? No witness has found the president committing any crime or action out of his administration’s purview. Turley says that delay would have made a stronger case. The President is responsible but not guilty for policy in Ujraine. He can find out what’s up down in out and around there before one dime of a Congressional vestment is sent. Maybe it’s a kickback scheme. Who knows. It’s executive duty. Since weapons are involved, it’s Commander in Chief duty. It’s for the sake of the nation and defense of the Constitution that he be in charge. Turley is a democrat . He knows they are wrong and out of order. Delay is a never happened. Turley is speculating an imaginary stronger case to result in acquittal. He was the only sensible witness among the four judges. Now, even he is lost in fantasy of if only…

      1. They democrats always knew they had a losing hand. They only failed in not dragging it out longer. They never expected to impeach the president, they just wanted to opportunity to beat him up in front of the Cameras with lies and innuendos. Even in that, they failed. Bolton testifying wouldn’t have changed a thing.

        1. I suspect the name of the game was putting Susan Collins and Corey Gardner on the spot.

  14. Back in the day Trump would have had someone like Gen MacArthur or Gen Eisenhower drag out the traitors by their ankles & lined them up in public, had the charges read aloud & dealt with them on the spot as an example for other would be Tratiors as George Washington did.

    It was called a Death Warrant.

    I’ve even heard stuff like: Well, treason now days really can’t be charged. WTF, what’s up with that? Their Traitors!!!

    So is Trump being wise with his approach of letting the Traitors continue to run wild in the US with their still active Security Clearances or is he just a damn Puzzy???

    Now we all know Sen Lindsey Graham is an American Hatin Puzzy that hates trump.

    He’s a complete Fraud. Yeah right, sure he’s going to act this time. Where in the Ph’k has he been the last 4 years?

      1. Where is that big idiot Puzzy Trump???

        He was warned of this type out of control banning a year/half ago. FCC/Sec 230, at this point they are publishers not a public commons, Trump!

        No way in hell he gets re-elected as he has Failed to act against this rigged media/ massive election fraud system. I don’t care how many attend his rallies if he can’t get a clean vote count.

        Oh, he had a summit at the WH last summer….. & didn’t even invite Jones & then Cancelled cartoonist Ben Garson because someone…ADL/SPLC(American hatin Commie/Nazis) falsely claimed Ben hated the Jeeeeews.

        Alex Jones/infowars team were big tech’s start of a beta test to start censoring & shutting down the web to those not approved by the deep start.

        Hell, my search result have been being ph’kd with for over a year even using DuckDuckGo & a few others.

        Stuff like: Was SC CJ John Roberts listed on the Manafest of Jeffery Epstein’s plane.

        If I do find it it’ll likely be on search page 44,000. 😉

        I did find one link on I think search page 3. Again, some fraud preach from a few years back that was all about….. It’s the Jeeeeews, again.

        1. Oky a lot of the methods employed against Alex Jones and others now have been employed against “racists” on the internet the entire past 20 years. Such as booting off paypal etc. These methods are now a net cast very more widely.

          the difficulty is not blame-able on Jews, not their power nor to pandering to them. As you can see it is applied very widely now to things like the zerohedge story which had absolutely nothing to do with them.

          Rather it is a systemic condition, related to the nature of the internet infrastructure which is essentially private property for the most part. from the internet backbone to ISPs etc

          part of private property is the right to set the terms of use

          that is capitalism at work

          if there’s going to be a solution for deplatforming it may have to be application of certain concepts concerning utilities to the big internet platforms like twitter.

  15. Without knowing what he would have said, we can’t really know if Bolton’s testimony would have helped the House. And the Bidens’ testimony could have been a disaster for his Presidential bid. How to explain why Hunter, et al. got such cushy jobs.

  16. Is misstweeting the name of the state for the Superbowl champions an impeachable offense?

      1. Two distinct cities. KC, Missouri and KC, Kansas. The Chiefs are in Missouri.
        Trump outfoxed the idiots into making fools of themselves.

        1. Two distinct cities. KC, Missouri and KC, Kansas. The Chiefs are in Missouri.
          Trump outfoxed the idiots into making fools of themselves.

          No, two distinct municipalities. Most metropolitan commuter belts have multiple municipalities. There is only one distinct dense settlement and the commuting patterns cover counties on both sides of the border.

        1. No, it isn’t. KCK and Kansas City, Missouri are both core municipalities and between them cover 40% of the dense settlement in those five counties. One is about 3x the population of the other. Manhattan and Hoboken account between them for < 10% of the New York – New Jersey settlement and Manhattan has a population 30x that of Hoboken.

          1. I was speaking of a cultural relationship, Absurd. Ask some KCM residents what they think of KCK. It’s an interesting conversation.

            Thank you. Thank you very much.

            1. I was speaking of a cultural relationship, Absurd. Ask some KCM residents what they think of KCK. It’s an interesting conversation.

              The two municipalities are 3 miles apart, center to center, you worthless four-flusher.

              1. And Manhattan is a train ride/ boat ride from Hoboken. On my cousin’s block one of the most awesome things is the residents block the cops from breaking up their firework gig on the 4th.

                Dude, you have to flush four times??? What you eating? Damn yo. You punishing that piece.

                Thank you. Thank you very much.

      1. These are the same people that go to Paris Texas looking for the Eiffel Tower.

        1. Or Paris, Virginia. 😉

          PS what a stupid comment Fishy. we expect nothing less from you !

  17. “The case against the president could only have become stronger.” Why? That assumes he was guilty. As Ukraine and two ambassadors maintained, they were not coerced, strong armed, or forced in any way. What anyone else says is immaterial.

    We accuse the defendant of murder! Victim, “I’m OK! No one harmed me! I’m not dead!” Prosecutors, “Shut up, Larry! No one asked you! You’re not on the witness list so get out of the courtroom! The more witnesses we can call who can declare you were murdered, the stronger our case will be!”

  18. Jonathan Turley’s article goes through the many reasons why most of the media no longer has any journalistic integrity. One cannot rely on its reporting to form unbiased opinions. It is merely a Democrat propaganda machine at this point.

Comments are closed.