Pages

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Opps! Not a bombshell, huh?


Moreover, Morrison stated that it he was one of those who suggested that this conversation be placed on the NSA secured server due to the fact that he believed that it would be leaked by resistance players within the executive branch or provided to Democrats for them to leak. Morrison contradicted the testimony of Taylor with he suggested that the transcripts are entirely accurate and reflect what took place on the call.

Of course, Morrison was wearing a suit, rather than a military outfit.

Morrison suggests that the Zelensky would not have known that any military aid was being held up and that he heard nothing alarming on the call. He also countered several of the points made by Taylor, suggesting that he (Morrison) never met privately with the Ukrainian NSA, and that Sondland never met with or asked Zelensky to make any statements regarding Burisma. Morrison does suggest that the issues with Burisma were discussed and that the Prosecutor General had agreed to look into that case.

Obviously, this is going to be the game. Both sides are effectively going to suggest the same basic known concept (that there were discussions regarding investigations of the 2016 election interference and discussions regarding Burisma and that there was a decision to withhold the last $400 million until the President got a better handle on Zelensky).  But none of this, of course, will be anything "new" or "revealing". It's exactly what we heard on from the transcripts of the call and exactly what is stipulated by both sides.

The difference is that one side is going to see nothing inherently wrong with the process, while the other is going to pretend it's the worst thing any President has ever done in our 242 year existence. After all, in theory, the removal of Trump would be the very first time that has ever happened. Apparently none of the other 44 Presidents (sans Nixon) did anything quite this.....

improper! 

 

This needs to happen more often

Okay... no, the crowd didn't chant anything, but they did applaud. 
These people have no right to believe that they have some moral superiority.

Impeachment Fiasco voted forward...

It's official! It's Partisan! 

Not a single Republican vote for the bill. Only two Democrats (Colin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey) voted against it. A handful were not present for the vote. To compare and contrast, over 30 Democrats voted to open the investigation into Bill Clinton.


Of course, Bill Clinton was accused of breaking the law, whereas Trump is being accused of being "improper" in the eyes of many never-Trump deep state actors who were upset with his foreign policy decisions. Democrats have all but given up on arguing that Trump "broke the law" and instead are focusing on whether or not he is abusing power and obstructing their faux inquiry.

If Eric Ciaramella is indeed the whistleblower...

Then there never actually was a whistleblower and the I.G. should be fired for even remotely considering this thing to be serious.

Trump gains in the polls...

Because of or in spite of impeachment???

Biden’s Edge Over Trump Wanes, Polling Shows
The former vice president leads Trump by 5 percentage points, 41 percent to 36 percent, among 1,997 registered voters in a new Morning Consult/Politico poll testing the hypothetical Election Day matchup — roughly half the 11-point advantage he enjoyed in a June survey conducted ahead of the Democratic Party’s first debates. Both surveys have a 2-point margin of error.

While Trump cut into Biden’s edge with several demographic groups between the two surveys, some of the president’s biggest gains came among women and the youngest voters, two groups that are typically seen as some of his weakest voting blocs. Trump trails Biden by 11 points among women in the latest poll, conducted Oct. 25-28, compared with a 20-point gap in June.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

This is worth taking a closer look at

Brought up by sense in a comment thread...

I think this gets to the heart of the matter here. I believe that you have your partisans on either end of the spectrum representing the 38%  who say this is an "impeachable offense" and the 31% who say there was "nothing wrong".  These are the sorts of cut and dried, open and closed, absolute answers you would expect from the Never-Trumpers (who believe his daily breathing is an impeachable offense) and the true Trump fans (who probably believe he could shoot someone and get away with it). While I wouldn't generally think of our country being nearly 70% partisan, I think we are getting much closer to that number since President Trump was elected.

The other answer, however, is the one that Democrats and their liberal cronies in the media do not want to allow. Making it a "binary" choice is how they want to frame this debate. Basically they want to lump anyone who is generally believe his actions were "improper" or "outside the norms of the office" with those who believe the actions are illegal, and impeachable. In their minds, only those who see absolutely nothing wrong with his action should be opposed to impeachment. If you take "any" issue with what he did, then you need to be on the side of impeachment... as if impeachment is little more than a scolding.

Nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that politicians do things that are improper, unethical, and even borderline illegal every day. I probably found literally dozens of actions by the Obama Administration that were obviously unethical and outside the bounds of normal behavior, but I never once called for impeachment. I believe that Adam Schiff's actions throughout this entire charade have been unethical to the degree that he couldn't find "proper" and "normal" with GPS and a self driving car. But that doesn't mean I feel he needs to be impeached. You want "abuse of power" then look no further to how the House Majority is treating the House Minority and the man they are lynching? The entire impeachment process concocted by the Democrats is improper, abnormal, and more than just borderline unethical. They have been secretive, breaking their own rules, and placing the President on trial without any real process, much less any due process. It's a travesty.

So let's admit that what the President did was dubious, even if it was fundamentally legal. I take zero issue with him asking the Ukrainian Government to assist with any DOJ investigation into the 2016 election. No issue what-so-ever. Nobody should take issues with that. But in terms of the Burisma Holding investigation, I think he showed bad judgement. While I understand that it might have some relevance to possible corruption by people with the last name of Biden, it's basically a request for a country to open an investigation into one of their own companies, which quite frankly should be none of our business.

But make no mistake, asking Ukraine to reopen an investigation (that the US Government is not involved in) isn't fundamentally different from demanding Ukraine fire a prosecutor (that was not working with the US Government). In other words, Trump did nothing better or worse than what Quid Pro Joe Biden did when Biden threatened to withhold aid if Ukraine did not make an internal employment termination. Both Trump and Biden should have stayed out of Ukrainian business, but neither of them deserve to be impeached because of it.

At the end of day, the most certainly can be a very large area of grey where people can agree that politicians do things that are improper, outside the norms, and even unethical, but that those actions are not going to lead to impeachment. As strange as it may seem (considering most people would get fired for being unethical on the job) we have accepted that politicians are somewhat corrupt and that their ultimate judgement falls on that day in early November when the public goes to the polling places and casts their vote. They are either reelected or they are not. That is their trial.

More wonderful news!

U.S. Economy Holds Up With 1.9% Growth on Consumer Strength

A resilient American consumer helped the U.S. economy expand more than forecast in the third quarter, assuaging concerns for now of a more pervasive slowdown tied to weakening business investment and faltering export markets. Gross domestic product increased at a 1.9% annualized rate, according to Commerce Department data Wednesday that topped forecasts in a Bloomberg survey that called for 1.6% growth.

Sure, this isn't 3% as Trump and others would like to see... but have you noticed that quiet gap in recession talk? Haven't been hearing much of the "R" word in recent weeks, after hearing almost nothing but.

This is probably a combination of it being "foolish" to predict a recession, being a full on dickface for rooting for a recession, and that new "shiny object" called impeachment that is now distracting the Democrats and their gullible following.

Btw... the chances of removing the President via impeachment is about the same as this last quarter being the start of a recession. Zilch!

Bottom line: Senate won't convict

Everything else is an exercise in futility!

"Not a chance in hell the Senate will convict Trump"

This is one of those red state Senators who would be signing his own political death certificate if he voted to convict the President. Oh, and let's be clear. This is not about the "evidence". This is about the very concept that the accusations even rise to the level of impeachment. "Quid pro quo" is simply not a crime. It's a normal everyday geopolitical tool used by every President and every world leader. Democrats wanting to "undo the 2016 election" because they don't like our President's use of this normal everyday tool is not going to fly with red state voters and most certainly not with red state Senators.

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Two more polls show impeachment not popular in swing states!

Polling troubles for Democrats!
  • A new Marquette Poll shows that only 44% of Wisconsin voters want Trump impeached, while 51% are against removing the President. 
  • Meanwhile a new University of North Florida poll also shows the idea of impeachment underwater at 46% against and 48% for. 
  • Add these new polls to the recent Siena College poll of battleground states showing impeachment down ten points (43-53), and you begin to see the pattern. 

Sure... impeachment is probably overwhelmingly popular in California, New York, and a few liberal strongholds. But if it is underwater in the purple states, imagine how unpopular it is in the red states? The issue for Schumer (once this gets to the Senate) is that this is not a national issue (so national polling doesn't matter). It's a state by state issue.


When you view it as such, Schumer is contending with at least 45 Senators from states where a vote for impeachment might as well be a resignation letter. Moreover, there is every reason for Republicans from more moderate states to vote with the President. The only question will be what does someone like Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin do, when her constituents are against what her Party wants her to do and her vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things?

Impeachment is going to go down in flames in the Senate. That's just a fact. Moreover, because of the transparency of the President and his team, the general public already knows what he did. They've heard the allegations, the explanations, and read the transcripts. They know Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate possible 2016 election interference. They know Trump wanted Ukraine to look into Hunter Biden's company. They know Trump wanted Ukraine to look into the firing of the prosecutor. They likely suspect that he used the military aid to put pressure on the Ukrainian President. They simply do not see these things as crimes (likely because they are not crimes). They simply do not see this as the sort of behavior that rises to the level of being the first President EVER removed from office.

So no amount of "bombshell" witnesses repeating what we already know is going to really move that needle. No amount of deep state actors providing us with their irrelevant and unnecessary self-absorbed opinions is going to change anyone's minds. No amount of self soothing rhetoric from Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, Lawrence Tribe, Jeffry Toobin, or Morning Joe is going to help. Certainly no amount of anonymous sources and rumors from WaPo, Politico, The Hill, and the NY Times is going to change reality.

Nothing changes, unless someone comes up with something entirely different, completely criminal, and are able to provide absolute proof. Otherwise... this thing is a failure!

Good news for team Flynn?

REPORT: JUDGE SULLIVAN CANCELS HEARING IN GEN. FLYNN’S CASE
Judge Emmet Sullivan reportedly has cancelled a November hearing he had scheduled in the case of Gen. Michael Flynn. Judge Sullivan said he is cancelling the hearing “in view of the parties’ comprehensive briefing concerning Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material.” In other words, he has all the argumentation he needs to rule on this motion.

So apparently Sullivan either sees nothing within the argument that has any merit, or he has seen enough overwhelming evidence of misconduct that there is nothing the state could provide that would change his mind. Apparently, the Flynn team is happy, because they believe that the evidence that they provided is now in front of the court unrebutted. The fact that Sullivan suggests that the briefings are comprehensive, suggests that his ruling is pretty much cut and dried... one way or the other.

We have been around and around on this one for a while. It seems that the major problem for Flynn has been his reluctance to take back his previous guilty plea. His counsel has repeatedly hedged, by offering that there was certain misconduct, without actually pulling the plea back and demanding some sort of do-over. Sullivan has repeated brought that fact up as a reason to not take these accusations seriously.

Flynn obviously wants to hang onto something that was provided to him in return for his guilty plea (thought to be immunity from prosecution for family members accused of unrelated criminal actions). One gets the impression that Sullivan wants Flynn to go all in on this one, and one certainly gets the feeling that Sullivan is willing to rule in his favor if he did. But at what cost to Flynn?

Desperate to undo the huge victory over ISIS and terrorism....

Democrats and media reduced to defending Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Pelosi calls terrorist a brave soul for taking on the bad orange man!
Demands that he wasn't whimpering at the end!

Democrats and their cronies in the media are so devastated by the recent successes by the White House that they have been reduced to bickering over small details of the raid. They believe that in spite of Trump and his intelligence team being able to locate, surround, and eventually kill Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, that people will be upset at Trump if they can prove that the terrorist in question died with more dignity than the President suggests.

Here is a guy responsible for genocide, rape, molestation of small children, and really bad personal grooming, and the Democrats are upset that Trump said he was "whimpering" at the end. You can't make this shit up folks!



Crack that whip!!!

Senate Resolution condemning the House process may not be needed!
Romney said in an interview Monday that he would look at the resolution (condemning the House impeachment process) but noted that may no longer be necessary.
Near unanimous GOP support for his amendment demanded Pelosi and Schiff fold 

Any hope that Democrats might pick Senate Republican support in their quest for impeachment was absolutely crushed when Lindsey Graham was able to pick up every Republican Senator but three as a co-sponsor of his bill condemning the House procedure.

Disheartened and demoralized Democrats were forced to abandoned their failed strategy of holding double secret hearings and selectively leaking information. Later this week they will likely vote on a new impeachment strategy more in line with what adult Congresspeople might actually do. 

Being political children, Pelosi and Schiff would prefer to continue as they have. But they were quite obviously outmaneuvered and outsmarted by Lindsey Graham who forced their hand. Pelosi and Schiff vow to continue their charade in a more public setting, in spite of this recent political and strategic set back.

Ultimately, Democrats understand that an impeachment in the House and a Senate acquittal will provide the President with a much needed boost and likely galvanize all of Trump's 2016 support as well as additional support of those who may have otherwise voted Democrat, had Democrats not continued to behave as spoiled children who didn't get their way.  

While Pelosi has always recognized the folly of impeachment as a political loser, she was forced into this by the insurgent anger, immaturity, and repeated temper tantrums by Congressional members like Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar... who were bound and determined to do this at any cost to their Party and their country. Pelosi simply no longer has control of her caucus.

Here is a story you haven't heard much about

Judge Reopens Nicholas Sandmann lawsuit against Washington Post
Despite prior dismissal of entire case, Court now will allow discovery on three of the alleged defamatory statements, as well as the filing of a First Amended Complaint.
 
The Court will adhere to its previous rulings as they pertain to these statements except Statements 10, 11, and 33, to the extent that these three statements state that plaintiff “blocked” Nathan Phillips and “would not allow him to retreat.” Suffice to say that the Court has given this matter careful review and concludes that “justice requires” that discovery be had regarding these statements and their context. The Court will then consider them anew on summary judgment.1
[Fn. 1 The Court has reviewed the videos filed by both parties and they confirm this conclusion.]
The Court also notes that the proposed First Amended Complaint makes specific allegations concerning the state of mind of Phillips, the principal source of these statements. It alleges in greater detail than the original complaint that Phillips deliberately lied concerning the events at issue, and that he had an unsavory reputation which, but for the defendant’s negligence or malice, would have alerted defendant to this fact. The proposed First Amended Complaint also alleges that plaintiff could be identified as the subject of defendant’s publications by reason of certain photographs of plaintiff and the videos. This should also be the subject of proof.2

Sources claim Obama got mad and broke his computer after reading this on twitter!

Monday, October 28, 2019

Trump is said to be in unusually good spirits!!!

In the wake of the successful raid on ISIS leadership and his triumphant trophy of nabbing the top terrorist in the world (as well as his backup)... Trump was said to be happy!  But after the news that Pelosi, Schiff, and the Democrats just caved like a cheap lawn chair... well see for yourself!





Stocks hit all time highs! Democratic Presidential candidate have meltdown!

S&P 500 hits all-time high as market extends recent gains
The S&P 500 index closed at an all-time high Monday, extending a recent string of gains in what’s mostly been a solid month for the market.
The benchmark index closed at 3,039.42, around 14 points above its previous record set on July 26. The S&P 500 notched its latest milestone after weeks of hovering just below its prior high.
sources close to Biden say he believes Trump will win reelection!

Sources say that Biden, Warren, and Sanders are frantically trying to come up with a plan to undercut the great economic news that just keeps coming. An aid to Biden suggested off the record that Joe believes that without a recession that his chances of beating trump is like a "snowball in hell". Warren has been huddling with her staff and are thinking about ways they can take credit for the economy themselves, because if credit goes to the President that they believe they will "lose in a landslide". Bernie has admitted to people close to him that the great economy is what brought on his heart attack and that he is starting to believe that Trump will be President for another five years.

It's been a total meltdown for every Democratic candidate... and they all fear that the end of the good news may not come fast enough to save their sorry asses!

Pelosi, Schiff, Democrats admit they were wrong!!

Democrats forced to vote on impeachment hearings!!!

Pelosi & Schiff are furious that their plans are unraveling!
House Democrats will for the first time vote on impeachment procedures on Thursday, a shift in their strategy seemingly meant to cut off GOP arguments about an unfair process.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Rules Committee, said Monday that he will introduce a resolution this week to "ensure transparency" and "provide a clear path forward" in the impeachment inquiry.

Obviously things are not going according to plan for Pelosi, Schiff and the rest of the impeachment brigade. One can only assume that the GOP stand in had the intended effect and that the Democrats now understand the folly of their way!

We'll see what they end up deciding on. But I promise you that anything short of total transparency and due process for everyone involved will not be enough to pull this shit show out of the toilet.

Schiff and Pelosi are said to be fuming mad that they will no longer be able to control all aspects and just leak what they want. Sources stated that Pelosi was throwing things and screaming at everyone around her. Schiff is said to be in seclusion and refuses to talk to anyone.

A horrible day for Democrats!!!

How popular is Impeachment - where it matters

Pelosi Peril: Impeachment Not Looking Too Popular in These Key Swing States

What Our Poll Shows About Impeachment Views in 6 Swing States
Take an examination of the battleground states that Democrats almost certainly need to make inroads into in 2020. The New York Times and Siena College, 2018's most accurate pollster, took a poll of voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Arizona. These were closest states in the country that cast their electoral votes for Trump in 2016...Just 43% of voters in these six states want to impeach and remove from office at this point. The majority, 53%, do not. This means that the margin for not impeaching and removing Trump in these states (+10 points) is running well ahead of Trump's margin in these states of about 1.5 points. Put another way, impeaching and removing Trump from office in these states is not a popular position.

I honestly believe that the "idea" of holding these hearing is a much more palatable position than actually removing a duly elected President from office less than a year before he runs for reelection. For any impeachment, the general public is going to have a pretty high bar for what it would take to follow through. Obviously the Watergate scandals, and subsequent cover ups where sufficient enough for the public to sour on Nixon. Whereas the witness tampering, perjury, and obstruction charges against Clinton did not make the mark.

It's difficult to see the public (as this moves into the holidays and quite possibly into an election year) feeling comfortable removing a President (this close to an election) based on what are dubious charges that even many Democrats admit do not rise to the level of being "criminal". Regardless of how the left is going to spin this one, prior to Donald Trump becoming President, the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that impeachment was a process to reign in "illegal" behavior by an office holder, rather than a process to punish someone for policies that one side feels are unfair, dubious, or partisan.

I think as this plays out more publicly, you will see more and more Republicans step up and make the argument that what the Democrats are investigating isn't even an impeachable offense. I believe that you will see others argue that whatever the Democrats are accusing him of, cannot be fully proven, because there was no actual follow through on any of the allegations. Lastly, it's still uncertain whether or not the Democrats will provide first hand information that the President made any sort of quid pro quo offer or deal with Zelensky or his high ranking Ukrainian officials. If all they have is accounts from people disconnected from the President himself, that will make many people leery of jumping headfirst into removing the President.

Listened to McCarthy Podcast

nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-mccarthy-report/episode-63

So this is an interesting listen. As usual, McCarthy remains fairly objective and will tell you where he believes Democrats are making mistakes, and where he believes the President (and his team) is making mistakes.

  • His main criticism for the Democrats is that they are killing themselves with the closed door meetings. While he understands the appeal to maintaining a certain control over things, he feels that politically it is harming the credibility of the Democrats to be doing all of this behind closed doors. If they have an actual story to tell it should be told in open hearings. 
  • His main criticism for Trump and his team is that he believes that they should have used the basic simple strategy that quid pro quo is not only legal, but that it is the general manner in which things are done in 99% of these situations. He feels by denying that there actually "was" quid pro quo, that it can lead to the conclusion (by the public) that it actually is wrong and leave him open to looking guilty if it is shown he did actually engage in quid pro quo.

McCarthy concentrates on the Taylor testimony and sort of drills into the nuts and bolts of it. If you filter everything that everyone is saying, and work under the assumption that most of what is being said by everyone has at least some semblance of truth, you start to see what McCarthy believes is the most likely set of events.

  • That Trump was looking to garner concessions from Ukraine in regards to assistance with investigations into alleged 2016 issues and Burisma. This was not obvious (but could be implied) from this phone transcripts without too much imagination.
  • That Trump was not necessarily willing to make these requests formal (which under our treaty with Ukraine would have required paperwork) or officially tie them to anything. 
  • McCarthy believes that Ukraine may have (at some time) asked for such official formal request, and that none was produced.
  • That Trump used the deadline (which would have rendered the aid dead unless renewed in the next congressional session) to put pressure on the Ukrainians. 
  • That there was nothing formal or specific demanded of the Ukrainians. The President continued to claim that there was no quid pro quo, even as quid pro quo was being implied.
  • McCarthy believes that it's dubious that Ukrainians were unaware that the aid was being held up (although McCarthy concedes that there really has been no evidence to show that the Ukrainians felt the aid was in jeopardy). 
  • He believes that many long time State employees (such as Taylor) as well as some of Trump's closer advisers were against the President attempting to garner these concessions and hoped to talk the President out of it or otherwise prevent the agreement. 
  • That eventually Trump made the decision to release the aid without garnering any official agreements on any investigations, either because the Ukrainians called his bluff or because he did not want to work against what was being recommended. 

A couple of notable points. The deadline that Democrats and their liberal MSM cronies suggested was a legal deadline for Trump to turn over the "congressionally approved aid" had nothing to do with any requirements for Trump to do anything. Trump could have legally withheld the aid till after the deadline (which was our fiscal calendar end) and at that point the aid would have no longer been available. That aid would have had to have been reissued by Congress had Trump allowed the deadline to pass. 

The fact still remains that according to our Treaty with the Ukrainians that there is specific paperwork that needs to be filled out to make a request to have the Ukrainians assist with any sort of investigation. Since that was never requested or obviously done, at best you have a situation where Trump was applying some unofficial pressure, rather than actually engaging in an official request for assistance that would otherwise been tied to aid. 

McCarthy continues to maintain that even had Trump when all the way to the degree of an official request for help in an ongoing investigation and officially tied it to the military aid, that it would still not constitute any sort of criminal activity. But he feels as a political process that Democrats will be able to make some headway if they can actually "prove" the quid pro quo (because of the fact that the Trump team has denied it). 

A fairly lucid take on things, which is very refreshing given the normal "all or nothing" manner in which nearly all of the pundits see this. 


Delaware State or University of Delaware?

I guess it can be confusing for someone of his age! 

Sunday, October 27, 2019

A very strange admission...

Comey sees nothing wrong with law enforcement having a political agenda


Let's start with the obvious. Law enforcement (and Special Counsel) had a mission to find the truth. Here, Comey is admitting that the "mission" of investigating the Russian influence into our 2016 election was to make a criminal conspiracy case against the President or at least someone within his campaign. The lack of criminal cases for conspiracy, makes the "mission" a failure... at least according to the former FBI director. Or perhaps, more to the point, the "mission" was to convince the American public that there was a conspiracy, even if you were unable to conclusively prove it.


Now ironically, Comey himself  had to testify under oath that he had found no evidence to that point of coordination between Trump and the Russian government, or those who ultimately interfered. He also testified under oath that he leaked information to the Press in order to prompt a Special Counsel investigation to continue the work he had started (but ultimately failed).

Special Counsel provided the public with a Report that normally would not be allowed under Department of Justice rules. It provided implied allegations without facts to back it up, and embarrassing information that never quite made it to the point of being evidence of criminal wrongdoing. More information than would ever be provided in a normal criminal probe that did not produce charges. In spite of this, the report not only failed to push the needle in favor of impeachment, it pushed it away from impeachment.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest theory with the least amount of assumptions is usually the correct theory. In this case, the simplest theory as to why five investigations failed to find any evidence of coordination or conspiracy would be that there was no coordination or conspiracy to find. That theory is the most plausible by about a hundred fold and requires not a single assumption to be made. You simply have to accept the facts as we know them, at face value.

Jame's Comey's theory is that the President simply outsmarted the FBI, both chambers of Congress, and Special Counsel for nearly three years. Comey believes that Trump was able to conceal everything and control everyone involved, which prevented the guys in the white hats from finding all of the evidence of the dastardly deeds that the former FBI director is sure were committed. This theory does not reflect the facts as we know them, and requires you to refuse to accept them at all.

I am not sure that James Comey is right in the head. He probably truly believed that the President was corrupt and that it would just require the right amount of pressure on the right people before everything would just flood out into the open. When it didn't pan out, and people like Paul Manafort are serving what amounts to life sentences... does Comey stop to think that possibly Manafort never actually had information to provide? How would you feel if you deep down knew that you destroyed the reputation of the very FBI you served and loved over a partisan allegation that may not have been rooted in reality? Well, you would probably tweet pictures of yourself in the middle of a forest looking completely lost, because you would be certifiably insane!


Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi reported dead! (Updated)

This would be a big body blow to ISIS

So what are the politics of this?

Some people will no doubt view this as the President attempting to "distract" the country from the more serious double secret impeachment inquisition taking place in a basement bunker somewhere in D.C. area. It's almost not hard to imagine our military having an easier time killing the leader of ISIS than getting into Schiff's dark probe of secrecy!

It could also be suggested that the President has decided to concentrate on more serious matters than whether some whiny State Department employee (who is upset in his/her decreased level of importance) has second hand information, or whether it might actually be third hand. As President...Trump still has a responsibility to "be" President, and let the so called "impeachment inquiry" run out of gas on it's own.

Either way it's obviously a good thing for the Country and a good thing for the world in general. If everyone could get together on that and simply congratulate everyone involved on a very, very important job well done, that would be the best possibly thing. But we'll see if that becomes the case. No doubt many on the left will have an extremely tough time giving any credit to anyone.

Sunday Funnies






















Saturday, October 26, 2019

Joe has another Hunter problem...

Guess who was leading the U.S. efforts to reduce "Romanian corruption"? 
In the final year of the Obama administration, an American lawyer traveled to Romania to meet with a businessman accused of orchestrating a corrupt land deal. The businessman was Gabriel “Puiu” Popoviciu, a wealthy Romanian real estate tycoon. The lawyer brought in to advise him was Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to two people familiar with the matter.
“We don’t know what [Hunter Biden] was paid or what he was paid for but it does raise questions of whether this Romanian individual facing criminal charges was actually paying for a connection to the American vice president,” said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor who specializes in government ethics.
Romania was by then a familiar place to the Biden family. A close friend and former staffer of Joe Biden, Mark Gitenstein, held the position of U.S. ambassador to Romania from August 2009 to December 2012. In March 2012, Hunter’s brother, Beau, was asked to do the ribbon-cutting at the new U.S. embassy in Bucharest.

So once again, it would appear that Hunter Biden happened to find lucrative money making gigs in countries where his father (The Vice President) was an influential American figure.  Romania, Ukraine, China? Perhaps Hunter Biden is just the greatest combination of  energy guru, fundraiser, legal counsel in the history of the world. Jack of all trades, and apparently enough of a master in all to earn himself millions!

Funny how Democrats accuse the President and his family of breaking the emoluments clause because his family continues to run the same businesses that they had "before" Trump became President. Yet, these same people don't appear to have any interest that Biden's family seemed to find "new" international gigs conveniently in areas of the world where Joe was politically active.

They want the Trumps to give up businesses that they previously owned.
They have no issue with Bidens finding new business opportunities while dad was V.P.

Hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism...

So... Remember when Horowitz found the phone and Text information that nobody else could...

Just one little nugget:

April 20, 2017, Strzok texts Page: “I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.” Ex. 2.
_______

Oh, and the stuff about how they set up Flynn, and then changed the 302 after the fact to make it look like he was lying? Between falsely accusing and prosecuting someone for a crime they knew he didn't commit, and admitting to coordinated media leaks... nobody on either side of the aisle should question why this has become a "criminal probe".


Friday, October 25, 2019

Impeachment "bumped from the headlines!"

Whenever I want to see an objective viewpoint, I go to Real Clear Politics!


Liberals - put away your sharp objects!

Missing: Romney, Murkowski, Collins

So this isn't exactly the embarrassment that many liberals thought it would be. Markos Moulitsas is beside himself with grief after predicting that Graham attempts would backfire on this one. He's especially upset with Cory Gardner, whom I guess he thought was backing impeachment because he is in a hard contest. Does someone like Markos not realize that a Republican cannot win a Senate race in 2020 without the support of the President and without the Republican base (which is adamantly against impeachment) ? 

Apparently many liberals (living in their own little liberal world) believe that Republicans would be abandoning the President, or at the very least not willing to step up to the plate and pledge their support. Funny thing is that Graham has pulled in several more Senators "since" the recent William Taylor testimony that the liberal world demanded was so damaging.

Removing the President in the Senate simply isn't going to happen. No matter how many silly stories you read in Politicalwire or whatever gossip cite you frequent, the reality is that none of these 50 Senators are going to vote in favor or removing the President based on what is known at this point. At best, Democrats would be impeaching on "attempted" quid pro quo, when quid pro quo is not even a crime. An "attempted non-crime" is not reason to overturn the results of an election. Especially with another one coming in just over a year from now. 

I doubt very seriously whether Romney, Murkowski, or even Collins will vote in favor of removing him. Not unless they plan on switching Parties before their reelection.

First the whistleblower, now their "star" witness!

It's called witness tampering and would generally be considered obstruction

Of course, Democrat will tell you this isn't a real legal issue, so the normal rules don't apply. Just like normal laws don't apply, or normal congressional protocol.


The bigger issue for Democrats is their insistence that this is a political process. The only political issue at stake is whether they can convince twenty Republican Senators to vote to impeach the President. Otherwise, it's an exercise in futility. They don't need to get fifty one percent of the public on board, they need to get closer to fifty one percent of Republicans behind them.

This sort of behavior by the Democrats (meeting with potential witnesses or potential complainants prior to their coming out) looks like they are orchestrating something, rather than uncovering something. At the end of the day, appeasing their base while alienating conservatives and Republicans is not going to get it done.

Republican Senators are not going to turn on the President because Democrats and left leaning independents want them to. Both sides will listen to their base, and that is why this is destined to be a stalemate. These sort of actions by Schiff are just creating a larger chasm between the two sides, making said stalemate a foregone conclusion.

The scorched earth strategy

Quid Pro Quo is actually not only legal, but normal 
Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”
The notion that there’s something inherently wrong with this sort of foreign-aid diplomacy is raising concern among some career diplomats. A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment.”

So I read through the 1961 Foreign assistance act, and it does provide that the authority to determine what conditions come with foreign aid was given to the executive branch by way of the Secretary of State. Since the SOS answers directly to and is provided constitutional authority from the President, by all legal and constitutional accounts the same authority is provided to the President.

More to the point, the plain language of the statute pretty much provided the expectation that most all aid approved by Congress will be released based on some set of conditions. In other words, the statute not only allows for "quid pro quo" but actually suggests that most all examples of foreign aid will be released under some negotiation for terms and conditions. The idea that Congressional aid is to be released without conditions is no where to be found in this law, and quite frankly nowhere to be found in historical precedent.

What this tells us in plain simple logic is that the entire concept that the President is breaking some sort of law (or even general protocol) by asking for something in return for military aid to Ukraine has absolutely zero basis in reality. Once again, the "law" as well as "historical precedent" is in the favor of the President.  The President isn't the one breaking from the norms by requesting conditions in exchange for aid, the people demanding that it's wrong are the ones breaking from both the law and the norms of the past several decades.

In their quest to take down the "bad orange man" and "undo the 2016 election" the Democrats are attempting to rewrite the law (without actually rewriting the law). As stated by these former State Department officials, the Democrats would literally be handcuffing our foreign policy moving forward... all in their ultimate quest to drive Trump from office.

Brennan and Clapper Lawyer up!

Justice Department review of Russia probe turns into criminal investigation
A probe by Attorney General William Barr into the origins of the Russia investigation has changed from an administrative review into a criminal investigation, a person familiar with the review confirmed to NBC News.
The review is being conducted by Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham. The New York Times first reported Thursday that the administrative review has turned into a criminal investigation.
The Times reported that the change in status gives Durham the power to subpoena witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.

They don't turn something like this into a criminal investigation (after this much time) if they are not 99.99% certain that there will be indictments and criminal charges. Will they be able to convince an all Democrat jury in Washington DC that any of these players deserve to be held accountable? Or will they provide the old jury nullification because it was regarding the "bad orange man". 

Time will tell.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Biden falls to fourth in new Iowa poll

Ukrainian Trump Impeachment likely drove down Biden's chances!

If the Democratic Caucuses were held today, which one of the following candidates
would be your first choice?

  • Elizabeth Warren, U.S. senator from Massachusetts 28%
  • Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana 20%
  • Bernie Sanders, U.S. senator from Vermont 18%
  • Joe Biden, former vice president of the United States 12%
  • Amy Klobuchar, U.S. senator from Minnesota 4%
  • Kamala Harris, U.S. senator from California 3%
  • Tom Steyer, businessman 3%
  • Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. representative from Hawaii 2%
  • Andrew Yang, businessman 2%
  • Cory Booker, U.S. Senator from New Jersey 1%
  • Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. representative from Texas 1%
  • Michael Bennet, U.S. senator from Colorado 1%

Biden can probably lose Iowa and still continue on. In fact, they have been almost conceding that he will lose both Iowa and New Hampshire. But he cannot take fourth. Iowa and New Hampshire are all about expectations and momentum. Biden falls in either of these first states by large margins and he will likely never recover. 

But here is the ridiculous irony of this whole situation. Democrats accuse Trump of attempting to pressure foreign powers into bringing up the Burisma Holdings situation, as a means to draw attention to Hunter Biden and therefor harm Joe Biden in the process. 

The argument by Democrats is that Trump believes that Joe Biden is his most dangerous opponent and that is why he planned on undercutting him by associating him with Ukraine, Hunter, Investigations, etc... If he could only get rid of Biden, his chances of winning the Presidency would increase tenfold! 

By all accounts (long before this whole "impeachment" deal started) the foreign aid to Ukraine had been provided and no statements had been made by anyone in Ukraine regarding Burisma, and no new investigations are known to be going on. The so called "incriminating" phone call took place back in July (and nothing had come of it). 

Imagine if the TDS liberals had just left well enough alone. There would be nobody talking about Ukraine, Burisma holdings, or Hunter Biden. Joe Biden likely still is considered the frontrunner and Trump would still be looking at a likely Biden candidacy and having to face his toughest opponent. 

It would appear that the deep state, the media, and outsmarted Democrats have done exactly what they believe the President wanted. They have brought Ukraine, Hunter Biden, Quid Pro Joe's demand to fire a prosecutor, and the entire possibility of more Obama/Biden corruption into the forefront. 

Meanwhile the President's average approvals look much like they have throughout his Presidency? Whatever short term drop (two points or so from his all time high) is not likely to make much difference in the long run. There will be some hearings. Partisan people will remain partisan. The House will impeach. The Senate will acquit. Trump will be no worse for the wear. In fact, it may relieve him of any "new" investigations between the end of impeachment and the election as the public will have "no" interest and "no" patience for any new investigations if the impeachment fails to remove him. 

Then what?

Democrats will no longer have "investigations" on their side, and they will have most likely lost their best candidate and best chance to beat Trump next November! 

Why the William Taylor testimony is bound to fall apart...

The "shocking" and "explosive" testimony by Taylor surrounded supposed conversations between US Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Zelensky aide Andrey Yermak where Sondland issues some sort of threat to withhold military aid if Ukraine did not investigate Burisma Holdings. Taylor is not a direct first hand witness to any of  these threats, but suggests that he knows that Sondland had made such threats on at least two different occasions. In fact, he insists that some of his information come directly from his own conversations with Sondland.

The problem upfront was that Sondland had previously testified pretty much the opposite. According to Sondland, we was never personally aware of or involved in any supposed quid pro quo regarding investigations. Sondland further testified that when he heard rumors of aid being held back over investigations that when he called the President to ask about it, Trump assured him that there was no such quid pro quo regarding the investigations.

So what both men appear to agree upon is that there was at least some "rumors" that the aid was being held back over some quid pro quo regarding investigations, but they obviously disagree as to whether those threats were actually ever given to the Ukrainians. Ironically Taylor suggests those threats were made (and that they were actually made by Sondland) while Sondland denies knowing about any direct threats.

Immediately, Democrats seized on the Taylor testimony to insists that Sondland must be lying and that he should be brought back for more questioning. In my general opinion, the opposite is true. If Taylor is making the allegation and Sondland continues to deny it, then the burden of proof is on Taylor to prove it, not Sondland to prove the negative.

Apparently Sondland issued a statement last night (or today) to the media via his attorney that reinforced his earlier testimony. Sondland insisted that not only did he not issue any threats, but that he personally was not in favor of any sort of quid pro quo. This was the reasons for his phone call with the President (who reassured him that there was no quid pro quo associated).

______

Meanwhile, it is also being reported that William Taylor has been part of a "think tank" for years that is actually funded by Burisma Holdings. If it actually turns out that Taylor has some ties to Burisma holdings himself, then one has to wonder out loud if his testimony isn't some sort of offense is the best defense  means to obstruct this investigation.

_______

Lastly, given the fact that the aid was provide without any actual requirement from Ukraine to investigate or without any public statement from Zelinsky, the tangible evidence falls in favor of Sondland. It doesn't "disprove" what Taylor says, it just requires a lot more assumptions, a lot more explanation, and a lot more stretching of the imagination to believe his story. 

If I understand correctly from what I read, Taylor's best explanation was that the threat was issued by Sondland. Zelinsky agreed to go on American Television and tell everyone that he was going to investigate Burisma Holdings (explaining how the Bidens were tied). This promise got Trump to agree to provide the Aid. Then once the aid was provided Zelinsky backed out when another American diplomat told a Ukrainian diplomat that Zelinsky shouldn't follow through. 

Seems like a hard story to swallow. 

More classic Democratic Media narrative collusion

So quite obviously we have many many people unhappy with how Adam Schiff and the Democrats are running their "impeachment inquiry". Apparently they believe that an impeachment inquiry is a behind the scenes situation where you do things behind closed doors, and with a limited amount of congressional members allowed to participate.

  • The Democrats do not feel it necessary to allow members of Congress to hear testimony or even review the transcripts.
  • But they do find it necessary to leak information to the press. Not objective transcripts or the whole story... just what they want the press to report. 

Yesterday the GOP members of the House decided to crash the Party. They were there as Representatives of their constituents to listen first hand to the testimony of whatever witness was going to be on the stand.

Democrats would not allow the testimony to continue, because they do not want other members of Congress to get first hand information. They desperately want to control the narrative and control the procedure. Allowing the full Congress to get involved would take that away.

So let's make one thing clear. THE WITNESS COULD HAVE TESTIFIED! In fact, that was sort of the entire point of these other House Representatives. To be there when she did. The decision to not have her testify was on Schiff and the Democrats.

But Schiff tells WaPo, Politico, and NYT that the talking points memo is NOT that the GOP members wanted to participate, but that they wanted to "shut it down". So that's what you hear, and that is what is parroted.

I hope the GOP continues to show up. Every day. Schiff and the Democrats will then have to make a decision to just stop everything, or continue with a full room (and no chance of being able to sneak things by people).

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Looks like this Impeachment nonsense is a preemptive distraction from real investigation taking place!

Durham's probe into possible FBI misconduct expanded based on new evidence

    Clapper and Brennan lawyer up! 
U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation into the origins of the FBI's 2016 Russia probe has expanded based on new evidence uncovered during a recent trip to Rome with Attorney General Bill Barr, sources told Fox News on Tuesday.
The sources said Durham was "very interested" to question former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump critic who recently dismissed the idea.
The two Obama administration officials were at the helm when the unverified and largely discredited Steele dossier, written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, was used to justify a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.

There is a bunch more information in this story, such as the fact that both Italy and Australia are currently assisting our Department of Justice in this investigation. Both Countries are doing so willingly and one might actually say they are doing so enthusiastically.

Seems sort of "silly" and "petty" that Democrats are screaming bloody murder that Ukraine might also get involved in assisting with the same investigation. I wonder out loud what Democrats believe that they have to hide in Ukraine?

The hard reality for liberals here is that if Horowitz, Durham, Barr and gang find evidence of real corruption and that real political bias (rather than merit) prompted the investigation of Trump, that much of what the Democrats are doing now would be rendered pretty much moot.

In fact, attempting to impeach the President for pushing investigations into wrongdoing that might actually include prominent Democrats become legally, logically, and absolutely Obstruction of Justice! There really can be no other way to see it.

In fact, one it becomes established that this impeachment inquiry is a last ditch effort to discredit or prevent the ongoing investigation into international interference in the 2016 election in favor of Clinton, and quite possibly in collusion with American government officials (and possibly even politicians)... then not only will that look like obstruction, but in fact many would likely be very open to the concept that Trump and the GOP is correct to push for investigations into Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings.

Reports! Taylor struggled and bumbled under cross examination!

Reports are that Bill Taylor's "explosive" testimony went awry once he was cross examined by Republican lawmakers. Republicans on the committee stated that Taylor quite literally had no actual knowledge of anything, but rather was providing literally nothing but hearsay information. Moreover, most of his testimony was in direct contrast to first hand accounts as well as what other available documented information.

I hate the bad orange man! 

According to these accounts, Taylor came off as a partisan deep state player who was very upset at his own reduced role in the Trump administration, and seemed to carry a ton of personal animosity towards Trump and those Trump trusts in these situations.

Not to mention, all of the things he suggested was going to happen, never actually happened. Under normal circumstances the idea that his information was hearsay, contradicted by more valid accounts and information, and did not pan out to anything rooted in reality "should" make people take what he says with a grain of salt.

Add it all up, and you have a disgruntled employee lashing out at the boss because things are changing in a manner that he doesn't like. What he has is quite literally nothing more than unfounded rumors that he would like to air to make his boss look bad.

The fact is that while Schiff can keep his fan base in the dark by leaking what he wants them to hear to the usual liberal MSM players, who will then report it as fact. Then liberals will hypocritically demand that any rebuttals leaked to FOX News or anyone conservative is akin to "fake news".

The bigger problem for Democrats is that this person "WILL" testify in an open public hearing. The public will hear EVERYTHING that he says, including what happens under cross examination. With Schiff and the Democrats "leaking" the good stuff and denouncing the "bad stuff" as fake news, they will have little to gain and everything to lose from airing this in an open setting!

Hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism...

Let's face it... Slow Joe Biden's memory isn't what it once was. 
He probably just forgot that he used the exact same terminology!

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Grasping at straws!

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election

Taylor testified that Trump told Sondland himself in a September 7 phone call that Zelensky must “go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself.”
The contents of this conversation were given to Taylor by the White House official in charge of Europe, Tim Morrison.

Oh, so he didn't actually "hear" the President say this?
He got this information from a third party who claims he heard this?
Moreover....

Taylor contradicted earlier testimony from Gordon Sondland, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, a key player in the effort to draw Ukraine into the election-related investigations. Sondland told House investigators last week that he recalls “no discussions” with anyone at the State Department or White House about investigating former vice president and 2020 president candidate Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.. 

Technically Sondland's first hand account contradicts Taylor's hearsay testimony, not the other way around. But it's funny how the media portrays the hearsay account (which wouldn't even be admissible in a normal hearing) as more valid than the first hand accounts.

But let's get to the real "heart of the matter". The FACT REMAINS that the aid was not withheld and Zelensky never publicly stated he was opening an investigation into anything. So what you have is a third hand account of quid pro quo that is denied by everyone involved and NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED!

In fact, just pretend for a moment that such a conversation took place. It would still be completely irrelevant if the so called threat in question was never actually initiated. The whole idea of quid pro quo is that you actually get something in return for what you are offering.

Ukraine got the military aid + No public declaration of anything = No quid pro quo!

So one way or the other. The story is either 95% false or 100% false. Take your pick!

More to the point, there is still absolutely nothing illegal about quid pro quo in general. Every President has done it. Every world leader has done it. Every future President and future world leader will do it. Apparently the only person who isn't supposed to do it... is the bad orange man!

So is the big one that will change the narrative? Doubtful:

Republicans accused Democrats of exaggerating. 
“I don’t know that any of us, if we are being intellectually honest, are hearing revelations that we were not aware of,” said Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina. “The bottom line is no one has yet to make the case for why the aid was withheld or even if the Ukrainians knew about it.”

The reality is that Republicans will continue to stick to their guns on this one, no matter how many double and triple hearsay witnesses make claims, or no matter how many unproven anonymous statements are made. The reason is that ultimately the facts remain on their side. The Aid was provided and Zelensky did not provide anything in return. You can spin the rest of it till you are dizzy and nauseated, but those simple facts will just not go away! 

Okay then...

Good thing Nancy Pelosi and vertical endeavors could get a word in edgewise!


Found these two memes...

Looks like "someone" stole this idea! 
But which guy looks funnier?




Trump out to big campaign advertising lead!

Trump dominates in digital, while Joe Biden twiddles his thumbs advertising on TV
I don’t watch much TV anymore. Most of the news I get is from some form of the internet (keeping that information flowing is another topic, it’s getting tough). So I’m unlikely to see Biden TV ads. But I constantly see Trump ads on Facebook.
Getting around mainstream media bias is tough. I don’t think even the most aggressive Trump digital strategy can completely neutralize the in-kind contribution the media gives to Democrats, but it’s making a major dent.
There’s a broader lesson there, one that needs to be applied to the education system — develop an alternative means of communicating with students, one that goes around biased institutions. 

Not sure you can totally rule out running television ads, especially this far out. That being said, I have seen Donald Trump ads during football games and other major television events that are not directly competing with Netflix, the internet, or other streaming services. In fact, Trump seems to be in almost full campaign mode, while the Democrats "actually" running are fairly silent. If  you put a gun to my head, I couldn't really tell you what Joe Biden claims to be standing for. For that matter, I am not sure what any of the Democrats right now stand for other than hating on the bad orange man. 

The RNC and the President are clearly raising a shit load of money and Trump is said to have somewhere in the area of $80 million in the bank right now, with more coming in every day. Most expect he will raise more than a billion dollars. We'll see. Obviously there are multiple Democrats running, which skews the early money in their favor, but much of that it is being spent on the primary, fighting among themselves.

Monday, October 21, 2019

Remember when certain people bragged about their twitter presence?

Sunday, October 20, 2019

Are Democrats blowing this?

Support for impeachment cools as Congress digs in for extended fight: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Support for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump cooled off this week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, as the White House hunkered down for an extended fight over allegations that the administration pushed a foreign government to investigate one of Trump’s Democratic rivals.
The Oct. 14-15 opinion poll, released on Tuesday, found that 43% of adults in the U.S. believe that Trump “should be impeached,” down 2 points from a similar poll last week. Another 42% said he “should not be impeached” and 14% said they were not sure.

So let's be clear. This is going to be a long drawn out process, and eventually the public is going to tire of the idea that Schiff and the Democrats are doing everything behind closed doors. Last week several Republicans went to the committee and asked to see the transcripts. They were denied. How can anyone be told that they must vote on impeachment when they are being not only shut out of the process, but are not even going to be allowed to see the evidence.

For those confused by the idea that this is like a Grand Jury indictment, keep in mind that our Grand Juries are allowed to actually attend the hearings and review any and all of the actual evidence. In fact they are sort of obligated to attend. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be allowed to vote. Since the entire House is required to vote for impeachment, it's unconscionable that they are not allowed to even see transcripts or evidence. 

So the idea that Democrats are holding anything that resembles a hearing is blatantly false. They are holding a political sham and are expecting their own Party to vote for impeachment regardless of what their inquiry does or doesn't turn up.

I do like that Mitch McConnell has suggested that a Senate Trial would require every Senator to be in session six days a week and that it will likely last up to six weeks. McConnell could even decide to delay the trial till after the first of the year, which would require all of the Senator running for President (Warren, Sanders, Booker, Harris) to spend 90% of their time in session and almost none of their time campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire. They will probably call Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses, providing a less than desirable moment in the hot seat for Joe Biden.

I strongly suspect that people will tire of this and realize that Democrats are just looking for an excuse (any excuse) to undermine the bad orange man. The problem is quantifying exactly what was done into something that actually resembles a real crime. Quid pro quo is not a criminal action. Calling for investigations is not a criminal act. Eventually enough people will take a step back and realize the absurdity of punishing this President for stuff that nearly every other President has done without consequence.