Saturday, November 30, 2019

A classic Conservative vs Liberal argument

Brett Kavanaugh’s latest opinion should terrify Democrats
The Supreme Court now has five votes to sabotage the next Democratic presidency.
Beginning in the latter half of the Obama administration, Federalist Society gatherings grew increasingly fixated on diminishing the power of federal agencies to regulate businesses and the public — an agenda that would severely weaken seminal laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
On Monday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled that he is on board with this agenda.
Kavanaugh’s opinion is not especially surprising. The Trump appointee to the Supreme Court keynoted the Federalist Society’s annual banquet earlier this month and he spent much of the Obama years frustrating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies. But his opinion is nonetheless significant because it shows that there are almost certainly five votes on the Supreme Court to slash agencies’ regulatory power.

This is a classic example of one of the main modern day differences between Democrats and Republicans, which has been amplified by the recent "impeachment" hearings. Yes, Virginia, there is a deep state, and that is exactly what the Democrats want.

As usual, the liberal point of view on anything "legal" is to ignore whatever underlying principle exists and concentrate instead on the end political result. In this case, the underlying legal issue is how much inherent power should unelected Federal workers be provided.

For conservatives, that answer is basically the less the better. Conservatives believe that policy is to be set by the elected leaders. Congress will write laws, and to the degree that there is ambiguity, those questions should be answered by the elected President and Vice President as carried down to the appointed department heads, which is carried out by the rank and file employees.

For liberals, that answer is the polar opposite. They would largely prefer to think of Federal agencies as running independent of the President and the elected leaders of the executive branch. Liberals realize that departments (such as the EPA) are generally loaded with other liberals, with liberal views, and liberal ideas. They prefer that this unelected bureaucracy be provided a grand amount of power, making sure that certain areas of the Government "always" remain "liberal" and outside the control of the elected leaders that the Constitution declares to be in charge

One reason why is that Democrats tend to support robust regulation while Republicans do not. An anti-regulatory doctrine inherently favors conservatives.
A second reason is that the Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans. So, even if it is possible for the Nondelegation Doctrine to be applied in a neutral way, this Supreme Court seems unlikely to do so.
Meanwhile, the biggest problem facing Democrats for the foreseeable future is Senate malapportionment. Currently, the Republican Senate “majority” represents 15 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority,” and that’s a significant Republican gain over the previous Senate. In the Senate that confirmed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Republican “majority” represented almost 40 million fewer people than the Democratic “minority.”

The idea here is that our elected Government is inherently "unfair" to Democrats and therefore the only way to combat that is to take the power from the elected leaders and place it in the hands of the liberal rank and file... or what would be commonly referred to as the "deep state" made up of Federal employees who do not believe that they do or should answer to Presidents and elected leaders whom they do not personally agree with. 

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Trump continues to use his position as President to interfere with the 2020 election!

Stocks extend record run on strong economic data
The Dow was up 40 points, while the S&P 500 climbed 0.4% and the Nasdaq advanced 0.55%. The averages posted intraday records and were headed for their fourth straight day of gains.
Consumer discretionary was the best-performing sector in the S&P 500, rising 0.7%. Durable goods orders rose 0.6% in October while economists expected a decline of 0.8%. Weekly jobless claims, meanwhile, fell to 213,000 from 227,000. Third-quarter GDP was revised to show growth of 2.1%. That’s up from a previous reading of 1.9%.
The strong data comes ahead of the Federal Reserve releasing its Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions, also known as the Beige Book, at 2 p.m. The commentary offers insight on the state of the world’s largest economy and a look into how the Fed views its monetary policy stance. The Fed has lowered rates three times this year and has indicated it will likely keep rates at current levels for the foreseeable future.
The major averages have been on fire over the past month as optimism around U.S.-China trade talks increases. The Dow and S&P 500 are up 4.3% and 4.1%, respectively, in that time while the Nasdaq is up 5.5%.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump said negotiators were close to reaching an initial trade deal. Trump’s upbeat comments on trade followed a phone call between officials from the U.S. and China. The negotiators agreed to keep working on remaining issues.

Yes, the President is engaging in even more attempts to influence the 2020 election by presiding over such a good economy. It's become crystal clear that a good economy, low unemployment, and a robust future will help the President get reelected as well as hinder the Democrat's changes of undermining him with lots of pointless investigations.

I mean, look at the nerve of this guy? Using his office to make everyone's life better, all to undermine the Democrat and ultimately get himself reelected. This cannot stand!

This is really "missing the point".

As Trump Cases Arrive, Supreme Court’s Desire To Be Seen As Neutral Arbiter Will Be Tested
It announced Tuesday that it will consider on Dec. 13 whether to schedule a full briefing and argument on the president’s request that it overturn a lower-court ruling giving New York prosecutors access to Trump’s tax returns and other financial records in their investigation of ­hush-money payments in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
There are many more such evaluations to come.
“This is a real existential test for this Supreme Court,” said Walter Dellinger, a longtime member of the Democratic legal establishment who argued for President Bill Clinton when the Supreme Court ruled he was not immune from a lawsuit.
“This will be a special moment for the independence of the judiciary and whether the hyperpartisanship that has infected so much of our culture has also infiltrated the Supreme Court.”

This is nonsense. The courts "only" objective (as a matter of constitutional decree) is to get the law correct. They have no requirement to be seen as politically fair to both sides. They do not keep score, where it's one for the Democrats and then one for the Republicans. Their entire existence is dependent on them arbitrating the constitution and the law.

If 20 politically charges cases fall in their lap, and all 20 of them happen to show that the law is on the side of one Political Party or the other, then that is the way that they have to rule. Screw the politicians who might see this is as unfair.

To some degree, this is the criticism of Chief Justice Roberts, who every session seems to come up with one convoluted twisted into knots ruling that allows him to side with the liberal Justices to make things seem more "fair". In fact, there are several stories regarding Roberts switching sides, because he could not convince any other liberals to join him, and thus wanted to avoid another 5-4 decision (on the conservative side).

This sort of criticism (regarding fairness) is aimed directly at influencing Roberts.

The reality here is that you have circuits (such as the 9th) where some of these Judges will rule against Trump for silly reasons that defy common judicial sense. You cannot "reward" these mindless decisions by making sure that you uphold a certain percentage.

The Trump Administration (and DOJ) has won the lion's share of the cases in the end. They seem to lose most of the off the bat (because generally you have judge shopping that end up with resistance judges). I know its frustrating for liberals to see case after case after case overturned on appeal. But the problem isn't with the ultimate result. The problems are with the preliminary rulings.

There is no logical reason for the high court to ever appease that nonsense.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Another DJIA record!

USSC blocks Trump's Financial records from being turned over

Supreme Court blocks subpoena for Trump financial records
The U.S. Supreme Court late Monday blocked a House subpoena directing President Donald Trump's accounting firm to turn over several years' worth of financial documents, giving the president at least a temporary legal victory.
In a brief order, the court said the subpoena would remain on hold until the president's lawyers file their appeal and the court acts on the case. The court gave his lawyers until Dec. 5 to file their appeal, a sign the justices intend to move quickly. But if the court agrees to hear the appeal, the stay would remain in effect for several more months.

So this was not unexpected. The USSC was always likely to hear this case and they are likely leaning towards siding with the President (one of the criteria for staying a lower court order depends on the court believing there is a reasonable chance that the petitioner will win an appeal).

This has become a little bit of a paradox with the liberal press. They seem to act as if the USSC are the ones going "rogue" because they seem to be in continuous disagreement with lower court rulings. It's almost as if they do not quite want to accept the fact that the Supreme Court is the authority. These are highly respected Judges who have paid their dues.

The reality is that most of these lower court "resistance" decisions going against Trump simply do not have the law, precedent, or basic common sense going for them. Even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has started to overrule their District Judges, perhaps a bit tired of being overruled themselves.

The bigger problem is that we are at a point where District Court decisions (especially in places like the 9th Circuit Court) and no longer really taken seriously. If you know that the decision will be appealed, and you know that it's likely going to be overturned, it makes very little sense for a Judge to make a "resistance" ruling. It feels like these District Judges are more interested in handing down politically motivated decisions that make some sort of statement, rather than handing down a grounded legal decision that will likely hold up on appeal.

It may "not" feel fair for some of these liberal Judges to have to take into consideration how their decision will hold up under appeal, but that "used" to be one of the key factors in whether or not a Judge was considered a "good judge" and whether they would be considered for a nomination to a higher court. It used to be that Judges "never" wanted to have a decision overturned. Now it seems like some of these Judges wear it like a badge of honor.

Interests wanes

And for now, there are no more public hearings scheduled?

Herein lies the problem. The Democrats spent a bunch of time teasing everyone with these secret closed door basement hearings, where they would selectively leak information designed to give the impression that they were making big progress.

Then they carefully selected the witnesses that "they" believed would help their cause and called them to testify in public. The problem was that witness after witness after witness went south under cross examination, specifically as it pertained to whether or not they actually had any knowledge of any impeachable offenses. 

They all answered no. No first hand accounts, no witness, or no actual knowledge of illegal activity by the President or those close to him. 

Monday, November 25, 2019


Upcoming Horowitz Report.

So there have been several leaks and reports about the upcoming Horowitz report. One one hand, there is plenty of speculation that the report will show serious problems with how the entire Russian probe was handled. This speculation is enhanced by the reality that Barr assigned a criminal prosecutor (Durham) to deal with some of the reported issues, as well as the known reality that it was officially designated to be a criminal probe.

On the other hand, we have had many recent reports (or at least one report repeated many times) that suggests that Horowitz will find some mishandling of things at the rank and file level, but that he will fail to find either any issues with the leadership or with any sort of actual bias coming from those in charge. This would be basically the same exact manner in which the internal investigation of the IRS went down. Sure, there was bias and problems, but it took place at a very low level, and we got rid of the bad apples. Nothing to see at the top.

There is a part of me that finds it difficult to believe that the IG would hand in a 500 page report, the DOJ would assign a new prosecutor to work with the IG,  that they would change the probe to be criminal by definition, all for the sake of prosecuting one low level employee who changed an email. That seems to be better than the best case scenario that most people would logically conclude from what we know for fact. Especially since we already know that the IG has recommended other criminal charges (that had not been pursued by the previous prosecutor assigned).

On the flip side, there is a ton of historical evidence that suggests these sorts of internal investigations never actually get past a couple of low level fall people who end up being charged, while those in charge and in real leadership positions are given a pass. It wouldn't be inconsistent for Durham to charge one or two people that nobody has heard of, while the IG report will basically say things may have skirted some policies, didn't necessarily use best practices, but that no "criminal acts" were committed by those at the top.

I think it's also important to note that the investigation into Russian interference is completely separate from the investigation into any Trump coordination. It's entirely possible that the IG concludes that the FBI was entirely justified in how they handled the Russian probe, while simultaneously seeing problems with the portion of that probe that dealt with Trump and his campaign. One of the liberal gas-lighting ploys is to attempt to join the two into one probe, where proof of the former somehow justifies a lack of prove of the latter. So we should be careful to view any "reports" that focus on the Russian interference portion of the conclusions as potentially being misleading.

If you put a gun to my head, I would offer that anyone hoping to see Comey, McCabe, Strzok, or Page going to jail will be disappointed. But anyone who is believing that Horowitz spent all this time and wrote a 500 page report to say that there was nothing wrong (other than a single low level employee changing some documents) is engaging in wishful thinking.

Chronic health issues

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg released from hospital:
Ginsburg, 86, began experiencing the symptoms on Friday. She went to a hospital in Washington before being transferred to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore for more evaluations, the court said.
The court said on Saturday that the justice’s symptoms have abated after antibiotics and fluids and that was expected to be released from the hospital the following day.

Herein lies the ultimate issue here. Ginsburg is now being admitted to the hospital for symptoms that would generally be treated by over the counter medication and rest. At least that is how it would be treated for a normal healthy person that is not 86 years old.

Most of us have have loved ones grow old. We have all witnessed the deterioration of health to the degree that more and more care is needed, eventually leading to some sort of assisted care, or even nursing home care.  There comes a time when normal day to day activities will need to be monitored and special treatment must be made available.

While none of this is uncommon for people in their mid-late eighties, you will also not see very many people living in assisted living who hold down any sort of job, much less a Supreme Court Judgeship. Now, quite obviously someone like Ginsburg has the resources to hire health aids, have much of what she would need be available at her home.

But does this change the optics that we would have someone with these sorts of health concerns sitting on the USSC. If this wasn't a partisan situation, which all sorts of political repercussions, I think everyone involved would say it would be best for her to step down.

Sunday, November 24, 2019

Liberals and Democrats remain out of touch!

Independents souring on impeachment underscores risk for Democrats
New public opinion polls are moving against Democrats on impeachment as independents sour on the House inquiry and increasingly express opposition to the hearings that have consumed Washington in recent weeks.
The new data comes as a surprise to Democrats, many of whom believe witnesses have offered damning testimony about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
Witnesses have testified that Trump pressed Ukraine’s leaders to conduct investigations of the energy company Burisma Holdings — which was seen as code for probes of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, given the younger Biden’s work for the company as a board member.
There has also been testimony that security aid for Ukraine was delayed to put more pressure on that country’s government. Other witnesses have castigated Trump for pursuing conspiracy theories that Ukraine and not Russia was a major player in electoral interference in 2016.

This pretty much reads as a parody. The "Hill" (much like liberals and the coastal elitists) just see things differently than the rest of the Country.

“There’s always a disconnect between Washington and what people are thinking out in the states,” said Dick Harpootlian, the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party and a surrogate for former Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

The reality is that testifying to secret codes (rather than real evidence), delays (rather than actual withholding), or issues irrelevant to the impeachment allegations are not going to move anyone who isn't already convinced that Trump is guilty of something, everything, and anything in between. 

I cannot personally figure out exactly why Schiff, Pelosi and the rest of the gang believe that they can continue to push impeachment without actually being able to prove what they are alleging. A majority of the witnesses do not even pretend to have any relevant information about the allegations. Rather they spent all of their time disagreeing with the manner in which the President is conducting his Ukrainian foreign policy.

I guess if you are one of those people who believe that Presidents shouldn't be allowed to make their own foreign policy, then these are effective witnesses (even thought they have nothing to do with the issue at hand). On the flip side, if you are of the opinion that the Constitution matters, then these witnesses are proof positive that a deep state does exist and that they are no longer hiding the fact.

But anyone holding the Democrats to the point that they are trying to make are going to be extremely disappointed with the case being made so far. This would be exactly why support is dropping and why the support is dropping specifically in "flyover country" (which of course is where pretty much all of your battleground states are located).

Biden Ukraine Investigation should help Biden?

To be clear, there are serious questions to be answered and the majority of Americans support this probe. If Biden really wants to be President, then he should welcome the opportunity to have his (and his son's) name cleared.

All Graham and the Senate is looking to do is to take a look at a series of phone calls that took place between Biden and some Ukrainian officials. If, as Biden insists, there was never any mention of Burisma, anything that might be seen as pressure to back of any sort of investigations, or other meddling in Ukrainian business, then Biden will be clear as a bell.

Certainly we have learned that falsely accusing someone of something can backfire, both in the polling and in fundraising. Given Biden is stagnant on both fronts, he should be welcoming the false allegations and subsequent humiliation of Graham and the GOP for making the outlandish claims.

Unless Biden actually thinks they might find something incriminating, he should be telling the public he has nothing to hide and that he wants his name cleared. One has to wonder why he is pushing back so hard?

Sunday Funnies!

Saturday, November 23, 2019

Sandman lawsuits move forward against WaPo, CNN, NBC

Of Course Trump wants a Senate Trial!

Certain people on the left are suggesting that the President has lost his marbles by suggesting that it would be good for him to have a trial in the Senate. Conventional wisdom would offer that continuous press tying Trump to impeachment would be harmful. The simple question I would ask these liberals is:

Have you seen the recent impeachment poll numbers?

Since the impeachment hearing have started, the RCP average on impeachment has shown a drop in support for impeachment and an increase in opposition. The last Emerson poll showed that Independents (the key demographic that must be won over) have soured on impeachment to the tune of 24 points. Independents went form supporting Impeachment by 48-39 (+9) to now opposing it by 34-49  (-15). 

This has objectively been somewhere between a polling "wash" to a polling "disaster" depending on the poll. The more people learn, the less they believe Trump deserves to be impeached.

All of this without Trump or the GOP being able to call the witnesses they want to call!

This is why the President wants a Senate trial. Because he would finally be allowed to put up a defense!

At this point in time, the Democrats should be at their highest polling levels. They've leaked their strongest points, and paraded those witnesses that they wanted to put forward.  Basically this has been done while limiting who can question and what they can ask.

But the polling is not improving in favor of impeachment. So it begs the question regarding what happens to the polling after the President and the GOP get to tell their side of the story?

Trump wants to find out. Democrats should be wary of a Senate trial, and wary of questioning the President's judgment on this. 

Friday, November 22, 2019

Senate will probe the Ukrainian situation!

Graham launches probe of Bidens, Burisma and Ukraine
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday requesting documents related to former vice president Joe Biden and his communications with Ukrainian officials, a step seen as a GOP effort to counter the House impeachment investigation of President Trump.
The inquiry by Graham (R-S.C.) is focused on any calls Biden may have had with Petro Poroshenko, then the Ukrainian president, regarding the firing of the country’s top prosecutor, as well as any that referenced an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian natural-gas company that employed Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

This (of course) is being treated as a "witch hunt" by the left, who do not understand their hypocrisy and irony of demanding that investigations should not actually start unless there is already evidence of something diabolical. Trump has been investigated for the past four years, without any evidence to back up these investigations.

More odd is that two Ukrainians have already been convicted in Ukrainian court of interfering with our 2016 election, and we know for a fact that Ukraine was involved with a joint investigation with the Obama administration of Paul Manafort (during the election). We also know that Ukrainian investigators leaked information to the US press that was damaging to the Trump campaign.

While this is not proof that the Bidens did anything wrong, it is certainly enough to dispute the claims from many liberals (including several witnesses in the impeachment hearing) who demand that investigating Ukraine is a dead end, and desperately should be avoided at all cost.  One "really" has to wonder what these people are hiding.

It pained CNN to report this!

Exclusive: Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe
An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.
This is just the start of things to come from the Russian investigation hoax! There will be more in the coming weeks.

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Impeachment hearings helping Trump in all facets!

 Of course, this is NOT an MSM commissioned poll or it would have been buried!

The poll comes as the White House is embroiled in the House’s impeachment investigation into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Voters are slightly opposed to impeaching Trump, with 45 percent in opposition and 43 percent in support.
The results, which mark a reversal from October, are largely driven by Independents, who supported impeachment by a 48-39 margin last month and now oppose impeachment by a 49-34 margin.

Bottom line is that this impeachment hearing is exposing the Democrats for what they really are. A bunch of whiny, unfair, partisan, Trump hating, American hating, petty, vindictive, crybabies who still cannot get over their 2016 election defeat!

Keep in mind. These polls are being taken while Democrats have full control of pretty much everything. If they cannot convince people in their own setting, where it is all their own rules, how do you think they will do in the Senate when the GOP controls the witness list, which questions can be asked, who can ask them, etc, etc...

Already the GOP is floating the idea of banning any and all hearsay (as it would be in a real criminal proceeding) which would cut the Democratic list of witnesses down to about zero, or at least limit their testimony to providing their name. They can also have the Chief Justice treat the event as a criminal trial and pretty much object to any witnesses who are there just to provide irrelevant opinions on policy questions. Meanwhile all of the evidence that they are "hiding" will be exposed once they vote to impeach.

In other words, the actual trial held in the Senate will be a virtual nightmare for the Democrats.

Which is why there are still rumors that many people within the Democratic Party are looking at other options (such as a censure vs impeachment).


What did Sondland "really" provide for Democrats?

For the next 24 hours or so we will watch both sides treat today's testimony as a total win, just as they have every other day of the testimony. The left will  demand that yesterday was full of "bombshells" while the right will suggest that like every other witness, Sondland was unable to provide any smoking gun evidence of the allegations being made by the Democrats.

As "I" (as well as many others) have argued, even if the Democrats could prove 100% of what they claim (that Trump used congressional aid to investigate his political opponents), it still wouldn't rise to the level of misconduct that will convince Republicans to vote to remove their duly elected President. Especially considering that Ukraine got their aid without announcing any investigations into Hunter or Joe Biden, rendering it impossible to actually prove any sort of deal actually ever existed. The best that Democrats could do is argue that Trump "meant" to bribe Zelensky, but that the quid pro quo arrangement never took place in spite of Trump's intention. But even that would be unlikely to sway many (if any) Republicans.

If they were temporarily swayed, they would just need to be reminded of this:

So what happened today to get the Democrats and their faithful followers up in arms? Well it was the opening statement that Gordon Sondland suggested that there was quid pro quo, that everyone knew about it, and that it was right out in the open. The problem is that the quid pro quo that Sondland was referencing had nothing to do with the aid, and it had nothing to do with Hunter or Joe Biden. To some degree it was a messy opening statement that was likely "meant" to provide Sondland with some good will from the Democrats (that never actually came).

Once that statement had been digested and the questioning began, it became clear that Sondland was referring to Trump wanting some sort of anti-corruption statement (regarding investigations) before Trump would invite Zelensky for a White House visit. Even this was something that Sondland had presumed, rather than actually hearing it from the President. But the idea that there needed to be some gesture by the new Ukrainian President was generally accepted by all Parties involved, and as Sondland pointed out... nobody thought there was anything wrong with this (because there really isn't).

What Sondland could not provide was any sort of evidence that the "aid" was being held up because of any investigations. Once again Sondland presumed that to be the case, but even at the time he never was given any impression (by anyone) that the aid being held up has anything to do with the Bidens or anything political in nature. In other words, he was not privy to any information that suggested that there was quid pro quo as it pertained to the aid (although he presumed as much). But even his presumption did not include the President specifically demanding investigations into the Bidens, much less having some corrupt intent.

So to the degree that the Democrats are claiming victory is an admission that they just may not ever be able to prove the corrupt idea of Trump using foreign aid to get a foreign power to investigate a political rival. What we have instead is a classic example of the bait and switch. Reel them in with a serious allegation and try to hook them with whatever lesser thing they can sort of prove and try to pretend that it's a difference without a distinction.

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Democratic Debate thread!

Meanwhile, back in the real world!

While you were watching Gordon Sondland, Trump flipped the 11th Circuit
Even as the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday heard crucial testimony from pivotal witness Gordon Sondland, the Senate voted to confirm Trump’s latest appointee to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a regional appeals court handling cases from Georgia, Alabama and Florida.
The action represented a new milestone in Trump’s dramatic reshaping of the federal judiciary, with Republican-appointed judges now in the majority in the 11th Circuit, whose majority before Trump took office in January 2017 had been Democratic appointees. Republican-appointed justices tend to be conservative, while Democratic-named judges tend to be liberal.
This marks the third time that Trump has been able to engineer the ideological “flip” of one of the nation’s 13 federal appeals courts, which exert considerable power one level below the U.S. Supreme Court. The other two to “flip” were the Manhattan-based 2nd Circuit and the Philadelphia-based 3th Circuit, both of which also had Democratic-appointed majorities when Trump became president.

This is what Trump was elected to do. Change the manner in which our entire judicial system works. Get back to actual legal and constitutional experts, rather than liberal anti-Trump resistance Judges who put their personal politics ahead of the law.

Moreover, Trump has recently nominated (and will eventually have confirmed) two more members of the 9th Circuit Court, which would provide him with 10 of the 29 Justices on that court.

Tables turning in Wisconsin!

Important Battleground State swinging towards Trump and away from impeachment!

At the end of the day...

Every single witness has provided this same sort of statement

If this boils down to soundbites when this is all over, there will be a 60 second ad running on behalf of the President doing little more than showing witness after witness admitting that they have no evidence of any corrupt intent, any crimes, or even any direct evidence that the President did what he was accused of doing (blocking aid in exchange for investigations into Hunter and Joe Biden).

On the flip side, Democrats are still required to manufacture their case from bits and pieces here and there, where they have to use implied logic, strawman fallacies, assumptions, speculation, and of course lots of hearsay that was never confirmed by the people closest to the President.

I find it interesting that liberals are looking at this from the standpoint that the person who has the direct knowledge of something can be "contradicted" and somehow legally overruled by someone who is providing the hearsay. The fact remains that hearsay is not reliable to the degree that it is almost never allowed in criminal and civil courts, and pretty much never allowed if the court can provide the first hand account.

It is becoming more and more evident that the intention of Schiff and the Democrats is not to actually prove what they claim to prove, but rather to parade deep state actors to the witness stand to provide their disapproval of the President's policy and the manner in which he implements it. Seems like a pretty serious forum for one Party to be basically doing little more than airing out political and policy disagreements. The public is growing weary...

From +9 to +3.8 since the hearings started

Idea that the impeachment hearings would solidify support was wrong!

Keep in mind that Democrats went to public hearings in part to shore up support. Everyone instinctively knows that you cannot remove a duly elected President based entirely on partisan support (even Pelosi knows that). The ONLY way this was successful for Democrats was for these hearings to push the needle in their favor and start to pick up right leaning independents, as well as some Republicans.

But In spite of controlling all aspects of these hearings and in spite of calling only those witnesses and asking only the questions that they want to ask and in spite of withholding exculpatory evidence and in spite of not allowing the President to cross examine or call witnesses... they have still managed to lose (not gain) support.

This comes from two fundamental issues. The first is that the allegations are primarily smoke and mirrors. There isn't really a concrete issue that the general public can look at. The Democrats can demand that certain actions constitute "bribery" but there really isn't a good foundation for this belief (never before has setting conditions for aid argued to be bribery). People want to be able to easily understand a crime, especially when it comes to removing a President from office for the first time "ever". 

The second issue is that the Democrats have simply not been able to push forward their case. Witness after witness after witness has provided the same basic testimony. They complain about the President's foreign policy. They provide some hearsay information. They demand that what they believe happened was "inappropriate". But once each witness is questioned directly as to whether or not they witnessed any crime... they all say that they have not.

Hard to impeach a President when nobody you call to the stand will testify that they have witnessed any crimes.

McCarthy : Democrats obstructing impeachment inquiry

Forgive McCarthy for taking a legal approach to this 
Unlike classified information, the law does not even cloak whistleblowers in secrecy. It merely protects them from reprisals for revealing information that may be embarrassing or incriminating.
The only official that the statute directs to keep the whistleblower’s identity confidential is the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG), to whom a whistleblower makes his report. But even that direction is limited. The statute states that the ICIG may reveal a whistleblower’s identity in two situations. First, disclosure is permitted when “disclosure is unavoidable” if the matter is to be investigated properly. Second, consistent with what I’ve outlined above, the ICIG may disclose the identity to the Justice Department for purposes of its determination of whether a prosecution is appropriate.
The reason for these exceptions is obvious. If a whistleblower’s complaint is going to lead to a full-blown investigation or a prosecution, it is not possible to keep the whistleblower’s identity a secret. People who are subjected to an investigation or prosecution have a due process right to defend themselves.
In a normal investigation, if the government told a court that it wanted to proceed against a suspect but withhold information relevant to the prosecution, the judge would be outraged. The court would inform the government that if it wanted to prioritize secrecy, it would have to dismiss the case; but if it wanted to proceed with the case, it would have to disclose. To proceed with an accusation but suppress the information the accused needs for purposes of investigating and confronting the accusation is obstruction of the truth-seeking process.
That is precisely what congressional Democrats are doing. They are not merely withholding the identity of the whistleblower. They are denying committee Republicans the right to question other witnesses about relevant dealings with the whistleblower.
For example, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who is scheduled to testify in a public hearing on Nov. 19, is believed to have consulted with the whistleblower. Those interactions bear on his knowledge and possible bias, which are highly relevant issues.
Yet, when the committee interviewed him behind closed doors, Schiff repeatedly cut off questioning that touched on the whistleblower – on the bogus rationale that permitting this entirely reasonable line of inquiry might compromise the whistleblower’s interest in confidentiality.
That is, the truth-seeking process was subverted to protect “rights” that the “whistleblower” does not actually have to both anonymity and insulation from examination.
That is absurd. The statute imposes no prohibition on Congress from revealing the whistleblower’s identity. And as we’ve seen, it does not even inhibit the ICIG from revealing the identity if doing so facilitates an investigation.

This is one big giant case of gaslighting by the Democrats. They have taken the legal idea of limited protections for a whistleblower (such as loss of employment or other reprisals) and prevents the I.G. from revealing his source without the person's consent.

But there are no laws (or anything even remotely relating to common sense) about a whistleblower being protected by Congress, the media, or within some sort of legal proceeding. McCarthy is 100% correct when he states that if this was a criminal prosecution (rather than a political show) that a judge would never allow the government to withhold information from the accused for any reason. If they chose to do so, then they would have to drop the case.

In this charade, it's not just the whistleblower information that is being withheld from the accused, it's all sorts of relevant testimony and information. One of the fastest way for a prosecutor to have their case overturned and set a defendant free is to withhold relative information from the defense. But in the case of the Schiffshow... withholding what they want and releasing what they want is actually the design. The entire basis of their strategy is to break every norm and laws that we have to protect defendants from having their due process taken away.

But... then again, it's the bad orange man. Who is he to deserve due process?

The irony is in spite of stacking the deck, and then dealing off the bottom, the Democrats are still losing this impeachment fight in the court of public opinion.

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Here is your impeachment hearing thread!

Democrats are inspiring Republicans to give, give, give!

Impeachment backlash fuels record GOP fundraising, massive $61M in bank
The Republican National Committee fundraising juggernaut, fueled by a GOP backlash to the House impeachment effort to force President Trump from office, scored another record in October and pushed the bank account past $61 million.

The debt-free RNC told Secrets exclusively that it brought in $25.3 million in October and has $61.4 million cash on hand.
For perspective, that is nearly triple what it raised in October 2017, the last nonelection October, and the money on hand is the most since 2012.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has been setting fundraising records month after month, and when the Trump 2020 campaign effort is included, the GOP team has raised nearly $400 million. In September, it raised over $27 million, another record.
By comparison, the Democratic National Committee was $7 million in debt last month. Officials, however, note that the DNC is competing with over a dozen presidential candidates for donations.
The party credited support for Trump and anger by many Republicans at impeachment. Its anti-impeachment effort called “Stop the Madness” has brought in 75,000 volunteers.
“While Democrats are focused on their sham impeachment charade, Republicans had another record-breaking fundraising month in October — the best off-cycle October in our party’s history,” said McDaniel.
“When you look beyond the Beltway, it’s clear that the American people are sick and tired of the Democrats’ baseless investigations. In 2020, voters will choose results over the Democrats’ polarizing political rhetoric, and the RNC is in the strongest position possible to reelect President Trump and Republicans up-and-down the ballot,” she added.

We'll see how this turns out, but at this point there are very few people outside the three stooges, Markos Moulitsas, and the "opinion pages" of the NYT and WaPo who see this going well for Democrats. Pre-impeachment polling strongly suggests that people were not interested and not willing to change their minds. The ratings suggest that people are not watching. Presidential and horse race polling suggests that the hearings are likely helping Trump more than harming him.

Now we go into stage two of the impeachment hearings, which is to say we are hearing from aids of people who we never heard of who are going to provide hearsay from others we have never heard of. The only real witness appears to be Gordon Sondland who apparently has had about a half dozen phones calls with the President and has already testified in private really nothing that we already do not know.

Liberals will try to make hey with the idea that Sondland believed that Aid was contingent on investigations. This will still not be first hand information (Sondland was providing an opinion of what he believed) and there will be no direct evidence of which investigations were being referred to. Even liberals understand that tying aid to anti-corruption investigations (as previous administrations did) or tying aid to cooperating on our ongoing 2016 election interference probe would be perfectly acceptable (or at least they should understand this).

Their entire argument appears to be an attempt to confuse (and merge) any and all investigations as if they were direct requests to "dig up dirt" and "interfere with the 2020 election". This is 100% a semantic rhetorical argument that really falls short on fact and evidence. But unfortunately for Schiff and gang, focus group tested semantics and rhetoric is all they can muster at this point. For these efforts, they see their political opponents getting rich with donations!


Lots of things you can live down... farting on national television isn't one of them!

Among the allegations now floating around, Swalwell has proven himself to be the leaker, Seth Rogan can "taste it", and there is whole load of humor surrounding his attack on the Green New Deal.

Monday, November 18, 2019

I fought the glass... and the glass won!

I fought the glass... and the glass won!  

Trump approval back up to 50%

Apparently the impeachment hearings are not having the intended effect!  

Warren is now struggling as well...

Warren's tax plan could bring rates over 100% for some billionaires
Tax rates higher than 100 percent could result from the combination of several tax hikes the Massachusetts senator has called for on the ultra-wealthy, as first reported by The Wall Street Journal. That includes increasing the top income-tax rate to 39.6 percent from 37 percent; imposing a new 14.8 percent on Social Security; slapping a 6 percent tax on individuals worth more than $1 billion and requiring investors to pay capital-gains taxes at the same rates as other incomes.
For instance, a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6 percent return, or $60, as a capital gain, dividend or interest could owe 58.2 percent of that, or $35 in federal tax. On top of that, that person would be hit with a 6 percent wealth tax, or an additional $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158 percent, according to the Journal.

This is a classic problem for the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. Their plans are all about whipping up their base, and nothing about the actual substance. You obviously cannot create a tax plan where people are paying more in taxes than they are actually earning. But that is still what Warren (and many of her potential voters would want).

The problem is that the average person does actually want logical solutions that can actually be implemented over pie in the sky wishing well fantasies that have no chance to succeed. Dream big is a nice idea, but the people in the world who succeed actually perform big.

Warren has gone from a bit over 50% for the betting odds, to just under 30%. A fairly dramatic drop. She still leads the pack in those regards, with Biden barely edging out the surging Buttigieg. The ever-present (but never leading) Sanders has drifted into fourth. So to the degree that she has lost ground, it hasn't been to Biden or Sanders (as one might expect), but rather to Buttigieg (who is the new flavor of the month).

So wonder so many Democrats believe that they can enter the race "late" and still win.
Nobody really wants to take control of this thing.

Sunday, November 17, 2019

More bad news for Biden!

Iowa - Buttigieg +9
Hew Hampshire - Warren +9

As stated before, Biden can probably afford to lose one or the other, or even both if the margins are very close. But he cannot afford to get blown out in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Right now Biden is "barely" holding on to third place in Iowa, and Warren has surged past him in New Hampshire.

If he were to lose by double digits (or thereabouts) and fall down to 3rd or 4th place in either state, the momentum would certainly be a problem. Primary seasons are all about expectations, momentum, and to a large degree controlling the narrative.

Much of American (who sees Biden as the frontrunner today) would be surprised if he falters in early states. Biden (as much as any candidate in recent times) is the frontrunner because he is known as the frontrunner. I don't believe there is necessarily a "good" reason for this status.

Furthermore, Biden has struggled in the spotlight, and we have not had a debate in some time now. Things have been quiet and he has stayed out of view... yet still appears to be dropping. Perhaps it is the fact that Hunter, Burisma, and Joe himself keep coming up in the impeachment hearings. But if that is the case, then Quid Pro Joe will be in big trouble if impeachment goes to the Senate for Trial.


Sunday Funnies