The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Is There Some Sort of Impeachment Thing Going On?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I haven’t been paying any attention. But if you have, knock yourself out in the comments section.

 
Hide 316 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The most striking thing I have noticed is that Tulsi voted “present” instead of yes or no. I think she should be impeached for dereliction of duty.

    • LOL: jim jones, Kronos, Realist
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    I think they're just going to string her up instead. More fun and this way they can get cishet republican males to pay attention to their antics for once.

    Yes the democrats are wasting the nation's time and money as usual with this entire charade, which they know full well will lead to naught. But is it a good thing or a bad thing that they're not busy writing legislation instead?

    The one lasting effect will be that the threshold for what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors now is simply a matter of whether the president is from the same party as theHouse majority. Which means Democrat forever after.

    , @WorkingClass
    She's from deep blue Hawaii. She should switch parties and move to Alabama. Then She should tell us what She really thinks.
    , @njguy73
    Considering our so-called leaders, they shouldn't be impeached for dereliction of duty. They should be praised.
    , @A123

    The most striking thing I have noticed is that Tulsi voted “present”
     
    Perhaps she is laying the groundwork to switch parties?

    -- The DNC "War Party" and NeoConDemocrats want to put boots on the ground in Iran.
    -- The GOP "Peace Party" will not invade.

    At this point, who could stomach being a Degenera-crat?

    PEACE 😇
    , @Tim
    I thought Tulsi's voting present was a great idea. She's not like the other sheep.
  2. > Grandstanding & hypocrisy that shouldn’t be physically possible.
    > Suddenly discovery of patriotism, the flag & the pledge of allegiance.
    > Pronouncements about a rediscovered Constitution that have nothing to do with what the impeachment is about.
    > Repo man Schiff being extremely nervous and shifty.
    > Old witch Nancy being extremely witchy and not in a Bene Gesserit way.
    > Tulsi only votes “present”.
    > Wise old bearded men in the background.
    > Russia, Russia, Russia, These are the facts!
    > Hysterical rentacrowds in the street.

    The only rational explanation for this is to give the hoi polloi something to chew on as the real ass-banging and exploiting happens elsewhere.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Speaking of attention spans, what I meant to write in my last comment (and it's in the blog post) is that the Neocons have their own agenda for this impeachment. Look at this paragraph from President Trump's letter:

    I would think that you would personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that “all roads lead to Putin,” when you know that is an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.
     
    See, now the Cold War has been over for 30 years. It's not the Soviet Union, it's Russia. Why do we have to be tough on Russia to begin with?

    Has the 3-year-long impeachment effort also been pushed by the Neocons as reverse psychology? This guy does have more ego than strategic smarts. Could it be that the tie-in to the ludicrous "collusion by Russia" was done at the behest of the Neocons, in order to get Trump to get tougher on what should be an ally country in order to show the D-squad up?
  3. In all the media driven hysteria over yet another long drought in Oz’s long history of long droughts and even longer fire seasons I was pondering how

    The middle child does all the work.

    The eldest gets all the glory.

    The youngest gets coddled.

    With the collapse of White family size there will be no middle children left to carry on the heavy lifting civilisational foundational support of Western society.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    John Dwyer, middle child in a family of five, rises at dawn to inspire commuters, teleworkers, home ceos and erswtwhile other breeders whilst simultaneously celebrates Christmas and the One True Triune God all the whiles with a see through SG in talismanic hand

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrMacbbLxuc

    , @njguy73
    Glory, work, coddling.

    Boomers, Xers, Millennials.
    , @Anonymous
    You must be a middle child. Yes, they get ignored. But the eldest must blaze the trails, bear the responsibility and put in more work. Once they are trained the others don't require the same level of training to help out.

    The biggest reason leading to the hedonistic narcissism of baby boomers is the contraceptive pill, in my view. That turned sex from procreation to recreation. Before that happened, keeping sex locked up in marriage (to save the prevention of bastards and single mothers) and then the concommitant child creation through difficulty of discipline in that area led to the birth of several children for the most part. Having a number of children is a great inducer of long term thinking and responsibility in whites at least. Without that the baby boomers didn't mature properly.

    Hard times create strong men, and maybe we are about to see both.
  4. There are two articles of impeachment. The first charge is for Trump trying to investigate Biden’s crimes in the Ukraine. The second charge is for Trump’s refusal to contribute to the impeachment proceedings.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @Ron Mexico
    Both of which are not crimes. Certainly not high crimes. This is all a clown show.
    , @CMC
    I liked the part where Schiff went on and on about how important Ukraine was for US security.

    But did any Republicans respond with the argument that if it’s so important then we should continually subject everything about it to higher levels of scrutiny, follow-up, and... investigation; and that that’s all Trump was doing?
  5. @ScarletNumber
    The most striking thing I have noticed is that Tulsi voted "present" instead of yes or no. I think she should be impeached for dereliction of duty.

    I think they’re just going to string her up instead. More fun and this way they can get cishet republican males to pay attention to their antics for once.

    Yes the democrats are wasting the nation’s time and money as usual with this entire charade, which they know full well will lead to naught. But is it a good thing or a bad thing that they’re not busy writing legislation instead?

    The one lasting effect will be that the threshold for what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors now is simply a matter of whether the president is from the same party as theHouse majority. Which means Democrat forever after.

    • Replies: @nymom
    I read somewhere, very briefly, and then it disappeared from the internet, that Nancy Pelosi had to divert millions from the Social Security fund to cover the cost of the impeachment investigation.

    I guess they have to pay themselves extra money for the overtime, plus witnesses, travel expenses, hotels, security, feeding everyone before, during and afterwards, etc.,

    Not sure if it's true since, like I said, it disappeared very quickly from the internet.
    , @Rex Little

    But is it a good thing or a bad thing that they’re not busy writing legislation instead?
     
    A good thing, unquestionably. From the start, my main reason for favoring Trump was that he and Congress would be too busy spatting with each other (no matter which party controlled Congress) to create any big, expensive new programs or agencies. (I never thought Trump was serious about reducing immigration.)
  6. @Ozymandias
    There are two articles of impeachment. The first charge is for Trump trying to investigate Biden's crimes in the Ukraine. The second charge is for Trump's refusal to contribute to the impeachment proceedings.

    Both of which are not crimes. Certainly not high crimes. This is all a clown show.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Misdemeanors?

    "High crimes and misdemeanors" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 - they just didn't have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one - you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It's not VERY good, it's not compelling, but it's good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible - in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can't carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it's good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on - the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents - the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it's gone forever - there's no putting it back. It's only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can't see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it's for a Good Cause - we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can't do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It's like carrying guns - it's not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn't follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that's not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

  7. @Pat Hannagan
    In all the media driven hysteria over yet another long drought in Oz's long history of long droughts and even longer fire seasons I was pondering how

    The middle child does all the work.

    The eldest gets all the glory.

    The youngest gets coddled.

    With the collapse of White family size there will be no middle children left to carry on the heavy lifting civilisational foundational support of Western society.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VETPFH1mTls

    John Dwyer, middle child in a family of five, rises at dawn to inspire commuters, teleworkers, home ceos and erswtwhile other breeders whilst simultaneously celebrates Christmas and the One True Triune God all the whiles with a see through SG in talismanic hand

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    It will take the combined will of middle children to eradicate the rapacious legacy of elder siblings

    Constant modesty in the face of paradoxical behaviour

    A collective determination to coalesce in the face of common foe

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNl13t9ZtmA
  8. Say what you want about Coulter …

    link/video

    @AnnCoulter over 2.5 years ago:
    “If [Trump] doesn’t keep his promises, Republicans will be wiped out in the midterm elections. Democrats will have the House of Representatives and they absolutely will impeach him, it doesn’t matter, he could be purer than Caesar’s wife.”

    Democrats taking control of the House probably would have happened anyway.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Jack Henson
    Nah. The complicity of the RNC refusing to support incumbents like Dave Brat to run "based colored" in D+32 districts is part of the story. The other part is Paul Ryan refusing to challenge results when they literally kept finding boxes of ballots in trunks in some of these rural or Dem held districts. No way this was a done deal if not for the complete paucity of Ryan and the other "please fuck my wife" repubs.
  9. The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse–probably much worse– in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year’s election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    • LOL: Desiderius, TWS
    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Thank you for the brutal "hate facting".
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    Prim, intellectual Brit is shocked politics are political.
    , @Coemgen

    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration, ...
     
    Please give an example from the President's letter with a sound or, at least cogent, argument supporting your claim based on that example.

    Save the globalist/Democrat Party jingoism for left-side-of-the-bell-curve venues.

    , @Alfa158
    How about we let Ciaramella and Adam Schiff appear before the Senate and explain how many drafts and submissions to their bosses at Langley it took before they finalized the “whistleblower” memo? How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted? How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live? How about Slow Joe and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath? In other words how about an actual trial where the accused is allow to present evidence and examine witnesses?

    I’ve been hearing exactly your points from other partisan Democrats. Trump must resign and be replaced by a conservacuck because we’re deeply concerned that otherwise the Republicans will never be able to win any more elections.

    In reality demographic changes that the Republicans helped to drive is what has holed the Republican Party below the water line and will mean that it will eventually go the way of the Whigs. It makes me wonder though if there is polling that shows Trump is somehow against all odds going to beat anyone presently in the race and give the Republicans one last term in the White House before the Party heads into California style irrelevance. Therefore he need to resign because that will be the most effective way to ensure his voters stay home in November.

    , @William Badwhite
    You have to go back.
    , @Desiderius
    It’s a perfect letter.
    , @Lot
    I flirted with the Pence 2020 idea 6 months ago, but it isn’t going to happen as it only would work with Trump’s support.
    , @vinteuil
    Congratulations, Mr Mason. You have just emitted the concern-troll post to end all concern-troll posts.
    , @Ozymandias
    "Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles."

    Thank you for so succinctly stating the reason I vote for Trump. Not only is he killing off the old Republican party, but he's somehow convinced the Dems to off themselves. He's succeeded far beyond anything I thought possible.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year’s election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.
     
    Why go with a candidate who already won once, has the same coalition intact, and has a 90+% approval among Republicans. No, Republicans should dump that guy and instead pick a "solid candidate" in a smoke filled room. How about Mitt Romney or the Ghost of John McCain? Are they "solid" enough for you.
    , @istevefan

    Trump’s intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse–probably much worse– in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

     

    Actually Trump is doing quite well considering the total opposition he has faced since the summer of 2015. He has been excommunicated from all forms of polite society and has been continually under attack from everyone except his base. Yet he looks pretty good. He has not undergone the dramatic aging other presidents have. I suspect few others could take this much negativity and still function. How many would become depressed and laid up in bed? Yet Trump, at 70 plus years, hardly sleeps and is highly active and engaged.

    Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why.
     
    Let's not do this. Forget about impeachment which is going nowhere. Instead keep your eyes on the impending amnesty vote taking place. While everyone is distracted they are going to try to amnesty a million or so farm workers.
    , @PhysicistDave
    Jonathan Mason wrote:

    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse–probably much worse– in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election.
     
    The Dems honestly believe that the Progressive emphasis on process over substance has so bamboozled the American people that everyone will be shocked, shocked that Trump has been impeached and will now see what an evil degenerate he is!

    Except it turns out that ordinary Americans do not think that way. Ordinary Americans can look beyond the word "impeachment" and see that Trump did not do anything wrong.

    The elite is going to go bonkers: doesn't the idiot populace understand that Trump was impeached? That this makes Trump as evil as... Andrew Johnson?

    Except that the guys who grow our food, build our cars, design our bridges, and fix our plumbing have this strange ability to look beyond words (they'd better -- or we won't have any food, cars, bridges, or plumbing!).

    Words vs. reality... but our ruling professional-managerial elite actually does not know that there is a reality beyond words.
  10. @ScarletNumber
    The most striking thing I have noticed is that Tulsi voted "present" instead of yes or no. I think she should be impeached for dereliction of duty.

    She’s from deep blue Hawaii. She should switch parties and move to Alabama. Then She should tell us what She really thinks.

  11. link

    Here’s something you don’t see every day: Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for taking bribes, participating in a House hearing that sets the rules for an impeachment. (Yes, Florida man strikes again…)

    • Replies: @Currahee
    TNB.
  12. The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse–probably much worse– in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    He has been like this since the start, which accounts for why he has accomplished so little.

    Similar story with Bush II. Sure, he was brighter than Kerry, but his IQ was dwarfed by the Neocons in his cabinet. It’s easy to be tricked into stuff when you’re forced to substantially rely on people who are much smarter.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Similar story with Bush II. Sure, he was brighter than Kerry, but his IQ was dwarfed by the Neocons in his cabinet. It’s easy to be tricked into stuff when you’re forced to substantially rely on people who are much smarter.

    There's no indication that either Bush or Kerry had intellectual deficits of note. They're politicians, not physics professors. 'Neocon' is a nonsense term unless you're referring to a discrete set of academics and publicists (none of whom were in Bush's cabinet, which was chock-a-block with quondam elected officials and various and sundry from the Republican establishment).
  13. James Howard Kunstler on the impeachment:

    An Expulsion of Demons
    Dec. 16, 2019

    Is there any saving the Democratic Party? This wretched concatenation of ill-will, bad faith, false witness, and sore-loserdom lurches from one defeat to the next like some mindless monster from an ancient fable of ruin, seeking a final spectacular spasm of self-annihilation.

    https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/an-expulsion-of-demons/

    [MORE]

    The impeachment dumbshow put on by hobgoblin Jerrold Nadler enters a most interesting zone of suspense this week as fate propels it towards a floor debate and then a vote by the whole house on Wednesday or Thursday […]

    How much ignominy can they endure? Have they not grasped the reality that the Mueller investigation failed? That it appears to have been only one part of a larger criminal enterprise to defraud the public? That the Resistance was just an effort to cover up swales of wickedness in a greater swamp of government-gone-rogue? And now, to come to this: two articles of impeachment so transparently empty that they look like windows into the vacated soul of the Democratic Party.

    And now consider all this vectoring into the catastrophe that the Democratic primary has become heading into election 2020. Joe Biden? Really? Are they serious? He left a slime trail as wide as the DC Beltway around his doings as Veep

    This solemn holiday may be the Democrat Party’s last chance to avoid suicide. They need to have a conversation with someone on the cosmic hotline, come to the realization that they’ve truly hit bottom now and must, as Rep Devin Nunes suggested Sunday to his colleague Adam Schiff, sign into rehab.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    Spot-on description of the current state of affairs in the demokrat party.
    , @Laugh Track

    https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/an-expulsion-of-demons/
     
    Many thanks for the link. Excellent blast! In terms of grin-inducing style, Kunstler's right up there with Jim Goad and Christopher DeGroot.
  14. @Pat Hannagan
    John Dwyer, middle child in a family of five, rises at dawn to inspire commuters, teleworkers, home ceos and erswtwhile other breeders whilst simultaneously celebrates Christmas and the One True Triune God all the whiles with a see through SG in talismanic hand

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrMacbbLxuc

    It will take the combined will of middle children to eradicate the rapacious legacy of elder siblings

    Constant modesty in the face of paradoxical behaviour

    A collective determination to coalesce in the face of common foe

    • Agree: Desiderius
  15. “I haven’t been paying any attention. But if you have, knock yourself out in the comments section.”

    LOL, which means you have been giving it much thought, Mr. Sailer. It’s just your way of remaining cagey.

    NOTICE if President Obama was accused of exactly the same thing as Trump, i.e. making a phone call for a “favor” seeking dirt on a political opponent with strings attached (foreign aid), House Republicans would have been demanding that Obama be politically lynched.

    NOTICE if Republicans were generally not terrified of angering Trump, they would acknowledge to the media that the articles require only a finding of probable cause, a low evidentiary standard, rather than touting the lie that there is “no” evidence. Put another way—Not even one Republican as far as I know is saying that there is evidence, but just not quite enough.

    NOTICE Rudy Guiliani is representing the president as his personal attorney, but is not an official member of the administration. He has admitted playing a leading role in the ousting of the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, as well as receiving money from a wealthy Ukrainian oligiarch by way of an intermediary. Interesting that this conduct is NOT considered normal presidential practice.

    NOTICE that McConnell indicated that there will be no new witnesses at the Senate trial. Why? He says the House should have called them. Ironically, the House did call them in and Trump sought to block their testify due to “executive privilege”. Yet, the Senate is a venue for fact-finding in impeachment of a president, as Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenth would attest.

    But, if you prefer to remain cagey, Mr. Sailer, have at it. In the end. you remain patently dishonest in your presentation of your level of interest in this historic event.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Justvisiting

    historic event
     
    The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was a "historic event"--so historic that history profs are terrified of discussing it for fear of having their careers ended. ;-)
    , @Anon

    But, if you prefer to remain cagey, Mr. Sailer, have at it. In the end. you remain patently dishonest in your presentation of your level of interest in this historic event.

     

    Or, far more likely, it could be that you spend far too much time playing on your computer all day. Time that would be far better spent in a part time job at Home Depot. Or at least attending a Pilates class for old fat people, providing your own opportunity to improve your lot, free from finger-pointing and unbridled laughter from complete strangers. Any activity that might release that worn furrow from your brow, with attendant cross-eyes is time well spent, old sport.
    , @Anonymous
    You just can’t help yourself can you.
  16. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    Thank you for the brutal “hate facting”.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  17. I just read Donald Trump’s letter to the Execrable Nancy Pelosi yesterday and commented on it here. Though going round in circles somewhat, Trump’s usual style, it lays out what’s going on pretty well, though Ann Coulter’s most recent column does an even better job.

    No, I am paying less attention than you, Steve, I’d guess. The D’s have already won bigly, just by distracting a man with the attention span of a 10 y/o for 3 years running.

  18. @El Dato
    > Grandstanding & hypocrisy that shouldn't be physically possible.
    > Suddenly discovery of patriotism, the flag & the pledge of allegiance.
    > Pronouncements about a rediscovered Constitution that have nothing to do with what the impeachment is about.
    > Repo man Schiff being extremely nervous and shifty.
    > Old witch Nancy being extremely witchy and not in a Bene Gesserit way.
    > Tulsi only votes "present".
    > Wise old bearded men in the background.
    > Russia, Russia, Russia, These are the facts!
    > Hysterical rentacrowds in the street.

    https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Classics-Plague-Penguin/dp/0141185139

    The only rational explanation for this is to give the hoi polloi something to chew on as the real ass-banging and exploiting happens elsewhere.

    Speaking of attention spans, what I meant to write in my last comment (and it’s in the blog post) is that the Neocons have their own agenda for this impeachment. Look at this paragraph from President Trump’s letter:

    I would think that you would personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that “all roads lead to Putin,” when you know that is an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.

    See, now the Cold War has been over for 30 years. It’s not the Soviet Union, it’s Russia. Why do we have to be tough on Russia to begin with?

    Has the 3-year-long impeachment effort also been pushed by the Neocons as reverse psychology? This guy does have more ego than strategic smarts. Could it be that the tie-in to the ludicrous “collusion by Russia” was done at the behest of the Neocons, in order to get Trump to get tougher on what should be an ally country in order to show the D-squad up?

  19. I enjoy Scott Adams’ daily podcast with his analysis of Trump Derangement news. More nuanced, less hysterical than Hannity. A lot of odd takes on things (if you like that), but also many shrewd and accurate ones.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Hail
    "President Trump will change what impeachment means, far more than impeachment will change what we think of the Trump presidency." -- Scott Adams, Dec. 18, 2019, as impeachment vote was imminent

    Scott Adams is great. One thing about him is he does long-form commentary. To follow the thread of a Scott Adams point, you often need to listen ten minutes or more. This is in contrast to cable news talkers, who tend much more towards sound-bites. The other difference is the cable newsers tend towards the hysterical (as you put it) and Adams is always cool-headed.

    I just wish he would be harder on Trump when called for. iSteve commenter John Gruskos called Adams "The Man Whose Flattery Ruined Trump."

  20. Maybe I could bring myself to give a damn a year ago, and two years ago I would have been furious. By now, who cares? Catladies and buttgoys who hang on every word the ex-CIA spooks on CNN spout, and retarded MAGApede cheerleaders who don’t care if Trump goes back on every one of his campaign promises so long as he “wins”, make up the bulk of people who take this seriously. The remainder consists of people trying to look smart by analyzing the minutiae of the charges and the alleged evidence for them.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    As trust and faith erode, grain by chip, liberty tucks gently beneath the sand.
  21. I’d love to see some polls asking low information voters if impeachment=removal from office. I’d bet there is a sizeable cohort that believes it. It’s what the Dems are hoping for.

  22. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    Prim, intellectual Brit is shocked politics are political.

  23. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration, …

    Please give an example from the President’s letter with a sound or, at least cogent, argument supporting your claim based on that example.

    Save the globalist/Democrat Party jingoism for left-side-of-the-bell-curve venues.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Please give an example from the President’s letter with a sound or, at least cogent, argument supporting your claim based on that example.
     
    Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses ...

    The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    The assistance of counsel clause includes, as relevant here, five distinct rights: the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel, the effective assistance of counsel, and the right to represent oneself pro se.

    A defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in any civil proceeding, including a deportation hearing.

    An impeachment is not a criminal trial. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibilities of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where they were removed.

    Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, defied a congressional subpoena in the impeachment inquiry dealing with Ukraine.

    An impeachment in the House is equivalent to an indictment. The Senate conducts the impeachment trial, and it is up to the Senate majority to determine the rules on how this is to be conducted. If the Senate denies Trump a right to legal representation or to bring witnesses, he is at odds with his own party.

    I would actually love to see Trump calling and cross examining witnesses at his Senate impeachment trial, because I think that would allow the world and the Senate to see how mentally compromised Trump actually is.

    Furthermore, if Trump were mentally competent, he would have availed himself of his right to have a lawyer look over this letter before he mailed it.

  24. It used to be that a president died in office every other decade. Now a president is impeached every other decade.

  25. This is not so much about getting rid of Trump now as it is about winning in 2020. The Dems want to keep the House, take the Senate, and win the Presidency, and they think this is how to do it: by drumming up a patently absurd impeachment, where even their own witnesses contradicted their story line.

    And it just might work because people who vote for Democrats for the most part fall into one of two groups: imbeciles and zealots.

    The imbeciles know nothing whatsoever of what’s going on, couldn’t find Ukraine on a map that only included Ukraine, and never get beyond a headline, and that headline is probably delivered by a late night comedian. They will probably think this means Trump is already not President, and it might incite a few of them to vote that otherwise wouldn’t have.

    The zealots are more important. They create the noise, go to the protests, flood social media, harangue their family and friends, and mostly will vote. These people actually do pay attention to politics, but are so ensconced in an information bubble and an outrage loop that they have no idea of the reality — this is why Fake News exists, because it keeps the zealots outraged — or they simply ignore it and can’t be knocked off their Orange Man Bad position, because they are fanatical. The information bubble zealots are everywhere — just spend a few minutes reading the replies to anything Trump tweets to see them in action. It’s a fascinating and very depressing exercise.

    The fanatical zealots are, for example, some people who show up around here (Corvinus), who are exposed to actual truths about things, but who nevertheless don’t budge in their opinions. Nothing will move them from their positions. Nothing, no matter how outrageous. After all, the truth that’s been revealed already about Crossfire Hurricane etc etc etc make is perfectly clear that not only has Trump done nothing wrong, but he’s fighting a Deep State so corrupt that it makes an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh like like a paragon of populism.

    If the Dems sweep all three centers of power it’s going to be Goodnight Nurse for America. Of course they had this with Obama for a while, but Obama was a typically lazy negro who just couldn’t be bothered doing too much work. And the outbreak of rabidly anti-white Wokeness was just getting started, after incubating for 50 years. Trump winning in 2020 really IS the most important election of your lifetime.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob, Kylie
  26. No one is above the law Mr Sailer!

    NEWS FLASH: (iSteve exclusive!) Dictator Trump’s upcoming Nuremberg trial!

    It’ll be heard in the Schiff Chamber of Horrors* (with Judge Moscow Show presiding).

    (*Said to be haunted by a old skeletal ghost called Nancy)

    This court is located in the Brennan-Clapper Center for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (near the intersection of Strzok and Page) in the swampy suburb of McCabe in the smug little town of Comey.

    Easy acce$$ is via the Bidens Turnpike (Toll: $50,000 a month).

    Ohr if you want, you can use the FBI Freeway on-ramp at Steele Bld.

    (Tip: avoid the Clinton (death) Toll Road, or the blacktopped Obama Way (both are very treacherous).

    If these directions are too hard to follow- just use your FusionGPS.

    Just remember Mr Sailer- no one is above the law!

    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
  27. I came down off the mountain yesterday and spent the day doing routine stuff with normal folks.

    The word “impeachment” was never mentioned by anyone.

    It was a wonderful day.

    Most people really don’t give a flying f*&^.

  28. Anon[307] • Disclaimer says:

    It is over for Trump. He used his power to try to influence a foregin power to interfere with an election and harass a political rival and THEN LIED ABOUT IT

    You guys need to get out of your bubble. Most people hate Trump and all that he stands for.

    If republicans refuse to do the right thing then that will be the death of the party and all who support it. Demographic change makes it hard for republicans to be a viable party but this will seal the deal.

    • LOL: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @El Dato
    The "Sorrows of Young Werther"?

    Nay! It's the "Harrassment of Old 'Corn Popper' Biden".

    There is "hate" all right. There is also sheer stupidity.

    HISTORIANS’ STATEMENT ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP


    President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.
     
    These self-styled "historians" are so dumb and useless that they don't manage a single reference in their heated writeup. But they invoke Hamilton. Great.

    Signed by 1507 clowns.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    I wish I could be there to witness your meltdown next year when Trump wins in a landslide and the Republicans retake the house while holding the senate.
  29. Mr. Trump’s impeachment doesn’t matter, of course. It was a foregone conclusion when the Dems took control of the House. Will Repubs give it the quick coup de grace in the Senate? They might as well, but it’s hard to believe politicians will give up a chance for grandstanding. Do any of us really believe that the truth will come out, and that it will be shared with the electorate by the media?

    My favorite internal narrative says Mr. Trump will be sent back to Washington next fall, but then we’ll get four more years of the same thing. They might even impeach him again, if the Dems have the votes in the House.

    Big systems with entrenched groups making obscene profits don’t welcome outsiders, as Mr. Trump knows well, having played that game many times before. That’s what it’s like to go to a new city and do a big building project, after all. No bigger stage than Washington, though, in our time.

    If he’s returned to Washington, Mr. Trump will keep plugging away. More conservative judges will be put in place, maybe on the SCOTUS. Regulations will be reduced, trade balance will improve, immigration will lessen, economy will grow, etc. Not so bad.

    The big question has to do with the electorate. Will enough American citizens vote more for their own interests? Less immigration, less refugees, more work on infrastructure, stronger economy? Less interest in having Big Government taking care of us, and more interest in standing on our own two feet?

    We’ll see.

  30. Just when Trump had set his sights on fixing America’s toilets. Oh well, enjoy your flushing festival, folks!

    • Replies: @J
    Trump's observation about flushing toilets confirmed my opinion that he is like the child who dared to speak the obvious truth that the king is naked. No one before him dared to observe the absurdity, expense and sheer waste of current environmental dogmas. Trump is a man of common sense and courage.
  31. The Pledge has always seemed stupefying, rote and overly conformist. These were perhaps valid reasons to forgo it. Then the dems labeled it and the flag racist for obscure reasons.

    But now they don’t think the flag or pledge are racist anymore. It’s difficult to keep up. That was perhaps the most rote and least meaningful recitation ever.

  32. @HammerJack
    I think they're just going to string her up instead. More fun and this way they can get cishet republican males to pay attention to their antics for once.

    Yes the democrats are wasting the nation's time and money as usual with this entire charade, which they know full well will lead to naught. But is it a good thing or a bad thing that they're not busy writing legislation instead?

    The one lasting effect will be that the threshold for what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors now is simply a matter of whether the president is from the same party as theHouse majority. Which means Democrat forever after.

    I read somewhere, very briefly, and then it disappeared from the internet, that Nancy Pelosi had to divert millions from the Social Security fund to cover the cost of the impeachment investigation.

    I guess they have to pay themselves extra money for the overtime, plus witnesses, travel expenses, hotels, security, feeding everyone before, during and afterwards, etc.,

    Not sure if it’s true since, like I said, it disappeared very quickly from the internet.

  33. iSteve, if you haven’t been paying attention, just know that your numbers are, as they say, “legion.”

  34. The unimportant internecine squabbles of the ‘two parties’ are a charade (nothing will come of the impeachment) to obfuscate important nefarious actions by the Deep State. But this impeachment pretense strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

    On the Republican side watch to see how many are ‘brought to justice’ for their complicity in the Russian hoax. FBI corruption and lying, false testimony and witnessing, etc…spoiler alert…ZERO

    • Replies: @Realist

    On the Republican side watch...
     
    This phrase was confusing, I meant the Republicans would do nothing. I corrected in a subsequent comment.

    This comment sat for hours under ' Your comment is awaiting moderation'

  35. It’s an illustration of the weakness of the modern mass media.

    Democrats and “liberals” have complete control of ever major mass media organ: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and all of the major blogs like Huffington Post, Daily Beast, and reddit.com. All Hollywood celebrities are outspoken “liberal” Democrats that universally hate Trump.

    The single exception is FOX News.

    The entire mass media has been united in trying to bring Trump down, first via the Russia hoax and now the Ukraine hoax.

    Yet anyone who didn’t already hate Trump simply doesn’t care. They don’t believe the media, they recognize the media as “fake news” and anti-Trump (and anti-white, anti-American, and anti-Christian.)

    So despite the full-court press against Trump, it has had virtually no effect on anyone. Republicans still support Trump, Democrats still hate him.

    So the House impeached Trump, and the Senate has already said they are just going to vote against removing him.

    All that sound and fury and all it has done is expose Joe Biden’s corrupt dealings in Ukraine.

    All in all, it probably helped Trump. And if you want to play “3-D chess” – that may have been the point. After all, Jeffrey Zucker’s CNN gave Trump massive, free publicity throughout his campaign. Technically, Zucker is “anti-Trump” yet Trump didn’t have to spend a dime on TV commercials because his long-time business partner Jeffrey Zucker gave him free publicity.

    Trump has given Israel and Jewish oligarchs everything they have ever wanted – and has give his voting base nothing at all – and the impeachment – led almost solely by Jewish Democrats that are major Israel supporting Zionists – have hobbled their own party throwing the election to the Republicans.

    That will teach the left to never mention “Palestine” again.

  36. @Harry Baldwin
    I enjoy Scott Adams' daily podcast with his analysis of Trump Derangement news. More nuanced, less hysterical than Hannity. A lot of odd takes on things (if you like that), but also many shrewd and accurate ones.

    President Trump will change what impeachment means, far more than impeachment will change what we think of the Trump presidency.” — Scott Adams, Dec. 18, 2019, as impeachment vote was imminent

    Scott Adams is great. One thing about him is he does long-form commentary. To follow the thread of a Scott Adams point, you often need to listen ten minutes or more. This is in contrast to cable news talkers, who tend much more towards sound-bites. The other difference is the cable newsers tend towards the hysterical (as you put it) and Adams is always cool-headed.

    I just wish he would be harder on Trump when called for. iSteve commenter John Gruskos called Adams “The Man Whose Flattery Ruined Trump.”

    • Replies: @Hail
    On Adams' success and audience:

    I'm not sure how many other mediums there are through which people consume Scott Adams' daily broadcasts, "Coffee with Scott Adams." I think they are first broadcast live over Periscope, and some further number I cannot guess at listen via direct mp3 link on his website (e.g., see here). These 'Coffee' commentaries end up posted to Youtube soon after broadcast, where they have been taking in a consistent 20,000 views, day in and day out, in the past year.

    Real Coffee with Scott Adams, Youtube archive.

    Considering it's just him kind of rambling, without a script, to a camera for 30 to 60 minutes each time, and that he is doing it totally independently with no production team or media machine behind him, and that his channel is new (first Youtube videos on it are dated to June 2018 and got view counts in the dozens; i.e., his Youtube follower-base is entirely new and built from zero in the past 18 months), this is an impressive accomplishment.

    But as usual, quality over quantity. Word is that Adams has fans up the ranks at Fox News. One might dispute whether Fox Newsers constitute quality, but influence, yes.
    , @Mr Mox
    I miss Scott's written blog. His podcasts are probably okay, but too long winded and hard to follow for a non-english speaker, hard of hearing to boot. I also miss the blog commentaries, and the hilarious cases of TDS among some of the participants. Apparently many never forgave the creator of Dilbert the mortal sin of not being a Trump hater.
    , @Sean
    Adams was right about Trump. but surely mistaken about how unpopular being right would make him. Half of Adams's income is gone and things will get worse for him.

    Read Trump And Me. He has always been like that and if anything he is getting less so with age.

    I prefer to read, it's quicker for me, being much easier to focus and i like to backtrack. Adams's website is difficult to find things on.

    , @Moses
    Been following Adams since 2015 when he was the first to predict Trump's election victory.

    Adams has a lot of great, unique insights, such as "facts don't matter" in elections. I've learned a ton from his breakdown of Trump's persuasion techniques. Read all his books too, which I found worthwhile.

    Adams has some gaping blindspots though, of the BoomerCuck variety.

    He's prone to saying that race/ethnicity of immigrants doesn't matter, all while living comfortably in wealthy Pleasanton, CA which is 62% White, 30% Asian, 2% Black.

    He follows logic and goes right up to the race line, for example citing a press story excoriating "all White Males" as "racist" then in the next breath abandons it, saying "that doesn't matter to me, whatever."

    Almost as if his BoomerCuck pedigree is throttling the crimethink before it emerges into his consciousness.
  37. This is what derangement looks like.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/12/forget-senate-vote.html

    “The god-emperor should simply declare martial law and put an end to the entire would-be coup now. There is far more cause for martial law today, with a lawless House of Representatives and federal agencies full of confirmed criminals, than there was during Civil War 1.0. Soon we’re going to discover if the Great Negotiator can fight or not.”

  38. @Hail
    James Howard Kunstler on the impeachment:

    An Expulsion of Demons
    Dec. 16, 2019

    Is there any saving the Democratic Party? This wretched concatenation of ill-will, bad faith, false witness, and sore-loserdom lurches from one defeat to the next like some mindless monster from an ancient fable of ruin, seeking a final spectacular spasm of self-annihilation.
     

    https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/an-expulsion-of-demons/


    The impeachment dumbshow put on by hobgoblin Jerrold Nadler enters a most interesting zone of suspense this week as fate propels it towards a floor debate and then a vote by the whole house on Wednesday or Thursday [...]
     

    How much ignominy can they endure? Have they not grasped the reality that the Mueller investigation failed? That it appears to have been only one part of a larger criminal enterprise to defraud the public? That the Resistance was just an effort to cover up swales of wickedness in a greater swamp of government-gone-rogue? And now, to come to this: two articles of impeachment so transparently empty that they look like windows into the vacated soul of the Democratic Party.

    And now consider all this vectoring into the catastrophe that the Democratic primary has become heading into election 2020. Joe Biden? Really? Are they serious? He left a slime trail as wide as the DC Beltway around his doings as Veep
     


    This solemn holiday may be the Democrat Party’s last chance to avoid suicide. They need to have a conversation with someone on the cosmic hotline, come to the realization that they’ve truly hit bottom now and must, as Rep Devin Nunes suggested Sunday to his colleague Adam Schiff, sign into rehab.
     

    Spot-on description of the current state of affairs in the demokrat party.

  39. @Hail
    "President Trump will change what impeachment means, far more than impeachment will change what we think of the Trump presidency." -- Scott Adams, Dec. 18, 2019, as impeachment vote was imminent

    Scott Adams is great. One thing about him is he does long-form commentary. To follow the thread of a Scott Adams point, you often need to listen ten minutes or more. This is in contrast to cable news talkers, who tend much more towards sound-bites. The other difference is the cable newsers tend towards the hysterical (as you put it) and Adams is always cool-headed.

    I just wish he would be harder on Trump when called for. iSteve commenter John Gruskos called Adams "The Man Whose Flattery Ruined Trump."

    On Adams’ success and audience:

    I’m not sure how many other mediums there are through which people consume Scott Adams’ daily broadcasts, “Coffee with Scott Adams.” I think they are first broadcast live over Periscope, and some further number I cannot guess at listen via direct mp3 link on his website (e.g., see here). These ‘Coffee’ commentaries end up posted to Youtube soon after broadcast, where they have been taking in a consistent 20,000 views, day in and day out, in the past year.

    Real Coffee with Scott Adams, Youtube archive.

    Considering it’s just him kind of rambling, without a script, to a camera for 30 to 60 minutes each time, and that he is doing it totally independently with no production team or media machine behind him, and that his channel is new (first Youtube videos on it are dated to June 2018 and got view counts in the dozens; i.e., his Youtube follower-base is entirely new and built from zero in the past 18 months), this is an impressive accomplishment.

    But as usual, quality over quantity. Word is that Adams has fans up the ranks at Fox News. One might dispute whether Fox Newsers constitute quality, but influence, yes.

  40. No impeachment, just a government shout-down.

    • Agree: jim jones
  41. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    How about we let Ciaramella and Adam Schiff appear before the Senate and explain how many drafts and submissions to their bosses at Langley it took before they finalized the “whistleblower” memo? How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted? How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live? How about Slow Joe and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath? In other words how about an actual trial where the accused is allow to present evidence and examine witnesses?

    I’ve been hearing exactly your points from other partisan Democrats. Trump must resign and be replaced by a conservacuck because we’re deeply concerned that otherwise the Republicans will never be able to win any more elections.

    In reality demographic changes that the Republicans helped to drive is what has holed the Republican Party below the water line and will mean that it will eventually go the way of the Whigs. It makes me wonder though if there is polling that shows Trump is somehow against all odds going to beat anyone presently in the race and give the Republicans one last term in the White House before the Party heads into California style irrelevance. Therefore he need to resign because that will be the most effective way to ensure his voters stay home in November.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted?
     
    A friend of my wife was sent to jail for domestic battery to protect her husband. So I don't think what the Ukrainian leadership might publicly say would be reliable.

    How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live?

     

    I did not think there was a recording of the actual call, but yes, if it exists. Of course it was a lot more than the call, for example the real reason for the firing of the US ambassador in Kiev, who ordered the congressionally approved funds for Ukraine to be delayed, and why.

    How about Slow Joe (Biden) and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath?
     
    Yes, they should.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Exactly. The Republicans are a dead man walking. Within the decade either Texas or Florida (or George or North Carolina or Arizona) will go blue, and you'll never see another Republican president again. Not that Republican presidents ever lifted a finger to protect their voters - whites - from becoming a minority in the land their ancestors built.

    At that point, the presidency will be won in the Dem primary, which means that blacks and psychologically unhinged, super-woke whites will be the deciding vote. Expect to see open anti-white rhetoric and policies at that point. Maybe the Jews and business whites who currently run the Dem party can contain the beast that they've created, but I have my doubts.

    The impeachment proves that. There's no way that the Dem power brokers wanted this, neither did Pelosi. It was forced on them by their vibrant members. The vibrants aren't known for delaying gratification. They simply can't wait for the demographics to turn, so they're trying to kick Trump out now.
    , @Corvinus
    "How about we let Ciaramella and Adam Schiff appear before the Senate and explain how many drafts and submissions to their bosses at Langley it took before they finalized the “whistleblower” memo?"

    Because you ASSUME that this event actually happened. Hint: It never occurred.

    "How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted?"

    McConnell doesn't want to call additional witnesses. Send your grievances to him.

    "How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live?

    "How about Slow Joe and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath?"

    That would be a separate matter. Again, you ASSUME that there was illegal activity. Hint: A Ukrainian prosecutor said there was no malfeasance. Of course, you also ASSUME that Trump cares about uncovering corruption. Hint: He doesn't.

    "In other words how about an actual trial where the accused is allow to present evidence and examine witnesses?"

    Great! Tell that to McConnell. Of course, the evidence and witnesses from the House investigation, along with White House staff who Trump has attempted to deny access to.
  42. If [this] is blessed by the Senate, we could easily see the impeachment of every future president, of either party.” – Senate Majority Leader McConnell, speaking at the 10am hour EST, Dec. 19, 2019, or Trump Impeachment + 14 hours.

    Let me say that again: If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every future president. … If…this slapdash impeachment…is enough, then we invite an endless parade of impeachment trials.”

    _______

    Impeachment + 14 hours

    Nancy Pelosi banged the gavel, to widespread booing, 8:34pm EST Dec. 18, 2019, some hours short of 21 years to the day after Bill Clinton was impeached (Dec. 19, 1998).

    • Replies: @Lot
    “ If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every future president.”

    If the House is controlled by the other party, that sounds right to me.
    , @Angular momentum
    I think you can make the case we’ve entered an era of impeachment beginning with Nixon. First 200 years one impeachment, since Nixon (not impeached in name only) there’s been three, counting Nixon. I see no reason for this trend not to continue and even accelerate. The so called asterisk will become common place.
  43. @ScarletNumber
    The most striking thing I have noticed is that Tulsi voted "present" instead of yes or no. I think she should be impeached for dereliction of duty.

    Considering our so-called leaders, they shouldn’t be impeached for dereliction of duty. They should be praised.

  44. @Pat Hannagan
    In all the media driven hysteria over yet another long drought in Oz's long history of long droughts and even longer fire seasons I was pondering how

    The middle child does all the work.

    The eldest gets all the glory.

    The youngest gets coddled.

    With the collapse of White family size there will be no middle children left to carry on the heavy lifting civilisational foundational support of Western society.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VETPFH1mTls

    Glory, work, coddling.

    Boomers, Xers, Millennials.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    Well done.
  45. “Obstruction of Congress.”

    Not justice. Congress.

    Which is… not a popular group of people.

  46. @Alfa158
    How about we let Ciaramella and Adam Schiff appear before the Senate and explain how many drafts and submissions to their bosses at Langley it took before they finalized the “whistleblower” memo? How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted? How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live? How about Slow Joe and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath? In other words how about an actual trial where the accused is allow to present evidence and examine witnesses?

    I’ve been hearing exactly your points from other partisan Democrats. Trump must resign and be replaced by a conservacuck because we’re deeply concerned that otherwise the Republicans will never be able to win any more elections.

    In reality demographic changes that the Republicans helped to drive is what has holed the Republican Party below the water line and will mean that it will eventually go the way of the Whigs. It makes me wonder though if there is polling that shows Trump is somehow against all odds going to beat anyone presently in the race and give the Republicans one last term in the White House before the Party heads into California style irrelevance. Therefore he need to resign because that will be the most effective way to ensure his voters stay home in November.

    How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted?

    A friend of my wife was sent to jail for domestic battery to protect her husband. So I don’t think what the Ukrainian leadership might publicly say would be reliable.

    How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live?

    I did not think there was a recording of the actual call, but yes, if it exists. Of course it was a lot more than the call, for example the real reason for the firing of the US ambassador in Kiev, who ordered the congressionally approved funds for Ukraine to be delayed, and why.

    How about Slow Joe (Biden) and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath?

    Yes, they should.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The big story here is the utter collapse in the influence of neocons like yourself. Big part of the credit for that goes to our illustrious host.

    We already knew you were salivating for President Pence. That’s what is driving the whole clown show. How does it feel, Johnathan, to have failed so utterly you couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote, even with the entire media and Deep State corruptly at your side?

    You’re that unpopular. You’d do well to attend to your own mental health in this difficult time.

    , @Morton's toes
    What would be great is if they get Biden on the stand and ask him where he thinks his kid learned it.

    Can they subpoena Nancy Pelosi and ask her to improvise on the witness stand using her massive brain powers? Because that could be even more hilarious.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    According to Michael Anton, the author of the famous "Flight 93" essay, there is no recording and explains how the memo on the call is constructed. (A commenter at iSteve recommended this and it is well worth a read.)

    https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/?s=Michael+anton&_post_types=post

  47. @Ozymandias
    There are two articles of impeachment. The first charge is for Trump trying to investigate Biden's crimes in the Ukraine. The second charge is for Trump's refusal to contribute to the impeachment proceedings.

    I liked the part where Schiff went on and on about how important Ukraine was for US security.

    But did any Republicans respond with the argument that if it’s so important then we should continually subject everything about it to higher levels of scrutiny, follow-up, and… investigation; and that that’s all Trump was doing?

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "I liked the part where Schiff went on and on about how important Ukraine was for US security."

    As Ukraine goes, so goes US national security. They are aligned as one. If Ukraine falls, we fall.
    , @Buck Ransom
    I like the part where they yammer on for months about the mutual devotion of the US and Ukraine, but no one ever mentions the teensy detail how the Obama-era State Department was behind the 2014 coup to depose Ukraine's legitimate Moscow-friendly government and replace it with the current one that answers to Washington, DC.
  48. I didn’t watch it, but I did quickly walk by a TV with C-SPAN on. I swear there was some congressman (I presume he was a congressman) making his anti-Trump speech in Spanish. I didn’t focus my eyes on the TV or even turn my ears to it, to try to figure out what he was saying.

    In the past, I’ve been shocked by seeing a US army recruiting ad in Spanish.(“Yo Soy el Army.”) In the current year, it is common to see commercials that have Spanish segments. But, if as I am correct, someone cast an impeachment vote basically in Spanish, then that is a new standard for the Tower of Babel.

  49. The Left have been in a state of hysteria since Trump won on a platform of reducing immigration:

    • Replies: @Bubba
    The mortician doing Nancy's makeup must be paid a small fortune. Probably the same one as Di-Fi.
  50. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    You have to go back.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  51. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    It’s a perfect letter.

    • LOL: Ozymandias
  52. Trump doesn’t handle stress well. Did anyone here watch his aimless, formless “speech” at the rally in Michigan? It was painful to see, though not without humor in places. However, this is not the first time he did so poorly. Maybe he should retire before trying to run again.

    Those who think that America will come apart without Trump winning next year are correct – but whoever runs, and whoever wins, of either party, America is dead and gone. Time to turn the page. We can do better.

    It’s no disgrace to have mental problems in this day and age. I can’t prove this, but I am about 99.9% certain Bill Clinton is and was even worse. He seemed to be drooling and unfocused at his last widely-viewed public outing, I think it was at old man Bush’s funeral service.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Trump doesn’t handle stress well.

    I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who would have held up as well under the unrelenting onslaught as has Trump. I stand in awe.
  53. @Jonathan Mason

    How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted?
     
    A friend of my wife was sent to jail for domestic battery to protect her husband. So I don't think what the Ukrainian leadership might publicly say would be reliable.

    How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live?

     

    I did not think there was a recording of the actual call, but yes, if it exists. Of course it was a lot more than the call, for example the real reason for the firing of the US ambassador in Kiev, who ordered the congressionally approved funds for Ukraine to be delayed, and why.

    How about Slow Joe (Biden) and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath?
     
    Yes, they should.

    The big story here is the utter collapse in the influence of neocons like yourself. Big part of the credit for that goes to our illustrious host.

    We already knew you were salivating for President Pence. That’s what is driving the whole clown show. How does it feel, Johnathan, to have failed so utterly you couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote, even with the entire media and Deep State corruptly at your side?

    You’re that unpopular. You’d do well to attend to your own mental health in this difficult time.

    • Replies: @Lot
    I don’t see the neocon and deep state concepts as too useful in late 2019.

    “ couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote”

    The only one elected as a Republican favoring impeachment is Justin Amash, an Arab who has voted against defense spending and pro-Israel resolutions his whole career.

    The point is a large share of those who’d easily qualify as Deep State or Neocon support Trump, who is a smart guy who won over a lot of his opponents within the party.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    How does it feel, Johnathan, to have failed so utterly you couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote, even with the entire media and Deep State corruptly at your side?
     
    Why can you not spell my name correctly when it is right in front of you?

    I think there are plenty of Republican representatives and senators who would be very happy to see the back of Trump, but are concerned about how voting for impeachment would affect their own careers in elected office.

    The pressures are very great. Jo Johnson, the brother of Boris Johnson, resigned as a member of his brother's cabinet and as a member of parliament over the Brexit issue, tweeting:

    It's been an honour to represent Orpington for 9 years & to serve as a minister under three PMs. In recent weeks I've been torn between family loyalty and the national interest - it's an unresolvable tension & time for others to take on my roles as MP & Minister. #overandout
     
    There is still time for some Republican legislators to crack and say that enough is enough, provided that they don't mind spending more time with their families far from the putrefying waters of the Potomac.
  54. @Jonathan Mason

    How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted?
     
    A friend of my wife was sent to jail for domestic battery to protect her husband. So I don't think what the Ukrainian leadership might publicly say would be reliable.

    How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live?

     

    I did not think there was a recording of the actual call, but yes, if it exists. Of course it was a lot more than the call, for example the real reason for the firing of the US ambassador in Kiev, who ordered the congressionally approved funds for Ukraine to be delayed, and why.

    How about Slow Joe (Biden) and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath?
     
    Yes, they should.

    What would be great is if they get Biden on the stand and ask him where he thinks his kid learned it.

    Can they subpoena Nancy Pelosi and ask her to improvise on the witness stand using her massive brain powers? Because that could be even more hilarious.

  55. One point of interest is that the process seems to have done something Trump never succeeded at. It has welded the Republican Party together and to Trump. Unintended consequence for the Dems. They seemed to think Trump would do a Nixon and resign guaranteeing that just like then, the Republicans would be massacred in the next election. Now they may be getting a little nervous that this might have the same effect as when the Republicans impeached Clinton.
    Too bad it’s now too late for the Republicans and they are waking up to the inevitable prospect of living in a future United States of Looks Just Like California Everywhere..

    • Agree: danand, Hail
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    It has welded the Republican Party together and to Trump. Unintended consequence for the Dems.
     
    Pretty sure it was intended. Why else go so over-the-top partisan in the House? Same thing with Kavanaugh, which most Ds have talked themselves into seeing as a success, given 2018 results. May well have outsmarted themselves this time though.

    One wonders whether there isn't also some genius psyop at work to hand the neocon hot potato over to the Ds.

  56. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    I flirted with the Pence 2020 idea 6 months ago, but it isn’t going to happen as it only would work with Trump’s support.

  57. @Hail
    "President Trump will change what impeachment means, far more than impeachment will change what we think of the Trump presidency." -- Scott Adams, Dec. 18, 2019, as impeachment vote was imminent

    Scott Adams is great. One thing about him is he does long-form commentary. To follow the thread of a Scott Adams point, you often need to listen ten minutes or more. This is in contrast to cable news talkers, who tend much more towards sound-bites. The other difference is the cable newsers tend towards the hysterical (as you put it) and Adams is always cool-headed.

    I just wish he would be harder on Trump when called for. iSteve commenter John Gruskos called Adams "The Man Whose Flattery Ruined Trump."

    I miss Scott’s written blog. His podcasts are probably okay, but too long winded and hard to follow for a non-english speaker, hard of hearing to boot. I also miss the blog commentaries, and the hilarious cases of TDS among some of the participants. Apparently many never forgave the creator of Dilbert the mortal sin of not being a Trump hater.

  58. @Hail
    "If [this] is blessed by the Senate, we could easily see the impeachment of every future president, of either party." - Senate Majority Leader McConnell, speaking at the 10am hour EST, Dec. 19, 2019, or Trump Impeachment + 14 hours.

    "Let me say that again: If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every future president. ... If...this slapdash impeachment...is enough, then we invite an endless parade of impeachment trials."

    _______


    Impeachment + 14 hours
     
    Nancy Pelosi banged the gavel, to widespread booing, 8:34pm EST Dec. 18, 2019, some hours short of 21 years to the day after Bill Clinton was impeached (Dec. 19, 1998).

    “ If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every future president.”

    If the House is controlled by the other party, that sounds right to me.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Not if the Ds get destroyed for pulling this nonsense, which is a not inconsidereable consideration for those otherwise disinclined to pay much attention to start doing so.
  59. @Jonathan Mason

    How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted?
     
    A friend of my wife was sent to jail for domestic battery to protect her husband. So I don't think what the Ukrainian leadership might publicly say would be reliable.

    How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live?

     

    I did not think there was a recording of the actual call, but yes, if it exists. Of course it was a lot more than the call, for example the real reason for the firing of the US ambassador in Kiev, who ordered the congressionally approved funds for Ukraine to be delayed, and why.

    How about Slow Joe (Biden) and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath?
     
    Yes, they should.

    According to Michael Anton, the author of the famous “Flight 93” essay, there is no recording and explains how the memo on the call is constructed. (A commenter at iSteve recommended this and it is well worth a read.)

    https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/?s=Michael+anton&_post_types=post

    • Replies: @Jack D
    There is no White House recording. Ever since Nixon, Presidents have a thing about keeping recordings.

    BUT, that doesn't mean that there is no recording. Don't you think that the Ukrainians recorded this call? And who else was listening in? Don't you think that the Russians have the Ukrainian President's lines tapped? You betcha they do. And maybe the NSA does too. Would not surprise me. Whether these recordings ever see the light of day is another question - maybe they will show up on Wikileaks someday, maybe they won't, but I would rate the chances of a recording existing somewhere as being very high.
  60. Apparently not… The DNC process was so flawed they are going to sit on the articles rather than send them to the Senate. (1)

    Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the Senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.

    This appears to be another catastrophic error by Pelosi and the DNC. Word on the street — McConnell is preparing a discovery process to subpoena and depose of critical witnesses, such as DNC paid operative & sham whistleblower Eric Ciaramella. Pre-trial Senate investigations are not dependant on receipt of the articles.

    Opposing Illegal Activity by the House” is a Constitutional duty of the Presidency, not a crime.

    🔼 TRUMP 2020 🔼
    ______________

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/18/cunning-lawfare-maneuver-house-will-withhold-submission-of-articles-from-senate/

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Withholding the articles is not cunning lawfare, it's the Democrats realizing that they have dug a hole for themselves and that a Senate trial is (1) not going to result in Trump's removal anyway and (2) that otherwise they have more to lose than to gain from the spectacle. They are like the dog that has caught the car - what do you do now?

    It has also dawned on them that they will have no control of the process once it gets to the Senate (especially since they displayed ruthless partisanship in the House and can expect no better treatment in the other body) so the Republicans are going to be able to make them look bad (and Trump look good) - they have just bought the RNC a huge block of free airtime. They are trying to negotiate for ground rules that will put them back in a better place but Mitch McConnell is not an idiot and is not going to fall for Chuckie Schumer's ploys even if Chuckie got 1800 out of 1600 on his SATs. He is going to be as nice to Chuckie as Chuckie would have been to him if the situation was reversed, which is not very nice.

    Not sending the articles to the Senate is the same thing as not having impeached the President in the first place. The whole point of doing an impeachment in the House is to trigger a trial in the Senate so if they are not sending the articles why did they bother with the impeachment in the first place? And BTW, if the House has voted for impeachment, doesn't the Speaker have a Constitutional duty to send the articles on? What's the point of having the whole House vote if the Speaker can just toss the articles in the trash?
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    Impeachus interruptus?
  61. @Alfa158
    How about we let Ciaramella and Adam Schiff appear before the Senate and explain how many drafts and submissions to their bosses at Langley it took before they finalized the “whistleblower” memo? How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted? How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live? How about Slow Joe and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath? In other words how about an actual trial where the accused is allow to present evidence and examine witnesses?

    I’ve been hearing exactly your points from other partisan Democrats. Trump must resign and be replaced by a conservacuck because we’re deeply concerned that otherwise the Republicans will never be able to win any more elections.

    In reality demographic changes that the Republicans helped to drive is what has holed the Republican Party below the water line and will mean that it will eventually go the way of the Whigs. It makes me wonder though if there is polling that shows Trump is somehow against all odds going to beat anyone presently in the race and give the Republicans one last term in the White House before the Party heads into California style irrelevance. Therefore he need to resign because that will be the most effective way to ensure his voters stay home in November.

    Exactly. The Republicans are a dead man walking. Within the decade either Texas or Florida (or George or North Carolina or Arizona) will go blue, and you’ll never see another Republican president again. Not that Republican presidents ever lifted a finger to protect their voters – whites – from becoming a minority in the land their ancestors built.

    At that point, the presidency will be won in the Dem primary, which means that blacks and psychologically unhinged, super-woke whites will be the deciding vote. Expect to see open anti-white rhetoric and policies at that point. Maybe the Jews and business whites who currently run the Dem party can contain the beast that they’ve created, but I have my doubts.

    The impeachment proves that. There’s no way that the Dem power brokers wanted this, neither did Pelosi. It was forced on them by their vibrant members. The vibrants aren’t known for delaying gratification. They simply can’t wait for the demographics to turn, so they’re trying to kick Trump out now.

  62. @Alfa158
    One point of interest is that the process seems to have done something Trump never succeeded at. It has welded the Republican Party together and to Trump. Unintended consequence for the Dems. They seemed to think Trump would do a Nixon and resign guaranteeing that just like then, the Republicans would be massacred in the next election. Now they may be getting a little nervous that this might have the same effect as when the Republicans impeached Clinton.
    Too bad it’s now too late for the Republicans and they are waking up to the inevitable prospect of living in a future United States of Looks Just Like California Everywhere..

    It has welded the Republican Party together and to Trump. Unintended consequence for the Dems.

    Pretty sure it was intended. Why else go so over-the-top partisan in the House? Same thing with Kavanaugh, which most Ds have talked themselves into seeing as a success, given 2018 results. May well have outsmarted themselves this time though.

    One wonders whether there isn’t also some genius psyop at work to hand the neocon hot potato over to the Ds.

  63. Is There Some Sort of … Thing Going On?

    Yes. Yes there is. Some… thing indeed.

  64. @ScarletNumber
    The most striking thing I have noticed is that Tulsi voted "present" instead of yes or no. I think she should be impeached for dereliction of duty.

    The most striking thing I have noticed is that Tulsi voted “present”

    Perhaps she is laying the groundwork to switch parties?

    — The DNC “War Party” and NeoConDemocrats want to put boots on the ground in Iran.
    — The GOP “Peace Party” will not invade.

    At this point, who could stomach being a Degenera-crat?

    PEACE 😇

  65. @Desiderius
    The big story here is the utter collapse in the influence of neocons like yourself. Big part of the credit for that goes to our illustrious host.

    We already knew you were salivating for President Pence. That’s what is driving the whole clown show. How does it feel, Johnathan, to have failed so utterly you couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote, even with the entire media and Deep State corruptly at your side?

    You’re that unpopular. You’d do well to attend to your own mental health in this difficult time.

    I don’t see the neocon and deep state concepts as too useful in late 2019.

    “ couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote”

    The only one elected as a Republican favoring impeachment is Justin Amash, an Arab who has voted against defense spending and pro-Israel resolutions his whole career.

    The point is a large share of those who’d easily qualify as Deep State or Neocon support Trump, who is a smart guy who won over a lot of his opponents within the party.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Amash's principal source of (legit) income is Chinese, so he's a total outlier.

    Neocon = invade/invite

    Deep State = two-tier Justice

    Of course they're useful, they're what got Trump elected. Trump is on video criticizing Pelosi for not impeaching Bush!

    Trump has indeed won over those who are still within the party, but many Bush/McCain Deep Staters and neocons had already seen the writing on the wall and jumped ship. The DC area went 96% for Hillary. All the neocon publications have either folded up or are under new badges madly thrashing around trying to justify ousting Trump or voting D just this once. There are still putatively R factions within the Deep State, but many are actively NeverTrump to this day, like our friend Mason here, since unlike members of Congress civil servants are supposed to hold their allegiances close to the vest.

    Oft evil will shall evil mar, since their thirst for Pence has given the Ds the false hopes they've needed to talk themselves into what may well be a ruinous impeachment.
    , @Jack Henson
    Paid agent of deep state subversive country insists that deep state is meaningless. News at 11.
  66. Still waiting for that TrumpStaffel, Mr. President…

  67. The unimportant internecine squabbles of the ‘two parties’ are a charade (nothing will come of the impeachment) to obfuscate important nefarious actions by the Deep State. But this impeachment pretense strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

    On the Democrat side watch to see how many are ‘brought to justice’ for their complicity in the Russian hoax. FBI corruption and lying, false testimony and witnessing, etc…spoiler alert…ZERO

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  68. @Ron Mexico
    Both of which are not crimes. Certainly not high crimes. This is all a clown show.

    Misdemeanors?

    “High crimes and misdemeanors” has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 – they just didn’t have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one – you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It’s not VERY good, it’s not compelling, but it’s good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible – in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can’t carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it’s good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on – the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents – the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it’s gone forever – there’s no putting it back. It’s only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can’t see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it’s for a Good Cause – we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can’t do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It’s like carrying guns – it’s not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn’t follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that’s not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    The Ukraine story is good enough

    Nonsense. Trump is obligated to pursue Biden's crimes in the Ukraine by a treaty signed by Bill Clinton. The notion that running for office exempts you from law is not applicable (Biden was not an opponent at the time of the phone call), is nonsense, and is nonsense again given the investigations of Trump. The second charge is being under arrest for resisting arrest, a circle.
    Remember when the big danger posed by Russia was the loss of faith in the institutions that lied to us about Iraq, lied to us about IX/XI, lied to us about immigration, lied to us about gunrunning, lied to us about persecuting and investigating political opponents, lied to us about fixing elections, and are still lying? If nothing else, the Democrats have proven that popular faith in instititional legitimacy was never an issue.
    , @Corvinus
    The problem, which REPUBLICANS never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it’s gone forever – there’s no putting it back.

    Get it straight, Jack.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on – the precedent has been set.
     
    Maybe, or maybe not.

    If the voters toss out the Dems and reelect Trump, then the "precedent" will be that the American people have a different interpretation and will punish political opportunism that subverts the Constitution.

    In short, to restore the Constitutional balance and order, the people will need to rise up and throw out the Democrat congress, and re-elect Trump. That's a principled campaign theme that may get some serious traction with both independents and Trump's base.

    People are sick of the current hyper-partisan division and hypocrisy. Previously, the Democrats might have been able to blame Trump's mean tweets for this toxic environment. But, in IMHO, their impeachment clown show has now hung this responsibility on their necks.

    , @Ron Mexico
    I had the thought today that if the R's win back the House (don't know the odds), they should move to impeach RBG just to fuck with the D's. There are so many possibilities.
    , @ScarletNumber

    Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one.
     
    Did you coin this? I've never heard this before -_-
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    “High crimes and misdemeanors” has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means.
     
    No. Here is Hamilton, in The Federalist 65 (330-31):

    The subjects of its (i.e., the Senate, with regard to its power to impeach) jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.

     

    Recall that George Mason proposed adding "maladministration" to the impeachable offenses but was rejected. Madison responded with: “So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” The founders did not intend impeachment to be merely a partisan exercise. The only way you can reach your conclusion is to reject Hamilton's claim. Channel Gerald Ford if you want, but he hardly qualifies as the final word on impeachment. Trump did not engage in any misconduct, nor did he violate any public trust.

    The Democrats found no impeachable crimes. Their impeachment is wholly illegitimate, and it is the latest in their attacks against the institutions that provide at least a little bit of self-government.
    , @Alden
    Great post as always Jack 👌
  69. I notice that Speaker Pelosi wore Black for the impeachment debate.

    But what about her Hair?

  70. Tip: Avoid American newspaper sites for the foreseeable future and stick to British papers. They are full of amusing stories about Boris Johnson.

  71. @Hail
    "If [this] is blessed by the Senate, we could easily see the impeachment of every future president, of either party." - Senate Majority Leader McConnell, speaking at the 10am hour EST, Dec. 19, 2019, or Trump Impeachment + 14 hours.

    "Let me say that again: If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every future president. ... If...this slapdash impeachment...is enough, then we invite an endless parade of impeachment trials."

    _______


    Impeachment + 14 hours
     
    Nancy Pelosi banged the gavel, to widespread booing, 8:34pm EST Dec. 18, 2019, some hours short of 21 years to the day after Bill Clinton was impeached (Dec. 19, 1998).

    I think you can make the case we’ve entered an era of impeachment beginning with Nixon. First 200 years one impeachment, since Nixon (not impeached in name only) there’s been three, counting Nixon. I see no reason for this trend not to continue and even accelerate. The so called asterisk will become common place.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    The only one with an asterisk, such as that for ballplayers who played in shorter seasons due to strikes, would be Nixon. No president has ever been convicted after impeachment, but Nixon resigned afterwards. Andrew Johnson completed his term, but was not renominated by the D-party in 1868. Bill Clinton continued through his 2nd term.
    , @Hail
    This is a good point. I had the same thought.

    1790 to 1970: 180 years, one impeachment; at that, it was associated with a major civil war.

    1970 to 2020: 50 years, three impeachments (counting Nixon's imminent-impeachment-induced resignation), all arguably for frivolous reasons, political squabbles, and/or deep-state takedown attempts.

    A simple, clean little dataset illustrating the simple concept of decline. If the later Roman Empire had impeachments, I'm sure their data would also look similar.

    How many impeachments will there be from 2020 to 2040?

    Or, how about this: If (when) Trump is found innocent and the case dismissed by the Senate, could the House impeach him again in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023? (Yes, five impeachments in five years -- why not? It's Trump Derangement Syndrome).

  72. I am not impartial. Most of you don’t care what a liberal thinks about Trump. I won’t say if I thought he should have been impeached or not. My opinion is very complicated.

    A few interesting tidbits:

    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    Moral — if the Elites like you, and/or your party controls the House of Representatives, you cannot be impeached no matter what you do. It the Elites hate you and the other party controls the HoR, you will be impeached.

    Conviction is another matter entirely.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    The elites of both parties hated, hated Ronald Reagan. This changed to some degree after his near-assassination in 1981. They loved Bill Clinton, though. He had no principals at all, which worked out very well for Deep State types. Agreed on Carter, the Bushes, and Øb☭ma. You're barely half right on this, P.L.
    , @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    , @David In TN
    The elites hated Reagan and supported Clinton.

    If Spiro Agnew had still been Vice President, Nixon would not have faced impeachment proceedings and been forced to resign. It never would have happened if it meant Spiro Agnew as the incumbent President in 1976.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Who are "Elites"?
    , @Art Deco
    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    You're addled head has constructed some monster which you call 'The Elite' with a single mind and will. Rather like The Nestines in Doctor Who. Unless you mean by 'The Elite' something like 'people in the social circle of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr'. This is a nonsense judgment. LBJ logged 36 years in Washington politics and had only one career setback. He was the Senate Majority Leader. As for Nixon, party influentials gave him the Republican presidential nomination on a silver platter in 1960; he had no significant opposition. (The vice presidency during the years running from 1804 to 1956 was not been a gateway to the presidency except by succession. There were only two occasions during that span of years when an outgoing or former vp was nominated and only one where such a creature was elected)


    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    Tip O'Neill and the bulk of the Democratic congressional caucus didn't care for him because he was a technocrat not interested in their priorities and given to clueless initiatives. Others didn't care for him because he was a klutz given to bursts of vapidity. There wasn't some grand disconnect between elite opinion and popular opinion on Carter. He irked and bored broad swaths of both.


    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    Ford had contentious business dealings with Congress and congenial personal dealings. He was a basically sanguine man who'd spent 25 years in the company of the people he was crabbing with during the week. "Politics stops at 5:00 o'clock" was a Fordism." (He had a personal dislike for Reagan, Carter, and, in the end, Nixon).

    There was no component of the Washington establishment enamored of Reagan, bar some think tank denizens and a faction of the Republican congressional caucus.

    The rest is a fantasy on your part.


    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    The notion that 'elites' 'hated' Clinton is bizarre. Democratic pols were jealous of him because he had certain inter-personal skills they lacked ("Clinton is an unusually good liar, quoth Gov. Kerrey). Clinton ended up in the docket in part because of the machinations of Republican lawfare artists (see the Paula Jones suit), whose work was promoted by Rush Limbaugh and The American Spectator. That's not the Acela corridor establishment. The Starr crew prosecuted the McDougals, Gov. Tucker, and Webb Hubbell for actual crimes, not for process crimes - bank fraud, money laundering, &c. In re Bill and Billings-records Hill, there's a reason Susan McDougal cooled her heels in jail for 18 months rather than give testimony to a grand jury under a grant of immunity.

    The Clintons were crooked by default and recruited bent characters. Repair to Gary Aldrich's memoir on the comical difficulties he had trying to conduct FBI background investigations of Clinton's White House staff (something routine under his predecessor). They were given effective permission to refuse to co-operate (though some did - e.g. Vincent Foster). He was able to ascertain that there were a mess of drug users and tax scofflaws on Clinton's staff, but it was like pulling teeth to complete the process on any one of them. Look at the Livingstone-Marceca troll through the FBI files on prominent Republicans or look at the travel office firings. Both involved corrupting the FBI (who were willing to co-operate). Look at the mass dismissal of U.S. Attorneys in 1993.
  73. @Harry Baldwin
    According to Michael Anton, the author of the famous "Flight 93" essay, there is no recording and explains how the memo on the call is constructed. (A commenter at iSteve recommended this and it is well worth a read.)

    https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/?s=Michael+anton&_post_types=post

    There is no White House recording. Ever since Nixon, Presidents have a thing about keeping recordings.

    BUT, that doesn’t mean that there is no recording. Don’t you think that the Ukrainians recorded this call? And who else was listening in? Don’t you think that the Russians have the Ukrainian President’s lines tapped? You betcha they do. And maybe the NSA does too. Would not surprise me. Whether these recordings ever see the light of day is another question – maybe they will show up on Wikileaks someday, maybe they won’t, but I would rate the chances of a recording existing somewhere as being very high.

  74. @Lot
    I don’t see the neocon and deep state concepts as too useful in late 2019.

    “ couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote”

    The only one elected as a Republican favoring impeachment is Justin Amash, an Arab who has voted against defense spending and pro-Israel resolutions his whole career.

    The point is a large share of those who’d easily qualify as Deep State or Neocon support Trump, who is a smart guy who won over a lot of his opponents within the party.

    Amash’s principal source of (legit) income is Chinese, so he’s a total outlier.

    Neocon = invade/invite

    Deep State = two-tier Justice

    Of course they’re useful, they’re what got Trump elected. Trump is on video criticizing Pelosi for not impeaching Bush!

    Trump has indeed won over those who are still within the party, but many Bush/McCain Deep Staters and neocons had already seen the writing on the wall and jumped ship. The DC area went 96% for Hillary. All the neocon publications have either folded up or are under new badges madly thrashing around trying to justify ousting Trump or voting D just this once. There are still putatively R factions within the Deep State, but many are actively NeverTrump to this day, like our friend Mason here, since unlike members of Congress civil servants are supposed to hold their allegiances close to the vest.

    Oft evil will shall evil mar, since their thirst for Pence has given the Ds the false hopes they’ve needed to talk themselves into what may well be a ruinous impeachment.

    • Replies: @Lot
    The Weekly Standard reboot is arguing to dump Pence for Tulsi.

    https://thebulwark.com/trump-tulsi-2020/

    Sounds stupid to me, but once again shows the Neocons!!!!! analysis that some people liked and was useful circa 2002 isn’t now.
    , @Alden
    Pence’s biggest interest is outlawing abortion Abortion is the first commandment of the Democratic Party, even more sacred than gays and transgenders.

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot and a holler if he outlawed all abortions for any reason by executive order 2 minutes after he’s sworn in?

    Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours.

    Another thing I’d like to see Pence do December 2020 after he’s re elected, is put a giant nativity scene on the White House lawn Dec 1 and keep it there till January 8. And do it every year till he leaves office.

    ACLU ADL AJC FFRF would explode with rage.
    Of course they’d get an injunction to take it down. But who’s going to enforce that injunction? The judge? Sissy city boy Jews who’d have no idea how to take the figures and lights down ? Who’ll take on the secret service.?

    Sometimes I like to fantasize about happy things.
  75. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump.

    Clinton??? Why on earth would the elites hate Clinton? He single-handedly allowed the hollowing-out of American manufacturing and the transfer/theft of technology to China, giving the Globalists exactly what they wanted. Press coverage (a true measure of the elites) at the time was 90% positive for Clinton and against impeachment. Monica Lewinsky was mercilessly attacked in the media. Hollywood adored Clinton and still does — another true measure of elite sentiment. Clinton continues to this very day making bank by speaking at Globalist sponsored events and remains untouched by his very obvious fascination with Epstein’s pedo island.

    Hillary is a secular saint in the media.

    The elites absolutely adored Clinton.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  76. @Lot
    “ If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every future president.”

    If the House is controlled by the other party, that sounds right to me.

    Not if the Ds get destroyed for pulling this nonsense, which is a not inconsidereable consideration for those otherwise disinclined to pay much attention to start doing so.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Not if the Ds get destroyed for pulling this nonsense."

    I didn't realize the rule of law and holding a president accountable is nonsense.

    And, Mr. Sailer, please take my comment out of moderation and into the conversational fold. Don't be afraid of the truth.

  77. @Angular momentum
    I think you can make the case we’ve entered an era of impeachment beginning with Nixon. First 200 years one impeachment, since Nixon (not impeached in name only) there’s been three, counting Nixon. I see no reason for this trend not to continue and even accelerate. The so called asterisk will become common place.

    The only one with an asterisk, such as that for ballplayers who played in shorter seasons due to strikes, would be Nixon. No president has ever been convicted after impeachment, but Nixon resigned afterwards. Andrew Johnson completed his term, but was not renominated by the D-party in 1868. Bill Clinton continued through his 2nd term.

  78. @Desiderius
    Not if the Ds get destroyed for pulling this nonsense, which is a not inconsidereable consideration for those otherwise disinclined to pay much attention to start doing so.

    “Not if the Ds get destroyed for pulling this nonsense.”

    I didn’t realize the rule of law and holding a president accountable is nonsense.

    And, Mr. Sailer, please take my comment out of moderation and into the conversational fold. Don’t be afraid of the truth.

  79. @Paleo Liberal
    I am not impartial. Most of you don’t care what a liberal thinks about Trump. I won’t say if I thought he should have been impeached or not. My opinion is very complicated.

    A few interesting tidbits:

    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    Moral — if the Elites like you, and/or your party controls the House of Representatives, you cannot be impeached no matter what you do. It the Elites hate you and the other party controls the HoR, you will be impeached.

    Conviction is another matter entirely.

    The elites of both parties hated, hated Ronald Reagan. This changed to some degree after his near-assassination in 1981. They loved Bill Clinton, though. He had no principals at all, which worked out very well for Deep State types. Agreed on Carter, the Bushes, and Øb☭ma. You’re barely half right on this, P.L.

    • Replies: @Sparkon

    The elites of both parties hated, hated Ronald Reagan.
     
    I don't think so. And why would they? In fact, elites loved Pres. Reagan because of his tax breaks for the wealthy, which helped "The Great Communicator" triple the national debt during his presidency, but at least the rich got to keep more dough, and let just a little bit, you know, trickle down. Voodoo economics "worked" just like candidate George HW Bush said it wouldn't.

    Of course, Bush later claimed he never called it "Voodoo economics" until video surfaced of him saying just that, and then, never at a loss for lies, I mean words, Bush said he was just kidding when he said it. Funny man, the late Mr. George HW Bush, always good for a laugh.


    "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

    -- Ann Richards
     

    The destructive polices of deregulation, downsizing, outsourcing, and offshoring were established during Mr. Reagan's years in office. The corresponding groundwork was put in place in China in 1979 with the opening of Chinese cities to foreign investment by Chinese Big Cheese Deng Xiaoping:

    Shenzhen in the Pearl River Delta region, Zhuhai and Shantou in Guangdong and Xiamen (Amoy) in Fujian Province.

    For these, Chinese Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping coined the name "special zones" ... and the four special zones were officially established on August 26, 1979.

    In 1984, China further opened 14 coastal cities to overseas investment: Dalian, Qinhuangdao, Tianjin, Yantai, Qingdao, Lianyungang, Nantong, Shanghai, Ningbo, Wenzhou, Fuzhou, Guangzhou, Zhanjiang and Beihai. Since 1988, mainland China's opening to the outside world has been extended to its border areas, areas along the Yangtze River and inland areas. First, the state decided to turn Hainan Island into mainland China's biggest special economic zone (approved by the 1st session of the 7th NPC in 1988) and to enlarge the other four special economic zones.
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_economic_zones_of_China
  80. @A123
    Apparently not... The DNC process was so flawed they are going to sit on the articles rather than send them to the Senate. (1)

    Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the Senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.
     
    This appears to be another catastrophic error by Pelosi and the DNC. Word on the street -- McConnell is preparing a discovery process to subpoena and depose of critical witnesses, such as DNC paid operative & sham whistleblower Eric Ciaramella. Pre-trial Senate investigations are not dependant on receipt of the articles.

    "Opposing Illegal Activity by the House" is a Constitutional duty of the Presidency, not a crime.

    🔼 TRUMP 2020 🔼
    ______________

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/18/cunning-lawfare-maneuver-house-will-withhold-submission-of-articles-from-senate/

    Withholding the articles is not cunning lawfare, it’s the Democrats realizing that they have dug a hole for themselves and that a Senate trial is (1) not going to result in Trump’s removal anyway and (2) that otherwise they have more to lose than to gain from the spectacle. They are like the dog that has caught the car – what do you do now?

    It has also dawned on them that they will have no control of the process once it gets to the Senate (especially since they displayed ruthless partisanship in the House and can expect no better treatment in the other body) so the Republicans are going to be able to make them look bad (and Trump look good) – they have just bought the RNC a huge block of free airtime. They are trying to negotiate for ground rules that will put them back in a better place but Mitch McConnell is not an idiot and is not going to fall for Chuckie Schumer’s ploys even if Chuckie got 1800 out of 1600 on his SATs. He is going to be as nice to Chuckie as Chuckie would have been to him if the situation was reversed, which is not very nice.

    Not sending the articles to the Senate is the same thing as not having impeached the President in the first place. The whole point of doing an impeachment in the House is to trigger a trial in the Senate so if they are not sending the articles why did they bother with the impeachment in the first place? And BTW, if the House has voted for impeachment, doesn’t the Speaker have a Constitutional duty to send the articles on? What’s the point of having the whole House vote if the Speaker can just toss the articles in the trash?

    • Replies: @Jack Henson
    The way Pelosi is absolutely trashing constitutional norms is amazing to the point if I didn't know better I'd think she was a cryto-accelerationist with this entire "We will dictate to the Senate what the trial will look like", which as far as I can tell has zero historical precedent or basis or anything other than coming from a brain trust of GITDs who think everything is up for Talmudic interpretation if you argue long enough.

    We can see how the Dems react when their "the good guys can do what they want" thinking is turned on them. You got Northam threatening to send in the NG and cut power to areas "in revolt", which again would make me think he's crypto-acc if I didn't know he was a sock puppet for certain types. Also shows the absolute idiocy of so many RNC members - the VARNC fools thought the "blackface scandal" would sink the Dems so much that they didn't need to GOTV, and now look where things are.

    Someone said a while ago any revolt was going to be at the local level, and now we got the shire reeves basically calling out the Fyrd against a tyrant. History doesn't repeat but it sure rhymes.
    , @A123

    And BTW, if the House has voted for impeachment, doesn’t the Speaker have a Constitutional duty to send the articles on? What’s the point of having the whole House vote if the Speaker can just toss the articles in the trash?
     
    I do not want to accuse you of naivety..... however..... Democrats following the Constitution?????

    Everyone knows that the DNC is never going to follow the Rule of Law. Islamo-Globalist elites like Talib, Pelosi, & Omar believe that Judeo-Christian values and the Constitution only apply to the "little people", like U.S. citizens.

    ⏫ TRUMP 2020 ⏫
  81. @Jack D
    Misdemeanors?

    "High crimes and misdemeanors" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 - they just didn't have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one - you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It's not VERY good, it's not compelling, but it's good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible - in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can't carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it's good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on - the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents - the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it's gone forever - there's no putting it back. It's only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can't see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it's for a Good Cause - we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can't do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It's like carrying guns - it's not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn't follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that's not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

    The Ukraine story is good enough

    Nonsense. Trump is obligated to pursue Biden’s crimes in the Ukraine by a treaty signed by Bill Clinton. The notion that running for office exempts you from law is not applicable (Biden was not an opponent at the time of the phone call), is nonsense, and is nonsense again given the investigations of Trump. The second charge is being under arrest for resisting arrest, a circle.
    Remember when the big danger posed by Russia was the loss of faith in the institutions that lied to us about Iraq, lied to us about IX/XI, lied to us about immigration, lied to us about gunrunning, lied to us about persecuting and investigating political opponents, lied to us about fixing elections, and are still lying? If nothing else, the Democrats have proven that popular faith in instititional legitimacy was never an issue.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I don't mean good enough legally. As I have already stated, there are no real legal standards for impeachment. I meant good enough POLITICALLY and in the context of House Democrats and their re-electability.

    Now as far as the far Left was concerned, Trump was good enough to impeach on Day 1 - remember the Pussy Hat rally, in which they were demonstrating against Trump before he had actually done anything?

    But, and Pelosi was sensitive to this (which is why she did not impeach earlier), there are many House Democrats in swing districts or even strong Trump districts that switched in the 2018 election (and could easily switch back in the next election) and the Democrats had to be sure that an impeachment vote would not cost these members their seats (or at least not so many of them that she would no longer be the Speaker - gotta look out for #1). The assessment of the Democrat leaders (and the votes of the Democrats in almost all swing districts) showed that Ukraine was "good enough"for that purpose.

    Putting that aside, your view that the President was under some DUTY to force the Ukrainians to do this investigation is bullshit, you should pardon my French. You and I both know that if (let's say hypothetically) Don Jr. was the one who needed investigatin', Trump would not have said a word. The President has pretty much free reign to conduct foreign policy however he wants. The President doesn't have to go thru ever treaty and personally take up treaty violations with foreign leaders. He has every right to leave law enforcement to the law enforcement authorities and even to look the other way on treaty violations if he thinks that is in the bests interests of the United States. Maybe you got this line from some partisan Republican blog or something - it doesn't even come close to objective truth.

    If "however he wants" includes strong arming allies to investigate his political enemies, well that sounds like a lot of stuff that Obama did and I view that as politics as usual and not beyond the bounds of the "normal" level of corruption in our political process, but the idea that he was OBLIGATED to do this is laughable. Rudy Giuliani put a bug in his ear and Trump ran with it.
  82. @Angular momentum
    I think you can make the case we’ve entered an era of impeachment beginning with Nixon. First 200 years one impeachment, since Nixon (not impeached in name only) there’s been three, counting Nixon. I see no reason for this trend not to continue and even accelerate. The so called asterisk will become common place.

    This is a good point. I had the same thought.

    1790 to 1970: 180 years, one impeachment; at that, it was associated with a major civil war.

    1970 to 2020: 50 years, three impeachments (counting Nixon’s imminent-impeachment-induced resignation), all arguably for frivolous reasons, political squabbles, and/or deep-state takedown attempts.

    A simple, clean little dataset illustrating the simple concept of decline. If the later Roman Empire had impeachments, I’m sure their data would also look similar.

    How many impeachments will there be from 2020 to 2040?

    Or, how about this: If (when) Trump is found innocent and the case dismissed by the Senate, could the House impeach him again in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023? (Yes, five impeachments in five years — why not? It’s Trump Derangement Syndrome).

    • Replies: @Angular momentum
    Funny how the cable t.v. Historians never point out the obvious acceleration of impeachments. From a historical perspective aren’t eras a big deal? All they want to talk about is the “stain of impeachment” but how important will that be when impeachment becomes commonplace?
  83. @Jack D
    Misdemeanors?

    "High crimes and misdemeanors" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 - they just didn't have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one - you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It's not VERY good, it's not compelling, but it's good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible - in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can't carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it's good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on - the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents - the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it's gone forever - there's no putting it back. It's only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can't see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it's for a Good Cause - we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can't do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It's like carrying guns - it's not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn't follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that's not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

    The problem, which REPUBLICANS never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it’s gone forever – there’s no putting it back.

    Get it straight, Jack.

  84. @CMC
    I liked the part where Schiff went on and on about how important Ukraine was for US security.

    But did any Republicans respond with the argument that if it’s so important then we should continually subject everything about it to higher levels of scrutiny, follow-up, and... investigation; and that that’s all Trump was doing?

    “I liked the part where Schiff went on and on about how important Ukraine was for US security.”

    As Ukraine goes, so goes US national security. They are aligned as one. If Ukraine falls, we fall.

  85. @Paleo Liberal
    I am not impartial. Most of you don’t care what a liberal thinks about Trump. I won’t say if I thought he should have been impeached or not. My opinion is very complicated.

    A few interesting tidbits:

    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    Moral — if the Elites like you, and/or your party controls the House of Representatives, you cannot be impeached no matter what you do. It the Elites hate you and the other party controls the HoR, you will be impeached.

    Conviction is another matter entirely.

    The Elites hated Nixon

    That’s for sure.

    Why did the ‘elites’ (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states — Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon’s enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let’s call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    You are right in your general hypothesis there: much of our politics, like in the past, are racially driven. Since WW2, WASPs and Jews have allied against the Ellis Island Catholics, using the blacks and post-1965 immigrants as a cat's paw.
    , @Jack D
    This makes no sense. While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this. If he was say Germanic like Eisenhower, they would have hated him just as much. People thought of Nixon as having Quaker background and Quakers are well liked on the Left, being pacifist and all that (but of course Nixon got no personal credit for being Quaker). Nixon's father was as working class as could be (another thing that should have endeared him to Leftists but of course didn't). He was frostbitten working as a motorman in an open streetcar in Columbus, Ohio and therefore decide to relocate to California. After working as a farmhand and petroleum roustabout, he attempted to cultivate lemons but that didn't work out. He opened a little bodega that sold groceries and gas, but the family remained impoverished. Two of Nixon's brothers died of tuberculosis. This is about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician. In fact if I didn't know better, it sounds like something an Irish immigrant would have done (in particular trolley drivers were often Irish - in the days of open trolley cars this wasn't a great job). Given this proletarian background, Nixon was an incredibly self made man, especially compared to the rich man's son JFK (not "Founding Stock"). If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.

    They didn't like Nixon for what he believed (and what he wasn't - a Democrat) and not because of his ancestry - that's ridiculous.

    , @David In TN
    I don't think Nixon's enemies much cared about his ancestry in general. Richard Whalen in his 1972 book, Catch the Falling Flag, which was very critical of Nixon and was prescient about his eventual downfall, wrote this concerning the hatred Nixon received from "Elites:"

    "Nor would they ever forgive him, I suggested, for being a representative of the new American middle classes. The left-liberal intellectuals and journalists despised middle-class 'bourgeois' values and the 'square' culture. Nothing that Nixon could say or do would appease them. He threatened their status as an antidemocratic elite in much the way that Lyndon Johnson did, and he could expect the same vindictive assaults that Johnson was experiencing."
    , @istevefan

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon’s enemies hated him because of the above; ...
     
    If you want to oversimplify, they hated Nixon because he was a rabid anti-communist and went after folks like Alger Hiss. While in Congress he served on the dreaded House Un-American Affairs Committee. In his first race for US Senate, he dispatched the female democrat by suggesting she was a communist.

    His anti-communist activities, not his ancestry, was why they hated him.

    PS. In 1950, Nixon could win the CA senate seat by 20 points by labeling his democrat a commie sympathizer. A lot of us forget that CA was solidly republican for a long time. Today, thanks to demographic change, a commie sympathizer would dispatch any republican in CA by 20 or more points

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    This may be interesting for genealogists, but Nixon, from what we know about him, did not pay much attention to these matters. True, he was frequently hilarious in private statements about various ethnicities (Italians, Jews, Irish, "Latins",..), but didn't care about genealogical intricacies.
    , @Peterike
    Nah. Jews hated Nixon because Nixon went after Commies and most Commies were Jews. Simple.
    , @Thoughts
    I agree with you.

    At the end of the day, we are just organisms. And competing organisms attack one another.
    , @FPD72
    Elite hatred for Nixon flowed from one major fountain, which had nothing to do with his ancestry: his leadership of HUAC activities relating to the investigation and later conviction of elite member Alger Hiss.
  86. @Realist
    The unimportant internecine squabbles of the ‘two parties’ are a charade (nothing will come of the impeachment) to obfuscate important nefarious actions by the Deep State. But this impeachment pretense strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

    On the Republican side watch to see how many are 'brought to justice' for their complicity in the Russian hoax. FBI corruption and lying, false testimony and witnessing, etc...spoiler alert...ZERO

    On the Republican side watch…

    This phrase was confusing, I meant the Republicans would do nothing. I corrected in a subsequent comment.

    This comment sat for hours under ‘ Your comment is awaiting moderation’

  87. @Arthur Pierce
    Maybe I could bring myself to give a damn a year ago, and two years ago I would have been furious. By now, who cares? Catladies and buttgoys who hang on every word the ex-CIA spooks on CNN spout, and retarded MAGApede cheerleaders who don’t care if Trump goes back on every one of his campaign promises so long as he “wins”, make up the bulk of people who take this seriously. The remainder consists of people trying to look smart by analyzing the minutiae of the charges and the alleged evidence for them.

    As trust and faith erode, grain by chip, liberty tucks gently beneath the sand.

  88. @Corvinus
    "I haven’t been paying any attention. But if you have, knock yourself out in the comments section."

    LOL, which means you have been giving it much thought, Mr. Sailer. It's just your way of remaining cagey.

    NOTICE if President Obama was accused of exactly the same thing as Trump, i.e. making a phone call for a “favor” seeking dirt on a political opponent with strings attached (foreign aid), House Republicans would have been demanding that Obama be politically lynched.

    NOTICE if Republicans were generally not terrified of angering Trump, they would acknowledge to the media that the articles require only a finding of probable cause, a low evidentiary standard, rather than touting the lie that there is “no” evidence. Put another way—Not even one Republican as far as I know is saying that there is evidence, but just not quite enough.

    NOTICE Rudy Guiliani is representing the president as his personal attorney, but is not an official member of the administration. He has admitted playing a leading role in the ousting of the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, as well as receiving money from a wealthy Ukrainian oligiarch by way of an intermediary. Interesting that this conduct is NOT considered normal presidential practice.

    NOTICE that McConnell indicated that there will be no new witnesses at the Senate trial. Why? He says the House should have called them. Ironically, the House did call them in and Trump sought to block their testify due to “executive privilege”. Yet, the Senate is a venue for fact-finding in impeachment of a president, as Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenth would attest.

    But, if you prefer to remain cagey, Mr. Sailer, have at it. In the end. you remain patently dishonest in your presentation of your level of interest in this historic event.

    historic event

    The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was a “historic event”–so historic that history profs are terrified of discussing it for fear of having their careers ended. 😉

  89. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    Congratulations, Mr Mason. You have just emitted the concern-troll post to end all concern-troll posts.

  90. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    “Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.”

    Thank you for so succinctly stating the reason I vote for Trump. Not only is he killing off the old Republican party, but he’s somehow convinced the Dems to off themselves. He’s succeeded far beyond anything I thought possible.

  91. The impeachment will fail, just like all the other partisan attempts to remove Trump from office. But the Democrats are determined to remove or delegitimize Trump, so what happens next?

    I’m guessing there will be a financial crisis, some time from August through October 2020.

    Watch what the Federal Reserve is doing; and watch the money supply.

    John Williams publishes data for USD M3.

    http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply-charts

    Whether or not you agree with Williams’ other “alternate data”, his M3 is simply a continuation of the Fed’s own data series, which it stopped producing in 2006 – “coincidentally” this was just before the money-supply bubble that led to the 2007-8 credit crunch.

    M3 growth has been hovering around 5% for the last 7 years. Now it is on the increase again, possibly increasing faster than it did before the 2008 crunch.

    John Williams himself tends to see hyperinflation around every corner. Whether we will get that, or simply another asset bubble followed by a recession, who can say? But the most likely time will be somewhere in the three months leading up to election day.

  92. @Hail
    This is a good point. I had the same thought.

    1790 to 1970: 180 years, one impeachment; at that, it was associated with a major civil war.

    1970 to 2020: 50 years, three impeachments (counting Nixon's imminent-impeachment-induced resignation), all arguably for frivolous reasons, political squabbles, and/or deep-state takedown attempts.

    A simple, clean little dataset illustrating the simple concept of decline. If the later Roman Empire had impeachments, I'm sure their data would also look similar.

    How many impeachments will there be from 2020 to 2040?

    Or, how about this: If (when) Trump is found innocent and the case dismissed by the Senate, could the House impeach him again in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023? (Yes, five impeachments in five years -- why not? It's Trump Derangement Syndrome).

    Funny how the cable t.v. Historians never point out the obvious acceleration of impeachments. From a historical perspective aren’t eras a big deal? All they want to talk about is the “stain of impeachment” but how important will that be when impeachment becomes commonplace?

  93. @eah
    Say what you want about Coulter ...

    link/video

    @AnnCoulter over 2.5 years ago:
    "If [Trump] doesn't keep his promises, Republicans will be wiped out in the midterm elections. Democrats will have the House of Representatives and they absolutely will impeach him, it doesn't matter, he could be purer than Caesar's wife."
     
    Democrats taking control of the House probably would have happened anyway.

    Nah. The complicity of the RNC refusing to support incumbents like Dave Brat to run “based colored” in D+32 districts is part of the story. The other part is Paul Ryan refusing to challenge results when they literally kept finding boxes of ballots in trunks in some of these rural or Dem held districts. No way this was a done deal if not for the complete paucity of Ryan and the other “please fuck my wife” repubs.

  94. @Lot
    I don’t see the neocon and deep state concepts as too useful in late 2019.

    “ couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote”

    The only one elected as a Republican favoring impeachment is Justin Amash, an Arab who has voted against defense spending and pro-Israel resolutions his whole career.

    The point is a large share of those who’d easily qualify as Deep State or Neocon support Trump, who is a smart guy who won over a lot of his opponents within the party.

    Paid agent of deep state subversive country insists that deep state is meaningless. News at 11.

  95. @J.Ross
    The Ukraine story is good enough

    Nonsense. Trump is obligated to pursue Biden's crimes in the Ukraine by a treaty signed by Bill Clinton. The notion that running for office exempts you from law is not applicable (Biden was not an opponent at the time of the phone call), is nonsense, and is nonsense again given the investigations of Trump. The second charge is being under arrest for resisting arrest, a circle.
    Remember when the big danger posed by Russia was the loss of faith in the institutions that lied to us about Iraq, lied to us about IX/XI, lied to us about immigration, lied to us about gunrunning, lied to us about persecuting and investigating political opponents, lied to us about fixing elections, and are still lying? If nothing else, the Democrats have proven that popular faith in instititional legitimacy was never an issue.

    I don’t mean good enough legally. As I have already stated, there are no real legal standards for impeachment. I meant good enough POLITICALLY and in the context of House Democrats and their re-electability.

    Now as far as the far Left was concerned, Trump was good enough to impeach on Day 1 – remember the Pussy Hat rally, in which they were demonstrating against Trump before he had actually done anything?

    But, and Pelosi was sensitive to this (which is why she did not impeach earlier), there are many House Democrats in swing districts or even strong Trump districts that switched in the 2018 election (and could easily switch back in the next election) and the Democrats had to be sure that an impeachment vote would not cost these members their seats (or at least not so many of them that she would no longer be the Speaker – gotta look out for #1). The assessment of the Democrat leaders (and the votes of the Democrats in almost all swing districts) showed that Ukraine was “good enough”for that purpose.

    Putting that aside, your view that the President was under some DUTY to force the Ukrainians to do this investigation is bullshit, you should pardon my French. You and I both know that if (let’s say hypothetically) Don Jr. was the one who needed investigatin’, Trump would not have said a word. The President has pretty much free reign to conduct foreign policy however he wants. The President doesn’t have to go thru ever treaty and personally take up treaty violations with foreign leaders. He has every right to leave law enforcement to the law enforcement authorities and even to look the other way on treaty violations if he thinks that is in the bests interests of the United States. Maybe you got this line from some partisan Republican blog or something – it doesn’t even come close to objective truth.

    If “however he wants” includes strong arming allies to investigate his political enemies, well that sounds like a lot of stuff that Obama did and I view that as politics as usual and not beyond the bounds of the “normal” level of corruption in our political process, but the idea that he was OBLIGATED to do this is laughable. Rudy Giuliani put a bug in his ear and Trump ran with it.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    It wasn’t strong-arming, it was diplomacy, and would have been very effective diplomacy (and still might be).

    Trump was raised on Norman Vincent Peale-flavored Protestantism. That’s what asking the favor is about. One of Peale’s main ploys for winning friends and influencing people is to ask them for help. Help with what in this case? Illegitimate interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

    Why did he choose that subject? Because it lies at the heart of Ukrainian disillusion with their alliance with the US - i.e. US interference with internal Ukrainian affairs, which Trump can’t afford to be too specific about but which he signals by mentioning the two main culprits, Biden and Yovanovich.

    , @J.Ross
    As I have already stated, there are no real legal standards for impeachment.

    There are no clearly defined stipulations which would satisfy legalist reformers who think the answer is to spell it all out, but there are definitely standards, and it is clear that the Pelosi case meets none: it is pure partisan sniping. Replace Trump with anyone else beating Hillary so shockingly, or replace the charges with Burroughsian space opera, and the situation is the same. They don't have a case or a theory, they have "it was her turn." While that won't win over apoliticals to Trump, it also cannot win over anyone to the impeachment.
    I grow more and more confident that the Democrats just shot themselves in both feet.
    It is interesting that in the NPR, online, social, and podcast leftist ideological spaces, efforts have been made to drum up nerd chic and historical authority regarding impeachment. This continues the motif of footblasting, because there are no good impeachments:
    --Johnson is now and then widely seen to have been wrongly persecuted by the Radical Republicans, who came to be seen as over-rigid idiots undoing Lincoln's efforts at reconciliation. Sadly, the revisionist embrace of Radical Republicans is intentional and fits with the war on monuments.
    --Nixon was almost certainly innocent (he "threatened" Ford that he wanted a proper trial) and was really guilty of being Nixon. This is confirmed by the totally gratuitous hatred of Nixon which continues in popular entertainment media long after his death (eg, Futurama). There are no cartoons about blood-soaked and braindead Wilson tricking us into the then biggest military disaster in history, but Nixon must be kicked around for eternity becayse he had poor posture and a 5 o'clock shadow.
    --Clinton was universally seen as totally guilty, but as universally seen as not guilty of anything that mattered, and, like Johnson and Nixon, his real crime was being hated.
    --Every single Republican president since Eisenhower was targeted with an impeachent effort, which made it to at least a vote in every single case except Ford. The seriousness of all these impeachments cannot survive Occam's razor.
    We are approaching a case for getting rid of impeachment itself. It has never served any good purpose. It has frequently been the conduit of political mischief -- unforgivably, political mischief as visible to the people as the Trial of Joan of Arc. If you want to burn a witch, you're scum, but if you let everybody know that the victim isn't a witch, you're unforgivably dumb. If impeachment is good for anything, our leaders lack the maturity to handle it properly.
  96. @Jack D
    Withholding the articles is not cunning lawfare, it's the Democrats realizing that they have dug a hole for themselves and that a Senate trial is (1) not going to result in Trump's removal anyway and (2) that otherwise they have more to lose than to gain from the spectacle. They are like the dog that has caught the car - what do you do now?

    It has also dawned on them that they will have no control of the process once it gets to the Senate (especially since they displayed ruthless partisanship in the House and can expect no better treatment in the other body) so the Republicans are going to be able to make them look bad (and Trump look good) - they have just bought the RNC a huge block of free airtime. They are trying to negotiate for ground rules that will put them back in a better place but Mitch McConnell is not an idiot and is not going to fall for Chuckie Schumer's ploys even if Chuckie got 1800 out of 1600 on his SATs. He is going to be as nice to Chuckie as Chuckie would have been to him if the situation was reversed, which is not very nice.

    Not sending the articles to the Senate is the same thing as not having impeached the President in the first place. The whole point of doing an impeachment in the House is to trigger a trial in the Senate so if they are not sending the articles why did they bother with the impeachment in the first place? And BTW, if the House has voted for impeachment, doesn't the Speaker have a Constitutional duty to send the articles on? What's the point of having the whole House vote if the Speaker can just toss the articles in the trash?

    The way Pelosi is absolutely trashing constitutional norms is amazing to the point if I didn’t know better I’d think she was a cryto-accelerationist with this entire “We will dictate to the Senate what the trial will look like”, which as far as I can tell has zero historical precedent or basis or anything other than coming from a brain trust of GITDs who think everything is up for Talmudic interpretation if you argue long enough.

    We can see how the Dems react when their “the good guys can do what they want” thinking is turned on them. You got Northam threatening to send in the NG and cut power to areas “in revolt”, which again would make me think he’s crypto-acc if I didn’t know he was a sock puppet for certain types. Also shows the absolute idiocy of so many RNC members – the VARNC fools thought the “blackface scandal” would sink the Dems so much that they didn’t need to GOTV, and now look where things are.

    Someone said a while ago any revolt was going to be at the local level, and now we got the shire reeves basically calling out the Fyrd against a tyrant. History doesn’t repeat but it sure rhymes.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    I didn’t know better I’d think she was a cryto-accelerationist with this entire “We will dictate to the Senate what the trial will look like”, which as far as I can tell has zero historical precedent or basis
     
    The Constitution is sparse on impeachment procedures generally, but it is 100% clear that the House has no influence or authority over how the Senate conducts its impeachment trial.

    Article I, Section 3

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
     
    Article I, Section 5

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,
     
    Wherever this idea comes from that the trial has to be conducted by "House Managers," it ain't in the Constitution. And the Senate, as the sole master of its own procedures, can dispense with any rule or tradition that anticipates this procedure.

    At this point McConnell holds all the cards. This is unlikely to end well for Democrats. (My personal preference would be exhaustive testimony from Eric Ciaramella, Adam Schiff and his staff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and maybe some of the Ukrainians who "paid-to-play" with the Obama administration and tried to rig the 2016 election for Hilary).
  97. I can’t decide whether this whole show is Kabuki or a sort of reverse Cargo Cult.

    Kabuki because it seems like a ritual performance—they, we, all know he is not going to be convicted but what the hey, let’s impeach him anyway.

    Cargo Cult reversed because if we perform the ritual maybe he he will go away. But we know he will not.

    All at taxpayers’ expense to gratify the longings of those who believed Hill was an inevitability and would be the savior that O was not.

    I have no use for President Bonespur and did not cast a presidential ballot in 2016 for either odious creature—-but I live in Texas so it makes no difference for sure.

    Times like these make me wonder if we asked, politely, to leave again whether it might be received in a more friendly fashion than in 1861.

  98. Anon[710] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "I haven’t been paying any attention. But if you have, knock yourself out in the comments section."

    LOL, which means you have been giving it much thought, Mr. Sailer. It's just your way of remaining cagey.

    NOTICE if President Obama was accused of exactly the same thing as Trump, i.e. making a phone call for a “favor” seeking dirt on a political opponent with strings attached (foreign aid), House Republicans would have been demanding that Obama be politically lynched.

    NOTICE if Republicans were generally not terrified of angering Trump, they would acknowledge to the media that the articles require only a finding of probable cause, a low evidentiary standard, rather than touting the lie that there is “no” evidence. Put another way—Not even one Republican as far as I know is saying that there is evidence, but just not quite enough.

    NOTICE Rudy Guiliani is representing the president as his personal attorney, but is not an official member of the administration. He has admitted playing a leading role in the ousting of the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, as well as receiving money from a wealthy Ukrainian oligiarch by way of an intermediary. Interesting that this conduct is NOT considered normal presidential practice.

    NOTICE that McConnell indicated that there will be no new witnesses at the Senate trial. Why? He says the House should have called them. Ironically, the House did call them in and Trump sought to block their testify due to “executive privilege”. Yet, the Senate is a venue for fact-finding in impeachment of a president, as Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenth would attest.

    But, if you prefer to remain cagey, Mr. Sailer, have at it. In the end. you remain patently dishonest in your presentation of your level of interest in this historic event.

    But, if you prefer to remain cagey, Mr. Sailer, have at it. In the end. you remain patently dishonest in your presentation of your level of interest in this historic event.

    Or, far more likely, it could be that you spend far too much time playing on your computer all day. Time that would be far better spent in a part time job at Home Depot. Or at least attending a Pilates class for old fat people, providing your own opportunity to improve your lot, free from finger-pointing and unbridled laughter from complete strangers. Any activity that might release that worn furrow from your brow, with attendant cross-eyes is time well spent, old sport.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    Corvinus is a paid troll from Media Matters. Don't engage with him seriously, he's paid to disrupt comments here. Mocking and ridicule of him is the only appropriate way of dealing with him.
    , @Corvinus
    LOL, you don't even try to address the significance of my post. Rather, you string together one long ad hominem.

    Since it is the holidays, I will assist my fellow human being. Do you need a primer on discourse? I can really help you in that regard.
  99. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year’s election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    Why go with a candidate who already won once, has the same coalition intact, and has a 90+% approval among Republicans. No, Republicans should dump that guy and instead pick a “solid candidate” in a smoke filled room. How about Mitt Romney or the Ghost of John McCain? Are they “solid” enough for you.

  100. @Jack D
    I don't mean good enough legally. As I have already stated, there are no real legal standards for impeachment. I meant good enough POLITICALLY and in the context of House Democrats and their re-electability.

    Now as far as the far Left was concerned, Trump was good enough to impeach on Day 1 - remember the Pussy Hat rally, in which they were demonstrating against Trump before he had actually done anything?

    But, and Pelosi was sensitive to this (which is why she did not impeach earlier), there are many House Democrats in swing districts or even strong Trump districts that switched in the 2018 election (and could easily switch back in the next election) and the Democrats had to be sure that an impeachment vote would not cost these members their seats (or at least not so many of them that she would no longer be the Speaker - gotta look out for #1). The assessment of the Democrat leaders (and the votes of the Democrats in almost all swing districts) showed that Ukraine was "good enough"for that purpose.

    Putting that aside, your view that the President was under some DUTY to force the Ukrainians to do this investigation is bullshit, you should pardon my French. You and I both know that if (let's say hypothetically) Don Jr. was the one who needed investigatin', Trump would not have said a word. The President has pretty much free reign to conduct foreign policy however he wants. The President doesn't have to go thru ever treaty and personally take up treaty violations with foreign leaders. He has every right to leave law enforcement to the law enforcement authorities and even to look the other way on treaty violations if he thinks that is in the bests interests of the United States. Maybe you got this line from some partisan Republican blog or something - it doesn't even come close to objective truth.

    If "however he wants" includes strong arming allies to investigate his political enemies, well that sounds like a lot of stuff that Obama did and I view that as politics as usual and not beyond the bounds of the "normal" level of corruption in our political process, but the idea that he was OBLIGATED to do this is laughable. Rudy Giuliani put a bug in his ear and Trump ran with it.

    It wasn’t strong-arming, it was diplomacy, and would have been very effective diplomacy (and still might be).

    Trump was raised on Norman Vincent Peale-flavored Protestantism. That’s what asking the favor is about. One of Peale’s main ploys for winning friends and influencing people is to ask them for help. Help with what in this case? Illegitimate interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

    Why did he choose that subject? Because it lies at the heart of Ukrainian disillusion with their alliance with the US – i.e. US interference with internal Ukrainian affairs, which Trump can’t afford to be too specific about but which he signals by mentioning the two main culprits, Biden and Yovanovich.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I'm sorry but Donald Trump has never been interested in helping anyone other than Donald Trump in his entire long life. Attributing noble motives to what Trump did is just bullshit. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. We all know what he did and why he did it, but I am about as shocked as this as Captain Renault was to find that there was gambling going on in Rick's casino. There's politics going on in Washington? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!

    But making DJT out to be some kind of patriot is for the rubes. Yes, he loves America deep down (and in a way that Democrats don't and never will) but in this case he was looking for political advantage. Now part of the reason he was doing this was that he had been so screwed over by the media and the FBI and the Democrats with their false Russia narrative and if they had left him alone and treated him like a normal President he wouldn't have been doing this in the 1st place, but that was what was in his head and not some imaginary concern with the Ukrainians and their alliance. Trump frankly doesn't give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country. He was elected in part because he doesn't.
    , @Corvinus
    "It wasn’t strong-arming, it was diplomacy, and would have been very effective diplomacy (and still might be)."

    No, it was strong arming through back channels. Trump used his personal lawyer, rather than a White House official or the DOJ/State Department, to find "dirt" on a potential political opponent by way of a quid pro quo. His conduct is NOT normal presidential operating procedure. Several diplomats pointed it out emphatically in their testimony. John Bolton seems eager to testify, but says he must be compelled by a court. Even he realizes Trump's action is other than legal and diplomatic. If Obama had done the EXACT thing as Trump, House Republicans would have been calling for his head on a silver platter. Talk about double standards...
  101. @njguy73
    Glory, work, coddling.

    Boomers, Xers, Millennials.

    Well done.

  102. Anon[336] • Disclaimer says:

    Impeachment now was a strategic blunder. If they were going to use it for purely political purposes, they could have used it to help forestall a Supreme Court nominee until after the election, in the case that Ginsburg fell ill and died. It would be more difficult politically for the Senate to approve a nominee, when there are Articles of Impeachment also waiting.

  103. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:

    Trump long ago learned the important playground rule that if you want to build support for yourself–get all the guys over on your side–you have to goad your enemies into acting like nuts who make fools out of themselves in public. You have to make the crowd of neutral onlookers so embarrassed by the nutty behavior that they edge away from the nuts. You have to make your enemies bleed supporters who have had enough with the nonsense from their own side. This is the way a playground functions, and it’s the way a democracy functions. Democracy is nothing but the playground writ large.

    This is why Trump does something pro-Jewish every time the Democrats do something anti-Semitic. He’s wooing supporters. That’s why Trump trolls The Squad, and why he trolls Pelosi by making remarks like her teeth are about to fall out. She’s being dumb by taking the bait. Trump grasps something important about Pelosi’s personality. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro, was a mafia wannabe and hanger-on, who thought and acted like his scummy, violent, and corrupt pals. Basically, Pelosi comes from a family of hot-tempered Italian thugs, and they react as violently as ghetto blacks do to insults. They’re extremely touchy about being disrespected, and they HAVE to retaliate to keep the respect of their followers and maintain power. Trump understands more about the levers of power than Pelosi. After all, he climbed all the way up to the presidency, and she didn’t.

    Trump understands that Pelosi is narcissistic and vain (hence the teeth falling out remark). She expects to be admired, respected, and obeyed. When Trump insults her intelligence, sanity, or appearance, she goes purple with narcissistic rage. She thinks that having gained the status of Speaker of the House, she deserves to be treated well, but Trump refuses. That always burns the oversized ego of a narcissist.

    Pelosi’s been acting more and more like a frothing nut, and combined with her shaky old goat demeanor at her impeachment press conference the other day, she looks like she’s ready for the glue factory.

    The fact that Jeremy Corbyn got hammered by Boris Johnson indicates that ‘acting like a obsessed nut’ can make your supporters stampede away from you, is being lost on Pelosi and the left. They’re guiding the Democratic airplane right into the ground in 2020.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    and why he trolls Pelosi by making remarks like her teeth are about to fall out. She’s being dumb by taking the bait. Trump grasps something important about Pelosi’s personality. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro, was a mafia wannabe and hanger-on, who thought and acted like his scummy, violent, and corrupt pals. Basically, Pelosi comes from a family of hot-tempered Italian thugs, and they react as violently as ghetto blacks do to insults. They’re extremely touchy about being disrespected, and they HAVE to retaliate to keep the respect of their followers and maintain power.
     
    Wow.....
    , @Whiskey
    Dems don't care about 2020. Census results take 26 electoral votes from the Midwest and to California Illinois etc

    The utter, utter failure of the Sailer strategy right there. Sorry Steve love you but it's a failure.

    2024 Dems win President and executive orders make all White men kulaks.

    Exterminate or enslave if we are lucky.

    God Bless Adam Schiff! Reps must hold both Houses and simply remove Dem President for being anti White.

    Vast majority of White women love the anti White stuff fantasies of being the mistress of the big man. but there are still red areas in blue states?

    Spot on with coup attempt by FBI. Would not be shocked if they arrest Trump and Pence and install Hillary. Most of them work for her.

  104. 1. We must not knee jerk believe the D’shave some “grand plan” here. They may, but the more likely explanation for this clusterf uck farce is that they are merely reacting to the craziness of their own hyperbolic and freaked out tiny base and media lapdogs. Pelosi holding the articles is a last ditch effort to minimize damage to the D’s.

    Political parties commit suicide all the time throughout history, and ours are no different. What’s more, as we’ve seen with the Deep State attack on Trump, it was a few guys blatantly lying to FISA courts with ridiculous information that was unprovable; as Q states, these people are stupid. The only thing that makes them seem smart is the fact that they are in power.

    2. That said, there is, of course, a conspiracy theory to be hashed out of this: Pelosi and the elder D whites and (((others))) are trying to drive the D’s over a cliff in the 2020 election—in order to purge the crazies. The theory is: lose big on impeachment, have the country turn against your crazies, drum them out of office, let the R’s have the House for a few terms, then replace them with moderate D’s in 2022 and 2024 and 2026. This is an attempt,. therefore, for Pelosi to allow the crazies free reign while using it to destroy them.

    3. A separate, far darker conspiracy theory: the D’s are conspiring with the Deep State. When the Senate refuses the House’s demands on a show trial, the House keeps the articles, and the Deep State moves to arrest the Senate and the president in a coup. Show trials and all.

    4. That all said, I continue to believe the Democrat Party will cease to be a viable national party in the next 10 years. Too much diversity. Instead, it will break up into various local ethnic parties, and its current moderate leaders will form a new national one with Never Trumpers.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    The best explanation I have heard is that Schiff told Pelosi in August the "we really got DJT on this Ukraine thing", and she let him go ahead with his 'impeachment inquiry'. It turned out to be a nothing burger, but the crazies believed it, so Pelosi had to go forward. Now the Ds are stuck having voted for impeachment and more than a few are going down next November.
  105. @Anon
    It is over for Trump. He used his power to try to influence a foregin power to interfere with an election and harass a political rival and THEN LIED ABOUT IT

    You guys need to get out of your bubble. Most people hate Trump and all that he stands for.

    If republicans refuse to do the right thing then that will be the death of the party and all who support it. Demographic change makes it hard for republicans to be a viable party but this will seal the deal.

    The “Sorrows of Young Werther”?

    Nay! It’s the “Harrassment of Old ‘Corn Popper’ Biden”.

    There is “hate” all right. There is also sheer stupidity.

    HISTORIANS’ STATEMENT ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP

    President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.

    These self-styled “historians” are so dumb and useless that they don’t manage a single reference in their heated writeup. But they invoke Hamilton. Great.

    Signed by 1507 clowns.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president.
     
    As opposed to Jackson's ethnic cleansing, Wilson's chucking of the First Amendment and census manipulation, FDR's Neutrality Act violations, domestic internment camps, and carpet bombing of civilians abroad, Truman's nuclear incineration of a Christian cathedral, along with the tens of thousands of civilians nearby, Truman's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Clinton's, and Obama's foreign wars without a declaration from Congress...

    It seems like we have a partisan double standard here.


    All of these presidents should have died in prison, except Clinton, for whom a backwoods lynching would be more appropriate.
  106. @Anon

    But, if you prefer to remain cagey, Mr. Sailer, have at it. In the end. you remain patently dishonest in your presentation of your level of interest in this historic event.

     

    Or, far more likely, it could be that you spend far too much time playing on your computer all day. Time that would be far better spent in a part time job at Home Depot. Or at least attending a Pilates class for old fat people, providing your own opportunity to improve your lot, free from finger-pointing and unbridled laughter from complete strangers. Any activity that might release that worn furrow from your brow, with attendant cross-eyes is time well spent, old sport.

    Corvinus is a paid troll from Media Matters. Don’t engage with him seriously, he’s paid to disrupt comments here. Mocking and ridicule of him is the only appropriate way of dealing with him.

    • Agree: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    His modus operandi is to argue in bad faith, forever changing the topic (and asking more questions) when he's found out. It is wholly pointless 'debating' him, and the more people's time he can waste, the happier he is. A blog whose writer is a famous pattern-noticer has some commenters devoid of that talent, and they continue to bite. I used to.

    As Nathan Hale might have put it

    "I regret that I have but three "Trolls" in any eight hour period to give to Corvinus"
  107. @Desiderius
    The big story here is the utter collapse in the influence of neocons like yourself. Big part of the credit for that goes to our illustrious host.

    We already knew you were salivating for President Pence. That’s what is driving the whole clown show. How does it feel, Johnathan, to have failed so utterly you couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote, even with the entire media and Deep State corruptly at your side?

    You’re that unpopular. You’d do well to attend to your own mental health in this difficult time.

    How does it feel, Johnathan, to have failed so utterly you couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote, even with the entire media and Deep State corruptly at your side?

    Why can you not spell my name correctly when it is right in front of you?

    I think there are plenty of Republican representatives and senators who would be very happy to see the back of Trump, but are concerned about how voting for impeachment would affect their own careers in elected office.

    The pressures are very great. Jo Johnson, the brother of Boris Johnson, resigned as a member of his brother’s cabinet and as a member of parliament over the Brexit issue, tweeting:

    It’s been an honour to represent Orpington for 9 years & to serve as a minister under three PMs. In recent weeks I’ve been torn between family loyalty and the national interest – it’s an unresolvable tension & time for others to take on my roles as MP & Minister. #overandout

    There is still time for some Republican legislators to crack and say that enough is enough, provided that they don’t mind spending more time with their families far from the putrefying waters of the Potomac.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    My spelling is not up to the usual standards due to fighting two-year-olds for control of the phone and or preventing them from climbing on the baby grand during the five minute proofreading period.

    As for why you’ve failed to secure one vote for your various ploys, I’d direct your attention to the utter disaster that is the Afghanistan papers. The people have had the news first-hand from returning vets for lo these twenty years. Perhaps having it published it the Post will allow it to finally break through your thick neocon skulls.
  108. @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    You are right in your general hypothesis there: much of our politics, like in the past, are racially driven. Since WW2, WASPs and Jews have allied against the Ellis Island Catholics, using the blacks and post-1965 immigrants as a cat’s paw.

    • Agree: Alden
  109. @ScarletNumber
    The most striking thing I have noticed is that Tulsi voted "present" instead of yes or no. I think she should be impeached for dereliction of duty.

    I thought Tulsi’s voting present was a great idea. She’s not like the other sheep.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I thought Tulsi’s voting present was a great idea.
     
    Yes. A Christmas "present"!
  110. @Anon

    But, if you prefer to remain cagey, Mr. Sailer, have at it. In the end. you remain patently dishonest in your presentation of your level of interest in this historic event.

     

    Or, far more likely, it could be that you spend far too much time playing on your computer all day. Time that would be far better spent in a part time job at Home Depot. Or at least attending a Pilates class for old fat people, providing your own opportunity to improve your lot, free from finger-pointing and unbridled laughter from complete strangers. Any activity that might release that worn furrow from your brow, with attendant cross-eyes is time well spent, old sport.

    LOL, you don’t even try to address the significance of my post. Rather, you string together one long ad hominem.

    Since it is the holidays, I will assist my fellow human being. Do you need a primer on discourse? I can really help you in that regard.

  111. @Jack D
    I don't mean good enough legally. As I have already stated, there are no real legal standards for impeachment. I meant good enough POLITICALLY and in the context of House Democrats and their re-electability.

    Now as far as the far Left was concerned, Trump was good enough to impeach on Day 1 - remember the Pussy Hat rally, in which they were demonstrating against Trump before he had actually done anything?

    But, and Pelosi was sensitive to this (which is why she did not impeach earlier), there are many House Democrats in swing districts or even strong Trump districts that switched in the 2018 election (and could easily switch back in the next election) and the Democrats had to be sure that an impeachment vote would not cost these members their seats (or at least not so many of them that she would no longer be the Speaker - gotta look out for #1). The assessment of the Democrat leaders (and the votes of the Democrats in almost all swing districts) showed that Ukraine was "good enough"for that purpose.

    Putting that aside, your view that the President was under some DUTY to force the Ukrainians to do this investigation is bullshit, you should pardon my French. You and I both know that if (let's say hypothetically) Don Jr. was the one who needed investigatin', Trump would not have said a word. The President has pretty much free reign to conduct foreign policy however he wants. The President doesn't have to go thru ever treaty and personally take up treaty violations with foreign leaders. He has every right to leave law enforcement to the law enforcement authorities and even to look the other way on treaty violations if he thinks that is in the bests interests of the United States. Maybe you got this line from some partisan Republican blog or something - it doesn't even come close to objective truth.

    If "however he wants" includes strong arming allies to investigate his political enemies, well that sounds like a lot of stuff that Obama did and I view that as politics as usual and not beyond the bounds of the "normal" level of corruption in our political process, but the idea that he was OBLIGATED to do this is laughable. Rudy Giuliani put a bug in his ear and Trump ran with it.

    As I have already stated, there are no real legal standards for impeachment.

    There are no clearly defined stipulations which would satisfy legalist reformers who think the answer is to spell it all out, but there are definitely standards, and it is clear that the Pelosi case meets none: it is pure partisan sniping. Replace Trump with anyone else beating Hillary so shockingly, or replace the charges with Burroughsian space opera, and the situation is the same. They don’t have a case or a theory, they have “it was her turn.” While that won’t win over apoliticals to Trump, it also cannot win over anyone to the impeachment.
    I grow more and more confident that the Democrats just shot themselves in both feet.
    It is interesting that in the NPR, online, social, and podcast leftist ideological spaces, efforts have been made to drum up nerd chic and historical authority regarding impeachment. This continues the motif of footblasting, because there are no good impeachments:
    –Johnson is now and then widely seen to have been wrongly persecuted by the Radical Republicans, who came to be seen as over-rigid idiots undoing Lincoln’s efforts at reconciliation. Sadly, the revisionist embrace of Radical Republicans is intentional and fits with the war on monuments.
    –Nixon was almost certainly innocent (he “threatened” Ford that he wanted a proper trial) and was really guilty of being Nixon. This is confirmed by the totally gratuitous hatred of Nixon which continues in popular entertainment media long after his death (eg, Futurama). There are no cartoons about blood-soaked and braindead Wilson tricking us into the then biggest military disaster in history, but Nixon must be kicked around for eternity becayse he had poor posture and a 5 o’clock shadow.
    –Clinton was universally seen as totally guilty, but as universally seen as not guilty of anything that mattered, and, like Johnson and Nixon, his real crime was being hated.
    –Every single Republican president since Eisenhower was targeted with an impeachent effort, which made it to at least a vote in every single case except Ford. The seriousness of all these impeachments cannot survive Occam’s razor.
    We are approaching a case for getting rid of impeachment itself. It has never served any good purpose. It has frequently been the conduit of political mischief — unforgivably, political mischief as visible to the people as the Trial of Joan of Arc. If you want to burn a witch, you’re scum, but if you let everybody know that the victim isn’t a witch, you’re unforgivably dumb. If impeachment is good for anything, our leaders lack the maturity to handle it properly.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >Nixon was almost certainly innocent (he “threatened” Ford that he wanted a proper trial) and was really guilty of being Nixon.

    No. Leaving aside all the problems with the Nixon White House that would have me typing for hours, he conspired to obstruct justice, and that was an impeachable offense. The Watergate tapes couldn't make that clearer. Nixon was a narcissist who would have never, never have given up the office if he had any shred of surviving an impeachment.

    (I will say this, though: say what you will about Watergate, it didn't involve selling arms to terrorists or drug smuggling.)

    It's deeply telling that they are claiming that Trump obstructed Congress rather than justice. If they could claim Trump obstructed justice, the Democrats would. But they aren't.

    So, if he's guilty of obstructing Congress, does that mean Congress can act to impeach the President purely because Congress doesn't like that he doesn't follow their policies to the hilt? They and their media groupies are delusional if they don't think the GOP is going to do just that to the next Democrat who lands in the WH. The GOP played this game in the 1990s, with a toxic effect on our politics. This fallout is going to be even worse. Precedents are being set here by Congress: very bad ones.

  112. @Jack D
    Misdemeanors?

    "High crimes and misdemeanors" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 - they just didn't have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one - you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It's not VERY good, it's not compelling, but it's good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible - in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can't carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it's good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on - the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents - the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it's gone forever - there's no putting it back. It's only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can't see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it's for a Good Cause - we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can't do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It's like carrying guns - it's not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn't follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that's not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on – the precedent has been set.

    Maybe, or maybe not.

    If the voters toss out the Dems and reelect Trump, then the “precedent” will be that the American people have a different interpretation and will punish political opportunism that subverts the Constitution.

    In short, to restore the Constitutional balance and order, the people will need to rise up and throw out the Democrat congress, and re-elect Trump. That’s a principled campaign theme that may get some serious traction with both independents and Trump’s base.

    People are sick of the current hyper-partisan division and hypocrisy. Previously, the Democrats might have been able to blame Trump’s mean tweets for this toxic environment. But, in IMHO, their impeachment clown show has now hung this responsibility on their necks.

    • Replies: @anonn

    People are sick of the current hyper-partisan division and hypocrisy.
     
    Are they though? The populist left hates the Republicans, and with good reason. The populist right hates the Democrats, and with good reason.

    The small minorities who own and run the Republican party (neocon billionaire parasites plus christian zionist grifters) and the relatively small faction that owns and runs the Democratic party (neocon billionaire parasites plus their liberal professional class lap dogs) are sick of partisanship, but I see no evidence that normal people are sick of partisanship.

    The bipartisan consensus is that workers and wages don't matter, that billionaires always must get what they want, that people don't get to say who immigrates to their countries, and that the interests of Israel are always paramount. Bipartisan consensus got us into Iraq and has kept us in a forever war in Afghanistan.
  113. @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    This makes no sense. While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this. If he was say Germanic like Eisenhower, they would have hated him just as much. People thought of Nixon as having Quaker background and Quakers are well liked on the Left, being pacifist and all that (but of course Nixon got no personal credit for being Quaker). Nixon’s father was as working class as could be (another thing that should have endeared him to Leftists but of course didn’t). He was frostbitten working as a motorman in an open streetcar in Columbus, Ohio and therefore decide to relocate to California. After working as a farmhand and petroleum roustabout, he attempted to cultivate lemons but that didn’t work out. He opened a little bodega that sold groceries and gas, but the family remained impoverished. Two of Nixon’s brothers died of tuberculosis. This is about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician. In fact if I didn’t know better, it sounds like something an Irish immigrant would have done (in particular trolley drivers were often Irish – in the days of open trolley cars this wasn’t a great job). Given this proletarian background, Nixon was an incredibly self made man, especially compared to the rich man’s son JFK (not “Founding Stock”). If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.

    They didn’t like Nixon for what he believed (and what he wasn’t – a Democrat) and not because of his ancestry – that’s ridiculous.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Nixon’s father was as working class as could be
     
    The late and sadly missed Florence King would distinguish between "high" and "low" WASPs.
    , @Hail

    While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this.
     
    I must not have worded my comment well because people have interpreted it to have been "They hated Nixon solely after consulting an extensive genealogy and then and only then deciding on the matter," which is a truly silly proposition.

    I do think more light can be shed on the Nixon vs. Nixon's Enemies story by introducing an ethnocultural identity layer of analysis, in any case. Maybe I haven't done it exactly right or presented it well, but I don't think omitting any mention of it is helpful, either.


    about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician.
     
    You are right in saying that Nixon was no elite-WASP, but more like a poor nobody; his father also, iirc, was a failed California citrus grower before being a small-time gas station operator in nowheresville Orange County, CA, at the time.

    But when Nixon was accumulating enemies starting about 1948, did anyone know he was from humble origins? Just as the details of his deep ancestral profile would have been unknown to observers at the time, so too would the circumstances of his upbringing unlikely have been known. What they probably knew/understood was something close to this: A right-wing lawyer who had become a Senator and Vice President, English surname, Quaker affiliation; that surface-level mini-bio bears a lot of old-colonial hallmarks, maybe even elite-WASP ones.

    , @Hibernian

    If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.
     
    Well, maybe somebody might take both of them to be Irish. (Hail, above, says Nixon was 10% Scotch-Irish.)
    , @Alden
    Old stock American is old stock American whether your ancestors arrived as poor gentleman adventurers, deported convicts African or British slaves, indentured servants, tradesmen , business owners, preachers, lawyers , Drs pirates, voyaguers, merchants of varying success and income, Lord Baltimore, Lord De La Ware, William Penn, the Dutch Patroons who established European feudalism and serfdom in the Hudson Valley, 7th sons of 7th sons of minor Gentry with a land grant in Virginia, S Carolina or New Mexico.

    Not all WASPs are the patricians of the imagination of the Ellis Islanders. And not all the pre 1700 arrivals were English Protestants either.

    The Pittsburgh Mellons are long term patrician aristocrats who’ve stayed wealthy aristocrats for 200 years but they’re not old stock Americans . The Untermeyers and Rockefellers are real aristocrats but they’re not old stock Americans. The Vanderbilts and Pinkneys are old stock Americans.

    Old stock Americans range from homeless and 3rd generation on welfare to the Bush Family Mayflower descendants and everything in between.

    Families move up and down the SES scale through the centuries. Like ALL native indigenous English, not Welsh, Scotch or Irish Nixon is probably a descendant of English royalty. Go back further than his father a bus motorman and small shopkeeper and you’ll probably find some prosperous farmers, builders, merchants, knights and royalty.

    Families go up and down depending on many things, not all of which can be controlled. The civil war ruined the south and southerners for 100 years. Black slavery condemned the majority of southern Whites in some states to centuries of poverty before the civil war.

    And people get married. Best example a friend. Her Jewish parents arrived from Poland in the 1930s. She knows nothing about her ancestors other than they lived in the Austrian part of Poland and her mother cooked Austrian food.

    Her father in law is a direct descendant of the original Dutch who arrived in New York in 1625.
    Her mother in law is from the Irish who arrived in the 1850s. So her sons are old stock Americans on their fathers side. So are their children. There are streets and parks named after the old stock Dutch ancestors in NYC

    Southeast America is full of old stock Americans who know they’re old stock Americans because they never moved west and north.

    I believe most people use the revolution or 1774 as the cut off for old stock American.
  114. @Jonathan Mason

    How does it feel, Johnathan, to have failed so utterly you couldn’t even manage to peel off one measly R vote, even with the entire media and Deep State corruptly at your side?
     
    Why can you not spell my name correctly when it is right in front of you?

    I think there are plenty of Republican representatives and senators who would be very happy to see the back of Trump, but are concerned about how voting for impeachment would affect their own careers in elected office.

    The pressures are very great. Jo Johnson, the brother of Boris Johnson, resigned as a member of his brother's cabinet and as a member of parliament over the Brexit issue, tweeting:

    It's been an honour to represent Orpington for 9 years & to serve as a minister under three PMs. In recent weeks I've been torn between family loyalty and the national interest - it's an unresolvable tension & time for others to take on my roles as MP & Minister. #overandout
     
    There is still time for some Republican legislators to crack and say that enough is enough, provided that they don't mind spending more time with their families far from the putrefying waters of the Potomac.

    My spelling is not up to the usual standards due to fighting two-year-olds for control of the phone and or preventing them from climbing on the baby grand during the five minute proofreading period.

    As for why you’ve failed to secure one vote for your various ploys, I’d direct your attention to the utter disaster that is the Afghanistan papers. The people have had the news first-hand from returning vets for lo these twenty years. Perhaps having it published it the Post will allow it to finally break through your thick neocon skulls.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1204166495074304000
  115. @Desiderius
    It wasn’t strong-arming, it was diplomacy, and would have been very effective diplomacy (and still might be).

    Trump was raised on Norman Vincent Peale-flavored Protestantism. That’s what asking the favor is about. One of Peale’s main ploys for winning friends and influencing people is to ask them for help. Help with what in this case? Illegitimate interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

    Why did he choose that subject? Because it lies at the heart of Ukrainian disillusion with their alliance with the US - i.e. US interference with internal Ukrainian affairs, which Trump can’t afford to be too specific about but which he signals by mentioning the two main culprits, Biden and Yovanovich.

    I’m sorry but Donald Trump has never been interested in helping anyone other than Donald Trump in his entire long life. Attributing noble motives to what Trump did is just bullshit. Don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining. We all know what he did and why he did it, but I am about as shocked as this as Captain Renault was to find that there was gambling going on in Rick’s casino. There’s politics going on in Washington? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!

    But making DJT out to be some kind of patriot is for the rubes. Yes, he loves America deep down (and in a way that Democrats don’t and never will) but in this case he was looking for political advantage. Now part of the reason he was doing this was that he had been so screwed over by the media and the FBI and the Democrats with their false Russia narrative and if they had left him alone and treated him like a normal President he wouldn’t have been doing this in the 1st place, but that was what was in his head and not some imaginary concern with the Ukrainians and their alliance. Trump frankly doesn’t give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country. He was elected in part because he doesn’t.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Peale is a lot of things, but noble isn’t one of them. This compulsion to utterly dehumanize Trump is an ongoing wonder. He really is an existential threat to a remarkably wide swath of those who would otherwise be our leadership class.

    Good riddance, I guess.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "He was elected in part because he doesn’t."

    You do know that he still, STILL, has a pretty good chance of getting re-elected in '20, right? Why do you think the Democrats are holding their convention in WI, a major battleground state that they lost in '16?
    , @istevefan

    Trump frankly doesn’t give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country.
     
    Are you sure about that? Trump really doesn't give a shit about any other foreign country?
    , @Coemgen
    Why bother impugn Trump's motives? No-one really knows what motivates another and perhaps, no-one really knows their own motivation.

    Trump's message certainly is to the benefit of U.S. citizens and he's been "on message" since at least September 2, 1987 when he placed full page ads in NYT, WaPo, and the Boston Globe decrying misguided U.S. foreign policy.

    If you really want to understand how good Donald Trump is: just look at who hates him most.
  116. @Achmed E. Newman
    The elites of both parties hated, hated Ronald Reagan. This changed to some degree after his near-assassination in 1981. They loved Bill Clinton, though. He had no principals at all, which worked out very well for Deep State types. Agreed on Carter, the Bushes, and Øb☭ma. You're barely half right on this, P.L.

    The elites of both parties hated, hated Ronald Reagan.

    I don’t think so. And why would they? In fact, elites loved Pres. Reagan because of his tax breaks for the wealthy, which helped “The Great Communicator” triple the national debt during his presidency, but at least the rich got to keep more dough, and let just a little bit, you know, trickle down. Voodoo economics “worked” just like candidate George HW Bush said it wouldn’t.

    Of course, Bush later claimed he never called it “Voodoo economics” until video surfaced of him saying just that, and then, never at a loss for lies, I mean words, Bush said he was just kidding when he said it. Funny man, the late Mr. George HW Bush, always good for a laugh.

    “Poor George, he can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

    — Ann Richards

    The destructive polices of deregulation, downsizing, outsourcing, and offshoring were established during Mr. Reagan’s years in office. The corresponding groundwork was put in place in China in 1979 with the opening of Chinese cities to foreign investment by Chinese Big Cheese Deng Xiaoping:

    Shenzhen in the Pearl River Delta region, Zhuhai and Shantou in Guangdong and Xiamen (Amoy) in Fujian Province.

    For these, Chinese Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping coined the name “special zones” … and the four special zones were officially established on August 26, 1979.

    In 1984, China further opened 14 coastal cities to overseas investment: Dalian, Qinhuangdao, Tianjin, Yantai, Qingdao, Lianyungang, Nantong, Shanghai, Ningbo, Wenzhou, Fuzhou, Guangzhou, Zhanjiang and Beihai. Since 1988, mainland China’s opening to the outside world has been extended to its border areas, areas along the Yangtze River and inland areas. First, the state decided to turn Hainan Island into mainland China’s biggest special economic zone (approved by the 1st session of the 7th NPC in 1988) and to enlarge the other four special economic zones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_economic_zones_of_China

    • Replies: @Sean
    Reagan relaxed the laws on takeovers and as a result what Galbraith called the technostructure (modern corporation in which the business was run by not with an eye on shareholder value but in the interests of everyone involved) was ripped apart. China became a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001. That was when it really took off.The European Union is tightening the limits of foreign direct investment and takeovers, it is begining to dawn on them the extent to which the Chinese are using investment for technology transfer.
  117. @Jack D
    Misdemeanors?

    "High crimes and misdemeanors" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 - they just didn't have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one - you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It's not VERY good, it's not compelling, but it's good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible - in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can't carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it's good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on - the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents - the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it's gone forever - there's no putting it back. It's only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can't see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it's for a Good Cause - we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can't do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It's like carrying guns - it's not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn't follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that's not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

    I had the thought today that if the R’s win back the House (don’t know the odds), they should move to impeach RBG just to fuck with the D’s. There are so many possibilities.

  118. @Paleo Liberal
    I am not impartial. Most of you don’t care what a liberal thinks about Trump. I won’t say if I thought he should have been impeached or not. My opinion is very complicated.

    A few interesting tidbits:

    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    Moral — if the Elites like you, and/or your party controls the House of Representatives, you cannot be impeached no matter what you do. It the Elites hate you and the other party controls the HoR, you will be impeached.

    Conviction is another matter entirely.

    The elites hated Reagan and supported Clinton.

    If Spiro Agnew had still been Vice President, Nixon would not have faced impeachment proceedings and been forced to resign. It never would have happened if it meant Spiro Agnew as the incumbent President in 1976.

  119. Ironically, 21 yrs ago today, Bill Clinton was impeached by the GOP Congress.

    I suppose that this is the Democrats election campaign strategy: Impeach the President, and then run vs him in November.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    You just may be right about this, if the latest headlines are indicative of anything. Now Nancy Pelosi is starting to say "whoa", the excuse being that she fears that a "fair trial" won't be had in the Senate, with "fair trial" defined as one in which Trump is convicted and guilty as charged.
  120. @Jack D
    I'm sorry but Donald Trump has never been interested in helping anyone other than Donald Trump in his entire long life. Attributing noble motives to what Trump did is just bullshit. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. We all know what he did and why he did it, but I am about as shocked as this as Captain Renault was to find that there was gambling going on in Rick's casino. There's politics going on in Washington? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!

    But making DJT out to be some kind of patriot is for the rubes. Yes, he loves America deep down (and in a way that Democrats don't and never will) but in this case he was looking for political advantage. Now part of the reason he was doing this was that he had been so screwed over by the media and the FBI and the Democrats with their false Russia narrative and if they had left him alone and treated him like a normal President he wouldn't have been doing this in the 1st place, but that was what was in his head and not some imaginary concern with the Ukrainians and their alliance. Trump frankly doesn't give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country. He was elected in part because he doesn't.

    Peale is a lot of things, but noble isn’t one of them. This compulsion to utterly dehumanize Trump is an ongoing wonder. He really is an existential threat to a remarkably wide swath of those who would otherwise be our leadership class.

    Good riddance, I guess.

  121. @Jack D
    I'm sorry but Donald Trump has never been interested in helping anyone other than Donald Trump in his entire long life. Attributing noble motives to what Trump did is just bullshit. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. We all know what he did and why he did it, but I am about as shocked as this as Captain Renault was to find that there was gambling going on in Rick's casino. There's politics going on in Washington? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!

    But making DJT out to be some kind of patriot is for the rubes. Yes, he loves America deep down (and in a way that Democrats don't and never will) but in this case he was looking for political advantage. Now part of the reason he was doing this was that he had been so screwed over by the media and the FBI and the Democrats with their false Russia narrative and if they had left him alone and treated him like a normal President he wouldn't have been doing this in the 1st place, but that was what was in his head and not some imaginary concern with the Ukrainians and their alliance. Trump frankly doesn't give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country. He was elected in part because he doesn't.

    “He was elected in part because he doesn’t.”

    You do know that he still, STILL, has a pretty good chance of getting re-elected in ’20, right? Why do you think the Democrats are holding their convention in WI, a major battleground state that they lost in ’16?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    The main reason to have the convention in Milwaukee is keep Hillary Clinton away. She may have been raised in Illinois, but she couldn’t find Wisconsin with Google maps. /s

    One bonus — the other finalist cites are hot as Hades in the summer. The Good Land is rather pleasant with cool breezes off Lake Michigan.
  122. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    Trump’s intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse–probably much worse– in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    Actually Trump is doing quite well considering the total opposition he has faced since the summer of 2015. He has been excommunicated from all forms of polite society and has been continually under attack from everyone except his base. Yet he looks pretty good. He has not undergone the dramatic aging other presidents have. I suspect few others could take this much negativity and still function. How many would become depressed and laid up in bed? Yet Trump, at 70 plus years, hardly sleeps and is highly active and engaged.

    Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why.

    Let’s not do this. Forget about impeachment which is going nowhere. Instead keep your eyes on the impending amnesty vote taking place. While everyone is distracted they are going to try to amnesty a million or so farm workers.

  123. @Jack D
    I'm sorry but Donald Trump has never been interested in helping anyone other than Donald Trump in his entire long life. Attributing noble motives to what Trump did is just bullshit. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. We all know what he did and why he did it, but I am about as shocked as this as Captain Renault was to find that there was gambling going on in Rick's casino. There's politics going on in Washington? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!

    But making DJT out to be some kind of patriot is for the rubes. Yes, he loves America deep down (and in a way that Democrats don't and never will) but in this case he was looking for political advantage. Now part of the reason he was doing this was that he had been so screwed over by the media and the FBI and the Democrats with their false Russia narrative and if they had left him alone and treated him like a normal President he wouldn't have been doing this in the 1st place, but that was what was in his head and not some imaginary concern with the Ukrainians and their alliance. Trump frankly doesn't give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country. He was elected in part because he doesn't.

    Trump frankly doesn’t give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country.

    Are you sure about that? Trump really doesn’t give a shit about any other foreign country?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
    Which foreign country are you suggesting?

    Liberty demands an answer!
  124. @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    I don’t think Nixon’s enemies much cared about his ancestry in general. Richard Whalen in his 1972 book, Catch the Falling Flag, which was very critical of Nixon and was prescient about his eventual downfall, wrote this concerning the hatred Nixon received from “Elites:”

    “Nor would they ever forgive him, I suggested, for being a representative of the new American middle classes. The left-liberal intellectuals and journalists despised middle-class ‘bourgeois’ values and the ‘square’ culture. Nothing that Nixon could say or do would appease them. He threatened their status as an antidemocratic elite in much the way that Lyndon Johnson did, and he could expect the same vindictive assaults that Johnson was experiencing.”

    • Agree: Prester John
    • Replies: @Hail
    I agree with that quote from Richard Whalen.

    It is more-or-less what I was trying to express, but I would say the ethnocultural element to the "Nixon vs. antidemocratic elite" story is worth a serious thought. Also, the elements Whalen attributes to Nixon or (implicitly) to the Nixon Coalition are, arguably, partial ethnocultural proxies, for many -- either in fact or in perception.

    From what I have read of Nixon, he was no simple figure, and no ideologue. "Representative of the new American middle classes," whatever that meant (and I agree with that characterization despite not being able to pin it down), he was of course not some kind of narrowly ethno-sectarian figure; yet he was still, I propose, (correctly) identified by his enemies as a kind of nationalist, and also was a symbol to his enemies of WASP ascendancy -- especially by the late 1960s and 1970s, during which time the WASP ascendancy concept was still taken very seriously and assumed to be a long-term fact of life in US affairs.

    (An academic named E. Digby Baltzell published The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America in 1964, right in the middle of the Nixon's era in public life. If you read it in the present, the idea of some kind of natural and inescapable WASP ascendancy stands out; even though Baltzell was ostensibly arguing for a slow weakening thereof, the overtones of inevitable Protestant ascendancy in the US are there to see; the book does not foresee, at all, the then-imminent collapse of WASP power and its displacement mainly by Jewish power. A fascinating historical document in that way.)

    If this hypothesis is correct, the anti-Nixon push in the 1948 to 1974 period, -- when anti-Nixonism was strong and persistent from some in the legacy elite and (more vigorously and importantly) from the ascendant elite, heavily Jewish -- and the anti-Trump push in 2015 to present, while sharing many similarities, are motivated by different things: In simplest terms, anti-Nixon looks like an attack from 'below' (ascendant elite); anti-Trump is an attack from above (established elite).

  125. @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon’s enemies hated him because of the above; …

    If you want to oversimplify, they hated Nixon because he was a rabid anti-communist and went after folks like Alger Hiss. While in Congress he served on the dreaded House Un-American Affairs Committee. In his first race for US Senate, he dispatched the female democrat by suggesting she was a communist.

    His anti-communist activities, not his ancestry, was why they hated him.

    PS. In 1950, Nixon could win the CA senate seat by 20 points by labeling his democrat a commie sympathizer. A lot of us forget that CA was solidly republican for a long time. Today, thanks to demographic change, a commie sympathizer would dispatch any republican in CA by 20 or more points

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @S

    His [Nixon's] anti-communist activities, not his ancestry, was why they hated him.
     
    I've tended to think that too.

    Someone else who apparently hated Nixon, at least according to his wife Marina, was Lee Harvey Oswald. She told investigators LHO indicated an intent to assassinate the man...


    Mrs Oswald: I asked him where he was going and why he was getting dressed. He answered, “Today Nixon is coming and I want to go out and have a look at him.” I answered, “I know how you look,” and I had in mind the fact that he was taking a pistol with him.
     
    https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/L_31ok_Adz1aynAIHpBBHQ--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz00MDQ-/https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/CPOj1rkMo8S2eO4XuZaydSnOWeRUYzLd2dqbJByQ7-2BfonuGgTTWSyQu_OMygNR0d_vz7yrce-au_EZ0tCXa28EpMVnEH6eZkSVm61qgU-ZDA=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu.cf.jpg


    http://www.22november1963.org.uk/did-oswald-try-to-kill-richard-nixon

  126. @Desiderius
    My spelling is not up to the usual standards due to fighting two-year-olds for control of the phone and or preventing them from climbing on the baby grand during the five minute proofreading period.

    As for why you’ve failed to secure one vote for your various ploys, I’d direct your attention to the utter disaster that is the Afghanistan papers. The people have had the news first-hand from returning vets for lo these twenty years. Perhaps having it published it the Post will allow it to finally break through your thick neocon skulls.

  127. @istevefan

    Trump frankly doesn’t give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country.
     
    Are you sure about that? Trump really doesn't give a shit about any other foreign country?

    Which foreign country are you suggesting?

    Liberty demands an answer!

  128. The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration…

    And he probably had help writing it(!)

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Some news sources are claiming Steve Miller wrote it.

    I mean, why get the leader of a mediocre band to write the ... oh, the OTHER Steve Miller.

    Never mind.
  129. This nothingburger impeachment is what Diverse America, Inc. is all about. Enddless personal attacks against perceived tribal enemies combined with bickering with friends until the wheels fall off the honey wagon of state.

  130. @Paleo Liberal
    I am not impartial. Most of you don’t care what a liberal thinks about Trump. I won’t say if I thought he should have been impeached or not. My opinion is very complicated.

    A few interesting tidbits:

    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    Moral — if the Elites like you, and/or your party controls the House of Representatives, you cannot be impeached no matter what you do. It the Elites hate you and the other party controls the HoR, you will be impeached.

    Conviction is another matter entirely.

    Who are “Elites”?

    • Replies: @anon

    Who are “Elites”?
     
    Billionaires, CEO's of major corporations (especially finance and defence industry), stock brokers (big ones), people who live in the Hamptons, Hollywood moguls, democratic and republican party leaders, think tank guys who end up on the national security council, top brass at the Federal Reserve, but above all OLD WASP MONEY and JEWISH MONEY.
    ISteve commenters will have a better list than I do...
  131. @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    This may be interesting for genealogists, but Nixon, from what we know about him, did not pay much attention to these matters. True, he was frequently hilarious in private statements about various ethnicities (Italians, Jews, Irish, “Latins”,..), but didn’t care about genealogical intricacies.

    • Replies: @Hail
    The hypothesis is they hated Nixon because they saw him as a right-wing WASP, or that he seemed to be, by disposition, by personality, by politics.

    No further information on his deep genealogy/ancestry is needed for this hypothesis, either for us now in retrospect, or for him at the time, or for them (his enemies) at the time. The fact that he was of entirely colonial stock, once known, though, points back to the hypothesis.


    Nixon, from what we know about him, did not pay much attention to these matters
     
    I believe he identified as a (right-wing) Quaker very much.

    There is an anecdote of Nixon breaking up a fight during Christmas week 1950, between Sen. McCarthy and a left-wing yellow-journalist, the latter two having gotten into some kind of a shoving match with McCarthy getting the better of it (or, in one version, with McCarthy sucker-punching the left-wing journalist whom he'd encountered by chance at a Washington social function, after weeks of lie after lie published by the journalist); Nixon, hanging around nearby at the moment, saw the fight and jumped in to intervene physically, saying "Let a good Quaker stop this fight!"

  132. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Ironically, 21 yrs ago today, Bill Clinton was impeached by the GOP Congress.

    I suppose that this is the Democrats election campaign strategy: Impeach the President, and then run vs him in November.

    You just may be right about this, if the latest headlines are indicative of anything. Now Nancy Pelosi is starting to say “whoa”, the excuse being that she fears that a “fair trial” won’t be had in the Senate, with “fair trial” defined as one in which Trump is convicted and guilty as charged.

  133. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "He was elected in part because he doesn’t."

    You do know that he still, STILL, has a pretty good chance of getting re-elected in '20, right? Why do you think the Democrats are holding their convention in WI, a major battleground state that they lost in '16?

    The main reason to have the convention in Milwaukee is keep Hillary Clinton away. She may have been raised in Illinois, but she couldn’t find Wisconsin with Google maps. /s

    One bonus — the other finalist cites are hot as Hades in the summer. The Good Land is rather pleasant with cool breezes off Lake Michigan.

  134. @jamie b.

    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration...
     
    And he probably had help writing it(!)

    Some news sources are claiming Steve Miller wrote it.

    I mean, why get the leader of a mediocre band to write the … oh, the OTHER Steve Miller.

    Never mind.

  135. @Anon
    Trump long ago learned the important playground rule that if you want to build support for yourself--get all the guys over on your side--you have to goad your enemies into acting like nuts who make fools out of themselves in public. You have to make the crowd of neutral onlookers so embarrassed by the nutty behavior that they edge away from the nuts. You have to make your enemies bleed supporters who have had enough with the nonsense from their own side. This is the way a playground functions, and it's the way a democracy functions. Democracy is nothing but the playground writ large.

    This is why Trump does something pro-Jewish every time the Democrats do something anti-Semitic. He's wooing supporters. That's why Trump trolls The Squad, and why he trolls Pelosi by making remarks like her teeth are about to fall out. She's being dumb by taking the bait. Trump grasps something important about Pelosi's personality. Her father, Thomas D'Alesandro, was a mafia wannabe and hanger-on, who thought and acted like his scummy, violent, and corrupt pals. Basically, Pelosi comes from a family of hot-tempered Italian thugs, and they react as violently as ghetto blacks do to insults. They're extremely touchy about being disrespected, and they HAVE to retaliate to keep the respect of their followers and maintain power. Trump understands more about the levers of power than Pelosi. After all, he climbed all the way up to the presidency, and she didn't.

    Trump understands that Pelosi is narcissistic and vain (hence the teeth falling out remark). She expects to be admired, respected, and obeyed. When Trump insults her intelligence, sanity, or appearance, she goes purple with narcissistic rage. She thinks that having gained the status of Speaker of the House, she deserves to be treated well, but Trump refuses. That always burns the oversized ego of a narcissist.

    Pelosi's been acting more and more like a frothing nut, and combined with her shaky old goat demeanor at her impeachment press conference the other day, she looks like she's ready for the glue factory.

    The fact that Jeremy Corbyn got hammered by Boris Johnson indicates that 'acting like a obsessed nut' can make your supporters stampede away from you, is being lost on Pelosi and the left. They're guiding the Democratic airplane right into the ground in 2020.

    and why he trolls Pelosi by making remarks like her teeth are about to fall out. She’s being dumb by taking the bait. Trump grasps something important about Pelosi’s personality. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro, was a mafia wannabe and hanger-on, who thought and acted like his scummy, violent, and corrupt pals. Basically, Pelosi comes from a family of hot-tempered Italian thugs, and they react as violently as ghetto blacks do to insults. They’re extremely touchy about being disrespected, and they HAVE to retaliate to keep the respect of their followers and maintain power.

    Wow…..

    • Replies: @anon
    What does "wow" mean?
  136. Anonymous[114] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pat Hannagan
    In all the media driven hysteria over yet another long drought in Oz's long history of long droughts and even longer fire seasons I was pondering how

    The middle child does all the work.

    The eldest gets all the glory.

    The youngest gets coddled.

    With the collapse of White family size there will be no middle children left to carry on the heavy lifting civilisational foundational support of Western society.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VETPFH1mTls

    You must be a middle child. Yes, they get ignored. But the eldest must blaze the trails, bear the responsibility and put in more work. Once they are trained the others don’t require the same level of training to help out.

    The biggest reason leading to the hedonistic narcissism of baby boomers is the contraceptive pill, in my view. That turned sex from procreation to recreation. Before that happened, keeping sex locked up in marriage (to save the prevention of bastards and single mothers) and then the concommitant child creation through difficulty of discipline in that area led to the birth of several children for the most part. Having a number of children is a great inducer of long term thinking and responsibility in whites at least. Without that the baby boomers didn’t mature properly.

    Hard times create strong men, and maybe we are about to see both.

    • Agree: Jonathan Mason
  137. @Anon
    It is over for Trump. He used his power to try to influence a foregin power to interfere with an election and harass a political rival and THEN LIED ABOUT IT

    You guys need to get out of your bubble. Most people hate Trump and all that he stands for.

    If republicans refuse to do the right thing then that will be the death of the party and all who support it. Demographic change makes it hard for republicans to be a viable party but this will seal the deal.

    I wish I could be there to witness your meltdown next year when Trump wins in a landslide and the Republicans retake the house while holding the senate.

  138. @Corvinus
    "I haven’t been paying any attention. But if you have, knock yourself out in the comments section."

    LOL, which means you have been giving it much thought, Mr. Sailer. It's just your way of remaining cagey.

    NOTICE if President Obama was accused of exactly the same thing as Trump, i.e. making a phone call for a “favor” seeking dirt on a political opponent with strings attached (foreign aid), House Republicans would have been demanding that Obama be politically lynched.

    NOTICE if Republicans were generally not terrified of angering Trump, they would acknowledge to the media that the articles require only a finding of probable cause, a low evidentiary standard, rather than touting the lie that there is “no” evidence. Put another way—Not even one Republican as far as I know is saying that there is evidence, but just not quite enough.

    NOTICE Rudy Guiliani is representing the president as his personal attorney, but is not an official member of the administration. He has admitted playing a leading role in the ousting of the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, as well as receiving money from a wealthy Ukrainian oligiarch by way of an intermediary. Interesting that this conduct is NOT considered normal presidential practice.

    NOTICE that McConnell indicated that there will be no new witnesses at the Senate trial. Why? He says the House should have called them. Ironically, the House did call them in and Trump sought to block their testify due to “executive privilege”. Yet, the Senate is a venue for fact-finding in impeachment of a president, as Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenth would attest.

    But, if you prefer to remain cagey, Mr. Sailer, have at it. In the end. you remain patently dishonest in your presentation of your level of interest in this historic event.

    You just can’t help yourself can you.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You just can’t help yourself can you."

    Indeed, to hold Mr. Sailer accountable.
  139. @Hail
    "President Trump will change what impeachment means, far more than impeachment will change what we think of the Trump presidency." -- Scott Adams, Dec. 18, 2019, as impeachment vote was imminent

    Scott Adams is great. One thing about him is he does long-form commentary. To follow the thread of a Scott Adams point, you often need to listen ten minutes or more. This is in contrast to cable news talkers, who tend much more towards sound-bites. The other difference is the cable newsers tend towards the hysterical (as you put it) and Adams is always cool-headed.

    I just wish he would be harder on Trump when called for. iSteve commenter John Gruskos called Adams "The Man Whose Flattery Ruined Trump."

    Adams was right about Trump. but surely mistaken about how unpopular being right would make him. Half of Adams’s income is gone and things will get worse for him.

    Read Trump And Me. He has always been like that and if anything he is getting less so with age.

    I prefer to read, it’s quicker for me, being much easier to focus and i like to backtrack. Adams’s website is difficult to find things on.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Scott Adams may have lost half his income by supporting Trump, but I believe he's wealthy enough that he can live very comfortably on what he's got. I have to respect the man for going with his principles. We see that rarely enough.
    , @Desiderius
    He said 30%, not 50%, and he's making it back in spades in new business.
    , @Hail

    Adams was right about Trump
     
    Adams consistently and coolly predicted a Trump win, of the R nomination AND the presidency, from about Sept. 2015 and maintained that call through till the end in Nov. 2016, never wavering, always providing some psychological-analytical justification for his prediction, no matter how many dark clouds surrounded Trump at any given time or etc.

    (I think his correct call on the Trump win is what launched him into real fame as a political analyst.)

    Is this what you mean, or something else?
  140. @Jack D
    Misdemeanors?

    "High crimes and misdemeanors" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 - they just didn't have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one - you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It's not VERY good, it's not compelling, but it's good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible - in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can't carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it's good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on - the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents - the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it's gone forever - there's no putting it back. It's only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can't see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it's for a Good Cause - we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can't do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It's like carrying guns - it's not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn't follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that's not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

    Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one.

    Did you coin this? I’ve never heard this before -_-

    • Replies: @David In TN
    There is a 2018 book titled "Impeachment: An American History," with that very theme.

    And as someone who has lived through three of them, these affairs are political, not legal.

    I pointed out in an earlier comment that the Democrats would not have tried to impeach Nixon if Spiro Agnew hadn't forcibly resigned in October 1973.
  141. @Jack D
    Withholding the articles is not cunning lawfare, it's the Democrats realizing that they have dug a hole for themselves and that a Senate trial is (1) not going to result in Trump's removal anyway and (2) that otherwise they have more to lose than to gain from the spectacle. They are like the dog that has caught the car - what do you do now?

    It has also dawned on them that they will have no control of the process once it gets to the Senate (especially since they displayed ruthless partisanship in the House and can expect no better treatment in the other body) so the Republicans are going to be able to make them look bad (and Trump look good) - they have just bought the RNC a huge block of free airtime. They are trying to negotiate for ground rules that will put them back in a better place but Mitch McConnell is not an idiot and is not going to fall for Chuckie Schumer's ploys even if Chuckie got 1800 out of 1600 on his SATs. He is going to be as nice to Chuckie as Chuckie would have been to him if the situation was reversed, which is not very nice.

    Not sending the articles to the Senate is the same thing as not having impeached the President in the first place. The whole point of doing an impeachment in the House is to trigger a trial in the Senate so if they are not sending the articles why did they bother with the impeachment in the first place? And BTW, if the House has voted for impeachment, doesn't the Speaker have a Constitutional duty to send the articles on? What's the point of having the whole House vote if the Speaker can just toss the articles in the trash?

    And BTW, if the House has voted for impeachment, doesn’t the Speaker have a Constitutional duty to send the articles on? What’s the point of having the whole House vote if the Speaker can just toss the articles in the trash?

    I do not want to accuse you of naivety….. however….. Democrats following the Constitution?????

    Everyone knows that the DNC is never going to follow the Rule of Law. Islamo-Globalist elites like Talib, Pelosi, & Omar believe that Judeo-Christian values and the Constitution only apply to the “little people”, like U.S. citizens.

    ⏫ TRUMP 2020 ⏫

  142. @Tim
    I thought Tulsi's voting present was a great idea. She's not like the other sheep.

    I thought Tulsi’s voting present was a great idea.

    Yes. A Christmas “present”!

    • Replies: @Hail


    I thought Tulsi’s voting present was a great idea.
     
    Yes. A Christmas “present”!
     
    To whom?
  143. @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    Nah. Jews hated Nixon because Nixon went after Commies and most Commies were Jews. Simple.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Exactly. The Jews went after him because of his service in the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Most of the Jews were communists. Even more so, the communist Jews who weren’t noticed were paranoid of being discovered for treasonous activities. Journalist Carl Bernstein’s parents were both communists federal employees fired during Truman’s purge of communists in the federal government. Verrrry interesting.

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.
  144. @Sparkon

    The elites of both parties hated, hated Ronald Reagan.
     
    I don't think so. And why would they? In fact, elites loved Pres. Reagan because of his tax breaks for the wealthy, which helped "The Great Communicator" triple the national debt during his presidency, but at least the rich got to keep more dough, and let just a little bit, you know, trickle down. Voodoo economics "worked" just like candidate George HW Bush said it wouldn't.

    Of course, Bush later claimed he never called it "Voodoo economics" until video surfaced of him saying just that, and then, never at a loss for lies, I mean words, Bush said he was just kidding when he said it. Funny man, the late Mr. George HW Bush, always good for a laugh.


    "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

    -- Ann Richards
     

    The destructive polices of deregulation, downsizing, outsourcing, and offshoring were established during Mr. Reagan's years in office. The corresponding groundwork was put in place in China in 1979 with the opening of Chinese cities to foreign investment by Chinese Big Cheese Deng Xiaoping:

    Shenzhen in the Pearl River Delta region, Zhuhai and Shantou in Guangdong and Xiamen (Amoy) in Fujian Province.

    For these, Chinese Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping coined the name "special zones" ... and the four special zones were officially established on August 26, 1979.

    In 1984, China further opened 14 coastal cities to overseas investment: Dalian, Qinhuangdao, Tianjin, Yantai, Qingdao, Lianyungang, Nantong, Shanghai, Ningbo, Wenzhou, Fuzhou, Guangzhou, Zhanjiang and Beihai. Since 1988, mainland China's opening to the outside world has been extended to its border areas, areas along the Yangtze River and inland areas. First, the state decided to turn Hainan Island into mainland China's biggest special economic zone (approved by the 1st session of the 7th NPC in 1988) and to enlarge the other four special economic zones.
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_economic_zones_of_China

    Reagan relaxed the laws on takeovers and as a result what Galbraith called the technostructure (modern corporation in which the business was run by not with an eye on shareholder value but in the interests of everyone involved) was ripped apart. China became a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001. That was when it really took off.The European Union is tightening the limits of foreign direct investment and takeovers, it is begining to dawn on them the extent to which the Chinese are using investment for technology transfer.

  145. @Liza
    Trump doesn't handle stress well. Did anyone here watch his aimless, formless "speech" at the rally in Michigan? It was painful to see, though not without humor in places. However, this is not the first time he did so poorly. Maybe he should retire before trying to run again.

    Those who think that America will come apart without Trump winning next year are correct - but whoever runs, and whoever wins, of either party, America is dead and gone. Time to turn the page. We can do better.

    It's no disgrace to have mental problems in this day and age. I can't prove this, but I am about 99.9% certain Bill Clinton is and was even worse. He seemed to be drooling and unfocused at his last widely-viewed public outing, I think it was at old man Bush's funeral service.

    Trump doesn’t handle stress well.

    I’m hard pressed to think of anyone who would have held up as well under the unrelenting onslaught as has Trump. I stand in awe.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    I’m hard pressed to think of anyone who would have held up as well under the unrelenting onslaught as has Trump. I stand in awe.
     
    Seconded.

    The only thing that would hold up better than Trump is a Terminator:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu0rP2VWLWw

    RIP Kyle Reese
    , @Liza
    @Harry. I meant that in general he gets his shorts in a twist when he should be laughing at his enemies and getting on with business. Mind you, I'm not the President, am I...

    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only. :)
  146. @El Dato
    The "Sorrows of Young Werther"?

    Nay! It's the "Harrassment of Old 'Corn Popper' Biden".

    There is "hate" all right. There is also sheer stupidity.

    HISTORIANS’ STATEMENT ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP


    President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.
     
    These self-styled "historians" are so dumb and useless that they don't manage a single reference in their heated writeup. But they invoke Hamilton. Great.

    Signed by 1507 clowns.

    President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president.

    As opposed to Jackson’s ethnic cleansing, Wilson’s chucking of the First Amendment and census manipulation, FDR’s Neutrality Act violations, domestic internment camps, and carpet bombing of civilians abroad, Truman’s nuclear incineration of a Christian cathedral, along with the tens of thousands of civilians nearby, Truman’s, Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, Clinton’s, and Obama’s foreign wars without a declaration from Congress…

    It seems like we have a partisan double standard here.

    All of these presidents should have died in prison, except Clinton, for whom a backwoods lynching would be more appropriate.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I was a little tough on Obama there. Spending his successor's term(s) behind bars should be enough. Along with FDR, LBJ, and (just by a hair-- 53k out of 81m) Jimmy Carter, Barry is the rare Democrat since Samuel Tilden who won a majority of the votes cast.

    Yes, he beat Cleveland, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton.
    , @Justvisiting

    It seems like we have a partisan double standard here.
     
    It is worse than a double standard--it ignores all the false flags (long long list) that have caused America to go to war against just about everybody in history.

    No President (and both parties are equally guilty) has been impeached for a false flag--not one.

    Those were _blatant_ abuses of power.
    , @Yngvar

    ...FDR’s carpet bombing of civilians abroad, Truman’s nuclear incineration of a Christian cathedral, along with the tens of thousands of civilians nearby
     
    Inclinating wildly off-topic here but this misunderstanding needs to die. There was nothing illegal about what they did. The ban on indiscriminate killing of civilians was added to the war crimes conventions after the war, by the victors.
  147. @R.G. Camara
    1. We must not knee jerk believe the D'shave some "grand plan" here. They may, but the more likely explanation for this clusterf uck farce is that they are merely reacting to the craziness of their own hyperbolic and freaked out tiny base and media lapdogs. Pelosi holding the articles is a last ditch effort to minimize damage to the D's.

    Political parties commit suicide all the time throughout history, and ours are no different. What's more, as we've seen with the Deep State attack on Trump, it was a few guys blatantly lying to FISA courts with ridiculous information that was unprovable; as Q states, these people are stupid. The only thing that makes them seem smart is the fact that they are in power.

    2. That said, there is, of course, a conspiracy theory to be hashed out of this: Pelosi and the elder D whites and (((others))) are trying to drive the D's over a cliff in the 2020 election---in order to purge the crazies. The theory is: lose big on impeachment, have the country turn against your crazies, drum them out of office, let the R's have the House for a few terms, then replace them with moderate D's in 2022 and 2024 and 2026. This is an attempt,. therefore, for Pelosi to allow the crazies free reign while using it to destroy them.

    3. A separate, far darker conspiracy theory: the D's are conspiring with the Deep State. When the Senate refuses the House's demands on a show trial, the House keeps the articles, and the Deep State moves to arrest the Senate and the president in a coup. Show trials and all.


    4. That all said, I continue to believe the Democrat Party will cease to be a viable national party in the next 10 years. Too much diversity. Instead, it will break up into various local ethnic parties, and its current moderate leaders will form a new national one with Never Trumpers.

    The best explanation I have heard is that Schiff told Pelosi in August the “we really got DJT on this Ukraine thing”, and she let him go ahead with his ‘impeachment inquiry’. It turned out to be a nothing burger, but the crazies believed it, so Pelosi had to go forward. Now the Ds are stuck having voted for impeachment and more than a few are going down next November.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The whistleblower (sic ) Ciaramella was the one who set up the hit on Shokin in the first place. The perfect call forced their hand.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    The best explanation I have heard is that Schiff told Pelosi in August the “we really got DJT on this Ukraine thing”, and she let him go ahead with his ‘impeachment inquiry’.

    How can anyone possibly believe anything Adam Schiff says at this point? Hard to believe Pelosi should be that poor a judge of character. I wonder if she hates the pencil-necked prick for what he's done. Oh, that's right, she doesn't hate anyone. She probably prays for him every night.
    , @Nodwink
    Pelosi didn't really want to impeach Trump, but even the moderates in the Dem base were screaming at her to do something to stop him. Attacking an ex-VP (and his family) was the straw that broke the camel's back. It's was her or him, in the end.
  148. @Sean
    Adams was right about Trump. but surely mistaken about how unpopular being right would make him. Half of Adams's income is gone and things will get worse for him.

    Read Trump And Me. He has always been like that and if anything he is getting less so with age.

    I prefer to read, it's quicker for me, being much easier to focus and i like to backtrack. Adams's website is difficult to find things on.

    Scott Adams may have lost half his income by supporting Trump, but I believe he’s wealthy enough that he can live very comfortably on what he’s got. I have to respect the man for going with his principles. We see that rarely enough.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Scott Adams may have lost half his income by supporting Trump, but I believe he’s wealthy enough that he can live very comfortably on what he’s got. I have to respect the man for going with his principles. We see that rarely enough.
     
    After his stupidly nearly dying underdressed in a Snow Belt blizzard, he's happy for every day he lives in California, even were he poor.

    And as an Upstate New Yorker, he probably enjoys to no end horrifying Downstaters by praising the one of their own they hate most. (I know I would.) Kind of like Southerners and FDR, in reverse.

    Come to think of it, Adams's native Greene County voted against FDR in six of seven statewide elections, the exception being 1930. In the first, 1920, Warren Harding got a majority in every county in the state. Coolidge won them all, too, but some with a plurality. Coolidge also swept 62 counties, but some with a plurality. LaFollette finished second in two in the west, which must make Bill Kauffman grin.
    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    Scott Adams also has some juicy young trim he's leading around by the nose:

    https://k61.kn3.net/taringa/2/7/6/2/8/6/47/dgrfy/F91.jpg

    I'll leave her instagram to the interested student.
  149. @istevefan

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon’s enemies hated him because of the above; ...
     
    If you want to oversimplify, they hated Nixon because he was a rabid anti-communist and went after folks like Alger Hiss. While in Congress he served on the dreaded House Un-American Affairs Committee. In his first race for US Senate, he dispatched the female democrat by suggesting she was a communist.

    His anti-communist activities, not his ancestry, was why they hated him.

    PS. In 1950, Nixon could win the CA senate seat by 20 points by labeling his democrat a commie sympathizer. A lot of us forget that CA was solidly republican for a long time. Today, thanks to demographic change, a commie sympathizer would dispatch any republican in CA by 20 or more points

    His [Nixon’s] anti-communist activities, not his ancestry, was why they hated him.

    I’ve tended to think that too.

    Someone else who apparently hated Nixon, at least according to his wife Marina, was Lee Harvey Oswald. She told investigators LHO indicated an intent to assassinate the man…

    Mrs Oswald: I asked him where he was going and why he was getting dressed. He answered, “Today Nixon is coming and I want to go out and have a look at him.” I answered, “I know how you look,” and I had in mind the fact that he was taking a pistol with him.

    http://www.22november1963.org.uk/did-oswald-try-to-kill-richard-nixon

  150. @Reg Cæsar

    President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president.
     
    As opposed to Jackson's ethnic cleansing, Wilson's chucking of the First Amendment and census manipulation, FDR's Neutrality Act violations, domestic internment camps, and carpet bombing of civilians abroad, Truman's nuclear incineration of a Christian cathedral, along with the tens of thousands of civilians nearby, Truman's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Clinton's, and Obama's foreign wars without a declaration from Congress...

    It seems like we have a partisan double standard here.


    All of these presidents should have died in prison, except Clinton, for whom a backwoods lynching would be more appropriate.

    I was a little tough on Obama there. Spending his successor’s term(s) behind bars should be enough. Along with FDR, LBJ, and (just by a hair– 53k out of 81m) Jimmy Carter, Barry is the rare Democrat since Samuel Tilden who won a majority of the votes cast.

    Yes, he beat Cleveland, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton.

  151. @Anon
    Trump long ago learned the important playground rule that if you want to build support for yourself--get all the guys over on your side--you have to goad your enemies into acting like nuts who make fools out of themselves in public. You have to make the crowd of neutral onlookers so embarrassed by the nutty behavior that they edge away from the nuts. You have to make your enemies bleed supporters who have had enough with the nonsense from their own side. This is the way a playground functions, and it's the way a democracy functions. Democracy is nothing but the playground writ large.

    This is why Trump does something pro-Jewish every time the Democrats do something anti-Semitic. He's wooing supporters. That's why Trump trolls The Squad, and why he trolls Pelosi by making remarks like her teeth are about to fall out. She's being dumb by taking the bait. Trump grasps something important about Pelosi's personality. Her father, Thomas D'Alesandro, was a mafia wannabe and hanger-on, who thought and acted like his scummy, violent, and corrupt pals. Basically, Pelosi comes from a family of hot-tempered Italian thugs, and they react as violently as ghetto blacks do to insults. They're extremely touchy about being disrespected, and they HAVE to retaliate to keep the respect of their followers and maintain power. Trump understands more about the levers of power than Pelosi. After all, he climbed all the way up to the presidency, and she didn't.

    Trump understands that Pelosi is narcissistic and vain (hence the teeth falling out remark). She expects to be admired, respected, and obeyed. When Trump insults her intelligence, sanity, or appearance, she goes purple with narcissistic rage. She thinks that having gained the status of Speaker of the House, she deserves to be treated well, but Trump refuses. That always burns the oversized ego of a narcissist.

    Pelosi's been acting more and more like a frothing nut, and combined with her shaky old goat demeanor at her impeachment press conference the other day, she looks like she's ready for the glue factory.

    The fact that Jeremy Corbyn got hammered by Boris Johnson indicates that 'acting like a obsessed nut' can make your supporters stampede away from you, is being lost on Pelosi and the left. They're guiding the Democratic airplane right into the ground in 2020.

    Dems don’t care about 2020. Census results take 26 electoral votes from the Midwest and to California Illinois etc

    The utter, utter failure of the Sailer strategy right there. Sorry Steve love you but it’s a failure.

    2024 Dems win President and executive orders make all White men kulaks.

    Exterminate or enslave if we are lucky.

    God Bless Adam Schiff! Reps must hold both Houses and simply remove Dem President for being anti White.

    Vast majority of White women love the anti White stuff fantasies of being the mistress of the big man. but there are still red areas in blue states?

    Spot on with coup attempt by FBI. Would not be shocked if they arrest Trump and Pence and install Hillary. Most of them work for her.

  152. Impeachment, imsmeashment. JK Rowling is a TERF!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-tried-make-her-work-more-inclusive-then-she-tweeted-support-an-anti-trans-researcher/

    Worth reading a WaPo article just for the fans’ reactions. Unsurprisingly, many of the overgrown children devoted to Harry Potter are Alphabet People.

  153. @Desiderius
    It wasn’t strong-arming, it was diplomacy, and would have been very effective diplomacy (and still might be).

    Trump was raised on Norman Vincent Peale-flavored Protestantism. That’s what asking the favor is about. One of Peale’s main ploys for winning friends and influencing people is to ask them for help. Help with what in this case? Illegitimate interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

    Why did he choose that subject? Because it lies at the heart of Ukrainian disillusion with their alliance with the US - i.e. US interference with internal Ukrainian affairs, which Trump can’t afford to be too specific about but which he signals by mentioning the two main culprits, Biden and Yovanovich.

    “It wasn’t strong-arming, it was diplomacy, and would have been very effective diplomacy (and still might be).”

    No, it was strong arming through back channels. Trump used his personal lawyer, rather than a White House official or the DOJ/State Department, to find “dirt” on a potential political opponent by way of a quid pro quo. His conduct is NOT normal presidential operating procedure. Several diplomats pointed it out emphatically in their testimony. John Bolton seems eager to testify, but says he must be compelled by a court. Even he realizes Trump’s action is other than legal and diplomatic. If Obama had done the EXACT thing as Trump, House Republicans would have been calling for his head on a silver platter. Talk about double standards…

    • Replies: @Alden
    Do you mean the fact that Hunter Biden was and is still being investigated for corruption by the Ukrainian government and indictments are coming? What’s wrong with investigating that, especially as virtually every State department employee is a loyal democrat?

    As I understand it, Giuliani didn’t investigate anything. He just asked for copies of the existing Ukrainian law enforcement reports.

    Please cite the federal civil, regulatory and criminal code that forbids an American President from obtaining copies of a criminal investigation in a foreign country. Remember, foreign affairs is solely the responsibility of the president, not one partisan party of congress critters.

    Especially as much of the Ukrainian economy consists of American foreign aid.

    Q. What is foreign aid?
    A. Foreign aid is direct deposit for dictators.

    If Trump were a bank official it would be due diligence.
  154. @Bardon Kaldian
    This may be interesting for genealogists, but Nixon, from what we know about him, did not pay much attention to these matters. True, he was frequently hilarious in private statements about various ethnicities (Italians, Jews, Irish, "Latins",..), but didn't care about genealogical intricacies.

    The hypothesis is they hated Nixon because they saw him as a right-wing WASP, or that he seemed to be, by disposition, by personality, by politics.

    No further information on his deep genealogy/ancestry is needed for this hypothesis, either for us now in retrospect, or for him at the time, or for them (his enemies) at the time. The fact that he was of entirely colonial stock, once known, though, points back to the hypothesis.

    Nixon, from what we know about him, did not pay much attention to these matters

    I believe he identified as a (right-wing) Quaker very much.

    There is an anecdote of Nixon breaking up a fight during Christmas week 1950, between Sen. McCarthy and a left-wing yellow-journalist, the latter two having gotten into some kind of a shoving match with McCarthy getting the better of it (or, in one version, with McCarthy sucker-punching the left-wing journalist whom he’d encountered by chance at a Washington social function, after weeks of lie after lie published by the journalist); Nixon, hanging around nearby at the moment, saw the fight and jumped in to intervene physically, saying “Let a good Quaker stop this fight!”

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Just a few rounding-off ancillary facts:

    The left wing journalist was Drew Pearson (aka Drew Smearson according to Sen McCarthy).

    The incident occurred in a social club's men's room.
  155. @Harry Baldwin
    Scott Adams may have lost half his income by supporting Trump, but I believe he's wealthy enough that he can live very comfortably on what he's got. I have to respect the man for going with his principles. We see that rarely enough.

    Scott Adams may have lost half his income by supporting Trump, but I believe he’s wealthy enough that he can live very comfortably on what he’s got. I have to respect the man for going with his principles. We see that rarely enough.

    After his stupidly nearly dying underdressed in a Snow Belt blizzard, he’s happy for every day he lives in California, even were he poor.

    And as an Upstate New Yorker, he probably enjoys to no end horrifying Downstaters by praising the one of their own they hate most. (I know I would.) Kind of like Southerners and FDR, in reverse.

    Come to think of it, Adams’s native Greene County voted against FDR in six of seven statewide elections, the exception being 1930. In the first, 1920, Warren Harding got a majority in every county in the state. Coolidge won them all, too, but some with a plurality. Coolidge also swept 62 counties, but some with a plurality. LaFollette finished second in two in the west, which must make Bill Kauffman grin.

  156. @Jack D
    This makes no sense. While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this. If he was say Germanic like Eisenhower, they would have hated him just as much. People thought of Nixon as having Quaker background and Quakers are well liked on the Left, being pacifist and all that (but of course Nixon got no personal credit for being Quaker). Nixon's father was as working class as could be (another thing that should have endeared him to Leftists but of course didn't). He was frostbitten working as a motorman in an open streetcar in Columbus, Ohio and therefore decide to relocate to California. After working as a farmhand and petroleum roustabout, he attempted to cultivate lemons but that didn't work out. He opened a little bodega that sold groceries and gas, but the family remained impoverished. Two of Nixon's brothers died of tuberculosis. This is about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician. In fact if I didn't know better, it sounds like something an Irish immigrant would have done (in particular trolley drivers were often Irish - in the days of open trolley cars this wasn't a great job). Given this proletarian background, Nixon was an incredibly self made man, especially compared to the rich man's son JFK (not "Founding Stock"). If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.

    They didn't like Nixon for what he believed (and what he wasn't - a Democrat) and not because of his ancestry - that's ridiculous.

    Nixon’s father was as working class as could be

    The late and sadly missed Florence King would distinguish between “high” and “low” WASPs.

  157. @Sean
    Adams was right about Trump. but surely mistaken about how unpopular being right would make him. Half of Adams's income is gone and things will get worse for him.

    Read Trump And Me. He has always been like that and if anything he is getting less so with age.

    I prefer to read, it's quicker for me, being much easier to focus and i like to backtrack. Adams's website is difficult to find things on.

    He said 30%, not 50%, and he’s making it back in spades in new business.

    • Replies: @Sean
    His income is 40% down by his own account. He has a business background and surely keeps a close eye on his income. He would have invested in a shiny user friendly website if he had any indication there were Trump people out there whose money could become his money.
  158. @R.G. Camara
    Corvinus is a paid troll from Media Matters. Don't engage with him seriously, he's paid to disrupt comments here. Mocking and ridicule of him is the only appropriate way of dealing with him.

    His modus operandi is to argue in bad faith, forever changing the topic (and asking more questions) when he’s found out. It is wholly pointless ‘debating’ him, and the more people’s time he can waste, the happier he is. A blog whose writer is a famous pattern-noticer has some commenters devoid of that talent, and they continue to bite. I used to.

    As Nathan Hale might have put it

    “I regret that I have but three “Trolls” in any eight hour period to give to Corvinus”

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "His modus operandi is to argue in bad faith, forever changing the topic (and asking more questions) when he’s found out."

    The fact of the matter is that I argue in good faith, put forth cogent arguments, and back up my assertions with sources. Your "response" is to label me a Troll, which makes it easier for you not to critically analyze your own position. You are a slave to your confirmation bias.
  159. @Jim Don Bob
    The best explanation I have heard is that Schiff told Pelosi in August the "we really got DJT on this Ukraine thing", and she let him go ahead with his 'impeachment inquiry'. It turned out to be a nothing burger, but the crazies believed it, so Pelosi had to go forward. Now the Ds are stuck having voted for impeachment and more than a few are going down next November.

    The whistleblower (sic ) Ciaramella was the one who set up the hit on Shokin in the first place. The perfect call forced their hand.

  160. @Jack Henson
    The way Pelosi is absolutely trashing constitutional norms is amazing to the point if I didn't know better I'd think she was a cryto-accelerationist with this entire "We will dictate to the Senate what the trial will look like", which as far as I can tell has zero historical precedent or basis or anything other than coming from a brain trust of GITDs who think everything is up for Talmudic interpretation if you argue long enough.

    We can see how the Dems react when their "the good guys can do what they want" thinking is turned on them. You got Northam threatening to send in the NG and cut power to areas "in revolt", which again would make me think he's crypto-acc if I didn't know he was a sock puppet for certain types. Also shows the absolute idiocy of so many RNC members - the VARNC fools thought the "blackface scandal" would sink the Dems so much that they didn't need to GOTV, and now look where things are.

    Someone said a while ago any revolt was going to be at the local level, and now we got the shire reeves basically calling out the Fyrd against a tyrant. History doesn't repeat but it sure rhymes.

    I didn’t know better I’d think she was a cryto-accelerationist with this entire “We will dictate to the Senate what the trial will look like”, which as far as I can tell has zero historical precedent or basis

    The Constitution is sparse on impeachment procedures generally, but it is 100% clear that the House has no influence or authority over how the Senate conducts its impeachment trial.

    Article I, Section 3

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

    Article I, Section 5

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,

    Wherever this idea comes from that the trial has to be conducted by “House Managers,” it ain’t in the Constitution. And the Senate, as the sole master of its own procedures, can dispense with any rule or tradition that anticipates this procedure.

    At this point McConnell holds all the cards. This is unlikely to end well for Democrats. (My personal preference would be exhaustive testimony from Eric Ciaramella, Adam Schiff and his staff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and maybe some of the Ukrainians who “paid-to-play” with the Obama administration and tried to rig the 2016 election for Hilary).

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Rumor, supported by statements from Schiff himself: while the first impeachment is stillborn they will impeach Pence. If they do that, the curtain is permanently pulled from the little man working the levers. Then again, going by their demonstrated current savvy ...

    https://postimg.cc/Mnx82HV9
  161. @David In TN
    I don't think Nixon's enemies much cared about his ancestry in general. Richard Whalen in his 1972 book, Catch the Falling Flag, which was very critical of Nixon and was prescient about his eventual downfall, wrote this concerning the hatred Nixon received from "Elites:"

    "Nor would they ever forgive him, I suggested, for being a representative of the new American middle classes. The left-liberal intellectuals and journalists despised middle-class 'bourgeois' values and the 'square' culture. Nothing that Nixon could say or do would appease them. He threatened their status as an antidemocratic elite in much the way that Lyndon Johnson did, and he could expect the same vindictive assaults that Johnson was experiencing."

    I agree with that quote from Richard Whalen.

    It is more-or-less what I was trying to express, but I would say the ethnocultural element to the “Nixon vs. antidemocratic elite” story is worth a serious thought. Also, the elements Whalen attributes to Nixon or (implicitly) to the Nixon Coalition are, arguably, partial ethnocultural proxies, for many — either in fact or in perception.

    From what I have read of Nixon, he was no simple figure, and no ideologue. “Representative of the new American middle classes,” whatever that meant (and I agree with that characterization despite not being able to pin it down), he was of course not some kind of narrowly ethno-sectarian figure; yet he was still, I propose, (correctly) identified by his enemies as a kind of nationalist, and also was a symbol to his enemies of WASP ascendancy — especially by the late 1960s and 1970s, during which time the WASP ascendancy concept was still taken very seriously and assumed to be a long-term fact of life in US affairs.

    (An academic named E. Digby Baltzell published The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America in 1964, right in the middle of the Nixon’s era in public life. If you read it in the present, the idea of some kind of natural and inescapable WASP ascendancy stands out; even though Baltzell was ostensibly arguing for a slow weakening thereof, the overtones of inevitable Protestant ascendancy in the US are there to see; the book does not foresee, at all, the then-imminent collapse of WASP power and its displacement mainly by Jewish power. A fascinating historical document in that way.)

    If this hypothesis is correct, the anti-Nixon push in the 1948 to 1974 period, — when anti-Nixonism was strong and persistent from some in the legacy elite and (more vigorously and importantly) from the ascendant elite, heavily Jewish — and the anti-Trump push in 2015 to present, while sharing many similarities, are motivated by different things: In simplest terms, anti-Nixon looks like an attack from ‘below’ (ascendant elite); anti-Trump is an attack from above (established elite).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    My personal impression was that the man was a through misanthrope who, being born into a working-class family in 1913, would happily blast whatever ethnic group he felt like blasting that day without thinking much more of it. Some groups-Jews-came in for far more regular grilling than others, but ultimately, he was an equal opportunity hater. I think PhysicistDave's recent comment about people in his conservative hometown probably applied to Nixon.

    I never got any sort of sense that he was at all interested in WASP-fetishism. Certainly he didn't feel any sort of loyalty to America's old WASP Establishment. And why should he have? These were the same people who not only openly disdained him, but had run the country into something of a ditch by 1968 and left him with the cleanup duties.

  162. @CMC
    I liked the part where Schiff went on and on about how important Ukraine was for US security.

    But did any Republicans respond with the argument that if it’s so important then we should continually subject everything about it to higher levels of scrutiny, follow-up, and... investigation; and that that’s all Trump was doing?

    I like the part where they yammer on for months about the mutual devotion of the US and Ukraine, but no one ever mentions the teensy detail how the Obama-era State Department was behind the 2014 coup to depose Ukraine’s legitimate Moscow-friendly government and replace it with the current one that answers to Washington, DC.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    They don't mention it because it's not true. The Ukrainians did their own coup to get rid of the corrupt Moscow loyal government and replace it with one that was loyal to their own people. The Obama State Dept. (indeed today's State Dept.) is a bunch of clowns and couldn't organize a coup if it wanted to. Russia is the one that sends "little green men" to organize coups, not the US. The USG is full of leaks and whistleblowers and can't keep anything secret so you would be reading about any US sponsored coup attempt on Wikileaks, maybe even before it happened. If the US says something like "we support those who are demonstrating for freedom" that doesn't make it a US sponsored coup.
  163. @Jack D
    This makes no sense. While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this. If he was say Germanic like Eisenhower, they would have hated him just as much. People thought of Nixon as having Quaker background and Quakers are well liked on the Left, being pacifist and all that (but of course Nixon got no personal credit for being Quaker). Nixon's father was as working class as could be (another thing that should have endeared him to Leftists but of course didn't). He was frostbitten working as a motorman in an open streetcar in Columbus, Ohio and therefore decide to relocate to California. After working as a farmhand and petroleum roustabout, he attempted to cultivate lemons but that didn't work out. He opened a little bodega that sold groceries and gas, but the family remained impoverished. Two of Nixon's brothers died of tuberculosis. This is about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician. In fact if I didn't know better, it sounds like something an Irish immigrant would have done (in particular trolley drivers were often Irish - in the days of open trolley cars this wasn't a great job). Given this proletarian background, Nixon was an incredibly self made man, especially compared to the rich man's son JFK (not "Founding Stock"). If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.

    They didn't like Nixon for what he believed (and what he wasn't - a Democrat) and not because of his ancestry - that's ridiculous.

    While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this.

    I must not have worded my comment well because people have interpreted it to have been “They hated Nixon solely after consulting an extensive genealogy and then and only then deciding on the matter,” which is a truly silly proposition.

    I do think more light can be shed on the Nixon vs. Nixon’s Enemies story by introducing an ethnocultural identity layer of analysis, in any case. Maybe I haven’t done it exactly right or presented it well, but I don’t think omitting any mention of it is helpful, either.

    about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician.

    You are right in saying that Nixon was no elite-WASP, but more like a poor nobody; his father also, iirc, was a failed California citrus grower before being a small-time gas station operator in nowheresville Orange County, CA, at the time.

    But when Nixon was accumulating enemies starting about 1948, did anyone know he was from humble origins? Just as the details of his deep ancestral profile would have been unknown to observers at the time, so too would the circumstances of his upbringing unlikely have been known. What they probably knew/understood was something close to this: A right-wing lawyer who had become a Senator and Vice President, English surname, Quaker affiliation; that surface-level mini-bio bears a lot of old-colonial hallmarks, maybe even elite-WASP ones.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    Nixon's enemies never thought he was "high-born." To the Kennedy crowd, Nixon "had no class," as JFK himself supposedly said. I saw a quote from Ben Bradlee, who said of Nixon, "He had no style." Al Gore's father, Albert Gore Sr., in a memoir called Nixon "plebeian."

    These people sneered at Nixon's "humble origins."
    , @nebulafox
    The traditional explanation for the passionate feelings around Richard Nixon-intense even on the standards of American politics-is based around anti-Communism, but that's ultimately not satisfactory. Nixon's campaigns against Voorhis and Douglas did not strike anybody-prominent Democrats included-as particularly noteworthy at the time: if they did, we'd have a lot more records of national newspapers taking note, particularly with the latter after the Hiss case sped up Nixon already fast-tracked career. Local and even state politics fail to capture the American imagination, then and now. Moreover, Nixon's early political success in California was rooted primarily in small-town populism that needs to be seen in the context of the changing political contours of the post-FDR GOP. Anti-Communism was an important facet of that, but making it into the whole package is a gross oversimplication. It was only when he was catapulted into true national prominence-1952-that this changed, and these campaigns made into early examples of a supposedly uniquely malicious nature.

    I find the most convincing explanation to be the one advanced by other commentators here: he represented the upwardly mobile postwar middle class. A lot of them used to be FDR's forgotten people, but by 1947, many of them weren't so forgotten anymore, and their ideas on what to do with the postwar wealth and culture were very different from their former guiders. Something like the Checkers Speech today would be seen for the hokey politics that it is, but 1952 America was a very, very different place. That kind of thing played well with the masses.

    So, for a whole host of reasons-some valid, some not-what Nixon represented drove liberals absolutely bonkers. There were a lot of things Nixon himself did to further feed this hatred, of course, and would continue to do so to the point that by 1972, the lines were drawn for some kind of showdown even had Watergate never happened. But when push comes to shove, it was about what the man represented more than anything he actually said or did. Of course, the fierce hatred had a dual side in evoking, if not love, loyalty from a lot of Americans, despite having arguably the least suited personality for politics of all American Presidents. It took the biggest scandal in American history to kill that for good.

    (One could say much the same about Obama, with the sides reversed, of course. It was less about SOCIALISM!!!" per se-laughworthy given his actual policy record of tacit alignment with the conservative business wing of the Democratic party every single time during the crucial years of 2009 and 2010-than it was the fact that he had New America's version of blue blood. Harvard, "diverse", cosmopolitan, left-wing but not too much so... he was perfect for the views of America's upper-middle class, one that had exploded demographically since the Cold War. Which also helps explain the absolute hatred of the guns and Bibles crowd. Stupid comments like "bitter clingers" from Obama certainly exacerbated the hatred, but like Nixon, I don't think it was about the man so much as what he represented. This extends to his race: I don't think some Powell-figure would have had any issue winning red states. That's not to say anti-black prejudices never played a role, just not the decisive, all-consuming one that Democrats like to imagine.)

  164. @Hypnotoad666

    I didn’t know better I’d think she was a cryto-accelerationist with this entire “We will dictate to the Senate what the trial will look like”, which as far as I can tell has zero historical precedent or basis
     
    The Constitution is sparse on impeachment procedures generally, but it is 100% clear that the House has no influence or authority over how the Senate conducts its impeachment trial.

    Article I, Section 3

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
     
    Article I, Section 5

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,
     
    Wherever this idea comes from that the trial has to be conducted by "House Managers," it ain't in the Constitution. And the Senate, as the sole master of its own procedures, can dispense with any rule or tradition that anticipates this procedure.

    At this point McConnell holds all the cards. This is unlikely to end well for Democrats. (My personal preference would be exhaustive testimony from Eric Ciaramella, Adam Schiff and his staff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and maybe some of the Ukrainians who "paid-to-play" with the Obama administration and tried to rig the 2016 election for Hilary).

    Rumor, supported by statements from Schiff himself: while the first impeachment is stillborn they will impeach Pence. If they do that, the curtain is permanently pulled from the little man working the levers. Then again, going by their demonstrated current savvy …

    https://postimg.cc/Mnx82HV9

  165. @Jack D
    This makes no sense. While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this. If he was say Germanic like Eisenhower, they would have hated him just as much. People thought of Nixon as having Quaker background and Quakers are well liked on the Left, being pacifist and all that (but of course Nixon got no personal credit for being Quaker). Nixon's father was as working class as could be (another thing that should have endeared him to Leftists but of course didn't). He was frostbitten working as a motorman in an open streetcar in Columbus, Ohio and therefore decide to relocate to California. After working as a farmhand and petroleum roustabout, he attempted to cultivate lemons but that didn't work out. He opened a little bodega that sold groceries and gas, but the family remained impoverished. Two of Nixon's brothers died of tuberculosis. This is about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician. In fact if I didn't know better, it sounds like something an Irish immigrant would have done (in particular trolley drivers were often Irish - in the days of open trolley cars this wasn't a great job). Given this proletarian background, Nixon was an incredibly self made man, especially compared to the rich man's son JFK (not "Founding Stock"). If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.

    They didn't like Nixon for what he believed (and what he wasn't - a Democrat) and not because of his ancestry - that's ridiculous.

    If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.

    Well, maybe somebody might take both of them to be Irish. (Hail, above, says Nixon was 10% Scotch-Irish.)

    • Replies: @Hail
    Looking back at Nixon's autobiography (RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, first published 1978), I see in the first section he talks a fair amount about his upbringing, including his father's struggles, family origins, grandparents, family religious and political traditions. One can pick up some clues on R.Nixon's own ethnocultural identity, during his years in public life (mid 1940s to 1974), from his prose there.

    I see he uses the word 'Quaker' a lot, and always sympathetically. I also see something unexpected, two interesting but isolated lines with the word "Irish," as follows:


    My father [i.e., Frank Nixon] had an Irish quickness both to anger and to mirth
     
    He otherwise describes his father as "a hard-line Ohio Republican," a "robust" Methodist, a prohibitionist even into the 1930s, but a man who had broken with his own and his family's political tradition of Republicanism and protest-voted for La Follette in 1924, seemingly out of frustration with the Republican Party.

    Richard Nixon in his memoir makes no other mention of 'Irishness' vis-a-vis his father, so this "Irish quickness" line might be meant pretty metaphorically.

    This one, though, seems literal:


    Everyone who ever knew my mother was impressed with what a remarkable woman she was. She was born March 7, 1885, in southern Indiana into an Irish Quaker family of nine. When was was twelve, her father decided to move to a new Quaker settlement in California.
     
    Richard Nixon's mother did not have any recent ancestry on the Emerald Isle, and only a modest amount of total ancestry tied to Ireland even distantly, so this "Irish Quaker family" characterization is curious.

    Nixon spends more time in the first chapter of the memoir describing his own ancestry, but the word "Irish" does not again appear. His maternal grandmother (1849-1943) he describes as a strong Quaker and Lincoln supporter.

    Make of the above what you will, bearing in mind the risks of trusting a memoir.

  166. @Sean
    Adams was right about Trump. but surely mistaken about how unpopular being right would make him. Half of Adams's income is gone and things will get worse for him.

    Read Trump And Me. He has always been like that and if anything he is getting less so with age.

    I prefer to read, it's quicker for me, being much easier to focus and i like to backtrack. Adams's website is difficult to find things on.

    Adams was right about Trump

    Adams consistently and coolly predicted a Trump win, of the R nomination AND the presidency, from about Sept. 2015 and maintained that call through till the end in Nov. 2016, never wavering, always providing some psychological-analytical justification for his prediction, no matter how many dark clouds surrounded Trump at any given time or etc.

    (I think his correct call on the Trump win is what launched him into real fame as a political analyst.)

    Is this what you mean, or something else?

  167. (Noah Feldman is, to put it mildly, not a Trump supporter.)

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

    Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

    If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.

    Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Whether or not Trump was actually impeached doesn't matter. The media will keep referring to him as having been impeached, and the low-information voters and deranged anti-Trumpers won't fuss over the fine points.
  168. @Harry Baldwin
    Trump doesn’t handle stress well.

    I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who would have held up as well under the unrelenting onslaught as has Trump. I stand in awe.

    I’m hard pressed to think of anyone who would have held up as well under the unrelenting onslaught as has Trump. I stand in awe.

    Seconded.

    The only thing that would hold up better than Trump is a Terminator:

    RIP Kyle Reese

  169. @Harry Baldwin
    Scott Adams may have lost half his income by supporting Trump, but I believe he's wealthy enough that he can live very comfortably on what he's got. I have to respect the man for going with his principles. We see that rarely enough.

    Scott Adams also has some juicy young trim he’s leading around by the nose:

    I’ll leave her instagram to the interested student.

    • Replies: @Moses

    Scott Adams also has some juicy young trim he’s leading around by the nose:
     
    My guess is it's more accurate that this Instagram thot is leading Adams around by the nose.

    Women who post lots of racy pics of their bodies online are addicted to attention from men. And there will be buyers, oh yes...

    I've found it to be a bad sign.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    She looks like one of those Japanese sexbots.
  170. @Reg Cæsar

    I thought Tulsi’s voting present was a great idea.
     
    Yes. A Christmas "present"!

    I thought Tulsi’s voting present was a great idea.

    Yes. A Christmas “present”!

    To whom?

  171. @YetAnotherAnon
    His modus operandi is to argue in bad faith, forever changing the topic (and asking more questions) when he's found out. It is wholly pointless 'debating' him, and the more people's time he can waste, the happier he is. A blog whose writer is a famous pattern-noticer has some commenters devoid of that talent, and they continue to bite. I used to.

    As Nathan Hale might have put it

    "I regret that I have but three "Trolls" in any eight hour period to give to Corvinus"

    “His modus operandi is to argue in bad faith, forever changing the topic (and asking more questions) when he’s found out.”

    The fact of the matter is that I argue in good faith, put forth cogent arguments, and back up my assertions with sources. Your “response” is to label me a Troll, which makes it easier for you not to critically analyze your own position. You are a slave to your confirmation bias.

    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Alden
    Internet links are internet links, nothing more. There’s a lot of nonsense in libraries, archives and the internet.
  172. @Alfa158
    How about we let Ciaramella and Adam Schiff appear before the Senate and explain how many drafts and submissions to their bosses at Langley it took before they finalized the “whistleblower” memo? How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted? How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live? How about Slow Joe and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath? In other words how about an actual trial where the accused is allow to present evidence and examine witnesses?

    I’ve been hearing exactly your points from other partisan Democrats. Trump must resign and be replaced by a conservacuck because we’re deeply concerned that otherwise the Republicans will never be able to win any more elections.

    In reality demographic changes that the Republicans helped to drive is what has holed the Republican Party below the water line and will mean that it will eventually go the way of the Whigs. It makes me wonder though if there is polling that shows Trump is somehow against all odds going to beat anyone presently in the race and give the Republicans one last term in the White House before the Party heads into California style irrelevance. Therefore he need to resign because that will be the most effective way to ensure his voters stay home in November.

    “How about we let Ciaramella and Adam Schiff appear before the Senate and explain how many drafts and submissions to their bosses at Langley it took before they finalized the “whistleblower” memo?”

    Because you ASSUME that this event actually happened. Hint: It never occurred.

    “How about the Senate has the Ukrainians testify as to whether they thought they were being extorted?”

    McConnell doesn’t want to call additional witnesses. Send your grievances to him.

    “How about the senate plays the recording of the actual call live?

    “How about Slow Joe and his boy appear before the Senate and answer pointed questions under oath?”

    That would be a separate matter. Again, you ASSUME that there was illegal activity. Hint: A Ukrainian prosecutor said there was no malfeasance. Of course, you also ASSUME that Trump cares about uncovering corruption. Hint: He doesn’t.

    “In other words how about an actual trial where the accused is allow to present evidence and examine witnesses?”

    Great! Tell that to McConnell. Of course, the evidence and witnesses from the House investigation, along with White House staff who Trump has attempted to deny access to.

  173. @Hibernian

    If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.
     
    Well, maybe somebody might take both of them to be Irish. (Hail, above, says Nixon was 10% Scotch-Irish.)

    Looking back at Nixon’s autobiography (RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, first published 1978), I see in the first section he talks a fair amount about his upbringing, including his father’s struggles, family origins, grandparents, family religious and political traditions. One can pick up some clues on R.Nixon’s own ethnocultural identity, during his years in public life (mid 1940s to 1974), from his prose there.

    I see he uses the word ‘Quaker’ a lot, and always sympathetically. I also see something unexpected, two interesting but isolated lines with the word “Irish,” as follows:

    My father [i.e., Frank Nixon] had an Irish quickness both to anger and to mirth

    He otherwise describes his father as “a hard-line Ohio Republican,” a “robust” Methodist, a prohibitionist even into the 1930s, but a man who had broken with his own and his family’s political tradition of Republicanism and protest-voted for La Follette in 1924, seemingly out of frustration with the Republican Party.

    Richard Nixon in his memoir makes no other mention of ‘Irishness’ vis-a-vis his father, so this “Irish quickness” line might be meant pretty metaphorically.

    This one, though, seems literal:

    Everyone who ever knew my mother was impressed with what a remarkable woman she was. She was born March 7, 1885, in southern Indiana into an Irish Quaker family of nine. When was was twelve, her father decided to move to a new Quaker settlement in California.

    Richard Nixon’s mother did not have any recent ancestry on the Emerald Isle, and only a modest amount of total ancestry tied to Ireland even distantly, so this “Irish Quaker family” characterization is curious.

    Nixon spends more time in the first chapter of the memoir describing his own ancestry, but the word “Irish” does not again appear. His maternal grandmother (1849-1943) he describes as a strong Quaker and Lincoln supporter.

    Make of the above what you will, bearing in mind the risks of trusting a memoir.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    Albion's Seed:

    The Presidency as a Case Study

    For two centuries after 1789, the four major regions controlled the national politics of the United States as completely as they dominated its language and its culture. Not until the late twentieth century did this pattern begin to change. An indicator of this hegemony may be seen in the cultural origins of American Presidents. In two centuries from 1789 to 1989, the highest office has been held by forty men, of whom thirty-eight were descended from one or another of the four folk migrations.

    Of those four cultural groups, this historian was surprised to discover that the largest number of Presidents, eighteen in all, were descended in whole or in part from North British borderers, most of whom had settled in the backcountry during the eighteenth century. They included Andrew Jackson, James Knox Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt (who was nearly three-quarters North British), Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

    ******
    The fourth folk culture contributed comparatively little to the presidency. The English Quakers and German Pietists who settled the Delaware Valley did not approve of politics. Nevertheless, seven American Presidents had a connection with this culture. Abraham Lincoln’s Puritan ancestors intermarried with Pennsylvania Quakers. Grover Cleveland had a German Quaker grandmother from Pennsylvania. William McKinley had a Quaker great-grandmother. Warren Harding was of Quaker descent on his mother’s side. Herbert Hoover was descended from mixed German and English Quakers and Dwight Eisenhower came from German Mennonites whose experiences and beliefs were similar to English Quakers in many ways.38 The black sheep of the presidential flock, Richard Nixon, also traced his ancestry to Quakers who migrated to Pennsylvania before 1730.
     
  174. anon[374] • Disclaimer says:

    Am worried some senators might find out they have been comromised (sex tapes, affairs) by intelligence agencies paid by the Deep State and will be blackmailed into voting for impeachment in suprising last-minute decisions.

    All these Republicans suddenly deciding not to run for re-election seems shady to me. Ive wondered if if dirt has been dug up on them and they have been threatened with its release unless they vacate their seats also.

    If I could give any advise to wealthy business leader and politicians is to be very careful when dining out/drinking out with various lobbyistd, foreign diplomats. Ive got a feeling these agencies might be using drugs slipped into drinks and food to loosen up these men (and a few women) to get them to sleep with attractive younger women (or men) to be taped and used as blackmail material later that night. I wouldn’t even agree to eat out at a resturaunt that the other party suggested as a matter of fact, just to be sure they didn’t have a plant employee in the kitchen. There is no telling (post Epstein) how far powers will go to get leverage on the represenatives in this country. Be careful gents. You may wanna be faithful to your wife, but after you have been dosed with a euphoric-horny-no-conscience pill cooked up by some pharmacologist, you might be so easily led as to do something you would never dream of sober.

  175. @ScarletNumber

    Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one.
     
    Did you coin this? I've never heard this before -_-

    There is a 2018 book titled “Impeachment: An American History,” with that very theme.

    And as someone who has lived through three of them, these affairs are political, not legal.

    I pointed out in an earlier comment that the Democrats would not have tried to impeach Nixon if Spiro Agnew hadn’t forcibly resigned in October 1973.

  176. @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    I agree with you.

    At the end of the day, we are just organisms. And competing organisms attack one another.

  177. I noticed there was no mention of Trump violating any criminal statues in the impeachment articles at all. They are obviously implying Trump committed treason with the betraying the nation language but they don’t want to be held to that. I suppose Trump making a wisecrack asking Russia to find Hillary’s emails is technically evidence.

  178. @Hail

    While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this.
     
    I must not have worded my comment well because people have interpreted it to have been "They hated Nixon solely after consulting an extensive genealogy and then and only then deciding on the matter," which is a truly silly proposition.

    I do think more light can be shed on the Nixon vs. Nixon's Enemies story by introducing an ethnocultural identity layer of analysis, in any case. Maybe I haven't done it exactly right or presented it well, but I don't think omitting any mention of it is helpful, either.


    about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician.
     
    You are right in saying that Nixon was no elite-WASP, but more like a poor nobody; his father also, iirc, was a failed California citrus grower before being a small-time gas station operator in nowheresville Orange County, CA, at the time.

    But when Nixon was accumulating enemies starting about 1948, did anyone know he was from humble origins? Just as the details of his deep ancestral profile would have been unknown to observers at the time, so too would the circumstances of his upbringing unlikely have been known. What they probably knew/understood was something close to this: A right-wing lawyer who had become a Senator and Vice President, English surname, Quaker affiliation; that surface-level mini-bio bears a lot of old-colonial hallmarks, maybe even elite-WASP ones.

    Nixon’s enemies never thought he was “high-born.” To the Kennedy crowd, Nixon “had no class,” as JFK himself supposedly said. I saw a quote from Ben Bradlee, who said of Nixon, “He had no style.” Al Gore’s father, Albert Gore Sr., in a memoir called Nixon “plebeian.”

    These people sneered at Nixon’s “humble origins.”

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    And yet he was notoriously the best poker player in the Navy in WWII. Regressors to the mean really don't like getting shown up by men moving in the opposite direction.

    Same thing behind the unhinged resentment of Trump.
  179. @Hail
    "President Trump will change what impeachment means, far more than impeachment will change what we think of the Trump presidency." -- Scott Adams, Dec. 18, 2019, as impeachment vote was imminent

    Scott Adams is great. One thing about him is he does long-form commentary. To follow the thread of a Scott Adams point, you often need to listen ten minutes or more. This is in contrast to cable news talkers, who tend much more towards sound-bites. The other difference is the cable newsers tend towards the hysterical (as you put it) and Adams is always cool-headed.

    I just wish he would be harder on Trump when called for. iSteve commenter John Gruskos called Adams "The Man Whose Flattery Ruined Trump."

    Been following Adams since 2015 when he was the first to predict Trump’s election victory.

    Adams has a lot of great, unique insights, such as “facts don’t matter” in elections. I’ve learned a ton from his breakdown of Trump’s persuasion techniques. Read all his books too, which I found worthwhile.

    Adams has some gaping blindspots though, of the BoomerCuck variety.

    He’s prone to saying that race/ethnicity of immigrants doesn’t matter, all while living comfortably in wealthy Pleasanton, CA which is 62% White, 30% Asian, 2% Black.

    He follows logic and goes right up to the race line, for example citing a press story excoriating “all White Males” as “racist” then in the next breath abandons it, saying “that doesn’t matter to me, whatever.”

    Almost as if his BoomerCuck pedigree is throttling the crimethink before it emerges into his consciousness.

    • Replies: @danand

    "He’s prone to saying that race/ethnicity of immigrants doesn’t matter, all while living comfortably in wealthy Pleasanton, CA which is 62% White, 30% Asian, 2% Black."

     

    There is a "corridor" that runs along hwy 680, from Pleasanton up thru Walnut Creek which over ~ the last decade or so, I've come to referred to as larger San Francisco Bay Area's "Whitopia". When venturing over the hill to the Tri-Valley I'm always taken a little aback. It's like another world, similar in racial demographic to the one that has long since moved away. I've always found it odd that "white" people surrendered Silicon Valley, with it's moderate weather and close proximity to jobs, to take up residence in the less temperate, "remote" valley. Even the kids working the counter at the McDonald's over there are Caucasian.


    Pleasanton is located center on this standardized grade school test map (SBAC "hard data" test results, not ratings based off warm & fuzzies). Each marker represents a school; bright green tested best, orange worst. The correlation between racial demographics/crime index and school test ranking is near perfect (ie White/Asian green). I used this map to determine my move back when my daughter turned age 4.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i2JKUk

    On those rare occasions when I am asked by someone outside the area as to where they should relocate I send them this link: https://school-ratings.com/
  180. @Hail
    The hypothesis is they hated Nixon because they saw him as a right-wing WASP, or that he seemed to be, by disposition, by personality, by politics.

    No further information on his deep genealogy/ancestry is needed for this hypothesis, either for us now in retrospect, or for him at the time, or for them (his enemies) at the time. The fact that he was of entirely colonial stock, once known, though, points back to the hypothesis.


    Nixon, from what we know about him, did not pay much attention to these matters
     
    I believe he identified as a (right-wing) Quaker very much.

    There is an anecdote of Nixon breaking up a fight during Christmas week 1950, between Sen. McCarthy and a left-wing yellow-journalist, the latter two having gotten into some kind of a shoving match with McCarthy getting the better of it (or, in one version, with McCarthy sucker-punching the left-wing journalist whom he'd encountered by chance at a Washington social function, after weeks of lie after lie published by the journalist); Nixon, hanging around nearby at the moment, saw the fight and jumped in to intervene physically, saying "Let a good Quaker stop this fight!"

    Just a few rounding-off ancillary facts:

    The left wing journalist was Drew Pearson (aka Drew Smearson according to Sen McCarthy).

    The incident occurred in a social club’s men’s room.

  181. @The Wild Geese Howard
    Scott Adams also has some juicy young trim he's leading around by the nose:

    https://k61.kn3.net/taringa/2/7/6/2/8/6/47/dgrfy/F91.jpg

    I'll leave her instagram to the interested student.

    Scott Adams also has some juicy young trim he’s leading around by the nose:

    My guess is it’s more accurate that this Instagram thot is leading Adams around by the nose.

    Women who post lots of racy pics of their bodies online are addicted to attention from men. And there will be buyers, oh yes…

    I’ve found it to be a bad sign.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    Women who post lots of racy pics of their bodies online are addicted to attention from men. And there will be buyers, oh yes…
     
    As the great philosopher and pharmaceutical connoisseur Charlie Sheen once stated, "You're paying them to leave...."

    Amen, Charlie, amen....

    , @Bubba

    Women who post lots of racy pics of their bodies online are addicted to attention from men.
     
    But mainly women.

    "All the girls walk by, dressed up for each other."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX2_HahKoe4

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002391/Sorry-chaps-women-dress-impress-other.html
  182. @Hail

    While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this.
     
    I must not have worded my comment well because people have interpreted it to have been "They hated Nixon solely after consulting an extensive genealogy and then and only then deciding on the matter," which is a truly silly proposition.

    I do think more light can be shed on the Nixon vs. Nixon's Enemies story by introducing an ethnocultural identity layer of analysis, in any case. Maybe I haven't done it exactly right or presented it well, but I don't think omitting any mention of it is helpful, either.


    about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician.
     
    You are right in saying that Nixon was no elite-WASP, but more like a poor nobody; his father also, iirc, was a failed California citrus grower before being a small-time gas station operator in nowheresville Orange County, CA, at the time.

    But when Nixon was accumulating enemies starting about 1948, did anyone know he was from humble origins? Just as the details of his deep ancestral profile would have been unknown to observers at the time, so too would the circumstances of his upbringing unlikely have been known. What they probably knew/understood was something close to this: A right-wing lawyer who had become a Senator and Vice President, English surname, Quaker affiliation; that surface-level mini-bio bears a lot of old-colonial hallmarks, maybe even elite-WASP ones.

    The traditional explanation for the passionate feelings around Richard Nixon-intense even on the standards of American politics-is based around anti-Communism, but that’s ultimately not satisfactory. Nixon’s campaigns against Voorhis and Douglas did not strike anybody-prominent Democrats included-as particularly noteworthy at the time: if they did, we’d have a lot more records of national newspapers taking note, particularly with the latter after the Hiss case sped up Nixon already fast-tracked career. Local and even state politics fail to capture the American imagination, then and now. Moreover, Nixon’s early political success in California was rooted primarily in small-town populism that needs to be seen in the context of the changing political contours of the post-FDR GOP. Anti-Communism was an important facet of that, but making it into the whole package is a gross oversimplication. It was only when he was catapulted into true national prominence-1952-that this changed, and these campaigns made into early examples of a supposedly uniquely malicious nature.

    I find the most convincing explanation to be the one advanced by other commentators here: he represented the upwardly mobile postwar middle class. A lot of them used to be FDR’s forgotten people, but by 1947, many of them weren’t so forgotten anymore, and their ideas on what to do with the postwar wealth and culture were very different from their former guiders. Something like the Checkers Speech today would be seen for the hokey politics that it is, but 1952 America was a very, very different place. That kind of thing played well with the masses.

    So, for a whole host of reasons-some valid, some not-what Nixon represented drove liberals absolutely bonkers. There were a lot of things Nixon himself did to further feed this hatred, of course, and would continue to do so to the point that by 1972, the lines were drawn for some kind of showdown even had Watergate never happened. But when push comes to shove, it was about what the man represented more than anything he actually said or did. Of course, the fierce hatred had a dual side in evoking, if not love, loyalty from a lot of Americans, despite having arguably the least suited personality for politics of all American Presidents. It took the biggest scandal in American history to kill that for good.

    (One could say much the same about Obama, with the sides reversed, of course. It was less about SOCIALISM!!!” per se-laughworthy given his actual policy record of tacit alignment with the conservative business wing of the Democratic party every single time during the crucial years of 2009 and 2010-than it was the fact that he had New America’s version of blue blood. Harvard, “diverse”, cosmopolitan, left-wing but not too much so… he was perfect for the views of America’s upper-middle class, one that had exploded demographically since the Cold War. Which also helps explain the absolute hatred of the guns and Bibles crowd. Stupid comments like “bitter clingers” from Obama certainly exacerbated the hatred, but like Nixon, I don’t think it was about the man so much as what he represented. This extends to his race: I don’t think some Powell-figure would have had any issue winning red states. That’s not to say anti-black prejudices never played a role, just not the decisive, all-consuming one that Democrats like to imagine.)

    • Replies: @Hockamaw
    Great comment. Thanks.
  183. @Hail

    The Elites hated Nixon
     
    That's for sure.

    Why did the 'elites' (or the rising elite that took him down) hate Nixon? A proposed answer:

    I made a post a few years ago, The Ancestry of Richard Nixon, which is getting an increase in traffic during the Trump impeachment. Richard Nixon was of entirely colonial ancestry. All of his ancestral lines were in America by 1775, and up to 85% of his total ancestral stock was in N.America as of approximately the early 18th century, mainly in the mid-Atlantic states -- Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

    He also had minor Scotch-Irish ancestry (around 10%) and negligible German-Palatinate ancestry (3%), and possibly a distant Colonial-Swedish line (0.8%). No known Amerind. On religion-ancestry, though he was raised a Quaker, only a minority of his ancestry (roughly, a quarter at most) was actually Quaker in the 18th century, but the rest was all Protestant of some kind.

    At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I think many of Nixon's enemies hated him because of the above; that is, because of the ethnocultural class he represented (WASP, broadly; right-wing White-Protestant, especially the type with many generations of US ancestry; this class of people was, I think, still in the early 1970s widely assumed to be dominant for all time in US affairs). Let's call it envy, which may he a polite or otherwise imprecise way to put it.

    How many of the Nixon-hating ringleaders had any colonial ancestry, much less 100%?

    Elite hatred for Nixon flowed from one major fountain, which had nothing to do with his ancestry: his leadership of HUAC activities relating to the investigation and later conviction of elite member Alger Hiss.

  184. @Desiderius
    He said 30%, not 50%, and he's making it back in spades in new business.

    His income is 40% down by his own account. He has a business background and surely keeps a close eye on his income. He would have invested in a shiny user friendly website if he had any indication there were Trump people out there whose money could become his money.

  185. @Hail
    I agree with that quote from Richard Whalen.

    It is more-or-less what I was trying to express, but I would say the ethnocultural element to the "Nixon vs. antidemocratic elite" story is worth a serious thought. Also, the elements Whalen attributes to Nixon or (implicitly) to the Nixon Coalition are, arguably, partial ethnocultural proxies, for many -- either in fact or in perception.

    From what I have read of Nixon, he was no simple figure, and no ideologue. "Representative of the new American middle classes," whatever that meant (and I agree with that characterization despite not being able to pin it down), he was of course not some kind of narrowly ethno-sectarian figure; yet he was still, I propose, (correctly) identified by his enemies as a kind of nationalist, and also was a symbol to his enemies of WASP ascendancy -- especially by the late 1960s and 1970s, during which time the WASP ascendancy concept was still taken very seriously and assumed to be a long-term fact of life in US affairs.

    (An academic named E. Digby Baltzell published The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America in 1964, right in the middle of the Nixon's era in public life. If you read it in the present, the idea of some kind of natural and inescapable WASP ascendancy stands out; even though Baltzell was ostensibly arguing for a slow weakening thereof, the overtones of inevitable Protestant ascendancy in the US are there to see; the book does not foresee, at all, the then-imminent collapse of WASP power and its displacement mainly by Jewish power. A fascinating historical document in that way.)

    If this hypothesis is correct, the anti-Nixon push in the 1948 to 1974 period, -- when anti-Nixonism was strong and persistent from some in the legacy elite and (more vigorously and importantly) from the ascendant elite, heavily Jewish -- and the anti-Trump push in 2015 to present, while sharing many similarities, are motivated by different things: In simplest terms, anti-Nixon looks like an attack from 'below' (ascendant elite); anti-Trump is an attack from above (established elite).

    My personal impression was that the man was a through misanthrope who, being born into a working-class family in 1913, would happily blast whatever ethnic group he felt like blasting that day without thinking much more of it. Some groups-Jews-came in for far more regular grilling than others, but ultimately, he was an equal opportunity hater. I think PhysicistDave’s recent comment about people in his conservative hometown probably applied to Nixon.

    I never got any sort of sense that he was at all interested in WASP-fetishism. Certainly he didn’t feel any sort of loyalty to America’s old WASP Establishment. And why should he have? These were the same people who not only openly disdained him, but had run the country into something of a ditch by 1968 and left him with the cleanup duties.

  186. @Jim Don Bob
    The best explanation I have heard is that Schiff told Pelosi in August the "we really got DJT on this Ukraine thing", and she let him go ahead with his 'impeachment inquiry'. It turned out to be a nothing burger, but the crazies believed it, so Pelosi had to go forward. Now the Ds are stuck having voted for impeachment and more than a few are going down next November.

    The best explanation I have heard is that Schiff told Pelosi in August the “we really got DJT on this Ukraine thing”, and she let him go ahead with his ‘impeachment inquiry’.

    How can anyone possibly believe anything Adam Schiff says at this point? Hard to believe Pelosi should be that poor a judge of character. I wonder if she hates the pencil-necked prick for what he’s done. Oh, that’s right, she doesn’t hate anyone. She probably prays for him every night.

  187. @J.Ross
    As I have already stated, there are no real legal standards for impeachment.

    There are no clearly defined stipulations which would satisfy legalist reformers who think the answer is to spell it all out, but there are definitely standards, and it is clear that the Pelosi case meets none: it is pure partisan sniping. Replace Trump with anyone else beating Hillary so shockingly, or replace the charges with Burroughsian space opera, and the situation is the same. They don't have a case or a theory, they have "it was her turn." While that won't win over apoliticals to Trump, it also cannot win over anyone to the impeachment.
    I grow more and more confident that the Democrats just shot themselves in both feet.
    It is interesting that in the NPR, online, social, and podcast leftist ideological spaces, efforts have been made to drum up nerd chic and historical authority regarding impeachment. This continues the motif of footblasting, because there are no good impeachments:
    --Johnson is now and then widely seen to have been wrongly persecuted by the Radical Republicans, who came to be seen as over-rigid idiots undoing Lincoln's efforts at reconciliation. Sadly, the revisionist embrace of Radical Republicans is intentional and fits with the war on monuments.
    --Nixon was almost certainly innocent (he "threatened" Ford that he wanted a proper trial) and was really guilty of being Nixon. This is confirmed by the totally gratuitous hatred of Nixon which continues in popular entertainment media long after his death (eg, Futurama). There are no cartoons about blood-soaked and braindead Wilson tricking us into the then biggest military disaster in history, but Nixon must be kicked around for eternity becayse he had poor posture and a 5 o'clock shadow.
    --Clinton was universally seen as totally guilty, but as universally seen as not guilty of anything that mattered, and, like Johnson and Nixon, his real crime was being hated.
    --Every single Republican president since Eisenhower was targeted with an impeachent effort, which made it to at least a vote in every single case except Ford. The seriousness of all these impeachments cannot survive Occam's razor.
    We are approaching a case for getting rid of impeachment itself. It has never served any good purpose. It has frequently been the conduit of political mischief -- unforgivably, political mischief as visible to the people as the Trial of Joan of Arc. If you want to burn a witch, you're scum, but if you let everybody know that the victim isn't a witch, you're unforgivably dumb. If impeachment is good for anything, our leaders lack the maturity to handle it properly.

    >Nixon was almost certainly innocent (he “threatened” Ford that he wanted a proper trial) and was really guilty of being Nixon.

    No. Leaving aside all the problems with the Nixon White House that would have me typing for hours, he conspired to obstruct justice, and that was an impeachable offense. The Watergate tapes couldn’t make that clearer. Nixon was a narcissist who would have never, never have given up the office if he had any shred of surviving an impeachment.

    (I will say this, though: say what you will about Watergate, it didn’t involve selling arms to terrorists or drug smuggling.)

    It’s deeply telling that they are claiming that Trump obstructed Congress rather than justice. If they could claim Trump obstructed justice, the Democrats would. But they aren’t.

    So, if he’s guilty of obstructing Congress, does that mean Congress can act to impeach the President purely because Congress doesn’t like that he doesn’t follow their policies to the hilt? They and their media groupies are delusional if they don’t think the GOP is going to do just that to the next Democrat who lands in the WH. The GOP played this game in the 1990s, with a toxic effect on our politics. This fallout is going to be even worse. Precedents are being set here by Congress: very bad ones.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Doesn’t the 3 branches of government and separation of powers require congress and the executive branch the president to obstruct each other to maintain the balance of power?
  188. @Jack D
    This makes no sense. While Nixon may have been of pure Founding Stock blood according to your genealogical research, probably few of his enemies even knew this. If he was say Germanic like Eisenhower, they would have hated him just as much. People thought of Nixon as having Quaker background and Quakers are well liked on the Left, being pacifist and all that (but of course Nixon got no personal credit for being Quaker). Nixon's father was as working class as could be (another thing that should have endeared him to Leftists but of course didn't). He was frostbitten working as a motorman in an open streetcar in Columbus, Ohio and therefore decide to relocate to California. After working as a farmhand and petroleum roustabout, he attempted to cultivate lemons but that didn't work out. He opened a little bodega that sold groceries and gas, but the family remained impoverished. Two of Nixon's brothers died of tuberculosis. This is about as far as you can get from being a Founding Stock patrician. In fact if I didn't know better, it sounds like something an Irish immigrant would have done (in particular trolley drivers were often Irish - in the days of open trolley cars this wasn't a great job). Given this proletarian background, Nixon was an incredibly self made man, especially compared to the rich man's son JFK (not "Founding Stock"). If you had to guess (without knowing anything else) which guy was Founding Stock and which one was Irish you would have guessed the opposite.

    They didn't like Nixon for what he believed (and what he wasn't - a Democrat) and not because of his ancestry - that's ridiculous.

    Old stock American is old stock American whether your ancestors arrived as poor gentleman adventurers, deported convicts African or British slaves, indentured servants, tradesmen , business owners, preachers, lawyers , Drs pirates, voyaguers, merchants of varying success and income, Lord Baltimore, Lord De La Ware, William Penn, the Dutch Patroons who established European feudalism and serfdom in the Hudson Valley, 7th sons of 7th sons of minor Gentry with a land grant in Virginia, S Carolina or New Mexico.

    Not all WASPs are the patricians of the imagination of the Ellis Islanders. And not all the pre 1700 arrivals were English Protestants either.

    The Pittsburgh Mellons are long term patrician aristocrats who’ve stayed wealthy aristocrats for 200 years but they’re not old stock Americans . The Untermeyers and Rockefellers are real aristocrats but they’re not old stock Americans. The Vanderbilts and Pinkneys are old stock Americans.

    Old stock Americans range from homeless and 3rd generation on welfare to the Bush Family Mayflower descendants and everything in between.

    Families move up and down the SES scale through the centuries. Like ALL native indigenous English, not Welsh, Scotch or Irish Nixon is probably a descendant of English royalty. Go back further than his father a bus motorman and small shopkeeper and you’ll probably find some prosperous farmers, builders, merchants, knights and royalty.

    Families go up and down depending on many things, not all of which can be controlled. The civil war ruined the south and southerners for 100 years. Black slavery condemned the majority of southern Whites in some states to centuries of poverty before the civil war.

    And people get married. Best example a friend. Her Jewish parents arrived from Poland in the 1930s. She knows nothing about her ancestors other than they lived in the Austrian part of Poland and her mother cooked Austrian food.

    Her father in law is a direct descendant of the original Dutch who arrived in New York in 1625.
    Her mother in law is from the Irish who arrived in the 1850s. So her sons are old stock Americans on their fathers side. So are their children. There are streets and parks named after the old stock Dutch ancestors in NYC

    Southeast America is full of old stock Americans who know they’re old stock Americans because they never moved west and north.

    I believe most people use the revolution or 1774 as the cut off for old stock American.

  189. @nebulafox
    >Nixon was almost certainly innocent (he “threatened” Ford that he wanted a proper trial) and was really guilty of being Nixon.

    No. Leaving aside all the problems with the Nixon White House that would have me typing for hours, he conspired to obstruct justice, and that was an impeachable offense. The Watergate tapes couldn't make that clearer. Nixon was a narcissist who would have never, never have given up the office if he had any shred of surviving an impeachment.

    (I will say this, though: say what you will about Watergate, it didn't involve selling arms to terrorists or drug smuggling.)

    It's deeply telling that they are claiming that Trump obstructed Congress rather than justice. If they could claim Trump obstructed justice, the Democrats would. But they aren't.

    So, if he's guilty of obstructing Congress, does that mean Congress can act to impeach the President purely because Congress doesn't like that he doesn't follow their policies to the hilt? They and their media groupies are delusional if they don't think the GOP is going to do just that to the next Democrat who lands in the WH. The GOP played this game in the 1990s, with a toxic effect on our politics. This fallout is going to be even worse. Precedents are being set here by Congress: very bad ones.

    Doesn’t the 3 branches of government and separation of powers require congress and the executive branch the president to obstruct each other to maintain the balance of power?

  190. @J.Ross
    (Noah Feldman is, to put it mildly, not a Trump supporter.)

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

    Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

    If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.
     
    Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

    Whether or not Trump was actually impeached doesn’t matter. The media will keep referring to him as having been impeached, and the low-information voters and deranged anti-Trumpers won’t fuss over the fine points.

  191. How to fight an impeachment/thumb war challenge:

    The best thing Mike Pence could do for his boss right now is to say something frightening, or disgusting, or Christian, to the opposition, but not to the voters. Assuming he wants to help his boss.

    I suggest he should. No president was born in Indiana, but two of the three who lived there, the Harrisons and Lincoln, died shortly after Inauguration Day. (Lincoln’s second.) Be very careful, Mike.

  192. @The Wild Geese Howard
    Scott Adams also has some juicy young trim he's leading around by the nose:

    https://k61.kn3.net/taringa/2/7/6/2/8/6/47/dgrfy/F91.jpg

    I'll leave her instagram to the interested student.

    She looks like one of those Japanese sexbots.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    That's because she doesn't really look like that (and I'm not referring just to her fake boobs). This picture has been thru a "filter" so it is more like a cartoon than an actual photograph. Photos no longer represent reality (if they ever did).

    Here she is with an old looking Adams. He looks almost as old as Joe Biden. I'm guessing that she is a hapa. I think this photo has been monkeyed with also but not as much as the others.

    http://marrieddivorce.com/uploads/images/celebrity/Kristina-boyfriend-dating.JPG

  193. anon[615] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Who are "Elites"?

    Who are “Elites”?

    Billionaires, CEO’s of major corporations (especially finance and defence industry), stock brokers (big ones), people who live in the Hamptons, Hollywood moguls, democratic and republican party leaders, think tank guys who end up on the national security council, top brass at the Federal Reserve, but above all OLD WASP MONEY and JEWISH MONEY.
    ISteve commenters will have a better list than I do…

  194. @Jack D
    Misdemeanors?

    "High crimes and misdemeanors" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 - they just didn't have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one - you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It's not VERY good, it's not compelling, but it's good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible - in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can't carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it's good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on - the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents - the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it's gone forever - there's no putting it back. It's only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can't see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it's for a Good Cause - we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can't do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It's like carrying guns - it's not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn't follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that's not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

    “High crimes and misdemeanors” has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means.

    No. Here is Hamilton, in The Federalist 65 (330-31):

    The subjects of its (i.e., the Senate, with regard to its power to impeach) jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.

    Recall that George Mason proposed adding “maladministration” to the impeachable offenses but was rejected. Madison responded with: “So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” The founders did not intend impeachment to be merely a partisan exercise. The only way you can reach your conclusion is to reject Hamilton’s claim. Channel Gerald Ford if you want, but he hardly qualifies as the final word on impeachment. Trump did not engage in any misconduct, nor did he violate any public trust.

    The Democrats found no impeachable crimes. Their impeachment is wholly illegitimate, and it is the latest in their attacks against the institutions that provide at least a little bit of self-government.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Alden
    Seems to me Hamilton’s thoughts on impeachable offenses are as vague and ambiguous as Pelosi’s

    She, Schiff and the rest have nothing.
    , @Jack D
    The Federalist is not binding on the House and the Senate. They can impeach and remove anyone they want and can't be 2nd guessed by the Supreme Court or by anyone. A high crime or misdemeanor is whatever they say it is. Hamilton's standard is impossibly vague - according to the Dems, violation of public trust is exactly what Trump has done. If there were 67 Dem Senators, Trump would be out on his ass. Hamilton gets one thing right - impeachment is political, though he meant it in the old sense, that it affected the affairs of the people.
  195. @David In TN
    Nixon's enemies never thought he was "high-born." To the Kennedy crowd, Nixon "had no class," as JFK himself supposedly said. I saw a quote from Ben Bradlee, who said of Nixon, "He had no style." Al Gore's father, Albert Gore Sr., in a memoir called Nixon "plebeian."

    These people sneered at Nixon's "humble origins."

    And yet he was notoriously the best poker player in the Navy in WWII. Regressors to the mean really don’t like getting shown up by men moving in the opposite direction.

    Same thing behind the unhinged resentment of Trump.

  196. 1. The Senate must pass a bill, or whatever is required, demanding that the impeachment committee in the House submit the articles of impeachment by January 31, 2020 at the latest.

    2. The articles of impeachment must meet ordinary courtroom standards of factual evidence at both federal and state levels. There shall be no requirement that any degree of credibility be granted to anonymous, second, third or fourth hand witnesses.

    3. If in that time the committee insists that new information has surfaced, the committee will immediately and without delay present said information, in its entirety, again with no requirement that any degree of credibility be granted to anonymous, second, third or fourth hand witnesses.

    4. At the end of one week after said new information has been presented, should the Senate find that said information in no way substantially increases the credibility of the articles of impeachment, the deadline of January 31, 2020 shall remain in force.

    5. Further presentation of new information will not in any way extend the January 31, 2020 deadline.

    6. Should the impeachment committee fail to meet these requirements by the stated deadline, the Senate shall refuse to accept the articles of impeachment, declaring them null and void, and refuse to concede any constitutional requirement to proceed with a trial.

    (Repost this proposal as widely as you can.)

  197. @Bardon Kaldian

    and why he trolls Pelosi by making remarks like her teeth are about to fall out. She’s being dumb by taking the bait. Trump grasps something important about Pelosi’s personality. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro, was a mafia wannabe and hanger-on, who thought and acted like his scummy, violent, and corrupt pals. Basically, Pelosi comes from a family of hot-tempered Italian thugs, and they react as violently as ghetto blacks do to insults. They’re extremely touchy about being disrespected, and they HAVE to retaliate to keep the respect of their followers and maintain power.
     
    Wow.....

    What does “wow” mean?

  198. @Peterike
    Nah. Jews hated Nixon because Nixon went after Commies and most Commies were Jews. Simple.

    Exactly. The Jews went after him because of his service in the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Most of the Jews were communists. Even more so, the communist Jews who weren’t noticed were paranoid of being discovered for treasonous activities. Journalist Carl Bernstein’s parents were both communists federal employees fired during Truman’s purge of communists in the federal government. Verrrry interesting.

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.
     
    Right, only Jews are traitors. No Founding Stock WASP ever betrayed his country.

    One of the Venona messages, dated March 30, 1945, refers to an American with the code name Ales. According to the message, Ales was a Soviet agent working in the State Department, who accompanied President Roosevelt to the 1945 Yalta Conference and then flew to Moscow, both of which Hiss did. The message goes on to indicate that Ales met with Andrei Vyshinsky, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and was commended for his aid to the Soviets. The only State Dept. employee who could possibly be "Ales" was Hiss.
    , @Johann Ricke

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.
     
    Leaving aside the Venona documents, Hiss's primary defenders are the usual fellow travelers. Not exactly surprising.
  199. @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    “High crimes and misdemeanors” has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means.
     
    No. Here is Hamilton, in The Federalist 65 (330-31):

    The subjects of its (i.e., the Senate, with regard to its power to impeach) jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.

     

    Recall that George Mason proposed adding "maladministration" to the impeachable offenses but was rejected. Madison responded with: “So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” The founders did not intend impeachment to be merely a partisan exercise. The only way you can reach your conclusion is to reject Hamilton's claim. Channel Gerald Ford if you want, but he hardly qualifies as the final word on impeachment. Trump did not engage in any misconduct, nor did he violate any public trust.

    The Democrats found no impeachable crimes. Their impeachment is wholly illegitimate, and it is the latest in their attacks against the institutions that provide at least a little bit of self-government.

    Seems to me Hamilton’s thoughts on impeachable offenses are as vague and ambiguous as Pelosi’s

    She, Schiff and the rest have nothing.

  200. @Corvinus
    "His modus operandi is to argue in bad faith, forever changing the topic (and asking more questions) when he’s found out."

    The fact of the matter is that I argue in good faith, put forth cogent arguments, and back up my assertions with sources. Your "response" is to label me a Troll, which makes it easier for you not to critically analyze your own position. You are a slave to your confirmation bias.

    Internet links are internet links, nothing more. There’s a lot of nonsense in libraries, archives and the internet.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Internet links are internet links, nothing more. There’s a lot of nonsense in libraries, archives and the internet."

    LOL. You do realize that Mr. Sailer uses Internet links for his stories, right? Moreover, the Internet links provide background and evidence. It is up to YOU to counter that evidence. Hey, how about providing proof of your assertion that you read over 200,000 books in your lifetime as you once stated earlier?
  201. @Harry Baldwin
    She looks like one of those Japanese sexbots.

    That’s because she doesn’t really look like that (and I’m not referring just to her fake boobs). This picture has been thru a “filter” so it is more like a cartoon than an actual photograph. Photos no longer represent reality (if they ever did).

    Here she is with an old looking Adams. He looks almost as old as Joe Biden. I’m guessing that she is a hapa. I think this photo has been monkeyed with also but not as much as the others.

  202. @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    “High crimes and misdemeanors” has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means.
     
    No. Here is Hamilton, in The Federalist 65 (330-31):

    The subjects of its (i.e., the Senate, with regard to its power to impeach) jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.

     

    Recall that George Mason proposed adding "maladministration" to the impeachable offenses but was rejected. Madison responded with: “So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” The founders did not intend impeachment to be merely a partisan exercise. The only way you can reach your conclusion is to reject Hamilton's claim. Channel Gerald Ford if you want, but he hardly qualifies as the final word on impeachment. Trump did not engage in any misconduct, nor did he violate any public trust.

    The Democrats found no impeachable crimes. Their impeachment is wholly illegitimate, and it is the latest in their attacks against the institutions that provide at least a little bit of self-government.

    The Federalist is not binding on the House and the Senate. They can impeach and remove anyone they want and can’t be 2nd guessed by the Supreme Court or by anyone. A high crime or misdemeanor is whatever they say it is. Hamilton’s standard is impossibly vague – according to the Dems, violation of public trust is exactly what Trump has done. If there were 67 Dem Senators, Trump would be out on his ass. Hamilton gets one thing right – impeachment is political, though he meant it in the old sense, that it affected the affairs of the people.

    • Agree: Alden
  203. @Harry Baldwin
    Trump doesn’t handle stress well.

    I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who would have held up as well under the unrelenting onslaught as has Trump. I stand in awe.

    @Harry. I meant that in general he gets his shorts in a twist when he should be laughing at his enemies and getting on with business. Mind you, I’m not the President, am I…

    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only. 🙂

    • Replies: @Precious
    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only.

    I suspect Trump wants to use the Senate trial to testify. If he gets to testify, he can talk about anything and everything he wants to talk about...including all the dirt he dug up on the Democrats over the past few years.

    And by the time he is done talking...his re-election will be inevitable.

    I don't know this is the plan, but this is what I think he has planned.
    , @PhysicistDave
    Liza wrote:

    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only
     
    .It is a matter of slowly changing the cultural climate, moving the "Overton Window," so to speak. The whole Trump phenomenon is simply a matter of education, of teaching ordinary people that the ruling professional-managerial class is not on the side of normal, productive people.

    And that is also the real importance of what has recently happened to J. K. Rowling, Ellen DeGeneres, and so many others on the Left. Whether or not they change their own views, it shows ordinary people that no one is safe, that the whole point is to gouge out the eyes of anyone unwilling to offer full submission to the latest diktats of the ruling elite.

    And one by one, ordinary people are waking up and saying, "For God's sake, just leave us alone!"
  204. @Corvinus
    "It wasn’t strong-arming, it was diplomacy, and would have been very effective diplomacy (and still might be)."

    No, it was strong arming through back channels. Trump used his personal lawyer, rather than a White House official or the DOJ/State Department, to find "dirt" on a potential political opponent by way of a quid pro quo. His conduct is NOT normal presidential operating procedure. Several diplomats pointed it out emphatically in their testimony. John Bolton seems eager to testify, but says he must be compelled by a court. Even he realizes Trump's action is other than legal and diplomatic. If Obama had done the EXACT thing as Trump, House Republicans would have been calling for his head on a silver platter. Talk about double standards...

    Do you mean the fact that Hunter Biden was and is still being investigated for corruption by the Ukrainian government and indictments are coming? What’s wrong with investigating that, especially as virtually every State department employee is a loyal democrat?

    As I understand it, Giuliani didn’t investigate anything. He just asked for copies of the existing Ukrainian law enforcement reports.

    Please cite the federal civil, regulatory and criminal code that forbids an American President from obtaining copies of a criminal investigation in a foreign country. Remember, foreign affairs is solely the responsibility of the president, not one partisan party of congress critters.

    Especially as much of the Ukrainian economy consists of American foreign aid.

    Q. What is foreign aid?
    A. Foreign aid is direct deposit for dictators.

    If Trump were a bank official it would be due diligence.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Do you mean the fact that Hunter Biden was and is still being investigated for corruption by the Ukrainian government and indictments are coming?"

    Because of the quid pro quo. Remember, it is a new investigative team.

    "What’s wrong with investigating that, especially as virtually every State department employee is a loyal democrat?"

    At the request of the Justice or State Department rather than a rogue agent.

    "As I understand it, Giuliani didn’t investigate anything. He just asked for copies of the existing Ukrainian law enforcement reports."

    In order to investigate!

    "Please cite the federal civil, regulatory and criminal code that forbids an American President from obtaining copies of a criminal investigation in a foreign country."

    Thanks for the strawman. It is the process that matters here and how that information is obtained.
  205. @A123
    Apparently not... The DNC process was so flawed they are going to sit on the articles rather than send them to the Senate. (1)

    Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the Senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.
     
    This appears to be another catastrophic error by Pelosi and the DNC. Word on the street -- McConnell is preparing a discovery process to subpoena and depose of critical witnesses, such as DNC paid operative & sham whistleblower Eric Ciaramella. Pre-trial Senate investigations are not dependant on receipt of the articles.

    "Opposing Illegal Activity by the House" is a Constitutional duty of the Presidency, not a crime.

    🔼 TRUMP 2020 🔼
    ______________

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/18/cunning-lawfare-maneuver-house-will-withhold-submission-of-articles-from-senate/

    Impeachus interruptus?

    • LOL: Alden, Liza
  206. @Liza
    @Harry. I meant that in general he gets his shorts in a twist when he should be laughing at his enemies and getting on with business. Mind you, I'm not the President, am I...

    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only. :)

    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only.

    I suspect Trump wants to use the Senate trial to testify. If he gets to testify, he can talk about anything and everything he wants to talk about…including all the dirt he dug up on the Democrats over the past few years.

    And by the time he is done talking…his re-election will be inevitable.

    I don’t know this is the plan, but this is what I think he has planned.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    What a shame that the President has no way of communicating with the voters now and needs to go before the Senate in order to be heard. If only there was a way he could send short pithy messages directly to the American public...
  207. @Jonathan Mason
    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump's intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse--probably much worse-- in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.

    The Republicans really ought to do a volte face and impeach Trump for his own sake and the sake of his family. This will allow Mike Pence, who was hand-picked by Trump himself for exactly such an eventuality, to take over, and for the Republicans to select a solid candidate for next year's election, which may or may not be Pence. This will give the Republicans some chance of victory in 2020.

    If Trump is acquitted, which seems almost certain at this point unless Trump himself appears as a witness at his own impeachment trial and pleads guilty, his general demeanor and executive ability can only continue to deteriorate and by the time of the 2020 election those Republican Senators will find themselves standing to attention as the Titanic Elephant Party sinks below the icy waves and the band plays Hail To The Chief until there are only bubbles.

    But let Trump defend himself! Let Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and Mulvaney appear in front of the Senate and explain exactly who gave the order to the OMB for the Ukraine aid to be held up, and why. Let Biden and son of Biden appear too, to explain their point of view. The more the merrier.

    Jonathan Mason wrote:

    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse–probably much worse– in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election.

    The Dems honestly believe that the Progressive emphasis on process over substance has so bamboozled the American people that everyone will be shocked, shocked that Trump has been impeached and will now see what an evil degenerate he is!

    Except it turns out that ordinary Americans do not think that way. Ordinary Americans can look beyond the word “impeachment” and see that Trump did not do anything wrong.

    The elite is going to go bonkers: doesn’t the idiot populace understand that Trump was impeached? That this makes Trump as evil as… Andrew Johnson?

    Except that the guys who grow our food, build our cars, design our bridges, and fix our plumbing have this strange ability to look beyond words (they’d better — or we won’t have any food, cars, bridges, or plumbing!).

    Words vs. reality… but our ruling professional-managerial elite actually does not know that there is a reality beyond words.

  208. @Liza
    @Harry. I meant that in general he gets his shorts in a twist when he should be laughing at his enemies and getting on with business. Mind you, I'm not the President, am I...

    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only. :)

    Liza wrote:

    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only

    .It is a matter of slowly changing the cultural climate, moving the “Overton Window,” so to speak. The whole Trump phenomenon is simply a matter of education, of teaching ordinary people that the ruling professional-managerial class is not on the side of normal, productive people.

    And that is also the real importance of what has recently happened to J. K. Rowling, Ellen DeGeneres, and so many others on the Left. Whether or not they change their own views, it shows ordinary people that no one is safe, that the whole point is to gouge out the eyes of anyone unwilling to offer full submission to the latest diktats of the ruling elite.

    And one by one, ordinary people are waking up and saying, “For God’s sake, just leave us alone!”

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    The whole Trump phenomenon is simply a matter of education, of teaching ordinary people that the ruling professional-managerial class is not on the side of normal, productive people.
     
    This is also why iSteve is so important.

    iSteve is the modern equivalent of Charon the Boatman in Greek mythology. The difference is that iSteve works to ferry normiecucks from Clown World to Redpillistan.

    Also, Charon was tall. So is iSteve.

  209. @Jim Don Bob
    The best explanation I have heard is that Schiff told Pelosi in August the "we really got DJT on this Ukraine thing", and she let him go ahead with his 'impeachment inquiry'. It turned out to be a nothing burger, but the crazies believed it, so Pelosi had to go forward. Now the Ds are stuck having voted for impeachment and more than a few are going down next November.

    Pelosi didn’t really want to impeach Trump, but even the moderates in the Dem base were screaming at her to do something to stop him. Attacking an ex-VP (and his family) was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It’s was her or him, in the end.

  210. I’m caught in two minds about this. On the plus side, Trump has definitely mobilized and motivated the GOP to circle the wagons. Loyalty is a good thing, and in times past we haven’t had enough of it.

    On the other hand, we’re doing all this for Trump. In other countries we’ve got Viktor Orban and Boris Johnson straight up legit moving the ball forward. For us, we’re just treading water at best.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Our best hope with Trump is the appointment of federal judges. Remember, from school desegregation to trannies in women’s bathrooms and the military and other medical insurance paying for the operations it’s all done by the representatives of satan on earth, judges.

    Unfortunately, Republican judges often turn ultra liberal. Even more unfortunately America is ruled by judges. Separation of powers ended long ago in the 1870s Louisiana slaughterhouse case.

    It was fun to see how devastated the liberals were when Trump won. It’ll be fun again 11 months from now.

    Remember the Gore vs Bush election when the satanic liberals tried to use the courts to overthrow the election? How the recount did find more Gore ballots. But the recount also found more Bush ballots.

    So the 👿 liberals 😈 filed for another recount in yet another Florida county. The local municipal judge dismissed their suit immediately. I remember her exact words.
    “ I’m just one judge in one county in one state. I don’t have jurisdiction over a national election dismissed”. She was black BTW.youngish and pretty.

    Of course conservative judges can turn liberal once they realize the infinite power they have. First gay marriage, then they ruled that men are women.

    Merry Christmas one and all.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "we’ve got Viktor Orban and Boris Johnson straight up legit moving the ball forward"

    Orban, yes. He's actually done good things. Johnson, wait and see. Plenty of time for a betrayal, though you never know. He's started well, but I have few illusions. He's a chancer, but he decided his ambition was best served by riding the Brexit train, and now he's PM with a fat majority.

    He could go down as the Liberator, or the Great Betrayer. Let's hope he decides the latter field just has too much competition.
  211. @Moses
    Been following Adams since 2015 when he was the first to predict Trump's election victory.

    Adams has a lot of great, unique insights, such as "facts don't matter" in elections. I've learned a ton from his breakdown of Trump's persuasion techniques. Read all his books too, which I found worthwhile.

    Adams has some gaping blindspots though, of the BoomerCuck variety.

    He's prone to saying that race/ethnicity of immigrants doesn't matter, all while living comfortably in wealthy Pleasanton, CA which is 62% White, 30% Asian, 2% Black.

    He follows logic and goes right up to the race line, for example citing a press story excoriating "all White Males" as "racist" then in the next breath abandons it, saying "that doesn't matter to me, whatever."

    Almost as if his BoomerCuck pedigree is throttling the crimethink before it emerges into his consciousness.

    “He’s prone to saying that race/ethnicity of immigrants doesn’t matter, all while living comfortably in wealthy Pleasanton, CA which is 62% White, 30% Asian, 2% Black.”

    There is a “corridor” that runs along hwy 680, from Pleasanton up thru Walnut Creek which over ~ the last decade or so, I’ve come to referred to as larger San Francisco Bay Area’s “Whitopia”. When venturing over the hill to the Tri-Valley I’m always taken a little aback. It’s like another world, similar in racial demographic to the one that has long since moved away. I’ve always found it odd that “white” people surrendered Silicon Valley, with it’s moderate weather and close proximity to jobs, to take up residence in the less temperate, “remote” valley. Even the kids working the counter at the McDonald’s over there are Caucasian.

    Pleasanton is located center on this standardized grade school test map (SBAC “hard data” test results, not ratings based off warm & fuzzies). Each marker represents a school; bright green tested best, orange worst. The correlation between racial demographics/crime index and school test ranking is near perfect (ie White/Asian green). I used this map to determine my move back when my daughter turned age 4.

    too cool for school

    On those rare occasions when I am asked by someone outside the area as to where they should relocate I send them this link: https://school-ratings.com/

    • Replies: @Moses
    Just clicked over. Wow there are a LOT of red dots on the CA map. At least half. My guess is it's getting worse each passing year.

    Our new country is gonna be great!
  212. @Jack D
    I'm sorry but Donald Trump has never been interested in helping anyone other than Donald Trump in his entire long life. Attributing noble motives to what Trump did is just bullshit. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. We all know what he did and why he did it, but I am about as shocked as this as Captain Renault was to find that there was gambling going on in Rick's casino. There's politics going on in Washington? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!

    But making DJT out to be some kind of patriot is for the rubes. Yes, he loves America deep down (and in a way that Democrats don't and never will) but in this case he was looking for political advantage. Now part of the reason he was doing this was that he had been so screwed over by the media and the FBI and the Democrats with their false Russia narrative and if they had left him alone and treated him like a normal President he wouldn't have been doing this in the 1st place, but that was what was in his head and not some imaginary concern with the Ukrainians and their alliance. Trump frankly doesn't give a shit about the Ukrainians or any other foreign country. He was elected in part because he doesn't.

    Why bother impugn Trump’s motives? No-one really knows what motivates another and perhaps, no-one really knows their own motivation.

    Trump’s message certainly is to the benefit of U.S. citizens and he’s been “on message” since at least September 2, 1987 when he placed full page ads in NYT, WaPo, and the Boston Globe decrying misguided U.S. foreign policy.

    If you really want to understand how good Donald Trump is: just look at who hates him most.

  213. @Coemgen

    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration, ...
     
    Please give an example from the President's letter with a sound or, at least cogent, argument supporting your claim based on that example.

    Save the globalist/Democrat Party jingoism for left-side-of-the-bell-curve venues.

    Please give an example from the President’s letter with a sound or, at least cogent, argument supporting your claim based on that example.

    Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses …

    The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    The assistance of counsel clause includes, as relevant here, five distinct rights: the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel, the effective assistance of counsel, and the right to represent oneself pro se.

    A defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in any civil proceeding, including a deportation hearing.

    An impeachment is not a criminal trial. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibilities of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where they were removed.

    Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, defied a congressional subpoena in the impeachment inquiry dealing with Ukraine.

    An impeachment in the House is equivalent to an indictment. The Senate conducts the impeachment trial, and it is up to the Senate majority to determine the rules on how this is to be conducted. If the Senate denies Trump a right to legal representation or to bring witnesses, he is at odds with his own party.

    I would actually love to see Trump calling and cross examining witnesses at his Senate impeachment trial, because I think that would allow the world and the Senate to see how mentally compromised Trump actually is.

    Furthermore, if Trump were mentally competent, he would have availed himself of his right to have a lawyer look over this letter before he mailed it.

    • Replies: @Alden
    You haven’t kept up with the times. They’re not really defendants, but aliens at deportation hearings do have the right to counsel at every stage of the deportation process.

    So you’re claiming that Trump has no right to counsel? That he can’t defend himself? He can just be fired by congress?

    You know nothing about constitutional law. It’s not the literal words of the constitution. It’s more than 200 years of judicial decisions making precedents; or judge created constitutional law.


    Rather amusing that a liberal wants to go back 200 years to the exact words of the constitution when for the last 70 years liberal judges have just created constitutional law by ruling however they wish. You might check the wiki article on constitutional law before you write about it.
    , @Alden
    Is you are so dependent on the exact words of the constitution maybe you should read the section on impeachment

    A president can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors “. Note the word “ crime”. Crime is crime. High crime is an ancient British legal term for felony, a term still used 230 years ago. In all American jurisdictions, misdemeanor is defined as a lesser crime.

    Note the phrase high CRIME and the indisputable fact that misdemeanors are lesser crimes in America.

    Therefore, according to the constitution which you cited, an impeachment is a criminal trial and as you pointed out, the 6th amendment gives criminal defendants the right to counsel.

    Chief Justice Roberts will preside over the criminal impeachment trial, if, if the liberals ever find either a federal felony or misdemeanors with which to charge Trump.

  214. @Buck Ransom
    I like the part where they yammer on for months about the mutual devotion of the US and Ukraine, but no one ever mentions the teensy detail how the Obama-era State Department was behind the 2014 coup to depose Ukraine's legitimate Moscow-friendly government and replace it with the current one that answers to Washington, DC.

    They don’t mention it because it’s not true. The Ukrainians did their own coup to get rid of the corrupt Moscow loyal government and replace it with one that was loyal to their own people. The Obama State Dept. (indeed today’s State Dept.) is a bunch of clowns and couldn’t organize a coup if it wanted to. Russia is the one that sends “little green men” to organize coups, not the US. The USG is full of leaks and whistleblowers and can’t keep anything secret so you would be reading about any US sponsored coup attempt on Wikileaks, maybe even before it happened. If the US says something like “we support those who are demonstrating for freedom” that doesn’t make it a US sponsored coup.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Buck Ransom
    Victoria Nuland of the Obama State Department is on camera bragging of the $5 billion spent by the United States in Ukraine to make the coup possible.
  215. @Precious
    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only.

    I suspect Trump wants to use the Senate trial to testify. If he gets to testify, he can talk about anything and everything he wants to talk about...including all the dirt he dug up on the Democrats over the past few years.

    And by the time he is done talking...his re-election will be inevitable.

    I don't know this is the plan, but this is what I think he has planned.

    What a shame that the President has no way of communicating with the voters now and needs to go before the Senate in order to be heard. If only there was a way he could send short pithy messages directly to the American public…

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Precious
    What a shame that the President has no way of communicating with the voters now and needs to go before the Senate in order to be heard. If only there was a way he could send short pithy messages directly to the American public…

    ^Individual who does not understand timing for dramatic effect
  216. @Alden
    Internet links are internet links, nothing more. There’s a lot of nonsense in libraries, archives and the internet.

    “Internet links are internet links, nothing more. There’s a lot of nonsense in libraries, archives and the internet.”

    LOL. You do realize that Mr. Sailer uses Internet links for his stories, right? Moreover, the Internet links provide background and evidence. It is up to YOU to counter that evidence. Hey, how about providing proof of your assertion that you read over 200,000 books in your lifetime as you once stated earlier?

  217. @Anonymous
    You just can’t help yourself can you.

    “You just can’t help yourself can you.”

    Indeed, to hold Mr. Sailer accountable.

  218. @Alden
    Do you mean the fact that Hunter Biden was and is still being investigated for corruption by the Ukrainian government and indictments are coming? What’s wrong with investigating that, especially as virtually every State department employee is a loyal democrat?

    As I understand it, Giuliani didn’t investigate anything. He just asked for copies of the existing Ukrainian law enforcement reports.

    Please cite the federal civil, regulatory and criminal code that forbids an American President from obtaining copies of a criminal investigation in a foreign country. Remember, foreign affairs is solely the responsibility of the president, not one partisan party of congress critters.

    Especially as much of the Ukrainian economy consists of American foreign aid.

    Q. What is foreign aid?
    A. Foreign aid is direct deposit for dictators.

    If Trump were a bank official it would be due diligence.

    “Do you mean the fact that Hunter Biden was and is still being investigated for corruption by the Ukrainian government and indictments are coming?”

    Because of the quid pro quo. Remember, it is a new investigative team.

    “What’s wrong with investigating that, especially as virtually every State department employee is a loyal democrat?”

    At the request of the Justice or State Department rather than a rogue agent.

    “As I understand it, Giuliani didn’t investigate anything. He just asked for copies of the existing Ukrainian law enforcement reports.”

    In order to investigate!

    “Please cite the federal civil, regulatory and criminal code that forbids an American President from obtaining copies of a criminal investigation in a foreign country.”

    Thanks for the strawman. It is the process that matters here and how that information is obtained.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Foreign affairs are totally within the jurisdiction of the president, including whatever is going on in Ukraine. State is the one cabinet department that answers to, and must obey, the orders of the president.

    The president is in sole charge of that department. Whatever civil service state department employees personally think, it’s the one department where the president is in charge. Even the all powerful judiciary has no power to give orders to the president about foreign affairs


    The president has the power to appoint ambassadors and special envoys to do the president’s bidding in all aspects of foreign affairs.

    There’s no law, regulation or precedent that Ambassadors and special envoys be civil service state department employees.

    Most presidents have appointed non civil service state department people as ambassadors. Most presidents send special envoys who are not civil service state department employees to deal with foreign countries.

    A special envoy of the president to a foreign country is not a rogue agent. Obtaining copies of a Ukrainian government investigation is not a violation of any American process or procedure.

    The Ukrainians can give copies of their investigations to anyone they wish; including an envoy of the president of the United States regardless of what you think.

    The American justice department has no jurisdiction in foreign countries although there is cooperation, but strictly with the consent of both countries.

    Again, please cite any federal criminal, civil regulatory or procedural code that forbids the president from being freely given investigation reports by a foreign country. Ukraine could have refused to give the reports to Trump’s envoy. But the reports were given to Trump’s envoy.

    You’re way way out of your depth old crow.

    Your posts just display complete absolute ignorance of the powers and jurisdiction of the president in foreign affairs.

    Google a 7th grade social studies lesson on the subject and stop embarrassing yourself
    , @Alden
    Rogue agent? State department, not the president has absolute jurisdiction over foreign affairs?

    You’re just repeating talking points your employer emails you. Your employer should check the facts before ordering you to post such falsehoods on the internet.
  219. @HammerJack
    I think they're just going to string her up instead. More fun and this way they can get cishet republican males to pay attention to their antics for once.

    Yes the democrats are wasting the nation's time and money as usual with this entire charade, which they know full well will lead to naught. But is it a good thing or a bad thing that they're not busy writing legislation instead?

    The one lasting effect will be that the threshold for what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors now is simply a matter of whether the president is from the same party as theHouse majority. Which means Democrat forever after.

    But is it a good thing or a bad thing that they’re not busy writing legislation instead?

    A good thing, unquestionably. From the start, my main reason for favoring Trump was that he and Congress would be too busy spatting with each other (no matter which party controlled Congress) to create any big, expensive new programs or agencies. (I never thought Trump was serious about reducing immigration.)

  220. @Jack D
    They don't mention it because it's not true. The Ukrainians did their own coup to get rid of the corrupt Moscow loyal government and replace it with one that was loyal to their own people. The Obama State Dept. (indeed today's State Dept.) is a bunch of clowns and couldn't organize a coup if it wanted to. Russia is the one that sends "little green men" to organize coups, not the US. The USG is full of leaks and whistleblowers and can't keep anything secret so you would be reading about any US sponsored coup attempt on Wikileaks, maybe even before it happened. If the US says something like "we support those who are demonstrating for freedom" that doesn't make it a US sponsored coup.

    Victoria Nuland of the Obama State Department is on camera bragging of the $5 billion spent by the United States in Ukraine to make the coup possible.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Show us the link. I guarantee that she is only saying this if you take her out of context and you twist her words beyond all recognition.
  221. @Boethiuss
    I'm caught in two minds about this. On the plus side, Trump has definitely mobilized and motivated the GOP to circle the wagons. Loyalty is a good thing, and in times past we haven't had enough of it.

    On the other hand, we're doing all this for Trump. In other countries we've got Viktor Orban and Boris Johnson straight up legit moving the ball forward. For us, we're just treading water at best.

    Our best hope with Trump is the appointment of federal judges. Remember, from school desegregation to trannies in women’s bathrooms and the military and other medical insurance paying for the operations it’s all done by the representatives of satan on earth, judges.

    Unfortunately, Republican judges often turn ultra liberal. Even more unfortunately America is ruled by judges. Separation of powers ended long ago in the 1870s Louisiana slaughterhouse case.

    It was fun to see how devastated the liberals were when Trump won. It’ll be fun again 11 months from now.

    Remember the Gore vs Bush election when the satanic liberals tried to use the courts to overthrow the election? How the recount did find more Gore ballots. But the recount also found more Bush ballots.

    So the 👿 liberals 😈 filed for another recount in yet another Florida county. The local municipal judge dismissed their suit immediately. I remember her exact words.
    “ I’m just one judge in one county in one state. I don’t have jurisdiction over a national election dismissed”. She was black BTW.youngish and pretty.

    Of course conservative judges can turn liberal once they realize the infinite power they have. First gay marriage, then they ruled that men are women.

    Merry Christmas one and all.

  222. @Alden
    Exactly. The Jews went after him because of his service in the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Most of the Jews were communists. Even more so, the communist Jews who weren’t noticed were paranoid of being discovered for treasonous activities. Journalist Carl Bernstein’s parents were both communists federal employees fired during Truman’s purge of communists in the federal government. Verrrry interesting.

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.

    Right, only Jews are traitors. No Founding Stock WASP ever betrayed his country.

    One of the Venona messages, dated March 30, 1945, refers to an American with the code name Ales. According to the message, Ales was a Soviet agent working in the State Department, who accompanied President Roosevelt to the 1945 Yalta Conference and then flew to Moscow, both of which Hiss did. The message goes on to indicate that Ales met with Andrei Vyshinsky, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and was commended for his aid to the Soviets. The only State Dept. employee who could possibly be “Ales” was Hiss.

    • Replies: @Alden
    I know, I know, you’re right.

    I didn’t mean to say most of the Jews were communists. I meant to say most of the communists were Jews.

    Even non Jewish IBEW and longshoremen Union were heavily really communist 100 years ago. That’s probably why IBEW is the the only union the liberals haven’t destroyed. Probably because the judges don’t want their court houses burned down because of illegal alien non licensed contractors and workers doing the electrical work.
    , @David In TN
    Anyone who has studied Communist spies knows there were Old Stock type upper crust traitors among them.
  223. @Alden
    Exactly. The Jews went after him because of his service in the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Most of the Jews were communists. Even more so, the communist Jews who weren’t noticed were paranoid of being discovered for treasonous activities. Journalist Carl Bernstein’s parents were both communists federal employees fired during Truman’s purge of communists in the federal government. Verrrry interesting.

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.

    Leaving aside the Venona documents, Hiss’s primary defenders are the usual fellow travelers. Not exactly surprising.

    • Replies: @Alden
    They’ll never shut up. The Rosenberg sons, the Merepohl brothers are pushing 80 and still invited to college campuses to proclaim their parents were innocent to the younger generation.
  224. @Jonathan Mason

    Please give an example from the President’s letter with a sound or, at least cogent, argument supporting your claim based on that example.
     
    Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses ...

    The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    The assistance of counsel clause includes, as relevant here, five distinct rights: the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel, the effective assistance of counsel, and the right to represent oneself pro se.

    A defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in any civil proceeding, including a deportation hearing.

    An impeachment is not a criminal trial. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibilities of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where they were removed.

    Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, defied a congressional subpoena in the impeachment inquiry dealing with Ukraine.

    An impeachment in the House is equivalent to an indictment. The Senate conducts the impeachment trial, and it is up to the Senate majority to determine the rules on how this is to be conducted. If the Senate denies Trump a right to legal representation or to bring witnesses, he is at odds with his own party.

    I would actually love to see Trump calling and cross examining witnesses at his Senate impeachment trial, because I think that would allow the world and the Senate to see how mentally compromised Trump actually is.

    Furthermore, if Trump were mentally competent, he would have availed himself of his right to have a lawyer look over this letter before he mailed it.

    You haven’t kept up with the times. They’re not really defendants, but aliens at deportation hearings do have the right to counsel at every stage of the deportation process.

    So you’re claiming that Trump has no right to counsel? That he can’t defend himself? He can just be fired by congress?

    You know nothing about constitutional law. It’s not the literal words of the constitution. It’s more than 200 years of judicial decisions making precedents; or judge created constitutional law.

    Rather amusing that a liberal wants to go back 200 years to the exact words of the constitution when for the last 70 years liberal judges have just created constitutional law by ruling however they wish. You might check the wiki article on constitutional law before you write about it.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    So you’re claiming that Trump has no right to counsel? That he can’t defend himself? He can just be fired by congress?
     
    Read what I posted.

    The impeachment hearings in the House are more akin to an indictment, not a trial. Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, was invited to appear at the House hearings.

    Trump has not yet had the impeachment trial in the Senate.

    If he is denied the right to testify, bring witnesses, or have a lawyer, then that is on the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump is the nominal leader of the Republican Party, and his senators should allow him to have a lawyer, call witnesses, and to give evidence himself under oath and be cross-examined on that evidence.
  225. @Jack D

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.
     
    Right, only Jews are traitors. No Founding Stock WASP ever betrayed his country.

    One of the Venona messages, dated March 30, 1945, refers to an American with the code name Ales. According to the message, Ales was a Soviet agent working in the State Department, who accompanied President Roosevelt to the 1945 Yalta Conference and then flew to Moscow, both of which Hiss did. The message goes on to indicate that Ales met with Andrei Vyshinsky, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and was commended for his aid to the Soviets. The only State Dept. employee who could possibly be "Ales" was Hiss.

    I know, I know, you’re right.

    I didn’t mean to say most of the Jews were communists. I meant to say most of the communists were Jews.

    Even non Jewish IBEW and longshoremen Union were heavily really communist 100 years ago. That’s probably why IBEW is the the only union the liberals haven’t destroyed. Probably because the judges don’t want their court houses burned down because of illegal alien non licensed contractors and workers doing the electrical work.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    In NY in the 30s-50s, most Communists were Jews. In NY in the 30s-50s, most everyone was Jewish or at least it seemed that way. Outside of NY there were a lot of non-Jewish Communists because there were lots of non-Jews. Communism and socialism in those days had appeal to some WASP intellectuals (Hiss), Finnish miners from the Minnesota Iron Range (Gus Hall), midwestern railroad workers (Eugene V. Debs), etc.

    Jewish Communists and socialists in NY looked up to and admired their non-Jewish mentors in the movement. Especially in the '30s, it looked like capitalism was failing and the Soviet Union was the Future. Stalin's crimes were not well known. People were naive and fell for the propaganda. Nowadays in retrospect they look like suckers or traitors but at the time they were mostly idealistic young people who thought that they were doing the right thing.

    Unions in NY were generally either Communist affiliated or Mob affiliated.

    , @Anonymous
    Say what you will about the IBEW, they get their rank and file a decent living and the work, if somewhat expensive, gets done to code and at least sort of promptly. Nonunion electrical work, where we can have it done, is cheaper but quality and scheduling often suck. They have to be micromanaged.
  226. @Desiderius
    Amash's principal source of (legit) income is Chinese, so he's a total outlier.

    Neocon = invade/invite

    Deep State = two-tier Justice

    Of course they're useful, they're what got Trump elected. Trump is on video criticizing Pelosi for not impeaching Bush!

    Trump has indeed won over those who are still within the party, but many Bush/McCain Deep Staters and neocons had already seen the writing on the wall and jumped ship. The DC area went 96% for Hillary. All the neocon publications have either folded up or are under new badges madly thrashing around trying to justify ousting Trump or voting D just this once. There are still putatively R factions within the Deep State, but many are actively NeverTrump to this day, like our friend Mason here, since unlike members of Congress civil servants are supposed to hold their allegiances close to the vest.

    Oft evil will shall evil mar, since their thirst for Pence has given the Ds the false hopes they've needed to talk themselves into what may well be a ruinous impeachment.

    The Weekly Standard reboot is arguing to dump Pence for Tulsi.

    https://thebulwark.com/trump-tulsi-2020/

    Sounds stupid to me, but once again shows the Neocons!!!!! analysis that some people liked and was useful circa 2002 isn’t now.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Look, I know you're sore about the various anti-semitisms running around loose out there. They're real and they're spectacular. But just because people are out to get you doesn't mean you need to be paranoid*.

    By neocons I mean neocons. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, the whole gang. I got fooled by them badly. Steve (and Trump!) convinced me they were and are dead wrong, and from this side of the fence it explains a great deal of the mystery of R collapse in 2006 (and continuing R unpopularity) that had otherwise eluded my understanding. By neocons now I'm speaking of Taylor, Nichols, Kerr, Yovanovitch, etc...

    If the Bulwark is breaking with that claque it's the first smart thing that set has done in a decade. About damn time.

    * - it is also the case that accusations of anti-semitism have been clumsily weaponized in a way that impedes detecting and contending against the real thing, as with anti-racism.

    , @anon
    The Weekly Standard reboot is arguing to dump Pence for Tulsi.

    Lol, that's extremely retarded. Better idea than dumping Pence for David French or Egg McMuffin, but still retarded. Who's paying for that retardation this time?
    , @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/HarrietBaldwin/status/1208009570741817344?s=20

    Interesting timing. No one can say they’re timid.
  227. @Jack D

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.
     
    Right, only Jews are traitors. No Founding Stock WASP ever betrayed his country.

    One of the Venona messages, dated March 30, 1945, refers to an American with the code name Ales. According to the message, Ales was a Soviet agent working in the State Department, who accompanied President Roosevelt to the 1945 Yalta Conference and then flew to Moscow, both of which Hiss did. The message goes on to indicate that Ales met with Andrei Vyshinsky, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and was commended for his aid to the Soviets. The only State Dept. employee who could possibly be "Ales" was Hiss.

    Anyone who has studied Communist spies knows there were Old Stock type upper crust traitors among them.

  228. @Jack D
    What a shame that the President has no way of communicating with the voters now and needs to go before the Senate in order to be heard. If only there was a way he could send short pithy messages directly to the American public...

    What a shame that the President has no way of communicating with the voters now and needs to go before the Senate in order to be heard. If only there was a way he could send short pithy messages directly to the American public…

    ^Individual who does not understand timing for dramatic effect

    • Replies: @Jack D
    ^Individual who does not understand that Trump has as much to loss as he has to gain from cross examination on the witness stand.

    Trump is a scrappy fighter and would surely land some blows under cross but he would also have to take a lot of punches (and maybe he is not as light on his feet as he once was). The last place I would want to put Trump is up on a witness stand. Trump may be screaming "let me at 'em" but he may not be the best judge of his current capabilities.
  229. @Alden
    I know, I know, you’re right.

    I didn’t mean to say most of the Jews were communists. I meant to say most of the communists were Jews.

    Even non Jewish IBEW and longshoremen Union were heavily really communist 100 years ago. That’s probably why IBEW is the the only union the liberals haven’t destroyed. Probably because the judges don’t want their court houses burned down because of illegal alien non licensed contractors and workers doing the electrical work.

    In NY in the 30s-50s, most Communists were Jews. In NY in the 30s-50s, most everyone was Jewish or at least it seemed that way. Outside of NY there were a lot of non-Jewish Communists because there were lots of non-Jews. Communism and socialism in those days had appeal to some WASP intellectuals (Hiss), Finnish miners from the Minnesota Iron Range (Gus Hall), midwestern railroad workers (Eugene V. Debs), etc.

    Jewish Communists and socialists in NY looked up to and admired their non-Jewish mentors in the movement. Especially in the ’30s, it looked like capitalism was failing and the Soviet Union was the Future. Stalin’s crimes were not well known. People were naive and fell for the propaganda. Nowadays in retrospect they look like suckers or traitors but at the time they were mostly idealistic young people who thought that they were doing the right thing.

    Unions in NY were generally either Communist affiliated or Mob affiliated.

  230. @Carolingian Leprechaun

    The six-page letter to the Speaker of the House clearly shows the extent of Trump’s intellectual deterioration, which can only get worse–probably much worse– in the next 10 1/2 months before the general election. Clearly Trump is holed below the waterline.
     
    He has been like this since the start, which accounts for why he has accomplished so little.

    Similar story with Bush II. Sure, he was brighter than Kerry, but his IQ was dwarfed by the Neocons in his cabinet. It's easy to be tricked into stuff when you're forced to substantially rely on people who are much smarter.

    Similar story with Bush II. Sure, he was brighter than Kerry, but his IQ was dwarfed by the Neocons in his cabinet. It’s easy to be tricked into stuff when you’re forced to substantially rely on people who are much smarter.

    There’s no indication that either Bush or Kerry had intellectual deficits of note. They’re politicians, not physics professors. ‘Neocon’ is a nonsense term unless you’re referring to a discrete set of academics and publicists (none of whom were in Bush’s cabinet, which was chock-a-block with quondam elected officials and various and sundry from the Republican establishment).

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Yes, that's all of Western history in a nutshell - kind hearted but naive goyim are constantly being outsmarted and cheated by clever Jews. Until one day the goy wakes up and realizes that he has been bamboozled and put the Jews to the gallows, but not before giving them an opportunity to repent and convert to Christianity, which they stubbornly refuse to do. George Bush II is the Duke of Württemberg and the part of the Jud Süß is played by Neocons. The End.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    There’s no indication that either Bush or Kerry had intellectual deficits of note.
     
    so "Islam is a peaceful religion" was an outright lie? I gave him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he was dumb enough to believe it.

    He attended corrupt backwater Bible colleges, after all.
  231. @Reg Cæsar

    President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president.
     
    As opposed to Jackson's ethnic cleansing, Wilson's chucking of the First Amendment and census manipulation, FDR's Neutrality Act violations, domestic internment camps, and carpet bombing of civilians abroad, Truman's nuclear incineration of a Christian cathedral, along with the tens of thousands of civilians nearby, Truman's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Clinton's, and Obama's foreign wars without a declaration from Congress...

    It seems like we have a partisan double standard here.


    All of these presidents should have died in prison, except Clinton, for whom a backwoods lynching would be more appropriate.

    It seems like we have a partisan double standard here.

    It is worse than a double standard–it ignores all the false flags (long long list) that have caused America to go to war against just about everybody in history.

    No President (and both parties are equally guilty) has been impeached for a false flag–not one.

    Those were _blatant_ abuses of power.

  232. @Art Deco
    Similar story with Bush II. Sure, he was brighter than Kerry, but his IQ was dwarfed by the Neocons in his cabinet. It’s easy to be tricked into stuff when you’re forced to substantially rely on people who are much smarter.

    There's no indication that either Bush or Kerry had intellectual deficits of note. They're politicians, not physics professors. 'Neocon' is a nonsense term unless you're referring to a discrete set of academics and publicists (none of whom were in Bush's cabinet, which was chock-a-block with quondam elected officials and various and sundry from the Republican establishment).

    Yes, that’s all of Western history in a nutshell – kind hearted but naive goyim are constantly being outsmarted and cheated by clever Jews. Until one day the goy wakes up and realizes that he has been bamboozled and put the Jews to the gallows, but not before giving them an opportunity to repent and convert to Christianity, which they stubbornly refuse to do. George Bush II is the Duke of Württemberg and the part of the Jud Süß is played by Neocons. The End.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Given that the guy you're talking to also thinks "international law" is a nonsense term and that India wasn't a British colony (and, no doubt, that a gay marriage is one with a lot of dancing) I'm not sure I'd give uncritical acceptance to his terminological fatwas.
  233. @Precious
    What a shame that the President has no way of communicating with the voters now and needs to go before the Senate in order to be heard. If only there was a way he could send short pithy messages directly to the American public…

    ^Individual who does not understand timing for dramatic effect

    ^Individual who does not understand that Trump has as much to loss as he has to gain from cross examination on the witness stand.

    Trump is a scrappy fighter and would surely land some blows under cross but he would also have to take a lot of punches (and maybe he is not as light on his feet as he once was). The last place I would want to put Trump is up on a witness stand. Trump may be screaming “let me at ’em” but he may not be the best judge of his current capabilities.

    • Replies: @Precious
    Individual who does not understand that Trump has as much to loss as he has to gain from cross examination on the witness stand...The last place I would want to put Trump is up on a witness stand.

    You are correct, I do not understand what Trump has to lose by going under cross examination. There is no criminal statue being used to impeach him. Mueller's investigation and the House investigations haven't found anything, so unless they have been holding something back, you have an innocent man testifying up at the stand.

    Who can declassify anything he wants in order to back up whatever he is saying with the evidence collected from all the FISA warrants he has been issuing ever since he fired Comey. Now maybe you think Trump runs his mouth off without paying attention to what he is saying, but I noticed that the IG report backed up everything Trump said about being spied on.

    Based on what McConnell, Graham and Trump have said, they plan to use the Senate trial as a kill shot. I could be wrong, they could be bluffing. A Senate trial may not happen. But if it does, and Trump doesn't testify, you can gloat and remind me all you want as I graciously admit I was wrong.
    , @Desiderius
    He'd also have one hand tied behind his back by his erstwhile allies.

    Pelosi is savvy enough to know that Rs (if not Trump) want this all to go away. They either haven't learned how to play offense yet or are afraid of what would be uncovered in a trial. The McGahn hearing is in January. Look for senate Rs to cave before then.

  234. @Lot
    The Weekly Standard reboot is arguing to dump Pence for Tulsi.

    https://thebulwark.com/trump-tulsi-2020/

    Sounds stupid to me, but once again shows the Neocons!!!!! analysis that some people liked and was useful circa 2002 isn’t now.

    Look, I know you’re sore about the various anti-semitisms running around loose out there. They’re real and they’re spectacular. But just because people are out to get you doesn’t mean you need to be paranoid*.

    By neocons I mean neocons. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, the whole gang. I got fooled by them badly. Steve (and Trump!) convinced me they were and are dead wrong, and from this side of the fence it explains a great deal of the mystery of R collapse in 2006 (and continuing R unpopularity) that had otherwise eluded my understanding. By neocons now I’m speaking of Taylor, Nichols, Kerr, Yovanovitch, etc…

    If the Bulwark is breaking with that claque it’s the first smart thing that set has done in a decade. About damn time.

    * – it is also the case that accusations of anti-semitism have been clumsily weaponized in a way that impedes detecting and contending against the real thing, as with anti-racism.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    By neocons I mean neocons. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, the whole gang.

    Cheney was a standard-issue Republican who started out as a congressional aide in 1968 (working for an ordinary House member from Wisconsin) thence to Gerald Ford's staff, thence to a seat in Congress, thence to a seat in papa Bush's cabinet; he had no particular association with the circles of people organized around Ben Wattenberg, Irving Kristol, Paul Nitze, or Norman Podhoretz. Kristol is a lapsed history professor who, during the period running from 1981 to 2009 never advocated anything terribly distinctive in the Republican milieu. His father had a mildly interesting political biography; he did not. NB his foray into public office was a stint on papa George Bush's PR staff. Review the last 4 years, and that will tell you how much influence Kristol actually had. Wolfowitz might just fit your descriptor; he was a 2d echelon official on the civilian side of the Defense Department.
  235. @Paleo Liberal
    I am not impartial. Most of you don’t care what a liberal thinks about Trump. I won’t say if I thought he should have been impeached or not. My opinion is very complicated.

    A few interesting tidbits:

    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    Moral — if the Elites like you, and/or your party controls the House of Representatives, you cannot be impeached no matter what you do. It the Elites hate you and the other party controls the HoR, you will be impeached.

    Conviction is another matter entirely.

    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    You’re addled head has constructed some monster which you call ‘The Elite’ with a single mind and will. Rather like The Nestines in Doctor Who. Unless you mean by ‘The Elite’ something like ‘people in the social circle of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr’. This is a nonsense judgment. LBJ logged 36 years in Washington politics and had only one career setback. He was the Senate Majority Leader. As for Nixon, party influentials gave him the Republican presidential nomination on a silver platter in 1960; he had no significant opposition. (The vice presidency during the years running from 1804 to 1956 was not been a gateway to the presidency except by succession. There were only two occasions during that span of years when an outgoing or former vp was nominated and only one where such a creature was elected)

    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    Tip O’Neill and the bulk of the Democratic congressional caucus didn’t care for him because he was a technocrat not interested in their priorities and given to clueless initiatives. Others didn’t care for him because he was a klutz given to bursts of vapidity. There wasn’t some grand disconnect between elite opinion and popular opinion on Carter. He irked and bored broad swaths of both.

    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    Ford had contentious business dealings with Congress and congenial personal dealings. He was a basically sanguine man who’d spent 25 years in the company of the people he was crabbing with during the week. “Politics stops at 5:00 o’clock” was a Fordism.” (He had a personal dislike for Reagan, Carter, and, in the end, Nixon).

    There was no component of the Washington establishment enamored of Reagan, bar some think tank denizens and a faction of the Republican congressional caucus.

    The rest is a fantasy on your part.

    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    The notion that ‘elites’ ‘hated’ Clinton is bizarre. Democratic pols were jealous of him because he had certain inter-personal skills they lacked (“Clinton is an unusually good liar, quoth Gov. Kerrey). Clinton ended up in the docket in part because of the machinations of Republican lawfare artists (see the Paula Jones suit), whose work was promoted by Rush Limbaugh and The American Spectator. That’s not the Acela corridor establishment. The Starr crew prosecuted the McDougals, Gov. Tucker, and Webb Hubbell for actual crimes, not for process crimes – bank fraud, money laundering, &c. In re Bill and Billings-records Hill, there’s a reason Susan McDougal cooled her heels in jail for 18 months rather than give testimony to a grand jury under a grant of immunity.

    The Clintons were crooked by default and recruited bent characters. Repair to Gary Aldrich’s memoir on the comical difficulties he had trying to conduct FBI background investigations of Clinton’s White House staff (something routine under his predecessor). They were given effective permission to refuse to co-operate (though some did – e.g. Vincent Foster). He was able to ascertain that there were a mess of drug users and tax scofflaws on Clinton’s staff, but it was like pulling teeth to complete the process on any one of them. Look at the Livingstone-Marceca troll through the FBI files on prominent Republicans or look at the travel office firings. Both involved corrupting the FBI (who were willing to co-operate). Look at the mass dismissal of U.S. Attorneys in 1993.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @David In TN
    A good summary. Clinton certainly was in good standing with the liberal establishment.

    I recall reading somewhere that R. Emmett Tyrell told his financial backers he would drive Clinton out of office by commissioning articles on his sexual behavior. The David Brock piece sourced by the state troopers led to the Paula Jones Suit and impeachment, which failed in the Democratic majority Senate.
  236. @Desiderius
    Look, I know you're sore about the various anti-semitisms running around loose out there. They're real and they're spectacular. But just because people are out to get you doesn't mean you need to be paranoid*.

    By neocons I mean neocons. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, the whole gang. I got fooled by them badly. Steve (and Trump!) convinced me they were and are dead wrong, and from this side of the fence it explains a great deal of the mystery of R collapse in 2006 (and continuing R unpopularity) that had otherwise eluded my understanding. By neocons now I'm speaking of Taylor, Nichols, Kerr, Yovanovitch, etc...

    If the Bulwark is breaking with that claque it's the first smart thing that set has done in a decade. About damn time.

    * - it is also the case that accusations of anti-semitism have been clumsily weaponized in a way that impedes detecting and contending against the real thing, as with anti-racism.

    By neocons I mean neocons. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, the whole gang.

    Cheney was a standard-issue Republican who started out as a congressional aide in 1968 (working for an ordinary House member from Wisconsin) thence to Gerald Ford’s staff, thence to a seat in Congress, thence to a seat in papa Bush’s cabinet; he had no particular association with the circles of people organized around Ben Wattenberg, Irving Kristol, Paul Nitze, or Norman Podhoretz. Kristol is a lapsed history professor who, during the period running from 1981 to 2009 never advocated anything terribly distinctive in the Republican milieu. His father had a mildly interesting political biography; he did not. NB his foray into public office was a stint on papa George Bush’s PR staff. Review the last 4 years, and that will tell you how much influence Kristol actually had. Wolfowitz might just fit your descriptor; he was a 2d echelon official on the civilian side of the Defense Department.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    They all advocated, and advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite. Whether Cheney was talked into it or was a prime mover and/or Kristol's long slide into national joke are neither here nor there.

    Neocon is what they're known as by those who vote against them, so it remains a useful descriptor.
  237. @Jack D
    ^Individual who does not understand that Trump has as much to loss as he has to gain from cross examination on the witness stand.

    Trump is a scrappy fighter and would surely land some blows under cross but he would also have to take a lot of punches (and maybe he is not as light on his feet as he once was). The last place I would want to put Trump is up on a witness stand. Trump may be screaming "let me at 'em" but he may not be the best judge of his current capabilities.

    Individual who does not understand that Trump has as much to loss as he has to gain from cross examination on the witness stand…The last place I would want to put Trump is up on a witness stand.

    You are correct, I do not understand what Trump has to lose by going under cross examination. There is no criminal statue being used to impeach him. Mueller’s investigation and the House investigations haven’t found anything, so unless they have been holding something back, you have an innocent man testifying up at the stand.

    Who can declassify anything he wants in order to back up whatever he is saying with the evidence collected from all the FISA warrants he has been issuing ever since he fired Comey. Now maybe you think Trump runs his mouth off without paying attention to what he is saying, but I noticed that the IG report backed up everything Trump said about being spied on.

    Based on what McConnell, Graham and Trump have said, they plan to use the Senate trial as a kill shot. I could be wrong, they could be bluffing. A Senate trial may not happen. But if it does, and Trump doesn’t testify, you can gloat and remind me all you want as I graciously admit I was wrong.

  238. @Alden
    You haven’t kept up with the times. They’re not really defendants, but aliens at deportation hearings do have the right to counsel at every stage of the deportation process.

    So you’re claiming that Trump has no right to counsel? That he can’t defend himself? He can just be fired by congress?

    You know nothing about constitutional law. It’s not the literal words of the constitution. It’s more than 200 years of judicial decisions making precedents; or judge created constitutional law.


    Rather amusing that a liberal wants to go back 200 years to the exact words of the constitution when for the last 70 years liberal judges have just created constitutional law by ruling however they wish. You might check the wiki article on constitutional law before you write about it.

    So you’re claiming that Trump has no right to counsel? That he can’t defend himself? He can just be fired by congress?

    Read what I posted.

    The impeachment hearings in the House are more akin to an indictment, not a trial. Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, was invited to appear at the House hearings.

    Trump has not yet had the impeachment trial in the Senate.

    If he is denied the right to testify, bring witnesses, or have a lawyer, then that is on the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump is the nominal leader of the Republican Party, and his senators should allow him to have a lawyer, call witnesses, and to give evidence himself under oath and be cross-examined on that evidence.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Read the section of the constitution Re: impeachment. The president can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors “. In every jurisdiction in America a misdemeanor is defined as a lesser CRIME. High CRIME was an old English legal term for felony still used 230 years ago.
    Therefore, an impeachment is for CRIMES and the proceeding is a CRIMINAL proceeding. According to the 6th amendment you cited the president is entitled to legal counsel in the CRIMINAL trial just concluded or not concluded.

    Why argue about it? Do you think anything we post on UNZ will have any effect on anything congress does?

    , @Alden
    An indictment is a criminal proceeding as are bail hearings and charges and everything from the day charges are filed with the court and even when a person is arrested. The minute a criminal charge is made against a person, their rights as a defendant begin.

    Whether it’s some street kid stopped as and questioned about a car break in or a president impeached. Both are criminal defendants right from the beginning.

    Ever read a criminal charge? A person isn’t just accused of robbery or theft and booked into city jail. It’s violation of Sec.... .... state pC in that suspect did this this and this to whom.

    Abuse of power wouldn’t even get a suspect put in a holding room.

    Why don’t you write to Chief Justice Roberts since you know so much about constitutional law.
  239. @Jack D
    ^Individual who does not understand that Trump has as much to loss as he has to gain from cross examination on the witness stand.

    Trump is a scrappy fighter and would surely land some blows under cross but he would also have to take a lot of punches (and maybe he is not as light on his feet as he once was). The last place I would want to put Trump is up on a witness stand. Trump may be screaming "let me at 'em" but he may not be the best judge of his current capabilities.

    He’d also have one hand tied behind his back by his erstwhile allies.

    Pelosi is savvy enough to know that Rs (if not Trump) want this all to go away. They either haven’t learned how to play offense yet or are afraid of what would be uncovered in a trial. The McGahn hearing is in January. Look for senate Rs to cave before then.

  240. @Art Deco
    By neocons I mean neocons. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, the whole gang.

    Cheney was a standard-issue Republican who started out as a congressional aide in 1968 (working for an ordinary House member from Wisconsin) thence to Gerald Ford's staff, thence to a seat in Congress, thence to a seat in papa Bush's cabinet; he had no particular association with the circles of people organized around Ben Wattenberg, Irving Kristol, Paul Nitze, or Norman Podhoretz. Kristol is a lapsed history professor who, during the period running from 1981 to 2009 never advocated anything terribly distinctive in the Republican milieu. His father had a mildly interesting political biography; he did not. NB his foray into public office was a stint on papa George Bush's PR staff. Review the last 4 years, and that will tell you how much influence Kristol actually had. Wolfowitz might just fit your descriptor; he was a 2d echelon official on the civilian side of the Defense Department.

    They all advocated, and advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite. Whether Cheney was talked into it or was a prime mover and/or Kristol’s long slide into national joke are neither here nor there.

    Neocon is what they’re known as by those who vote against them, so it remains a useful descriptor.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.
     
    The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate? Trump made some noises about bringing the troops home but hasn't really done much about it, and there are no signs that his base will punish him for that. Most Americans are deeply uninterested in foreign affairs unless there is a draft and they (or their kids) are going to get involuntarily dragged into them. Otherwise they dgas whether the US supports Ukraine or doesn't support Ukraine, etc.
    , @Art Deco
    They all advocated, and advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.

    1. Robert Taft died in 1953. His perspective was adhered to by about 1/4 of the Republican Senate Caucus ca. 1949. Almost all of his allies on said questions were out of Congress within a decade.

    2. Neither Wolfowitz nor Kristol have ever run for public office (though Kristol was someone's campaign manager decades ago). Cheney was 67 years old in 2008 and has had serial procedures done to keep his bum ticker from killing him. Wouldn't matter if they were kryptonite or not.

    3. I doubt you could find more than a single-digit population among Republicans in Congress whose sense of correct policy would resemble that of Thomas Fleming, Ron Paul, or the usual crew posting here. Ron Paul's 'Liberty Caucus' had all of seven members, most of whom did not endorse his presidential campaign.
  241. @Lot
    The Weekly Standard reboot is arguing to dump Pence for Tulsi.

    https://thebulwark.com/trump-tulsi-2020/

    Sounds stupid to me, but once again shows the Neocons!!!!! analysis that some people liked and was useful circa 2002 isn’t now.

    The Weekly Standard reboot is arguing to dump Pence for Tulsi.

    Lol, that’s extremely retarded. Better idea than dumping Pence for David French or Egg McMuffin, but still retarded. Who’s paying for that retardation this time?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Heretofore, Pierre Omidyar. The Bulwark has been at loose ends in re manpower and have been recruiting from publications like Slate. The Dispatch is structured like an e-mail newsletter and not sure who the patron is.
  242. @Boethiuss
    I'm caught in two minds about this. On the plus side, Trump has definitely mobilized and motivated the GOP to circle the wagons. Loyalty is a good thing, and in times past we haven't had enough of it.

    On the other hand, we're doing all this for Trump. In other countries we've got Viktor Orban and Boris Johnson straight up legit moving the ball forward. For us, we're just treading water at best.

    “we’ve got Viktor Orban and Boris Johnson straight up legit moving the ball forward”

    Orban, yes. He’s actually done good things. Johnson, wait and see. Plenty of time for a betrayal, though you never know. He’s started well, but I have few illusions. He’s a chancer, but he decided his ambition was best served by riding the Brexit train, and now he’s PM with a fat majority.

    He could go down as the Liberator, or the Great Betrayer. Let’s hope he decides the latter field just has too much competition.

  243. @Desiderius
    They all advocated, and advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite. Whether Cheney was talked into it or was a prime mover and/or Kristol's long slide into national joke are neither here nor there.

    Neocon is what they're known as by those who vote against them, so it remains a useful descriptor.

    advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.

    The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate? Trump made some noises about bringing the troops home but hasn’t really done much about it, and there are no signs that his base will punish him for that. Most Americans are deeply uninterested in foreign affairs unless there is a draft and they (or their kids) are going to get involuntarily dragged into them. Otherwise they dgas whether the US supports Ukraine or doesn’t support Ukraine, etc.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I suspect the Iraq war damaged the Republican brand with the young. There was a huge shift in allegiances between the 1979 cohort (roughly speaking) and the 1987 cohort. Not sure, though. I think there's been a partial reversion to the old set point among later cohorts, but only partial.

    Shifts in the composition of the body of office-holders (as far as I can see) are a function of net changes among a modest crew of weakly-aligned voters. I think they're usually responsive to macroeconomic indicators, but there are confounding factors.
    , @Desiderius
    Yes. Even the most rudimentary foreign aid is unpopular. Y'all are whistling past the graveyard. This is the central issue that allowed Trump to steamroll the entire R field and Hillary as well once it became clear she was the neocon chosen one. If you're hung up on the term, just substitute invade/invite. I'm trying to tell you - my circle of middle-aged UMC professionals from my church all went R to D over that damn Cheney's war. People who liked Cheney - and Desert Storm! - a generation earlier.

    It's the nation-building and massive, absurd waste (see the Afghanistan Papers) that gets them more than the World Policing I think.
    , @nebulafox
    >The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate?

    Ask the parts of the country who have observed the human costs of the last couple of decades of foreign policy, and you'll figure out. My relatives are no one's idea of doves or hippies: quite the opposite. But they are not fans of the neocons. As in, they'd probably not object to seeing them all strung up by the privates. And that's the older generation that got to see peak America in 1990 as the Cold War ended. The younger generation of right-wingers is, if anything, explicitly anti-interventionist.

    Trump was nominated not least BECAUSE he openly disdained foreign adventurism: him being booed by donor controlled audiences for pointing out the obvious incoherence of Jeb Bush's view of the world just increased his appeal. His base might not punish him for not sticking to his guns there, but that's only because they know the alternatives-whether it is President Pence or a Democrat-are more likely to start new conflicts over abstract notions of human rights and freedom and all that.

    , @J.Ross

    The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate?
     
    Very much so, it is the most uniting thing, it is the rail spike driven through mass media and estsblishment credibility. I have seen spontaneous demonstrations of hatred for neocon warmongers from whites, blacks, mestizos, educated, uneducated, military, nonmilitary, every kind of American. I was in a ghetto clinic when John Kerry on the television tried to sell a Syrian invasion with the same two-cent magic trick Blackstone wouldn't put his name on that Colin Powell used for Iraq, and everyone in the diverse waiting room all erupted with cogent objections.
    If you lie, that's not too bad politically.
    If you lie with incredible laziness, that's awful, but it becomes okay if you win.
    If you lie lazily and then lose, and then still have the chutzpah to act like you're some kind of hero, and everyone is ready for lazy losing lie number two, you must be a neocon.
    DEAR BOOMER
    WE LOST A WAR
    EVERYTHING YOU'RE SEEING THAT SEEMS TO MAKE NO SENSE
    RECONSIDER IT IN LIGHT OF US LOSING A WAR
  244. @Jonathan Mason

    Please give an example from the President’s letter with a sound or, at least cogent, argument supporting your claim based on that example.
     
    Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses ...

    The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    The assistance of counsel clause includes, as relevant here, five distinct rights: the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel, the effective assistance of counsel, and the right to represent oneself pro se.

    A defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in any civil proceeding, including a deportation hearing.

    An impeachment is not a criminal trial. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibilities of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where they were removed.

    Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, defied a congressional subpoena in the impeachment inquiry dealing with Ukraine.

    An impeachment in the House is equivalent to an indictment. The Senate conducts the impeachment trial, and it is up to the Senate majority to determine the rules on how this is to be conducted. If the Senate denies Trump a right to legal representation or to bring witnesses, he is at odds with his own party.

    I would actually love to see Trump calling and cross examining witnesses at his Senate impeachment trial, because I think that would allow the world and the Senate to see how mentally compromised Trump actually is.

    Furthermore, if Trump were mentally competent, he would have availed himself of his right to have a lawyer look over this letter before he mailed it.

    Is you are so dependent on the exact words of the constitution maybe you should read the section on impeachment

    A president can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors “. Note the word “ crime”. Crime is crime. High crime is an ancient British legal term for felony, a term still used 230 years ago. In all American jurisdictions, misdemeanor is defined as a lesser crime.

    Note the phrase high CRIME and the indisputable fact that misdemeanors are lesser crimes in America.

    Therefore, according to the constitution which you cited, an impeachment is a criminal trial and as you pointed out, the 6th amendment gives criminal defendants the right to counsel.

    Chief Justice Roberts will preside over the criminal impeachment trial, if, if the liberals ever find either a federal felony or misdemeanors with which to charge Trump.

  245. @Jonathan Mason

    So you’re claiming that Trump has no right to counsel? That he can’t defend himself? He can just be fired by congress?
     
    Read what I posted.

    The impeachment hearings in the House are more akin to an indictment, not a trial. Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, was invited to appear at the House hearings.

    Trump has not yet had the impeachment trial in the Senate.

    If he is denied the right to testify, bring witnesses, or have a lawyer, then that is on the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump is the nominal leader of the Republican Party, and his senators should allow him to have a lawyer, call witnesses, and to give evidence himself under oath and be cross-examined on that evidence.

    Read the section of the constitution Re: impeachment. The president can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors “. In every jurisdiction in America a misdemeanor is defined as a lesser CRIME. High CRIME was an old English legal term for felony still used 230 years ago.
    Therefore, an impeachment is for CRIMES and the proceeding is a CRIMINAL proceeding. According to the 6th amendment you cited the president is entitled to legal counsel in the CRIMINAL trial just concluded or not concluded.

    Why argue about it? Do you think anything we post on UNZ will have any effect on anything congress does?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    I would refer you to Federalist Paper 65

    A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
     
    This is why impeachment is handled by the House and the Senate, rather than a trial conducted by the Supreme Court. It is about political crimes not common felonies.

    What is the definition of "bribery"?

    The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill. To offer or provide payment in order to persuade someone with a responsibility to betray that responsibility is known as seeking Undue Influence over that person's actions. When someone with power seeks payment in exchange for certain actions, that person is said to be peddling influence. Regardless of who initiates the deal, either party to an act of bribery can be found guilty of the crime independently of the other.

    A bribe can consist of immediate cash or of personal favors, a promise of later payment, or anything else the recipient views as valuable. When the U.S. military threatened to cancel a Texas relocation company's contracts to move families to and from military bases, the company allegedly gave four representatives in Congress an all-expenses-paid weekend in Las Vegas in January 1989, and $2,500 in speaking fees. The former president of the company was indicted by a federal Grand Jury in 1994 on bribery charges for both gifts.
     

    Congress adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 to outlaw payments that are intended to win contracts from foreign officials. Ironically, the law's passage was triggered by testimony from a former vice president of the same Lockheed Corporation at a U.S. congressional hearing in 1976. In that case, the company's vice president admitted to bribing the prime minister of Japan with more than $1.9 million in the early 1970s, so that Japan would buy Lockheed's TriStar wide-body jets.
     
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bribery

    Slightly off-topic, but since an impeachment in the House is equivalent to an indictment, if legal counsel is always allowed at an indictment, how can it be that a grand jury issued a sealed indictment against Julian Assange if he was not offered the opportunity to be represented at the deliberations of the grand jury?

    Anyway, as I said before, Trump's personal lawyer refused to show up at the Intelligence Committee hearings.
  246. @Desiderius
    They all advocated, and advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite. Whether Cheney was talked into it or was a prime mover and/or Kristol's long slide into national joke are neither here nor there.

    Neocon is what they're known as by those who vote against them, so it remains a useful descriptor.

    They all advocated, and advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.

    1. Robert Taft died in 1953. His perspective was adhered to by about 1/4 of the Republican Senate Caucus ca. 1949. Almost all of his allies on said questions were out of Congress within a decade.

    2. Neither Wolfowitz nor Kristol have ever run for public office (though Kristol was someone’s campaign manager decades ago). Cheney was 67 years old in 2008 and has had serial procedures done to keep his bum ticker from killing him. Wouldn’t matter if they were kryptonite or not.

    3. I doubt you could find more than a single-digit population among Republicans in Congress whose sense of correct policy would resemble that of Thomas Fleming, Ron Paul, or the usual crew posting here. Ron Paul’s ‘Liberty Caucus’ had all of seven members, most of whom did not endorse his presidential campaign.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    One doesn't have to be an isolationist to roll one's eyes at impeaching a President over abrogating our sacred responsibility to place the interests of Kurds, Ukranians, and illegal immigrants above our own citizens and our posterity.

    I decided to vote for W because he promised a more humble approach in contrast to Gore's promised zeal for nation-building.

  247. @Jack D

    advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.
     
    The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate? Trump made some noises about bringing the troops home but hasn't really done much about it, and there are no signs that his base will punish him for that. Most Americans are deeply uninterested in foreign affairs unless there is a draft and they (or their kids) are going to get involuntarily dragged into them. Otherwise they dgas whether the US supports Ukraine or doesn't support Ukraine, etc.

    I suspect the Iraq war damaged the Republican brand with the young. There was a huge shift in allegiances between the 1979 cohort (roughly speaking) and the 1987 cohort. Not sure, though. I think there’s been a partial reversion to the old set point among later cohorts, but only partial.

    Shifts in the composition of the body of office-holders (as far as I can see) are a function of net changes among a modest crew of weakly-aligned voters. I think they’re usually responsive to macroeconomic indicators, but there are confounding factors.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    I remember when the Democrats were routinely called "The War Party." Bush II and the Iraq war pretty much ended that one.

    I told somebody Bush II was trying to see how far he could drive down his approval rating.
  248. @Jack D

    advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.
     
    The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate? Trump made some noises about bringing the troops home but hasn't really done much about it, and there are no signs that his base will punish him for that. Most Americans are deeply uninterested in foreign affairs unless there is a draft and they (or their kids) are going to get involuntarily dragged into them. Otherwise they dgas whether the US supports Ukraine or doesn't support Ukraine, etc.

    Yes. Even the most rudimentary foreign aid is unpopular. Y’all are whistling past the graveyard. This is the central issue that allowed Trump to steamroll the entire R field and Hillary as well once it became clear she was the neocon chosen one. If you’re hung up on the term, just substitute invade/invite. I’m trying to tell you – my circle of middle-aged UMC professionals from my church all went R to D over that damn Cheney’s war. People who liked Cheney – and Desert Storm! – a generation earlier.

    It’s the nation-building and massive, absurd waste (see the Afghanistan Papers) that gets them more than the World Policing I think.

  249. @Jonathan Mason

    So you’re claiming that Trump has no right to counsel? That he can’t defend himself? He can just be fired by congress?
     
    Read what I posted.

    The impeachment hearings in the House are more akin to an indictment, not a trial. Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, was invited to appear at the House hearings.

    Trump has not yet had the impeachment trial in the Senate.

    If he is denied the right to testify, bring witnesses, or have a lawyer, then that is on the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump is the nominal leader of the Republican Party, and his senators should allow him to have a lawyer, call witnesses, and to give evidence himself under oath and be cross-examined on that evidence.

    An indictment is a criminal proceeding as are bail hearings and charges and everything from the day charges are filed with the court and even when a person is arrested. The minute a criminal charge is made against a person, their rights as a defendant begin.

    Whether it’s some street kid stopped as and questioned about a car break in or a president impeached. Both are criminal defendants right from the beginning.

    Ever read a criminal charge? A person isn’t just accused of robbery or theft and booked into city jail. It’s violation of Sec…. …. state pC in that suspect did this this and this to whom.

    Abuse of power wouldn’t even get a suspect put in a holding room.

    Why don’t you write to Chief Justice Roberts since you know so much about constitutional law.

  250. @anon
    The Weekly Standard reboot is arguing to dump Pence for Tulsi.

    Lol, that's extremely retarded. Better idea than dumping Pence for David French or Egg McMuffin, but still retarded. Who's paying for that retardation this time?

    Heretofore, Pierre Omidyar. The Bulwark has been at loose ends in re manpower and have been recruiting from publications like Slate. The Dispatch is structured like an e-mail newsletter and not sure who the patron is.

  251. @Art Deco
    They all advocated, and advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.

    1. Robert Taft died in 1953. His perspective was adhered to by about 1/4 of the Republican Senate Caucus ca. 1949. Almost all of his allies on said questions were out of Congress within a decade.

    2. Neither Wolfowitz nor Kristol have ever run for public office (though Kristol was someone's campaign manager decades ago). Cheney was 67 years old in 2008 and has had serial procedures done to keep his bum ticker from killing him. Wouldn't matter if they were kryptonite or not.

    3. I doubt you could find more than a single-digit population among Republicans in Congress whose sense of correct policy would resemble that of Thomas Fleming, Ron Paul, or the usual crew posting here. Ron Paul's 'Liberty Caucus' had all of seven members, most of whom did not endorse his presidential campaign.

    One doesn’t have to be an isolationist to roll one’s eyes at impeaching a President over abrogating our sacred responsibility to place the interests of Kurds, Ukranians, and illegal immigrants above our own citizens and our posterity.

    I decided to vote for W because he promised a more humble approach in contrast to Gore’s promised zeal for nation-building.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Putin welcomed Dubya's election because he-recently come to power himself-expected that he'd act more like his father than Bill Clinton.
  252. @Corvinus
    "Do you mean the fact that Hunter Biden was and is still being investigated for corruption by the Ukrainian government and indictments are coming?"

    Because of the quid pro quo. Remember, it is a new investigative team.

    "What’s wrong with investigating that, especially as virtually every State department employee is a loyal democrat?"

    At the request of the Justice or State Department rather than a rogue agent.

    "As I understand it, Giuliani didn’t investigate anything. He just asked for copies of the existing Ukrainian law enforcement reports."

    In order to investigate!

    "Please cite the federal civil, regulatory and criminal code that forbids an American President from obtaining copies of a criminal investigation in a foreign country."

    Thanks for the strawman. It is the process that matters here and how that information is obtained.

    Foreign affairs are totally within the jurisdiction of the president, including whatever is going on in Ukraine. State is the one cabinet department that answers to, and must obey, the orders of the president.

    The president is in sole charge of that department. Whatever civil service state department employees personally think, it’s the one department where the president is in charge. Even the all powerful judiciary has no power to give orders to the president about foreign affairs

    The president has the power to appoint ambassadors and special envoys to do the president’s bidding in all aspects of foreign affairs.

    There’s no law, regulation or precedent that Ambassadors and special envoys be civil service state department employees.

    Most presidents have appointed non civil service state department people as ambassadors. Most presidents send special envoys who are not civil service state department employees to deal with foreign countries.

    A special envoy of the president to a foreign country is not a rogue agent. Obtaining copies of a Ukrainian government investigation is not a violation of any American process or procedure.

    The Ukrainians can give copies of their investigations to anyone they wish; including an envoy of the president of the United States regardless of what you think.

    The American justice department has no jurisdiction in foreign countries although there is cooperation, but strictly with the consent of both countries.

    Again, please cite any federal criminal, civil regulatory or procedural code that forbids the president from being freely given investigation reports by a foreign country. Ukraine could have refused to give the reports to Trump’s envoy. But the reports were given to Trump’s envoy.

    You’re way way out of your depth old crow.

    Your posts just display complete absolute ignorance of the powers and jurisdiction of the president in foreign affairs.

    Google a 7th grade social studies lesson on the subject and stop embarrassing yourself

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    You created an entire strawman about how I do not "comprehend" the role of the president and foreign affairs. Congratulations. Rather, what you wrote...I already know up until your assertion--"There’s no law, regulation or precedent that Ambassadors and special envoys be civil service state department employees."

    Let's focus on facts. Guiliani is NOT an envoy or special envoy. He is President Trump's personal lawyer. Persons appointed as such special agents or representatives are considered to be the personal representatives of the President and not “ambassadors” or other “public ministers” within the meaning of the constitutional provision. In such cases these personal representatives have been given diplomatic rank, including that of minister, envoy, and ambassador. Representatives with diplomatic rank are not formally accredited to the foreign governments as official diplomatic representatives of our government. It is customary before making such an appointment for the State Department to ascertain from the foreign government concerned whether the appointment is acceptable. If so, such appointees are accredited informally. They are then customarily accorded the diplomatic privileges and courtesies pertaining to their rank.

    Nikki Haley, the former UN Ambassador under President Donald Trump, stated that she believes the Trump Administration should have named Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, as special envoy to Ukraine. In other words, there is a tradition here that has been followed by past presidents, but not by Trump. That is the precedent not followed! Multiple officials who have testified in both closed-door depositions and now public hearings have stated that Giuliani, who is a private citizen, led a back-channel regarding Ukraine policy. Furthermore, Giuliani admitted his role in helping to oust his fellow American from an important position. "I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way," Giuliani told reporter Adam Entous. "She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody."

    So there was NO appointment here by Trump. Giuliani was NOT designated as a special envoy. He was acting on behalf of Trump in an UNOFFICIAL capacity. Obtaining copies of a foreign investigation without recognition as a diplomat by the State Department is a violation of the current American process in place, as stated above. Had Giuliani properly received this appointment, then there is NO issue here.

    You’re way way out of your depth. Now, how about offering proof for your assertion you made in a past thread that you have read 200,000 books in your lifetime.

    Furthermore, please educate yourself by reading this important message.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-flake-the-president-is-on-trial-so-are-my-senate-republican-colleagues/2019/12/20/5446c930-236b-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

  253. @Jack D

    advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.
     
    The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate? Trump made some noises about bringing the troops home but hasn't really done much about it, and there are no signs that his base will punish him for that. Most Americans are deeply uninterested in foreign affairs unless there is a draft and they (or their kids) are going to get involuntarily dragged into them. Otherwise they dgas whether the US supports Ukraine or doesn't support Ukraine, etc.

    >The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate?

    Ask the parts of the country who have observed the human costs of the last couple of decades of foreign policy, and you’ll figure out. My relatives are no one’s idea of doves or hippies: quite the opposite. But they are not fans of the neocons. As in, they’d probably not object to seeing them all strung up by the privates. And that’s the older generation that got to see peak America in 1990 as the Cold War ended. The younger generation of right-wingers is, if anything, explicitly anti-interventionist.

    Trump was nominated not least BECAUSE he openly disdained foreign adventurism: him being booed by donor controlled audiences for pointing out the obvious incoherence of Jeb Bush’s view of the world just increased his appeal. His base might not punish him for not sticking to his guns there, but that’s only because they know the alternatives-whether it is President Pence or a Democrat-are more likely to start new conflicts over abstract notions of human rights and freedom and all that.

  254. @Desiderius
    One doesn't have to be an isolationist to roll one's eyes at impeaching a President over abrogating our sacred responsibility to place the interests of Kurds, Ukranians, and illegal immigrants above our own citizens and our posterity.

    I decided to vote for W because he promised a more humble approach in contrast to Gore's promised zeal for nation-building.

    Putin welcomed Dubya’s election because he-recently come to power himself-expected that he’d act more like his father than Bill Clinton.

  255. @Alden
    Read the section of the constitution Re: impeachment. The president can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors “. In every jurisdiction in America a misdemeanor is defined as a lesser CRIME. High CRIME was an old English legal term for felony still used 230 years ago.
    Therefore, an impeachment is for CRIMES and the proceeding is a CRIMINAL proceeding. According to the 6th amendment you cited the president is entitled to legal counsel in the CRIMINAL trial just concluded or not concluded.

    Why argue about it? Do you think anything we post on UNZ will have any effect on anything congress does?

    I would refer you to Federalist Paper 65

    A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

    This is why impeachment is handled by the House and the Senate, rather than a trial conducted by the Supreme Court. It is about political crimes not common felonies.

    What is the definition of “bribery”?

    The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill. To offer or provide payment in order to persuade someone with a responsibility to betray that responsibility is known as seeking Undue Influence over that person’s actions. When someone with power seeks payment in exchange for certain actions, that person is said to be peddling influence. Regardless of who initiates the deal, either party to an act of bribery can be found guilty of the crime independently of the other.

    A bribe can consist of immediate cash or of personal favors, a promise of later payment, or anything else the recipient views as valuable. When the U.S. military threatened to cancel a Texas relocation company’s contracts to move families to and from military bases, the company allegedly gave four representatives in Congress an all-expenses-paid weekend in Las Vegas in January 1989, and $2,500 in speaking fees. The former president of the company was indicted by a federal Grand Jury in 1994 on bribery charges for both gifts.

    Congress adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 to outlaw payments that are intended to win contracts from foreign officials. Ironically, the law’s passage was triggered by testimony from a former vice president of the same Lockheed Corporation at a U.S. congressional hearing in 1976. In that case, the company’s vice president admitted to bribing the prime minister of Japan with more than $1.9 million in the early 1970s, so that Japan would buy Lockheed’s TriStar wide-body jets.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bribery

    Slightly off-topic, but since an impeachment in the House is equivalent to an indictment, if legal counsel is always allowed at an indictment, how can it be that a grand jury issued a sealed indictment against Julian Assange if he was not offered the opportunity to be represented at the deliberations of the grand jury?

    Anyway, as I said before, Trump’s personal lawyer refused to show up at the Intelligence Committee hearings.

    • Replies: @Alden
    The federalist papers are not law. They are not part of the constitution. I’m sure even wiki has a page about federal and constitutional law. All the federal codes are available on the internet

    Please cite one violation of any federal criminal, civil regulatory or procedural code Trump has committed

    You can’t. You know nothing of constitutional law or federal or state court procedures.

    Instead of punditing and pontificating to me, why don’t you write a letter to Nancy Pelosi at home, giving her your google legal advice. She’s the one in charge of the impeachment, not me.

    MS Nancy Pelosi
    28 Presidio Terrace
    San Francisco Ca
    94118

    She’ll be there the next couple weeks.

    , @Alden
    You haven’t even read the official impeachment charges have you?? Yet your playing google lawyer without even knowing what you’re defending.
    Read the impeachment before you pundit and pontificate about the 200 year old federalist papers that aren’t part of the constitution or any federal code.
  256. @Hypnotoad666

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on – the precedent has been set.
     
    Maybe, or maybe not.

    If the voters toss out the Dems and reelect Trump, then the "precedent" will be that the American people have a different interpretation and will punish political opportunism that subverts the Constitution.

    In short, to restore the Constitutional balance and order, the people will need to rise up and throw out the Democrat congress, and re-elect Trump. That's a principled campaign theme that may get some serious traction with both independents and Trump's base.

    People are sick of the current hyper-partisan division and hypocrisy. Previously, the Democrats might have been able to blame Trump's mean tweets for this toxic environment. But, in IMHO, their impeachment clown show has now hung this responsibility on their necks.

    People are sick of the current hyper-partisan division and hypocrisy.

    Are they though? The populist left hates the Republicans, and with good reason. The populist right hates the Democrats, and with good reason.

    The small minorities who own and run the Republican party (neocon billionaire parasites plus christian zionist grifters) and the relatively small faction that owns and runs the Democratic party (neocon billionaire parasites plus their liberal professional class lap dogs) are sick of partisanship, but I see no evidence that normal people are sick of partisanship.

    The bipartisan consensus is that workers and wages don’t matter, that billionaires always must get what they want, that people don’t get to say who immigrates to their countries, and that the interests of Israel are always paramount. Bipartisan consensus got us into Iraq and has kept us in a forever war in Afghanistan.

  257. @eah
    link

    Here's something you don't see every day: Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for taking bribes, participating in a House hearing that sets the rules for an impeachment. (Yes, Florida man strikes again...)
     
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMA5ldqX0AA-O53.jpg

    TNB.

  258. Nancy Pelosi has invited Donald Trump to give the annual State of the Union Address to Congress.
    Nancy Pelosi has still not delivered the impeachment papers to Mitch McConnell.
    At this point I have to admit I do not know what is going on. Remember when Sopranos extra Rahm Emannuel demanded and got an apology from the Republicans for one guy disrespecting Barack Obama during a SotU? Will Republicans tolerate demonstrations of disrespect from Democrats — well, they’re Republican, so, yeah. Will Democrats actually sit there and applaud a SotU from a guy they started to impeach?

  259. @Nodwink
    Just when Trump had set his sights on fixing America's toilets. Oh well, enjoy your flushing festival, folks!

    Trump’s observation about flushing toilets confirmed my opinion that he is like the child who dared to speak the obvious truth that the king is naked. No one before him dared to observe the absurdity, expense and sheer waste of current environmental dogmas. Trump is a man of common sense and courage.

  260. @Jack D

    advocate, for an American role in the world at odds with the interests of enough of the electorate to make them political kryptonite.
     
    The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate? Trump made some noises about bringing the troops home but hasn't really done much about it, and there are no signs that his base will punish him for that. Most Americans are deeply uninterested in foreign affairs unless there is a draft and they (or their kids) are going to get involuntarily dragged into them. Otherwise they dgas whether the US supports Ukraine or doesn't support Ukraine, etc.

    The Neocon wordview may not be popular around here but is it really deeply unpopular with the electorate?

    Very much so, it is the most uniting thing, it is the rail spike driven through mass media and estsblishment credibility. I have seen spontaneous demonstrations of hatred for neocon warmongers from whites, blacks, mestizos, educated, uneducated, military, nonmilitary, every kind of American. I was in a ghetto clinic when John Kerry on the television tried to sell a Syrian invasion with the same two-cent magic trick Blackstone wouldn’t put his name on that Colin Powell used for Iraq, and everyone in the diverse waiting room all erupted with cogent objections.
    If you lie, that’s not too bad politically.
    If you lie with incredible laziness, that’s awful, but it becomes okay if you win.
    If you lie lazily and then lose, and then still have the chutzpah to act like you’re some kind of hero, and everyone is ready for lazy losing lie number two, you must be a neocon.
    DEAR BOOMER
    WE LOST A WAR
    EVERYTHING YOU’RE SEEING THAT SEEMS TO MAKE NO SENSE
    RECONSIDER IT IN LIGHT OF US LOSING A WAR

  261. @Reg Cæsar

    President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president.
     
    As opposed to Jackson's ethnic cleansing, Wilson's chucking of the First Amendment and census manipulation, FDR's Neutrality Act violations, domestic internment camps, and carpet bombing of civilians abroad, Truman's nuclear incineration of a Christian cathedral, along with the tens of thousands of civilians nearby, Truman's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Clinton's, and Obama's foreign wars without a declaration from Congress...

    It seems like we have a partisan double standard here.


    All of these presidents should have died in prison, except Clinton, for whom a backwoods lynching would be more appropriate.

    …FDR’s carpet bombing of civilians abroad, Truman’s nuclear incineration of a Christian cathedral, along with the tens of thousands of civilians nearby

    Inclinating wildly off-topic here but this misunderstanding needs to die. There was nothing illegal about what they did. The ban on indiscriminate killing of civilians was added to the war crimes conventions after the war, by the victors.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    There was nothing illegal about what they did. The ban on indiscriminate killing of civilians was added to the war crimes conventions after the war, by the victors.
     
    It was part of Christian belief for a lot longer than that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Christian_views

    When Truman called America a "Christian nation" in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.
  262. @Jonathan Mason
    I would refer you to Federalist Paper 65

    A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
     
    This is why impeachment is handled by the House and the Senate, rather than a trial conducted by the Supreme Court. It is about political crimes not common felonies.

    What is the definition of "bribery"?

    The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill. To offer or provide payment in order to persuade someone with a responsibility to betray that responsibility is known as seeking Undue Influence over that person's actions. When someone with power seeks payment in exchange for certain actions, that person is said to be peddling influence. Regardless of who initiates the deal, either party to an act of bribery can be found guilty of the crime independently of the other.

    A bribe can consist of immediate cash or of personal favors, a promise of later payment, or anything else the recipient views as valuable. When the U.S. military threatened to cancel a Texas relocation company's contracts to move families to and from military bases, the company allegedly gave four representatives in Congress an all-expenses-paid weekend in Las Vegas in January 1989, and $2,500 in speaking fees. The former president of the company was indicted by a federal Grand Jury in 1994 on bribery charges for both gifts.
     

    Congress adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 to outlaw payments that are intended to win contracts from foreign officials. Ironically, the law's passage was triggered by testimony from a former vice president of the same Lockheed Corporation at a U.S. congressional hearing in 1976. In that case, the company's vice president admitted to bribing the prime minister of Japan with more than $1.9 million in the early 1970s, so that Japan would buy Lockheed's TriStar wide-body jets.
     
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bribery

    Slightly off-topic, but since an impeachment in the House is equivalent to an indictment, if legal counsel is always allowed at an indictment, how can it be that a grand jury issued a sealed indictment against Julian Assange if he was not offered the opportunity to be represented at the deliberations of the grand jury?

    Anyway, as I said before, Trump's personal lawyer refused to show up at the Intelligence Committee hearings.

    The federalist papers are not law. They are not part of the constitution. I’m sure even wiki has a page about federal and constitutional law. All the federal codes are available on the internet

    Please cite one violation of any federal criminal, civil regulatory or procedural code Trump has committed

    You can’t. You know nothing of constitutional law or federal or state court procedures.

    Instead of punditing and pontificating to me, why don’t you write a letter to Nancy Pelosi at home, giving her your google legal advice. She’s the one in charge of the impeachment, not me.

    MS Nancy Pelosi
    28 Presidio Terrace
    San Francisco Ca
    94118

    She’ll be there the next couple weeks.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    The federalist papers are not law. They are not part of the constitution.
     
    No, but they are contemporaneous documents that give insight into what the framers of the Constitution were thinking, and when it comes to interpreting unusual phrases like "bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors" they can help us understand the context.

    I can understand that they are probably not mentioned in the textbook that you use to teach your seventh-grade students, but there are reasons for that.

    Incidentally, my sixth-grade daughter came home yesterday and explained that D. Trump was being "impreached" because Ukraine is rich in gas and oil and he was trying to cheat them out of it. Our middle schools are doing a grand job!
  263. @Jonathan Mason
    I would refer you to Federalist Paper 65

    A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
     
    This is why impeachment is handled by the House and the Senate, rather than a trial conducted by the Supreme Court. It is about political crimes not common felonies.

    What is the definition of "bribery"?

    The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill. To offer or provide payment in order to persuade someone with a responsibility to betray that responsibility is known as seeking Undue Influence over that person's actions. When someone with power seeks payment in exchange for certain actions, that person is said to be peddling influence. Regardless of who initiates the deal, either party to an act of bribery can be found guilty of the crime independently of the other.

    A bribe can consist of immediate cash or of personal favors, a promise of later payment, or anything else the recipient views as valuable. When the U.S. military threatened to cancel a Texas relocation company's contracts to move families to and from military bases, the company allegedly gave four representatives in Congress an all-expenses-paid weekend in Las Vegas in January 1989, and $2,500 in speaking fees. The former president of the company was indicted by a federal Grand Jury in 1994 on bribery charges for both gifts.
     

    Congress adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 to outlaw payments that are intended to win contracts from foreign officials. Ironically, the law's passage was triggered by testimony from a former vice president of the same Lockheed Corporation at a U.S. congressional hearing in 1976. In that case, the company's vice president admitted to bribing the prime minister of Japan with more than $1.9 million in the early 1970s, so that Japan would buy Lockheed's TriStar wide-body jets.
     
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bribery

    Slightly off-topic, but since an impeachment in the House is equivalent to an indictment, if legal counsel is always allowed at an indictment, how can it be that a grand jury issued a sealed indictment against Julian Assange if he was not offered the opportunity to be represented at the deliberations of the grand jury?

    Anyway, as I said before, Trump's personal lawyer refused to show up at the Intelligence Committee hearings.

    You haven’t even read the official impeachment charges have you?? Yet your playing google lawyer without even knowing what you’re defending.
    Read the impeachment before you pundit and pontificate about the 200 year old federalist papers that aren’t part of the constitution or any federal code.

  264. @Desiderius
    Amash's principal source of (legit) income is Chinese, so he's a total outlier.

    Neocon = invade/invite

    Deep State = two-tier Justice

    Of course they're useful, they're what got Trump elected. Trump is on video criticizing Pelosi for not impeaching Bush!

    Trump has indeed won over those who are still within the party, but many Bush/McCain Deep Staters and neocons had already seen the writing on the wall and jumped ship. The DC area went 96% for Hillary. All the neocon publications have either folded up or are under new badges madly thrashing around trying to justify ousting Trump or voting D just this once. There are still putatively R factions within the Deep State, but many are actively NeverTrump to this day, like our friend Mason here, since unlike members of Congress civil servants are supposed to hold their allegiances close to the vest.

    Oft evil will shall evil mar, since their thirst for Pence has given the Ds the false hopes they've needed to talk themselves into what may well be a ruinous impeachment.

    Pence’s biggest interest is outlawing abortion Abortion is the first commandment of the Democratic Party, even more sacred than gays and transgenders.

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot and a holler if he outlawed all abortions for any reason by executive order 2 minutes after he’s sworn in?

    Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours.

    Another thing I’d like to see Pence do December 2020 after he’s re elected, is put a giant nativity scene on the White House lawn Dec 1 and keep it there till January 8. And do it every year till he leaves office.

    ACLU ADL AJC FFRF would explode with rage.
    Of course they’d get an injunction to take it down. But who’s going to enforce that injunction? The judge? Sissy city boy Jews who’d have no idea how to take the figures and lights down ? Who’ll take on the secret service.?

    Sometimes I like to fantasize about happy things.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot and a holler if he outlawed all abortions for any reason by executive order 2 minutes after he’s sworn in?

    Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours.
     

    Assuming this is a federal issue, which itself is debatable, that would be Congress's job. An executive order couldn't stand. If you disagree, please spell it out for us.

    Begalanism has no place on our side, either. You just slammed Mr Mason for insufficient understanding of constitutional law, then make a schoolboy error yourself. He's owed an apology.

    , @Ozymandias
    "Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours."

    What if faux opposition took it to a friendly judge first and he refused it? Would it then have to go to a higher court?
  265. @Yngvar

    ...FDR’s carpet bombing of civilians abroad, Truman’s nuclear incineration of a Christian cathedral, along with the tens of thousands of civilians nearby
     
    Inclinating wildly off-topic here but this misunderstanding needs to die. There was nothing illegal about what they did. The ban on indiscriminate killing of civilians was added to the war crimes conventions after the war, by the victors.

    There was nothing illegal about what they did. The ban on indiscriminate killing of civilians was added to the war crimes conventions after the war, by the victors.

    It was part of Christian belief for a lot longer than that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Christian_views

    When Truman called America a “Christian nation” in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    When Truman called America a “Christian nation” in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.

    Multiple layers of stupidity in this statement.
    , @David In TN
    So the angelic Japanese never bombed civilians.
    , @Moses

    When Truman called America a “Christian nation” in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.
     
    Yes, and by this logic Israel is not Jewish either. Ask the Palestinians about Tikkun olam.
  266. @Alden
    Pence’s biggest interest is outlawing abortion Abortion is the first commandment of the Democratic Party, even more sacred than gays and transgenders.

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot and a holler if he outlawed all abortions for any reason by executive order 2 minutes after he’s sworn in?

    Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours.

    Another thing I’d like to see Pence do December 2020 after he’s re elected, is put a giant nativity scene on the White House lawn Dec 1 and keep it there till January 8. And do it every year till he leaves office.

    ACLU ADL AJC FFRF would explode with rage.
    Of course they’d get an injunction to take it down. But who’s going to enforce that injunction? The judge? Sissy city boy Jews who’d have no idea how to take the figures and lights down ? Who’ll take on the secret service.?

    Sometimes I like to fantasize about happy things.

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot and a holler if he outlawed all abortions for any reason by executive order 2 minutes after he’s sworn in?

    Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours.

    Assuming this is a federal issue, which itself is debatable, that would be Congress’s job. An executive order couldn’t stand. If you disagree, please spell it out for us.

    Begalanism has no place on our side, either. You just slammed Mr Mason for insufficient understanding of constitutional law, then make a schoolboy error yourself. He’s owed an apology.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Abortion is federal law. Remember, abortion was legalized by the federal Supreme Court, Roe vs Wade which legalized abortion in every state.

    Supreme and other federal court decisions such as the Supreme Court deciding that corporations are persons, Louisiana Slaughterhouses 1870s?school desegregation, Brown vs Topeka, affirmative action, Griggs and Kaiser, Miranda and Gideon in criminal law and the federal decisions regarding legalizing gay marriage created federal laws Re: those matters.

    That’s our American legal system. Laws are made by federal and state courts and government regulatory agencies as much as by elected legislators. For the last 70 years, more and more laws are made and overturned by the courts.

    Abortion was, and many other matters such as gay marriage were, legalized by federal courts. A presidential executive order can overturn a federal court decision. All it takes is a president to issue an executive order and ignore any federal court injunctions, rulings and orders overturning the order.

    As far as I know, only Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln ever defied Supreme Court decisions rulings aka orders. Feel free to delve into the history of presidential executive orders versus the federal courts since Marbury vs Madison 1804.

    It’s ridiculous for non attorneys who’ve never even been in parking ticket court to argue about the impeachment or claim that abortion wasn’t legalized by a federal agency and is not subject to federal law and presidential executive order.

    A president can make any executive order he or she wishes on any subject. Whether or not the president CHOOSES to enforce the executive order after a federal court injunction overturning that executive order is another matter entirely.

    As per usual, Trump didn’t enforce his executive orders after federal courts enjoined him from doing so.

    But Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln did enforce their executive orders. The supreme and lower federal courts couldn’t do a thing but issue injunctions and rulings and orders that Jackson cease his war and Lincoln restore habeas corpus

    Those presidents ignored the Supreme Court orders. Because they could do so.

    Jackson pursued a war after the Supreme Court ordered him to end the war. Abraham Lincoln suspended the ancient civil right of habeas corpus for 4 years during the civil war. He enforced his executive order by keeping 40,000 publishers, journalists, dissidents and secession advocates in local jails, without charges, bail, or trials. Just arrest and keep them in jail for years because Lincoln suspended habeas corpus by executive order.
  267. @Reg Cæsar

    There was nothing illegal about what they did. The ban on indiscriminate killing of civilians was added to the war crimes conventions after the war, by the victors.
     
    It was part of Christian belief for a lot longer than that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Christian_views

    When Truman called America a "Christian nation" in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.

    When Truman called America a “Christian nation” in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.

    Multiple layers of stupidity in this statement.

    • Agree: David In TN
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Multiple layers of stupidity in this statement.
     
    Perhaps you might spell them out. You usually do.

    Let us know how a Kansas City haberdasher supersedes Augustine and Aquinas. In other words, "Show Me".
  268. @Alden
    The federalist papers are not law. They are not part of the constitution. I’m sure even wiki has a page about federal and constitutional law. All the federal codes are available on the internet

    Please cite one violation of any federal criminal, civil regulatory or procedural code Trump has committed

    You can’t. You know nothing of constitutional law or federal or state court procedures.

    Instead of punditing and pontificating to me, why don’t you write a letter to Nancy Pelosi at home, giving her your google legal advice. She’s the one in charge of the impeachment, not me.

    MS Nancy Pelosi
    28 Presidio Terrace
    San Francisco Ca
    94118

    She’ll be there the next couple weeks.

    The federalist papers are not law. They are not part of the constitution.

    No, but they are contemporaneous documents that give insight into what the framers of the Constitution were thinking, and when it comes to interpreting unusual phrases like “bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors” they can help us understand the context.

    I can understand that they are probably not mentioned in the textbook that you use to teach your seventh-grade students, but there are reasons for that.

    Incidentally, my sixth-grade daughter came home yesterday and explained that D. Trump was being “impreached” because Ukraine is rich in gas and oil and he was trying to cheat them out of it. Our middle schools are doing a grand job!

    • Replies: @Alden
    1. I’m not a teacher

    2. It doesn’t matter what the founders were thinking. What matters is the development of constitutional law over the last 230 years. New amendments are made by the elected congress But constitutional law is mostly made by judges.

    It doesn’t matter what you and I post on UNZ. The powers that be will do what they want.
  269. @Lot
    The Weekly Standard reboot is arguing to dump Pence for Tulsi.

    https://thebulwark.com/trump-tulsi-2020/

    Sounds stupid to me, but once again shows the Neocons!!!!! analysis that some people liked and was useful circa 2002 isn’t now.

    Interesting timing. No one can say they’re timid.

  270. @Moses

    Scott Adams also has some juicy young trim he’s leading around by the nose:
     
    My guess is it's more accurate that this Instagram thot is leading Adams around by the nose.

    Women who post lots of racy pics of their bodies online are addicted to attention from men. And there will be buyers, oh yes...

    I've found it to be a bad sign.

    Women who post lots of racy pics of their bodies online are addicted to attention from men. And there will be buyers, oh yes…

    As the great philosopher and pharmaceutical connoisseur Charlie Sheen once stated, “You’re paying them to leave….”

    Amen, Charlie, amen….

  271. @Art Deco
    1. Presidents didn’t get impeached when J Edgar Hoover was alive. He knew how to keep secrets and keep power. The Elite hated LBJ and Nixon, but couldn’t touch either until after Hoover died.

    You're addled head has constructed some monster which you call 'The Elite' with a single mind and will. Rather like The Nestines in Doctor Who. Unless you mean by 'The Elite' something like 'people in the social circle of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr'. This is a nonsense judgment. LBJ logged 36 years in Washington politics and had only one career setback. He was the Senate Majority Leader. As for Nixon, party influentials gave him the Republican presidential nomination on a silver platter in 1960; he had no significant opposition. (The vice presidency during the years running from 1804 to 1956 was not been a gateway to the presidency except by succession. There were only two occasions during that span of years when an outgoing or former vp was nominated and only one where such a creature was elected)


    2. The Elites hated Carter, but he was a Sunday school teacher whose party controlled the House.

    Tip O'Neill and the bulk of the Democratic congressional caucus didn't care for him because he was a technocrat not interested in their priorities and given to clueless initiatives. Others didn't care for him because he was a klutz given to bursts of vapidity. There wasn't some grand disconnect between elite opinion and popular opinion on Carter. He irked and bored broad swaths of both.


    3. The elites tolerated Ford, and liked Reagan, both Bushes and Obama. The Bush presidents, and likely Reagan, did stuff much worse than what anyone has ever been impeached for. They were untouchable.

    Ford had contentious business dealings with Congress and congenial personal dealings. He was a basically sanguine man who'd spent 25 years in the company of the people he was crabbing with during the week. "Politics stops at 5:00 o'clock" was a Fordism." (He had a personal dislike for Reagan, Carter, and, in the end, Nixon).

    There was no component of the Washington establishment enamored of Reagan, bar some think tank denizens and a faction of the Republican congressional caucus.

    The rest is a fantasy on your part.


    4. The Elites hated Nixon, Clinton and Trump. At some point the opposite party controlled the House of Representatives and they found something, anything that was dirty.

    The notion that 'elites' 'hated' Clinton is bizarre. Democratic pols were jealous of him because he had certain inter-personal skills they lacked ("Clinton is an unusually good liar, quoth Gov. Kerrey). Clinton ended up in the docket in part because of the machinations of Republican lawfare artists (see the Paula Jones suit), whose work was promoted by Rush Limbaugh and The American Spectator. That's not the Acela corridor establishment. The Starr crew prosecuted the McDougals, Gov. Tucker, and Webb Hubbell for actual crimes, not for process crimes - bank fraud, money laundering, &c. In re Bill and Billings-records Hill, there's a reason Susan McDougal cooled her heels in jail for 18 months rather than give testimony to a grand jury under a grant of immunity.

    The Clintons were crooked by default and recruited bent characters. Repair to Gary Aldrich's memoir on the comical difficulties he had trying to conduct FBI background investigations of Clinton's White House staff (something routine under his predecessor). They were given effective permission to refuse to co-operate (though some did - e.g. Vincent Foster). He was able to ascertain that there were a mess of drug users and tax scofflaws on Clinton's staff, but it was like pulling teeth to complete the process on any one of them. Look at the Livingstone-Marceca troll through the FBI files on prominent Republicans or look at the travel office firings. Both involved corrupting the FBI (who were willing to co-operate). Look at the mass dismissal of U.S. Attorneys in 1993.

    A good summary. Clinton certainly was in good standing with the liberal establishment.

    I recall reading somewhere that R. Emmett Tyrell told his financial backers he would drive Clinton out of office by commissioning articles on his sexual behavior. The David Brock piece sourced by the state troopers led to the Paula Jones Suit and impeachment, which failed in the Democratic majority Senate.

  272. @Art Deco
    I suspect the Iraq war damaged the Republican brand with the young. There was a huge shift in allegiances between the 1979 cohort (roughly speaking) and the 1987 cohort. Not sure, though. I think there's been a partial reversion to the old set point among later cohorts, but only partial.

    Shifts in the composition of the body of office-holders (as far as I can see) are a function of net changes among a modest crew of weakly-aligned voters. I think they're usually responsive to macroeconomic indicators, but there are confounding factors.

    I remember when the Democrats were routinely called “The War Party.” Bush II and the Iraq war pretty much ended that one.

    I told somebody Bush II was trying to see how far he could drive down his approval rating.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    I told somebody Bush II was trying to see how far he could drive down his approval rating.
     
    Well, Bush Mk II managed to dethrone Buchanan as the Worst President in History, but now we have a new contender! (Strangely the worst candidate for the presidency was also called Buchanan.)
  273. @Reg Cæsar

    There was nothing illegal about what they did. The ban on indiscriminate killing of civilians was added to the war crimes conventions after the war, by the victors.
     
    It was part of Christian belief for a lot longer than that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Christian_views

    When Truman called America a "Christian nation" in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.

    So the angelic Japanese never bombed civilians.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    So the angelic Japanese never bombed civilians.
     
    You can no longer complain about the Rape of Nanking-- or Sherman's March to the Sea-- if you use the same methods, multiplied. Aerial bombing of civilians is as criminal as it comes. Curtis LeMay admitted that himself.
    , @Anon
    So the angelic Japanese were [not a Christian nation].
  274. @PhysicistDave
    Liza wrote:

    Can anyone tell me how it will make any difference who gets elected next year? Serious replies only
     
    .It is a matter of slowly changing the cultural climate, moving the "Overton Window," so to speak. The whole Trump phenomenon is simply a matter of education, of teaching ordinary people that the ruling professional-managerial class is not on the side of normal, productive people.

    And that is also the real importance of what has recently happened to J. K. Rowling, Ellen DeGeneres, and so many others on the Left. Whether or not they change their own views, it shows ordinary people that no one is safe, that the whole point is to gouge out the eyes of anyone unwilling to offer full submission to the latest diktats of the ruling elite.

    And one by one, ordinary people are waking up and saying, "For God's sake, just leave us alone!"

    The whole Trump phenomenon is simply a matter of education, of teaching ordinary people that the ruling professional-managerial class is not on the side of normal, productive people.

    This is also why iSteve is so important.

    iSteve is the modern equivalent of Charon the Boatman in Greek mythology. The difference is that iSteve works to ferry normiecucks from Clown World to Redpillistan.

    Also, Charon was tall. So is iSteve.

    • Replies: @anon
    iSteve works to ferry normiecucks from Clown World to Redpillistan.

    Gold box! Where's the gold box?
  275. @danand

    "He’s prone to saying that race/ethnicity of immigrants doesn’t matter, all while living comfortably in wealthy Pleasanton, CA which is 62% White, 30% Asian, 2% Black."

     

    There is a "corridor" that runs along hwy 680, from Pleasanton up thru Walnut Creek which over ~ the last decade or so, I've come to referred to as larger San Francisco Bay Area's "Whitopia". When venturing over the hill to the Tri-Valley I'm always taken a little aback. It's like another world, similar in racial demographic to the one that has long since moved away. I've always found it odd that "white" people surrendered Silicon Valley, with it's moderate weather and close proximity to jobs, to take up residence in the less temperate, "remote" valley. Even the kids working the counter at the McDonald's over there are Caucasian.


    Pleasanton is located center on this standardized grade school test map (SBAC "hard data" test results, not ratings based off warm & fuzzies). Each marker represents a school; bright green tested best, orange worst. The correlation between racial demographics/crime index and school test ranking is near perfect (ie White/Asian green). I used this map to determine my move back when my daughter turned age 4.

    https://flic.kr/p/2i2JKUk

    On those rare occasions when I am asked by someone outside the area as to where they should relocate I send them this link: https://school-ratings.com/

    Just clicked over. Wow there are a LOT of red dots on the CA map. At least half. My guess is it’s getting worse each passing year.

    Our new country is gonna be great!

  276. @Reg Cæsar

    There was nothing illegal about what they did. The ban on indiscriminate killing of civilians was added to the war crimes conventions after the war, by the victors.
     
    It was part of Christian belief for a lot longer than that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Christian_views

    When Truman called America a "Christian nation" in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.

    When Truman called America a “Christian nation” in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.

    Yes, and by this logic Israel is not Jewish either. Ask the Palestinians about Tikkun olam.

  277. @Buck Ransom
    Victoria Nuland of the Obama State Department is on camera bragging of the $5 billion spent by the United States in Ukraine to make the coup possible.

    Show us the link. I guarantee that she is only saying this if you take her out of context and you twist her words beyond all recognition.

    • Replies: @Buck Ransom
    You can ask Mr. Google to find the video. It records Ms. Nuland giving a speech about Ukraine to the Council on Foreign Relations or another one of those official Swamp ministries or think tanks.
  278. @nebulafox
    The traditional explanation for the passionate feelings around Richard Nixon-intense even on the standards of American politics-is based around anti-Communism, but that's ultimately not satisfactory. Nixon's campaigns against Voorhis and Douglas did not strike anybody-prominent Democrats included-as particularly noteworthy at the time: if they did, we'd have a lot more records of national newspapers taking note, particularly with the latter after the Hiss case sped up Nixon already fast-tracked career. Local and even state politics fail to capture the American imagination, then and now. Moreover, Nixon's early political success in California was rooted primarily in small-town populism that needs to be seen in the context of the changing political contours of the post-FDR GOP. Anti-Communism was an important facet of that, but making it into the whole package is a gross oversimplication. It was only when he was catapulted into true national prominence-1952-that this changed, and these campaigns made into early examples of a supposedly uniquely malicious nature.

    I find the most convincing explanation to be the one advanced by other commentators here: he represented the upwardly mobile postwar middle class. A lot of them used to be FDR's forgotten people, but by 1947, many of them weren't so forgotten anymore, and their ideas on what to do with the postwar wealth and culture were very different from their former guiders. Something like the Checkers Speech today would be seen for the hokey politics that it is, but 1952 America was a very, very different place. That kind of thing played well with the masses.

    So, for a whole host of reasons-some valid, some not-what Nixon represented drove liberals absolutely bonkers. There were a lot of things Nixon himself did to further feed this hatred, of course, and would continue to do so to the point that by 1972, the lines were drawn for some kind of showdown even had Watergate never happened. But when push comes to shove, it was about what the man represented more than anything he actually said or did. Of course, the fierce hatred had a dual side in evoking, if not love, loyalty from a lot of Americans, despite having arguably the least suited personality for politics of all American Presidents. It took the biggest scandal in American history to kill that for good.

    (One could say much the same about Obama, with the sides reversed, of course. It was less about SOCIALISM!!!" per se-laughworthy given his actual policy record of tacit alignment with the conservative business wing of the Democratic party every single time during the crucial years of 2009 and 2010-than it was the fact that he had New America's version of blue blood. Harvard, "diverse", cosmopolitan, left-wing but not too much so... he was perfect for the views of America's upper-middle class, one that had exploded demographically since the Cold War. Which also helps explain the absolute hatred of the guns and Bibles crowd. Stupid comments like "bitter clingers" from Obama certainly exacerbated the hatred, but like Nixon, I don't think it was about the man so much as what he represented. This extends to his race: I don't think some Powell-figure would have had any issue winning red states. That's not to say anti-black prejudices never played a role, just not the decisive, all-consuming one that Democrats like to imagine.)

    Great comment. Thanks.

  279. @Alden
    Pence’s biggest interest is outlawing abortion Abortion is the first commandment of the Democratic Party, even more sacred than gays and transgenders.

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot and a holler if he outlawed all abortions for any reason by executive order 2 minutes after he’s sworn in?

    Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours.

    Another thing I’d like to see Pence do December 2020 after he’s re elected, is put a giant nativity scene on the White House lawn Dec 1 and keep it there till January 8. And do it every year till he leaves office.

    ACLU ADL AJC FFRF would explode with rage.
    Of course they’d get an injunction to take it down. But who’s going to enforce that injunction? The judge? Sissy city boy Jews who’d have no idea how to take the figures and lights down ? Who’ll take on the secret service.?

    Sometimes I like to fantasize about happy things.

    “Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours.”

    What if faux opposition took it to a friendly judge first and he refused it? Would it then have to go to a higher court?

  280. @Reg Cæsar

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot and a holler if he outlawed all abortions for any reason by executive order 2 minutes after he’s sworn in?

    Of course the liberals would get an injunction against his executive order within hours.
     

    Assuming this is a federal issue, which itself is debatable, that would be Congress's job. An executive order couldn't stand. If you disagree, please spell it out for us.

    Begalanism has no place on our side, either. You just slammed Mr Mason for insufficient understanding of constitutional law, then make a schoolboy error yourself. He's owed an apology.

    Abortion is federal law. Remember, abortion was legalized by the federal Supreme Court, Roe vs Wade which legalized abortion in every state.

    Supreme and other federal court decisions such as the Supreme Court deciding that corporations are persons, Louisiana Slaughterhouses 1870s?school desegregation, Brown vs Topeka, affirmative action, Griggs and Kaiser, Miranda and Gideon in criminal law and the federal decisions regarding legalizing gay marriage created federal laws Re: those matters.

    That’s our American legal system. Laws are made by federal and state courts and government regulatory agencies as much as by elected legislators. For the last 70 years, more and more laws are made and overturned by the courts.

    Abortion was, and many other matters such as gay marriage were, legalized by federal courts. A presidential executive order can overturn a federal court decision. All it takes is a president to issue an executive order and ignore any federal court injunctions, rulings and orders overturning the order.

    As far as I know, only Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln ever defied Supreme Court decisions rulings aka orders. Feel free to delve into the history of presidential executive orders versus the federal courts since Marbury vs Madison 1804.

    It’s ridiculous for non attorneys who’ve never even been in parking ticket court to argue about the impeachment or claim that abortion wasn’t legalized by a federal agency and is not subject to federal law and presidential executive order.

    A president can make any executive order he or she wishes on any subject. Whether or not the president CHOOSES to enforce the executive order after a federal court injunction overturning that executive order is another matter entirely.

    As per usual, Trump didn’t enforce his executive orders after federal courts enjoined him from doing so.

    But Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln did enforce their executive orders. The supreme and lower federal courts couldn’t do a thing but issue injunctions and rulings and orders that Jackson cease his war and Lincoln restore habeas corpus

    Those presidents ignored the Supreme Court orders. Because they could do so.

    Jackson pursued a war after the Supreme Court ordered him to end the war. Abraham Lincoln suspended the ancient civil right of habeas corpus for 4 years during the civil war. He enforced his executive order by keeping 40,000 publishers, journalists, dissidents and secession advocates in local jails, without charges, bail, or trials. Just arrest and keep them in jail for years because Lincoln suspended habeas corpus by executive order.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Abortion was, and many other matters such as gay marriage were, legalized by federal courts. A presidential executive order can overturn a federal court decision.
     
    That would just return us to the pre-Roe status, in which it was outlawed by 47 or 48 states. Federal law hardly entered into it.

    Jackson pursued a war after the Supreme Court ordered him to end the war.
     
    Jackson commanded an Army. Which federal agency is going to shut down clinics on the President's orders?

    It’s ridiculous for non attorneys who’ve never even been in parking ticket court
     
    I've been in parking ticket court, and prevailed.
  281. @Johann Ricke

    There’s a new book out about Alger Hiss claiming he was innocent of any spying and treason.
     
    Leaving aside the Venona documents, Hiss's primary defenders are the usual fellow travelers. Not exactly surprising.

    They’ll never shut up. The Rosenberg sons, the Merepohl brothers are pushing 80 and still invited to college campuses to proclaim their parents were innocent to the younger generation.

  282. @Jonathan Mason

    The federalist papers are not law. They are not part of the constitution.
     
    No, but they are contemporaneous documents that give insight into what the framers of the Constitution were thinking, and when it comes to interpreting unusual phrases like "bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors" they can help us understand the context.

    I can understand that they are probably not mentioned in the textbook that you use to teach your seventh-grade students, but there are reasons for that.

    Incidentally, my sixth-grade daughter came home yesterday and explained that D. Trump was being "impreached" because Ukraine is rich in gas and oil and he was trying to cheat them out of it. Our middle schools are doing a grand job!

    1. I’m not a teacher

    2. It doesn’t matter what the founders were thinking. What matters is the development of constitutional law over the last 230 years. New amendments are made by the elected congress But constitutional law is mostly made by judges.

    It doesn’t matter what you and I post on UNZ. The powers that be will do what they want.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    It doesn’t matter what the founders were thinking.
     
    Tell that to the several justices of the Supreme Court who make decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people who espouse the judicial philosophy of "originalism". (Check your seventh grade law text book for that one.)

    In any case you are missing my original point, that when Trump said in his letter that he was being convicted based on denial of legal representation and the right to call witnesses, he was talking nonsense. His trial has not yet taken place, and the Senate majority--which is Trump's own party-- is in a position to ensure that he can exercise those rights.

    And I think (for what it is worth) that he should have those rights.

    And if he is impeached in the Senate, will Trump then be classified a convicted felon? No, he will be removed from office, that is all. The Senate will say "You are fired!", a process that should be quite familiar to Trump. The election of 2016 will not be nullified (as claimed by Trump). Trump's vice-president will take over until a new election is held next year.
  283. @David In TN
    So the angelic Japanese never bombed civilians.

    So the angelic Japanese never bombed civilians.

    You can no longer complain about the Rape of Nanking– or Sherman’s March to the Sea– if you use the same methods, multiplied. Aerial bombing of civilians is as criminal as it comes. Curtis LeMay admitted that himself.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    According to the Chinese, and no one has argued differently, the angelic Japanese killed 250,000 Chinese civilians in reprisal for the Doolittle Raid.

    And the Japanese bombed Chinese civilians from 1937 on.
  284. @Art Deco
    When Truman called America a “Christian nation” in 1947, he not only lied with a bald face, he had been the one who, more than anyone else, had proven it wrong.

    Multiple layers of stupidity in this statement.

    Multiple layers of stupidity in this statement.

    Perhaps you might spell them out. You usually do.

    Let us know how a Kansas City haberdasher supersedes Augustine and Aquinas. In other words, “Show Me”.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Questionabe, even definitely evil, acts do not make even a ruler non-Christian, still less his country.
  285. @Reg Cæsar

    So the angelic Japanese never bombed civilians.
     
    You can no longer complain about the Rape of Nanking-- or Sherman's March to the Sea-- if you use the same methods, multiplied. Aerial bombing of civilians is as criminal as it comes. Curtis LeMay admitted that himself.

    According to the Chinese, and no one has argued differently, the angelic Japanese killed 250,000 Chinese civilians in reprisal for the Doolittle Raid.

    And the Japanese bombed Chinese civilians from 1937 on.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    So why didn't we try them for these war crimes? Or the German pilots? They got off scot-free.

    I never called the Japs "angelic". I said the Allies weren't. They just pretended to be, after the fact.

    We are blind to this because progressivism has been eating away at education and upbringing before any of us were born. "The ends justify the means."

  286. @The Wild Geese Howard

    The whole Trump phenomenon is simply a matter of education, of teaching ordinary people that the ruling professional-managerial class is not on the side of normal, productive people.
     
    This is also why iSteve is so important.

    iSteve is the modern equivalent of Charon the Boatman in Greek mythology. The difference is that iSteve works to ferry normiecucks from Clown World to Redpillistan.

    Also, Charon was tall. So is iSteve.

    iSteve works to ferry normiecucks from Clown World to Redpillistan.

    Gold box! Where’s the gold box?

  287. @Corvinus
    "Do you mean the fact that Hunter Biden was and is still being investigated for corruption by the Ukrainian government and indictments are coming?"

    Because of the quid pro quo. Remember, it is a new investigative team.

    "What’s wrong with investigating that, especially as virtually every State department employee is a loyal democrat?"

    At the request of the Justice or State Department rather than a rogue agent.

    "As I understand it, Giuliani didn’t investigate anything. He just asked for copies of the existing Ukrainian law enforcement reports."

    In order to investigate!

    "Please cite the federal civil, regulatory and criminal code that forbids an American President from obtaining copies of a criminal investigation in a foreign country."

    Thanks for the strawman. It is the process that matters here and how that information is obtained.

    Rogue agent? State department, not the president has absolute jurisdiction over foreign affairs?

    You’re just repeating talking points your employer emails you. Your employer should check the facts before ordering you to post such falsehoods on the internet.

  288. @Jack D
    Show us the link. I guarantee that she is only saying this if you take her out of context and you twist her words beyond all recognition.

    You can ask Mr. Google to find the video. It records Ms. Nuland giving a speech about Ukraine to the Council on Foreign Relations or another one of those official Swamp ministries or think tanks.

  289. @Alden
    Foreign affairs are totally within the jurisdiction of the president, including whatever is going on in Ukraine. State is the one cabinet department that answers to, and must obey, the orders of the president.

    The president is in sole charge of that department. Whatever civil service state department employees personally think, it’s the one department where the president is in charge. Even the all powerful judiciary has no power to give orders to the president about foreign affairs


    The president has the power to appoint ambassadors and special envoys to do the president’s bidding in all aspects of foreign affairs.

    There’s no law, regulation or precedent that Ambassadors and special envoys be civil service state department employees.

    Most presidents have appointed non civil service state department people as ambassadors. Most presidents send special envoys who are not civil service state department employees to deal with foreign countries.

    A special envoy of the president to a foreign country is not a rogue agent. Obtaining copies of a Ukrainian government investigation is not a violation of any American process or procedure.

    The Ukrainians can give copies of their investigations to anyone they wish; including an envoy of the president of the United States regardless of what you think.

    The American justice department has no jurisdiction in foreign countries although there is cooperation, but strictly with the consent of both countries.

    Again, please cite any federal criminal, civil regulatory or procedural code that forbids the president from being freely given investigation reports by a foreign country. Ukraine could have refused to give the reports to Trump’s envoy. But the reports were given to Trump’s envoy.

    You’re way way out of your depth old crow.

    Your posts just display complete absolute ignorance of the powers and jurisdiction of the president in foreign affairs.

    Google a 7th grade social studies lesson on the subject and stop embarrassing yourself

    You created an entire strawman about how I do not “comprehend” the role of the president and foreign affairs. Congratulations. Rather, what you wrote…I already know up until your assertion–“There’s no law, regulation or precedent that Ambassadors and special envoys be civil service state department employees.”

    Let’s focus on facts. Guiliani is NOT an envoy or special envoy. He is President Trump’s personal lawyer. Persons appointed as such special agents or representatives are considered to be the personal representatives of the President and not “ambassadors” or other “public ministers” within the meaning of the constitutional provision. In such cases these personal representatives have been given diplomatic rank, including that of minister, envoy, and ambassador. Representatives with diplomatic rank are not formally accredited to the foreign governments as official diplomatic representatives of our government. It is customary before making such an appointment for the State Department to ascertain from the foreign government concerned whether the appointment is acceptable. If so, such appointees are accredited informally. They are then customarily accorded the diplomatic privileges and courtesies pertaining to their rank.

    Nikki Haley, the former UN Ambassador under President Donald Trump, stated that she believes the Trump Administration should have named Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, as special envoy to Ukraine. In other words, there is a tradition here that has been followed by past presidents, but not by Trump. That is the precedent not followed! Multiple officials who have testified in both closed-door depositions and now public hearings have stated that Giuliani, who is a private citizen, led a back-channel regarding Ukraine policy. Furthermore, Giuliani admitted his role in helping to oust his fellow American from an important position. “I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way,” Giuliani told reporter Adam Entous. “She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.”

    So there was NO appointment here by Trump. Giuliani was NOT designated as a special envoy. He was acting on behalf of Trump in an UNOFFICIAL capacity. Obtaining copies of a foreign investigation without recognition as a diplomat by the State Department is a violation of the current American process in place, as stated above. Had Giuliani properly received this appointment, then there is NO issue here.

    You’re way way out of your depth. Now, how about offering proof for your assertion you made in a past thread that you have read 200,000 books in your lifetime.

    Furthermore, please educate yourself by reading this important message.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-flake-the-president-is-on-trial-so-are-my-senate-republican-colleagues/2019/12/20/5446c930-236b-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

  290. @Alden
    1. I’m not a teacher

    2. It doesn’t matter what the founders were thinking. What matters is the development of constitutional law over the last 230 years. New amendments are made by the elected congress But constitutional law is mostly made by judges.

    It doesn’t matter what you and I post on UNZ. The powers that be will do what they want.

    It doesn’t matter what the founders were thinking.

    Tell that to the several justices of the Supreme Court who make decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people who espouse the judicial philosophy of “originalism”. (Check your seventh grade law text book for that one.)

    In any case you are missing my original point, that when Trump said in his letter that he was being convicted based on denial of legal representation and the right to call witnesses, he was talking nonsense. His trial has not yet taken place, and the Senate majority–which is Trump’s own party– is in a position to ensure that he can exercise those rights.

    And I think (for what it is worth) that he should have those rights.

    And if he is impeached in the Senate, will Trump then be classified a convicted felon? No, he will be removed from office, that is all. The Senate will say “You are fired!”, a process that should be quite familiar to Trump. The election of 2016 will not be nullified (as claimed by Trump). Trump’s vice-president will take over until a new election is held next year.

    • Replies: @Alden
    I wish there were more lawyers commenting here.

    No such thing as Originalism. It’s termed original intent. Original intent gave way first to constitutional law or the evolution of laws derived from the constitution more than 200 years ago.

    After the civil war the judiciary created the living constitution and made laws according to that principle.

    The judiciary still claims to make and overturn laws according to living constitution principles.

    Are you even an American? Your posts about the constitution and American laws and legal procedures lead me to believe you’re not.

    I think you’re just repeating talking points sent to you by the DNC.
  291. @David In TN
    I remember when the Democrats were routinely called "The War Party." Bush II and the Iraq war pretty much ended that one.

    I told somebody Bush II was trying to see how far he could drive down his approval rating.

    I told somebody Bush II was trying to see how far he could drive down his approval rating.

    Well, Bush Mk II managed to dethrone Buchanan as the Worst President in History, but now we have a new contender! (Strangely the worst candidate for the presidency was also called Buchanan.)

  292. @Jack D
    Yes, that's all of Western history in a nutshell - kind hearted but naive goyim are constantly being outsmarted and cheated by clever Jews. Until one day the goy wakes up and realizes that he has been bamboozled and put the Jews to the gallows, but not before giving them an opportunity to repent and convert to Christianity, which they stubbornly refuse to do. George Bush II is the Duke of Württemberg and the part of the Jud Süß is played by Neocons. The End.

    Given that the guy you’re talking to also thinks “international law” is a nonsense term and that India wasn’t a British colony (and, no doubt, that a gay marriage is one with a lot of dancing) I’m not sure I’d give uncritical acceptance to his terminological fatwas.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Yes 'international law' is a nonsense term. There is no body to define, enforce, or adjudicate.

    The various components of India were British dependencies. They weren't colonies because there were hardly any British settlers in India, just officials and soldiers who rotated in and out.

    Homosexual pseudonomy is not marriage.


    You're welcome.
  293. @Reg Cæsar

    Multiple layers of stupidity in this statement.
     
    Perhaps you might spell them out. You usually do.

    Let us know how a Kansas City haberdasher supersedes Augustine and Aquinas. In other words, "Show Me".

    Questionabe, even definitely evil, acts do not make even a ruler non-Christian, still less his country.

  294. @Jack D
    Misdemeanors?

    "High crimes and misdemeanors" has no fixed meaning. It means whatever Congress says it means. If Congress says that not having the proper crease in your trousers is a misdemeanor, then it is. Impeachment is not a criminal process, it is a political one. By custom in the Old Republic, it was used very sparingly because to do otherwise would be to subvert the will of the electorate and the balance of powers.

    The Democrats viewed Trump as illegitimate and wanted to get rid of him from Day 1 - they just didn't have the mechanism. Even though there is no legal test for impeachment, there is a political one - you have to have some political plausibility. They had always hoped that Mueller would give them this, but he was a fizzle. The Ukraine story was good enough to meet that test. It's not VERY good, it's not compelling, but it's good enough.

    Going back even further to the Al Gore election, the new Democrat mentality is that, as the Good People, they are entitled to control the government and so, if the voters make a mistake and elect a Republican it behooves them to try to fix this mistake in whatever way is possible - in the courts, by trying to get members of the Electoral College to change their votes, by impeachment. If they fail, if they can't carry it thru to the end because Republicans obstruct them, well at least it was worth a shot (and it's good for riling up the base and ginning up fund raising).

    So, in the New Republic, any President of the opposite party can be impeached purely for political reasons from now on - the precedent has been set. We have seen that many of the ground rules have changed in the New Republic, without ever changing the underlying documents - the rules for the use of the filibuster, the grounds for opposing Supreme Court nominations, etc.

    The problem, which Democrats never seem to understand, is that once you have undermined a Constitutional prop, it's gone forever - there's no putting it back. It's only a question of time until the other party uses it against you. They can't see this because they view what they are doing in moral terms. When they do X, it's for a Good Cause - we know that from the perspective of the Left there is nothing you can't do (even mass murder) as long as it is for a Good Cause. It's like carrying guns - it's not symmetrical. Good Guys (e.g. the police) are allowed to carry guns because they are the Good Guys. Just because Good Guys are allowed to carry guns it doesn't follow that Bad Guys are allowed to carry them. Same thing with weaponizing the Constitution. But that's not how it works in real life. In real life, once a weapon is out on the market, everyone is going to be able to access it.

    Great post as always Jack 👌

  295. @Jonathan Mason

    It doesn’t matter what the founders were thinking.
     
    Tell that to the several justices of the Supreme Court who make decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people who espouse the judicial philosophy of "originalism". (Check your seventh grade law text book for that one.)

    In any case you are missing my original point, that when Trump said in his letter that he was being convicted based on denial of legal representation and the right to call witnesses, he was talking nonsense. His trial has not yet taken place, and the Senate majority--which is Trump's own party-- is in a position to ensure that he can exercise those rights.

    And I think (for what it is worth) that he should have those rights.

    And if he is impeached in the Senate, will Trump then be classified a convicted felon? No, he will be removed from office, that is all. The Senate will say "You are fired!", a process that should be quite familiar to Trump. The election of 2016 will not be nullified (as claimed by Trump). Trump's vice-president will take over until a new election is held next year.

    I wish there were more lawyers commenting here.

    No such thing as Originalism. It’s termed original intent. Original intent gave way first to constitutional law or the evolution of laws derived from the constitution more than 200 years ago.

    After the civil war the judiciary created the living constitution and made laws according to that principle.

    The judiciary still claims to make and overturn laws according to living constitution principles.

    Are you even an American? Your posts about the constitution and American laws and legal procedures lead me to believe you’re not.

    I think you’re just repeating talking points sent to you by the DNC.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    No such thing as Originalism.
     
    FYI

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

    I think you’re just repeating talking points sent to you by the DNC.
     
    LOL. I didn't even know one could obtain talking points from the DNC.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    You're weong about Originalism, but you're right about Jonathan Mason. He's not American, and he's the iSteve commenter who blamed the Rotherham Muslim sex predation on the victims. For some reason, though, Steve keeps approving his comments.
  296. @Hail
    James Howard Kunstler on the impeachment:

    An Expulsion of Demons
    Dec. 16, 2019

    Is there any saving the Democratic Party? This wretched concatenation of ill-will, bad faith, false witness, and sore-loserdom lurches from one defeat to the next like some mindless monster from an ancient fable of ruin, seeking a final spectacular spasm of self-annihilation.
     

    https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/an-expulsion-of-demons/


    The impeachment dumbshow put on by hobgoblin Jerrold Nadler enters a most interesting zone of suspense this week as fate propels it towards a floor debate and then a vote by the whole house on Wednesday or Thursday [...]
     

    How much ignominy can they endure? Have they not grasped the reality that the Mueller investigation failed? That it appears to have been only one part of a larger criminal enterprise to defraud the public? That the Resistance was just an effort to cover up swales of wickedness in a greater swamp of government-gone-rogue? And now, to come to this: two articles of impeachment so transparently empty that they look like windows into the vacated soul of the Democratic Party.

    And now consider all this vectoring into the catastrophe that the Democratic primary has become heading into election 2020. Joe Biden? Really? Are they serious? He left a slime trail as wide as the DC Beltway around his doings as Veep
     


    This solemn holiday may be the Democrat Party’s last chance to avoid suicide. They need to have a conversation with someone on the cosmic hotline, come to the realization that they’ve truly hit bottom now and must, as Rep Devin Nunes suggested Sunday to his colleague Adam Schiff, sign into rehab.
     

    https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/an-expulsion-of-demons/

    Many thanks for the link. Excellent blast! In terms of grin-inducing style, Kunstler’s right up there with Jim Goad and Christopher DeGroot.

  297. @Hail
    Looking back at Nixon's autobiography (RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, first published 1978), I see in the first section he talks a fair amount about his upbringing, including his father's struggles, family origins, grandparents, family religious and political traditions. One can pick up some clues on R.Nixon's own ethnocultural identity, during his years in public life (mid 1940s to 1974), from his prose there.

    I see he uses the word 'Quaker' a lot, and always sympathetically. I also see something unexpected, two interesting but isolated lines with the word "Irish," as follows:


    My father [i.e., Frank Nixon] had an Irish quickness both to anger and to mirth
     
    He otherwise describes his father as "a hard-line Ohio Republican," a "robust" Methodist, a prohibitionist even into the 1930s, but a man who had broken with his own and his family's political tradition of Republicanism and protest-voted for La Follette in 1924, seemingly out of frustration with the Republican Party.

    Richard Nixon in his memoir makes no other mention of 'Irishness' vis-a-vis his father, so this "Irish quickness" line might be meant pretty metaphorically.

    This one, though, seems literal:


    Everyone who ever knew my mother was impressed with what a remarkable woman she was. She was born March 7, 1885, in southern Indiana into an Irish Quaker family of nine. When was was twelve, her father decided to move to a new Quaker settlement in California.
     
    Richard Nixon's mother did not have any recent ancestry on the Emerald Isle, and only a modest amount of total ancestry tied to Ireland even distantly, so this "Irish Quaker family" characterization is curious.

    Nixon spends more time in the first chapter of the memoir describing his own ancestry, but the word "Irish" does not again appear. His maternal grandmother (1849-1943) he describes as a strong Quaker and Lincoln supporter.

    Make of the above what you will, bearing in mind the risks of trusting a memoir.

    Albion’s Seed:

    The Presidency as a Case Study

    For two centuries after 1789, the four major regions controlled the national politics of the United States as completely as they dominated its language and its culture. Not until the late twentieth century did this pattern begin to change. An indicator of this hegemony may be seen in the cultural origins of American Presidents. In two centuries from 1789 to 1989, the highest office has been held by forty men, of whom thirty-eight were descended from one or another of the four folk migrations.

    Of those four cultural groups, this historian was surprised to discover that the largest number of Presidents, eighteen in all, were descended in whole or in part from North British borderers, most of whom had settled in the backcountry during the eighteenth century. They included Andrew Jackson, James Knox Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt (who was nearly three-quarters North British), Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

    ******
    The fourth folk culture contributed comparatively little to the presidency. The English Quakers and German Pietists who settled the Delaware Valley did not approve of politics. Nevertheless, seven American Presidents had a connection with this culture. Abraham Lincoln’s Puritan ancestors intermarried with Pennsylvania Quakers. Grover Cleveland had a German Quaker grandmother from Pennsylvania. William McKinley had a Quaker great-grandmother. Warren Harding was of Quaker descent on his mother’s side. Herbert Hoover was descended from mixed German and English Quakers and Dwight Eisenhower came from German Mennonites whose experiences and beliefs were similar to English Quakers in many ways.38 The black sheep of the presidential flock, Richard Nixon, also traced his ancestry to Quakers who migrated to Pennsylvania before 1730.

  298. @Anon
    Given that the guy you're talking to also thinks "international law" is a nonsense term and that India wasn't a British colony (and, no doubt, that a gay marriage is one with a lot of dancing) I'm not sure I'd give uncritical acceptance to his terminological fatwas.

    Yes ‘international law’ is a nonsense term. There is no body to define, enforce, or adjudicate.

    The various components of India were British dependencies. They weren’t colonies because there were hardly any British settlers in India, just officials and soldiers who rotated in and out.

    Homosexual pseudonomy is not marriage.

    You’re welcome.

    • Replies: @Anon
    OK, but your private language is increasingly different from the actual English spoken by the people around you. That's not necessarily your fault, or even necessarily a bad thing, but it is just wise to keep that in mind when talking to other people.
  299. @Alden
    I wish there were more lawyers commenting here.

    No such thing as Originalism. It’s termed original intent. Original intent gave way first to constitutional law or the evolution of laws derived from the constitution more than 200 years ago.

    After the civil war the judiciary created the living constitution and made laws according to that principle.

    The judiciary still claims to make and overturn laws according to living constitution principles.

    Are you even an American? Your posts about the constitution and American laws and legal procedures lead me to believe you’re not.

    I think you’re just repeating talking points sent to you by the DNC.

    No such thing as Originalism.

    FYI

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

    I think you’re just repeating talking points sent to you by the DNC.

    LOL. I didn’t even know one could obtain talking points from the DNC.

  300. @Art Deco
    Yes 'international law' is a nonsense term. There is no body to define, enforce, or adjudicate.

    The various components of India were British dependencies. They weren't colonies because there were hardly any British settlers in India, just officials and soldiers who rotated in and out.

    Homosexual pseudonomy is not marriage.


    You're welcome.

    OK, but your private language is increasingly different from the actual English spoken by the people around you. That’s not necessarily your fault, or even necessarily a bad thing, but it is just wise to keep that in mind when talking to other people.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I'm not speaking in private language. I'm speaking in perfectly accessible English. You don't like the ideas encoded in it. Tough.
  301. @David In TN
    So the angelic Japanese never bombed civilians.

    So the angelic Japanese were [not a Christian nation].

  302. @Anon
    OK, but your private language is increasingly different from the actual English spoken by the people around you. That's not necessarily your fault, or even necessarily a bad thing, but it is just wise to keep that in mind when talking to other people.

    I’m not speaking in private language. I’m speaking in perfectly accessible English. You don’t like the ideas encoded in it. Tough.

    • Replies: @Anon
    You're speaking in a language in which "international law" has no referent.

    That language isn't English, at least as it has been spoken in well over 200 years.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=international+law&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1800,cd_max:1899
  303. @David In TN
    According to the Chinese, and no one has argued differently, the angelic Japanese killed 250,000 Chinese civilians in reprisal for the Doolittle Raid.

    And the Japanese bombed Chinese civilians from 1937 on.

    So why didn’t we try them for these war crimes? Or the German pilots? They got off scot-free.

    I never called the Japs “angelic”. I said the Allies weren’t. They just pretended to be, after the fact.

    We are blind to this because progressivism has been eating away at education and upbringing before any of us were born. “The ends justify the means.”

  304. @Art Deco
    Similar story with Bush II. Sure, he was brighter than Kerry, but his IQ was dwarfed by the Neocons in his cabinet. It’s easy to be tricked into stuff when you’re forced to substantially rely on people who are much smarter.

    There's no indication that either Bush or Kerry had intellectual deficits of note. They're politicians, not physics professors. 'Neocon' is a nonsense term unless you're referring to a discrete set of academics and publicists (none of whom were in Bush's cabinet, which was chock-a-block with quondam elected officials and various and sundry from the Republican establishment).

    There’s no indication that either Bush or Kerry had intellectual deficits of note.

    so “Islam is a peaceful religion” was an outright lie? I gave him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he was dumb enough to believe it.

    He attended corrupt backwater Bible colleges, after all.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    so “Islam is a peaceful religion” was an outright lie? I gave him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he was dumb enough to believe it.

    I think he said, "Islam means peace". (I believe the proper translation is something closer to 'submission').


    Strange as it may seem to you and Andrew Bacevich, public addresses are not intra-office memoranda. Among other things, some things are uttered as courtesies, uttered in metaphorical or figurative language, uttered as idealizations, &c. The president's message - that the target here are bands of violent political revanchists, not Muslims-in-general - is not difficult to decode, but it's lost on lots of people who fancy themselves in a position to call others stupid.

    It may not have occurred to you before, but there aren't many renaissance men out there, and there certainly are not many among our elected officials. Knowledge is specialized and we're all pretty ignorant outside our specific vocations and avocations. There's no indication that comparative religion is an interest of either man. Bush knew something of certain business sectors, something of American history and biography, something of Scripture, and something of policy SNAFUs in Texas state government.

    The moderator here has done a romp for public consumption through the psychometric tests given to Bush and Kerry by the Air Force and the Navy ca. 1967. He's not a psychologist, so take it with a hunk of rock salt, but his conclusion was that the two men in question scored (IIRC) somewhere around the 88th percentile of the general population. So did John Kennedy a generation earlier. That's what you'd expect of an ordinary denizen of the professional-managerial stratum. You want smarter, you get Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon, whose careers demonstrate that additional increments of book-smart can in the wrong circumstances generate negative returns. Quondam nuclear engineer Jimmy Carter is another example.


    And you didn't care to notice the rest of his fantasy, which is that Bush was snookered by Jews 'neocons' in his cabinet. Roberta Wohlstetter and Seymour Martin Lipset were not in his cabinet, nor was there anyone remotely resembling them in his cabinet. Policy was being made by Colin Powell (career military), Condoleeza Rice (a Russia specialist whose patrons were conventional business Republicans), Donald Rumsfeld (congressman from Illinois, Ford Administration retread), Richard Cheney (congressman from Wyoming, veteran of the Ford Administration and the papa Bush Administration), Robert Gates (career CIA), George Tenet (one-time Democratic congressional aide), Porter Goss (career CIA, congressman from Florida), Stephen Hadley (a Washington lawyer in the patronage pool for every Republican Administration after Nixon's); Gen. Myers, Pace, Hayden (career military) and Adm. Mullen (ditto). You're all name-checking an assistant Secretary of Defense because that's the best you can do.
  305. @Art Deco
    I'm not speaking in private language. I'm speaking in perfectly accessible English. You don't like the ideas encoded in it. Tough.

    You’re speaking in a language in which “international law” has no referent.

    That language isn’t English, at least as it has been spoken in well over 200 years.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=international+law&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1800,cd_max:1899

  306. @Alden
    Abortion is federal law. Remember, abortion was legalized by the federal Supreme Court, Roe vs Wade which legalized abortion in every state.

    Supreme and other federal court decisions such as the Supreme Court deciding that corporations are persons, Louisiana Slaughterhouses 1870s?school desegregation, Brown vs Topeka, affirmative action, Griggs and Kaiser, Miranda and Gideon in criminal law and the federal decisions regarding legalizing gay marriage created federal laws Re: those matters.

    That’s our American legal system. Laws are made by federal and state courts and government regulatory agencies as much as by elected legislators. For the last 70 years, more and more laws are made and overturned by the courts.

    Abortion was, and many other matters such as gay marriage were, legalized by federal courts. A presidential executive order can overturn a federal court decision. All it takes is a president to issue an executive order and ignore any federal court injunctions, rulings and orders overturning the order.

    As far as I know, only Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln ever defied Supreme Court decisions rulings aka orders. Feel free to delve into the history of presidential executive orders versus the federal courts since Marbury vs Madison 1804.

    It’s ridiculous for non attorneys who’ve never even been in parking ticket court to argue about the impeachment or claim that abortion wasn’t legalized by a federal agency and is not subject to federal law and presidential executive order.

    A president can make any executive order he or she wishes on any subject. Whether or not the president CHOOSES to enforce the executive order after a federal court injunction overturning that executive order is another matter entirely.

    As per usual, Trump didn’t enforce his executive orders after federal courts enjoined him from doing so.

    But Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln did enforce their executive orders. The supreme and lower federal courts couldn’t do a thing but issue injunctions and rulings and orders that Jackson cease his war and Lincoln restore habeas corpus

    Those presidents ignored the Supreme Court orders. Because they could do so.

    Jackson pursued a war after the Supreme Court ordered him to end the war. Abraham Lincoln suspended the ancient civil right of habeas corpus for 4 years during the civil war. He enforced his executive order by keeping 40,000 publishers, journalists, dissidents and secession advocates in local jails, without charges, bail, or trials. Just arrest and keep them in jail for years because Lincoln suspended habeas corpus by executive order.

    Abortion was, and many other matters such as gay marriage were, legalized by federal courts. A presidential executive order can overturn a federal court decision.

    That would just return us to the pre-Roe status, in which it was outlawed by 47 or 48 states. Federal law hardly entered into it.

    Jackson pursued a war after the Supreme Court ordered him to end the war.

    Jackson commanded an Army. Which federal agency is going to shut down clinics on the President’s orders?

    It’s ridiculous for non attorneys who’ve never even been in parking ticket court

    I’ve been in parking ticket court, and prevailed.

  307. @jim jones
    The Left have been in a state of hysteria since Trump won on a platform of reducing immigration:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2beyAswOSJw

    The mortician doing Nancy’s makeup must be paid a small fortune. Probably the same one as Di-Fi.

  308. @Alden
    I wish there were more lawyers commenting here.

    No such thing as Originalism. It’s termed original intent. Original intent gave way first to constitutional law or the evolution of laws derived from the constitution more than 200 years ago.

    After the civil war the judiciary created the living constitution and made laws according to that principle.

    The judiciary still claims to make and overturn laws according to living constitution principles.

    Are you even an American? Your posts about the constitution and American laws and legal procedures lead me to believe you’re not.

    I think you’re just repeating talking points sent to you by the DNC.

    You’re weong about Originalism, but you’re right about Jonathan Mason. He’s not American, and he’s the iSteve commenter who blamed the Rotherham Muslim sex predation on the victims. For some reason, though, Steve keeps approving his comments.

  309. The mortician doing Nancy’s makeup must be paid a small fortune. Probably the same one as Di-Fi.

  310. @Reg Cæsar

    There’s no indication that either Bush or Kerry had intellectual deficits of note.
     
    so "Islam is a peaceful religion" was an outright lie? I gave him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he was dumb enough to believe it.

    He attended corrupt backwater Bible colleges, after all.

    so “Islam is a peaceful religion” was an outright lie? I gave him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he was dumb enough to believe it.

    I think he said, “Islam means peace”. (I believe the proper translation is something closer to ‘submission’).

    Strange as it may seem to you and Andrew Bacevich, public addresses are not intra-office memoranda. Among other things, some things are uttered as courtesies, uttered in metaphorical or figurative language, uttered as idealizations, &c. The president’s message – that the target here are bands of violent political revanchists, not Muslims-in-general – is not difficult to decode, but it’s lost on lots of people who fancy themselves in a position to call others stupid.

    It may not have occurred to you before, but there aren’t many renaissance men out there, and there certainly are not many among our elected officials. Knowledge is specialized and we’re all pretty ignorant outside our specific vocations and avocations. There’s no indication that comparative religion is an interest of either man. Bush knew something of certain business sectors, something of American history and biography, something of Scripture, and something of policy SNAFUs in Texas state government.

    The moderator here has done a romp for public consumption through the psychometric tests given to Bush and Kerry by the Air Force and the Navy ca. 1967. He’s not a psychologist, so take it with a hunk of rock salt, but his conclusion was that the two men in question scored (IIRC) somewhere around the 88th percentile of the general population. So did John Kennedy a generation earlier. That’s what you’d expect of an ordinary denizen of the professional-managerial stratum. You want smarter, you get Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon, whose careers demonstrate that additional increments of book-smart can in the wrong circumstances generate negative returns. Quondam nuclear engineer Jimmy Carter is another example.

    And you didn’t care to notice the rest of his fantasy, which is that Bush was snookered by Jews ‘neocons’ in his cabinet. Roberta Wohlstetter and Seymour Martin Lipset were not in his cabinet, nor was there anyone remotely resembling them in his cabinet. Policy was being made by Colin Powell (career military), Condoleeza Rice (a Russia specialist whose patrons were conventional business Republicans), Donald Rumsfeld (congressman from Illinois, Ford Administration retread), Richard Cheney (congressman from Wyoming, veteran of the Ford Administration and the papa Bush Administration), Robert Gates (career CIA), George Tenet (one-time Democratic congressional aide), Porter Goss (career CIA, congressman from Florida), Stephen Hadley (a Washington lawyer in the patronage pool for every Republican Administration after Nixon’s); Gen. Myers, Pace, Hayden (career military) and Adm. Mullen (ditto). You’re all name-checking an assistant Secretary of Defense because that’s the best you can do.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I've never gotten into the neocon bashing. They were pretty reliable on most domestic issues, and still are when they stick to the last-- Manhattan Institute, Mackinac Center, Center of the American Experiment...

    I see you didn't correct me on Bush's education. His almae matres were indeed founded as Bible schools, sit along dirty water, and are today thoroughly corrupt.
  311. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden
    I know, I know, you’re right.

    I didn’t mean to say most of the Jews were communists. I meant to say most of the communists were Jews.

    Even non Jewish IBEW and longshoremen Union were heavily really communist 100 years ago. That’s probably why IBEW is the the only union the liberals haven’t destroyed. Probably because the judges don’t want their court houses burned down because of illegal alien non licensed contractors and workers doing the electrical work.

    Say what you will about the IBEW, they get their rank and file a decent living and the work, if somewhat expensive, gets done to code and at least sort of promptly. Nonunion electrical work, where we can have it done, is cheaper but quality and scheduling often suck. They have to be micromanaged.

  312. @Art Deco
    so “Islam is a peaceful religion” was an outright lie? I gave him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he was dumb enough to believe it.

    I think he said, "Islam means peace". (I believe the proper translation is something closer to 'submission').


    Strange as it may seem to you and Andrew Bacevich, public addresses are not intra-office memoranda. Among other things, some things are uttered as courtesies, uttered in metaphorical or figurative language, uttered as idealizations, &c. The president's message - that the target here are bands of violent political revanchists, not Muslims-in-general - is not difficult to decode, but it's lost on lots of people who fancy themselves in a position to call others stupid.

    It may not have occurred to you before, but there aren't many renaissance men out there, and there certainly are not many among our elected officials. Knowledge is specialized and we're all pretty ignorant outside our specific vocations and avocations. There's no indication that comparative religion is an interest of either man. Bush knew something of certain business sectors, something of American history and biography, something of Scripture, and something of policy SNAFUs in Texas state government.

    The moderator here has done a romp for public consumption through the psychometric tests given to Bush and Kerry by the Air Force and the Navy ca. 1967. He's not a psychologist, so take it with a hunk of rock salt, but his conclusion was that the two men in question scored (IIRC) somewhere around the 88th percentile of the general population. So did John Kennedy a generation earlier. That's what you'd expect of an ordinary denizen of the professional-managerial stratum. You want smarter, you get Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon, whose careers demonstrate that additional increments of book-smart can in the wrong circumstances generate negative returns. Quondam nuclear engineer Jimmy Carter is another example.


    And you didn't care to notice the rest of his fantasy, which is that Bush was snookered by Jews 'neocons' in his cabinet. Roberta Wohlstetter and Seymour Martin Lipset were not in his cabinet, nor was there anyone remotely resembling them in his cabinet. Policy was being made by Colin Powell (career military), Condoleeza Rice (a Russia specialist whose patrons were conventional business Republicans), Donald Rumsfeld (congressman from Illinois, Ford Administration retread), Richard Cheney (congressman from Wyoming, veteran of the Ford Administration and the papa Bush Administration), Robert Gates (career CIA), George Tenet (one-time Democratic congressional aide), Porter Goss (career CIA, congressman from Florida), Stephen Hadley (a Washington lawyer in the patronage pool for every Republican Administration after Nixon's); Gen. Myers, Pace, Hayden (career military) and Adm. Mullen (ditto). You're all name-checking an assistant Secretary of Defense because that's the best you can do.

    I’ve never gotten into the neocon bashing. They were pretty reliable on most domestic issues, and still are when they stick to the last– Manhattan Institute, Mackinac Center, Center of the American Experiment…

    I see you didn’t correct me on Bush’s education. His almae matres were indeed founded as Bible schools, sit along dirty water, and are today thoroughly corrupt.

  313. @Moses

    Scott Adams also has some juicy young trim he’s leading around by the nose:
     
    My guess is it's more accurate that this Instagram thot is leading Adams around by the nose.

    Women who post lots of racy pics of their bodies online are addicted to attention from men. And there will be buyers, oh yes...

    I've found it to be a bad sign.

    Women who post lots of racy pics of their bodies online are addicted to attention from men.

    But mainly women.

    “All the girls walk by, dressed up for each other.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002391/Sorry-chaps-women-dress-impress-other.html

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings