All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Friday, November 22, 2019

Trump just stopped the impeachment



Democrats want an impeachment.

Go ahead. Make my day, the president said.

The Washington Examiner reported, "White House counsel Pat Cipollone signaled during a Thursday meeting with key Senate Republicans that Trump has concluded he has more to gain politically from presenting a detailed defense at trial than from no trial at all, said GOP sources familiar with the discussion.

"That decision should shield Senate Republicans from the damaging backlash from the conservative base that might ensue — at the onset of GOP primary season — if Trump demands that they use their 53-seat majority to shield him from an impeachment trial.

"Senate Republicans are relieved, conceding there is not enough support among them to throw out the charges without a trial. 'I think everyone agrees there’s not 51 votes to dismiss before the managers call the case,' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters.

"House Democrats are still developing their case against Trump."

Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley told Sean Hannity last night, “The president did nothing wrong. He wants that plain and clearly explained to the American people. But, he also feels there’s no basis to move forward at all in the House.

“But if they do, he wants a trial in the Senate. He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden. And he says, if the House moves forward with this sham, and they continue to push these fake, illegitimate proceedings onto the American people, then he wants it to go to the Senate, and he wants a trial.”

This makes perfect sense.

Republicans must exact a heavy price from Democrats because we must preserve impeachment for only the deadliest of sins. Policy disagreements and butt-hurt over an election are not good enough excuses to put the nation through this wringer.

An actual impeachment trial will devastate Democrats. On September 27, I warned them that they do not want President Trump on the stand.

While 2 months later that is still true, I doubt that the president would bother with it. But surely he would dangle the possibility to make the Wile E. Coyotes out there drool at the prospect of cross-examination.

Instead, his defense would skewer dozens of Democrat dignitaries such as Jim Comey, John Brennan, and Jim Clapper. Surely the proprietors of Fusion GPS who ordered that Russian dossier would love to testify. After all, they just published a book on the subject.

Tucker Carlson could have a running count of the number of times a Democrat asserts his Fifth Amendment right under oath. Does anyone believe cokehead Hunter would be able to keep his act together for 2 hours of testimony?

The trial would last for as long as President Trump's supporters enjoy it. And they would. They would love to drag before the public every one of these bastard coup conspirators (or as I called them earlier, the Coup Klutz Clan). This would make them sweat, humiliate them, and ensure that no president ever again will have to endure such a disgraceful and seditious siege on his presidency for three long years.

Of course, this happens only if the House impeaches him. Actions have consequences. President Trump just told Democrats what the consequences of impeachment are.

The ball is in Nancy Pelosi's court. All she needs is 20 Democrats to vote against it, and stop the madness. Or she could just never take it up for a vote.

Or they can impeach and pay the price.

40 comments:

  1. Suddenly dropping impeachment and taking up and passing USMCA looks a whole lot safer for dummicRATS.

    - Toby Flenderson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The game isn't over. Lawfare I am sure has another trick up their sleeve. Or two. Or four. And I'm not even bringing up the possibility of violence. Recall Zaid's infamous tweet from 2017 boasting that as one scheme fails two more shall take its place?

      USMCA won't get passed until after the 2020 election and only then if Republicans get a House majority. Xi has spoken.

      TarsTarkas

      Delete
    2. "Recall Zaid's infamous tweet from 2017 boasting that as one scheme fails two more shall take its place?"

      Bring it the f*ck on. Screw Zaid.

      Delete
  2. Too bad they couldn't bring back St John of Hanoi for a day or 2 on the stand.

    PS She has to have a vote and she'd better have enough to impeach or the crazies stay home.

    Win-win-win.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As has been said, bring it on. I, though, so do not understand why what Glenn Beck has uncovered was not asked of the witnesses in the public hearings. Getting them on the record and then if they are found to have lied, charged with perjury and contempt of congress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The R's weren't permitted to ask those questions. Shiff-for-Brains stopped them.

      Delete

  4. EM CRAB APPLE FOADDY-FI!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unlike the #ShamPeachment Inquiry, I would tune in daily for the Senate Trial...and enjoy every savory moment of the Democrats who set this up being grilled.

    I can't wait to see Lindsay Graham v 3.0 unleashed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not sure why the Examiner prefers to characterize it as "his decision shields Republicans" rather than the more obvious and obviously correct "his decision just made every Democrat in congress stain his pants brown".

    If you read the best of Trump's books - Think Big and Kick Ass - you'll learn that one of his principles is: Payback. If you're with him one of his principles is Loyalty (he reciprocates) but if you're against him: Payback.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Republicans/Conservative, Inc. are gay and like to take it in the a$$.

      Delete
    2. No you are confused with the Democrat Buttgay mayor of Podunk, Indiana,who is running for President

      Delete
  7. Wouldn't John Roberts preside? Does he have the kind of power a judge has in a regular court trial over what is allowed? Would he allow things like grilling Hunter Biden?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roberts is a fact witness. This is going to get good!

      Delete
    2. The Federal rules of legal procedure are supposed to apply.
      NB

      Delete
    3. If Roberts is a fact witness, Clarence Thomas is his most likely replacement for a trial. Democrats will shriek, you can't have a rapist presiding over the trial of a rapist!

      TarsTarkas

      Delete
    4. The Chief Justice has to preside, so says the Constitution. No substitution allowed. He can testify as to fact. The Chief Justice, presiding over the trial stating the FISA applications were fraudulent, well, you be the judge of the effect of that.

      Delete
  8. The bigger question then is whether house Republicans should help move this over to the Senate if some smart Democrats start balking and voting no?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do not understand why what Glenn Beck/Rudy Giuliani has uncovered was not asked of the witnesses in the public hearings. Getting them on the record and then if they are found to have lied, charged with perjury and contempt of Congress.  I realize that the media and the Democrats have characterized Rudy Giuliani's information as false or from corrupt individuals and/or is part of a conspiracy.  But, IMO, those who disagree with Rudy Giuliani must be made to justify why they do.  During the House Judiciary hearings this must be used against any Democratic witness; it is time to use brass knuckles as the Democrats have done for decades.  Being a TEA Party county director I saw it up front and personal and with little strong GOP push back.  Because this long term lack of spine has been the GOP position against Democratic tactics, we now have a hearsay impeachment with rules so pro Democratic it is unbelievable.
    Unfortunately facts mean nothing today just as with President Johnson’s impeachment.  This impeachment is worse that that of President Johnson after the Civil War where the major major charge against POTUS was the "illegal" firing of Secretary of War Stanton (or any cabinet member) because of an unconstitutional law that was not declared so until 1926 over a contested firing of a US post office post master.   Congress had passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867 over Johnson’s veto. The act required the President to seek the Senate’s advice and consent before relieving or dismissing any member of his Cabinet (an indirect reference to Stanton) or, indeed, any federal official whose initial appointment had previously required its advice and consent.  In 1926, a similar law (though not dealing with Cabinet secretaries) was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Myers v. United States, which affirmed the ability of the President to remove a Postmaster without Congressional approval. In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court stated in its majority opinion (though in dicta), "that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, insofar as it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officers who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was invalid".  Something the Democrats have hinted that Trump illegally did too.
    I noticed that all of the State Department witnesses said that the President set foreign policy, but complained that the existing policy THEY had set was not followed. 
    Presidents being undercut by the bureaucracy was not unusual in the past 100 years.  Congress needs to pass a law concerning civil service like the  Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, in particular since President Obama made many political appointees part of civil service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've never understood Sun Tzu, have you?

      Delete
  10. The dem plan is to drag this sham out as long as possible without a trial where my President gets to call witnesses, cross examine witnesses and present facts.
    Right now they, somewhat, control the story lie err line. The media is all in for this Alice in blunderland show with the queen of old farts banging her gavel and screaming "off with his head... Trial later."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Right now they, somewhat, control the story lie...."
      That state of affairs can be drastically altered, by numerous possible bombshells, e.g. an anti-Feds ruling in the Flynn case, or publication of the Horowitz Rept. on 9 Dec. (and his Senate testimony on 11Dec.).
      The Dems may very soon have to eat a silo-full of crow.

      Delete
    2. CNN and fiends are bound and determined to make President Trumps administration a failure. They will not report anything that is positive. People like Nonny the ninny who feed at that trough have no clue about what is really happening in the world.
      Don gave him a smack down a couple days ago and linked to a less common news site which has trust issues. ever mind that it was also up at FOX, Breitbart, daily wire and OAN by the time our fine host posted it, and Nonny went head over heels attacking the source.

      Delete
  11. Logical this inquiry, whether the unofficial one or the official one, should not have occurred.

    Problem is Democrats are not being logical.

    So, this was a sop to the Democrats rabid majority designed, but was ineffective, in damaging Trump politically, or, my view, this was baked into the coup that has been in the works since 2015 and they are going to impeach no matter what.

    Either way, hello 2nd term President Trump, Republican controlled Senate, and a retaking of and a Republican controlled House.

    The Republicans should then put a political boot to the throat of each and every Democrat in America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct Texas, 18 min. after President Trump's inauguration the proceedings for impeachment began by the
      dem's and co-harts the press.

      Kate

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately the Republicans have no boot besides a few brave soldiers. Traitor John McCain was allowed to get Obummer Care passed with no repercussions!! Rewarded with a 3-day funeral!

      Delete
  12. I wonder what would happen if the Democrats were to punt, to decline to impeach, to basically *reprimand* Trump after three years of screaming that the man was just too catastrophically corrupt to be President --- and the Senate agreed anyway to give Trump his trial --- just so we could finally put these issues to bed once and for all. The reactions of the Democratic Party and the Deep State to such a development would be hilarious, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. An actual impeachment by vote of the House is a prerequisite for a trial in the Senate per the Constitution.

      Delete
  13. I think the Dems have enough rope to hang themselves by now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You underestimate the quantity.

      Or

      Your thinking is political, not judicial.

      Delete
  14. President has an alternative strategy with Adam Schiff.

    As I recall from "Mars Attacks", boggle-eyed creepazoids' heads explode when they hear Slim Whitman's "Indian Love Call"

    ReplyDelete
  15. The question is, what are Pelosi’s choices now? Was this merely a sop to the Squad, or a serious effort gone south?

    Were they hoping to stain Trump prior to the primaries to give their candidates some fuel?

    Having gone this far, does she have the means to stop it? Unless she can twist enough Dem arms in the house.

    Or is she crazy enough to brazen it out?

    Seems these are the questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a combination.

      Think Beto in Texas. No chance to best Cruz, but it invigorated the party, forced the RNC to invest more $$ in Texas instead of somewhere else, winning would just have been a plus.

      I fully believe the Democrats know impeachment is a lost cause from the outset.

      However, I also believe it was a foregone conclusion no matter the legality. At the same time, if failed, it was supppsed to hamper Trump and invigorate the Dem party.

      None of the pluses for the Dems are occurring other than a sop to the Dem majority.

      Delete
    2. I think your on to something Tex. It's about the optics. Also, since the commies run our schools, there's a good chance the history books will focus on the many accusations and not the facts. The Commies lost this battle, so they're laying the foundation to hoodwink the next generation and also to keep the public from noticing they're not passing trade agreements or sentencing reform.
      Chollaman

      Delete
  16. If Nancy can't get enough Dems to vote to impeach, we should loan a few Rep votes just to make sure the Senate gets to have the trial.

    Then we can watch some heads explode on the Dem side when 1) folks R's wanted to call and 2) questions they wanted to ask can then be called and asked.
    No more being nice/weak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nancy and co thought the I-word would be the magic spell that turned the lion Trump into a mewling kitten. The mechanics of impeachment are complex, but everyone understands that being impeached is Not A Good Thing. The mere utterance of the word was supposed to show PDJT that he was out of league, and he'd better play nice or else.
      Well, they were right about Trump being out of their league. He's playing way above their standard. Nancy never expected to come this far down this road, but she kept talking about it and that got the lefty mob excited.
      Now she's cornered. She can't control Trump, and she can barely control her own following.
      Sympathy factor zero.

      Delete