Advertisements
Open post

Could Amy Klobuchar Emerge From the New Hampshire Pack?

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II (Because the Campaign Never Ends)

I know, I know, but don’t laugh.  – The Democrat Party has a long history of seeing surprise candidates emerge out of the New Hampshire primary. What’s interesting about this history is that the “surprise” has often not come with who won the primary, but in a candidate who finished as a surprisingly strong also-ran.

In 1972, Edmund Muskie won the primary as he was predicted to do, but it was radical-leftist candidate George McGovern who stole the thunder coming out of the Granite State, finishing in a surprisingly strong second place with over 37% of the vote. McGovern rode the momentum of that strong second place showing all the way to the nomination, culminating his year with an historic landslide loss to Richard Nixon.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter defied the pre-primary polls, narrowly defeating both Mo Udall and Birch Bayh to become the clear front-runner in the race for the nomination.

Colorado Senator Gary Hart shocked the pundits with a big win in New Hampshire over Walter Mondale in 1984. But it was the second-place finisher who ended up winning the nomination and the right to be the Democrats’ sacrificial lamb against Ronald Reagan.

Senator Paul Tsongas entered the 1992 New Hampshire primary with a strong polling lead over a crowded field, and to no one’s surprise, ended up winning. But it was Bill Clinton who stole the show, coming in second after having been basically written-off by all the “smart people” in Washington following a virtual no-show in the Iowa Caucuses. In his speech that evening, Clinton declared himself to be the “comeback kid,” and a fawning national press corps fell in love with him. The race for the nomination essentially ended that night.

Many will not remember that the Pantsuit Princess actually made a comeback of her own in New Hampshire in 2008, narrowly winning the primary following a poor showing in Iowa of her own. But despite losing, Barack Obama His Own Self stole the show with a powerful speech, and the same corrupt media that had jumped on the Clinton team in 1992 immediately signed up to play a similar role on Team Obama.

The Commie won big in New Hampshire in 2016, capturing 60% of the vote to 37% for the Fainting Felon. But by then the Clinton camp owned the DNC lock, stock and barrel, and succeeded in rigging the process against Sanders for the rest of the way.

So, who’s going to be the surprise of this year’s primary? It could very well be Amy Klobuchar, Senator from [checks notes] Minnesota. No one really took a Klobuchar candidacy seriously when she decided to enter the race over a year ago, and who knows – maybe last week’s 13%, 5th place finish in Iowa will turn out to have been her high water mark in the race.

But I keep getting this pesky feeling that she might surprise us.

Klobuchar has had a hard time raising money; she isn’t a flashy person who gets attention by shouting or cussing or making outrageous statements like so many of her competitors do; and she carries with her the baggage of a reputation as being one of the most abusive bosses on Capitol Hill. This is not an admirable person, but hey, she’s a Democrat so that doesn’t matter.

But she has basically become this race’s tortoise, plugging slowly but steadily behind a field of hares, slowly gaining ground on the field as they go off on their tirades and tangents. The photo that accompanies this piece captures the essence of her candidacy perfectly, standing there calmly, with a disapproving look on her face, in the midst of a pack of braying jackasses. It reminds me of the look my dear mother used to get when she would catch me and my brothers fighting in the back yard.

That photo is from last Friday’s debate, during which Klobuchar, by all accounts, had a pretty strong showing. I wouldn’t know, because I just cannot bring myself to waste 2-3 hours watching those things. But that seems to be the consensus.

Klobuchar has also been drawing some pretty strong crowds this week in New Hampshire, at least “strong” in the context of this Democrat race, where getting a high school gymnasium half-filled with voters and staff constitutes a “strong” turnout.

Klobuchar’s other main asset as a candidate is the storm that constantly brews around her in the form of the three braying jackasses in that photo, along with Preacher Pete and Faucahontas. Think about it: Klobuchar is the only candidate among those six who has not had a nickname bestowed upon her by President Donald Trump.

Finally, there is Klobuchar’s reputation as being a “moderate” among this field of leftist lunatics. As Joe Biden and his “electability” image rapidly implode, all of his voters are going to be looking to land somewhere. It seems to be that Klobuchar fills that bill better than any of the other candidates on the New Hampshire ballot, which does not include billionaire Mike Bloomberg.

All of these factors are combining to give me a sneaking suspicion that, when the dust settles late Tuesday evening, Amy Klobuchar might well be this year’s “surprise” coming out of New Hampshire. She isn’t going to win – The Commie almost certainly will do that unless the DNC can figure out a way to defraud the vote as it did in Iowa – but given the shifting dynamics in the field this week, it is conceivable she might receive more votes than Quid Pro Joe and/or Fauxcahontas.

Finishing ahead of either of those two would qualify Klobuchar as a “surprise.” Beating both of them would constitute a shock to the Democrat system. Either place would rocket her up to the top of speculation about being a running mate for the eventual nominee.

Tomorrow will be very, very interesting.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements
Open post

The Democrat Party is in Need of an Old-Fashioned Purge

Today’s Campaign Update, Part III
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Guest Piece by Gregg Updike

The fundamental problem with the Democratic Party is that for decades they have been actively recruiting every disparate minority group they can find or create – most of whom have an axe to grind – and have tried to cobble together a majority of minorities as a means to win elections against America’s white majority. There was an article in a major newspaper, circa 2011, during the “One’s” ramp up for reelection in 2012 reflecting this strategy.

The DNC, Obama, and the MSM, after successfully guilting white America into voting for a “historic” (half) Black president who was “articulate and bright and clean”, realized they were in trouble after they overwhelmingly lost the House in 2010.  This was the direct result of ramming his unpopular and entirely partisan passed Obamacare down America’s collective throat, and resulted in the emergence of the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, and other anti-Obama organizations.

Obama, having lost much of the warm and fuzzy good-will that swept him into the presidency, and political capital, made the decision to jettison the idea of appealing to the country’s white majority middle class (the people who Hillary Clinton would later describe as an “irredeemable basket of deplorables”).  The Dems essentially said they are no longer interested in, nor will they any longer court the white male blue-collar union base that was the strength of the Dem party since FDR.   Presently the Democratic coalition is a motley collection of diverse (root word of diverse is divide) groups which has no core unifying glue or message to hold it together except that Trump and Republicans suck, and must be politically defeated.

This cultivated strategy is beginning to backfire on them in a spectacular manner.  Their radical groups are not silent obedient toadies and actually want their point of view heard, respected, and acted upon.  Unfortunately for the Dems, many of these points of view are diametrically opposed to each other.  Examples: Muslims are vehemently opposed to homosexually, legal immigrants and naturalized citizens are opposed to illegals getting a free ride, and big banks and capitalism are lined up against Bernie’s communism.

Meanwhile, President Trump, by displaying heretofore unseen strong common sense leadership, has exposed the fraud of the Democratic Party for all to see.  He has successfully exposed them, his agenda has been beneficial for ALL Americans, and he is destroying their media and academia controlled PC thought police monopoly.  That is why he is so hated by the left and the never-Trumper Republicans, and why they are working so hard to sabotage his administration and remove him from office, or make him unelectable.  It has completely failed and made Trump’s reelection all but certain, especially when his potential opponents are considered.

Bottom line: The person who could unite the Democratic Party simply doesn’t exist, while Trump has been historically successful in uniting his Republican base and attracting many previously Democratic minority groups who have realized they have been used by the Democratic Party and are #Walk(ing) Away in large numbers.  Consequently the DNC finds itself in quite a pickle.

If I were running the DNC, I would do the following:

Let Sanders win the nomination and then suffer a 1972 McGovern-like defeat, along with massive down ballot losses, thereby forcing the radical communists out of the party – we gave you a legitimate shot and you lost bigly; now be gone and go back the Communist Party USA and be the 3% irrelevant population splinter group that you are and have always been.

(The GOP suffered massive losses in 1974 and 1976 in the wake of Nixon’s Watergate, but rebounded by 1980 with Ronald Reagan and his coattails.  Face reality, take your lumps, learn, and move on.)

Get rid of the Clintons and their toxic influence in the party.

Divorce your party from the idiotic Hollywood crowd – their influence is waning and they are every bit as toxic as the Clintons.

Purge the party of all the old fossilized war horses who appeal to no one, particularly the millennials.  This election will help in their retirements by securing long term minority status for the Democratic Party. It is not fun to be in the minority in congress and the old guard will get out while the getting is good and retire with their millions.

Find and recruit some moderate, pragmatic, appealing, and intelligent candidates who fundamentally see the good in America as founded, and run on and actually believe in a positive pro-America agenda, as John F. Kennedy did in his 1960 campaign.

While most of the congressional old guard will willingly leave once they realize their minority party status for the foreseeable future is a reality, the young radical activists in the “Squad” and other divisive factions will need to be primaried or relegated to impotence with minor committee assignments and have their campaigns defunded by the DNC.

I realize leaders of the Democratic Party will never do this, and thus they will become more and more irrelevant, which is a good thing for America.  I predict the Democratic Party brand will be irreparably damaged, and break up.  When that happens, a new party will emerge with new leadership and a new message.  It will no doubt be liberal, but it will be, at least at first, a reasonable counter to a more conservative Republican Party; a Republican Party which will also be forced to undergo its own metamorphosis and evolve into a genuine conservative party.

The media will also be forced to reform itself, or it will ultimately die with a viewership of only about ten percent of the country watching or believing them.  Sooner or later, the outside money propping them up will dry up and they will have to compete for advertising dollars by being truthful and “fair and balanced”.  To that end NPR and NPT should be defunded as they are obsolete, serve no purpose and need to be forced to stand on their own merits; taxpayers don’t need to be forced to fund a liberal-lite mouthpiece that has a smaller audience than CNN.

 

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Is Hillary Clinton Trying to Create Safe Extradition Harbor in Northern Ireland?

Today’s Campaign Update, Part III
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

News broke on Thursday morning that the Pantsuit Princess has accepted a post as the new Chancellor at Queen’s University in Belfast, Northern Ireland:

The post is largely ceremonial, according to the BBC, but will require the Fainting Felon to spent quite a bit of her time in Northern Ireland, which is an interesting place for her to find periodic refuge. While the United States does have an extradition treaty in place with the United Kingdom, that treaty contains some very interesting language related to those who might be ruled exempt from being extradited back to their home country for trial.

Specifically, I refer you to the following language contained in Article 4 of that extradition treaty:

Article 4(3) requires that, notwithstanding the terms of 
paragraph 2, extradition shall not be granted if the competent 
authority of the Requested State determines that the request is 
politically motivated. In the United States, the executive 
branch is the competent authority for the purposes of the 
Article. Under the 1985 supplementary treaty, the judicial 
branch has the authority to consider whether an extradition 
request is motivated by a desire to punish the person sought on 
account of race, religion, nationality, or political opinions, 
or if the person sought would be subject to unfair treatment in 
UK courts or prisons after extradition. Like all other modern 
extradition treaties, the new Treaty grants the executive 
branch rather than the judiciary the authority to determine 
whether a request is politically motivated.
    Article 4(4) provides that the competent authority of the 
Requested State may also refuse extradition for offenses under 
military law that are not offenses under ordinary criminal law 
(e.g., desertion). In the United States, the executive branch 
is the competent authority for the purposes of the Article.

Now, everyone should be aware by now that any effort to prosecute the Coughing Crook or any other major Democrat figure for all their myriad crimes during the Obama years will be met with a coordinated Democrat/Media/deep state narrative that it is entirely politically motivated. We have in fact already been treated to a long-running preview of that tactic related to the clear shakedown operation run by Joe Biden and his ne’er-do-well son Hunter vis-a-vis the Ukraine.

Thus, the language contained in Article 4 relating to “politically motivated” prosecutions becomes quite concerning in this context.

This is all speculation, of course, but the activities of John Durham and William Barr of late have to be quite disconcerting to the Grasping Grifter and her hubby Bill. Accepting this position right in the midst of ongoing speculation that she has plans to jump into the Democrat presidential nominating contest at some point seems an especially odd decision. This post would have zero relevance to her chances of ultimately gaining the Party’s nomination, and indeed could end up being a hindrance if its duties were to interfere with her political ambitions.

So, either the Hacking Hag has decided to disband her life-long ambition to become president, or there is some other motivation involved in her acceptance of this position. With the Clintons, nothing is ever really simple, or what it seems to be on the surface.

That is all.

 

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

The New York Times Proves Again to be a Vile and Despicable Rag

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

What in the hell is a “bias crime”?  – Believe it or not, the New York Times just got a little worse than it already was in terms of the debasement of the English language. In its fake reporting on the latest in a recent string of despicable anti-Semitic attacks on New York City’s Jewish population, the Times manages to publish 500 words without ever even mentioning that the assailant, who stabbed 5 people in the home of a Hasidic rabbi with a machete, was reportedly a non-white male. [Update: Indeed, the suspect who has been arrested is a black male.]

But that’s not the bad part – it’s just standard operating procedure. Here’s the part where the Times takes yet another step down the road towards an Orwellian 1984:

No one has been charged in that attack, and officials have not determined that it was a bias crime.

What in the hell, you might ask, is a “bias crime”? Well, that is what anyone with half a lick of sense would call a “hate crime” – which this clearly was – but which fake journalists working at the nation’s corrupt media outlets want you to believe was something else. See, in the world of the lunatic political left, it is not possible for a non-white person to “hate” – presumably, they can only “bias”, as if that word were an action verb.

Besides, the anti-Semitic left’s thinking goes, the victims were “ultra-orthodox Jews”, so presumably they had it coming, right? Note the use of that term, “ultra-orthodox Jews”, way up in the piece’s sub-head. That’s done intentionally to describe the VICTIMS of this crime as being somehow not normal, and thus help to justify the heinous attack in the readers’ minds.

That term, by the way, is used to describe “fundamentalist Jews who live in segregated communities in parts of North America, Europe and Israel.” Note that you never see the Times or other corrupt “news” outlets using similar dog-whistling language to describe fundamentalist Muslims who segregate themselves into similar communities so they can live under Sharia law, many of them right there in New York City, where the Muslim population literally fields its own illegal police force, complete with police-style squad cars and flashing lights, with zero repercussions from the city’s Marxist mayor or city council.

But hey, this is the “news” outlet that brought us the “1619 Project,” an organized effort to pollute Americans’ minds with the completely false notion that the real founding of “America” came when the first African slave landed on North American soil in the year 1619, and that literally every facet of our nation’s founding and growth had its very basis in that sad event.

It is the corrupt “news” outlet that, in 2008, assigned dozens of reporters to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin after she was chosen to be the GOP sacrificial lamb to serve as the despicable John McCain’s running mate. The same corrupt “news” outlet that never lifted a finger to attempt to vet the background of Barack Hussein Obama, whose education and medical records remain sealed to this day due to media negligence. It is the same corrupt “news” outlet that proudly placed Sarah Jeong, a notorious anti-white racist, on its editorial board in the summer of 2018.

The New York Times is the same corrupt “news” outlet that spent three solid years pretending the Steele Dossier contained a shred of truth in its campaign to support the Democrat/media “Russia Collusion” narrative. The New York Times is the very same corrupt “news” outlet that actually reported on Ukraine’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of the Pantsuit Princess, and on Obama Administration concerns about the impropriety of Hunter and Joe Biden’s influence peddling in that country, and which now pretends that neither event ever happened because that’s what the Democrat/media narrative demands.

The New York Times is the same corrupt “news” outlet that viciously attacked Republicans for wanting to call witnesses in the Senate trial of Bill Clinton in 1998, and now viciously attacks Republicans for wanting to employ the exact same process that was used in the Clinton trial for the upcoming Senate trial of President Trump.

You seriously could never make this stuff up. Not in a million years. But hey, it’s the New York Times, so if you expected anything else, you just haven’t been paying attention.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Chris Wallace and Chuck Todd Shame Themselves Protecting the DC Swamp

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

It’s like clockwork, folks, it really is.  – Here is the headline of the September 30 Campaign Update: “Winter is Coming, and More Fake Whistleblowers are Coming With it.”

Fast forward six days to Sunday, and guess what? A second fake whistleblower from the Intelligence Community has “come forward,” i.e., coordinated with Lawfare Alliance attorneys, the staff of the House Intelligence Committee and its Chairman, Bug-eyed Adam Schiff, to file another false complaint against the President of the United States. Just as we saw in last October’s lynching of Brett Kavanaugh, whenever one accusation has begun to lose its utility in moving public opinion, another comes forward.

If you think this is the last fake whistleblower Schiff and Lawfare have coached up on this dreadfully stupid coup d’etat effort, you are sadly mistaken. If anything, the pace of the complaint filings will speed up over time as their usefulness in brainwashing the public fades with each successive filing. That’s how it happened with Kavanaugh and that’s how it will happen in this latest coup attempt.

The first complaint had a useful life of roughly ten days before the coup plotters decided they needed another one out there to generate more blaring headlines and obnoxious talking head panels on CNN and MSNBC. This one will probably have a useful life of 5-7 days, the next one less than that. There is no real mystery here – the only real question left is whether the Creepy Porn Lawyer will try to bring forward a “witness” of his own in another failed attempt to cash in on the fake controversy, as he did in the Kavanaugh fiasco.

Lindsey Graham summed it all perfectly in a tweet:

Chuck Todd, Chris Wallace and the other useful idiots who host the Sunday morning fake news shows all did their parts to keep the sham going. Todd and Wallace and were especially animated and repugnant in rolling out the talking points of the Deep State coup plotters, which basically amount to ‘corruption of public office is ok if you’re a Democrat,’ and ‘if you declare yourself a candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination, you are immune from investigation.’

Expect the Pantsuit Princess and John Kerry to jump into the race soonest.

Here are clips of both Todd and Wallace going about their jobs as Democrat toadies, if you can stand to watch them:

The President himself responded to the TV networks’ DC Swamp protection racket as he usually does, on Twitter:

Everything the President says in those tweets is absolutely true. The problem, of course is that the truth conflicts with the longstanding traditions of corruption in the DC Swamp. The selling of high office is a tradition as old as Washington, DC itself, and the reason why many people seek to win those offices in the first place. Look at how fabulously wealthy the Clintons, Obamas, Bidens, Pelosis, Gores and so many others in both parties have become while supposedly holding jobs that pay $150k – $400k per year.

If you think those payoffs stop with the officeholders and don’t filter into our national news media as well, you obviously haven’t been watching the Sunday morning #fakenews shows recently. The whole town is your basic mob racket.

Once you understand how the DC Swamp works, everything the corruptors of our nation do makes perfect sense.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Chuck Todd is Right: The Basic Rules of our Democracy are Under Attack

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

“I don’t say this lightly, but let’s be frank: A national nightmare is upon us. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the President.” – In making that soap-opera-style hyperbolic remark on MSNBC on Friday, Democrat toady Chuck Todd is half right: The basic rules of our democracy are indeed under attack, and have been since 1992, when Bill and Hillary Clinton became the Democrat Party’s co-nominees for the presidency.

One of the “basic rules of our democracies,” one of the beliefs upon which our nation was founded, was that elected officials would by and large be people of good faith, and people who sought public service did so in the spirit of serving the nation they love. The founders knew that there would always be scoundrels among the political class, but they structured the Constitution and thus our society on the foundational belief that, in the end, most members of congress, presidents and senior executive branch officials would place the best interests of the country over and above their own personal ambitions for power.

The Clintons changed all of that. The Clintons turned the White House into a confidence game, an influence racket in which the Lincoln Bedroom was rented out to the highest bidder. They leveraged agencies like the IRS and the FBI into tools to track and attack their political enemies. At the end of their eight years at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they then parlayed their ongoing influence in Democrat Party politics into an even larger racket with the creation of their fake Foundation, leveraging it to its fullest capacity when Barack Obama paid them off by appointing the Pantsuit Princess as Secretary of State.

1992 was also the year when the Clintons began to transform the Democrat Party from a collection of politicians and staffers who sought to debate policy issues and win them on the merits to a collection of Saul Alinsky disciples who eschew any pretense at debate in favor of demonizing the opposition. Another basic rule that was foundational to our democracy was thus lost forever.

Another “basic rule of our democracy” used to be that the federal government was required to operate on a budget. But the Democrats have disposed of that one, too. In 2006, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and San Fran Nan decided that the best way to continue bankrupting future generations of Americans and to keep federal spending rising was to refuse to engage in the process of passing actual budgetary authorization bills. Since that time, the federal government has operated on a neverending series of continuing resolutions (CRs). These CRs allow no real debate over spending. Instead, they simply take the previous year’s spending level and layer a predetermined percentage increase over the top of it.

In this way, the Democrats freed up all sorts of congressional time to allow their members to focus on what they love to do: Raise money and demonize the opposition.

Another “basic rule of our democracy” used to be that the Justice Department, FBI and other law enforcement agencies were to maintain an independence from the White House. Janet Reno destroyed all pretense to that principle on behalf of the Clintons, and it’s been downhill ever since. Barack Obama completed the utter and complete corruption of the FBI, which remains a raging dumpster fire of corruption and incompetence today with no relief in sight under the feckless Christopher Wray.

Democrats have also utterly corrupted the press. The founders considered what they called the fourth estate of our society so crucial that they enshrined freedom of the press in the very first amendment contained in the Bill of Rights. The role of the press as a “basic rule of our democracy” was to serve as the watchdog for the public interest, a tool of transparency that would speak truth to power and hold public officials of all parties accountable.

That’s all gone now. Toadies like Chuck Todd are nothing more than Democrat Party activists with $200 haircuts (Chuck obviously overpaid). Today’s national media establishment not only no longer speaks truth to power, it doesn’t speak truth to anyone, including itself. Every day is a new narrative, coordinated in advance with the Democrat Party, repeated ad nauseum by talking heads across all the broadcast networks and cable channels.

Opinion pieces that used to appear the Op/Ed sections of major newspapers have now migrated to the front pages under the guise of being “news” stories. Editors at the New York Times and Washington Post now openly brag about their publications’ efforts to brainwash the public with major themed propaganda campaigns. Journalistic standards once held sacrosanct, like having at least two or even three named sources for any news story, have been utterly abandoned as outlets rush to get thinly-sourced or fictitiously-sourced pieces up on their web pages to raise their click counts.

The very same Democrat Party and media establishment who spent three years obsessing over a “Steele Dossier” funded by the DNC and Clinton Campaign and compiled by foreign agents from the UK, Ukraine, Russia, Italy and Australia now screams that seeking information about corruption by a former vice president from any foreign country amounts to an impeachable offense.

Chuck Todd is one of the head cheerleaders in that effort to ignore and destroy the “basic rules of our democracy.” Those rules have been under attack for a long time, and whenever their efforts to destroy those rules fails, the Democrats and their corrupt media toadies simply double down on the destruction.

This second civil war that has been mounted over the last three years by the Democrats and the corrupt media is not a shooting war, but it is just as dangerous to our national survival. Sadly, the utter and complete corruption on the left is so consolidated and unshakable now that it is hard to imagine how we can possibly reach anything other than a disastrous conclusion.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

America’s History Teacher Provides A 12-Minute Master’s Course on Impeachment

Today’s Campaign Update – Guest Piece by Larry Schweikart
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

[Note: I have followed Larry Schweikart, American historian and retired professor of history at the University of Dayton, on social media for several years. After reading several threads he posted on his Twitter account (@LarrySchweikart) regarding the history of impeachment in the U.S. and as it related to our current situation, I reached out to him. He agreed to contribute this piece to help inform the loyal readers of Today’s Campaign Update. Larry is the co-author andauthor of several great books, including A Patriot’s History of the United States and his latest, REAGAN: The American President.

Trust me, after you read this, you will know more about impeachment than 99% of the U.S. population.]

 

The Essentials of Impeachment. (It’s more than you think!)

There is a lot of talk about “impeachment” out there, most of it uninformed. Impeachment can (and in most cases historically, did) involve judges as well as a president. Indeed, since 1803, there have been 63 impeachment proceedings, and only two involved presidents—Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

The Constitution provides for the removal of judges (who generally have lifetime appointments) and U.S. presidents for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What are those? Well, realistically, it is whatever the House of Representatives says it is. The House alone is charged by the Constitution with defining behavior that rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And it can be anything. Literally, anything that a majority of the House votes for can be a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Spitting on the sidewalk. Using “he” when talking to a “she” transgenderist. You get the picture. The Constitution did not define the terms. In the case of the 61 judges impeached, all had actually committed real crimes ranging form bribery to jury tampering to conflict of interest violations.

Under the Constitution, the House must pass articles of impeachment, which are the charges against said judges or presidents. Once articles of impeachment pass the House, they are sent to the U.S. Senate for a trial. A notice must be sent to the person charged, and there are a few other formal steps that must be taken, but shortly the Senate receives the articles of impeachment. Following a trial—more on that later—the Senate acquits or convicts but conviction must be by a 2/3rds vote (in today’s case, 67 votes to convict, or a very high bar). The past two impeachments have lasted three and four months respectively from passage of the articles to acquittals.

Let’s first look at some judicial impeachments. The following judges were impeached:

*John Pickering (1803)

**West Humphreys (1862)

*Robert Archbald (1912)

*Halsted Ritter (1933)

*Harry Claiborne (1983)

*Alcee Hastings (1989)

*Walter Nixon (1989) Nixon was removed, and he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal as a non-justicable political question.

*Thomas Porteous, Jr. (2010)

In addition to those convicted by the senate and removed, 16 judges who were being investigated resigned, and 2 died in the process of the proceedings. One (Agilar) had his conviction overturned.

Moving to the impeachments of U.S. presidents, the first, in March 1868, was by a Republican House (dominated by the so-called “Radicals”) contended with Lincoln’s vice president, Andrew Johnson . . . who was a Democrat. Lincoln thought he would not win reelection, and brought in Johnson to draw Democrat votes. After Lincoln’s assassination, the hated Johnson became president. He completely opposed the Radicals’ Reconstruction plans, and used his legal, Constitutional authority to obstruct them. The Republican Congress overrode two Johnson vetoes on the Reconstruction Acts.

Rather than trying to accommodate the Republican Congress, the belligerent Johnson fought it. He was looking for a confrontation, and got it. The issue involved the Reconstruction Acts, which placed Union generals in charge of five Southern districts. Johnson sought to replace Radical generals governing the South with more pliable or friendly men. Congress countermoved by passing the Tenure of Office Act requiring the president to get the approval of the Senate before removing a general. Johnson flagrantly fired Edwin Stanton, a Radical favorite, to bring about a constitutional test. (In fact, he should have filed a court challenge and let the Supreme Court decide it).

Wild World of History Logo

[Note: Email Larry Schweikart at larry@wildworldofhistory.com and he will provide you with a free Reagan webinar and an Excellence in Business webinar.]

The House filed 11 articles of impeachment. The only serious article of the 11 (which included several “conspiracy” claims) was the final article, 11, which literally accused Johnson of “bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency.” (One could suggest at least one recent president had done that, repeatedly!). Keep in mind it is the House’s duty—and only the House’s duty—to define the “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senate is charged by the Constitution only in determining guilt or innocence, not again weighing in on whether the actions rise to the level of “impeachability.” Still, as we will see, in both U.S. presidential impeachments, the Senate ran well outside its Constitutional authority.

In the Johnson trial, the Senate failed to convict by a single vote of reaching the necessary 2/3rds (35-19) with one of the key senators later being praised in John F. Kennedy’s book, Profiles in Courage. That would be the junior senator from KS, Edmund Ross. Ross and others determined that the charges did not rise to the level of impeachment. Well, in this case they did—Johnson had clearly violated the law—but the Senators did not think it was good for the Republic to convict Johnson. Thus the Senate defied the Constitution, but probably did the “right” thing.

When Richard Nixon was under investigation in 1974, he almost certainly was facing impeachment (for the right reasons) but he resigned before an impeachment vote was held.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was accused by a special counsel of committing perjury, coaching a witness, submitting a false statement, and obstruction of justice. Eventually, the House passed two articles of impeachment (perjury, 228-2016) and obstruction (221-212). The Senate then took up the trial. Two weeks into the Senate trial, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia introduced a motion to dismiss. This motion only failed by seven votes—despite overwhelming evidence of Clinton’s guilt. Once again, the Senate did not do its Constitutional duty, again wading into issues of questioning whether the charges rose to the level of impeachability. Clinton was acquitted. As one Democratic staffer told the Republican “prosecutors” from the House, “there wouldn’t be 67 votes to convict if they had found a dead body in the Oval Office.”

So where does this put us today? First, there is a question of whether or not Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the votes. I submit she doesn’t or she would file for an impeachment vote right away, not an “investigation.” That makes news, but it is not an impeachment vote.

But say she does find the votes and the House impeaches President Donald Trump. Next up is a Senate trial. As in 1999, the Senate “could” entertain a motion to dismiss without a trial. I do not think this is out of the realm of possibility. Such a motion needs only 50 votes, and Mike Pence can break a tie.

My current math—based on no inside info whatsoever—suggests Trump has 34 hard acquittal votes already (meaning he is already out of the woods), with another 10 “squishy” Republicans who will see which way the wind blows before voting. That brings us to 44, or just six short of dismissal. Out of the remaining GOP senators, while I could see some balking at an outright dismissal, I only see perhaps two defecting to convict—Mitt Romney and maybe Mike Lee. Many of the Senators are in tight races in 2020, and they simply cannot risk having the whole GOP base stay home, which is exactly what would happen if they voted to convict.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I think stories that “30 GOP Senators would convict Trump” are true if you take the voters out of it. Of course these toads want to get Trump out. He has overturned the entire apple cart. But in a public vote? No. Trump will come close to 50 acquittals and needs only 37. If the charges, though, are extremely frivolous, the Senate may indeed dismiss outright.

Finally, there is a wild card: Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Democrats want to argue that if RBG dies during impeachment proceedings, that “no president under impeachment should be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice.”

This is a massive problem in timing for the Democrats. After all, Ginsburg isn’t cooperating by giving them a date for her demise! If they rush ahead with impeachment and it’s over in four months ending in an acquittal—and Ginsburg is still alive!—then they have lost their “can’t replace” card. But if they wait until Ginsburg cooperates, which might not be in 2020 at all, they stand a chance of losing their impeachment card. Decisions, decisions!

You can find this and lots of other ongoing political and historical analysis, as well as just fun historical columns on music, culture and other topics, at the Wild World of History.com. Some is free, but my new “1620 Default” series—arguing that American Exceptionalism dates from 1620 and the arrival of the Pilgrims, not from the Virginia colony in 1607. Look for the “VIP section.”

Larry Schweikart, Ph.D.

Author, Reagan: The American President and co-author, A Patriot’s History of the United States with Michael Allen.

That is all.

 

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

New Poll: Just 1 in 3 Americans Believe the Official Story about Jeffrey Epstein’s Death

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

When the top line of a new poll is not the real story.–  I laughed out loud when I saw the topline numbers of the new Emerson College poll that was released this morning. My laughter was totally at the expense of Irish Bob O’Rourke, who has now dropped below the likes of Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang in the pecking order of this particular poll. 

Mere words cannot express the amount of pleasure it gives this 7th-generation Texan to see this fraudulent circus clown falling down into 4th-tier status, relegated to competing with the likes of Amy Klobuchar and Julian Castro for the crumbs that fall from the vote-filled cookies being consumed by Crazy Uncle Joe and The Commie.

For purposes of illustrating that joy, here is what I looked like at about 11:00 CT this morning:

Hey, don’t judge me! I had to sit through interminable hours of ads for this guy’s failed senate campaign last year – I’m entitled to a minute or two of heavy gloating. So is Senator Ted Cruz, come to think of it.

Anyway, I initially thought this was the big story out of this otherwise unsurprising poll, and figured that I’d focus on that, along with Yang’s fairly surprising 4% and Mayor Pete’s continuing fade from relevance for this afternoon’s Update.

But then I browsed through news reports about the poll, and came across this one at Business Insider:

  • Only 33% of Americans agree with an autopsy report that says Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, according to a new poll.
  • The Emerson College poll also found that 34% of respondents said they believe he was murdered, falling in line with numerous conspiracy theories that have flourished since the disgraced financier’s death.

So, three weeks of fake news media reports assuring us that Epstein’s extremely convenient death was a simple suicide, after the autopsy came back in support of that finding, and after what we are supposed to believe was a full and complete investigation by the stalwart “rank and file” of the FBI, only one in three Americans are actually buying the official narrative here.

Business Insider, as an arm of Yahoo News, naturally blames it all on “conspiracy theories” being promoted by those nasty people on social media, and to be honest, there have been a lot of alternative theories thrown into the public mix about Epstein’s demise. Still this 33% belief in the official narrative represents an extraordinary failure by those who have invested so much time and effort in its promotion.

The reasons for that have little to do with the promotion of “conspiracy theories,” though. In fact, the biggest problem that the FBI and its fake media toadies have here comes in the form of the actual facts about the case that have been made public.

There are just too many odd coincidences that took place related to the security measures for the government’s most high-profile prisoner to be believed by anyone capable of critical thought processes. This is, after all, the same federal law enforcement complex who the fake news media has been assuring us is pretty much infallible since it became publicly known that they attempted to fix the 2016 elections.

But now, that same fake news media expects you all to believe that, in a case involving a life-long pedophile billionaire who happened to be running buddies with all manner of prominent leftist political figures and celebrities, why, that infallible federal law enforcement complex was just as bumbling and clownishly-incompetent as can be! Just your ordinary, everyday confluence of incompetence and bad luck, folks! Nothing to see here! Go on about your business! um, please?

As is pretty much always the case, Americans are not as stupid as the fake media believes them to be. After all, if they were that stupid, Irish Bob O’Rourke would be a U.S. Senator now, Stacey Abrams would be Governor of Georgia, and Al Gore would be a former President instead of the second incarnation of P.T. Barnum.

What we are seeing here is sort of a 56 years-later replay of the aftermath of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Because there was no Internet or social media back in 1963, it took a lot longer to happen, but once all the disturbing facts surrounding that killing of a U.S. president slowly made their way into the public domain, public belief in the official narrative, which had been initially fairly high, plummeted.

That skepticism about the official findings that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin lingers into modern times. In a poll published in October, 2017, FiveThirtyEight found that just 33% of Americans buy into the Oswald-as-lone-nut theory.

The reality is that the 1 in 3 Americans who still buy into the official stories related to Epstein and Oswald believe them mainly because they, like Fox Mulder, want to believe. Many Americans just cannot accept the reality that their government would intentionally lie to them, yet there is no longer any doubt at all that the Warren Commission’s report was filled with hundreds if not thousands of outright lies about what happened in Dallas when JFK was killed. The government withheld all sorts of evidence in that case and lied about so much more.

So, if most of the public is skeptical about what we are being told happened to Jeffrey Epstein, they have very valid reasons for feeling that way, and our fake news media has played an enormous role in creating that lingering lack of trust.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Well, of Course Jeffrey Epstein Had a Portrait of Bill Clinton in a Dress on his Wall

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II

(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

What, you expected anything else after all this time? Courtesy of the UK Daily Mail:

The color of the dress seemed to be a pointed reference to Clinton's former intern Monica Lewinsky who a blue dress during their infamous sexual encounter in the White House. The painting seemed to show Clinton in the Oval Office, with the presidential seal on display

You just cannot make this stuff up, folks. From the article linked above:

Jeffrey Epstein had a bizarre portrait which appears to be of Bill Clinton hanging in his Manhattan mansion, depicting the former president lounging on a chair in the Oval Office wearing red heels and a telling blue dress, a source exclusively told DailyMailTV

The color of the dress seemed to be a pointed reference to Clinton’s former intern Monica Lewinsky who a blue dress during their infamous sexual encounter in the White House. The painting seemed to show Clinton in the Oval Office, with the presidential seal on display

That’s some sick, sick stuff right there.

Have you also noticed that literally no one in our mainstream news media is putting any pressure at all on the Justice Department and FBI to get to the bottom of the Epstein “suicide?” Notice that their focus instead is on demonizing anyone who points out all of Epstein’s connections with notable liberal politicians and celebrities for being “conspiracy theorists?” Do you find it ironic that that particular line of demonization is coming from the very same media outlets who have spent the last three years obsessing over the debunked “Russia Collusion” conspiracy theory?

Do you think they’re projecting much?

And how about today’s non-crisis crisis diversion over the short-lived yield curve inversion? Wasn’t that a convenient way for the media to collectively avoid reporting anything about the Epstein case?

Can’t wait to see what the non-crisis crisis is tomorrow.

*sigh*

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

 

Posts navigation

1 2 3 4 5
Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: