Impeachment In Search Of A Crime - Pelosi/Kaepernick On Their Knees? A Crumbling Foundation.

See 3 below.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For those watching the Schiff Show what  they are actually watching is an impeachment in search of a crime.

The top Democrat's cherry picked witnesses had nothing to say that indicated they believed Trump committed an impeachable offense. In fact they remained silent when asked.

I suspect, after the circus yesterday, Pelosi and Kaepernick are on their knees praying. (See 1 below.)

To make matters even worse,  most Americans receive 50% of their news from social media technology and Facebook and Google are monitoring and releasing edited versions of the 'witch hunt.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden has a friend. (See 2 below.)

And

Rudy defends his client. (See 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I truly wish RBG continued good health, but it appears the Justice  is ill again and if you think matters were ugly over Kavanaugh just watch how the Democrats pull out all stops should Trump have the opportunity to name her replacement.

They will resort to everything in Alinsky's play book and this would solidify their desire to impeach Trump. It would also rally the silent majority. All knives would be drawn in the fight for America's soul.

The radicals, who have taken over the Democrat Party,  want to bring this nation to its knees and they have been working assiduously and effectively for well over 50 years.

In"Triggered," Donald Junior entitles Chapter 2: "Cracks In The Foundation,"  He talks about a poorly constructed fifty-eight story building in San Fran that sank seventeen inches and tilted a foot.

He analogized this event to the faulty foundation of the Democrat Party which was built on a base of Jim Crow-style racism, support of the KKK and slavery, opposition to Lincoln and in subsequent years have added more radical floors to that unstable foundation.  These added floors include welfare-ism,  hindrances on business, political correctness, high taxes, Soviet style socialism, more recently Antifa and, of course, they have done everything possible to alter and dumb down education, create discontent on university campuses, support illegal immigration, defy the rule of law and due process and you know the rest.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, their techniques are blatant and their commitment is totally unified and dedicated.

Radical Democrats have become a real threat to our Republic's survival and as unorthodox as Trump may be he stands in their way. This is why they hate him, must impeach him, take his election away from the 62 plus million who voted for him. Why? Because he wants to crush their power.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ California Republicans, RIP. (See 3 below.)

And:

Speculating on what Bolton might say should he testify which is becoming highly less likely.

Bolton is the consummate professional.  Though outspoken and hawkish,  unlike so many in DC he is unlikely to betray the Oval Office to gain favor with anyone. (See 3a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Devin Nunes: Democrats Redacted Name of DNC Operative Alexandra Chalupa in Impeachment Transcripts - Read More

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)

Bloomberg Is Biden’s Best Friend

Mayor Mike won’t be president, and neither will he do any favors for Trump or Warren.

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Michael Bloomberg is not going to be president, but he is a sane liberal with an interesting election strategy—albeit also a strategy likely to turn the White House into ashes in his mouth in the unlikely event he were to win (not that many ambitious people don’t prefer the taste of White House ashes to almost any other favor).

He has the same appeal as several Democratic moderates like Sen. Michael Bennet or former Gov. John Hickenlooper who never exceeded single-digit percentages, but he also has $50 billion. His gurus have laid out the early plan: He skips or barely participates in the early states where organization and retail politics are critical, in favor of spending large sums on TV on Super Tuesday, when perhaps 13 million Democrats will go to the primary polls across 15 states.

Conceivably Joe Biden could be knocked out, creating an opening for Mr. Bloomberg to become the moderate savior. An alternative keyhole he could sneak through is a crowded contest that lasts all the way to a brokered convention, when the audience to be influenced by his billions would shrink to a few thousand delegates and superdelegates.

Still don’t see it? Having braced up his bona fides by participating in a conventional party primary, he could also mount the independent run he’s long been known to noodle. He might win enough Electoral College votes to throw the race into the House of Representatives, where he could wield his fortune over an even smaller target audience, made up of 435 House members.

I could be wrong, but Mr. Bloomberg would likely be the first to scoff at the idea that any of this might happen. Indeed, it’s not clear why Mr. Biden wouldn’t welcome Mr. Bloomberg’s tens of millions of spending to reinforce Mr. Biden’s own message about his ultraliberal rivals’ unaffordable plans and unelectable demeanors. Mr. Bloomberg is not going to unlimber his wallet to savage Mr. Biden (the realistic if ruthless way to proceed if he really hopes to replace Mr. Biden in the moderate lane). Mr. Bloomberg doesn’t want to be remembered for helping Elizabeth Warren to the nomination and Mr. Trump to re-election. I wouldn’t even rule out the possibility that Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Biden are already somehow in cahoots.

The issue is purely academic, but there’s another flaw in the Bloomberg-for-president scenario. He’s no Donald Trump in many respects, one of them bad. He doesn’t have, and never will, Mr. Trump’s rock-solid and passionate support among a sizable swath of the electorate. I’ll go out on a limb and say perhaps seven people in Washington genuinely admire and respect Donald Trump as a person, but only a few such as Hillary Clinton have committed the political malpractice of extending their vocal disdain to his voters.

If you want to see how far a president can get without a such a true base of support in the electorate, make Mike Bloomberg chief executive. Then again, Mr. Trump is hardly positioned to deliver much of a second-term agenda either. Apart from questions of style, nose-holding voters might find themselves choosing between two billionaires who serve the same basic purpose: to keep socialism at bay for another four years in hope the Democratic Party’s woke fever will burn itself out by 2024.

So what’s really going on? If Mayor Mike runs, here’s betting it will be to create a motif. After all, the cleanest legal way to dump his big wallet into the race to beat Mr. Trump is by spending it on his own candidacy. The experiment would not be without risk. Like Tom Steyer, who has spent millions of his hedge-fund fortune on politics to no particular avail, he might make a lot of consultants and media ad buyers rich with little else to show for it. Even less appetizing, he might confirm for a certain electorate how much the establishment feels threatened by Mr. Trump, the president’s redeeming quality in the eyes of many otherwise skeptical voters.

Here’s the sad thing. In another era, rich people with a passion to make a difference in the travails of their time were free to write seven-figure checks to a Gene McCarthy or George McGovern, politicians with an authentic ability to stir enthusiasm in parts of the electorate. Neither man won but both had giant influence on the country’s debate, and neither had to waste his time glad-handing for small checks.

Mr. Bloomberg can’t do the same now by putting his millions behind, say, an Amy Klobuchar, buying her the hearing she can’t get under a setup that overly favors the Democratic Party’s ultraliberal fringe. Laws aimed at honoring the false god of ridding politics of money make it impossible. So here’s a chance to ask ourselves if such restrictions really improve the quality of our political debate and outcomes. The answer is obviously no.


2a)

The Case for the Impeachment Defense

My client’s call with the Ukrainian president was innocent, and the House inquiry is a travesty.

By Rudy Giuliani

If your only sources of news the past two months have been CNN and MSNBC, you probably think President Trump has committed some heinous act that is deserving of being drawn, quartered and carted out of the White House.

That’s a false narrative built on selectively leaked testimony from Rep. Adam Schiff’s closed-door Intelligence Committee hearings. The manner in which he and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are conducting this impeachment investigation is unprecedented, constitutionally questionable, and an affront to American fair play.

The conversation my client, President Donald J. Trump, had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 was innocent. During a congratulatory call, the newly elected Mr. Zelensky brought up the need to “drain the swamp” in his country. Rooting out corruption was one of Mr. Zelensky’s campaign pledges, and Mr. Trump asked him to investigate allegations of corruption at the highest levels of both governments. It was a matter of serious mutual concern.

In particular, Messrs. Zelensky and Trump discussed Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A Ukrainian court ruled in December last year that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ukrainian lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko illegally interfered in the 2016 election by releasing documents related to Paul Manafort. A January 2017 report from Politico implied that the officials released the information to hurt the Trump campaign. The site reported that a Democratic National Committee contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, dug for dirt on Mr. Manafort’s work in Ukraine. This past May, Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., told the Hill’s John Solomon that Ms. Chalupa came to the embassy looking for damaging information on Mr. Manafort. Ms. Chalupa has denied conducting opposition research with Ukrainian officials for the DNC but told Politico that she provided what information she found on Mr. Manafort to “a lot of journalists.” Needless to say, the matter could still use investigating.

Mr. Trump also briefly brought up his concerns regarding former Vice President Joe Biden’s conduct toward Ukraine while his son, Hunter Biden, worked for the Ukrainian company Burisma. Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament, told the press in early October that he had reviewed documents showing that Burisma transferred $900,000 to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a lobbying firm owned by Hunter Biden, and that the money was for lobbying Joe Biden. In my view, the former vice president should be investigated for bribery, and at the very least both Bidens’ behavior deserves serious scrutiny.

For Messrs. Trump and Zelensky to discuss these issues was not only proper but an exercise of Mr. Trump’s responsibility as U.S. president as expressed in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: “to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”

Moreover, Mr. Trump requested that Ukraine root out corruption; he didn’t demand it. His words were cordial, agreeable and free of any element of threat or coercion. Mr. Trump offered nothing in return to Ukraine for cleaning up corruption. If you doubt me, read the transcript. Allegations of Burisma-Biden corruption weren’t even a major part of the conversation. The focus was on Ukrainian corruption broadly speaking and out of a five-page transcript Mr. Trump spent only six lines on Joe Biden.

Moreover, Mr. Zelensky has made clear he felt the call was a perfectly normal, friendly and appropriate conversation, one in which he felt no pressure of any kind.

In an ideal America, politicians would be held to the same standard regardless of party, and this inquiry would be over. But the left’s inability to accept the results of the 2016 election and fear of Mr. Trump’s policy agenda have driven the Democrats into a frenzy. Call it Trump derangement syndrome or a corrupt double standard, but there can be little doubt that Mr. Biden would not be pursued so aggressively were he in Mr. Trump’s place. The dominance of the left-leaning media is one of the main reasons that Capitol Hill Democrats can get away with acting this way.

If the American people are allowed to see the facts of the matter, the truth will prevail. But if the allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden aren’t fully investigated, we won’t have equal justice under the law. Politicians of both parties should insist on fairness. That necessarily includes defending the right of political opponents to have their say before the American people—even President Trump.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3) California Republicans, RIP?

By Victor Davis Hanson

From 1967 to 2019, Republicans controlled the California governorship for 31 of 52 years. So why is there currently not a single statewide Republican officeholder? California also has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature. Only seven of California's 53 congressional seats are held by Republicans.

In 1994, then-Gov. Pete Wilson backed Proposition 187, which denied state social services to undocumented immigrants. The spin goes that it backfired, alienated the Hispanic community and thus marked the road to Republican perdition.

Not quite.

Prop 187 passed with 59 percent support. Wilson's endorsement of the bill helped its passage, and his support of it aided his landslide 1994 re-election. Among minority voters, 52 percent of Asian and African American voters supported Proposition 187. Some 27 percent of Latinos voted for it.

Liberal groups immediately sued in federal court. Just three days after the measure passed, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing Proposition 187 from going into effect. A month later, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction. Prop 187 never became law.

In effect, two judges nullified the wishes of more than 5 million California voters.

Arnold Schwarzenegger had supported Prop 187. Yet in 2003 he was elected governor. So what caused the Republican demise?

Ironically, radical changes in California demography may have been brought about by Prop 187 -- but not in the way many people think.

The state's population has increased by nearly 10 million in the last quarter century. Yet the growth has been marked by the exodus of some and larger influxes of others.

When Prop 187 passed, there were an estimated 1.5 million undocumented immigrants statewide. In the 25 years since, millions of others have entered the state, and the current number of those still undocumented exceeds 3 million.

Some 27 percent of current California residents were not born in the U.S. Traditionally, first-generation immigrants favor larger, not smaller, government.

A cynic might argue that once a federal judge allowed undocumented immigrants to enjoy the full array of state services and entitlements, there were incentives for millions of other immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally, and California in particular.

Statistics suggests they did just that -- often to the chagrin of Democratic politicians, the United Farm Workers and other liberal groups who worried about the negative effects of illegal immigration on entry-level wages, unionization and poor citizens' access to overtaxed social services.

Oddly, conservative businesspeople were likely to favor permissive immigration policies in hopes of finding an ample supply of low-cost laborers while simultaneously diminishing the power of unions.

A technological revolution sparked a lucrative Silicon Valley renaissance. Suddenly, coastal California became one of the wealthiest corridors in the history of the planet. Big Tech drew in hundreds of thousands of hip young workers eager to come to California and join what was thought to be a global revolution.

Silicon Valley was seen as a uniquely progressive corporate paradise where one could get rich and stay woke all at once. Most techies supported big government, higher taxes and open borders, and had the money and wherewithal to not worry much about the ensuing costs and the catastrophic results for others.

By the turn of the century, the California treasury was relying on the tech industry for an enormous share of the taxes to fund its massive expansion of state services -- and politicians often bowed to Big Tech's political wishes.

As taxes climbed, schools eroded and funds for infrastructure were diverted elsewhere, millions of middle-class Californians fled. The total numbers of this continuing exodus are still in dispute. Many left in despair over climbing gas, sales and income taxes that seemed to worsen rather improve state infrastructure and services

This tripartite demographic revolution proved disastrous for the Republican Party. The GOP lost much of its base to other states. Many conservative voters left for small-government, low-tax alternatives. Republican efforts to reduce taxes, limit some abortions and fund additional roads and dams had little appeal to the new gentry classes on the coast.

Will there ever again be a viable California Republican Party?

After three decades of radical progressivism, California residents are tiring of one-party straitjacket rule. The hard-liberal order normalized massive power blackouts, the nation's highest array of taxes, the forest mismanagement that fuels deadly fires, an epidemic of homelessness in major cities, eroding schools, ossified infrastructure and soaring energy costs.

The final irony?

Those most hurt -- and growing the most angry -- are the immigrants who once fled to a different California that now no longer exists.

3a)

Whose Witness Is Bolton? Precisely because the Democrats and their kept media realize that the former national security advisor is unlikely to be a witness to their liking, he is unlikely to be a witness at all. 

ByAngelo Codevilla

Posted by Ruth  Ruth King

The would-be impeachers had been salivating at the prospect that John Bolton, who President Trump had fired after 17 months as his national security advisor, would lend his undoubted “conservative bona fides” to their campaign to convince Americans that Trump is bad, awful, illegitimate, dangerous, even criminal.

Lately however, they have settled on doing with this potential witness what they have done with the ones who have appeared before them behind closed doors—namely, publicize such anti-Trump messages as they can ascribe to him, scrubbed of any other elements, sharpen it to fit their “narrative,” and leave him and others unable to alter it.

Were Bolton to be a witness in the impeachment hearings, what would he say? More importantly, what would he not say? Odds are, he would be a witness against impeachment, and for all the things for which he had worked over a lifetime—for the things which had gained him those bona fides.

Trump parted ways with Bolton because they had come to disagree. Bolton, never one to mince words, never dissembled his disagreements; nor would it occur to him to gainsay the president’s right to be advised by someone more congenial than himself.

On constitutional grounds, he would frustrate any attempt to have him recount anything that he told the president or that the president had told him, or that anyone else had said about the president. John Bolton the lawyer would refuse to divulge his own thoughts about any person or anything that he chose. He would, however, stress that thoughts and judgments attributed to him in the media are merely the opinions of those making the attributions.

Having thus cleared the decks, he would speak of Trump’s right to deal with foreign nations as he has, and on behalf of presidential supremacy over the bureaucracy. He would then filibuster the would-be impeachers, boring them to tears with lessons on the principles of foreign policy.

He would answer the question of what he thought of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president by citing the 1999 U.S. Ukraine Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, and by stating that the transcript of Trump’s words is consistent with that treaty. Asked about Trump’s alleged pressure on Ukraine through arms contracts etc. to help him politically at home, he would almost surely say something like, “I know of no such pressures—and I would have known had there been any.”

Bolton would deal with questions about Trump’s relationship with North Korea’s dictator—of which he is known to have disapproved, by stating that this was a legacy of a previous set of advisers, and that the difficulties of that relationship are typical of the problems inherent in all arms control negotiations: merely entering them implies confidence that the other side is acting in good faith. Clearly, Kim Jong-un is not doing so any more than the Soviet Union ever did. Trump is always accused of departing from longtime U.S policy. In this case, for better and worse, Trump is fully consistent with it.

Prompted or not, Bolton would use the strongest language to discredit the staff members of the National Security Council, chiefly detailees from the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, and the State Department, for failing to support the policies of the president—the only person constitutionally authorized to make policy—and indeed who have effectively constituted a cabal to oppose and depose him.

Taking jobs as representatives of the president, as ambassadors and NSC staffers do, and then acting according to what they consider to be “higher loyalties” is simply dishonest. Using such dishonest persons to bolster an attempt to impeach the president on the pretend-ground that their policy preferences are superior to his, is politics of the most contemptible sort.

Bolton would divert questions about his differences with Trump into explanations of foreign policy fundamentals, applicable to all presidents. Do Trump’s copious words discredit America? Fact is, deeds do speak louder than words: Theodore Roosevelt was right in saying that words should be soft, and backed by big sticks.

What about alliances? Isn’t Trump wrecking them? America does not exist to serve alliances. Alliances exist to serve American interests. Turkey, currently ruled by Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist party, is formally our ally. But, effectively, Turkey is working against our interests. Trump is certainly not wrecking that alliance. On the other side of the world, Taiwan is not our ally. We don’t even officially recognize Taiwan’s existence. There is a strong argument that much closer relations between the United States and Taiwan would serve our interest in containing China.

Precisely because the Democrats and their kept media realize that John Bolton is unlikely to be a witness to their liking, he is unlikely to be a witness at all.

Comments are closed.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++