Month: January 2020

In previous posts I explained the craziness of the Democrats’ impeachment jihad against Pres. Trump.  This post is a continuation of the series which exhibits the Dems’ near complete divorce from law and logic.

I regularly listen to only one talk show, The Hugh Hewitt Show. I listen only sporadically to the others, if not at all.  This segment of Friday’s show is an interview with Dr. Matthew Spalding of Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington, DC.  If you have 21 minutes, listen to Spalding’s assessment of the impeachment proceedings so far. He raises some interesting points far removed from the confirmation-bias gabfest on the cable shows and left-of-center networks (which means all of them).

Two historical references in the conversation are intriguing.  First, the Democrats’ claim that Trump is especially egregious in the use of presidential powers for political gain is undermined by … history.  Lincoln ordered Sherman to send his Indiana troops home to vote, all this during a catastrophic civil war.  Interesting.  Second, Adam Schiff butchers the context of Hamilton’s letter to Washington.  Hamilton was defending Washington from his critics not, as Schiiff asserts, warning Washington from becoming an autocrat.  The letter mentions the dangers to Washington of popular demagogues “riding the whirlwind” … people like Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, and the rest of the Resistance barkers.  The Dems are so desperate to remove Trump that they are more willing to resemble skilled contortionists than mature statesmen.

One of the biggest dangers of this current impeachment affair is the danger of  impeachment’s regular use as a tool of political bickering, something I have been warning about for weeks.  In the end, here we are.

Republicans jot this down: the next time a Democrat president invents by presidential decree whole new categories of immigrants to be exempt from legal sanction, as Obama did in 2014 with merely his “pen and phone”, please move to expel that person from office.

RogerG

Chutzpah increases with the intensity of the longing for power.  Case in point: Jerry Nadler, House Impeachment Manager.  Yesterday, Nadler cherry-picked a couple of quips from Professor Jonathan Turley’s testimony before Schiif’s committee and other statements to justify his jihad.  So out of context was Nadler’s claims that it borders on perjury if he was a witness on the stand.

First, let’s hear from Nadler.  Yesterday, he said that Turley “agreed that the articles charged an offense that is impeachable.”  Then he quoted Turley as saying “it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a noncriminal allegation of abuse of power.”  The only problem is that Turley’s full testimony is a censure of the Democrats’ impeachment crusade.  Nadler’s desperation to remove Trump from office causes him to mangle reason and fact.

Next, let’s hear from Turley himself in his testimony before Schiff’s committee.  Listen for yourself below.  According to Turley, the offenses are impeachable … if proven.  The only problem is that there is a “paucity of evidence and abundance of anger”.  He said, “This is one of the thinnest records on impeachment to go forward.”  Once again, turning to the possibility of noncriminal impeachable offenses, Turley agrees to the possibility … but this ain’t it!  That was the entire thrust of his testimony.

Does this sound like Turley is ready to write the Democrats’ impeachment brief?

As Lincoln once said, “God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.”  And that also applies to you, Jerry Nadler, and to the record of Turley’s testimony.

Nadler is a charlatan.

RogerG

Axios quotes Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer as tweeting, “Trials have witnesses and documents. Cover-ups don’t.”  Yes, they do, Chuck, if the prosecution brings them as part of their charges, and they must be disclosed.  It’s called “discovery”: the 6th Amendment right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”.  Shoddy charges leads to quick dismissal.  A judge would discard the charges if prosecutors approached the bench with a demand to start the trial on the basis of unknown and thus undisclosed witnesses and documents because the current batch is a joke.

Chuck, you must be admitting that your charges are empty.  Result: “Case dismissed!”

A proper legal response would be to take the embarrassing things back and continue your years-long inquisition to find something that will sell, anything.  But from here on, though, a Congressional session (2 years) will be devoted to a little bit of legislation and a lot of impeachment.

Congressional public approval is in the toilet.  After this becomes a permanent agenda item, Congress’s positives will make their way to the sewage treatment plant.

RogerG