this is at least entertaining https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/what-if-the-democrats-hadnt-cried-wolf/ What If the Democrats Hadn’t Cried Wolf? By Kyle Smith November 21, 2019 2:09 PM Sondland’s testimony provided their daily ‘this changes everything’ fix. The excitable Brian Stelter is especially excitable in his a.m. newsletter today. Stelter thinks everything has changed. “Historic day” is the headline of his newsletter. Isn’t every day? Approvingly, he quotes CNN colleague Jeffrey Toobin: “I think you can divide the Trump presidency into two periods, before November 20th, 2019, and after, because now we know. I mean, now we know that every fantasy about how corrupt this administration was is actually true. That this was a corrupt enterprise from the very beginning.” I won’t bore you by listing all the other times Team Excitable has solemnly declared that Suddenly Everything Has Changed, the Other Shoe Finally Dropped, and it’s The Beginning of the End. Just to give a quick recap, Trump was going to be dragged out of the Oval Office because he colluded with the Russians during his campaign; because he fired James Comey, which was obstruction of justice; because he paid off Stormy Daniels; because he interfered with the Mueller investigation, which was obstruction of justice; and because he violated the Emoluments Clause by continuing to be a hotelier. This last was deemed the “number one” reason to impeach Trump by the Democratic party’s shaman-healer-id, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as recently as April. Toobin’s statement is self-contradicting; Gordon Sondland’s testimony didn’t demonstrate that this administration “was a corrupt enterprise from the very beginning.” That Toobinism is the Democrats’ problem; the fact that they’ve been calling this administration a corrupt enterprise from the very beginning negates the idea that Sondland’s Testimony has Changed Everything. Stelter enthusiastically quotes pundits who called yesterday a “John Dean moment.” I think not. People who grew up in the 1930s and 1940s were about four standard deviations less cynical about politics than everyone is today. Brian Stelter would have us believe that yesterday was like the moment when Krusty the Clown’s switch was flipped from Good to Evil. He never expressed the slightest objection to anything in TrumpWorld until now, when it becomes his reluctant duty to call foul. That he would suggest this simply indicates that Brian Stelter’s memory works about as well as that of the unfortunate hero of Memento. A more useful metaphor is that the Trump administration is like a tub of clear water into which beef-bouillon cubes of accusation have been thrown since before he even took office. The water turned dark brown a long time ago. Sondland’s testimony merely made the leather-colored water a bit more leathery-looking. If I strike a detached tone during these hearings, it is for the following reason: I have no dog in this fight. I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 and won’t vote for him in 2020. I think his replacement by Mike Pence would probably mean a continuation of things I like (the courts being replenished by Federalist Society–backed judges) and a curtailment of things I don’t like (trade wars, impulsive decision-making, misadventures on the presidential Twitter feed). On the other hand, I’m disinclined to support giving the Democrats anything they want because they’re sillier than Monty Python’s Silly Party, which was really quite silly. My firm belief is that every time the Democrats fail at anything, even something I don’t much care about, an angel gets its wings. The Democrats’ two-stage plan is, one, to establish that Trump pressured the Ukrainians to investigate (or maybe just to announce that they were investigating) Casa Biden; and, two, to convince a large cohort of Republican senators that this act or series of acts merits impeachment, using their media allies to go over Republican heads and make the American people demand removal. If anything, though, the Venn diagram for “people who think the president must be removed” and “Democrats” looks more and more like a circle. In other words, the Democrats’ plan to finally oust Trump resembles my plan to get Mark Zuckerberg to give me a billion dollars. Step one: Using every means of investigation and research at my disposal, find out the exact location of Facebook headquarters and go there. Step two: Convince Zuckerberg to give me a billion dollars. What is the Democrats’ plan for step two? I don’t see it. Do you? I once attended a Hollywood party at which two of the guests were the socialite-model-whatevers Paris and Nicky Hilton. Every so often one of them would exit the party and then dramatically reappear, as if to say, “Ta-da! I have arrived at the party! Again.” The Democrats are the Hilton sisters of Capitol Hill: Every day it’s “Ta-da! We just proved Trump pressured the Ukrainians about Biden. Again.” These hearings might be a different story if the Democratic-media blob had managed to restrain itself from ever uttering the I word until September 25, when Trump released the transcript of the July 25 phone call with the Ukrainians. If the Demmedia had spent these first three years of the Trump administration building up a reputation as honest, sober brokers who fully conceded the legitimacy of Trump’s election and were not interested in trying to beat him to death with every wisp of straw they could get their hands on, the citizenry might actually be listening to these hearings and becoming as angry as the Democrats wish them to be. Instead, the New York Times is running pieces such as, “‘No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News . . . Many Americans are throwing up their hands and tuning it all out.” Whose fault is that, Democrats? Kyle Smith is National Review’s critic-at-large. @rkylesmith
Listening to these testimonies, its hard to believe how low the Republicans will sink. They are a total clown show of incompetent bufoons. Jordan / Nunes are unbelievably hackish. Hard to imagine anyone claims to be a member of this "tribe"
It's a good question. There is no guarantee that it does, given his pattern of behaviors. But he will have a much more difficult task of repeating it if he even dares to repeat it. How difficult depends on public reaction, the "media" reaction, some republican reaction (such as Ken Starr for example), even Trump's public reaction, and awareness of how Trump's "crimes" operate--- all things made possible due to the impeachment process. The reactions draw multiple lines in the sand on what is acceptable and not for various groups. For example, Trump said there is no QPQ, and now said: "I WANT NOTHING". Those are public lines he has drawn for himself and probably for his supporters as well. The effect of this is it has made it clear to everyone that he wouldn't do a QPQ and he wants nothing from other foreign leader (for his political gain). Next time he want to do this, even in a new private hidden channel, he would have to recruit folks that clearly understand they are crossing his stated public lines. There is much less ambiguity about I "didn't know it was wrong". Now, this is only taken into Trump's reaction and lines he drew himself. All the other lines, from the media to other influential republican (not even bothering with DEM) would have stricter lines. As his private hidden channel is now public knowledge and everyone, both internal, external, other world leaders can see what he has done, they are all much better prepared to handle it, including catching it much earlier and reporting it. The effect of this is a much more difficult job for the POTUS to repeat what he has done. If he chooses to do it anyway, the DEM has a response, one that can resonate with the base and probably with at least some of the independent. X material from Y government is all bogus, political hit that was forced upon by Trump. It weakens the impact and at the same time, attack Trump.
There is no defense, Trump asked for dirt on a political opponent - whether the Senate thinks it is impeachable doesn't matter, it is....and he needs to be branded as such.... People that worship him are no different than those in Chicago who supported Al Capone. DD
Nobody here is constantly smearing millenials, why bring that mess in here and it's still the same thing as owning the libs and being triggered. Dismissing someone means just because means you don't have a real argument. And the crazy part is I am not a boomer nor are many people who converse in here. It's too clever by half.
The question is will the Senate be able to get the emails and documents that the Republicans are Obstructing with.... I mean you can't say there IS NOT CRIME if you are the one withholding all the evidence. DD
Do you know how long it would take for that to run its course through the courts. It would be past Election Day in 20/20.
She's humiliating them. Dr. Hill laying the antisemitism our in the open, and when having her speak directly prior to Nunes, it makes Nunes look that much more like a dunce. That isn't an easy task, but it has been done.
I mean that Nunes speaking before already showed he was a dunce. But having him speak immediately after someone as sharp as Dr. Hill made it even more apparent.
I think you are really naive most people don't know or care what the duties of congress are. And you are really missing the point most people think impeaching a president is low on the list of things the vote in a congressional person for. You are definitely projecting your own beliefs and values on everybody else, it's completely logical to think representatives could be doing something more productive than making a footnote in history.
