Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, January 27, 2020

Humor Break

Hat tip to Powerline Blog:



I love Politizoid's take on this impeachment pageant:


More Politizoid HERE.

And one more video, for good measure:

83 comments:

  1. Hopefully Senate Republicans have the balls to end this farce this week.

    Democrats will always have something to point and scream at and cry about the unfairness of it all. The Kavanaugh hearings laid bare their agenda of lies and hysteria.

    The Senate needs to send the House Managers packing, with their articles shoved where the sun don't shine.

    The Democrats purposely brought a half-baked case to the Senate, all the better to whip up frothy rage and unhinged hysteria in their voters.

    Democrats want witnesses? Let them go back to the House, reopen their impeachment hearings, call witnesses and demand evidence, and enforce their demands in court, which is what they should have done in the first place, if they were serious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm kinda thinking if you really want to own the libs, really show what a farce the witch hunt is, call all the witnesses, bring in all documents including those bursting through the dam as we speak, and release all evidence in order to show the American people how Dems made all of this up in order to unseat a duly elected President.

      Delete
    2. "...agenda of lies and hysteria." I like that. I will use it, but it's too generic for attribution. Matters not, I will know who said it.

      Delete
    3. Don't want to wait and hear what Bolton ha to say?

      Delete
    4. If the transcript story is true, we know what he will say. Changes nothing.

      You're actually saying President Trump cannot demand an aid recipient government investigate a known incident of corruption that pre-dates his administration?

      I could see Democrats' point if President Trump were attempting to get Ukraine to make something up out of whole cloth, but the Burisma corruption was on the radar during Obama's reign, as was Ukraine operatives dishing dirt in 2016 to damage Trump's campaign.

      Politico: Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

      Do I think the Giuliani-Parnas project was smart? No. It was keystone kops and probably motivated by dirty money. But how does that differ than the snouts in the Ukraine trough (and China trough) during the Obama years?

      Delete
  2. Nabbed from Twitter:

    Schiff had an opportunity to get a federal judge to weigh in on his impeachment inquiry subpoena requests, but when a fed judge announced that he’d consider the Executive Branch vs Legislative Branch issue the 2nd week of Dec, Schiff lost interest & asked the judge TO DISMISS IT!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's been out there for awhile. The House Democrats dropped their subpoena fights in the courts. This is about politics, not about establishing the facts of their case.

      There is no case. President Trump--like presidents before him--had expressed concern about Ukraine corruption. He had a legitimate right to ask for investigations before sending the money. Its a sidelight that the Biden's got caught in the dragnet.

      Delete
  3. Questions for those who think President Trump is guilty:

    1. What specific crime is he guilty of? Be specific

    2. What piece of hidden evidence or testimony do you think is buried somewhere that would bring him down, provide incontrovertible proof that he is guilty of the crime you state in question #1? Be specific.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Attempting to extort a foreign government for an election advantage. Whether he has to commit a crime according to the criminal code and can't be impeached simply for abuse of power is in dispute.

      2. Ask Giuliani.

      Delete
    2. 1. Specifically, Article 1 and Article 2.

      2. There is no evidence either buried or to become unearthed that would make a difference in the upcoming 47-53 acquittal.

      Delete
    3. Ducky gets a C+
      Honesty points for saying no law was broken, and we agree congress can impeach for anything within the "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" clause, regardless of federal statute.

      Where Ducky fails is with his surmise, for an election advantage. I still give you a few point for not screaming about "election interference, although his motive is pure conjecture, and all ballyhoo anyway, since presidents do all sorts of perfectly OK actions "for an election advantage." That is why they get reelected so often.

      If the president displayed concern for corruption, case closed. It's an honest and legitimate motive based upon factual evidence exposed during the previous administration. How it helps him personally is a secondary issue at best.

      Delete
    4. Ronald gets an F

      "Article 1 and Article 2" provides no specificity, so you failed the first question

      Your next answer is a dodge, or you sincerely cannot think of any hidden evidence out there. Either way, you have made a laughingstock of yourself and proven you don't belong at the serious adults' table.

      Ducky also lost points for giving a flip answer to #2. You guys are doing a pathetic job standing up for Schiff's clown show.

      Delete
    5. SF, arguing the specifics of the charges at this point of the game is rather ridiculous. If anything, article 1 in a normal trial may have some wriggle room with the right defense, particularly considering they chose to omit the bribery charge. I'm not sure where there's any question in article 2.

      Trump's defense may have been better served had they not built there case on "no quid pro quo" as this is what Bolton's statements pulls the legs out from under. They should have gone more with the "it ain't so bad" defense using past practices and such, giving their defense solid footing whereas now they seem to be on quicksand.


      Evidence and witnesses are irrelevant in this masquerade of a trial. Is that seriously arguable?



      Delete
    6. Ronald,

      I agree they should have gone with the "so what?" defense, and they can still claim that given the paucity of evidence.

      You still flunk. I asked for what evidence you thought was being covered up, and you come up with nothing???

      Also, article 2 is a joke. A president who's administration is being subpoena'd by congress cannot challenge that in court? He must completely and always comply? Really? That is absurd and is a fundamental violation of separation of powers.

      Delete
    7. SF, I'm seeing the Exec Branch impeding on the Legislative Branch Constitutional powers of investigation over and over again. I concede that it's likely a SCOTUS call but it would have never gotten this far had we had a DOJ representing the country rather than the President. Again, as I see it and my interpretation of the Constitution.

      I'm sure my "grade" of your assessment would be as irrelevant to you as yours is to me.

      There's an interesting article on National Review pertaining to Trump's defense.

      Back to evidence, this charade of a trial has already been called and that call holds regardless of what else comes out.

      Delete
    8. I saw McCarthy's article, and he has a good point, but the President's doesn't have to make a case; That's the Democrats' job, and they botched it. Its all adjectives and gotchas. You know they had the Bolton thing in their back pockets; that's their MO. The Democrats have no case, and what they did have is being dismantled by the President's team.

      If Bolton testifies, he will say what the other ambassadors and diplomats said: President Trump held up aid because he wanted Burisma investigated. We already knew that, and Democrats have not shown how that request was corrupt.

      Delete
    9. @ Ronald: "...had we had a DOJ representing the country rather than the President"

      Please expound. This should be interesting...

      Delete
    10. SF, fish much?

      Elaborating further would be rather futile, akin to arguing on Trump's honesty or his racism or his allegiance to foreign dictators or his own self interest rather than of the country. Or hell, that he's drained the swamp or has repaired Obama's broken economy. It's much like your questions (or test) of Trump's guilt.

      Actually, it's much like the Senate impeachment cover-up which they refer to as a trial. We all know what the outcome will be and we all know that nothing will change that.

      If you're unaware of or have rejected all arguments of Barr protecting Trump (even being replaced by Sessions for not being loyal enough), there's seriously nothing I could tell you that would make a difference.

      Delete
    11. @ Ward,
      You have no argument as you've shown time and again and in spite of all your vague accusations you cannot point to a specific instance in your claims.

      If it's all pointless to argue and the outcome is preordained, then STFU! You are tiresome in your paucity of fact.

      Delete
    12. 1. The Impoundment Control Act
      2. Obliterating the farcical Trump "no quid pro quo" defense with a precision guided Bolton Bomb

      Delete
    13. The administration disbursed the aid ahead of the deadline, so no violation. GSA 'lawbreaking' is administrivia, all admins have "broken the law' by their standards.

      Bolton will say nothing we don't already know. He's just pissed President Trump hasn't started three or four wars by now.

      Delete
    14. SF, the Trump defense should have gone with the argument that the funds were delivered on time rather than the no quid pro quo defense. This is where they've cut their own throats (if this were a real trial of course).

      "Bolton will say nothing we don't already know. He's just pissed President Trump hasn't started three or four wars by now."

      In fairness to the demand of accountability of select contributors here on "vague accusations", you know this, precisely, how?



      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. [Auto-incorrect typos replaced and additional clarifications]
      SF,
      That's at best a caricature of a response, the equivalent of someone on my side claiming that Trump frequently denies his allegiance to Russia because he's under orders from the Kremlin to do so.

      Let's try harder, shall we? Yes, Trump did fold and dispense the foreign aid by the deadline. But the Impoundment Control Act's provisions are a very strong defense of Congress' Constitutional authority over spending. It does not allow the President to play chicken with deadlines and bluff with money that is not his to toy with. Doing as Trump did without consulting Congress is a serious no-no. Hence the retroactive after the fact quest within the White House to come up with a reason to withhold the aid that would satisfy the legal requirements to rescind the aid. There are no backsies. There is no Presidential line item veto work around. The prerequisites laid down by Congress it that particular spending bill (law, actually, as Trump passed that bill) were met. Congress sets spending. The president either passes the bill or vetoes it. There is no gray area there. Congress does not appropriate money just so the President can attach his own strings upon how it is spent.

      Bolton hints that there is evidence Trump was in fact pressing for a quid pro quo with money he was not legally entitled to withhold after approving agencies certified that the Ukrainians had met the conditions Congress emplaced in order to recieve it. Trump very much wanted to add his own conditions, something he is explicitly forbidden to do by the Constitution. If Trump wants to reword passed legislation to his liking, he should run for Congress. He's just a President. The purse power is not his. There's your abuse of power charge.

      The Trumpian belief that the President can do whatever he wants is simply erroneous.

      Delete
    17. All true, but administrations of both parties do it all the time. And of course he was holding it up to try to force them to investigate Burisma, again, within a President's prerogative, to a point. Not President Trump's fault the Biden's got caught in the dragnet.

      Delete
    18. RJW,

      the Trump defense should have gone with the argument that the funds were delivered on time rather than the no quid pro quo defense.

      That's at least marginally defensible, except for the fact that brings the Impoundment Control Act into play. The State Department, the Pentagon, the CBO and other relevant agencies had already certified that the Ukrainians had met the codified conditions for recieving the aid. Yet Trump held the aid up anyway. Congress found out he aid was held up through a whistleblower rather than a report to Congress as required by law. In which case Congress via the Impoundment Control Act gets a crack at overturning the President's hold on fulfillment of that delivery of aid that Congress authorized and the President signed into law. It doesn't matter if Trump held it because he felt like it or if he wanted Hunter Biden's girlfriend's number or naked pictures of Bea Arthur in a football helmet filled with cottage cheese. Trump had to report he was holding up aid and why, and the why had to be a demonstration that the Ukranians did not fulfill the requirements SET BY CONGRESS.

      Knocking down the "no quid pro quo" sideshow just custom fits the noose around the neck.

      Delete
    19. I'd love for John Bolton to come out and say "I'm the whistleblower, bitches."

      Delete
    20. SF,

      All true, but administrations of both parties do it all the time. 

      Hmm. It'd really drain the swamp if Trump sent himself to prison for it then. Law and Order!

      Delete
    21. Some relevant points:

      The Impoundment Control Act is also the law that *created* the Congreasional Budget Office

      Trump's withholding aid without supplying Congress with a legitimate reason for doing so also imperiled the careers, if not the freedom of everyone in the Pentagon, Treasury, CBO, State, etc. that signed off on the Ukraine meeting the aid requirements. If Trump had not released the aid and the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act that sends people to prison for messing with Congress' authority over spending for failing to account for money appropriated kicked it...

      Delete
    22. Nice guy, Trump. No wonder more people have quit him than Dairy Queen. No one wants to go to jail for stupid.

      Delete
  4. With the Bolton revelations one would think EVEN deluded rethuglicans would want to subpoena him. For no other reason than to cover their arses. With 50+ % wanting Trump removed as it now stands I suppose those of us who actually recognize the truth about Trump should be cheering rethuglicanson.

    America is not stupid. Regardless of rethuglican belief to the contrary. Rethuglicans of course are excluded from the preceding statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vidner's brother leaked the "revelations" to influence the "witnesses" vote. Aren't you getting sick of the drip, drip, drip of Washington leakers every time its' "vote" time? It's been America's way of getting their news since the "Deep Throat".

      Delete
    2. ...but don't worry RN. The "next" leak will FINALLY be the "bombshell" you've been waiting for. Either that, or the one AFTER that.

      Delete
    3. Vindman identical twins, and the twin is in charge of overseeing the publication of books relating to the Trump Administration?

      You can't make up this stuff!

      Delete
    4. ...and Les has no problem with moles, weasels and rats--including CIA employees and Army officers--imbedding themselves in a president's administration for the sole purpose of spying and political sabotage.

      Delete
    5. And I don't mind the idea that if Congress wants to know if the President yells louder if he's hit in the left nut or right nut with a pipe wrench he better stand akimbo. He's just a President, not a Representative.

      Delete
  5. Yeah, but, Rethuglicans are doing a bang up job of making stuff up out of whole cloth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny when progs sputter "but whuttabout…"

      Delete
    2. It's even more funny when cons do . Which is most of the time.

      Actually all this was so VERY predictable. It has seen building for years. Toward the inevitable collapse of our republic.

      Delete
    3. I repeat: Give us some examples of Republicans "making stuff up out of whole cloth."

      Do you admit that Demoncraps do it too?

      Delete
    4. @ RN
      Silverfiddle, raised and called. Show your hand or fold.

      In other words, Silverfiddle asked you several questions which you have failed to give a direct answer to. That you continue to dissemble instead of answering those questions denotes dishonesty either to the commenters on this blog or to yourself. Answer the questions or shut up.

      Delete
    5. There is no point in presenting material that has been readily available for weeks to folks who obviously have an over abundance of desire to IGNORE it.

      America WILL render ITS verdict. When it does if it rejects Trump given his abject dishonesty and dismal characterthen it will get exactly what it deserves.

      Frankly Warren I really d don't care anymore. I've pretty much given up on believing America had many good days left. I give FULL credit to Trump and his con/republican syncophants.

      Good Day Warren

      Delete
    6. And yet, here you are dissembling once again. You are little more than a common gossip.

      Delete
    7. Proverbs 18:2:”A fool has no delight in understanding, but only in expressing his own opinion.”

      Delete
  6. Shakespeare wrote delghtful play about this Impeachment Schmeerange about four-humdre years ago. He called it, "MUCH AO ABOUT NOTHING."

    Then Shakespeare wrote another play soon after indicating certain knowldge that President Trum will be acquitted and then proceed at jet speed to achieve a stunning, historic "Landslide Victort" in November. The Bard called that PLAY ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Neither Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president, nor Rudy Giuliani’s prior or subsequent investigations, were ever founded on a premise of soliciting foreign interference in an election. That is strictly the surmise of Democrats who do not like the idea of President Trump investigating corruption involving Joe Biden, the potential future standard-bearer for their party.

    Any claim that Trump’s motive is known to be corrupt is strictly a guess, no matter how loudly Schiff and his colleagues proclaim it to be so.


    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/27/lies_damned_lies_and_adam_schiffs_moving_lips_142233.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea that Trump mortally fears Joe Biden's political acumen enough to seek damaging oppo research on him makes me credulous that most of us aren't NeverTrumpers. F'real y'all. Trump is practically screaming at the top of his lungs that oatmeal could beat him in a one-on-one.

      We need a President with aubstance.

      Delete
  8. Democrats are going to have to bring in Michael Mann and some global warmist data masseuses to fix this chart

    ReplyDelete
  9. All this is, all it was, and all it ever will be is a heaping mountain of foul-smelling ESS - AITCH - EYE - TEA

    ReplyDelete
  10. That Wile E Coyote vid was good.

    The Carlson vid. Well, my two main concerns are equally Education (remove the libtards, teach critical thinking) and Immigration (remove the illegals)

    ReplyDelete
  11. GET A LOAD OF THIS ALL YE DISMAL DOUBTERS, LEGALISTIC HAIRSPLITTERS, AND DREARY, DEBILITATING NAYSAYERS:

    Holy Moses! More than 175,000 Tickets Requested to See President Trump in Wildwood, New Jersey on Tuesday

    Gateway Pundit

    by Jim Hoft

    This Is Historic! First Daughter-in-law Lara Trump broke the news on Monday that 175,000 TICKETS WERE REQUESTED to see President Trump in Wildwood, New Jersey on Tuesday night. (Photo) Last week Republican Jeff Van Drew told Maria Bartiromo that more tickets had been requested for the upcoming New Jersey rally than for any previous Trump rally! The rally on January 28th is being held at the Wildwoods Convention Center which can hold a group as large as 10,000.. . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good news, but immaterial politically. New Jersey is a leftwing shitehole stinking and sinking into the Atlantic.

      Delete
    2. HEY! I was RAISED in New Jersey, and it was a GREAT place when I was young, so watch your step, buddy. ;-)

      I don't understand why you would say Trump's uncanny ability to draw record crowds hugely overflowing the capacity of every stadium at which he appears wherever he chooses tostage a rally would be "politically immaterial."

      We seem to have developed into TWO countries –– one an insular gaggle of arrogant, snobbish Academic Elitists, malevolent Media Moguls, the dissolute Barons, Dukes and Duchesses an Earls of the Entertainment Business, –– and a huge percentage of a Legal Community incubated, groomed, and indoctrinated by the Cultural Marxists who've dominated the POISON IVY LEAGUE for most of the past century. constantly touted and supported by the Enemedia –– yet anther HUGE product of Cultural Marxism's death grip on American culture.

      But then n he other hand you have THE REAL PEOPLE of the USA –– common, hardly erudite, rough around the dges, but basically HONEST –– who produce NECESSARY GOODS and SERVICES, do all the HEAVY LIFTING and make life as we know it POSSIBLE –– are SICK and TIRED of the BULLSHIT meted out bythe Government-Academic-Media complex that wants to rule us with an Iron Hand.

      That's WHY Mr. Trumo got elected. It's also ls why he's so fiercely, savagely HATED by the depraved Leftist Establishment just identified and enumerated.

      Unless you are willing to CEDE your power as a U.S. Citizen to "The Swamp," and thus GIVE UP on the very IDEA of government OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE, the game is still worth playing and the battle is still worth fighting.

      Delete
    3. Franco,

      No insult intended. My own state is turning into California of the Rockies.

      I doubt President Trump will win New Jersey.

      Delete
    4. This has NOTHING to do wth either you OR me. It's about REALITY versus ILLUSION, - DECEPTION versus CLEAR-EYED HONESTY, - PERVERSION versus DECENCY, - INSANITY versus SOBRIETY, - TYRANNY versus LIBERTY.

      As always in the realm of Ultimate Realiy, PRINCIPLE trumps ALL.

      Delete
    5. I hear ya, and I think I am being very clear-eyed, to the point of cynicism.

      Delete
  12. Can someone succinctly state what specific action the president took that warrants his impeachment?

    Also, please provide the material evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SIMPLE! Mr. Trump had the colossal efforntery to BEAT HILLAHAG CLINTON.

      Delete
    2. Any reason or all of them?

      #422 (3/18/2018) - While under oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump insisted gun confiscations without due process was his favored plan to address criminal gun violence.

      Impeachable offense: 5 U.S.C. 7311

      Delete
    3. I don't think that's in the Democrats' articles of impeachment.

      Delete
  13. I give up trying to argue with leftists over impeachment.
    They either are so totally brainwashed that they are incapable of seeing the truth or they are hard core partisans willing to lie for the cause.
    Either way, it's a waste of breath talking to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adam SCHITT hasn't given up, so why should either of YOU?

      I agree, however, that the Defecrats have rendered themselves immune and impervious to Reason and Decency. So maybe it's time to start combatting the bastards with Main Force.

      Paul Revere. Lexingon and Concord. Bunker Hill. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

      THEY had GUTS. What's the matter with S today?

      Delete

  14. Pam Bondi absolutely dismantled Hunter, and Joe Biden, as well as Burisma.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Socialists are already dead in the water. Trump may as well run Unchallenged.. Biden is the best they’ve got, and after the Republicans are done with the Impeachment trial, Biden will be Gone with the rest of the “Has-Beens” . The Democrats themselves can’t get behind Bernie Sanders, they know that he hasn’t git a snowballs chance in Hell against The Donald! . Warren buried herself in Iowa by laughing at a working man paying for his child to go to college. Bloomberg was toast even before he entered the race.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Replies
    1. I can't wait for Hunter/Joe and Rudy's testimony...

      Delete
    2. Being how Hunter has been completely out of a job since resigning from Burisma, I find it interesting that he settled his paternity case yesterday so that he wouldn't have to produce any financial disclosure statements in Court... he must be channeling an "appearance" at the Impeachment hearings.

      Delete
    3. The mom should thank DJT for the what I am sure was a VERY generous settlement.

      Delete
    4. Joe... if the GOP wants to hear from the Biden's, since they have a majority of the votes, they can just call them. If the Bidens, or even Adam Schiff do not testify, it will not be because of Dem reluctance.

      It will be because the GOP decided not to call them.

      The question would be why, as they call for them to be questioned, are they not doing so?

      Delete
    5. Oooh ooh pick me Mr. Kotter. It's because the Democrats would get to ask questions while Republicans were forced to STFU under pain of imprisonment.

      "Mr. Biden, can you give us any insight as to why President Trump would attempt to subvert your rights to due process as an American citizen to ask a foreign government to criminally investigate you without cause in exchange for weapons?"

      "He's a moron?"

      Delete
  17. I can understand why the whiny Progressives who oppose Trump are upset. It must be tough to see the train coming and not being able to do anything to stop it
    Trump was going to win in 2020 anyway, but this impeachment scam by the Socialist Democrats is going to insure Trump a landslide win

    ReplyDelete
  18. Evidence? Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anyone who saw what the Trump Lawyers did to the Democrats case Saturday would think they're finished. But it only got better on Monday when the Republicans REALLY kicked their Butt's.

    We could see that all of the boredom and bad feelings that the Democrats House managers created last week get wiped away in roughly 2 hours.
    And on Monday Pam Bondi really kicked Butt when she exposed both Hunter, and Joe Biden's corruption
    It was pretty bad, or should I say, Really Good!.

    They blew the Democrats all the way to Hell

    ReplyDelete
  20. I understand that Being a Trump Hater these day’s can be trying. But being an Obama hater for me back in those days, so trust me I really do understand.
    So my advice to all you Trump Haters is. SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP... NO BODY CARES.

    ReplyDelete
  21. QUESTION for the COURT:

    Do you beieve the manifestly INSANE and willfully PERVERSE ought to be locked up in asylums, so their CANCEROUS IMBECILITY has less chance of attracting groupies, winning converts and thus weakening the morl and intellectual fiber of society, OR do you believe that Stupidity, Perversity and Evil should be free to do their worst with interference, and let the chips fall whee they may?

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

!--BLOCKING--