Hegseth to be Grilled

For John, BLUF:  A question for the US Senate is if Nominee Pete Hegseth is the person to lead the Department of Defense into a new future.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The U.S. is unprepared for a major war.  Can Pete Hegseth fix that?

Here is the sub-headline:

Trump's defense secretary pick would face a staggering challenge in readying America for war.

From The Wash Post, by Reporter Max Boot, 13 January 2025.

Here is the lede plus three:

Tuesday's confirmation hearings for defense secretary are sure to focus on all the troubling allegations of misconduct swirling around intended nominee Pete Hegseth (which he has denied).  But let's not lose sight of the big picture.  The essential question that senators must ask is whether Hegseth, a Fox News host and former National Guardsman, has the capacity and experience to prepare the armed forces to fight a major war — and, if so, how he would go about it.  Because right now, the U.S. military simply is not ready to defeat an adversary such as China or Russia in a protracted conflict.

Don't take my word for it:  That's the judgment of the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy, which issued its final report in July.  The commission, chaired by former California congresswoman Jane Harman, came to a sobering conclusion that did not get the attention it deserved:  "The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war. ...  The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today."

The commission went on to warn that "China is outpacing the United States and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific" and that "the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat."

The problem isn't that the U.S. military has gone "woke," as MAGA partisans such as Hegseth allege.  The problem is that America became complacent after the Cold War when it downsized its armed forces and its defense-industrial base.  Since then, the United States has prepared a military suitable for fighting insurgents in Afghanistan or Iraq — but utterly inadequate for an extended fight against a major power.

Yes, the question is how to navigate the Department of Defense toward a new readiness goal, while garnering support in Congress for the needed funding. : As Author Boot points out, to meet President Trump's demand that NATO nations spend 5% on Defense, it would be an increase of $600 billion a year, to more than $1.4 trillion a year.

People can say that Mr Hegseth lacks the managem3ent experience to guide the Defense behemouth.  On the other hand, we have had a number of successful managers from industry who have not been up to the task of turning out a winning military force  Secretasry of Defense Robert S McNamara comes to mind.

But, success at the Pentagon is more than efficient spending of money.  It is also about building a cohesive fighting force, united and innovative.  I would think that Nominee Hegseth could be that person.

Regards  —  Cliff

Dems take a Nick in the Senate

For John, BLUF:  It is Radio Host Grace Curley's birthday, her 32.  And Senator Joe Manchin declaring he is an independent would not be news to the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Partyw.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin leaves Democratic Party, registers as independent

Here is the sub-headline:

Sen. Joe Manchin, a political moderate, has officially left the Democratic Party to become an independent

From Fox News, by Reporter Chris Pandolfo, 31 May 2024 10:35am EDT, Updated 31 May 2024 12:15pm ED.

Here is the lede plus two:

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a longtime political moderate, on Friday announced he is leaving the Democratic Party and has registered as an independent.

Manchin, who is not running for re-election, will continue to caucus with Senate Democrats until the end of his term, his office confirmed to Fox News Digital, meaning the balance of power in the upper chamber will not change significantly. He is currently chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

"From my first day in public service in 1982, I have always focused on doing what’s best for my state and my country, without regard to party or politics. Throughout my days in elected office, I have always been proud of my commitment to common sense, bipartisanship and my desire to bring people together. It’s who I am. It’s who I will always be. I have never seen America through a partisan lens," Manchin said.

I think msny would say Maverick Senator vice Moderate Senator.  However, nothing changes the balance in the Senate and I am sure Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will work to avoid driving him away.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

FISA Continues

For John, BLUF:  FISA, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,, which allows a secret panel to allow wiretaps of American Citizens. was reauthorized.  This is not good for the Republic or for our individuaal Rights.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Congress Approves Extension of Warrantless Surveillance as Part of the Defense Policy Bill

Here is the sub-headline:

Why won’t the Supreme Court hear cases challenging surveillance under Section 702?

From Legal Insurrection, by Ms Mary Chastain, Thursday, 14 December 2023 at 03:00pm.

Here is the lede plus one:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What did Congress do today?

It extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) until mid-April. The vote was 310-118.

Section 702 of FISA became official in 2008. Do you know what it contains?  A provision that it should “be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment.”

Except it allows too much wiggle room that allows warrantless surveillance of Americans in America.  (By the way, the Constitution applies to citizens no matter where the citizen is in the world.)

The good news is that neither of our Senators (E Warren or E Markey) voted for it.

The bad news is that it is still out there to be abused by Federal Law Enforement, as it was in 2016 aginst those associated with the Trump Campaign, like4 Mr Carter Page.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Good Contest in 2024

For John, BLUF:  This is about our Senior Senator, Ms Elizabeth Warren, and her reelection chances.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Shock Poll: Dem Elizabeth Warren Surprisingly Vulnerable, Trails GOP’s Charlie Baker by Double Digits

Here is the sub-headline:

Former Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA) holds a double-digit lead over Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in a hypothetical U.S. Senate race match-up in Massachusetts, according to a poll.

From Breitbart, by Reporter Nick Gilbertson, 11 May 2023.

Here is the lede plus three:

The poll, conducted by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, shows that 49 percent of the likely voter respondents would back Baker if he announced a bid, placing him 15 points ahead of Warren at 34 percent.

Moreover, the moderate Republican leads by a wide margin with independents, as Fiscal Alliance Foundation spokesman Paul D. Craney noted in a release associated with the survey:

Senator Warren has significantly higher unfavorable numbers than her fellow Democrats statewide and that seems to be creating an opening for Baker, who always enjoyed large amounts of cross-party appeal. Looking at the cross tabs, Republicans seem to coalesce behind Baker (79%) in a way that Democrats do not around Warren (56%), and Baker leads with independent/unenrolled voters 2-1 at 57-26%.

Warren’s favorability rating is 5 points above water, with 49 percent finding her favorable and 44 percent saying she is unfavorable, including 35 percent who find her “very unfavorable.” As Craney pointed out, her favorability rating indicates she is far less secure than some of her fellow prominent elected Democrat officials in the Bay State.

I had not even been thinking of this.  But, she is a Class 1 Senator and thus up for election in November 2024.♠  Senator Warren has been serving since January 2013.

I don't believe Governor Baker is all that popular with the Conservative wing of the party.  On the other hand, President Biden could drag down the Democratic ticket.

I can support Charlie Baker as our Senator.  He is not as Conservative as I would like, but he would be good rightward shift from Senator Warren, and a chance to return to a bipartisan delegation in Washington.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Our Junior Senator is Class 2, and thus up for reelection in NOVEMBER 2026.

That Darned Filibuster

For John, BLUF:  The Democratic Party officials, elected and bureaucratic, are being hypocrites over the Filibuster.  Look at last week, where they filibustered a Senator Ted Cruz bill for sanctions on the NordStream 2 pipeline.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020: Report

From The Washington Examiner, by Editor Andrew Mark Miller, 26 March 2021, 06:18 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

President Joe Biden has been increasingly critical of the Senate filibuster, calling it a Jim Crow relic and saying it has been widely abused despite Democrats using it over 300 times in 2020, compared to once by Republicans.

“After @POTUS @JoeBiden denounced the rampant abuse of the filibuster last year, we did some digging,” Fox News anchor John Roberts tweeted Friday.  “Republicans used it once. Democrats used it 327 times.”

The kind thing to say is that the Democrats are hypocrites.

The unkind thing to say is they would sell their Mothers down the river for an edge in an electio.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Filibuster For Me, But Not For Three

For John, BLUF:  The historically favored tool of Democrats was challenged by Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid, but yet often used, and now, to pass a specific piece of legislation is being pushed for elimination.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dems block Cruz's Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill

From The Hill, by Reporters Jordain Carney and Laura Kelly, 13 January 2022, 05:51 PM EST.

Here is the lede plus two:

Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked legislation from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to slap sanctions on businesses tied to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a win for the Biden administration, which believes such sanctions could damage relations with Germany.

Senators voted 55-44 on Cruz’s legislation, falling short of the 60 votes needed for it to pass. Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Jacky Rosen (Nev.) and Raphael Warnock (Ga.) joined every Republican save Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in voting for the bill.

The vote on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will carry gas from Russia to Germany, comes at a delicate moment for White House as it navigates renewed tensions with Moscow over its buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine.

I too disagree with Senator Ted Cruz's bill for sanctions on companies assisting in building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.  However, I am shocked, shocked to find that the Democrats used the dreaded, anti-democratic filibuster.  They just reached into the tool box, without looking, and pulled out the first item their hand fell on.

The Democratic Leadership on Capitol Hill is nothing if it is not dishonest and duplicitious.

Your job, and mine, between now and 8 November is to challenge all Candidates for Congress, Representatives and Senators (none in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), as to how they stand on the filibuster and its uses and abuses.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

It Isn't Over

For John, BLUF:  We have a Senate vote that acquits Citizen Donald J Trump of the charges under which the US House of Representatives Impeached him.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Senate Votes to Acquit Trump in Impeachment

From PJ Media, by Reporter Tyler O'Neil, 13 February 2021 3:54 PM ET.

Here is the lede:

On Saturday, the U.S. Senate voted to acquit former President Donald Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors, specifically of “incitement of insurrection.”

And here is part of Citizen Trump's responsae to the news:

“Our cherished Constitutional Republic was founded on the impartial rule of law, the indispensable safeguard for our liberties, our rights and our freedoms,” Trump added.  “It is a sad commentary on our times that one political party in America is given a free pass to denigrate the rule of law, defame law enforcement, cheer mobs, excuse rioters, and transform justice into a tool of political vengeance, and persecute, blacklist, cancel and suppress all people and viewpoints with whom or which they disagree.”

“I always have, and always will, be a champion for the unwavering rule of law, the heroes of law enforcement, and the right of Americans to peacefully and honorably debate the issues of the day without malice and without hate,” the former president added.

Do you think this is over?  Heck, when the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, died in 1659, and was buried, it wasn't over.♠  In 1661 the new government dug up his body and "executed" him and then put his skull on a spike outside of Parliament.  Until circa 1685.

Yes, we need some reconcilliation, but it will require a little give from each of the sides.  When will that happen?  Not this weekend.  Senate Majorit Leader Schumer described the 43 Republican Senators voting against Impeachment as having "voted to 'condone' the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021".

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  For perspective, we are talking 39 years after the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.  Seems like just yesterday.

No There There

For John, BLUF:  I am not surprised at Senator Rand Paul's conclusions.  They align with mine.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Impeachment Managers Admitted Trump Was Not Impeached for His Words:  Sen. Rand Paul

From The Epoch Times, by Reporter Samuel Allegri, 12 February 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Thursday that the House Democrats conducting the impeachment of former President Donald Trump were not able to prove that he incited the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Paul, in response to a Fox News interviewer asking him what he would recommend to Trump’s defense lawyers, said he “would capitalize on something extraordinary that the impeachment managers admitted.”

“They admitted that President Trump was not impeached for his words.  This is sort of extraordinary because I’m not sure how you incite someone to insurrection or to this violence they say he’s alone responsible for if it’s not through his words,” Paul said in the interview.

“They finish up by saying, ‘Well, it’s not through his words, it’s because he advocated that the election was stolen,'” he added.  “Well, so has Nancy Pelosi … So has Hillary Clinton in 2016.  So has Jamie Raskin, the lead House impeachment manager [who] went to the floor in 2017 and said, ‘Trump stole the election and I am objecting to ceding the certified electors from Florida.'”

This is all pretty sad.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trump Responds to House Managers

For John, BLUF:  I was impressed that the now Citizen Trump was able to swiftly present a defense approach after having parted ways with his previous defense team, just before the weekend.  The trial is set to begin Tuesday, 9 February.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Eviscerates Democrats' Impeachment Charges

From PJ Media, by Reporter Tyler O'Neil, 2 February 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump’s lawyers Bruce L. Castor Jr., and David Schoen released Trump’s answer to the Democrats’ article of impeachment accusing him of “incitement of insurrection.”  Trump’s response breaks the Democrats’ impeachment article into eight separate allegations and responds to each claim.  In a nutshell, the former president argues that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to remove a president when he has already left office and that he is innocent of the Democrats’ charges.

Trump asks the Senate to “dismiss Article I:  Incitement of Insurrection against him as moot, and thus in violation of the Constitution, because the Senate lacks jurisdiction to remove from office a man who does not hold office.  In the alternative, the 45th President respectfully requests the Senate acquit him on the merits of the allegations raised in the article of impeachment.”

The Senate already voted to take up the impeachment, with five Republican senators joining 50 Democratic senators in holding the matter constitutional.  However, 45 Republican senators voted not to hold the trial, given constitutional concerns.  This vote signified that the Senate is not likely to convict Trump.

The former president makes a few extremely salient arguments against the Democrats’ impeachment article.  In addition to the claim that the Senate cannot convict a former president on impeachment, Trump argues that the Democrats violated his free speech and due process rights in rushing to impeach him and that the article of impeachment is deceptively drafted in an unfair manner.  Trump also claims that disqualifying him from office would constitute a “bill of attainder,” which has been broadly interpreted to mean a legislative act against a class of people that inflicts punishment on them without a judicial trial.

It is obvious that the House Democratic Party Leadership jumped to a conclusion, without taking the time to conduct even a cursory investigation.

My question is if this upcoming trial will just be a blot on our record as a nation, or if it will be a prescedent for a more Caudillo like form of government?

Regards  —  Cliff

Whither the Impeachment Trial?

For John, BLUF:  The [Second] Impeachment Trial of Citizen Donald J Trump begins in the US Senate on 9 February 2021.  At least the Super Bowl will be over.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats Are Laying a Trap with Trump’s Impeachment Trial

Here is the sub-headline:

Beware: Those arguing the Dems are making a miscalculation have got it all wrong.

From National Review, by Commentator Andrew C McCarthy, 27 January 2021, 11:12 AM.

Here is the heart of the argument:

To summarize, Republicans are trying to signal that Democrats should just drop the whole thing.  The votes are not there; ergo, it’s a waste of time.  All it will do is raise Trump’s profile, give him a platform to air his grievances, and launch his political revival. Who wants that?

The Democrats want that.

Despite President Biden’s pretensions about bringing our nation together, Democrats want to impeach Trump because it will be divisive, not despite its divisiveness.  They are banking on his being acquitted and politically revived, not underestimating that possibility.  They want him to run for office again, not banish him.

Yes, the former president’s impeachment trial will be divisive for the country, but not in a way that troubles the Democrats.  Rather, it will unite the Left while intensifying the Right’s internecine conflict.

With Republicans having agreed to delay the trial proceedings for a couple of weeks, impeachment will be a boon for the fledgling Biden administration.  The new president will get his major appointees confirmed and installed in the various executive departments and agencies.  Meantime, Biden will get a double windfall.

For sure, it is all about Former President Trump, and how you read him.  The Democrats read him as a destructive and self-destructive force.  The Senate elections in Georgia may, to them, bear out this view.  On the other hand, Former President Trump has a Fingerspitzengefühl sense of the "Tea Party" folks out across the Fruited Plain.

I think much will depend on if Former President Trump is able to put 2020 behind him and focus on 2022 and 2024.  If he can, he could be formidable on the hustings.  And his "martyrdom" at the hands of the Democrats in Congress will only add to his luster.

On the other hand, if it all goes as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer hopes, then Mr Trump will be finished in politics, to the great relief of the Democrats.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

SCOTUS Turns Its Back

For John, BLUF:  I am sure that Democrats will criticize Chief Justice John Roberts for stepping away from this second Impeachment Trial, especially if things go sideways.  Howver, the Chief Justice has made the wise choice.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

An Impeachment So Fake, John Roberts Refuses to Participate

Here is the sub-headline:

The economy is imploding, the coronavirus is raging, the terrorists in Black Lives Matter and Antifa are still terrorizing Democrat-run cities, and what’s the Democrat-run U.S. Senate gearing up to do, and do with His Fraudulency Joe Biden’s approval…?

Ferom Breitbart, by Editor John Nolte, 28 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus four:

Impeach … a private citizen.

If you thought that first impeachment of President Trump was fake, these lunatics now want to impeach and convict Trump as a private citizen — a farce so absurd, so ridiculous, and such a piece of failed political theater, even establishment toady John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, refuses to participate.

Roberts is refusing for a very good reason…

The impeachment process is about removing the president.

Donald Trump is not the president.

In place of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Senate Democrats have picked Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to preside.  Senator Leahy is a decent human being.  Chairing this fraud is not going to be good for him or his reputation.  Whatever he does will be decried as wrong, from one side or the other.

But, Speaker Pelosi insists.

Yes, the use of "His Fraudulency" as a title for President Biden seems a little over the top.  We should not emulate the Democrats from the last four years.  We should grant legitimacy and hope that President Biden makes moves that make America better.

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

Supreme Court Acknowledges Donald J Trump Has Stepped Down

For John, BLUF:  This is about the Constitution's Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 ).  I think that deep down inside the Democrafts are concerned that Donald and Melania named their Son Barron.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Supreme Court Dismisses Emoluments Cases Against Trump Brought By Rabid Democrats

From The Gateway Pundit, by Reporter Cristina Laila, 25 January 2021, 1:36pm.

Here is the lede plus two:

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed emoluments clause lawsuits against Donald Trump.

In an order that was issued with no dissent, the highest court of the land instructed lower courts to toss out opinions against Trump since he is no longer in office.

For years Trump endured judicial harassment after rabid Democrats lawmakers and attorneys general of DC and Maryland sued him over 3 years ago because foreign government officials stayed at Trump’s DC hotel.

It is Gateway Pundit, which explains the over-the-top reporting.

Funnily enough one might have thought the First Branch would take this as a hint, and drop the Trial for the Second Impeachment.  Alas, no.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saving the Filibuster

For John, BLUF:  Republican Senator Mitch McConnell has struck a bargin with Senator Chuck Schumer to save the filibuster.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

McConnell Warns Dems:  I Will Go Scorched Earth [ j If You Nuke The Filibuster

From Hot Air, by Allah Pundit, 26 January 2021, 4:13 PM.

Here is the lede plus two:

The funniest thing on social media over the past 48 hours has been liberals complaining that McConnell may love the filibuster now but if he were back in charge of the Senate he’d nuke it ruthlessly to clear a path for Republican policies.

As if we didn’t just spend six years watching Cocaine Mitch steadfastly refusing to nuke the filibuster as majority leader, even when Republicans had total control of government in 2017 and 2018, even when the leader of his party was barking at him to do it.

I know political attention spans post-Trump have atrophied almost completely but McConnell was in charge of the Senate as recently as 24 days ago.  You don’t even have to look back past this calendar month to remember a time when he was in position to go nuclear!

Senator McConnell has not been one of my favorite people of late, although he did a lot to redeem himself with his vote on the Senator Ron Paul Point of Order to declare an Impeachment Trial, after an office holder leaves office, unconstitutional.♠  Here he is again on the side of the Angels.

The filibuster is an anti-democratic institution, but yet it is something that has, apparently, helped our Republic to not just survve, but thrive.  I expect the unintended consequences would not be pretty, would damage what comity remains in the Senate, and in Congress as a whole.  Thank you, Senator McConnell.

I am so old I can remember when Democratic Party Senators cherished the filibuster.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Here are the five Republican Senators who voted for a trial:  Sasse, Collins, Romney, Murkowski, and Toomey.

Who Presides?

For John, BLUF:  The US Senate can't seem to entice the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over their trial of Donal J Trump, Citizen.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Did Chief Justice John Roberts decline to preside over the Senate trial of the Trump impeachment?

Here is the sub-headline:

I'm trying to understand "John Roberts ducks the spotlight by skipping the second Trump impeachment trial" by Joan Biskupic (CNN).

From The Althouse Blog, by Professor Ann Althouse, 25 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

Ducks by skipping?!!  That's a daffy way to put it.  I think it means John Roberts arrived at the view that there was no occasion for the Chief Justice to preside, and therefore he has a duty to refrain from participating.  That's not ducking and it's not skipping.  When he presides, it's because he must, and when he refrains, it's because he must.  It's based on an interpretation of law.

But I can't tell, reading this article, if he was asked to preside and communicated a refusal, or if Senate Democrats decided that the Constitution, Article I, Section 3, does not provide for a role for the Chief Justice.

The article says "Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and the president pro tempore of the chamber, will preside for Trump's second impeachment trial."  So, it seems a decision has been made, but did Roberts participate?  Did the Senate Democrats want him, or are they, on their own, taking the opportunity to exclude him?

Professor Althouse is not having any of the wishy-washy thinking about the Impeachment Trial, and ends:

I understand why Trump opponents want to proceed against him anyway, but I don't think it will go very well for them.  Trump is out of office.  Leave him alone.

I agree with the Professor.  This has high potential for going sideways on the Democratic Party Leadership.

At least is is not a Star Chamber.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

The New Administration Launches

For John, BLUF:  The vote has been counted, but the enthusiasm in the polling seems a little off.  I blame the pollsters.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

EVERYTHING IS GOING SWIMMINGLY

From InstaPundit, by Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 23 January 2021, 8:30 AM.

Here is the blog post:

Slow start:  Biden’s opening approval below Trump and Obama, just 48%.

This is Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll.  Note that in Rasmussen’s final tracking poll for Trump, Trump was at 51%.

Weird, because the press is telling us that everyone hates Trump, a total pariah.  And that everyone loves our America’s savior, Joe Biden.

Related:  The impeachment is about legitimizing Biden.

He’s gonna need some legitimizing to be legitimate.

On Wednesday I was feeling ebullient. : Today, not so much.  No, not because of the flurry of Executive Orders President Biden signed, or because Florida Banks are closing Mr Trump's bank accounts.  It is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schummer and his partner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  They seem intent on trying Citizen Donald J Trump on the Impeachment charges.  What ever happened to unity?  Who is in charge of bringing us together?  The Third Wipper on the Presidential Yacht?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Should the Senate Have a Trial?

For John, BLUF:  We can't put the Trump Administration behind us if we don't put the Trump Administration behind us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

RAND PAUL:  If Mitch McConnell Impeaches Trump, One Third Of Republicans Will Leave The Party

Here is the sub-headline:

"If you're going to ostracize and excommunicate President Trump from the party, then guess what, millions of his fans will leave as well."

From National File, by Reporter Tom Pappert, 17 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

Speaking on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle on Friday, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said he believes that if Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans join the Democrats to impeach President Donald Trump, a third of Republican voters will permanently abandon the party as a result.

Speaking first about the Democrats’ aims for impeachment, Paul expressed incredulity.  “I don’t understand how they can be moving forward with this,” he said, before adding “The thing they’re doing now is an overreaction, and if they think they’re going to have a positive feeling from the public, when they’re going to go through a partisan impeachment again, I think that’s absolutely insane and wrong headed.”

Ingraham then asked Paul if he was surprised that McConnell is reportedly planning to instruct Republicans to vote to convict President Trump after he leaves the presidency, in a move that could strip him of his security and prevent him from running for office in 2024.

“I don’t often get asked my advice from leadership on how they should react, but my unsolicited suggestion would be this:  They will destroy the Republican Party if leadership is complicit in impeachment, or if leadership votes for impeachment, they will destroy the party.”

That seems pretty clear.  And i think it is pretty insightful.  Could it be that Senator Mitch McConnell is not a long game player?  A Senate trial, and especially a Senate Conviction, would have a major impact on the Republican Party and it could lead to President Trump forming his own party, which would attract millions of followers.

Perhaps SpeaKer Nancy "Ahab" Pelosi will spare the leader of the Republican Senatorial Caucus by not forwarding the article, being satisfied with having stained the President a second time with Impeachment.

Me neither.

However, on Thursday it will really be up to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and the Vice President, Kamala Harris.  Which way will they lead?  To a trial or to reconciliation?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Turnabout Fair Play

For John, BLUF:  Already a person is talking Impeachment of incoming President Biden.  Are we shocked?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene vows to file articles of impeachment against Biden

Here is the sub-headline:

Greene's comment came shortly after Trump was impeached for the second time

From Fox News, by Reporter Edmund DeMarche, 14 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the newly elected Republican from Georgia, took to Twitter Wednesday to announce that she will be filing articles of impeachment against President-elect Joe Biden a day after the inauguration.

She said her motivation is to stand up for the 75 million Americans who are "fed up with inaction" in government.

"It’s time to take a stand," she said.  "I’m proud to be the voice of Republican voters who have been ignored."

I wonder when Twitter will ban her?

Do none of the Congresscritters know the expression, "What goes around comes around?  Remember the former Senate Majority Leader from Searchlight, Nevada?  He didn't understand that and loosened Senate Rules and his successor followed suit and helped President Trump put more folks into Federal Judicial positions, including the US Supreme Court.

Hat tip to a Friend in Florida.

Regards  —  Cliff

Things Still in Flux

For John, BLUF:  This is about West Virginia Senior Senator Joe Manchin and where he stands.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Manchin:  Don’t Count On Me To Go Along With “Crazy Stuff,” Dems

From Hot Air, by Blogger Ed Morrissey, 10 November 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

A leftover from last night, but very much still of interest for the next few weeks.  I’m torn on what Joe Manchin wanted to accomplish in this interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier.  There are three possible strategies for declaring that he won’t vote to allow Kamala Harris to push the Senate into a “Green New Deal or socialism” via a 50-50 tiebreaker:

West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin III wants to make clear that he will not be the 50th vote in favor of eliminating the legislative filibuster or expanding the size of the Supreme Court in a potential 50-50 Senate. …

Democrats still have a narrow path to a Senate majority if they are able to prevail in two January runoff elections in Georgia, assuming Republicans currently leading in North Carolina and Alaska win.  But in a move that seems partly designed to interfere with GOP talking points about the risks of unified Democratic government, Manchin appeared Monday on Fox News to declare dead several progressive priorities.

“I commit to you tonight, and I commit to all of your viewers and everyone else that’s watching.  I want to allay those fears, I want to rest those fears for you right now because when they talk about whether it be packing the courts, or ending the filibuster, I will not vote to do that,” Manchin said in the interview.  “I will not vote to pack the courts … and I will not vote to end the filibuster.”

Manchin said that in his estimation, efforts to defund the police and advance “Medicare for All” lacked support among members of the Senate Democratic Conference as well.

Now is Senator Manchin's time.  He is a highly valuable comodity.  If the Georgia runoffs go Democrat his value to Senator Mitch McConnell will stay high. If Republicans win, then it will quickly wind down.  We will see how this all plays out.

In the mean time, it is not a guarantee that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will win reelection.  She didn't sweep all the Democrat votes last time and this next term she will have fewer Democrat Party Reps.

Hat tip to my Youngest Son.

Regards  —  Cliff

Streisand Effect

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes the knee jerk reaction is not the best in a sticky situation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

MIT:  Twitter Ban ‘Nearly Doubled’ The Visibility Of Hunter Biden Laptop Story

From Wired, by Ms Emily Zanotti, 19 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

Twitter’s crackdown on a controversial New York Post story that “purported to show new emails from Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, about his business dealings while Joe Biden was the vice president in the Obama administration,” “nearly doubled” the story’s visibility and triggered the so-called “Streisand Effect,” amplifying the Post’s claims, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a high-profile media intelligence firm.

“When Twitter banned, and then unbanned, links to a questionably sourced New York Post article about Joe Biden’s son Hunter, its stated intention was to prevent people from spreading harmful false material as America heads into the final stretch of the election campaign,” MIT’s Technology Review reported Monday.  “But thanks to the cycle of misinformation—and claims from conservatives that social-media platforms are deliberately censoring their views—Twitter managed to do the opposite of what it intended.”

In fact, Twitter’s efforts triggered a massive spike in interest in the story.  “According to Zignal Labs, a media intelligence firm, shares of the Post article ‘nearly doubled’ after Twitter started suppressing it,” MIT noted.

The incident was a real-time example of what Zignal Lab’s calls the “Streisand Effect” — a “social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information, often via the Internet,” according to Wikipedia.  The name comes from singer Barbra Streisand’s efforts, in 2003, to suppress a photo of her Malibu, California, residence over security concerns.

That is the good news.  And why we have to fight every attempt to "control" the World Wide Web.

As to the issue of if The New York Post was spreading false information, evidence indicates that this Hunter Biden EMail trove is being verified as true from more than one source.

For those who think they are not getting the full sweep of information when they do on-line searchs, consideration might be given to replacing the "Google" Search Engine with an alterntive, such as "DuckDuckGo" or "Bing" (a Microsoft alterntive).  And, there are others.

It may be interesting to follow the Senate Hearings on Twitter's intervention in the Election Campaign.  Don't expect much from the House of Representatives.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Can You Unlocked Your Phone

For John, BLUF:  Government records are meant to be preserved.  Laws passed by Congress say so.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Johnson seeks IG probe of wiped Mueller team phones

Here is the sub-headline:

Records released by the Justice Department this week suggest top Mueller aides erased records from at least 15 phones.

From Politico, by Kyle Cheney, 11 September 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

Senate Homeland Security Chair Ron Johnson is asking a Justice Department watchdog to probe recently revealed documents that suggest members of special counsel Robert Mueller's team wiped records from their official phones.

Records released by the Justice Department this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request suggest top Mueller aides erased the information from at least 15 phones, citing forgotten passwords, physical damage and missing hardware.

"These reports are troubling and raise concerns about record retention and transparency," Johnson wrote in a letter to DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz.  "Therefore, I respectfully request that your office open an investigation into this matter to determine what, why, and how information was wiped, whether any wrongdoing occurred, and who these devices belonged to."

Johnson is asking Horowitz to send answers by Sept. 18, as the senator winds down a related investigation of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation — the probe of the 2016 Trump campaign's contacts with Russians, which morphed into Mueller's probe in mid-2017.  He's also asking whether Horowitz may be able to retrieve messages from the phones.

It takes ten (10) bad passcode enries to wipe the phone.  Folks who have these kinds of problems should not be on panels doing investigations for the United States Government.  Surely you wouldn't wish for any of them to be your lawyer.

I don't wish to drag my Daughter, the Statistician, into this, but the likelihood this wasn't deliberate destruction of records is vanishingly small. Not as small as the possibility the Mainstream Media will go after the story, but small enough that no such equivalent event is likely in any other stretch of the universe. >.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff