Is John Wilkes Booth an example for Democrats?

For John, BLUF:  As we look back over the Biden Administration we see treason justified as patriotism.

---

Biden's Prostate Cancer and the Tyranny of the Experts

Here is the sub-headline:

Ezekiel Emanuel is an opponent of long life. So why did he back someone so old for president?

From The Wall Strret Journal, by Reporter Allysia Finley, 25 May 2025 3:53 pm ET

And, The InstaPundit, 27 May 2025, 10:43 pm.

Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland

Same reason judges are entering orders against Trump even though they lack jurisdiction.

Rep. James Comer

@RepJamesComer
🚨 Longtime aide to former President Joe Biden admitted that White House staff felt justified doing “undemocratic things” during his term in office because they believed President Donald Trump posed an existential threat to American democracy.
https://dailycaller.com/2025/05/25/biden-aide-admits-staff-undemocratic-trump-threat-democracy/

i am combing the InstaPundit Blog Post and the Wall Street Journal article reference.  It all comes down to hating Donald Trump.

This is about Trump. No lie is too big when it comes to beating DJT.  In the minds of some Democrats, keeping JRB available was critical to saving the United States from Trump.  We are talking real TDS.  Rather than seeing that the first four years showing that Trump could function like a President, these folks doubled down on the Second Coming of Hitler.

These are people who would commit treason in the name of patriotism.  They are like John Wilkes Booth, who shouted Sic semper tyrannis (Thus Always to Tyrants), as he shot President Lincoln.  In the end Mr Booth helped slow the needed healing of this nation by almost a hundred years.

These days we have former FBI Director James Comey posting a photo of shells arranged to say 8647.  Some say it doesn't really mean that, but what was the man thinking?   They are out there.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

=

Dividing the Flocks

For John, BLUF:  For sure, President Trump has been divisive, dividing the sheep from the goats.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Exclusive:  Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump third party

From Reuters, by Reporter Tim Reid, 10 February 2021, 9:39 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

Dozens of former Republican officials, who view the party as unwilling to stand up to former President Donald Trump and his attempts to undermine U.S. democracy, are in talks to form a center-right breakaway party, four people involved in the discussions told Reuters.

The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump, ex-Republican ambassadors and Republican strategists, the people involved say.

More than 120 of them held a Zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of “principled conservatism,” including adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law - ideas those involved say have been trashed by Trump.

The plan would be to run candidates in some races but also to endorse center-right candidates in others, be they Republicans, independents or Democrats, the people say.

It isn't just about Mr Donald J Trump.  It is about all those Republicans on Capitol Hill who are unwilling to take him down and bar him from any future office.

Professor Glenn Reynolds notes, in his comment on this article:

Also, the notion that the GOP is “divided” is hogwash.  Bush finished in 2009 with an approval of 34%, and that was a bounce from a fall low of 25%.  Trump finished with 51%, and a 79% approval rating among Republicans.

I am wondering if this new coterie will attract anyone from the Democratic Party side.  Perhaps folks like Representative Marcy Kaptur, of Ohio.  I can't help but think that Trump Derangement Syndrome♠ is what is helping the Democrats hold together.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  My Middle Brother asserts, with great forcefulness, that TDS stands for those of us who are deranged, as indicated by our support for President Trump.  While the Urban Dictionary backs this take, Dictionary dot Com does not.  I go with Dictionary dot Com.

Stealing Elections

For John, BLUF:  I just received an EMail from Mr Jon Rainwater, Peace Action, asking for peaceful protests tomorrow in honor of the election outcome as reported.  Mr Rainwater is apparently unaware of the fact that a lot of his fellow Citizens think there has been fraud in the vote counting.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Don't Forget LBJ's Election Theft

Here is the sub-headline:

The mainstream pro-Biden media is poking fun at Donald Trump’s suggestion that there could be fraud involved in the post-election receipt of mail-in ballots.  Apparently they’re not familiar with the election-theft case of Lyndon Johnson, who would go on to become president of the United States.

From Zero Hedge, by Mr Jacob Hornberger, 5 November 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

The entire matter is detailed in Robert Caro’s second book in his biographical series on Johnson. The book is entitled Means of Ascent.

Johnson election theft took place in 1948, when he was running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate against Texas Governor Coke Stevenson, one of the most admired and respected governors in the history of the state.

There is little doubt that LBJ played hard ball.  Otherwise, we might not have had the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-1960s.  But, that does not justify the fact that he stole an election.

As to the 2020 Election, Mr Rainwater may well be correct, that the ballot counting was all on the up and up.  However, if it was not, and it was reasonable to expect Mr Rainwater to understand that, then it is reasonsble to dismiss Mr Rainwater as a partisan hack and a fraud.  Or, at least, suffering from a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Regards  —  Cliff

Paul Krugman and TDS

For John, BLUF:  My Middle Brother assets that the expression Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) refers to Trump supporters' insane support for the President, as opposed to the view that it refers to those who can not hold a civil and stable opinion of the President.  This is the latter understanding.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Bless His Heart: Paul Krugman Goes Full Dingbat in Latest Trump Election Day Conspiracy Theory

From Red State, by Sister Toldjah, 23 September 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

As we’ve documented extensively here at RedState, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is prone to pushing far-out conspiracy theories about Republicans, theories that were no doubt pulled from the murky pits of the leftist fever swamps he visits on those rare occasions he feels the need to venture out of the NYC bubble in which he currently resides.

For example, he has, without evidence, floated an absurd theory about how President Trump may have “gotten to the BLS” on reporting good job numbers during the pandemic.  He’s also spun some fact-free tales about a supposed correlation between the Trump administration’s touting of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the Wuhan virus and past “right-wing medical quackery.”

Consumed with Trump Derangment Syndrome, his favorite conspiracy theory of all seems to be the one where he envisions Trump “stealing” the election.  He’s written numerous Twitter threads detailing how he thinks things will play out, and a few columns about it, too.

It is a case supporting The Atlantic Magazine assertion that we should abolish the Nobel Prize.  In fairness, Dr Krugman has his in Econ, which puts that version in question also.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Donald Trump For Ever

For John, BLUF:  It seems some Democrats wish to hound Donald J Trump until he dies, and then some.  Is this a sign of their political maturity?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is a text message:

Rep. Eric Swalwell
@RepSwalwell
· Aug 14

I don’t say this lightly:  when we escape this Trump hell, America needs a Presidential Crimes Commission.  It should be made up of independent prosecutors who look at those who enabled a corrupt president.  Example 1:  Sabotaging the mail to win an election.  ‪#SaveThePostOffice‬

Eric is a swell person.  And i am sure he is a perfect reflection of his district.

both sides need to calm down a little bit.

And, by the way, wasn't the US Postal Service in trouble before Mr Trump was sworn in?

Regards  —  Cliff

Impeachment Reprise

For John, BLUF:  There is little doubt that a significant number of Democratic Party Leary’s are just not able to move on, even if it harms the Republic.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Introduced Impeachment 2.0

From The Federalist, by Opinion Writer Tristan Justice, 18 May 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

After spending the months preceding the global pandemic in a futile impeachment attempt, House Democrats are now again trying to impeach President Donald Trump.

The lower chamber majority told the Supreme Court on Monday that they are in the middle of an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” that requires redacted information from the grand-jury proceedings that were part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s two-and-a-half-year probe.

Since Trump was finally acquitted of two articles of impeachment in February, Democrats have expressed a desire to try again, requesting that the nation’s highest court grant them classified material that they have pledged not to leak under “special protocols.”

Is anyone shocked by this?.

This is a roll of the dice.  The House Democrats might actually come up with something, although I am very doubtful.  Maybe they are hoping to dirty up the President in a close election.  Or maybe they are going to irritate the electorate close to the November voting.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Voting in November

For John, BLUF:  The view of some has grown fairly extreme in understanding how the year will evolve.  Much of it centers on what President Trump may or may not do.  In a way, it is sad.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Will We Actually Get to Vote in November?

From The New Yorker, by Ms Sue Halpern, 4 June 2020.

Here is the lede plus two, plus the final:

I’ve kept a copy of Timothy Snyder’s book “On Tyranny” on my desk since it was published, in 2017. It’s a small volume—the cover is about the size of an index card. Most of the time, it’s buried under stacks of paper from stories I’ve been working on.  Snyder is a historian of the Holocaust and of fascism, at Yale, and this book, subtitled “Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century,” is a claxon rung to get our attention.  “Listen up,” Snyder seems to be saying to Americans.  “Tyranny, fascism, authoritarianism could happen here, too.”

The juxtaposition of those two things—Snyder’s book, which was published shortly after Donald Trump took office, and my stack of papers, which focus mostly on aspects of American democracy—has not been lost on me.  If it were simply a contest of words, and the contest were confined to my desk, democracy would be winning.  But we know this is not the case.  American democracy is imperilled, and not just because of Trump and Trumpism but because of an ingrained and widely shared belief that the Founders of this country insulated us from the excesses of government with the power of the ballot.  We heard it the other day from Representative John Lewis, the civil-rights leader and icon.  “To the rioters here in Atlanta and across the country,” Lewis said, “I see you, and I hear you.  I know your pain, your rage, your sense of despair and hopelessness.  Justice has, indeed, been denied for far too long.  Rioting, looting, and burning is not the way.  Organize.  Demonstrate.  Sit in.  Stand up.  Vote.  Be constructive, not destructive.”  These are vital words, earned words, wise words.  But they also come from an abiding trust that, no matter what, the electoral system many of us were born into, and others, like Lewis, had to bleed for, will prevail.

We have now crossed the threshold where we must think about the unthinkable:  what happens if the November election is subverted.  For the past three and a half years, we’ve watched the Trump Administration, along with its enablers in Congress and in the courts, ignore or decimate democratic norms.  Since January 20, 2017, we’ve seen this play out in ways big and small—the Muslim ban, the children in cages, the demonization of the press as “fake news,” to name just a few.  Each outrage has undermined a basic tenet of our democracy: the American government will not discriminate based on religion, asylum seekers will be granted court hearings, and government officials will uphold and respect the freedom of the press.  If we shook our collective head each time there was a new evisceration of a democratic principle, it was always with the understanding that, after four years of cruelty and kleptocracy, the American people would go to the polls and vote Donald Trump and his collaborators out of office.  Even those who expected the Trump campaign to flood the zone with disinformation and find new ways to cheat, and its candidate to lie, most likely believed that if enough people voted, none of that would matter.

. . .

But the lesson of Snyder’s book that I keep going back to, and the one that seems to acquire more salience the longer Trump remains in office, is the one where he exhorts readers to “defend institutions,” because they cannot protect themselves.  “The mistake is to assume that rulers who came to power through institutions cannot change or destroy those very institutions—even when that is exactly what they have announced they will do,” Snyder wrote.  “Sometimes institutions are deprived of vitality and function, turned into a simulacrum of what they once were.”  I would like to believe that, if we are lucky, we will mail in our ballots or go to the polls in November, and the election will be free and fair.  But, truly, luck will play no part in it.

There is always the view that President Trump will go rogue, that he will not operate under the same rules that have governed the nation for over 200 years.  Yes, that is possible.  However, it is more projection than likelihood.  It comes from people who would be willing to engage in a soft coup in order to rid us of this President.

I will take the bet regarding the election.  I bet it happens, and notwithstanding the high handed actions of people like Governor Gavin Newsom of California, will go as per usual.

Regards  —  Cliff

Another Bite of the Apple

For John, BLUF:  The agitation amongst Democrats with regard to President Trump seems to know no limits.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Introduced Impeachment 2.0

From The Federalist, by staff Writer Tristan Justice, 18 May 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

After spending the months preceding the global pandemic in a futile impeachment attempt,  House Democrats are now again trying to impeach President Donald Trump.

The lower chamber majority told the Supreme Court on Monday that they are in the middle of an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” that requires redacted information from the grand-jury proceedings that were part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s two-and-a-half-year probe.

Since Trump was finally acquitted of two articles of impeachment in February, Democrats have expressed a desire to try again, requesting that the nation’s highest court grant them classified material that they have pledged not to leak under “special protocols.”

We used to tell ourselves, once burned, twice shy.  Apparently the House Democrats are convinced there is a pony in there somewhere.  I bet they even have a third go at it, regardless of November's outcome.

For Ritchie T:  Do you think House Democrat "Special Protocols" will prevent leaks?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

FBI Misled

For John, BLUF:  The question is, was the FBI Misled, or did the FBI, knowing the facts, mislead the nation?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

While you were focused on the pandemic, it was revealed the FBI knew the Steele Dossier against Trump contained Russian disinformation

Here is the sub-headline:

Rather than colluding with the Russians, which the Mueller Report conclusively rejected, Trump was the victim of a Russian disinformation campaign exploited and promoted by Democrats, the media, and the FBI.

From Legal Insurrection, by Blogger William A. Jacobson, 11 April 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

In one of the least surprising, yet most important, developments in the years-long Russia-collusion hoax, a recently declassified portion of the DOJ Inspector General’s Report on the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign has revealed that Trump was the target of a Russian disinformation campaign.  And the FBI knew it.

So rather than colluding with the Russians, which the Mueller Report conclusively rejected, Trump was the victim of a Russian disinformation campaign exploited and promoted by Democrats, the media, and the FBI.

The revelation concerns the so-called Steele Dossier, a document commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaing and the Democratic National Committee.  The Dossier, containing allegations that Trump was compromised, turbo-charged the FBI investigation of the campaign and, after it was published by Buzzfeed, stoked anti-Trump derangement at MSNBC and elsewhere.

Yet it’s now revealed that the FBI knew at least no later than 2017 that much of the dossier was Russian disinformation.

For some people, Orange Man is so Bad that any action against him, true or false is justified.  In fact, I expect that for many suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome even things obviously false are, in their eyes, true.

This isn't the first time that the views of his opponents relative to a President were wildly off the mark, and won't be the last.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Extreme TDS

For John, BLUF:  Adfter watching City Life Show, Tuesday through Thursday I usually leave the TV on Channel 8 and listen to Ms Amy Goodman.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democracy Now!

I have listened to Reporter/Producer Amy Goodman for some time.  I am pretty well convinced she is not capable of saying a positive thing about President Donald Trump.  Even if he washed her car for free, she would, I am convince, crawl under the car to find some place he missed.

This is not a healthy way to live, physically or spiritually.

We should all be praying for Ms Goodman.

Regards  —  Cliff

Unreflective Press

For John, BLUF:  From Walter Duranty to the Wuhan Virus, The New York Times Has been more about the "Party Line" and less about the truth the American People need.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Watch:  35 Times The Media Said ‘Wuhan’ Or ‘Chinese Coronavirus’ – But They Blame The GOP

From MRC TV, by Mr Eric Scheiner, 12 March 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

The leftist media are claiming President Trump and the GOP are up to something sinister if they’ve ever referred to the Coronavirus as the “Wuhan or Chinese Coronavirus,” but they seem okay if they say it.

“We are starting to see a message shift here,” CNN’s Chris Cuomo said on Wednesday.  “Because you are starting to hear the Republicans, especially Trump Co. calling it the Wuhan or the Chinese Coronavirus, they’re looking for someone to blame.”

Hey, Fake News Fredo, if you’re looking for someone to blame for saying “Wuhan Coronavirus” try looking in a mirror, or maybe watch your own network.

From the blog Legal Insurrection we have NY Times reporter:  “disdain for and distrust of the media right now is worse than I’ve seen at any point throughout this presidency”, posted by William A. Jacobson.

Maybe The Paper of Record (no, not The Babylon Bee) could do an in-depth article on when Wuhan was OK and when it became bad, and why.  Otherwise, a lot of us will just struggle along with a high distrust of the Mainstream Media, wondering when arrogance replaced competence.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Professor Stephen Walt Scores President Trump

For John, BLUF:  There is no doubt that the US Presidency has gained powers over the decades, but I think it is a stretch to think this President is more Authoritarian than say a Woodrow Wilson for Frankly D Roosevvelt.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Is Failing His Dictatorship Test

Here is the sub-headline:

After impeachment, the president has been passing most of the checkpoints on the way to authoritarianism.

(I found those two headlines contradicting each other.  The reason is I misread the main headline.  I thought that if President Trump was failing his "Dictatorship Test" it meant he wasn't showing signs of being a good dictator.  Apparently Professor Walt sees the scoring going the other way.  This is the kind of thing that caused me to be in the bottom half of my class in High School and Undergraduate level college.)

From Foreign Policy, by Professor Stephen M Walt, 14 February 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Shortly after Donald Trump was elected, I wrote up a list of the “10 Ways to Tell if Your President Is a Dictator.”  I wasn’t saying Trump was in fact an aspiring autocrat; it was merely a list of warning signs to keep track of as his presidency preceded.  In 2017, I offered an updated assessment and concluded that the danger of creeping autocracy was pretty serious.

Now that Trump has been acquitted by a Republican-controlled Senate that couldn’t even be bothered to interview any witnesses with personal knowledge of his possible high crimes and misdemeanors, it seems appropriate to revisit my list once again.  Spoiler alert:  There are some flashing red lights on the dashboard.

Here are the ten items on Professor Walt's list:

1. Systematic efforts to intimidate the media.
• Professor Walt gives it a RED check.
• On the other hand, the media is doing a pretty good job of trying to intimidate the President
• I score a tie.
2. Building an official pro-Trump media network
• Professor Walt gives it a partial RED check, and takes a slam at Rush Limbaugh.
• I don't see any official pro-Trump media (Fox isn't there).  Maybe The Epoch Times.
• I score it meh.
3. Politicizing the civil service, military, National Guard, or domestic security agencies.
• Professor Walt gives it a flashing RED light.
• I guess this means that he has never heard of Lisa Page or Peter Stork or James Comey.  Or LTC Alexander Vindman.
• I go with the flashing RED light and award it to President Barack Obama.  As the Tea Party groups understand.  Or maybe Professor Alan Dershowitz knows.
4. Using government surveillance against domestic political opponents.
• Professor Walt gives it a partial RED check.
• Hello, President Obama?  As for Ukraine, I am waiting for the rest of the story.  This could come back to bite Professor Walt.
• I give this a partial GREEN check.
5. Using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents.
• Professor Walt gives it a RED check.
• If it is about reducing Federal regulations, then it is a good thing, since it seems to mean more jobs and a growing economy.
• I saw a GREEN Check.
6. Stacking the Supreme Court.
• Professor Walt gives it a flashing RED light.
• The Professor talks badly about Justice Kavanaugh, not not about the Borking.
• I give this a partial GREEN check.
7. Enforcing the law for only one side.
• Professor Walt gives it a flashing RED light.
• Does the Professor applaud the DOJ treatment of Mr Roger Stone?  Not a nice guy, Mr Stone, but the sentence makes no sense, except in the sense that he associates with Republicans.
• I give this a flashing BLUE light.
8. Really rigging the system
• Professor Walt gives it a RED check.
• This is the voting system.  Have you seen where Democrats are calling President Trumps outreach to African Americans and Hispanics as "voter suppression."  I think President Trump is opening up the system.
• I give this a partial GREEN check.
9. Fearmongering.
• Professor Walt gives it a RED check.
• Among the problems listed is North Korea.  President Trump has actually tried to deal with the problem, and in general is playing down external threats.  Remember the take-down of Iranian Terror Leader Major General Qasem Soleimani?  The President has worked to downplay the Iranian reaction, for which he has been belittled.
• I give this a partial PINK check.  (No President is perfect in this area and neither is the IC.)
10. Demonizing the opposition.
• Professor Walt gives it a "Well, Duh".
• And Visa-Versa.  In the last week the Speaker has declared that President Trump was NOT acquitted by the US Senate and that he will be Impeached for ever.  That is demonizing.
• I give this a strong, "Well, Duh".

"It is difference of opinion that makes horse-races."--Mark Twain

It might appear that Professor Walt and I have differences of opinions.  And, in general, I like his work.

This is my last free article from Foreign Policy for this month or this year or for ever.  Sad.

Regards  —  Cliff

Nancy Spinning

For John, BLUF:  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is spinning the Impeachment so hard that one wonders if she has lost the bubble, or worse, lost her way.  It is sad to watch.  Perhaps another serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

She's Completely Lost It: Now Pelosi Is Claiming 'There Was No Acquittal'

From PJ Media, by Writer Jim Treacher, 18 February 2020.

Here is the lede:

If you were wondering how Nancy Pelosi has been handling the events of the past few months, it's safe to say she's not taking it well.  She's been keeping a low profile after making a spectacle of herself at the 2020 State of the Union address, but over the weekend she gave an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour that must be seen to be believed.  If reality won't do what Nancy wants, she'll just deny it's happening to her.

And here is part of the interchange between Speaker Pelosi and Ms Amanpour:

Amanpour:  What about, though, the fact that the president seems liberated? And this is about Democratic politics, so I'm not asking you to criticize here.  But he was acquitted, his poll ratings are higher...

Pelosi:  He was not... there was no acquittal. You can't have an acquittal unless you have a trial.  And you can't have a trial when you have witnesses and documents.  So he can say he was acquitted, and the headlines can say "Acquitted," but he's impeached forever.  Branded with that and not vindicated.  And even the senators were saying, "Yes, it wasn't right."  But didn't have the courage to act upon that.

Amanpour:  Except for?

Pelosi:  Except for Mitt Romney.  God bless him. And then the president criticized him for using his faith to do something he knew was wrong...

Impeached for ever?.  Like former President Bill Clinton?

The issue isn't what history teachers and professors think 50 years from now, but what voters think in November 2020,  There is some indication that many voters don't agree with Ms Pelosi.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

TrollingPolling the Public

For John, BLUF:  I guess the first question below is a good way to gauge how strongly people feel about someone.  Frankly, I feel sorry for those who voted for the meteor.  They must go through life with a serious lack of hope and optimism.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

UMass Lowell:  Survey of New Hampshire Democratic Primary Voters

UMass Lowell Center for Public Opinion, Dr. Joshua J. Dyck, Director; Dr. John Cluverius, Associate Director, 28-31 January 2020.

Two questions stood out for me:

• Page 11.  Which of the following outcomes would you prefer occur on November 3, 2020?
  • Donald Trump wins re-election
  • A giant meteor strikes the earth, extinguishing all human life

	Democrat	Independent	Male	Female
Trump victory	36	51	47	32
Meteor strike	64	49	53	68

Is this what we call Trump Derangement Syndrome?

• Page 17.  If the Democratic nominee for president wins in 2020, it is likely that they will face increased tensions with Iran. If Donald Trump has deployed ground troops to fight in Iran, would you rather the Democratic president deploy a surge of group troops to try to win the war quickly, or withdraw all ground troops immediately to prevent more American casualties?
• Escalate the war quickly
• Withdraw Immediately

	Democrat	Independent	Male	Female
Escalate	10	35	14	12
Withdraw	90	65	86	88

This is a great question, except it appears to be written by someone who is clueless about the President's policies in the Middle East.

Maybe I should offer myself as a pro bono advisor on survey questions that touch on foreign policy or military affairs.

Hat tip to my Brother John.

Regards  —  Cliff

Misunderstanding the Government Election System

For John, BLUF:  When one doesn't really understand the system, efforts to explain the system tend to spiral out of control..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Katy Tur Fears ‘Gerrymandering’ Helping Republicans Win Senate Seats

From MRC News Busters, by Reporter Kyle Drennen, 7 February 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Still lamenting the Republican majority in the Senate acquitting President Trump in the impeachment trial, on Friday, MSNBC anchor Katy Tur touted how more people voted for the senators who supported conviction and bizarrely feared that “gerrymandering” was somehow helping the GOP win so many Senate seats.

“In case you missed it, majority doesn’t always rule in this country,” Tur whined in the 2:00 p.m. ET hour. Relying on a Washington Post article, she then explained her declaration: “Forty-eight senators voted to remove the President from office. Fifty-two voted to acquit. But the 48 actually represent 12 million more voters than the senators who decided to keep Donald Trump in the White House.”

It seems that MSNBC Host Katy Tur didn't study history or civics in school, or didn't absorb much.  She would totally upturn the pact by which the various States agreed to be governed as a while.  Why would the States with small populations agree to be dictated too by the more populous States?

The scary part is that Ms Tur has a news program on television, leading others astray.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Impeachment is Over, Start the Impeachment

For John, BLUF:  Nothing is settled.  This contest against President Trump will continue on several fronts, including more Impeachment and also the Presidential Race.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Senate votes to acquit President Trump on impeachment charges

From The Boston Globe, by Reporters Lisa Mascaro and Mary Clare Jalonick, of The Associated Press, 5 February 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

President Trump won impeachment acquittal Wednesday in the US Senate, bringing to a close only the third presidential trial in American history with votes that split the country, tested civic norms, and fed the tumultuous 2020 race for the White House.

With Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, senators sworn to do “impartial justice” stood at their desks to state their votes for the roll call — “guilty” or “not guilty” — in a swift tally almost exclusively along party lines.  Visitors, including the president’s allies, watched from the crowded gallery.  Roberts read the declaration that Trump “be, and is hereby, acquitted of the charges.”

The outcome Wednesday followed months of remarkable impeachment proceedings, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House to Mitch McConnell’s Senate, reflecting the nation’s unrelenting partisan divide three years into the Trump presidency.

What started as Trump’s request for Ukraine to “do us a favor” spun into a far-reaching, 28,000-page report compiled by House investigators accusing an American president of engaging in shadow diplomacy that threatened U.S. foreign relations for personal, political gain as he pressured the ally to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden ahead of the next election.

Here is the vote:

On the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, the vote was 52-48 favoring acquittal.  The second, obstruction of Congress, also produced a not guilty verdict, 53-47.

I expect that this is NOT the end of the story.  Rather, the House will go about doing a more workman like effort, actually calling witnesses and going through the arduous effort of fighting for them in Court.

The only question is how long it will take to resurface.

Well, and if they can dig up something that could result in conviction in the Senate.

Does anyone think that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow this defeat to pass without pushback?

I expect action on Impeachment within in a couple of days or weeks.  I expect a result like unto the Steele Dossier or the Mueller Report.

The House Democrats suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.  They also suffer from Corbynization of the Party and from Innumeracy.

Regards  —  Cliff

Schiff's Folly

For John, BLUF:  Representative Adam Schiff, both before and after the Articles of Impeachment, has been given to exaggeration, to hyperbole, to distortions of the truth.  This is just over the top.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Schiff: Trump Will Sell Alaska To Russia If We Don’t Impeach Him

From The Federalist, by Reporter Tristan Justice, 3 February 2020 By .

Here is the lede plus four:

Lead House Impeachment Manager Congressman Adam Schiff of California claimed during closing arguments in the Senate impeachment trial Monday that President Donald Trump will sell a U.S. state to the Russian government if not removed from office.

If “abuse of power” was not impeachable, Schiff argued, “then a whole range of utterly unacceptable conduct in a president would now be beyond reach.”

“Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election, or decide to move to Mar-A-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war.”

Schiff’s fearmongering of consequences conceived in pure fantasy come as the impeachment case against Trump officially collapsed on Friday after the Senate declined to hear new witnesses testify at the trial.

A vote on the president’s acquittal is now expected to come on Wednesday, exonerating the president of the three-and-a-half year impeachment effort launched by the Democrats even before Trump took office in 2017.

Sell Alaska?.  Really?

Does Representative, and House Impeachment Manager, Adam Schiff really think that will persuade any Senators?  Any voters in the Heartland?  This is a very sad move.

Sad.  Very sad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Vote on Witnesses

For John, BLUF:  While there was always the chance for things going sideways, this outcome was not unexpected.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

BREAKING:  Senate Votes Against Witnesses and Documents

From PJ Media, by Mr Tyler O'Neil, 31 January 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

On Friday afternoon, the Senate voted against compelling more witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.  The final vote was 49-51.

The vote went as expected, with every Democrat voting for more witnesses and documents and every Republican voting against extending the trial, with the exceptions of Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah).

"The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed.  I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) tweeted in a statement explaining why she would vote against extending the trial.

The two Republicans who voted for considering witnesses were Senators Romney and Collins.

The competing views:

Immediately after the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) claimed the acquittal "will have no value."  He said the fact that the Senate trial will not include new witnesses or documents is a "perfidy" and a "tragedy."  These remarks echoed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's insistence that Trump cannot be acquitted without any further witnesses and documents.

"A majority of the U.S. Senate has determined that the numerous witnesses and 28,000-plus pages of documents already in evidence are sufficient to judge the House Managers' accusations and end this impeachment trial," McConnell said in a statement after the vote.  "There is no need for the Senate to re-open the investigation which the House Democratic majority chose to conclude and which the Managers themselves continue to describe as 'overwhelming' and 'beyond any doubt.'"

The things to look for in the future:

1. Will there be any Kavanaugh-like surprises over the weekend, as like the John Bolton book draft from earlier?  Remember, there are no coincidences.
2. It is entirely possible that Speaker Pelosi will pull the rug on the State of the Union Speech on Tuesday, or disruptions on the House floor during the talk.
3. Speaker Pelosi, or Rep Schiff, may argue that no witnesses means no trial means Impeachment is still alive.
4. The House may crank up the Impeachment machinery again, perhaps with actual witnesses.

While this denial of the legitimacy of President Trump's election is never ending, this phase will be over late Wednesday afternoon.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Impeachment Forever

For John, BLUF:  Has the President been Impeached, given that the paperwork has not yet been completed?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?

Here is the sub-headline:

It’s highly improbable, but everyone from law scholars to political junkies are speculating about it.

From Politico Europe, by Mr Darren Samuelsohn, 17 April 2016.

NB:  The Date is 17 April 2016

Here is the lede plus three

Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet.  But his incendiary rhetoric, most notably about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture, has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.

“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president.  Liberal Florida Rep. Alan Grayson says Trump’s insistence on building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, if concrete was poured despite Congress’s opposition, could lead down a path toward impeachment.  Even the mainstream Republican head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently tossed out the I-word when discussing the civilian backlash if Trump’s trade war with China led to higher prices on everyday items sold at WalMart and Target.  On his radio show last month, Rush Limbaugh even put a very brisk timeline on it:  “They’ll be talking impeachment on day two, after the first Trump executive order,” he said.

It’s not unusual for controversial presidents to be shadowed by talk of impeachment, once they’ve been in office long enough to make people mad.  But before he’s elected? Before he’s a nominee?

Constitutional experts of all political stripes say it’s surprising for impeachment talk to bubble up this early—but then Trump has been throwing around some surprising ideas for a leading candidate, calling the Geneva Conventions a “problem” and pitching policies that many see as violating international law.  “What he’s stated in my judgment would be clearly impeachable offenses,” said Fein, a former Reagan-era Justice Department official who worked on the Bill Clinton impeachment effort.  Likewise, Yale Law School lecturer and military justice expert Eugene Fidell offered a similar prediction for Trump from the left.  “He’s certainly said things, which if followed through on, would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors,” Fidell said.  And doubtless many of Trump’s foes would like to see him impeached just on principle—the quickest way to broom out a leader who horrifies the inclusive sensibilities of Democrats, and has blown apart the Republican Party he’s nominally part of.

Of course, if you're a follower of Meet the Press Host Chuck Todd you are now asking yourself if this is a real Politico article or if a "European" edition actually exists.  I got this from Mr Tyler Durden, at Zero Hedge, which was part of the chain of fake news on Mr Todd's show this last Sunday.  On the other hand, if you think Mr Todd is an identical twin of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, you might wish to pay attention.

It seems to me that Impeachment wasn't about if, but when.  It wasn't likely when the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives.  And Speaker Nancy Pelosi held off for almost a year, but the Democratic Party Impeachment imperative was strong and finally forced Ms Pelosi's hand.  It is a problem, in my mind, that the hHouse earings were so superficial.

I would not be surprised by another Impeachment effort in 2020.  If the Democratic Party apparatchiks think they might lose the House in 2020 they are going to feel impelled to try again.  Will the House hearings be any more substantial than they were for this effort?

Meanwhile, over at The New Yorker, Writer Adam Gopnik published, on 27 November 2019, Stop Saying That Impeachment Is Political.  His view is TDS.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Social Divide

For John, BLUF:  A big threat to democracy is the belief, on the part of some people, that not only do they know better, but God put them on this earth to make sure the Hoi Polloi do the "right thing".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A stunning confession from a Deep State member subverting the constitutional republic

From The American Thinker, by Founder and Publisher Thomas Lifson, 1 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

The arrogance and lack of self-awareness among the mandarins that inhabit the top levels of our government bureaucracies has led to a smoking gun-level confession.  Rather than respecting the will of the voters who elect a president, they proudly substitute their own policy preferences and think nothing of conspiring to drive from office the person who holds legitimate authority to make policy and conduct the affairs of government.

A confession from a man who formerly ran the CIA came Wednesday at an event sponsored by a friendly organization, the Michael V. Hayden Center and Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.  Former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin was among friends who share the same seditious outlook, speaking on a panel discussion, with CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell.  With everyone sharing the same assumptions, McLaughlin apparently let down his guard and committed a “Kinsley gaffe” – accidentally telling the incriminating truth.

Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller describes what I call his confession, responding to a question from the moderator:

“There is something unique you have to agree that now the impeachment inquiry is underway, sparked by a complaint from someone within the intelligence community, it feeds the president’s concern, an often used term about a ‘deep state’ being there to take him out,” Margaret Brennan, the moderator for the event, asked McLaughlin.

“Thank God for the ‘deep state,'” replied the former spook, who served as acting director at the CIA in 2004.

I would like to think he was joking, but, per the article, he then went on to double down.

There is the possibility that the Government Bureaucrats have gone from Public Servants to active players within the corridors of power.  This isn't new, but the number of self-righteous have heretofore been limited.  I remember an incident where an effort to better understand Intelligence Community strategic warning was leaked to The Washington Post as a reprise of Ms Barbara W. Tuchman's The Guns of August scenario.  It wasn't, but we did learn that the logistics side of mobilization planning has already presumed away any benefit of strategic warning by their assumptions about time for preparations.  The thing I personally learned was that it is easy for a leak to the Press to implicate the wrong person and wrongly harm their work effort.

May God spare us from the self-righteous and restore our Democracy.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff