Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander apparently has heard enough (join the club) and has been swayed to the “no witnesses” side, while Sens. Susan Collins and Mitt Romney are breaking with the majority and voting “yes,” to have them. (I'd expected no better from Romney but had of Collins.) At this writing –- early Friday –- the one Republican said to be still undecided is Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. If she votes “yes,” it’ll be 50-50, but according to Senate impeachment rules, a tie means the motion fails.
It’s likely that no Democrat, no matter how sick to death of the process he or she might be, dares vote against prolonging it with more witnesses, more court challenges, more mess. This makes no logical sense when House managers have said repeatedly that they’ve already proved their case.
Friday promises to be extremely contentious, before (and maybe after) the vote. As I said yesterday, I think this fight over witnesses is a huge act; the managers don’t WANT them, or want them only if they can be sure certain defense witnesses will be ruled “immaterial.” They have a plan for that, which they pushed on Thursday: have Chief Justice John Roberts rule on the admissibility of each witness’s testimony. Ah...”fairness.” (Ah, sarcasm.) They said they were proposing this –- I kid you not –- in order to “save time” and keep the witness period to one week at most. Judging from Chief Justice Roberts’ decisions Thursday regarding admissibility of questions touching on “whistleblower” ERIC CIARAMELLA, managers can get a good idea which witnesses will and won’t be ruled “material.”
Rallying for Trump
By Mike Huckabee
Last night, President Trump held a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, that, like all his rallies, drew a packed arena with an overflow crowd that had waited for over a day in line to get in. He touted his rising poll numbers and accomplishments and mocked his critics and their impeachment obsession. Here are some highlights.
And here’s the full speech, for those who want to hear his latest comments, or who are just collecting the whole set:
Democratic politicians and snotty liberal TV talking heads can mock these rallies and the people packing them all they like, but they’re just nervously whistling past the graveyard. A Washington Examiner reporter who talked to a number of Iowa Trump rally attendees found that many were not true believers from the beginning. Many said they had been NeverTrumpers or even Hillary voters, and others who did vote for him in 2016 were originally skeptical.
But now, they’re MAGA cap-wearing Trump devotees (this lines up with a report that over 26% of attendees at Trump’s New Jersey rally this week were Democrats.) The chief reasons they cited were the great economy, job creation, and the fact that he’s actually keeping his campaign promises. But also mentioned was admiration for the way he keeps on working every day, ignoring the constant media smearing and snide belittling of everything he does and says.
So maybe Trump should stop insulting the press gallery during his rallies and thank them. He came into office needing to prove his legitimacy, and they’ve helped immensely by sacrificing their own.
Incidentally, if the size of Trump’s rallies and the diversity of attendees isn’t putting a chill into Democrats, maybe this will: Joe Biden held a counter-rally west of Des Moines in “rebuttal” to Trump’s rally. Approximately 275 people showed up. I suspect that’s fewer people than were in the bathroom line at the Trump rally.
URGENT: Co-sign my letter to the U.S. Senate. Help me reach a goal of 100,000 signatures by noon tomorrow. We are running out of time.
I wanted to make sure you also read these comments:
I’m sure you’ve figured out by now that many people in the mainstream media wake up every day thinking it’s their job to find something by 10 a.m. about President Trump to get worked up into a quivering outrage about, and if there isn’t anything, to invent something. Well, things must’ve been going awfully well for Trump on Wednesday because CNN and MSNBC were reduced to sliming his attorney, Alan Dershowitz, by completely misrepresenting what he said in Trump’s defense at the Senate “impeachment” trial.
Dershowitz argued that claiming a President had a “mixed motive” (national and personal) for some action was not enough grounds for impeachment. For instance, wanting Ukraine to investigate corruption before giving them a lot of our tax money is in the national interest, and the fact that it might also harm a political rival (Joe Biden) might suggest a mixed motive, but that alone is not enough to rise to an impeachable offense. He said under that standard, every President could have been impeached because they all believed that their reelections were in the national interest and took political factors into account when making decisions. Even Lincoln and Obama listened to political advisers when making war decisions, such as Obama’s decision not to stand behind his “red line” threat against Syria.
Dershowitz said there are actions taken purely in the national interest, actions taken due to corrupt motives like your own reelection, and those with mixed motives; and the reality of taking political factors into account is not, by itself, enough reason to brand a decision as corrupt. Seems fairly clear to anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature.
But liberal media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC wildly distorted Dershowitz’s argument, claiming that he was saying Presidents could do anything, even order people killed, if they thought it would help their reelections, and justify it as being in the national interest. Why, he was making the argument for a dictatorship! Which, of course, is not what he said at all.
Dershowitz tweeted, “I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples. Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack.”
He went on to challenge his critics – “especially those who are deliberately misinterpreting my arguments – to a Lincoln/Douglas-type town hall debate in which name calling is prohibited and intellectual arguments must be responded to with other intellectual arguments…Let’s elevate the quality of the dialogue and avoid ad hominems” and “childish epithets.”
Naturally, this being Twitter, his critics responded with ad hominems and childish epithets rather then intellectual arguments. I could have told him that when you defend Trump, that just comes with the territory. The best attitude is to adopt is to tell them to take their straw man and stuff it.
There are so many ways in which the term “progressive” is the biggest misnomer of the 21st century, but one that doesn’t get enough attention is how “progressive” politicians are turning the places where they’re in charge into dangerous, crime-ridden hellholes.
Think I’m overstating the case? I already told you about the uproar over New York’s new law that releases repeat offenders on no bail. One kept robbing one bank after another and actually told the officials as they were releasing him that he couldn’t believe they were letting him go (you and me both, Bud!) We’ve seen violent offenders commit additional assaults immediately after being released. And if you think that’s as crazy as it can get, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Six people were recently arrested in the Bronx on suspicion of drug dealing. In one small apartment, they had 750,000 envelopes full of heroin and fentanyl valued at $7 million, ready for distribution though New York and New England. And all six were just released on no bail.
So, you think that’s as crazy as it can get? Well, the Iowa Attorney General’s office (under Tom Miller, a Democrat, needless to say) just told New York, “Hold muh beer and watch this!” They announced that six-foot, 210-pound Joseph Matthew Smith, a convicted baby rapist and pedophile who has reportedly molested up to 15 children ages 1-15, will be released from prison. Why? Because he’s undergone hormone treatments prior to gender reassignment surgery and now goes by the name “Josie.” Since the hormones supposedly lowered his testosterone levels, and hence his sexual aggression, he/she is now deemed to no longer pose a threat of reoffending.
While it’s true that the less charming name for the procedure (“chemical castration”) has been shown to reduce sexual aggression, what about the fact that he’s only been in prison since 2015? Look back at what I told you he did because I don’t even want to have to type it again.
Across America, wherever cities or states have been in the hands of the most liberal politicians for the longest time, the citizens are suffering from the worst (and worsening) crime, thanks precisely to so-called “progressive” policies that are anything but. And bear in mind, when you see the rising crime stats in these places, they are likely vastly understated because those are just the crimes reported to the police. Why should victims even bother calling the police when they know nothing will be done, or even if there is an arrest, the criminals will be back on the street the next day? And I haven’t even gone into the “sanctuary cities” and states that routinely release illegal immigrants with criminal records to save them from being deported.
The only way “progressive” politicians ever reduce crime rates is by making crime legal. I fail to see how a return to lawless barbarism is any more “progressive” than trying to revive the unmourned corpse of socialism.
Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)
"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."
- Philippians 4:6-7
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.