Now that the impeachment trial of President Trump is set to end in an acquittal with a formal vote on Wednesday, the Democrats HAVE to delegitimize it, and that’s what they'll try to do when the Senate reconvenes on Monday at 11 AM Eastern for final arguments by House managers and Trump's legal counsel, two hours for each side. The mainline of attack by House managers will likely be to claim it wasn't a "real" trial --- and won't be a "real" acquittal --- because no new witnesses were called in the Senate, even though the House failed to call all their “wish list” witnesses at the appropriate time, during the impeachment “inquiry.” (They still had 17 witnesses testify –- 18 if we include ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony concerning the “whistleblower,” the one whose transcript Adam Schiff is still withholding.) That line of attack is bogus; it’s true that witnesses were called at previous impeachment trials, but not new witnesses. The fishing expedition was never allowed to continue --- until this time because it’s Trump.
When House Democrats whine about Trump blocking witnesses, they’re trying to make you forget that they could have taken any blocked subpoenas to court but chose not to. (They also want you to forget that Trump got no witnesses AT ALL, no cross-examination of the Democrats’ witnesses, and not even his own legal counsel to observe.) They didn't issue subpoenas and go to court because Trump has the constitutional authority to cite executive privilege for high-level White House confidantes. By not going to court, where they would almost certainly lose, they got to accuse him of hiding evidence and add a second Article of Impeachment, “obstruction of Congress.” Also bogus.
Because of these glaring flaws, their “no witnesses” argument doesn’t do the job, so they knew they’d have to do more. They decided to attack defense attorney Alan Dershowitz’s argument that it’s impossible to completely separate national interest from political benefit. What he said made perfect sense, however, so to attack it they had to create a straw-man argument by distorting his words beyond all recognition, making it seem as if he thought a President could do anything he wanted, even commit a crime, to help him win re-election if he thought that was “in the national interest.”
About that Super Bowl halftime show
By Mike Huckabee
Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs for their 31-20 Super Bowl comeback win against the San Francisco 49ers. Wags on social media pointed out that 49ers cornerback Richard Sherman had said before the game that he doubted he would go to the White House to meet President Trump, and he was downright prophetic.
But aside from the game, the commercials and Jay-Z and Beyonce not standing during the National Anthem...
...much of the talk about last night’s game centered on the halftime show by Jennifer Lopez and Shakira, and not all of the talk was positive. While the music was fine, the show polished and the production first-rate as expected, many parents were outraged at the scanty costumes and hyper-sexualized dance moves. There was so much twerking and so many in-your-face crotch shots that it might as well have been called “Showgirls: The Halftime Show.” J-Lo made the connection even more explicit by performing on a pole while wearing a skin-tight, mostly see-through outfit, apparently showing off the skills she honed while researching her role as a stripper in the recent movie, “Hustlers.”
There are many complaints from parents raging today, not only about exposing their kids to such an inappropriate sex show during a traditional American event, but tying it in with an “empowering girls” theme and having a chorus of young girls join in at one point. What is the message they’re supposed to get about the role of women in society from what they saw live onstage? And what were parents at home supposed to tell their kids about what they were seeing (other than “Go to your room NOW!”)
So what do you think? Was that inappropriate and offensive, or are people who were bothered by it just being old fuddy-duddies? Sara Carter weighs in with her view at the link, and I welcome yours in the comments.
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:
President Trump is taking swift action to curtail the spread of the deadly Chinese coronavirus. Friday, he imposed a ban on travel from China and ordered the first mandatory quarantine in 50 years. As of Saturday, there had been about 12,000 confirmed cases and 250 deaths, none outside of China. This is one of those stories that develops and changes by the minute, so check the link to catch up on details, and keep a close eye on the news for updates.
And here’s a round-up of more recent news on the coronavirus, including the question of whether you can catch it from a package sent from China (according to experts, the risk ranges from very low to zero.)
John Kerry was so angered by an NBC News report that he might jump into the Presidential race to stop a surging Bernie Sanders that he used an uncharacteristic expletive in his tweet denying it (later deleted.) Kerry claims it was based on someone overhearing just one side of a phone conversation where he was listing reasons why he wouldn’t run.
A couple of observations: I find it amusing that whenever President Trump thumps the media for reporting fake news about him, he’s denounced by Democrats and journalists (pardon my redundancy) for assaulting freedom of the press. But Democrats sure get huffy when they’re the victims of fake news stories.
Also worth noting is the liberal bubble-bred hubris behind this story. It’s based on the premise that while your crazy socialist uncle Bernie would lose to Trump, John Kerry would, of course, sweep to victory. Seriously?
Youngsters might not recall this, but John Kerry already ran for President before, in 2004. He challenged the reelection of a Republican incumbent whose Presidency had been branded “illegitimate” by the left because he won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote; who was mercilessly criticized and mocked by liberal news channel talking heads and late night comics; and who was routinely scorned as a fool, war monger and Nazi by his critics. Any of this sound familiar? Except that Republican didn’t even have Trump’s campaign advantages of a booming economy, record low unemployment and no wars.
Yet George W. Bush beat John Kerry by over 3 million votes and won 31 states. This is what living in a bubble does: it blinds you to how popular you actually are outside the bubble.
This belief on the left that any halfway sane-seeming Democrat candidate (if they’re ever able to find one) could easily beat Trump is based on a self-delusion that the media enable to the Party’s detriment. If you boil their campaign pitch down to its essence, here’s what you get:
“If you vote to bring back policies that harm the economy, weaken America in the world, make your life harder and more expensive, and destroy jobs, there will no longer be constant fits of outrage over everything the President does and says!”
But aren’t you the ones throwing those constant fits of outrage?
“Yes, but once we’re back in power, we’ll stop! Isn’t it worth giving up everything you’ve gained over the past three years just to make us stop whining and screaming 24/7?”
Tempting as that is…no.
Bible Verse of the Day (KJV)
"Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord,
and whose hope the Lord is.
For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters,
and that spreadeth out her roots by the river,
and shall not see when heat cometh,
but her leaf shall be green;
and shall not be careful in the year of drought,
neither shall cease from yielding fruit."
- Jeremiah 17:7-8
Did you miss reading a newsletter recently? Go to our archive here.