It’s long been a rule of thumb in politics that if you want to know what the left is really doing, just look at what they accuse their opponents of doing. In his opening statement at Friday’s “impeachment” hearing, Rep Devin Nunes detailed a sterling example of that.
So where are the House hearings to investigate Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election to defeat Donald Trump? Yeah, I know: I won’t hold my breath…
I wonder if Elizabeth Warren will delight in her own sides’ billionaires’ tears? Liberals love to rail against billionaires buying elections, but there’s increasing evidence that no amount of money can sell a lousy product.
For instance, rich guy and full time Trump hater Tom Steyer recently entered the Democratic Presidential race and bought his way into a debate. He claims to support campaign reform to get big money out of politics. But he currently accounts for 67% of all TV ad spending by all 2020 candidates, and he can’t crack 1% in the polls.
Meanwhile, billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s yet-to-be-announced candidacy is going over with Democratic primary voters like a diaper on a cheese board, but he’s still determined to spend $100 million on anti-Trump Internet ads in four battleground states.
I anxiously await the condemnation from the left for these billionaires attempting to influence the 2020 election with their lavish spending on anti-Trump ads. Personally, while I'm happy for the media outlets who will make big bucks off these fools and their money, I can't help thinking about all the things that could have been done with that money if it had been given to Samaritan’s Purse or Toys For Tots or some good veterans’ organization instead of going to promote the political fantasies of rich egomaniacs.
A question from the Friday “impeachment” hearing that more people should be asking:
President Trump gave an interview to Dan Bongino, discussing impeachment, the upcoming election and more. You can hear it at the link.
Attorney General Bill Barr gave an important speech to the Federalist Society, examining the damage that’s being done to America and the Constitution by the “Resistance” movement that refuses to recognize President Trump’s legitimacy and instead works to undermine and cripple a duly-elected Administration. There’s video and a transcript at this link.
Ainsworth answers reader questions on Schiff's "inquiry"
The impeachment “inquiry” has sparked a couple of reader comments that Huckabee writer/researcher Laura Ainsworth wanted to answer personally...
Day after day, your explanations ring true and reasonable, but I have this ominous feeling that these imbeciles and cheaters might win out anyway. It happens. Sometimes God lets cheaters win, even if just for a short while. I feel more bleak about the next election. If Trump wins again, the Dems will certainly come unglued, and if a Dem wins, they will systematically start trying to unglue us ALL. I see no winners in the near future. Am I completely fatalistic?
I had to answer because you sound a lot like me these days. I wouldn’t call you fatalistic --- more like realistic and understandably depressed. Even if cheaters and their “useful idiots” lose in the long run, we still have to survive and try to reverse the incalculable damage they cause while they run things.
History is full of such bleak times. I just spent an afternoon going through the Civil War memorial park and museum in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and it occurred to me how quickly it all happened. Unbelievably, over 600,000 lives were lost in a time period comparable to one U.S. Presidential term. (In terms of population, that would be like losing 6 million today!) And the South was left devastated in many ways. The scary thing is, when the war started, most everyone thought it would be resolved soon with little bloodshed. How wrong they were.
That’s why I worry when people in power start getting crazy and making up their own rules. Before you know it, we’re in uncharted territory, and who knows where it will lead? That’s why it’s so important to stay sane, stand firm and hold the line. I think we can do it. (A sense of humor helps; I say this while realizing I just talked about 600,000 people dying.) Anyway, there is no other choice. MOST IMPORTANTLY, REMEMBER: no matter how “unglued” the Democrats get with another term of Trump, we simply can’t allow the damage they would do to the Constitution and our system of government if they won. That would be infinitely worse.
My comment is actually a question. The Democrats in the hearing keep bringing up Rudy Giuliani and that what he did was unlawful. I just wanted to know if it was. I remember Mrs. Clinton using her personal lawyer on her staff and later Ms. Mills using confidentiality as a reason not to answer questions from Congress. What is the difference? Is it that one is the President and one is the secretary of state, or is it [that] one is Republican and one is Democrat?
By asking this question, you’ve actually illustrated the huge double standard that exists. Pelosi and Schiff would say that since this is an inquiry into the impeachment of a President, they get to make the rules, to the point where they throw out such fundamental Constitutional protections as due process and the right to confront one’s accuser. In their minds, it’s “my rules for you, no rules for me.”
But, as usual, they want it both ways. Here’s a glimpse into their inconsistent thought process: “Trump somehow got to be President, so as members of Congress we get to impeach him with our own rules, but we don’t CONSIDER him to be a “real” President, so in impeaching him we won’t allow him the basic protections of that office, such as executive privilege and the right to conduct foreign policy as he wishes –- including with non-State Department people, such as Giuliani.” Pelosi said it herself on CBS “Face the Nation”: “I think part of it [the aggressive tone] is his own insecurity, as an IMPOSTER [emphasis mine].
I’m sure Attorney General Barr would agree with my assessment, as he says: “Instead of viewing themselves as ‘the loyal opposition,’ as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple by any means necessary a duly-elected government.” I would add that, to their everlasting shame, the media are complicit in this.
Historically, other Presidents –- including big Democrat faves such as FDR –- have had non-government associates working at their right hands when it came to foreign policy; as far as I know, President Trump is the only one catching heat for it, as he does for everything.
It was Hillary Clinton, the person the bureaucrats WANTED as President, who got special privileges, along with chief aide Huma Abedin and attorney Cheryl Mills. While Trump associate Roger Stone now faces the prospect of life in prison over “process” crimes, Clinton associates Abedin and Mills got immunity in exchange for nothing, and Mills was able to sit with Clinton during questioning even though she was a potential witness in the case! Do you think that Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and his associates would receive such special handling? Me neither.
We’re seeing more and more examples of selective prosecution in this country. It must stop.
As for Giuliani, It’s easy to see why he might have wanted Yovanovich gone. In the interest of his client, he was trying to discover what in blazes was going on in Ukraine surrounding the election of 2016. But, as John Solomon has reported, even the “inquiry” witnesses called by Schiff (Republicans aren’t allowed to call witnesses) have testified under oath that the embassy under her leadership pressured Ukraine “multiple times” not to prosecute certain people, including Ukrainian nationals. Why was her embassy trying to interfere in Ukraine’s own law enforcement decisions?
There’s much more about what happened in Ukraine relative to our election that we need to uncover, and Schiff with his “inquiry,” while pretending to want to find out, is actually trying to conceal it. If he REALLY wanted us to know the truth, he’d let Republicans call witnesses, too.
Speaking of double standards, it was perfectly fine when Obama, as he came into office in 2008, fired all the U.S. ambassadors who had been appointed by Bush. Just like that. Pure politics. I don’t recall anybody asking those poor ambassadors about their “feelings,” do you? In hindsight, Trump should have done exactly the same thing, automatically firing all Obama-appointed ambassadors (hey, maybe Bush-appointed, too) and other officials. Draining the swamp was what we elected him to do, and I would have called that mass firing of bureaucrats “a good start.”
Thanks to all for writing! In closing, here’s another great observation that speaks for itself…
How many people can there be that "overheard" a conversation and that have NO NEED TO KNOW? Amazing!