To what end?

47 Views

Yesterday the House announced that they had two Articles of Impeachment against President Trump.

In our Constitution the President can only be impeached for one of the following crimes:
Bribery, Treason, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The first two crimes on the list are very specifically and legally defined. And hard solid evidence is required. Thus the Leftist Democratic controlled House couldn’t charge President Trump with Bribery or Treason. The Law would stand in their way.

Now the other high Crimes and Misdemeanors was wide open. These aren’t defined anywhere as to what constitutes them. So it is up to the House to determine what is a high Crime or Misdemeanor and impeachable.

And what does the House charge President Trump with after all this time. Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

President Trump hasn’t abused his power as President. He has faithfully exercised it, which many past Republican presidents have not done. And from a legal standpoint, abusing ones power isn’t illegal. Unethical, probably so, but not illegal.

Also the term of Abuse of Power is very nebulous and could apply to anything as well. Even something harmless and mundane like getting tickets to a ball game.

The second charge of Obstruction of Congress. That one sounds bad since it sounds like another known crime. But this one too isn’t actually a crime either.

President Trump did exercise his power as the chief executive and forbade certain members of the Administration from testifying before the various House committees investigating the alleged impeachment proceedings. But this is within the rights of a President to protect his Administration.

The House could have acted on the refusal but they did not. If they really wanted the testimony of these witnesses they could have issued a subpoena. Demanding that they come before the House committee and testify. But this was not done. If it had been done and the subpoena was refused. Then Congress could have gone through the Courts and issued a court order for their appearance. But this also was not done. If it had been done and still refused. Then and only then would President Trump and the witnesses themselves be guilty of Contempt of Congress. And that could be an impeachable offense.

But all the House did was ask for the witnesses to testify. They refused. And that was the end of it. Request denied. Thus the charge of Obstruction of Congress is meaningless.

And now here we are nearly four years since this all started when prominent Democrats began calling for the impeachment of then President-Elect Donald Trump in 2016. They have finally the Articles drafted in the House. The House has enough of a Democratic majority to pass the Articles even if some Democrats vote against it. Thus forcing a Trial in the Senate.

But to what end does this serve? The House would be better served if they had passed a censure against the President, even on the same charges. It would have passed. It would have been a victory. Now the Impeachment will be handed over to the Senate where the President could likely be acquitted just as President Clinton was at his impeachment Trial. And the 2020 elections are coming fast with disastrous results for the Leftist Democrats if this fails in the Senate.

That’s It?

50 Views

Today, House Democrats announced they would introduce two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. After weeks of testimony, months of investigation, and years of blathering about both on the news, they finally decided on…abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The audible thud you heard was the Left’s expectations crashing like the Hindenburg, but with a lot less fire.

Maybe it’s me, but these articles of impeachment seem to be missing something, like…say…actual illegal activity. After all, the standard for impeachment is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which heavily suggests there has to be some illegal activity for impeachment to be warranted. And, yes, I know impeachment is a political process and not a legal one, but you would need to either be inept or a spin doctor extraordinaire to arrive at abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as crimes.

Then again, these are House Democrats we’re dealing with here, so it’s possible both are in play.

With the last impeachment on record, that of Bill “Commander in Briefs” Clinton, House Republicans put forth a total of four counts of impeachment, all them tied to actual law. The two the House decided upon were perjury and obstruction of justice. Compare that to the two counts House Democrats cobbled together. The only one that comes close to legal precedent is obstruction of Congress, which is only close because it’s one word off from the actual crime.

With that, let’s take a closer look at the two counts of impeachment against President Trump.

First, there’s abuse of power. That is such a nebulous charge it could apply to anyone and anything. If the President got a meter maid to let him or her stay in a parking spot 5 minutes after the meter ran out? ABUSE OF POWER! The President borrowed a book from the library and hasn’t returned it in 2 years? ABUSE OF POWER!

Now, here’s the tricky part: abuse of power may not be a crime nor a misdemeanor. To my knowledge (which I admit may not be as thorough as some of the legal scholars out there), abuse of power isn’t against the law. It’s certainly not ethical, but it may not be criminal. And there is a vast difference between legal and ethical, one that House Democrats don’t appear to see in front of them. If this one doesn’t get laughed out of the House in a bipartisan effort, I’ll be disappointed, but not surprised for a reason I’ll get into later.

The second charge of obstruction of Congress has a bit more precedent behind it. Contempt of Congress has both criminal and civil punishments to it, which would fall under the actual high crimes and misdemeanors section of the Constitution. Where it falls apart is with what has happened so far with the Impeach-A-Palooza campaign. President Trump barred some members of his office from testifying, but Trump himself hasn’t been called to testify before Congress. He’s been invited, although perhaps more tongue-in-cheek than serious, but he hasn’t been called by any of the House Democrats running the multitude of committees involved in the process. Another technicality, I know, but one that changes the dynamic of the charge itself. If one is not called to testify before Congress and isn’t called to produce documents, one cannot be charged with contempt of Congress under the letter of the law.

And the self-professed “defenders of the Constitution” have failed to see the simple logical trap they fell into.

Reaction to the two impeachment articles ranged from “why aren’t there more” on the Left to “you got nothing” on the Right. For the purposes of this impeachment fiasco, I’m siding with the Right. Although both sides of this situation can rightly be accused of having partisan blinders on, the fact remains none of this would have happened if House Democrats hadn’t decided to go all in on impeaching President Trump for reasons that can best be described as petty. If you doubt me, look at Leftist Twitter right now. They are inventing high crimes and misdemeanors to justify their belief President Trump should be impeached, and few of them have any actual legal foundation. To put it mildly, they are losing their hivemind over this. The Left is out for blood and they will stop at nothing, including inventing new laws out of Orange Man Bad, to sate their bloodlust.

Having said that, I think the obstruction of Congress charge has enough legs to get through the House, and the Senate will not punish President Trump on it, mainly on party lines. What impact will that have on the President? None. He’s pretty much written off the impeachment as so much of a joke Amy Schumer is going to steal it for her next comedy special, “Who Are You and Why Should We Care?” The people who support him will continue to do so, those who don’t will continue to berate him, and people trying to play both sides of the fence will continue to pretend to be Nadia Comaneci while holding in their opinions so they can appear above it all.

What the Left isn’t taking into consideration is the fact impeachment isn’t a winning issue to a lot of people, including Democrats. Based on early speculation on how the votes are going to go, there are a handful of Democrats willing to break ranks with the party leadership and vote against impeachment. Given the fact impeachment is polling worse than toejam right now, this isn’t a dumb move on their part. So far, there’s only one former Republican, Justin Amash, willing to vote for impeachment. Now, I’m no math whiz, but if even 2 Democrats vote against impeachment, that’s already a net loss for the Left.

In the grand scheme of things, though, it may not matter. All it takes for a majority in the House is 218 votes, and Democrats have 233 votes currently. If things go by a party line or mostly party line vote, the House will be able to impeach President Trump. Yet, of the two articles so far, only one has any kind of legal foundation. This is enough under the Constitution, but it may not be enough for the voting public. In today’s political climate, even the perfectly justifiable will fall to the whims of the people.

House Democrats have taken a risk with Impeach-A-Palooza, and outside of their allies in the media and their sycophantic ideological bubble-mates, few people have come around to their way of thinking. And with there being less than a year before the 2020 elections, they don’t have the time to spare splitting their time among impeachment, going on cable news shows and talking about impeachment, trying to get something done legislatively that doesn’t suck like a Hoover at the center of a black hole, energizing the base to keep voting and donating, trying to help candidates, watching their pennies as donations to the DNC get drier than a sand martini in Vegas, deciding which member of the Democrat Clown Car to support so they might get a spot in his or her Cabinet should the President be defeated, and pretending they don’t care what the President tweets while acting like Pavlov’s dogs in a room full of alarm clocks all set to go off at the same time.

Whew! I haven’t seen anyone juggle that many balls since the last gay orgy I attended, but that’s another story for another time. In the meantime, I’ll be over here watching Nancy Pelosi play the fiddle while Congress burns.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

69 Views

As another week of the Left’s Impeach-A-Palooza goes on, the House Judiciary Committee asked for input from four scholars about whether President Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses. Of the four, three were clearly on the pro-impeach side (as evidenced by some of their social media posts before the House Judiciary Committee hearing was a thing), and one was on the anti-impeach side.

Guess who got the bulk of the attention.

As many colleges and universities across the country are letting out for winter break, I think it’s time we take a closer look at what a scholar is and see if the title fits the people granted it.

scholar

What the Left thinks it means – a learned expert on a field of study whose work cannot be questioned

What it really means – a Leftist with a title and tenure

The Left loves to use scholars to justify their ideas. Manmade Climate Change? Here’s a list of scholars who believe in it (some of whom actually have a background in climate science!). Need someone to whitewash abortion? Here’s a list of scholars who think abortion is no big deal! Want to show how the patriarchy is alive and well at women’s colleges? Here’s a list of scholars who can prove it! If you have a pet cause, the Left has a scholar ready and willing to parrot whatever line you want him or her to say.

This, of course, is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority. Basically, it’s when someone tries to turn back any argument critical of his or her argument by saying, “But I have [insert name or profession of someone allegedly smarter than us] to back me up, so you’re wrong.” The key to this type of argumentation is to make it seem like one side has the intellectual high ground based solely on who agrees with you and without that pesky little thing the kids today like to call facts.

Let’s take the Left’s new favorite climate poster child, Greta Thunberg. On the basis of one impassioned (and, quite frankly, so hammy it goes against both the Hebrew and Muslim faiths) speech, Ms. Thunberg was elevated to untouchable status, even to the point she is considered to be a leader in the climate change movement. In other words, the Left has made her into a saint…I mean scholar on climate change. Yet, she doesn’t have the intellectual pedigree to back up that elevation. She’s gotten famous all because she said, “How dare you?” at the United Nations while her ideas are unfounded in anything resembling science.

Hmmm…wasn’t there a former Vice President who experienced the same elevation on climate change without a scintilla of scientific evidence, someone who continues to warn us about rising sea levels as he buys up more beachfront property? I swear there was, but I’ll be damned if I can remember his name. Oh well. Guess we’ll never know. I won’t Al Bore you with further speculation…

The funny thing about the Left’s use of scholarship is it only goes one way. When they use it to support their ideas, you can’t argue against it because you’re “anti-science.” When it gets used against them, the scholar isn’t credible due to a supposed lack of peer reviewed work. As someone familiar with the quality of peer review, or lack thereof, getting a peer reviewed paper if you’re a Leftist is easier than getting a lap dance from Stormy Daniels right now. But if you express anything to the right of Leo Trotsky, no peer will touch it, except to dismiss it as drivel (even if they don’t read it). Just ask John Lott Jr. about his papers on gun ownership reducing crime.

Without going too much further down this rabbit hole, keep in mind these same scholars are teaching college students and filling their heads full of Leftist dogma, thus creating a wonderful world of self-justifying ideas once these students get out into the real world and start voting or taking up causes. Just remember scholars can be absolutely wrong or waaaaaaay off in left field with their ideas. Your Women’s Studies professor may be a nice person, but that doesn’t make his or her ideas sacrosanct. The point of education is not to regurgitate what the instructor tells you, especially with Common Core math because that stuff is nuts. Education comes when you challenge your own ideas and the ideas of others in the intellectual squared circle. The minute an instructor/scholar tells you it’s his/her way or the highway is the minute you learn you have nothing else to learn from them.

As impressive as it might be to have legal scholars testifying about high crimes and misdemeanors in front of the House Judiciary Committee, the question remains the same: do they add value to the arguments being made? Based on what I’ve read so far of their testimony, only the anti-impeachment scholar did. The others were repeating tired talking points, which is exactly what the House Democrats wanted to divert attention away from the fact their first attempt yielded testimony from people who have no proof of what the President is alleged to have done that warranted impeachment in the first place. Bringing in scholars may add context, but it doesn’t add content. Unless they have relevant information to the alleged crimes and not just their opinions on such, it’s more hot air and more of our money being spent on a quest even Don Quixote would pass at.

Oh, I remember that former Vice President now! It was Spiro Agnew!

The Trigger has been Pulled

86 Views

Today, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has authorized the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to draft Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump. This is not going to end well for the Leftists and the Democratic Party.

Of course there is no hard evidence of any wrong doing by the President. The transcript of his call to the Ukrainian President was released. Anyone can read it for themselves. None of the so-called witnesses during Mr Schiff’s so-called investigations and hearings were parties to the conversation. Some have never even met the President.

The Articles of Impeachment will pass the House since the Leftist Democratic Party has control there. And they are all rabidly mad with Trump Derangement Syndrome. But most of those up for re-election in 2020 will find themselves back home because of this fiasco.

Even with the House passing Articles of Impeachment does not undo the 2016 election. President Trump is still President. It will go to the Senate for a Trial.

Within the Senate it must make a two-thirds majority in order to remove President Trump from office. That is 67 votes out of 100. There is a slight majority of Republicans within the Senate. 53 of them to be exact. While the Democratic Party has 47 plus 2 socialists.

I do not think the odds are in favor of passage of a guilty verdict against President Trump. This whole impeachment case sets a very dangerous precedent for future Presidents. And if President Trump is found guilty in the Senate. This will be the end of our Republic and we will have the monstrosity of a democracy that our Founding Fathers fought against.

I have said it before. If President Trump is impeached, found guilty, and removed from office. He will be the first in a line of impeachment trials by the Leftists to undo the 2016 elections. Pence will follow shortly there after and then even any appointments made by President Trump. Including those to the Supreme Court.

Pray for the proper outcome here. Save the Republic. Save President Trump.

Impeach-MEH-nt

104 Views

After the past week of Impeach-a-Palooza on Capitol Hill, we finally get a break from all the futility, pundits are starting to analyze the outcome. Unfortunately for Leftists, it’s looking like fashion tips from Jerold Nadler: not good and at times scary. Leftists aren’t making their case for impeachment and keep repeating the same lines about the persuasiveness of the evidence (which consisted of long opening statements undercut by the witnesses admitting they have no evidence of the crimes President Donald Trump is being accused of). Even polling data shows support for impeachment has dropped, especially where Independents like me are concerned.

So, what went wrong? You’d better get an extra large bag of popcorn and an extra large fountain drink because we have a lot to go over.

The proceedings haven’t been completely above board. One thing that has troubled people about the current impeachment process against President Trump is how unfair it appears. Even those of us who know impeachment is a political process rather than a legal process are stunned at the way Adam Schiff and company have run their inquiry hearings with an iron ham fist. If there was more of an attempt to balance the hearings and give them the gravity they deserve rather than the clown show it’s been to date, people might not be so turned off by them.

The testimony doesn’t support the conclusions. Ignore the partisan spin from the House Democrats and their media allies. When push comes to shove, the testimony hasn’t supported the conclusions the Left want us to reach. You can give a 20 minute opening statement under oath hitting on everything from America to Main Street, but if you honestly answer you have zero proof of what is being said you are testifying on, you’ve wasted your breath and our time.

There’s too much partisanship going on. This goes back to the first point a little, but it’s still important to discuss separately. Politics today makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like a polite family disagreement over who had the best day. Having said that, both sides have been using impeachment or rejection of impeachment as a cudgel to beat each other over the heads. This gives the rightful impression that no one is taking impeachment seriously enough. It may throw red meat to the respective political bases, but it doesn’t support either side’s argument.

Appeals to emotion don’t make a solid case. Let’s be frank for a moment. The heart of the Left’s hard-on for impeaching President Trump is driven by emotion and not by facts. You can tell this by watching the pro-impeachment forces using emotional appeals suggesting impeachment is simultaneously the last thing they want to do and the proudest thing they’ve ever done to protect the country. Once the emotional appeals fail, what else do you have? More hysteria? More appeals to Mom, baseball, apple pie, Chevrolet, and America? And when those fail? Time to admit you have nothing and have had nothing from the jump instead of trying to make us feel like we’re traitorous scum if we don’t march in lockstep behind you. Okay, you can go back to being yourselves again.




The “crimes” don’t fit the punishment. This is an area the Left has utterly failed on. They haven’t made a case that impeachment is the only remedy for what the President is accused of doing. And based on what information we’ve received so far, we’re hard pressed to see what crimes were committed in the first place. Trying to get Ukraine to investigate election tampering in 2016 and determine whether former Vice President Joe Biden was involved isn’t a crime, especially given how the same Leftists wanting Trump’s head on a platter were so concerned about election tampering when they thought it favored them are suddenly anti-transparency and pro-corruption when there’s even a hint their ox…or in this case donkey…gets gored. The fact people outside of the Left’s hivemind see this isn’t a good look because not everyone has a short memory. And here’s the kicker: some House Democrats are offering censure as an alternative. Even if they’re in the minority, the fact they’re speaking out right now in the midst of Impeach-a-Palooza means there might be more willing to forego the conventional wisdom and stand against their own party.

There is a constantly moving target. Since 2016, there have been multiple reasons the Left has wanted President Trump impeached, including alleged crimes committed before he was President and, thus, still a private citizen. As each reason has fallen by the wayside, there is another to replace it, with some of them being so absurd they could only come from the mouths of Leftists more clueless than Alicia Silverstone’s character in the movie of the same name. When you can’t even decide on an impeachable offense without a focus group, you know you’ve oversaturated the marketplace of ideas.

The public is fickle. To put it mildly, people like what they like for as long as they like it and then dump it for the next hot new thing. If you want to keep their attention, you have to give them a reason to invest in it. If you don’t, you’ll see people “Oh Shiny!” you into obsolescence. Guess where you are right now.

You didn’t read the room. Before you embark on a risky venture, like…oh I don’t know…impeaching a President, you kinda need to make sure you are prepared to suffer the consequences if your venture goes south. Outside of your hivemind, there isn’t much support for impeachment. And relying on Republicans to vote for your half-baked idea, let alone to remove President Trump in the Senate, is riskier than letting Bernie Madoff handle your retirement. And trying to shame them into complying isn’t going to work, and not for the reason you think. It’s not because Republicans are all Trump-Bots; it’s because you’re fucking annoying! Whinging about Trump, lame hashtags, and moralizing from people who think drag queens are the perfect people to read to little kids aren’t getting the job done.

We’re tired of impeachment already! Although this relates to the fickleness point I raised earlier, it is too important a point to leave unstated. Plus, I needed to pad this out a bit. With all of the attention on impeachment, there are a number of issues that aren’t getting the attention they deserve. Voting security in 2020 (remember that, kids?), the situation in Hong Kong, international terrorism, immigration, and a host of other issues that mean much more to the American people than impeaching a President, especially when you consider the crap you’ve put forth so far hasn’t moved the needle in the way you want.

Impeachment has been a dud and continues to be one in spite of the Left’s insistance on it being a winner. But, hey, who am I to tell you what you should do? You do you!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

126 Views

For the past several weeks, Washington and the media have been obsessed with whistleblowers (except for Bill Clinton, who has been obsessed with a different kind of whistleblowing, if you know what I mean). As the Left continues its push to impeach President Donald Trump for…I’m not honestly sure and I’ve been following it as closely as I can…well, anyway, the Left has used the testimony of a whistleblower to make the case in favor of President Trump’s impeachment, while the Right is saying the whistleblower is actually a leaker and, thus, doesn’t qualify as a whistleblower and doesn’t deserve the protections legally afforded one.

As you might expect, the fault lines on this subject are wider than Rosie O’Donnell’s waist size, and no one seems to want to figure out the basics before rendering a decision. In the war between the Orange Man Bad Tribe and the Orange Man Good Tribe, one thing is certain: we’re no closer to figuring out the truth.

So, here’s my contribution to the discussion. I know as much as the bozos in Congress, so I’m at least as underqualified as they are, but I’ll try to make it entertaining without spending taxpayer dollars.

whistleblower

What the Left thinks it means – a brave individual risking life and limb to uphold the rule of law, the Constitution, and other important concepts

What it really means – someone with a lot to lose, and even more to lose if he or she goes to bat for the Left

In our nation’s history, we’ve had examples of people who come forward with vital information and do so at great risk to themselves and their families. Because this role is so important to watching the watchmen, we have codified protections for these individuals to protect them and encourage others with similar information to come out of hiding and tell their stories without fear. For this reason, we have to be very serious about who is protected under whistleblower laws.

Unfortunately, we aren’t a serious country anymore. The very act of being a whistleblower has become politicized to the point of absurdity, especially in an age where a private citizen got doxed by CNN for reposting a pro-Trump GIF slamming CNN. And the same people trying to protect the anonymity of the current whistleblower flavor of the month were okay with CNN’s efforts to expose the evil pro-Trump memer.

Whether the current Trump whistleblower is actually a whistleblower is still a matter of debate. From where I sit, I’m not sure he…or she…is one. A large part of my uncertainty comes from the nature of the circumstances the he or she is in, which has everything to do with a phone call between the President and the President of Ukraine where it’s alleged our President withheld aid unless Ukraine investigated Hunter Biden and his father Joe. Whether this happened is as hotly debated as the whole whistleblower idea. Based upon what I’ve read and heard, the Ukrainian President said there was no quid pro quo. But, of course, we can’t trust him because he’s…a Russian! Dun Dun Dunnnnnnnnnn!

Seriously, the Left doesn’t want to admit what the Ukrainian President said has a ring of truth to it because it ruins the narrative they’ve set up and it undermines the current impeachment effort by providing a plausible alternative to the narrative. Once you give credence to the alternative, the original talking points can’t survive in the self-created vacuum, and the Left loses control of the message.

Also, consider the layers between the whistleblower and the source material. For me, a major key to being a whistleblower involves proximity to the target. An employee of a major corporation poisoning nearby waterways is a first-hand observer of what is happening. If what I’ve read is true, the whistleblower in the current Trump inquiry is, at best, second or third hand. The further away from the target you get, the less danger you are likely to incur.

Ah, but remember, Washington isn’t serious anymore. President Trump hasn’t helped matters any with his calls for the whistleblower to come forward by suggesting people find out who he or she is. Nothing says “I’m not out to expose you” like telling people to expose you. And the Left has run with this idea to build up the whistleblower narrative they hope to get people to believe. There are times when the President is his own worst enemy, and this was certainly one of those times.

The funny thing that no one else seems to be talking about is the Information Age may render whistleblowers protections irrelevant because of the amount of information that’s already out there. All it takes is a group of people with time on their hands and an attention to detail to track down anyone. Just like CNN, but with better ratings and no Jim Acosta. Turns out we might already know the whistleblower’s identity without it ever being released by the press or Congress. Oops.

If someone wants to find you, they can, thanks to our growing obsession with technology and our lessening acknowledgement of personal freedoms. Who cares if the government can turn on our cell phone cameras remotely? We gotta have that new iPhone! Big Brother is a quaint notion compared to the current state of technology and surveillance, but we’re too busy taking selfies to worry about it.

Before we close up shop on this post, let’s remember the Left hasn’t always loved whistleblowers. Julian Assange, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, and Reality Winner are some of the unfortunate victims of the Left’s fair-weather friendship with whistleblowers, even when their actions directly benefitted the Left! The Right isn’t much better, with their opinion on whistleblowers changing between hanging them or putting them before a firing squad. But nothing shows the utter contempt for the entire concept and the people who risk their lives to shine a light into the darkest corners of the halls of power than the Left pretending they give one-millionth of one fuck about them. A whistleblower to them is an acceptable loss in an ideological war they have to win to justify their existence.

Makes you want to keep your mouths shut, doesn’t it?

Katie’s Got Some ‘Splainin’ to Do…

117 Views

It’s official. Rep. Katie Hill resigned from Congress today, but not before she voted in favor of moving forward with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump and giving a passionate speech where she blamed a litany of targets for her resignation. Misogyny, men being afraid of strong women in power, double standards, the right wing media, and so on apparently made her violate House ethics rules against having sex with subordinates while in office. News to me.

In the wake of this story (that I fully admit spending too much time thinking about), there are some questions I have, and since Ms. Hill has some time on her hands now, maybe she can see fit to answer some of them, but if not, here are my thoughts on the matters at hand.

Was what happened to you “revenge porn”?

This question is at the heart of the controversy, but too many people have already decided it was. Under both California and District of Columbia law, “revenge porn” is illegal and comes with some pretty stiff penalties, if you’ll pardon the expression.

On the surface, it looks like Rep. Hill was the victim, but in order to verify this we have to dig a bit deeper. The idea being anti-revenge porn laws is to protect victims from the actions of spiteful and vindictive exes. This begs the question of whether Hill’s ex-husband fits that description. So far, I don’t think we’ve heard from him, but we’ve certainly heard from Rep. Hill, who has described him thusly. It’s entirely possible he’s a scumbag, but without further information we can’t rule out he’s innocent, or at least not as guilty as some would have us believe.

There is also information out there that suggests her ex-husband posted the photos in question when they were together for the purposes of having a threesome or getting into a throuple (which is a couple with a +1 with benefits). If the photos were posted with her permission, there is no revenge porn, just incredibly bad judgment in the Internet Age. If the photos were posted without her permission, that’s an issue, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty of revenge porn. The timeline doesn’t match up. And speaking of timelines…

Why would these photos be published now?

As with any scandal like this, putting together a timeline is essential to understanding the ins and outs of the scandal itself. One question that comes to mind is why now. Rep. Hill already won her seat, and her District doesn’t appear to be that much of a Republican hotbed. A vindictive husband? Possible, but without more info, we can’t be sure. To derail President Trump’s impeachment? Unlikely, given Democrats control the House of Representatives and losing one vote wouldn’t impact the outcome to any extent. Right wing smearmongers out to destroy her? Don’t take this the wrong way, but we wouldn’t have known about you if the pictures hadn’t come out. Powerful men afraid of women in power? It was 11 years ago that these same powerful men voted to put Sarah Palin in the #2 spot of the Presidential hierarchy, and more recently have voted in women like Mia Love, Liz Cheney, and Joni Ernst.

The more we unpeel this political onion, the fewer answers remain that make sense. We either need more hard evidence or a reasonable explanation, and I doubt we’ll get either anytime soon.

Why did you take the actions you did at the time and are taking the actions you are now?

The former has been answered somewhat. Rep. Hill has admitted she made errors in judgment (ya think?), but it doesn’t quite explain everything, given what she’s said and done since the photos came out. There has to be something else there because it might explain the current situation better. Would Rep. Hill have constructed a narrative if it were as simple as “revenge porn”? I wouldn’t think so. The first logical step would have been to contact the police and file a report, not to pretend it didn’t happen only the change your mind once more photos went public. And contacting a lawyer to pursue legal actions doesn’t act as a substitute for getting the police involved.

This sounds a lot like other people’s victim narratives that aren’t borne out with any actions in response to the alleged crimes perpetrated against them. That leads to people not trusting alleged victims when they come forward, which is a common thread in feminist arguments about why women don’t report rapes. And it opens up scrutiny of the accusers.

I know the sexual side of this is personal, but in order to come to a conclusion, we may need to understand more of the past. Saying “oops, I screwed up” (again, if you’ll pardon the pun) doesn’t cut it.

Are the Daily Caller and Daily Mail guilty of distributing the photos, thus participating in the revenge porn?

This one is a bit tricky. Of the two, I would say the Daily Caller’s use of a limited number of photos was done not out of malice, but to bolster the story they found. Even if the photos found online were posted without her permission, we have to ask whether they had a prurient interest in posting them for the purpose of sexual or political gratification. Given what they used, I don’t think a good argument can be made that they posted it with malicious intent. Thus, I don’t think you’d prevail.

The Daily Mail, on the other hand, might have more of a legal headache coming their way. They posted several more photos of Rep. Hill, well beyond the ones the Daily Caller used, and didn’t really add to the story itself beyond more photos. By going to an extreme like they did, a case can be made their decision to run the additional photos would constitute a prurient interest and, thus, open themselves up to legal consequences. The problem then becomes whether England has similar “revenge porn” laws on their books or if the legal principles on our books would transcend a lack of similar laws.

Is there a double standard between men and women in power?

The short answer to this is no. The longer answer is still no, but it’s longer. (I gotta stop using these double entendres!)

Seriously, there isn’t a double standard between men and women in power, even though men are usually the ones getting caught being horndogs more than women. However, there is a double standard between Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton had a number of women accuse him of sexual harassment and assault, but he’s believed and still beloved in Leftist circles. Donald Trump is in a similar boat, but he’s hated by the same people who give Clinton a pass. I’m not saying Trump should skate, but I do see the standards shift whenever there is a Democrat in trouble versus a Republican in trouble. What you’re experiencing is what men like Al Franken, Mark Sanford, and plenty of others have dealt with before you thanks to the rules your ideological allies have set up. Congrats!

Who benefits?

This is a key question to understanding motive. Who would gain the most by having you resign? Republicans, a jealous ex-husband, Nancy Pelosi, possibly even members of your own party come immediately to mind. In politics, you make a lot of enemies, and some of the people who consider friends may be looking to stab you in the back at the first opportunity. In the current environment where Leftists are trying to hold President Trump to a certain standard, your actions certainly undercut that effort or at least make it look more like a political hitjob than a consistent standard. But one thing is clear: as a freshman Representative, you are expendable. Think about that, won’t you?

Why should we believe you?

And now we come to the Big Kahuna of questions. And let me tell you, Rep. Hill, this is not going to be easy to answer. With what I’ve seen and heard so far, your story has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese in the middle of a gang shootout. The actions you’ve taken (or not taken, as the case may be) and the statements you’ve made (and not made, as the case may be) do not inspire a lot of confidence in your truthfulness. You may have Leftists believing you, but these same folks believed Christine Blasey Ford in spite of a lack of specifics and an abundance of questionable arguments. If you want to be believed, give us something to believe in that makes sense.

And take responsibility for the mistakes you’ve made. Blaming a double standard or misogyny for your ethical lapses doesn’t fly with most of us. Man…err…Woman up.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

109 Views

As the impeachment kinda-sorta-but-not-really inquiry against President Donald Trump staggers along like Ted Kennedy after a weekend at the Kennedy Compound, we’re starting to get a clearer idea of what exactly the President is accused of doing this time: obstruction of justice as it pertains to an investigation into a telephone call between the United States and Ukraine. To put it simply, the Trump White House has stated no one from the Administration should participate in the House inquiry due to how the investigation is being conducted.

This is one of those cases where both the Left and the Right have the wrong idea. So, in order to try to straighten out everyone involved, I’m devoting this week’s Lexicon to delving into obstruction of justice. Get your pens and notebooks ready, kids…

obstruction of justice

What the Left thinks it means – preventing Congress from investigating the President

What the Right thinks it means – a crime the President didn’t commit because there wasn’t a crime

What it really means – preventing law enforcement from investigating a crime

Our criminal justice system is based on the idea the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, impeachment is more of a political animal than criminal justice is, so the rules get fuzzier than Nick Offerman in a lumberjack camp. In the political arena, you are guilty even if you are proven innocent in spite of a preponderance of the evidence. And impeachment is no different.

At the heart of the latest impeachment talk is obstruction of justice. This has legal implications, which in the political arena make it easier to make a case for impeachment but requires evidence. That’s where the Left and Right get it wrong. The Left says Trump preventing Administration officials hinders their investigation and, thus, preventing them from getting to the truth of the Ukraine phone call situation. (Which is to say, getting to anything that can be made into a major scandal.) The Right says there can be no obstruction of justice because there was no crime committed.

And people wonder why I take ibuprofen like Tic Tacs these days.

Here’s the deal: you can obstruct justice in absence of a crime, but there really isn’t a crime here, and the impeachment inquiry in its current form isn’t the place to make that determination.

Let’s take the first portion of that statement, well, first. If there is an investigation into an alleged crime, anything you do to obstruct that investigation is illegal. Even in jest. And, yes, even when there turns out to be no crime committed. The fact you hindered a law enforcement investigation is what will get you in trouble. Don’t wind up like Jussie Smollet, kids.

Now, for the inquiry not being the right venue to address allegations of obstruction of justice. First off, there are six House committees involved in the inquiry, five of which aren’t the Judiciary Committee. That means there are five more committees than necessary to investigate the alleged crime. That may be a Leslie Knope wet dream, but it’s wasteful and unnecessary, especially considering the amount of airtime Adam Schiff has gotten off this. And Schiff isn’t even on the House Judiciary Committee! Ironically, he’s the head of the House Intelligence Committee, but then again no one may be better qualified to reflect the intelligence of House Democrats than Schiff.

The other aspect of this that should trouble anybody with a lick of common sense is the fact this inquiry isn’t so much an inquiry as it is an inquisition. Since Democrats run the House, they write the rules, so they can set the parameters of any investigation or hearing. However, since we’re dealing with a specific illegal act, the rule of law should be followed. As it stands, it isn’t. When partisan politics gets involved, the only law that’s followed is the law of the jungle. That may make Leftists swoon in this case, but it comes with two major problems. First, it undermines the legal arguments being made in favor of President Trump’s impeachment. It’s hard to hang your hat on the rule of law when you’re not following it. And second, it sets a precedent. Remember when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went to a majority vote when it came to federal judge confirmations in the Senate? The Left cheered when he did it, but when current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did it, they lost their shit. I guarantee if the House goes Republican under a Democrat President, there will be investigations galore, and it will have zero to do with the rule of law, and you won’t have a leg to stand on because you literally started it.

In the meantime, the question remains of whether President Trump obstructed justice. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s hard to say he did based on the Left’s reactions when he complies with their requests/demands. It’s never good enough for the Left. If Trump released his tax returns, they would ask for some obscure IRS document that ultimately wouldn’t impact his returns, but would make it appear as though Trump was hiding something. Trump released a partial translation of his call with the Ukrainian leader which ultimately showed there was no illegal activity going on (unless you consider investigating Hunter Biden’s apparently shady dealings with the Ukraine while his dad was Vice President illegal). And who backed up Trump’s assessment of the call? The Ukraine.

At this point, it’s easier to pick out the number of “impeachable offenses” Trump hasn’t been accused of than it is to count the number of ones he has been accused of. The Left is using impeachment much like it used the IRS under President Barack Obama: a political tool to bludgeon their opponents while running interference on their own shady dealings. But as far as obstruction of justice is concerned, I honestly don’t see it, and I’m saying this as someone who isn’t a Trump supporter. It sounds ominous and gives red meat (or tofu for vegetarians and vegans) to a group of people already predisposed to hate President Trump to hate him even more and call for his impeachment, removal, imprisonment, and so on.

That’s really what this whole impeachment inquiry fiasco is about. After 2016, Leftists are scared Trump could win again, and given the clown car of candidates they have this time, they are right to be afraid. That’s no excuse for running roughshod over the rule of law, especially when it comes to the impact of impeachment. To put it simply, Leftists want Donald Trump impeached for corruption because he asked an ally to assist in the investigation of corruption that may have had an impact on the 2016 Presidential Election, which is legal to do in the first place given the fact we have an agreement with that ally to do just that. That’s not obstruction of justice; that’s preservation of justice, the same justice Leftists have been demanding since 2016 when they were concerned with foreign countries interfering with our elections. But apparently it’s only a problem when that interference is against the Left’s candidates.

Leftists need to get off this obstruction of justice kick and realize they’re barking up the wrong tree. And the Right need to stop with the stupid “it’s not obstruction if there’s no crime” bullshit because it’s legally and logically wrong.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need some ibuprofen.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

206 Views

Happy Mothers Day to all the mothers out there! Now, for a bit of bad news. We’re in the midst of a Constitutional crisis! And if we don’t address it, our country will be irrevocably damaged, the Presidency will be forever tarnished, Tyler Perry will make another Medea movie, and untold other horrible things. (At least, that’s what the Left keeps telling us this week.)

With all of the problems (real and imagined) we have to deal with, the Left’s drumbeat of “Constitutional crisis” may either be worrisome or tiring to the point where we just accept it in the hopes it will go away. Well, as a Mothers Day gift to you, I’m going to do my best to take away that fear and misery so you can have a good day. (And I didn’t save the receipt, so you can’t return it.)

Constitutional crisis

What the Left believes it means – a matter that threatens the very fabric of our country and system of government

What it really means – a matter where the Left tries to use the Constitution to hide the real crises

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The Left loves to control the language as a means to control how people think about an issue, and the use of Constitutional crisis is no exception. Even when we don’t think about it, we still have a deep respect for the Constitution because it’s the cornerstone of our country. So, when paired with “crisis,” we tend to take it more seriously because of this respect for the Constitution.

This leads us to the question of whether we have a Constitutional crisis right now because of President Donald Trump and his Administration. To hear the Left talk about it, we’re either not in one and heading towards one 0r are in one and we need to act now. To someone like you and me, the answer isn’t so clear cut, but the phrasing makes it sound and feel like we are, and that’s what the Left is going for here: emotions over logic. Once you let your emotions run the show, the Left has their hooks in you and they won’t stop exploiting your emotions to make a point

The danger of that approach, though, lies in repetition. When such an emotionally charged phrase like “Constitutional crisis” gets used repeated or used in situations where it doesn’t really fit, it loses its power and people start to question its use across the board. It’s the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” phenomenon, or in this case, the Party That Cried Collusion. Once we’ve reached that stage, even real Constitutional crises get painted with the same broad brush and general apathy sets in.

Spoiler Alert, kids. We’re getting there.

After 2+ years of pounding the collusion drum like a John Bonham solo, the Mueller Report was a disappointment to the Left because it wasn’t the slam dunk the Left thought (i.e. prayed) it would be. Now, because it didn’t pan out, the Left needs to drive home the Constitutional crisis point to make up for the collusion point being ineffective. And, to make matters worse, they are using the same playbook now that they did when Russian collusion was the hot topic on the Left.

Which brings us to the next logical question: are we in a Constitutional crisis because of the Trump Administration? The answer is…well, complicated. To be fair, there are some actions and decisions Trump made that trouble me as a Constitutionalist. In his favor (and to my general dismay), he’s continuing a long line of Presidents who have treated the Constitution as a paper napkin at a barbecue joint. The continued use and abuse of the PATRIOT Act, eminent domain abuse, the bullying and blackballing of conservative voices in the public square, and many others I can list rise to the level of Constitutional crisis.

Trump winning an election and exercising power permitted by the Constitution? Not so much.

Even the most recent “example” the Left trotting it out may be in the kiddie pool of Constitutional crises, that being Attorney General William Barr declining to give additional testimony before Congress about the Mueller investigation after being subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee. On the one hand, it makes it look like Barr, Trump, and the whole Administration has something to hide which gives emotional heft to the Left’s argument. On the other hand, what good would it do? Barr testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and gave answers to questions the House Judiciary Committee would probably repeat, so it’s a waste of time.

But there’s another, more sinister reason House Democrats want Barr to testify again: to try to catch him in a lie and, thus, try to discredit his previous testimony and keep both the Constitutional crisis and Russia collusion narratives going. If you doubt this, consider the fact Leftists are demanding we see the unredacted Mueller report in direct defiance of a law Democrats put into place following Kenneth Starr’s investigation into Whitewater prohibiting the release of grand jury testimony in the circumstance we find ourselves in today. And the cherry on top of this collusion sundae is the fact no Congressional Democrats with the authority to see the mostly unredacted report have done so.

This is the point where many people jump off the bandwagon and start asking questions. Are Leftists really as concerned about the Constitution as they say they are now, or are they just using it as a shield against earned criticism from the Russia collusion narrative going belly up? Let me consult my Magic 8 Ball here…there we go…yep, Signs Point To They’re Making Shit Up.

To be fair, neither major party has a good working relationship with the Constitution in decades. But one party has consistently used it as both a bludgeon and a shield to justify their actions and beliefs, and it’s not the Republicans. Ever since Trump won in 2016, the Left has tied itself into knots trying to either undo the election or make it so Trump and his supporters pay for their “wrongthink” whenever possible. The great irony here is neither of those options are in line with what the Constitution actually says. And the matter is worsened by the fact most of what the Left wants to hold Trump accountable for occurred before he was elected President, thus creating a new Constitutional question they haven’t considered in their rush to bring down the President. I wouldn’t call that a Constitutional crisis just yet, but it could become one if the Left doesn’t think about it soon.

Oh, who am I kidding? They won’t even think about it for a microsecond because the answer may doom the Trump Russia narrative.

From where I sit (in my living room, by the way), the Left’s use of “Constitutional crisis” is a political ploy to keep beating a dead horse to the point PETA is organizing protest marches against it. The best advice I can give you is to dig into some of the real Constitutional crises out there (like the ones I mentioned above) and compare them to the Left’s caterwauling over a situation that boils down to not wanting to accept the 2016 election results.

Wait, didn’t someone say not accepting the results of an election was bad? It was someone famous…a woman I think. Wonder what happened to her…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

210 Views

It’s been about a week since Robert Mueller released his report noting there would be no new indictments coming from it and generally giving media pundits plenty of material to work with for the next several weeks. Although President Donald Trump and his supporters are happier than Bill Clinton at a stripper convention a day after Hillary’s wake. But, not everyone is happy, and surprise surprise, it’s Leftists who are trying to be buzzkills.

Since the Mueller report didn’t seem to connect the dots the Left were hoping would be there between Trump and Russia, the Left is demanding Mueller’s full report be released to the public so they can see for themselves (not that it would change their minds at all). They’ve even come up with an imaginative hashtag to use on Twitter, #ReleaseTheReport (or any of the numerous variations on that theme), to do try to get people to demand it.

Of course, you can probably guess I have an opinion or 50 about it, so let’s start by defining the terminology.

#ReleaseTheReport

What the Left thinks it means – a call for the government to release the full unredacted Mueller Report

What it really means – the continuation of an already-too-long fishing expedition

From the beginning of the Mueller investigation, I had a feeling it was an investigation in search of a crime, not as a result of a crime. The accusations of collusion with Russia to affect the 2016 Presidential election were always presented with an air of certitude by Leftists, but they always seemed to lack a certain something…what is it…it’s on the tip of my tongue…oh, yeah, evidence! The best the Left has been able to provide is circumstantial evidence that hints at a connection without actually nailing down any of the concrete specifics that would establish it definitively.

Now that we have a report, we need to figure out the endgame. Leftists say the reason we don’t have a full report yet is because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to make it public because it would damage Trump. As sinister as this sounds, it may be only part of the story. Right now, we can only speculate as to what the report says, but since it’s been handed off to the Southern District of New York Court as well as to Congress and the Department of Justice, there may be more at work here than just an unwillingness to release the report.

You know, tiny stuff like ongoing investigations and national security concerns.

The former is currently being done by the aforementioned SDNY court, where there are already sealed indictments. Releasing the full report now may jeopardize those indictments and prevent the accused from having a fair trial, thus creating the grounds for a mistrial. If that happened, whatever short-term pleasure could be derived from releasing the full report would backfire on the Left and leave them looking even more foolish than they already do.

Then, there’s the national security risk element. There may be parts of the Mueller Report that aren’t meant for citizens’ eyes, such as top secret intelligence, that need to be redacted before we get to see the report. That takes time and deliberation, neither of which can be rushed in matters of national security. Yet, Leftists want the full report released now with no regard to either the legal process or national security, all to try to own the President? Brilliant!

The motivation behind Leftists’ demands for the full report is pretty simple: since the Russia collusion angle has gone the way of Louis Farrakhan’s chances of getting invited to a bar mitzvah, they need to find something else to justify going after Trump and his family. If they find so much as a jaywalking ticket or an overdue library book, they are going to pounce on it. (Yes, I know, conservatives are the ones who pounce according to the media, but they consider Jim Acosta to be a valued member of their profession when he’s barely qualified to report on anything more complex than the lunch menu at the CNN commissary.) They are going to try to recreate Whitewater, but put Donald Trump in the Bill Clinton role.

And it will wind up like Whitewater did: a lot of money getting spent for very little actual punishment, no matter how deserved the punishment is.

There is another possible and even more delusional reason to consider. There are Leftists who believe if they can prove Trump broke the law that it would invalidate the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton would become President. Ummm…that’s not how this works. Unless you can prove there was voter fraud (which, by the way, wasn’t even the scope of the Mueller investigation), you have no way to claim the 2016 Presidential election was fraudulent. And since we don’t have anything in place currently to address a fraudulent Presidential election, it would take a while to fix. Put another way, by the time you could get a plan in place, it would be too late for the 2020 election, and possibly into 2024. If it gets bogged down, however, we would be running into the Socialist Socialite’s claim we have 12 years to live due to global climate change. And given all the people who died due to Trump’s tax cuts, the lack of Net Neutrality, and the US pulling out of the Paris Accords…

Look, I know Leftists want to impeach and remove Donald Trump, but it’s a fool’s errand because it falls into the same category Whitewater did: stuff that happened before the President was President and, thus, has little to no bearing on his current job title. And remember, kids, the “it was a long time ago” defense was perfected by the Left during the Commander in Briefs’ tenure to deflect attention away from his crimes. Ah, history repeats itself once again, and the Left still can’t catch on. If they weren’t too busy trying to rewrite it to suit their needs, maybe they would.

Here’s the kicker. Even if they get the full Mueller Report, it won’t satisfy the Left. They’ve already turned Robert Mueller from a superhuman to a Russian asset just in the few days since the report was submitted to the DOJ. And no matter what exoneration exists in the report, no matter how well-sourced it is, no matter how many people on both sides of the aisle agree on the content and conclusions, the Left will dismiss it like they dismiss actual science when talking about global climate change.

In the meantime, we should see #ReleaseTheRecord as a last-ditch effort to preserve the Left’s narrative at the expense of what little credibility they have on the subject of Russian collusion. Given the fact they didn’t have, well…any, to start with, it’s going to be a long slog ahead.

So, grab some popcorn and drinks of your choice. It’s gonna be fuuuuuuun!