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.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

114 Views

This week’s Leftist Lexicon entry is a first for me. In the past, I’ve covered (and recovered) words and phrases the Left have used in varying contexts and tried to explain what they mean to the rest of us. Today, I’m going to invent a word for the Leftist Lexicon that they haven’t used yet, but most certainly applies to them. Hopefully this doesn’t lead to a mass exodus from the site, but if it does, I hereby blame the Russians because…reasons.

So, here we go!

impeachment word salad

What the Left thinks it means – Ummmm…I dunno?

What it really means – a phrase that explains the Left’s impeachment efforts against Donald Trump

Remember back in 2009 when the Left got their collectivist panties in a wad over Republicans and conservatives trying to undermine President Barack Obama’s agenda? It seems like a decade ago, mainly because it was. However, one thing the Republicans didn’t try to do is impeach President Obama for crimes he committed or were a party to (much to the chagrin of your humble correspondent because there was fertile ground to make a case or, say, 50). When Donald Trump became President, though, Leftists wanted to impeach him from Day One, oddly enough for crimes he allegedly committed before becoming President.

Yes, it’s just that stupid.

Today, though, the Left has been making all sorts of allegations for presumed crimes committed before and during Trump’s Presidency. In the process, they’ve tied a number of terms to their impeachment efforts: collusion, extortion, bribery, election tampering, and so on. And as each new word gets attached, the previous words either lose their meaning or get ignored once they’ve served the Left’s purposes. In turn, this makes the people outside of Leftist Fantasyland either utterly confused due to the shifting narrative or utterly disgusted by the Left’s antics.

Guess which camp I’m in.

The Left loves to use buzzwords they test and test to ensure their impact on the people they consider uninformed or easily-led (i.e. the non-Leftists). Most of the time, it works. Words like homophobia, transphobia, and safe spaces have become part of our lexicon (and part of the Leftist Lexicon, too), but with impeachment, these words aren’t making any sense. Hence, the “word salad” portion of today’s Leftist Lexicon entry. For the uninitiated, a word salad is when people string together words that aren’t connected by any logical and consistent thought and that the people using them may or may not know the definitions of when they use them. Kinda like…well, the current impeachment effort. Fortunately, the Left has adopted the idea that it’s better to be emotionally right than factually right, according to their Matron Saint Alexandria of New York.

The problem is words mean things, as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out several times. And when dealing with legal terms, those definitions have implications above and beyond being used towards a political end. In building their impeachment case, the Left has created a multitude of problems with their impeachment word salad. Take extortion, for example. That is a serious charge, and the Left’s definition of it in this case has removed the notion of the victim knowing he or she is being extorted for it to be a crime. And remember, kids, the alleged victim in this case is a grown man who just happens to be the President of the Ukraine. You know, the guy whose statements about the alleged extortion all but destroy the very reason the Left is trying to impeach President Trump? But we should totally believe the Left is above board on this.

And here’s the best part. The reason the Left has been using so many different terms (by their own admission, I might add) is because they don’t think we understand complex concepts like quid pro quo and need it spelled out in explicit detail for us to get it. They want us to believe them while they hold us in contempt for what they perceive to be our intellectual shortcomings. Of course, there’s no way insulting potential supporters can go wrong, right? After all, that’s the strategy that made Hillary Clinton Presi…oh, sorry. Sort of a sore spot for the Left still. My bad!

Here’s a pro tip for the Left from your buddy Thomas. We get it. You don’t like President Trump and want the 2016 Election overturned because you feel it was Hillary’s turn. But you can’t impeach a President for hurting your fee-fees, no matter how hard you try or wish for it. You’re doing what your pals in the manmade climate change camp have done for decades: start with your desired conclusion and work backwards. It doesn’t work that way, and using loaded terminology with actual legal definitions and punishments won’t make your impeachment word salad any more intelligible or defensible before the US Senate, where your chances of getting Trump impeached are less likely than Pauly Shore winning a Best Actor Oscar. A Razzie, sure, but not an Oscar.

Here’s what I think you need to do. Just admit you have nothing, cut your losses, and try to find a non-insane Presidential candidate to beat President Trump in 2020. By the looks of the current clown car, though, I think you’re already at the point of no return on all those fronts. Better luck next time!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

127 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.

The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Outrage

167 Views

No matter how bad a week you think you’ve had, it pales in comparison to former Representative Katie Hill of California. Last week the Daily Caller revealed Ms. Hill was intimately involved with both male and female staffers, complete with nude photographs and salacious text messages, all of which Rep. Hill tried to deny. Eventually, though, she resigned her seat and released a statement accusing her ex-husband of “revenge porn,” which is when a former partner releases provocative photos of a subject with whom the partner was intimate out of spite. That’s a part of the story that the Left is running with, but it’s not the whole story.

To me, there are two parts to the Katie Hill situation: the sexual relationships themselves, and the ethical and national security concerns these relationships raise. In both cases, there are people trying to convince you of the importance of one over the other when both are important and have long-reaching impact on this country unless we take a serious approach.

Unfortunately, that blogger is on vacation, so you’re stuck with me on this one.

Let’s talk about the sexual relationships first. As scandalous and fun as it is to talk about Rep. Hill being a switch hitter, so to speak, it’s not that big of a deal in and of itself. Moralists will wag their fingers, but at the end of the day, it was at least 3 adults engaged in an activity that last time I checked was still legal. And that’s why the Left is pushing so hard to underscore the sexual elements of this matter. Well, that, and they’re freaks.

Leftists have an unnatural attachment to sexual matters and tend to take the extreme libertarian/classical liberal stance on them. But being big government types, they can’t completely do away with government’s hand on the scale. As long as the government can take a buck out of an activity, they’re all in for letting your freak flag fly. The minute government doesn’t have control over a transaction, as in prostitution, that freak flag gets lowered faster than Bill Clinton’s pants at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.

Personally, I could care less with who Rep. Hill slept or sleeps with because it’s none of my business. And to their credit, many on the Right agree. Where the line gets a little murky is when it comes to the ethical and national security implications, and that’s where the Right tends to be hammering the hardest. These are not small concerns, I grant you, but they may be exaggerated a bit for partisan reasons.

The intelligence community has a number of ways to obtain information, including seduction. If a foreign agent wanted to get sensitive information, all he or she would need to do is find a weak spot and exploit it. With Rep. Hill, that weak spot is doubled because she is an open bisexual. Whether it’s something as mundane as the combination to Nancy Pelosi’s liquor cabinet or something as damaging as intelligence briefings, we cannot brush off what Rep. Hill did as “none of our business.”

Having said all of that, I think we need to be very careful about labeling Rep. Hill as a national security threat at this time because we don’t know all the particulars yet. Did she sleep with a foreign agent? We don’t know. Has she given away secrets to a hostile power? We don’t know. It’s red meat for the Right, but it’s based on a lot of unknowns, and that opens up a whole new series of questions and questionable actions that would further pry into a private matter beyond our need to know.

That leaves the ethical part of the equation, and we have the Left to thank for that. For decades, the Left have been pushing the idea of what constitutes sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior between superiors and subordinates. In short, there can never be sexual consent between a superior and a subordinate due to the former having power over the latter. For the most part, Republicans have been the ones getting caught, but this time it’s a Democrat who’s having to live by the rules the Left set. And the Left is completely overlooking this because Rep. Hill is a Democrat.

However, that doesn’t remove the ethical implications. With all of the talk of a quid pro quo with President Donald Trump and the Ukraine, you would think the Left would be able to put 2 and 2 together as it pertains to Rep. Hill, but then again maybe they already have, which is why they’re focusing on the sexual portion of the situation instead of the ethical part. In either case, from what we’ve seen so far, Rep. Hill rewarded her sexual partners with paying jobs, which really seems to your humble reporter as a quid pro quo or at the very least a shady transaction of convenience. And when your party is obsessed with holding the President to a standard, it’s kind of hard to turn a blind eye to one of your own violating the same standard.

Thus, Katie Hill is screwed, literally and figuratively. Since she resigned, she’s been beating the drum of being a victim (surprise surprise) of revenge porn, but that’s not why she’s being targeted. She made some really dumb decisions with implications far beyond the bedroom, and those decisions call into question her fitness for office. The sexual angle isn’t even on my radar, and the national security angle is possible, but not as developed as the ethical concerns her actions have raised. Although it’s a little sad to see how Rep. Hill’s Congressional career ended (at least for now), it ended because of self-inflicted wounds, not because of a bitter ex-husband or a bunch of right wingers or even the Daily Caller.

But I guess claiming revenge porn is sexier than acknowledging a mistake.

1000 Days

150 Views

It’s been a 1,000 days since Donald Trump took office as the President of the United States. Duly elected, yet hounded constantly by the Left who have never accepted his election. Many of the promises he made on the campaign trail have been kept. Others have not, but most of these need the support of Congress to succeed.

Unfortunately the President is still fighting a battle in the houses of Congress. Not only against the Leftist Democratic Party that opposes and obstructs every action of this President but also against members of his own party as well.

Congress is ran by seasoned and professional politicians who want power and wealth for themselves. And this President isnt playing the game. He is working actively to drain the swap, and they don’t like it one bit.

The Washington DC swamp is large and extremely deep. It will take more than 2 terms to drain it. But even in 1000 days President Trump has taken a noticable amount from the cesspool. Thus he is constantly attacked and obstructed at every turn and every decision.

Keep the Faith Mr President. The people are behind you. We support you and your tireless work. And we will see you through a 2nd term.

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.