Thursday, December 19, 2019

UPDATED: Is It Really About The SOTU?

Remember the last time Pelosi tried to block President Trump from delivering the constitutionally mandated SOTU to the nation? Yesterday in a comment I questioned why nobody is asking about the SOTU. I think we know that Impeachment Theater is--among other things--an attempt from an electoral standpoint to rob President Trump of the presidential mantle, as it were. To cut him down to size. The SOTU is a display of "presidentiality." Is this what it's all about? Or, at a minimum, is this what the delay is about? Will Pelosi say that a president under impeachment can't address the nation, can't deliver the SOTU, from the House?

UPDATE 1: And now a word from a top Constitutional scholar. Among other profundities, Clyburn said, “Let’s give him a fair trial, and hang him.” This should play well. Trump is truly fortunate in his enemies:

Rush selected this passage from McConnell's speech as one he thought "really resonated":

MCCONNELL: President Trump is not the first president with a populist streak, not the first to make entrenched elites uncomfortable. He’s certainly not the first president to speak bluntly, to mistrust the administrative state, or to rankle unelected bureaucrats. None of these things — none of them — is unprecedented. I’ll tell you what would be unprecedented. It will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the Senate literally hands the House of Representatives a new partisan vote of no confidence. It will be unprecedented if we agree that any future House that dislikes any future president can rush through an unfair inquiry, skip the legal system, and paralyze the Senate with a trial. It will be unprecedented if the Senate says secondhand and thirdhand testimony from unelected civil servants is enough to overturn the people’s vote.


 ...[PREDICTION for bookmark: Upon return in January Speaker Pelosi will refuse to allow impeached President Trump to deliver a State of the Union address in the House.]
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


  1. I think it is all of the above designed, at the very least, to hamper the president.

    I know there are parallels to Andrew Johnson's impeachment, but I did not realize it went as far as the spelling in Trump's tweets.

    Also, the statements from Johnson could easily be from Trump.

  2. By the time otf the State of the Union speech, the Senate will have disposed of this one way or another. I do expect Pelosi to do something- either stage a walkout, refuse to allow the President in the chambers etc. It will have all the temper tantrum visuals that the impeachment itself had yesterday.

    I think Trump will goad her into it if it looks like she is going to behave.

    1. As I understand the timeline, the House recesses tomorrow. According to Cruz, the Senate wouldn't address it until 1/6. Mitch says he's content to wait. You say they WILL act. I WANT that to happen.

    2. There is no reason Cocaine Mitch can't set the date for the trial to begin. Force Nancy the Idiot to make a move.

      Rob S

  3. Well, impeachment is surely about hampering the president. As I suggested months ago (given it's December), impeachment is theatre to distract from Obama administration misdeeds at FBI/DOJ (subject of OIG report) and the Barr/Durham investigation, in an effort to change the outcome of 2020. It's wholly political, rather than legal, maneuvering--no different than the origin of the Russia hoax to enlist media to propagate propaganda with the Big Lie, repeated.

    Most of what the Democrats produce for consumption are evidence-free slanders that get repeated ad nauseum by their water-carriers in the media. But remember, Trump is the one trashing civility...

    Is it possible Pelosi will go so far as to not host the president for the SOTU? Sure.

    And then I could imagine Trump making alternative arrangements, like holding it at the Capital One Arena (formerly Verizon Center) in DC.

    1. It's a sad day for the country--except that the country may finally be gaining needed insight into the Dems.

    2. Mark writes: "It's a sad day for the country--except that the country may finally be gaining needed insight into the Dems."

      To my mind this is part of the Miracle of Trump, for which Donald Trump deserves enormous credit.

      In 2015 the Orange Reality TV Host bumbled off TV and the gossip pages and on to the national political scene and much of America laughed.

      As I think I've said here before I was initially not impressed. I began to listen when a small businessman I know explained to me what was happening to him and his regulated business under Obama. He told me that Trump gets it and I should listen to him. My friend told me this at the same time I was reading article after article in the New York Times and The New Yorker mocking Trump.

      So I began to listen carefully. Slowly I realized it wasn't just about the Wall that Mexico would pay for.

      I began to understand that Trump intended to address... everything. Everything that (from my perspective) we have screwed up or given away in this country over the last 30, 40, 50 years. All the issues.

      So this, to me, is the Trump Miracle. Not only has Trump addressed issues like illegal immigration, tax and regulatory reform, and conservative judges -- issues which he ran on -- but also the fundamental issues which are dividing...and threatening to destroy...this country: the central role of the family, the importance of work, the meaning of citizenship, the rule of law and the Constitution, the pervasive corruption in Big Government, and more.

      And, as Mark says, part of this Miracle of Trump is that we will now see the Dems for exactly who they are.

      No place to hide.

      Thank you President Trump.

    3. Totally. Who ever heard of the Deep State before, much less understood its methods and goals? Or fake news? The list goes on.

    4. Who knew there was a foreign policy 'interagency consensus' which binds the President of the United States?

      Who knew that a Director of the FBI would use the pretense of briefing a President-elect to surveil him for the purpose of developing evidence to use in his overthrow?

      Who had really thought through the implications of granting $3 billion in US (taxpayer-funded) aid and loans to the most corrupt country in Europe?

      Who knew that the President of the United States thought it was entirely ok for the son of his personal emissary to Ukraine (who also happened to be his Vice President) to join the board of one of the most corrupt companies in the Ukraine (and probably in the world) and get paid seven figures?

      Who knew that top aides reporting directly to the President regularly accessed top secret records of the NSA and 'unmasked' the names of innocent Americans who also happened to be political opponents?

      Who knew that a Director of the CIA would use offshore spies to infiltrate the campaign of the candidate of the other major political party and then, without evidence, accuse him of treason?

      Who knew that a lawyer in the FBI investigating President Trump would forge an email so as to defraud a federal court and attempt to further effect a coup against a sitting President with whom he had political disagreements?

      Who knew that lawyers working for a special counsel representing the United States of America would use unethical tactics to entrap and coerce associates of the nominee of the opposition party into testifying against the (victorious) candidate?

      Who would have thought the opposition party in Congress would vote to impeach the President of the United States without any evidence of a crime having been committed?

      Who would have thought its not a crime to erase and destroy thirty thousand emails under Congressional subpoena?

      Now we know all of these things are not only possible, but that they actually happened.

      And will undoubtedly happen again unless the actors are called to account.

  4. Just heard on Fox Business that McConnell had said he would not put the USCMA bill on the floor until the impeachment is completed. Will Nancy’s shenanigans cause this to be held up?

    1. Dems desperately need accomplishments to tell the voters about. Everyone knows about the GOP accomplishments--judges, judges, judges. Mitch is telling her: don't count on me to help you.

      All studies have shown that the judges issue is always huge with voters, especially conservatives.

    2. Doesn't have to be a hang up. McConnell could take up the trial.

      There is no legal reason for him not to.

  5. The way the demo'rats have contrived all of this and continue to play games...could Trump ultimately become the first POTUS to be de-impeached via the judicial branch? What about the Senate? Does it have the authority to find the Articles invalid due to procedural irregularities? Or does the Constitution give the House the absolute power to transparently fabricate an indictment of a president without actual evidence of anything?

    1. The Senate could dismiss the articles--as constitutionally insufficient. In more normal legal terms, it would be termed something in the nature of a failure to state a cause of action. This would not be a procedural irregularity but rather a statement that the articles are constitutionally defective or insufficient because they fail to state a ground for impeachment under the constitution.

      A motion to dismiss was made by Robert Byrd during the Clinton trial, but was rejected:

      Byrd's motion was made after the trial began, but I see no reason why such a motion couldn't be brought either as the first motion at the trial or--depending on Senate rules--before the trial actually began.

    2. So, yes, it could happen.

      60 impeachments and the Dems today refused to follow norms set forth in the mid 1800s.

    3. I would like to agree.

      But wouldn't the problem be in getting 51 votes? This would mean not losing Delecto, Collins, Murkowski and any other GOP Senator up for reelection in 2020 in a purple state or facing a tough opponent...

    4. The other side of that coin is, what would be their chances of reelection if they vote against Trump?

    5. I think Pierre Delecto and peers are unimpressed with the kindergarten antics of the rabble in the lower chamber.

    6. I very much suspect you're right. These guys run in statewide races, not in safe districts. They think being a Senator is a big deal. They're not about to surrender their self esteem to the likes of Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and Clyburn. Much less AOC and the squad.

  6. I vote that Cocaine Mitch has steelier resolve and determination than Botox Nancy.

  7. I can’t believe Paul Mirengoff (PowerLine’s resident #NeverTrumper) wrote this? Leopards may change their spots after all, given the right incentive:

    Chuck Schumer’s moan that “the facts” need to “com[e] out” before a full impeachment trial can occur is an invitation to a motion to dismiss the House’s articles of impeachment, once they arrive. The House had its opportunity to develop the facts. If it didn’t develop facts sufficient to support removing the president, the Senate shouldn’t waste its time on the matter.

    Mitch McConnell reportedly is considering a motion to dismiss. According to this report, he hinted that the Senate will move to dismiss the articles of impeachment after opening argument.

    McConnell noted that in the 1999 trial of Bill Clinton, Schumer supported a motion to dismiss the case. He also recalled that Schumer opposed calling live witnesses. This time around, Schumer wants to call at least four witnesses who did not appear before the House.

    More here:

    1. This post by Scott Johnson is hilarious:

    2. Mark, was just going to post that… Too funny.

    3. I will not forgive nor forget folks like him.

  8. The brouhaha over impeachment and the delay threats is just a smokescreen to mask what is really happening in the shadows.

    Pelosi has been tasked with turning over the card table and spilling all the pieces on the floor. Her mission is maximum distraction at all costs.

    Durham has been quietly putting numerous Deep State operatives in front of a Grand Jury for weeks now and the canaries are starting to sing.

    But none of that is really the big story.

    Soros is planning a major financial event that will be wheeled out next September in hopes of a reprise of 2008. And as if things couldn't get more insane, this planned financial debacle will be used by Trump to crush China's economy. Then Trump plans to finger Soros when it happens. Hilariously, Soros thinks that he is the one pulling the strings. And it's not 4D chess, it's old school business, Brooklyn style.

    1. UK is now investigating Soros re his funding of oppo in their election.

  9. Botox Nancy on her way to Batty Nancy. Funny headline over at CTH:

    "Incoherent Nancy Pelosi Releases the Flying Monkeys…"

    (could that be vodka in her water glass?)

    Sean Davis just said something incredibly funny about Dems and monkeys on Tucker, but this is a family blog...

  10. Soros, as a kid, survived NAZI Germany occupying his home country, but discovers Marxism in the UK, Marxism's birthplace. Soros goes on to wreck the economics of the country that formed him, educated him, and gave him wealth.

    Not what I would call a principled, just man, let alone nice.