Overheard in a restaurant the other night
A couple of evenings ago, the conversation at the next table between two women went like this:
“None of this would be happening if only Hillary Clinton had been elected.”
“Yes, and she would have been elected if only Russia hadn’t interfered on Trump’s behalf.”
Stuck in January, 2017. The Mueller report, the FISA abuses, the revelations about the Steel dossier, the Strzok/Page emails, and all the rest – no significance. Here are two people who continue to believe in Russiagate, and who continue to deeply mourn the fact that Hillary Clinton was screwed out of her rightful place at the helm of the country.
They are hardly alone. If you go to MSM sites or blogs on the Democratic side and read the comments there, you can see that these two woman voice the majority position. Although the veneration of Hillary Clinton is sometimes absent, there is the firm conviction that Trump is guilty of all the things of which he’s accused, and that he only won the election of 2016 (or appeared to win it) because it was stolen with help from the Russians. The recurrent argument is that he must be removed through impeachment and conviction now, because he is planning to steal the 2020 election as well, and then his trail of corruption will continue, only worse.
True Believers (in Russiagate or in any number of other narratives manufactured by the left for the purpose of crushing dissenting voices and reasserting their own control over what is disseminated and given credence) can seldom, if ever, be persuaded from their false notions through rational argument, being mostly impervious to facts and evidence. Eric Hoffer’s brilliant book, as relevant today as in 1951, should be read by anyone interested in the psychology of belief.
Letter to my representative who is a Dem:
I have been watching the impeachment inquiry on TV.
What I have observed is that there is a difference of opinion about foreign policy between the foreign-service professionals, the Democrat Party, and the President. It saddens me that the Democrat Party is trying to criminalize these differences in policy. This is typical of Banana Republics.
The hypocrisy is overwhelming. In 2016 the DNC and Clinton Campaign hired Fusion GPS, who hired British spy, Christopher Steele, to dig up dirt on candidate Trump in Russia. In addition, DNC operative, Alexandra Chalupa, spent time in Ukraine digging up dirt on Trump and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort. As a result of information released by the Ukraine, Manafort had to resign, even though there were no official charges against him. The unverified dirt that was dug up by these operations resulted in the FBI starting a counter-intelligence investigation of the Trump campaign called “Crossfire Hurricane.” The assumption was, based on the Steele dossier, that Trump was a Russian asset. A startling idea, but accepted as a real possibility by those who hated Trump. This investigation continued as the Trump administration was sworn in and began governing. Nothing was found, in spite of using advanced, covert intelligence methods. In spite of that, the FBI leadership was certain they would find something. When the FBI director was fired, the acting AG, Rosenstein, appointed a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, to continue the investigation. The Mueller investigation, which cost $35 million, found nothing.
Now, based on a call with the new President of the Ukraine, the transcript of which is available to all to read, Trump mentioned he would like to find out about what happened in the Ukraine during the 2016 election and that there was talk about shady dealings by Joe Biden’s son in Ukraine that people were wondering about. That could be interpreted as asking the Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political rival, Joe Biden. However, it was couched as asking a favor – not a demand, and foreign aid wasn’t even mentioned. Inquiring minds want to know how this is even close to what transpired during the 2016 election when big money was spent to dig up dirt on Trump in Russia and the Ukraine. The DNC – Clinton efforts, which have created havoc in the country for three plus years and undermined the governance of the country were ignored by the MSM, and the DOJ, but somehow the simple Trump inquiry is called a “high crime.”
Politics ain’t bean bag, but trying to criminalize political differences is exactly what has been happening in the Ukraine and other corrupt countries where new administrations try to jail their predecessors. It is divisive in the extreme and totally un-American.
We don’t need this. We have real challenges and they aren’t getting addressed. Propose better policies and plans. Beat your opponent at the ballot box. That’s what democracy calls for. Not trying to criminalize your opponent.
I urge Congress to get back to work and pass USMCA, work to lower medical costs, propose infrastructure programs, secure all our borders, and make this country better and more prosperous. That’s the American way.
Eric Hoffer’s brilliant book, as relevant today as in 1951, should be read by anyone interested in the psychology of belief. –j e
That’s “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer, folks, available from Amazon and most used bookstores everywhere!
I’m a fan too.
Other examples are the many, many commentators who insist that the impeachment hearings have produced “clear evidence” of some kind of misbehavior on Trump’s part, when in fact the hearings have produced only uncorroborated office gossip.
J.J.
Please provide us with your Representative’s response. If yours is anything like mine (Tom Emmer, Rino-MN), you’ll get a “canned” e-mail thanking you for your communication.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”
That, of course, was Jonathan Swift in 1721. It would have to be amended to include women who are even less likely to use logic and reason.
Sorry.
Arnold Kling’s (econ-culture) blog has a relevant post, which includes the first time I’ve read the phrase “emotional correctness”, tho it’s been used for a few years.
http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/more-agreement-with-me/
the rise of what social theorist Frank Furedi labeled “emotional correctness” in his book What’s Happened to the University? Furedi maintains that a governing purpose of higher education today is to protect the emotional comfort of students and others, regardless of how subjective and unreasonable the claim for comfort might be.
The heart, and the emotions, make the person WANT to “decide rationally” in a certain way. Then the brain “rationalizes”, with thoughts that seem reasonable, why the emotional decision is the rational one. Even when it’s not. Those who “want” to hate Trump find “reasons” for hating him.
Just like KKK Democrats who wanted to hate blacks found reasons for hating blacks.
Every smart person is smart enough to lie to themselves.
J.J.,
Adam Smith? Scheier? Jayipal?
Good luck.
Furedi maintains that a governing purpose of higher education today is to protect the emotional comfort of students and others, regardless of how subjective and unreasonable the claim for comfort might be.
No, it’s to cater to loosely-wired characters in the administrators’ preferred clientele. They don’t give a rip about the sensibilities of the evangelical student groups they harass.
There are still democrats that believe Al Gore was cheated out of the 2000 election by the supreme court. The supreme court should have allowed the vote counting in Florida to continue until the democrats found enough votes to put Gore ahead. Obviously Bush was colluding with the supreme court.
Furedi maintains that a governing purpose of higher education today is to protect the emotional comfort of students and others, regardless of how subjective and unreasonable the claim for comfort might be.
The weird thing to me is the students’ constant refrain of “our community” and the damage to thereof. College is just a way station even if it takes 5-6 years to graduate (as I understand is typical these days).
What community?
You’d think they were in an Amish settlement where they would spend the rest of their lives riding in buggies and raising barns.
Not sure who said it – “Man is not a rational animal, but rather a rationalizing animal”.
So true.
M. Williams. I believe it was Heinlein.
I wonder if the women Neo overheard were signaling to each other that they’re on the same side, the virtuous side.
Due to close encounters with folks like this, I conclude they do know better but force themselves to believe the Lie. Still, someplace, they know better and when the two beliefs are forced together, they get very upset. Sometimes it looks as if they’re about to have a seizure.
Let’s pray those Democrats’ fears are fully justified and realized!!
Kai – I too hope for the justification and realization of those fears.
Now off to the retirement home, to rile up grandpa about Samuel Tilden…
Not sure who said it – “Man is not a rational animal, but rather a rationalizing animal”. So true.
So true some of the time. The partisan Democrats posting the worst stuff on our Facebook wall were co-workers at one time. And not difficult or unreasonable co-workers. What is the source of their emotional investments? Haven’t a clue, and I spent a decade and a half living within walking distance of them and seeing them at the office every day.
Hillary and her crew knew what to do after they lost. If Comey, Brennan et al. get jailed, her dirty tricks will have failed. And, of course, Barack and Biden knew.
Once you reject facts, reason and logic… all that is left is wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking is an avoidance mechanism.
Cap[‘n Rusty; The usual boilerplate. Thank you for your concerns. 🙂
Griffin: Susan DelBene – Tech millionaire posing as a concerned pol.
I would dearly love to ask the two Hillary supporters the following questions. If your husband were as faithless in your marriage as Bill, would you stay married? If your husband had multiple accusations against him of sexual assault and even rape like Bill, would you stay married? What kind of person is Hillary that she persisted in such an obviously sham marriage? Why do you think Hillary would make a good president if she is willing to put up with such dishonest, if not outright criminal, behavior by her husband?
J.J,
That’s the district that got shifted around isn’t it? I on the other hand in the south end have Denny Heck who has beclowned himself on impeachment the last couple weeks. Sadly the Puget Sound area is a lost cause I’m afraid.
The part that was false about Russiagate was that Trump was involved in conspiring with the Russians. He wasn’t. But, that doesn’t mean that Russia was not actively involved in influencing the election via social media propaganda attacks. And, they may even have influenced the result of the election, though we will never know for sure. Regardless, the chaos and uncertainty in the government and bitter division in the population is the end result Putin hoped to achieve.
Some here are not going to want to hear this, but Trump is exacerbating the problem by denying that Russian meddling took place. I am sure he may feel that admitting a possible assist from Russia might delegitimize his presidency, but I think he is weakening his presidency by not grabbing the bull by the horns on this issue.
The answer would be that, a) Bill is a great progressive and ally who had needs that these women were glad to meet, just as much as the she who you were presently quizzing would be. Furthermore, you would be told, that it is none of your business, and those who complain about sexual encounters with Bill, are either liars or ungrateful fame seekers who were sought out and paid by the vast rightwing conspiracy to complain.
And b) that Hillary is a strong woman and saint who though hurt by these mostly unfounded slanders, has nonetheless bravely and cheerfully battled on against the forces of reaction, bigotry, and selfishness, for the good of mankind. Er, make that humankind … or peoplekind or maybe just womankind.
Paul in Boston, the decision to divorce or not to divorce Bill was Hillary’s to make, and is personal. What bothers me more is her very active participation in destroying, or trying to destroy, the reputations of women with whom Bill was involved either voluntarily or otherwise.
Roy Nathanson, is Trump denying that Russians tried to mess with the 2016 election? He regularly condemns the hoax that claims he and his campaign had anything to do with this, but the House, when Republicans were in charge, issued a report on Russian attempted interference which no one denies, so far as I know.
he House, when Republicans were in charge, issued a report on Russian attempted interference which no one denies, so far as I know.
I’m sure a six-digit expenditure on Facebook ads did terrible damage to the electoral process.
Paul in Boston, the decision to divorce or not to divorce Bill was Hillary’s to make, and is personal. What bothers me more is her very active participation in destroying, or trying to destroy, the reputations of women with whom Bill was involved either voluntarily or otherwise.
They’re two aspects of the same phenomena. The marriage is a seedy business partnership. Have the two of them lived in the same house in the last 18 years?
‘Have the two of them lived in the same house in the last 18 years?’
Depends on what your definition of lived is.
It
Is
A
Cult
Roy Nathanson,
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that anything Russia did or anything Russia is accused of doing affected the 2016 election. As far as I know, no one has even offered any sort of detailed theory on HOW proven Russian actions would have affected the election. All the commotion about Russian “interference” is nothing more than people who were wrong about the election fanatically seeking some reason for being wrong other than not being as smart as they think they are.
That’s why you still catch them talking like Trump colluding with Russia was proven true. What underlies the whole Ukraine thing is the conviction that Trump got away with it (foreign election meddling) once, he can’t get away with it again. This is not rational behavior that can be managed with a rational response.
Mike
Hillary would have done………. more of this..
As School District Implements Busing Over Near-Unanimous Opposition, Chinese Immigrants See Communism
The Howard County, Maryland, school board voted to implement a massive, 1970s-style busing program Thursday, despite overwhelming opposition.
After one vote failed, members went into a back room, and when they came out, one of the members who voted “no” was crying. They did a do-over and she changed her vote.
Board member Jennifer Mallo lectured to constituents who voiced displeasure, saying it was a “privilege” that they got to witness the meeting, admonishing them not criticize her on social media, and complaining about her salary.
Immigrants from China and the former Soviet Union said that what they were witnessing reminded them of the totalitarian regimes where they grew up.
Paul in Boston, at a restaurant during the primaries for the 2016 election I mentioned to a few Hillary supporting women that I would’ve divorced a man that did to me what Bill did.
Whoa, did they ever get angry. They actually yelled at me that they would ‘stand by their man,” like Hillary did. “She did everything she was supposed to,” they cried, “you are a bad person, a bad wife and your lack of enthusiasm will be the reason if she loses the election.” I was incredulous.
So, I try to keep my mouth shut, but it’s wearing.
Griffin: “Sadly the Puget Sound area is a lost cause I’m afraid.”
All is not lost. Tim Eyeman is going to run for governor. He’s not rich, but he is a populist like Trump. And he’s got supporters. They’ve thrown everything at him, but like a Timex, he takes a licking and keeps on ticking. His candidacy could be fun to watch. All the pearl clutching, all the outrage, all the claims that he’s scum. Who knows, maybe he could stir things up.
I watched Denny Heck’s performance. His version of things was total fiction, much like Schiff’s “parody” of the phone call. Sigh.
And, perhaps, it is for voters, like these two in the restaurant, that the Democrats continue with their insane actions.
You can’t fool all the people all the time; but, you just have to fool enough to get elected.
J.J.,
Really the best thing that could happen to Eyman and Washington republicans in general is if the city,county,state fight tooth and nail to defy the will of the voters on the car tab initiative. If the voters support a measure 53-47 and the govt just waves it away that is asking for a blowback. At least that’s my hopeful take. Then I think of King county and sigh.
MBunge,
There was a report issued by the House on Russian interference in the election back when the House was still controlled by the Republicans.
Beyond that there are various investigative reporting articles that conclude the same. Please review the list of references in the following Wikipedia entry… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
Eliminate all clearly the partisan reports, and there is still sufficient evidence that this did happen and will continue to happen, not just in the U.S., but in all the western democracies. It is a real problem.
Neo’s story vividly illustrates the validity of the proverb “A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is putting its pants on” (and its variants).
The internalized “truth” of the two speakers (which in reality is the proverb’s lie) blanketed the world, thanks to the Democrat’s media arm, before the real truth (the facts from the Mueller report) became known, long after the first version was cemented in their minds (the delay was deliberate, of course — akin to hiding the pants that the truth was trying to put on).
Roy Nathanson,
You didn’t read what I wrote. There is plenty of evidence Russia has tried to screw around with the 2016 election and American political discourse. But, and pay attention this time, there is NO EVIDENCE that any of it actually had any effect on the 2016 election. ZERO. NONE.
Can you name even one person whose vote was changed because of anything Russia did or is credibly accused of doing?
This is important because the evidence-free assumption that Russia DID have an effect on the election is one of the bedrock foundations of the current madness afflicting much of the public, the media, and our political establishment.
Mike
These ladies remind me of those Japanese soldiers who would occasionally stagger out of the jungle of some remote Pacific island, decades after the war ended. Still loyal to the Emperor, still believing Imperial Japan was winning the war.
LOL.
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but the only reason the left has any concern at all about this puerile Russian interference in the 2016 election is because for once they don’t believe the foreign interference was on their behalf.
Ted Kennedy once asked the KGB for assistance against Ronald Reagan, China spent untold millions helping Bill Clinton defeat Bob Dole, Barry Obama had the address verification illegally disabled on his campaign website during both 2008 and 2012, thus allowing donations from who knows who and from where, and Hillary Clinton infamously ran her own private state department collecting foreign money for favors to be delivered later when she became president.
But no, the real problem is Russian facebook ads, because Orange Man Bad. This is another another of the endless examples of how routine events and everyday actions are dastardly impeachable offenses for Republicans, while open crime and corruption are sacrosanct and above reproach for leftists.
The worthless GOP and its craven, supine acceptance of this state of affairs is how the party ended up with Donald Trump as nominee, despite the party’s best efforts. It is completely typical that the GOP House would produce a report backing up the nonsense assertions by the democrats, because that’s just what the GOP does.
I bet this report mentioned the endless and relentless foreign interference in American elections on behalf of the left not at all, not even once, because did I mention that the GOP is worthless?
Yes, I did.
The first half of 2020 will see articles about “What would Hillary have done” on cherry picked topics supporting and reinforcing the mindset that Neo witnessed.
I thought for a while it was just politics with the usual attempts by the Democrats to criminalize policy differences, but it is something different. It is a type of mass hysteria similar but on a much larger scale to what happened in the McMartin child case.
The Hamilton 68 project is an example of the belief. Here is how they describe themselves: “In the Federalist Papers No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote of protecting America’s electoral process from foreign meddling. Today, we face foreign interference of a type Hamilton could scarcely have imagined.” I subscribed to RT but fail to see anything there that is not to be found in many foreign newspapers. Ditto with the other examples that they claim are influencing our electoral process. It only exists in their beliefs.
I noticed a mention above of True Believer by Eric Hoffer. I recently bought a used copy and reread it. This has happened before, but the number of believers seems to be much higher.
Hillary will run again, not entering any primaries but taking the Convention.
Trump will obliterate her, taking both houses.
Whoa, did they ever get angry. They actually yelled at me that they would ‘stand by their man,” like Hillary did. “She did everything she was supposed to,” they cried, “you are a bad person, a bad wife and your lack of enthusiasm will be the reason if she loses the election.” I was incredulous. So, I try to keep my mouth shut, but it’s wearing.
Hit ’em back with it and get better friends. (I’d ask them if sodomizing Huma is something she was supposed to do).
These ladies remind me of those Japanese soldiers who would occasionally stagger out of the jungle of some remote Pacific island, decades after the war ended. Still loyal to the Emperor, still believing Imperial Japan was winning the war.
I think it was one guy, discovered around about 1971 holed up in a forested area on some Pacific island (Saipan?).
Hillary will run again, not entering any primaries but taking the Convention.
Unless Messrs and Mmes. Sanders, Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg are each in turn run over by a bus, that’s not going to happen. You keep repeating this, and it’s just silly nonsense.
The recurrent argument is that he must be removed through impeachment and conviction now, because he is planning to steal the 2020 election as well, and then his trail of corruption will continue, only worse.
Granted, albeit that the argument (Dems hold) stinks on ice.
The question for the thinking Democrats now, particularly those in positions of power with responsibility to decide where their caucus/party/followers go next is this: which is worse?
1) Drop this turd of an impeachment attempt before it drags everyone down further, showing meanwhile the utter stupidity and absurdity of having started on this road to begin with, and hence, the groveling weakness of the party . . . or,
2) Carry on to political suicide in an absolute losing gesture of imbecilic confidence in an equivalent imbecility of the body politic? Tell the voters straight out: “We Democrats believe with all our being that you voters are unrecoverable morons!” Not a good look for any politician.
It’s their brush; it’s their paint bucket; it’s their labor of years; it’s their tiny dry corner of the room; now, they can stand an eternity in death-like quiet stillness, or choose a path upon which to leave their embarrassing tracks.
Pathetic, either way.
As such a blinking warning light that these people cannot possibly be trusted with decisions marking out your or the nation’s future.
All very interesting; but to paraphrase Travis Bickle: “Overhear this!!!”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nyt-names-fbi-resistance-lawyer-under-criminal-investigation-fabricating-fisa-docs
(AKA, “Inching ever closer….”)
https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/
(AKA, “Just the facts, ma’am; just the facts….”)
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/paul-krugman-more-one-toke-over-line
(AKA, “And heeee’s back!!! (Um, but he never left….)”)
The question for the thinking Democrats now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux9YdDee2DY
Xennady, I concur.
Roy Nathanson, the Russians have interfered in every U.S. election since 1946, and we in theirs.
There are many irrational men and many rational women, but it is an unfortunate truth that a majority female vote got every Democrat President elected since women’s sufferage. Women are much more susceptible to the concept of a paternal, Federal government.
Realizing that curiosity killed the kat…but just how did the US interfere in Soviet “elections” since 1946?
(Unless you meant to say that the Soviets interfered in Soviet “elections” since 1946 (and of course way, way before that…).)
You may be able to fool all/some of the people some/all of the time, but you can fool yourself for as long as you want to.
Here’s a great piece by one Timothy Egan, who believes impeachment battle was won a few days ago by Sondland’s testimony, which Egan presents as a flashback after the Democrats triumph in November 2020.
Election Day, 2020. The polls have just closed. All indications point to a resounding verdict. Historians, loath to make narrative sense of an age without waiting for the vapors of passion to pass, agree on one thing.
It was, they say, Nov. 20, 2019, that ensured the outcome — a day and a night that crystallized the choice for the majority of Americans ready to toss Donald Trump from office.
The impeachment hearings had been bumping along, the main story clear: a parade of impeccable public servants trying to uphold the values of their country against a gangster White House. A candidate who had gloated over chants of “lock her up” for an opponent who had used unsecured emails had, once elected, conducted foreign policy by extortion, on open cellphone lines penetrated by the Russians.
Most Americans felt that Trump had committed an impeachable offense, but barely half favored removing him by the constitutional equivalent of the death penalty.
Then came the bullet-headed Republican, Gordon Sondland, an oddball hotelier whose ambassadorship to the European Union was a million-dollar quid pro quo. Some predicted he would take the Fifth.
…
“We followed the president’s orders,” he said. “Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.”
…
It was now clear beyond doubt; there were more smoking guns than you would find after a hunting trip with Dick Cheney.
“The Day That Decided the 2020 Election”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-day-that-decided-the-2020-election/ar-BBX9Sqf
In Egan’s daydream a Democrat emerges from the primaries who takes Obama’s elder statesman advice to pull back from radicalism, then a hard-working core of women push that candidate over the top.
And they lived happily ever after.
A month or so into 2020, Trump would be impeached.
— Timothy Egan
Very good: a prediction against which to test. In January — or by February at the latest — the Democrats of the House of Representatives will pass by a 218 or greater roll call vote an Impeachment Resolution against the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
On what grounds?
“He violated the sacred oath”.
Plain as mud.
Well ok, no, it was “[He] conducted foreign policy by extortion, on open cellphone lines penetrated by the Russians.” Yes, that’s it, that’s the ticket . . . talking about A$AP Rocky . . . and Sweden . . . on an open cellphone line.
Much better.
Oh please, Oh please, Oh please, Oh please, Oh please Democrats, Oh please, Oh please DO THIS! DO IT, DO IT, DO IT! You’ll never regret the decision.
Timothy Egan of course being a most unbiased, rational and reliable observer….
sdferr: That would be something to look forward to!
However, I doubt Democrats will vote to impeach. The “inquiry” went poorly enough for them, even when they had complete control, that Trump’s numbers went up. Moving to a real trial in the Senate under Republican control would be way too dangerous.
Besides there is the problem that a Senate trial in 2020 would pull Senators Warren, Sanders, Booker, Klobuchar and maybe others I don’t remember off the campaign trail to attend. (Hee hee!)
My guess is Democrats will issue a sulky statement of moral victory with a few dark notes about the Senate being rigged by Cocaine Mitch, then take the high ground about returning to the nation’s business and Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Sorry, that last bit was my evil twin talking.
I’m horribly sad, huxley, to say that although months ago just as the wishyblower emerged and talk of impeachment began I myself predicted here that there would be no Democrat majority for a Bill of Impeachment, now, as I most earnestly desire and encourage the Democrats to screw their courage to the sticking point and make a majority to take down their monstrous enemy, Donald J. Trump, I rue that you are most likely correct: they will not. Even though Epstein didn’t kill himself but he did kill Trump since Trump flew on Epstein’s airplane. Schade . . . golden opportunity missed.
One VERY smart and important thing happened when Mueller’s Report was released. There was expected to be some delay (to write a summary?) and the MSM was gearing up to present details of shadowy “obstruction”.
But the Trump Admin swiftly jumped up and and stated the mantra: No Collusion. Then they repeated it over and over. Took the wind out of their sails before they even got started. Rare for the Repubs to be so nimble.
Speaking of things overheard in a restaurant…
In the Spanish language press, an audio clip of a conversation between the Colombian Ambassador to the U.S. and the new Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs was released. In that conversation the Colombian Ambassador criticized the U.S. State Department, calling it an NGO, meaning that he percieved them as operating completely independently of executive authority.
THAT is how bad the situation is at State.
huxley: However, I doubt Democrats will vote to impeach.
I lean that way but this is a case of emotions over common sense so who knows. With a right to a fair trial this could turn into Kabuki theater. What is to stop the exploration of whistleblower’s connection to the Deep State and Schiff? Brennan and Clapper could be asked to testify in which the latter can be asked about his assertion that he was just following orders. Did the orders include that Trump should be impeached? With Trump’s combative personality you know that he is not going to back away from exploring any venue to defend himself. The Bidens will be on prominent display and that should also mark the end of Biden’s presidential bid.
As for the “overheard in a restaurant”, that doesn’t surprise me. I know several well educated people who sincerely believe that Trump colluded with Russia. This belief is more widespread than people realize. BBC once had a report about a meeting, I think it was G10, in Germany where there was a dinner for all the leaders in full public view. Trump went to say hello to Putin and BBC wrote it up as if it was a brush-contact that would have made Philby proud.
Oh, but they’d have to recuse themselves, since they have a clear conflict of interest in damaging a political rival. We’ve been told that such behaviour is a high crime. Maybe Cocaine Mitch removes them from the Senate?
A Senate trial would also likely end Biden’s candidacy.
This whole Trump-Ukraine fairytale is just more DARVO. Due process in a Senate trial will help unwind the Ukraine narrative about Trump and refocus attention where it belongs: on Hunter and Sleepy Joe.
In the unlikely event the impeachment process moves to a Senate trial, practically the entire current democrat debate stage will be capsized. Hillary’s chances of entering the race go way up if this happens.
Imagine a dem primary finale… with diffuse concentrations of support for a clatch of sure-losers… ending in familiar scandal at the convention when The Superdelegates subvert the will of the people once again and crown Hillary queen of the swamp.
Man, that would be keen. When I think about this unlikely course of events… https://youtu.be/FPoQc827EXA
From the “What you won’t overhear in a restaurant” files:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/state-department-releases-detailed-accounts-biden-ukraine-corruption
Not that it matters, really. Holy Joe is untouchable. (Right?)
Actually, the entire Democratic Party—in their deluded parallel universe—is untouchable…. (Which I suppose means they’re not deluded after all—as long as they can double and triple down with their delusions.)
Remember: for the virtuous, one must not get distracted. Getting Trump is supreme here and one must ignore anything that might stand in the way of that most moral of goals as “a Republican distraction”. (Those Republicans really play so dirty….)
Rufus T. Firefly:
I’m not 100% sure I know exactly what you’re trying to say with this “majority female vote got every Democratic President elected since women’s suffrage” statement. If you mean what I think you mean, though – that the women always voted much more for Democrats than the men did – you are wrong.
Please see this. An excerpt:
Interesting, no?
Off topic, but wanted to share…
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-23/uc-officials-recommend-dropping-sat-admission-requirement
No further comment is required. This article is self-sufficient to show the sad state of the University of California system.
Regarding Russian meddling with the 2016 election, it seems clear to me that two very different ideas have been merged in the minds of a lot of people, probably intentionally by the Democrats/MSM. There is the apparent fact that Russia attempted to influence voters–via phony Facebook accounts, releasing damaging information, etc etc. I don’t suppose anyone can really know what actual effect this may have had.
The other is the notion that the Russians somehow changed votes or vote counts, by “hacking” something in some way. Those are obviously two totally different things and as far as I know there is no evidence at all that this occurred. But there are a lot of people who believe it. No, I don’t know how many are “a lot,” but I certainly do run into it often.
Someone above mentioned Chinese money going to Bill Clinton in one or both (I forget) of the elections he won. Good reminder. The Democrats were outraged that anybody would suggest such a thing, and if I recall correctly were successful in thwarting its investigation.
Re: Impeachment vote. According to Michael Goodwin, Pelosi can’t back out now.
Of course, there’s no question Trump would much prefer the House not brand him with the “I” word, but that’s a pipe dream.
If Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff can’t muster 218 votes on a set of articles after five long days of public testimony and hyperbolic assertions that the president is an existential threat to the world, Trump will claim he’s been exonerated. Who could blame him?
Pelosi can’t let that happen, having picked her poison by embracing the whistleblower complaint before she saw the transcript of Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine. Turning back now is not an option, so she’ll beg, bribe and twist the arms of any reluctant Dems to get to 218.
That vote will probably come in December, with a Senate trial starting in January.
“Impeachment trial is the ace up President Trump’s sleeve”
https://nypost.com/2019/11/23/goodwin-impeachment-trial-is-the-ace-up-president-trumps-sleeve/
It’s tricky. But a Senate trial, especially coming on top of the Barr/Durham/Horowitz reports (fingers crossed), sounds terribly risky. It doesn’t seem Democrats have thought this through.
____________________________________________
Spade: I don’t care what your secrets are. But I can’t go ahead without more confidence in you than I’ve got now. You’ve got to convince me that you know what this is all about, that you aren’t just fiddling around, hoping that it will all come out right in the end.
Brigid: Can’t you trust me a little longer?
–“The Maltese Falcon”
I thought that impeachment looked like the Democrats’ best shot, given the base’s ravenous hunger for it and the oncoming DOJ reports.
What else could they do? Aside from their jobs…
But I didn’t expect their case to be quite this weak nor that the public would lose patience as quickly as they have. Good for the public.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice…
Plus Trump was ever-so-nimble, releasing the phone transcript on the spot. He caught the Democrats in some state of immodest undress. Great move.
The majority of the human race bases its beliefs on what they WANT to be true.
After further thought, I agree that Pelosi and the House dems have to vote to impeach Trump. They have to do so in order to hold on to their activist base.
They of course know that the Senate will refuse to convict Trump. Which with the assistance of the MFM, will allow them to push the narrative that the Republicans protected Trump from Justice.
Their strategy is obvious; create the perception in the public’s mind that… where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Their foremost goal is to deny Trump re-election. Their secondary goal is to paint Congressional Republicans as corrupt, so as to gain more seats in Congress.
Geoffrey Britain: Do I want to know what MFM stands for? 🙂
However, what happens if the DOJ reports come out and McConnell is grilling all our favorite people under oath? What if some suspects have already flipped? I’d bet McConnell can leverage the DOJ reports into the impeachment trial.
It’s bad if Pelosi disappoints the base, but what is the limit of the other downside? I’m not expecting Obama in an orange jump-suit, but it could be pretty damn bad for Democrats. There are worse things than disappointing one’s base.
Pelosi could see it coming, but she got out-manouvered by the extremists in her own camp. Now, she and the Democrats are in bind. if they back off and don’t impeach, they look weak and it will splinter the Democratic Party. If they proceed with impeachment, then it goes to the Republican controlled Senate where they will subpoena everyone involved in this hoax and expose the malfeasance involved in this witchhunt.
Pass the popcorn…
Mac,
Exactly so! Thank you for clarifying what I failed to in my comments above.
I also agree that an impeachment trial in the Senate poses grave risk for the Democrats. If they’re really smart… problematic as that maybe, Pelosi will hold an impeachment vote in the House but have it just fail to pass by a few votes.
That would allow Pelosi et al to argue that they did act to impeach Trump. They would then hold on to their activist base, while avoiding the trap awaiting them in a Senate trial. They could then continue to demonize Trump.
If they’re really smart… problematic as that maybe, Pelosi will hold an impeachment vote in the House but have it just fail to pass by a few votes.
Geoffrey Britain: Ooo…clever!
Of course that does leave Trump the opportunity to crow exoneration, and let slip the dogs of something.
The dogs of nyah-nyah. I’ve given it some thought.
And we all know the Democrats hate to be nyah-nyah-ed.
J.J.:
I have been watching the impeachment inquiry on TV.
I pretty much guarantee you that your Congressperson’s staffer read no further than this line and counted your message in the “support” column. :-\
My manager at work taught me an important lesson for business correspondence: put the punchline at the top and the detailed explanations after, that way even if they don’t want to read through the whole thing they’ll still get the point.
Roy Nathanson,
I used the word “interfered” in regards to the U.S. to make the obvious tie to the type of meddling Russia likely did in our 2016 election. Both nation’s have had covert and overt operations in one another’s countries and other countries in attempts to limit the other’s power and influence.
My reference was to cloak and dagger stuff, which we’ll likely never have a full account of, but isn’t something like the Voice of America a 1940s version of Facebook?
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/voice-of-america-begins-broadcasts-to-the-soviet-union-feb-17-1947-219288
Geoffrey Britain on November 24, 2019 at 7:01 pm said:
… will allow them to push the narrative that the Republicans protected Trump from Justice.
Their strategy is obvious; create the perception in the public’s mind that… where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Their foremost goal is to deny Trump re-election. Their secondary goal is to paint Congressional Republicans as corrupt, so as to gain more seats in Congress.
* * *
Their end goal (for which these two are waypoints) is building a leftist majority at the Supreme Court. They do not dare let Trump make any more appointments.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/23/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-after-having-chills-and-fever/
She’s home now and apparently doing well, but very unlikely to last another 5 years.
I R A Darth Aggie on November 24, 2019 at 3:01 pm said:
Besides there is the problem that a Senate trial in 2020 would pull Senators Warren, Sanders, Booker, Klobuchar and maybe others I don’t remember off the campaign trail to attend.
Oh, but they’d have to recuse themselves, since they have a clear conflict of interest in damaging a political rival. We’ve been told that such behaviour is a high crime. Maybe Cocaine Mitch removes them from the Senate?
* * *
I like it.
neo,
Looks like you may have caught me! I’ve heard reference quite a few times to some sort of statistic about the impact of the women’s vote on Presidential elections, but, as I search the internet to defend my statement I’m not finding anything to support what I had heard, or, perhaps, misheard.
There is strong polling evidence that Clinton and Obama benefitted from the women’s vote, but polling data prior to the 60s seems unreliable. One article I just read claims women voted in lesser numbers for FDR than men, which I find surprising.
I’ll do more research to see if I can find the statistic I have heard several pundits reference, but in the meantime I just wanted to pop in and let you know I can’t currently defend it and what I am able to find jibes with what you wrote.
Looks like my bluster is more in line with the first two of Sam Clemens’ three types of lies.
Barry Meislin on November 24, 2019 at 3:48 pm said:
From the “What you won’t overhear in a restaurant” files:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/state-department-releases-detailed-accounts-biden-ukraine-corruption
* * *
Democrats.
Petard.
Some assembly required.
Appropos the zerohedge “be careful what you wish for” story.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1119/kass111919.php3
“The feelings of bureaucrats are important, yes. Feelings are intensely important to the left now, and tears are even better, especially on TV..” — John Kass
* * *
They play their games in an alternate reality; this is a much more common perspective on life.
“Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women, transwomen, and pajama boys!” – Conan the Barbarian
Rufus T. Firefly:
Well, for what it’s worth, I initially had the same impression you had, till I looked it up.
Here’s another idea for Pelosi’s Choice:
“We aren’t finished, the day is not over,” she told reporters Thursday. Many people, especially among her party’s activist base and even within her own House caucus will interpret this as a commitment to seeing impeachment through to the end. I am not so sure. When she adds that the “testimony of one person may lead to the need for testimony of another,” what I take away from it is that she would prefer to see impeachment-related hearings go on for a few more months until suddenly she is able to declare, without losing any face among her more enthusiastic members, that the White House’s continued obstruction has simply dragged on the process for too long and that the whole thing is, alas, no longer viable. Time to win at the ballot box!
“Where is Nancy Pelosi on impeachment?”
https://theweek.com/articles/880136/where-nancy-pelosi-impeachment
But can Democrats really keep the inquiry going for another 2-3 months (even with the holidays)? It seems people are bored already and, according to polls, are taking it out on Democrats.
How long before people start throwing rotten fruit and vegetables?
To Rufus T. Firefly and Neo,
Now THAT is what debate is about! Thank you! Honest discourse with mutual respect leads to greater understanding of the (objective) truth.
“Curiouser and curiouser” snippet from today’s NYT International Edition (first page, right-most column–what we used to call “column 8”):
Headline — “In Senate, as before, Trump won’t yield an inch”
(Fourth paragraph)
…
“The White House and congressional Republicans allied with Mr. Trump are preparing for a Senate trial in which they will not only declare Mr. Trump’s innocence but also present a version of events that portray him as the victim of a broad plot to undermine his presidency even before it began.”
…
“…won’t yield an inch…”
“…a version of events…”
Heh…. This is genuine “Through the Looking Glass” stuff.
All the fantasy that’s fit to print.
AKA disgustingly funny.
(One’s mileage will naturally vary….)
It comes down to whether the adults or the children are running the Democrat Party. I come down on the no impeachment side. Pelosi may not have as strong a hand as she once did, but I think she still can lasso the cats and prevent them from blowing up any chance they had in 2020 (which I admit is not great) and blowing up the whole Democrat Party with impeachment. I think they will vote a censure motion, which they know will go nowhere in the Senate, and then go home, or on the campaign trail, as applicable. Note that censure was mentioned in the last sentence of Peggy Noonan’s (a diehard NeverTrumper) otherwise completely nonsensical and unintelligible column in yesterday’s WSJ.
High motivating factor to impeach Trump or impair his re-election.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/justice-ginsburgs-health-a-latent-issue.php
Companion piece.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/supreme-court-term-limits-have-bipartisan-support/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=first
High motivating factor to impeach Trump or impair his re-election
AesopFan: I saw the PL piece. It’s a thought. OTOH it seems Democrats have already pushed all their chips in. They can dial the impeachment up to 11, to switch metaphors, but will it make any difference?
I guess it’s a valid tactic in case RBG retires next year in order to delay her replacement in case Democrats can defeat Trump. It does seem risky if impeachment support continues to slip away.
It’s wacky to imagine an election year in which an impeachment, presidential campaigns and the Barr/Durham/Horowitz reports are going on. I have a hard time seeing that as winning scenario for the Democrats. But it will be a good year for bloggers!
_______________________________________________
BTW, in a url you can clip everything to the right of the question mark including the question mark. This works too:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/supreme-court-term-limits-have-bipartisan-support/
All that other jazz is information about you and your setup.
The real question is whether Democrats have any aces to play. If they did, it seems they would have played them, or at least one of them, upfront, but they haven’t.
Are they just fiddling around, as Sam Spade asked Brigid O’Shaugnessy, hoping that it will all come out right in the end? It rather looks that way.
Meanwhile, they are still hoping to pry loose Trump’s tax records:
“Hearings over, all eyes on Supreme Court showdowns over Trump’s financial records”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/trump-taxes-supreme-court/index.html
I’ve given up second-guessing the Supremes.
“…fiddling around…”
I suspect that that’s precisely their “ace”.
Keep it up 24/7
Keep up the steady barrage of steaming BS, with the MSM providing—with no letup—the “heavy artillery” of wall-to-wall echo.
Keep on making crazy accusations.
Keep on maintaining a state of crisis.
Keep on with the sordid, salacious, sickening slander and character assassination.
Trump, Trump, Trump.
This is precisely their ace. And we’re at the stage that it doesn’t matter what they say, what lies they broadcast, how much they froth at their collective mouths….
….since they are too smart, too moral, too patriotic to lose. Nor will be there be any consequences to pay. Onward to victory. Moscow by September.
No, they cannot fail and will not fail—especially since their oh-so-convincing (in their eyes) portrayal of Trump as the archetypal villain of our time (or perhaps of all time) cannot but be believed by the electorate.
And so, the question for the electorate regarding these dishonorable, dishonest, antics is either:
The Democrats are evil: do we want such scurvy purveyors of evil to run the country?…
…or:
Giving the Democrats the benefit of the doubt (i.e., they’re not evil but merely insane): do we want these hysterical nut jobs—those poor pathetic dears—to run the country?
Choices….
… the Democrats will take the position that a *Republican* president who is in the midst of impeachment proceedings should not
name a Supreme Court justicebe breathing, and they may claim that anyjustice namedrespiration in such circumstances is illegitimate. — J. Hinderacker (with modifications for clarity)Should she become unable to continue serving in the near future–improbable, but by no means out of the question–t
She has metastatic cancer in her lungs, and your single best guess is that it’s a recurrence of the pancreatic cancer she had 10 years ago. I don’t think it’s improbable that she’ll die shortly.
Just to even out the playing field somewhat, maybe this should be printed on the menus?….
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/here-what-horowitz-report-should-conclude
One leftist that gets it—and who has been getting it consistently. (So maybe there is hope out there….)
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/24/the-bribery-bait-and-switch/
“…fiddling around…”
I suspect that that’s precisely their “ace”.
Keep it up 24/7…
Barry Meislin: It has been their ace, true, but stuff works until it doesn’t. They’ve been at this for almost three years, depending on when you start to count. People catch on or stop caring. They may even begin turning against the Democrats, which is what the polls show.
Is that all there is to an attempt to overthrow the president of the United States? Just a bunch of bureaucrats who felt overlooked? Because if there is more to it than that, I haven’t seen the evidence. What I’ve seen is one witness after the other who swore loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, and claimed to be nonpartisan, but who worked to undermine the foreign policy of the elected president because it didn’t square with the “consensus views of the interagency,” whatever that is. I haven’t found the “interagency” referenced anywhere in the Constitution, but these diplomats and spies swear fealty to it, over and above either the president or the Constitution.
“The Trump Impeachment Theme Song: ‘Is That All There Is?'”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/25/the_trump_impeachment_theme_song_is_that_all_there_is_141804.html
Of course that song is the immortal Peggy Lee at her best and most shocking:
“Is That All There Is ? / Peggy Lee”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sWTnsemkIs
. . . at her best and most shocking
Somehow I come away with the sense that Mr. Miele didn’t grasp the whole intention of the song, thus misadapting it to his purpose. I could be wrong, but just don’t think it fits the circumstances. In fact, makes his case turn upside down.
huxley: “The dogs of nyah-nyah” is brilliant.
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-resistance-digs-their-hole-deeper/#more-11293‘
Latest remarks from Jim Kunstler.
LeClerc,
Superb.
Thanks.
Some highlights of the methods and patterns used by the Stalinist “resistance” (AKA the former Democratic Party).
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/25/dont-let-lefts-cynical-hit-on-nunes-and-giuliani-work-again/ (H/T Powerline blog)
The “resistance” can use this playbook again and again because they have the vast power of the corrupt MSM at their back AND because the Republicans have until now been opting to play by the RULEBOOK.
No more. The DP’s total disrespect for the law, for dignity and for civilized behavior, and its systematic resorting to a one campaign after another of dirty tricks have compelled the Republicans to open their eyes and reassess their congressional colleagues.
Having concluded, finally and no doubt regretfully, that “the resistance” will stop at nothing, the Republicans are now pushing back—Giuliani and Nunes have simply had enough—which will further enrage the DP-MSM mafia.
Since how dare the Republicans try to defend themselves?!
Palestinian rules.
MBunge,
Saying that there is no evidence that the Russian propaganda campaign had any affect on the election outcome is like saying the American MSM’s predominantly leftist slant has no affect on American public opinion.
These are things that just can’t be proven. Personally, I suspect that their campaign contributed significantly to the extreme polarization of the U.S. political landscape, but then so did, and does, the MSM.
The end result is that American unity and political will have been weakened. And, for the authoritarian states of the world, that is a big win.
The social media influence of the subcontractors and propagandists employed directly by RT, TeleSur, and others is not used just against the U.S. They employed in the promotion of dissent and division throughout the world. The current wave of unrest in Latin America has been largely fomented by leftist professional propagandists and agitators.
For those who don’t want to believe this, I suppose this sounds like the the paranoid ravings of a lunatic. But, if you want to see an example, look at @Greyzone on Twitter. These guys are very coordinated and professional at what they do. This is their full-time job. Who pays them?
These are things that just can’t be proven.
Is there an ad agency who will try to sell you on the proposition that a six figure sum in Facebook ads will move the needle in a country with 200 million adult citizens?
“…Russian propaganda campaign…”
This meme was pushed by Hillary Clinton and those hired by her (and those hired by those hired by her) to create the back story for the meme (and resulting “investigation”) and then justify spreading that meme (and “investigation”) far and wide, high and low. It was also pushed by the Obama administration and its cadres in the DOJ/FBI (one would like to call them “rogue” cadres but that, unfortunately, would very much seem to be impossible).
Curiously these details seem to be missing from your post (realizing, certainly, that one can’t include everything….). Nor should it stretch the realm of probability to infer that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration operatives were in on this together.
Just what was this “Russian propaganda campaign”, again?
“These are things that just can’t be proven.”
Actually, they can. We can look at what the Russians did or at least what they’re credibly accused of doing and then compare it to all the other things that likely affected the election. For example, did Russia have more impact on the election than…
CBS? No.
NBC? No.
ABC? No.
The Trump campaign? No.
The Clinton Campaign? No.
CNN? No.
MSNBC? No.
Fox News? No.
The DNC? No.
The RNC? No.
The New York Times? No.
The Washington Post? No.
The Huffington Post? No.
Breitbart? No.
Drudge Report? No.
Rush Limbaugh? No.
And etc, etc, etc.
The point of stating there’s no evidence is to force you to try and quantify it, so Russian meddling can then be put into perspective. If you were to put together a list of individuals or institutions which influenced the 2016 Presidential campaign, there would be hundreds and possibly thousands of names of that list before putting on Russia on it.
If Hillary had won, would people STILL be talking about Russian “interference” in 2016? NO. I’m not sure what the exact clinical term is but Russia and the 2016 election has become a pathological obsession for many which warps their view of reality. That’s a far bigger problem then an electoral shenanigans from a foreign country.
Mike
huxley: “The dogs of nyah-nyah” is brilliant.
Mac; Why, thank you!
In this sign we shall conquer:
Crow “exoneration” and let slip the dogs of “nyah-nyah.”
Art Deco:
I have never seen any medical report that indicates her lung cancer was a metastasis. It could easily be another primary cancer; she’s had a few separate primary cancers, and the description of the nodules as well as the lack of further treatment indicates to me the strong possibility that it was an early primary cancer rather than metastatic cancer from the pancreas. The latter is possible, of course, but signs don’t point to it as far as I can see.
If you have a link to a reputable source that says it’s metastatic, I’d be curious to see.
I have never seen any medical report that indicates her lung cancer was a metastasis.
I’m relying on Mike K’s judgment, as well as what I’ve been counseled about pancreatic cancer when it appeared in our circle. (“Well, if this originated in the bile duct or the colon, maybe it won’t come back. If it originated in the pancreas, you can expect it to return”). You really should be addressing him on this issue.
“If Hillary had won, would people STILL be talking about Russian “interference” in 2016? NO.”
This is because “RussiaRussiaRussia” was always created by and driven by Democrats. When they lost the 2016 election, the Democrat party started heavily pushing the “Collusion” nonsense as a way to delegitimize the duly elected President that wasn’t theirs. The rank and file accepted it eagerly because they couldn’t believe that they had lost. It was simply not possible that enough people outside of blue urban islands had voted “Not Hillary.” They were ready and eager to accept that this loss only happened because of external evil influence.
They’re not able or willing to accept that Hillary Clinton lost because enough people in enough places were willing to vote for Trump, if that’s what it took, to keep Clinton’s disgustingly patronizing, corrupt incompetency out of the White House. Neither are they able to accept that they have veered so far left that it’s not just a few right-wing nutjobs to their right – they have alienated a significant percent of the population who is not a far-left radical.
They will continue to push harder and harder. They are unaccustomed to resistance; the right normally rolls over like a puppy. But they’re committed now and can’t back down gracefully. Fully expect that if/when UkraineGate blows over, they will regroup and go after tax returns, third- and fourth-hand gossip, outright fiction, whatever they think it will take.
Apparently there is a growing sense that the Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry” is not delivering the goods, voters have noticed, and moderate Dems are getting nervous:
On Sunday morning, Washington Post reporter Rachael Bade told a CNN panel that she’s hearing that moderate Democrats have been looking at the public shift in the polls on impeachment and are getting cold feet.
…
It’s become increasingly clear that the so-called witnesses are barely witnesses at all, but instead, anti-Trump voices relying on hearsay to paint a narrative of impeachable conduct. With moderate Democrats jumping off the impeachment ship—as many of us suspected would happen—Pelosi and Schiff are now facing a nightmare scenario where they have to move forward on an impeachment that could potentially fail, or just barely pass and have significant bipartisan opposition to it. If that happens, they will be severely wounded leading up to an election with a base dejected and defeated.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/impeachment-is-falling-apart-as-moderate-democrats-are-getting-cold-feet/
Not to mention the potential nightmare of a Senate trial, should Pelosi win a House vote for impeachment, in which McConnell grills a lot of top Resistance leaders under oath.
“…in which McConnell grills…”
I suspect that they’ll either refuse to show up…
…or declare (with all the poignancy and righteous indignation they can muster—and I’ve heard that for Democrats, “Poignancy and Righteous Indignation” workshops are mandatory) that they DO NOT recognize the legitimacy of the body that is grilling—um, interrogating—them (or at least they don’t recognize the legitimacy of the “Inquisition” they are being made to undergo—under duress! no doubt—they also take “Under Duress” workshops) and hence will refuse to answer any of the questions asked…
…or they’ll plead the Fifth….
That is, if they’re able legally to do any of the above….
(After all, a Resistance fighter’s gotta do what a Resistance fighter’s gotta do….)
Art Deco:
It has never been reported what type of pancreatic cancer RBG had. At least, I’ve never seen such a report. It’s important, though, because there are types with pretty good survival rates and types with very poor survival rates no matter when they are diagnosed. RBG’s was diagnosed early, but had it been the more typical kind of pancreatic cancer she would almost certainly have been dead long ago. She was initially diagnosed in 2009 when she was symptomless, and since the survival rate for that type of cancer is usually abysmal, it’s pretty clear that she falls into an unusual category. Nor has there been any indication that her lung tumor is related to her pancreatic cancer.
She was treated last summer for another pancreatic tumor, and received stereotactic ablative radiation therapy as treatment:
That’s why I think there is no metastasis with RBG. I would certainly be curious, though, what some of the doctors here would have to say about it.
there are types with pretty good survival ratesThere are types with survival rates above 0.15
FIFY.
Art Deco:
I am speaking of this kind of pancreatic cancer. If removed by surgery (as RBG’s original tumor was), the 5-year survival rate is 55%. She clearly has survived far longer than that already. I suspect hers was removed successfully and that it was also diagnosed so early it increased her survival rate over average.
Or she might be a rare exception to the abysmal survival rate for regular pancreatic cancer.
I feel close to death when I read a summary of RBG’s medical history.
I have to say I feel sorry for her. I wish she would resign, then live out the rest of her life without further pain. (But I daresay her job is what makes her find her life worth living even now.)
I did not feel that way about Sen. T. Kennedy.
I have to say I feel sorry for her. I wish she would resign, then live out the rest of her life without further pain. (But I daresay her job is what makes her find her life worth living even now.)
Julie Near Chicago: Well put. I was trying to say something like that without sounding mean or condescending.
That’s how I felt about John Paul II.
Pingback:True but Forbidden #51: “Every smart person is smart enough to lie to themselves. “