-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
To Impeach or Not to Impeach
This entry was posted in Politics and Government. Bookmark the permalink.
THE END IS NIGH!
No, uh, now THE END IS NIGH!
No, uh, wait… now THE END IS NIGH!
This is excellent Jack. Thanks! I can now abandon and delete my draft of “May The Farce Be With You.” Elder covered it all and better than I could ever do.
Ahhhhh, yes. The wonderfully exciting impeachment hearing leadership of Nasty Nadler:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/boring-house-judiciary-chairman-jerrold-nadler-nods-off-during-his-own-impeachment-hearing-video/
So much hate, lies and bias all together in one room was very difficult watch. Videos and articles written by them are now coming out on the three Dem “witnesses” showing that hate and exposing their lies and bias.
Karlan’s attack on Barron Trump, a 13 year old child, was so inappropriate. Yet, she appeared unaware that she’d said anything wrong. Attacking children of republicans is acceptable you know, while God help you if you mention Obama’s daughters. To the gallows with you.
Also sickening was to hear them speak of our Founders with such high praise, yet they support the removing of their statues and demand buildings and universities be renamed. Full display of hypocrisy.
Well said, Peggy!!!!!
She did not “attack” Barron Trump.
She ridiculed his name to get in a dig at Trump. Classy dame. Definitely a progressive academic.
[Pie here: Souza trolling again. He insists upon making an ass of himself. Such a clever boy!]
Nah. It was light wordplay. Interpreting it as “ridicule” is snowflakey.
http://dailytorch.com/2019/12/was-spying-on-the-trump-campaign-in-2016-adequately-predicated-thats-for-attorney-general-barr-to-decide/
No further comment needed . . . . .
No comment needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=nO9syIIJhyE&feature=emb_logo
Eh, I’ll comment anyway 😀
Yeah, some “practicing” Catholic. Where is Nasty when her colleagues attack appointees for being Cathaolic in confirmation hearings? Where is Nasty’s strong, devout Catholic voice when it comes to late term abortion, partial birth abortion or post birth abortion?
What about her boasting of having brought her grandchildren to watch when she received an award from the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. She said she wanted the children to know that marriage between two men or two women was consistent with Catholic teaching.
When she met with Pope Benedict XVI he rebuked her by instructing her on the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
Nasty isn’t a very good liar and she certainly has next to nothing for dignity. Pelosi is as much a devout Catholic as Fauxcahontas Warren is a Cherokee.
Also, it’s been reported Biden was denied communion and Bishops/Cardinals said Pelosi should be denied because of their pro-abortion beliefs.
Great read!
“Confucius, the only philosopher I know who was also prime minister of his country, was asked what one thing he would do first to improve the political health of his country. “Get the names of things right,” he responded (his statement is also sometimes translated as “the rectification of terms”). He understood the power of determining what people call things.
We all agree that “no one is above the law” and we all believe in “the rule of law,” but exactly what those terms mean is now up for grabs. Recently some partisans have claimed that the “rule of law” means democratically elected officials, including the president, are bound by more than the written law duly enacted by Congress and signed by the president (or enacted by supermajorities over a veto) and the words of the Constitution. Their new definition of “the rule of law” would include the consensus of subordinate expert officials, the so-called “interagency consensus,” and the rules, policies, and procedures promulgated by the “deep state.” Change what “the rule of law” means, and you change who is running the country.”
Full article.
https://spectator.org/redefining-the-rule-of-law/?fbclid=IwAR3wD9tZXzkKnpEQzIFWMhbbIXqA2-bK5vIgXhAe7g8bK7-fuiMhitVWcm4
Excellent.
I’m confused. When Congress votes to approve funding for something and the president does not veto, what authority does the president then have to secretly withhold those funds? Where in the Constitution is that written?
Answer the question.
That’s no way to refer to Victor Davis Hanson.
Wait, no, that’s exactly how one should refer to Victor Davis Hanson.
Anyway, I’m going to continue to argue that the president does not have to power to secretly withhold funds to a foreign country until you show me evidence to the contrary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/25/yes-presidents-can-hold-up-military-aid-not-like-trump-did-with-ukraine/
He did not notify Congress, as the Impoundment Control Act requires him to do. Nor would his reasons for withholding the military aid–specifically, his desire for Ukraine to investigate Biden and Crowdtsrike–have been sufficiently related to the aid to have qualified as valid under the conditions of the act. Funnily enough, I learned after Googling the ICA that it was passed precisely because Nixon had done exactly what Trump is doing now–refusing to release funds for his own personal and political reasons. As for VDH, I stand by my critiques of his reasoning skills I made the last time you posted an article from him.
Souza’s oft repeated contention that Trump withheld the funds for personal and political reasons is a politically motivated interpretation, not a fact.
It is the only reasonable interpretation based on the available facts. Trump did not ask Ukraine for anything other than announcements of investigations into Crowdstrike and Biden–two issues that would help his campaign. If he was genuinely concerned about anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, he would have asked for other things.
The fact that he did not notify Congress as he is required by law to do also speaks to a personal motive, as does the involvement of Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer.
The fact that multiple witnesses have testified that Trump only wanted an “announcement” of investigations also points to a personal motive. The goal was to manipulate the news cycle, not to root out actual corruption.
There is no plausible reason of national interest to have Ukraine investigate either of these two corrupt conspiracy theories.
If Ukraine is so corrupt, why would Trump want them investigating themselves anyway? That doesn’t make any sense.
But even supposing that were part of his motivation, so what? Biden’s boastful admission of bribing Ukraine
At the behest of Obama, our allies, and members of Congress including at least two Republicans. This was done through a normal, transparent process, and the idea that Biden somehow orchestrated all this to protect his son–who was never personally under investigation, and whose company was actualy *more likely* to be investigated by Shokin’s replacement than by Shokin himself–has been shown to be ludicrous time and time again. That you still cling to this as if it were a personal “bribe” instead of official and appropriate US policy shows that you have nothing.
I find it mildly interesting that in Mr. Souza’s mind — and Democrats in general — that because Biden is running for president that this somehow immunizes and absolves him (and his son) from investigation in connection to his self-admitted bribing of the Ukrainian government and his son’s connection to a company that was and is involved in government corruption.
No, the facts that I point to above should immunize him from a baseless, politically motivated investigation. There is no coherent basis for believing that Biden’s actions here were corrupt. Every available fact makes that not only unlikely, but practically impossible–there is no way Biden could have been acting out of a selfish motive in this case. That theory doesn’t even make sense.
When Trump was running for president it certainly did not stop the Obama administration from investigating him.
But what it DID stop the Obama administration from doing was announcing that investigation publicly–the exact thing Trump pressured Ukraine to do. So if there’s a double standard here, it’s that my party doesn’t want to be seen as launching politically motivated investigations into rivals in order to influence an election, and your party says that’s completely OK when they do it.
Hey Pie, I have a question for you. Isn’t the Fed’s fiscal year from Oct.1st to Sept. 30th?
So, if funds were released on Sept. 11th, doesn’t that mean it was done within the time mandated by Congress for that fiscal year? Unless things changed the 11th is still before the 30th.
Some people need pictures to learn from.
Yes, that is the fiscal year but it has no significance that I know of.
Historically impoundment was exercised as an executive power derived from the Constitution. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made it so a president no longer has the ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending. Under this act any funds withheld by a president must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days or the impoundment will not stand and the funds must be provided.
Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise impoundment as an executive power provided by the Constitution. The power was was regarded as a power inherent to the office and available to all presidents until 1974. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first president to refuse to spend moneys for the purposes appropriated. Succeeding Presidents expanded those powers until 1974 when impoundment was specifically codified as it stands now in the Impoundment Control Act.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made it so a president no longer has the ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending. Under this act any funds withheld by a president must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days or the impoundment will not stand and the funds must be provided.
So you admit the president broke the law. Thank you.
You said the ICA requires the president to get congressional approval for withholding funds. Trump did not do that. Ergo, he broke the law. This is not debatable. That breaking this particular law is not an article of impeachment speaks to the desire by congressional Democrats to keep the articles as narrow as possible.
Souza: “You said the ICA requires the president to get congressional approval for withholding funds.”
No, I did not and ICA does not, you idiot! You compete and utter idiot!
The ICA states that any funds withheld by a president must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days or the impoundment will not stand and the funds must, by law, be provided. It does NOT say the president cannot impound funds without congressional approval. Its says that any rescission (permanent or temporary), must be then be consequentially approved. If not consequentially approved, then, by default, any impoundment cannot stand and the funds must be released.
By exercising his power of office by withholding funds Trump did not break the law, you dolt. And Trump did release the funds.
What part of that does Souza not understand? Still confused, ignorant and flat out stupid, eh Mr. Souza? My heart pumps cold concrete for you. I feel your shame.
To repeat for the thick headed imbeciles amongst us, the ICA states that funds withheld by the president are subject to congressional approval within 45 days. Without approval within 45 days then — by default — any rescission cannot stand and the funds must be provided.
No rescission approval hearings were ever held in either house and Trump approved the funds making any approval process moot. No law broken, you moron.
I am dealing with a functional illiterate here with the comprehension skills of a brick.
Moreover this from the person who graciously provides us with his “critique” of Victor Davis Hansen’s “reasoning skills”. Sometimes you just have to laugh, this fellow could not think himself out of a wet paper bag.
I don’t believe that Souza actually holds down a job as an educator as he claims. No one this stupid should be employed in a position of authority and have his salary paid by California taxpayers. If I am wrong, then the K-12 education system in California is truly a wreck and the future looks bleak.
Chris Souza’s mentor, the late Quentin Colgan, had his teaching credentials revoked, but that was decades ago. Things have changed. If Mr. Souza is actually drawing a dime off California taxpayers as an educator, welcome to the Brave New World, this state is screwed. Tax payers are again screwed.
You could afford to be so mean if you were in any way correct. But you are not.
The ICA does, in fact, require the president to notify Congress before freezing the aid. He did not do that.
The ICA also requires conditions as to when deferrals are permissible. Trump’s stated reasons meet none of those conditions.
The DoD also acknowledged to Congress that it would not be able to spend all of the funding before the end of the fiscal year.
justsecurity.org/67489/trumps-hold-on-ukrainian-military-aid-was-illegal/
I am unmoved by your attacks on my intelligence and character because I know that the claims I am making are supported by facts and experts in the field. Yours are supported by…Breitbart. You constantly attack my intelligence simply because of my political affiliation and the fact that I challenge your points. Meanwhile, a regular conservative poster claimed last week on this website that it was the job of the Democratic party to keep Jeffrey Epstein safe in prison, and you said nothing. You never call out ridiculous or dumb arguments on your own side, while proclaiming that my arguments–which are backed up by facts and experts, including people you respect and admire, like Jonah Goldberg–are stupid. This is pure partisan bias and I hope you overcome it some day.
Re Souza: “The ICA does, in fact, require the president to notify Congress before freezing the aid.”
Peggy: Either Chris is a liar or just a confused, ignorant idiot with the comprehension level of a brick. (The latter is a given.)
The ICA specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.
GOP Senators Seek Interview With Ex-DNC Contractor Who Worked With Ukrainians In 2016: Dec. 6, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/06/republicans-alexandra-chalupa-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR27NOr6Av_-t3zqkf0RxWabT9GMDYRsWRNbRE1_fLWldTBPZQYhGpp85zs
Another obligatory fact-check of the claims about Alexandra Chalupa that I’ve posted before, that you’ve never read, and that you won’t read this time, either.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/20/fact-checking-gordon-sondland-impeachment-hearing-/
Just so you can’t say I didn’t try.
Nothing in here says that Alexandra Chalupa was not nor ever a contractor for the DNC. Try and stay focused instead of putting up “fact check” articles that have a political narrative the “fact checkers” have in mind.
Nothing in here says that Alexandra Chalupa was not nor ever a contractor for the DNC.
Why would it need to? The relevant point in the article Peggy posted is “whether there was any coordination between the Ukrainian government and Democrats in the 2016 election,” a question that fact-check shows is baseless as related to Chalupa.
I do find it amusing that the basis of this conspiracy theory is that Chalupa shared damning info about Paul Manafort, who was guilty as hell. Pointing out Manafort’s attempts at election interference is not, in and of itself, election interference.
Your mutual Jonah Goldberg has a good article debunking the “Ukraine meddled” conspiracy theory here: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-10/opinion-republicans-acknowledge-russian-election-interference-so-why-are-they-so-irrational-about-ukraine
A relevant portion:
Other examples of Ukrainian meddling thrown around by Trump defenders mostly include random statements by individual Ukrainians or the effort by independent Ukrainian actors to release damaging — and truthful — information about former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s corrupt dealings in Ukraine on behalf of pro-Russian politicians. They often mention a Ukrainian court ruling saying the disclosure of that information amounted to meddling in U.S. elections. Less mentioned is the fact that the ruling was overturned. Whatever you make of all that, you could make the case that withholding such information would have amounted to “interference” too.
But the idea that any of this is remotely equivalent to Russia’s clandestine, Putin-ordered interference is preposterous. It’s also irrelevant because there’s no evidence Trump had any of this in mind when he asked Zelensky about CrowdStrike.
Just after the 2016 election, the Russia-born former chess champion Gary Gasparov tweeted: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”
That may be the closest we can come to understanding the president’s Ukraine strategy — and that of his defenders.
Jonah Goldberg’s point of view doesn’t change Chalupa’s relationship with the DNC nor her activities on their behalf when in their employ, which was my point to begin with. It also does not change the fact Ukrainian government officials did interfere in the 2016 election
This is not a fact, as the Goldberg article makes clear. It is a Russian conspiracy theory embraced by the Republican party.
as revealed in a Ukranian court case involving Paul Manafort and corruption in Ukraine.
As the Goldberg article also makes clear, that ruling was correctly overturned.
According to Politifact “We found no evidence that the DNC authorized Chalupa’s research or worked directly with Ukraine’s government.”
Wow, that is some powerful weasel wording.
Fact: Chalupa was in the employ of the DNC.
Fact: Chalupa had developed Ukrainian government sources specifically to help her dig up dirt on Trump while in their employ.
That is not a fact. The “dirt” was on Manafort, not Trump.
Why are you not concerned that Trump had a corrupt unregistered foreign agent as his campaign manager?
Fact: The DNC paid for the phony Steele dossier.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine.
But hey, according to the Politicfact editorial that doesn’t mean they actually paid Chalupa to dig up dirt on Trump in Ukraine. They could find no evidence!
Correct, because there is no evidence of such. I realize that doesn’t matter to you when accusing Democrats of things, while you will bend over backwards to not acknowledge any evidence of Republican wrongdoing.
Absolutely none of that constitutes evidence that Ukraine meddled, Pie. A Ukrainian court case that was overturned obviously does not suffice, absent any detail or evidence from that case. And that the DNC paid for a private investigator does not imply that they would or did accept meddling from a foreign government; on the other hand, we know the Trump campaign went to a meeting for the purpose of getting dirt from the Russian government. By your logic, that makes it a reasonable conclusion that Trump accepted Russian help.
I am not presenting evidence that Ukraine meddled you dolt. I am not trying to “prove” anything.
Yet you continue to state that Ukraine meddled as “fact,” despite being met with debunkings from experts on the left, right, and center.
You don’t feel any obligation to prove the “facts” you present, because you know everyone you care about on your blog will believe whatever you say regardless. That’s called propaganda.
In fact, Chulupa did seek dirt in Ukraine on behalf of the DNC as a DNC employee.
There is no evidence of this, as the fact-check I linked to pointed out.
I don’t know why you think I’m confused about the Ukrainian court thing. I have already told you that the ruling was overturned, and that merely citing that case without explaining any of the evidence or how that (overturned) ruling was made does nothing to support your conspiracy theory, and does not prove as “fact” the theory that Ukraine meddled.
Chalupa did not admit what you claim she did.
The consultant, Alexandra Chalupa, told Politico that she had taken it upon herself to research Manafort’s connections to Yanukovych, the ousted former Ukrainian president. As Trump’s campaign surged, she started researching Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.
Chalupa shared some rumors and findings with officials from the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, the report said. The day after Trump hired Manafort, she told the DNC’s communications team about Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia. Hacked emails also show her telling a DNC official a few months later that she had more information on Manafort.
The Politico report also said the DNC encouraged Chalupa to ask Ukrainian embassy staff if former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Yanukovych’s successor, would be willing to take a question from a reporter on Manafort’s hire and ties to Yanukovych.
But a former DNC staffer told Politico the DNC was “not directing or driving her work.”
Chalupa took issue with the Politico article in a Facebook post. She told CNN she was not an opposition researcher and that the DNC never asked her to seek dirt from Ukraine. Multiple DNC and Clinton campaign officials also denied working with the Ukraine government.
Kenneth Vogel, one of the reporters behind the Politico story, clarified on Twitter that the “DNC consultant was not repping DNC” in her communications with Ukrainians.
Adrienne Watson, spokeswoman for the DNC, told PolitiFact that Chalupa was a part-time consultant hired to help the DNC “engage in outreach to American ethnic communities.”
“The DNC’s contract with Chalupa permitted her to have other clients and/or engage in activities not on behalf of the DNC, which she presumably did,” Watson said.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/oct/03/charlie-kirk/fact-checking-charlie-kirks-misleading-tweet-about/
I guess Jonah Goldberg is a “confused, ignorant jackass” and a “blockhead,” because he’s who I got that information from. You still have not cited any evidence that Chalupa said what you claim she said. Bash Politifact all you want, but it provides a great deal more context than what you’ve offered. Your later statements reveal you to be the troll. You don’t care whether the misleading implications you’re making are true; you say you just want to make me mad. It kills you that you so rarely get me to stoop to your level.
Pure ad hominem. You can do better.
It is not ad hominem when it is true.
Yes, you’ve made it clear before that fallacies only apply to Democrats.
No I haven’t. Never said nor implied any such thing. Besides, it is not an ad hominem fallacy if it is true. What I have said about you is true.
You wouldn’t be able to point to a single time you have called out a conservative commenter here engaging in a fallacy, Pie. It’s never happened.