A Must Read AMERICAN SPECTATOR Excerpt… BAM!

The lethal price tag for the months of the Impeach Trump obsession by Democrats is now in — and rising.

Over there at Breitbart, Joel Pollak, one of the serious journalists of the day, has put together this telling timeline that shows exactly what Democrats were doing as the coronavirus loomed. Here’s the link to Joel’s story — and here’s his very revealing timeline:

  • January 11: Chinese state media report the first known death from an illness originating in the Wuhan market.
  • January 15: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) holds a vote to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi and House Democrats celebrate the “solemn” occasion with a signing ceremony, using commemorative pens.
  • January 21: The first person with coronavirus arrives in the United States from China, where he had been in Wuhan.
  • January 23: The House impeachment managers make their opening arguments for removing President Trump.
  • January 23: China closes off the city of Wuhan completely to slow the spread of coronavirus to the rest of China.
  • January 30: Senators begin asking two days of questions of both sides in the president’s impeachment trial.
  • January 30: The World Health Organization declares a global health emergency as coronavirus continues to spread.
  • January 31: The Senate holds a vote on whether to allow further witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial.
  • January 31: President Trump declares a national health emergency and imposes a ban on travel to and from China. Former Vice President Joe Biden calls Trump’s decision “hysterical xenophobia … and fear-mongering.”
  • February 2: The first death from coronavirus outside China is reported in the Philippines.
  • February 3: House impeachment managers begin closing arguments, calling Trump a threat to national security.
  • February 4: President Trump talks about coronavirus in his State of the Union address; Pelosi rips up every page.
  • February 5: The Senate votes to acquit President Trump on both articles of impeachment, 52-48 and 53-47.
  • February 5: House Democrats finally take up coronavirus in the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia.

And there, in black and white, is exactly the problem. Republicans at the time warned that Democrats were so mindlessly obsessed with impeachment that other issues were being routinely ignored. Immigration, trade, health care, and on and on went the list of concerns that were being ignored in favor of the impeachment obsession.

But there was another issue Democrats were ignoring while they spent their time impeaching the president. A very, very big issue that involved life or death.

The American Spectator’s Dov Fischer took it head on right here. His title:

The Real Threat to Our Democracy During Coronavirus

Pelosi, Schiff & Co. were too busy dragging the country through impeachment to pay attention to ominous developments in Asia.

Dov Fischer nailed it exactly.

Yes, indeed, while all that impeachment obsession was happening, the coronavirus was making its debut. Note well in the Pollak timeline this date — January 11, the day that “Chinese state media report the first known death from an illness originating in the Wuhan market.” And with that virus news out there, a mere four days later, Speaker Pelosi focuses not on that — but on holding the House vote that impeaches the president, followed by an elaborately staged spectacle in which she signs her name to the documents with a stash of 30 gold pens resting on a silver tray. Then, in another elaborately staged spectacle, she formally parades the articles through the halls of the Capitol to deliver them to the Senate.

Then there is January 21, a full 10 days after news of the virus has gone public — and the first known person who had been in Wuhan arrives in America. Carrying the virus. Two days later Pollak notes this:

  • January 23: The House impeachment managers make their opening arguments for removing President Trump.
  • January 23: China closes off the city of Wuhan completely to slow the spread of coronavirus to the rest of China.

And not to be forgotten: on January 31, President Trump announced this, per the Washington Post:

Trump administration announces mandatory quarantines in response to coronavirus

Announcement comes as U.S. airlines cancel flights to China amid growing fears

Mere days later, on February 4, President Trump delivered his State of the Union address, in which he said this:

Protecting Americans’ health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.

And the reaction to that speech from the Pelosi Democrats?

Famously, when the president reached the end of his speech, Speaker Nancy Pelosi ostentatiously stood and ripped the speech in half. That doesn’t count the Democrat members who made a point of walking out on the speech or labeling it, as Pelosi did, a “pack of lies.”….

(READ IT ALL)

Pelosi’s Legacy | UPDATED

UPDATED BELOW…

(More at NOQ REPORT)


UPDATE


As an UPDATE… she was planning this all along… it wasn’t like “my emotions got the best of me.” No, she premeditated the act.:

(More at the NEW YORK POST)

JONATHAN TURLEY writes on his website about the tradition Nancy trampled on:

Forty-four years ago, I walked on to the floor of the House of Representatives as a new Democratic 15-year-old page from Chicago.  I stood and marveled at the beehive of activity on the floor in the People’s House. I can still remember that moment because it forged a bond and reverence that has never weakened for me.  As a Democratic leadership page during the speakership of Tip O’Neill, I watched some of the most passionate and important debates of the generation from the Neutron Bomb to civil rights legislation to sweeping national park bills.  The country was deeply divided, but both parties maintained the tradition of civility and decorum.  I was struck how members, even in the heat of furious debates, would not attack each other by name and followed rigid principles of decorum. They understood that they were the custodians of this institution and bore a duty to strengthen and pass along those traditions to the next generation.

That is why I was (and remain) so offended by this display. I believe that President Trump himself is worthy of criticism for not shaking the hand of Pelosi. I also did not approve of aspects of his speech, including bestowing the Medal of Freedom on Rush Limbaugh in the gallery like a reality show surprise scene. There was much to object to in the address, but presidents often make comments that enrage or irritate speakers.

However, none of that excuses Pelosi. At that moment, she represents the House as an institution — both Republicans and Democrats. Instead, she decided to become little more than a partisan troll from an elevated position. The protests of the Democratic members also reached a new low for the House. Pelosi did not gavel out the protest. She seemed to join it.

It was the tradition of the House that a speaker must remain in stone-faced neutrality no matter what comes off that podium. The tradition ended last night with one of the more shameful and inglorious moments of the House in its history. Rather than wait until she left the floor, she decided to demonstrate against the President as part of the State of the Union and from the Speaker’s chair. That made it a statement not of Pelosi but of the House.

For those of us who truly love the House as an institution, it was one of the lowest moments to unfold on the floor….

And from THE HILL, Turley notes,

The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. It has long been a tradition for House Speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address. However, Pelosi seemed to be intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address.

Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House Speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House Speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.

Tensions for this address were high. The House impeachment managers sat as a group in front of the president as a reminder of the ongoing trial. That can be excused as a silent but pointed message from the Democrats. Trump hardly covered himself with glory by not shaking hands with Pelosi. I also strongly disliked elements of his address which bordered on “check under your seat” moments, and the awarding of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom inside the House gallery like a Mardi Gras bead toss. However, if Trump made the State of the Union look like Oprah, then Pelosi made it look like Jerry Springer.

What followed was an utter disgrace. First, Pelosi dropped the traditional greeting before the start of the address, “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.” Instead, she simply announced, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.” It was extremely petty and profoundly inappropriate. Putting aside the fact that this is not her tradition, but that of the House, it is no excuse to note that the president was impeached.

Such an indignity was not imposed on President Clinton during his own impeachment proceeding, and anyone respecting due process would note that Trump has been accused, not convicted, at this point in the constitutional process. Pelosi proceeded to repeatedly shake her head, mouth words to others, and visibly disagree with the address. It was like some distempered distracting performance art behind the president.

My revulsion over this has nothing to do with impeachment. Ten years ago, I wrote a column denouncing Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito for mouthing the words “not true” when President Obama used his address to criticize the court for its decision in the Citizens United case. I considered his response to be a disgrace and wrote a column criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts for not publicly chastising Alito for breach of tradition. Instead, Roberts seemed to defend Alito in criticizing Obama for his “very troubling” language and saying that it was unfair to criticize the court when the justices, “according to the requirements of protocol,” have “to sit there expressionless.” That was not unfair. That was being judicious.

[….]

Pelosi has demolished decades of tradition with this poorly considered moment. Of course, many will celebrate her conduct and be thrilled by the insult to Trump. However, even those of us who disagree with his policies should consider what Pelosi destroyed in her moment of rage. She shredded the pretense of governing with civility and dignity in the House. Notably, she did not wait to rip up her copy of the speech until after she left the House floor. Pelosi wanted to do it at the end of the speech, in front of the camera, with the president still in the chamber.

That act was more important to Pelosi than preserving the tradition of her office. In doing so, she forfeited the right to occupy that office. If Pelosi cannot maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office at the State of the Union, she should resign as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

 

Mcconnell Should Hold Impeachment Trial | Without Pelosi’s Ok

(FOX NEWS) “Mitch McConnell shouldn’t be subjecting himself to the extortion of Nancy Pelosi,” Jarrett said to guest host Tammy Bruce. “He can, beginning in January, simply alter the rule or eliminate it entirely and set a date for an impeachment trial.”

[….]

“Simply change the rule, hold a trial, do it. Do it on your own terms,” Jarrett advised McConnell.

President Trump’s Letter To Speaker Pelosi (Read by Hugh Hewitt)

Hugh Hewitt took the time to read the entire letter from President Trump to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (If you wish, the entire letter is below for your reading pleasure)

Letter From President Trump… by charliespiering on Scribd

Dems Had Their Asses Handed To Them (Day 3)

In the fight between left vs right, Democrats vs Republicans, progressives vs conservatives, the sides are clear. The motives are clear. One side will say what they believe helps them the most and hurts their opponents at the same time. It may be ugly, but it’s honest (at least in their intentions if not in substance).

On Tuesday, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) laid out the Republican case against impeachment in his opening statement as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. In his statement, he did as most expected and attacked the Democrats’ case, but the real meat and potatoes from his statement came in the form of attacks against mainstream media. (NOQ REPORT)

Rep. John Ratcliffe, notes that Democrats have called Trump’s conduct “bribery” and then pulls out a mountain of papers of deposition transcripts. He says at no point have witnesses described his conduct as “bribery” in the last six weeks. He says the word appears only once — and that’s in relation to former Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged conduct.

LEGAL INSURRECTIONRep Elise Stefanik!


OTHER VIDEOS


RIGHT SCOOP:

Here’s a few notable clips from this evening’s hearing, the first of which is both Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker agreeing that Zelensky had no idea that the Ukraine ad was being held up at the time of the July 25th phone call…

Volker also testified that there was no quid pro quo or ‘bribery’, as they are now calling it:

And finally, Morrison, who was listening in on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky says nothing concerned him about the call:

RIGHT SCOOP:

 

Pelosi’s “Resolution” Light-years Away from Clinton/Nixon

The issue mentioned below about calling witnesses (supoena power by Republicans) is not granted under Pelosi’s resolution. So NOT like the majority offered rights to the minority during Nixon and during Clinton. Here is another example of Schiff’s almost Soviet style circus show. Rep. Jim Jordan is now telling us that Adam Schiff is blocking the witness from answering specific questions from Republicans (RIGHT SCOOP):

(Some more disparities are pointed out in a PREVIOUS POST)

PJ-MEDIA opines rightly:

  • If this is truly an open and fair process, both sides should be able to ask questions of the witnesses, and Adam Schiff should not be preventing witnesses from answering questions or stopping Republicans from asking questions. This is clearly not a fair process. “This has been a tainted process from the start,” Scalise said. “What happened today confirms even worse just how poorly Adam Schiff is handling this process, denying the ability for Republicans to even ask basic questions that are critical to the heart of whether or not a President of the United States is impeached.”

After showing some TWEETS by Sean Davis and Byron York, RED STATE sums up the resolution by Nancy Pelosi well:

Someone point out to me how this changes anything. The chair is Adam Schiff. The resolution gives him sole authority to release transcripts. All this does is legitimize his selective leaking. Now he can release excerpts as he sees fit without having to shovel them through CNN. If a testimony helps Donald Trump, he can simply hold it back and no doubt he will (I have a story tomorrow coming about Schiff instructing witnesses not to answer the questions of Republican members).

But maybe he’s giving subpoena power to the minority party like Republicans did during the Clinton impeachment investigation? Nope. Adam Schiff once again garners full authority to veto any requested witnesses or subpoenas and the only appeal is to the entire committee, which is majority Democrat and will always vote to back up Schiff. Again, nothing has changed.

Nearly every single anti-transparency dynamic Republicans have pointed out still exists, just with prettier language around it. This resolution is window dressing. It’s an attempt to shovel fodder to the media, knowing they will now proclaim all Republican concerns moot. The fact that some conservatives are going along with the gambit is disappointing.

Republicans aren’t asking for a lot. We simply want to see the transcripts. We want to be able to judge the contradictions, context, and any possible evidence for ourselves. Adam Schiff being the arbiter of that is not acceptable and as long as that dynamic exists, this inquiry will continue to be a sham.

Democrats should be watching the polling of Independents.

Why Hasn’t Pelosi Held A Formal Vote On Impeachment?

And this is the million-dollar question, answered by Rep. Chaffetz… House Speaker Pelosi does not want to give subpoena power to House Republicans, says Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz, former chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Fear of Barr (Strassel)

HUGH HEWITT reads Kimberly Strassel’s column, earlier today:

A little POWRLINE intro please: The Democrats’ hysteria over Attorney General William Barr is directly proportional to their fear of the damage they fear he might do, Kim Strassel explains in her Wall Street Journal Potomac Watch column HERE:

The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.

Mr. Barr tolerantly sat through hours of Democratic insults at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. His reward for his patience was to be labeled, in the space of a news cycle, a lawbreaking, dishonest, obstructing hack. Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly accused Mr. Barr of lying to Congress, which, she added, is “considered a crime.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will move to hold Mr. Barr in contempt unless the attorney general acquiesces to the unprecedented demand that he submit to cross-examination by committee staff attorneys. James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lamented that Donald Trump had “eaten” Mr. Barr’s “soul.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren demands the attorney general resign. California Rep. Eric Swalwell wants him impeached.

These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative light. What do Democrats have to object to?

Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal. Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job. Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general, making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.

But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.

He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation.

Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.

The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan.

That’s why Mr. Barr isn’t alone in getting slimed. Natasha Bertrand at Politico last month penned a hit piece on the respected Mr. Horowitz. It’s clear the inspector general is asking the right questions. The Politico article acknowledges he’s homing in on Mr. Steele’s “credibility” and the dossier’s “veracity”—then goes on to provide a defense of Mr. Steele and his dossier, while quoting unnamed sources who deride the “quality” of the Horowitz probe, and (hilariously) claim the long-tenured inspector general is not “well-versed” in core Justice Department functions.

“We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.

No Speaker, A Democratic President Could Not Do That

Nancy Pelosi is a goof. This is what she said:

“Let’s talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said. “That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. 

“But a Democratic president can do that.”

(THE HILL)

No, no he or she cannot do that Mrs. Pelosi.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. The clause imposes a duty on the President; it does not confer a discretionary power. The Take Care Clause is a limit on the Vesting Clause’s grant to the President of “the executive power.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion handed down just last year striking down the President’s assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute, provided a succinct description of the President’s obligations under the Take Care Clause, as follows:

Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.

(HERITAGE FOUNDATION)

There is both a positive and negative aspect to this part of the Constitution. In other words, a President cannot declare an emergency that violates the 2nd Amendment. (I can’t believe a high school drop out 3-time felon has to point that out to the Speaker of the House.)

Ineffective Cartoons

In case you do not know, here is a video to make the graphics relevant:

ACOSTA!

The CHUCK n’ NANCY Show

 

BORDER ISSUES

TIPPY TOPS

MISC.

LEFTIST COMICS (w/good artistic verve)