Friday, November 1, 2019

Where Impeachment Theater Stands For Now

Let's take stock. A good place to start, along with Zerohedge, is a fairly incisive Bloomberg article. The main point to keep in mind is cited by Zerohedge. At this point, after months of theater, Pelosi and the Dems haven't moved the impeachment needle of public opinion--at all. If anything they have moved public opinion against impeachment, as multiple polls show support for President Trump increasing. Without a doubt Impeachment theater has strengthened Republican resolve and turbocharged Trump's fundraising, while Dem presidential candidates and the House flounder--unable to present coherent policy or constructive legislation, captive to the most extreme elements for the whole country to see. Here's how Zerohedge--who believes Pelosi has begun a "political death march"--breaks that down:

As Bloomberg reports, the onus is now clearly on Nancy Pelosi to finish what she started. However, she is still losing in the areas where it matters most: No. 1) in the court of public opinion, where the country is roughly split on support for impeachment. That's right: All of the Dems' smears have had practically no impact, perhaps because the White House immediately moved to release the rough transcript, allowing the public to see with its own eyes that there was no quid-pro-quo during the July 25 call with Zelensky. 
Whatever progress impeachment has made in terms of public opinion, Pelosi better prepare to lose it. Because, as Bloomberg points out, the impeachment inquiry has burst into public view.

What Zerohedge means is that the public has a fine sense of fair play, and the extra bit of theater with yesterdays Continue-The-Theater Resolution will be quickly recognized as Continue-The-Kangaroo-Court Resolution. Moderates are certain to be as unimpressed as they have already shown themselves to be in the polls.

Interestingly, one major factor that neither Zerohedge nor Bloomberg mention is one that is likely to have a significant effect on public opinion, and that effect will have a direct impact on the American public's view of impeachment. I refer, of course, to the increasing likelihood of explosive revelations regarding the origins and conduct of the Russia Hoax. Indeed, Impeachment Theater, while obviously motivated by Dem outrage over the lost 2016 election, is probably also motivated by a desperate need to somehow distract public attention from the revelations that are coming.

What will those revelations include?

I think there's an increasing likelihood that General Michael Flynn will be exonerated in the not too distant future and that he will be shown to have been the victim of a highly orchestrated Deep State plot to frame him. That plot will have included major players at the FBI and DoJ--prominently including James Comey. It will also implicate Team Mueller in prosecutorial abuse against a heroic figure. Flynn, once exonerated, will not retire into the shadows--far from it. He will be front and center before the public eye, and a compelling witness to Dem corruption.

The other near term revelations will deal with FBI/DoJ abuse of FISA to spy on the Trump campaign. Again, well known names will figure in, and the abuse of spying powers to target the target of Impeachment Theater will have a significant impact.

A bit further on, we may see an exoneration of George Papadopoulos. That will be very significant as well, because once again it will reveal the corruption at the heart of Team Mueller, as well as the falsity of the Russia Hoax.

And the big bombshell will be the results of the Barr/Durham investigation, which will likely target John Brennan at the CIA, but could reach well into the Obama White House. Commenter Cassander provided this remarkable quote from Mike Morell, former CIA official and Clinton operative:

Mike Morell, who was Obama's acting CIA director (twice), says he has “deep concerns” about John Durham’s investigation.
“It’s highly inappropriate, because the Justice Department doesn’t have a lot of experience understanding the analytical process. They’re not experts. John Durham, as good as he is, as good of a prosecutor as he is, doesn’t understand how we do analysis, doesn’t understand how we evaluate information, doesn’t understand how we evaluate sources, doesn’t understand how we come to conclusions, doesn’t understand how we put confidence levels on them. He doesn’t understand that. He doesn’t do that for a living. He looks at issues and decides whether a crime has been committed,” Morell said.

The utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy of this attempted "defense" of the CIA in the face of Durham's investigation is really quite stunning. I can't wait to see that presented to the public when Durham starts bringing indictments for the CIA targeting of Trump and his associates. Impeachment Theater will be placed in perspective, and that perspective will be very ugly--for Dems.

So let's turn to excerpts from the fine Bloomberg article for additional insights. The article itself is quite lengthy, but here are some leading points--Pelosi Uncorks Impeachment Probe With Few Answers and High Risks:

Nancy Pelosi has launched a new phase of the impeachment inquiry with no explicit timetable, no defined scope of what to investigate, no guarantee the White House will cooperate and not a single Republican vote -- in many ways taking Congress and the country into the exact politically perilous place she long sought to avoid. 
The vote puts pressure on President Donald Trump, who now is all but certain to face a vote on articles of impeachment in the coming months. But the onus also falls on Pelosi to finish what she started, with only the slimmest majority of public support in polls and many nervous Democrats who know voters will hold them to account for what happens. 
The starkly partisan investigation is about to burst into the court of public opinion, with just a few weeks to make crucial decisions before Democrats say public hearings may begin. And the calendar is about to turn to the holidays, then to the official starting gun of the Democratic presidential primary in Iowa on Feb. 3. 

The more the Dems try to meet a tight timetable--which they've already moved back once--the more slapdash the whole thing will be. But if it impinges on the Dem primaries ...

House Democrats have been careful not to divulge their strategy, but some elements are coming into focus. Republicans criticized closed-door hearings, so they’ll start public ones where witnesses can describe what they saw as improper behavior by Trump related to Ukraine. 
They created a mechanism for Trump himself to participate, or a way to blame the White House if he continues to try to block testimony and refuse to turn over documents. 
All the while, Pelosi is trying to show that Democrats in Congress aren’t on a single-minded mission to expose Trump, but also are eager to legislate, whether it be on the USMCA trade deal or lowering drug prices. 

That proposition is a total loser. No one is going to buy into the idea that Congress has been trying to accomplish something constructive. That's about the safest prediction anyone could make about American politics. They've had three years to prove that.

Both parties also have an eye on next year’s election, with Trump running for a second term and the Republican Senate majority and Democratic House majority at stake. Republican unity against Thursday’s House vote was a remarkable feat for Trump and GOP vote counters, but not without risk for the moderate Republicans left in the House. 

And Pelosi's failure to maintain lockstep unity was a notable failure.

But many Republicans have already added a defense of Trump’s actions to their ongoing complaints about process. 
“Substance will always win out in the end, and this president has nothing to worry about on substance,” Georgia Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday. 
To that end, the president has become deeply engaged in keeping his party in line. Over the past two weeks, Trump has met face-to-face with more than 60 House members, according to an administration official. 
After dismissing the need to hire additional staff to counter Democrats’ impeachment efforts, Trump is likely to bring a former Treasury Department spokesman, Tony Sayegh, to the White House to assist with communications related to impeachment, according to people familiar with the matter. 

So, while the theater, or maybe cabaret, continues in the House, I think we need to keep our focus on the Russia Hoax. As other commentators--prominently and recently, Lee Smith, with his new book--have said: Impeachment Theater and the Ukraine Hoax constitute a continuum with the Russia Hoax. It's not even Russia Hoax 2.0. It's simply a continuation. The coming revelations will lay all that bare.

ADDENDUM: I get support for this view from, of all people, David Chalian, Political Director for CNN. First the transcript of his words, then the embedded video--because the look on the anchorette's face is priceless:

David Chalian: This plays out district by district which is why some of those Democratic members of the House, the majority makers, who come from districts Donald Trump won in 2019, they voted with Nancy Pelosi on this today for the most part. And Republicans are pouncing to hang that vote around their neck because in their districts back home where Donald Trump won this idea of impeaching or removing him is not a popular one.

And TGP comments:

Once Americans find out the truth about this CIA spy, the Democrat lies, and the baseless accusations against this president — THE DEMOCRATS WILL BE RUINED. 
** Americans don’t like liars.
** Americans won’t appreciate an attempted coup of their president.

To which I add ... Think what the reaction will be when Flynn is exonerated--a decorated general, framed by a Deep State POS like James Comey? Oh my! There'll be blood on the floor. And that will just be the beginning.


  1. Conrad Black yesterday:
    Under any scenario, the wheels are coming off this disgraceful Democratic garbage cart in all directions. Impeachment will fizzle ignominiously while the former administration is arraigned on serious charges from the Russian scandal, and the Democrats will wallow in their squalid failure to produce a feasible candidate for the White House. Normalcy, for which the country longs, is not dead; it is reawakening at last."

  2. -->John Durham, as good as he is, as good of a prosecutor as he is, doesn’t understand how we do analysis, doesn’t understand how we evaluate information, doesn’t understand how we evaluate sources, doesn’t understand how we come to conclusions, doesn’t understand how we put confidence levels on them.<--

    And apparently no one at CIA understands, either, as to arriving at lawful and legal conclusions.

    Claiming to be above the law is consistent with the current/recent claim of being responsible to a higher authority. Apparently their missions are God-given...

  3. For sure, the prosecution of Concord Management will fail.

    That outcome should be revealed soon.

  4. To understand the importance of the Concord case, see .

  5. I gather that you meant "a desperate need to somehow distract public attention FROM the revelations that are coming."
    Some here have theorized, that the hope is to be able to argue, that these revelations were motivated by Trump's need to somehow distract public attention from the impeachment effort.
    That would seem a quite slender one, seeing as Trump could point out that the Horowitz Report has been in the works for well over a year.

    Another theory can be, that the kangaroo nature of this Theater, and Morell's pitch about Durham's lack of "understanding", is aimed at acclimating the country to the idea that "justice" means "elevating D.S. or anti-Trump concerns, above prior ideas of 'justice'.
    Accomplishing such acclimation would, chillingly, fit quite well with the essence of SJW-ism.
    If they get away with such ploys, consolidation of an SJW tyranny would likely be inevitable.

  6. Now Jerry Nadler and Lawfare take the stage.

    ♦Using the baseline predicate of Howell’s recognition of HJC impeachment authority; and now using the full House vote as further affirmation therein; the HJC is now moving to another Judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, an Obama appointee to the federal district court in D.C., requesting judicial enforcement authority to compel testimony from former White House legal counsel Don McGahn:

    WASHINGTON DC – Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee urged a federal judge on Thursday to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before Congress about President Trump’s possible obstruction of justice, arguing that his refusal to comply is harming House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

    Democrats’ counsel said that even though McGahn’s role in the obstruction investigation carried out by former special counsel Robert Mueller was described at length in Mueller’s report, lawmakers still need to independently evaluate his testimony. (more)

    The HJC objective is simple: gain judicial enforcement authority for their subpoenas so their targets cannot legally refuse to give testimony.

    The premise for both fronts [(1) document subpoena 6e material, and (2) testimony from McGahn] is predicated on penetrating a constitutional firewall that exists within the separation of powers.

    And they found a new judge...

  7. Mark--Aren't cases in the federal courts randomly assigned to judges? You can't just go judge shopping--or am I misinformed?

    1. That's how it's supposed to work, although there have been some odd coincidences. This is one of them. It's all fairly meaningless as all this stuff will be appealed.