Saturday, January 18, 2020

Where Is Trump's 'Dream Team' Headed?

Food for thought:


  1. Trump intially and strongly wanted a trial. Then he moderated, attenuated, whatever, and stated getting rid of the truly ridiculous impeachment.

    Apparently, Trump has been gearing up for a trial all along, smartly in my view.

    Our dirty laundry is piled up high and even Maddow will not be to trip over and claim it's Trump's fault.

    Let the trial commence. The House has the sole power of impeachment and even though it is supposed to be about criminal conduct and not policy, let the process play out.

    If President Clinton could not be thrown out of office for perjury, a felony, then Trump will not be thrown out for a civil issue that, at most, should have involved lawsuits from the House.

    It's ironic that the best comparison on this is President Andrew Johnson. Congress passed a law, the Tenure of Office Act, overpowering Johnson's veto that stated only Congress can fire an Executive department head. All a President can do is just recommend.

    11 Articles of impeachment were drawn up. The first 9 were all about violating the Tenure of Office Act. The 10th was about bad mouthing Congress in public speeches. The 11th was a summation of the 10 and superfluous.

    Thing is, Johnson barely escaped.

    President Grant, of whom Johnson first tried to replace Sec of War Stanton with passed a low limiting the Tenure of Office Act and, generally, the law was non-functioning until a president tried to replace a postmaster. Then, in 19 effin 26, was the law found unconstitutional.

    The Dems want this, let them have it in spades!

    1. I think what Rubini is suggesting is that, in a still fluid situation, do not discount that Trump may have some tricks up his sleeve. And this Dream Team may be just the group to implement some surprises. We'll see.

  2. The coming political campaign will be decided by the middle third of the electorate; most of which is comprised of swing voters. The more the Democrats and RINOs make the impeachment trial look unfair to Trump's due process and defense, the more these voters will migrate to his camp because basic unfairness does not play well in Peoria.

    They are gambling the future of their party on a Hail Mary pass that they hope will intimidate or remove Trump. And in doing so, they are setting themselves up to lose the Presidential election, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and dominate the Federal Judiciary for a generation or more.

    And Trump will use his second term to purge the Executive Branch of all the Obama Fifth Columnists. We can only pray that the worst of them will do some hard time for their treason and treachery.

    1. Trump's Wisconsin rally comprised of 50% non Republican voters.

      Rob S

  3. Trump's game is offense, not defense.

    Defense was the perennial game of Queensberry Rules Republicans. Trump is not a Queensberry Rules Republican--in case some hadn't noticed. (Clearly, DNC-MSM hasn't noticed.)

    1. So, IOW, the Impeachment Theater Dems could be in for a rude awakening? That's what Rubini is suggesting. I've seen some others suggesting that, too.

  4. here's the official response from the POTUS:

    1. Here is what I believe the trsponse is to.

      It's rather telling that "abuse of office" is to attempt to have Ukraine ferret out corruption that may or may not involve US citizens. Biden or his son, was never mentioned, at all in the phone calls.

      It is also telling that "obstructing Congress" by the a Democrat House means exercising well established authority by the Executive along with flat out stating their requests for testimony were actually, legally enforceable subpoenas.

      Exactly when was anyone held in contempt? The one person requesting legal clarification on his ability to testify was held in contempt. No one was.

      Even worse, this unequivocally states Trump's administration was not forthcoming in their requests whereas the administration was extremely, bending over backwards forthcoming.

    2. Also, how in the world does anything in what Trump said in the phone calls or having a private citizen used to investigate matters, a very long, established Executive tradition, equate to not faithfully executing his oath of office?

    3. It's totally absurd. Running for office gives you a free pass? The president investigating obvious wrongdoing is an abuse of office? That's called faithfully executing the laws.

  5. Some weak guesses on what Trump can do to cause this to backfire on the Dems, I think there will be a lot more beyond this:

    1. Demand close door testimonies the house has been hiding
    2. Whistleblower(s) on the stand
    3. Biden
    4. Lawfare people behind this on the witness stand
    5. Leaking issues
    6. Spying that seemed to be centered out of US Ukrainian embassy.
    7. Dark Ukrainian money that funded Democrats
    8. Other Democratic kin that got Ukrainian money (Nancy Pelosi son was one).
    The impeachment is handing Trump a soap box, and the impeachment will be played on media, where Trump excels, and in the Senate, where I don't think it's possible for him to lose.

    Trump can also force a few uncomfortable votes in the Senate. This can be specifically targeted at those GOPe that are closet anti Trumpers, especially people backed by the chamber that hate Trump's trade agenda.

    1. Probably 5 of those items can be classified under "calling witnesses." Although, much of that can be covered in a general way in the lawyers' statements, as we've already seen to some extent in Trump's response. I wonder whether the questions of Ukrainian election "meddling" and Dem/Ukr corruption can be handled that way, too.

    2. I've read the President's lawyers' excellent response now and highly recommend it to all. I fully expect Dershowitz to expand on these arguments and essentially destroy the unconstitutional basis for the House impeachment.

      While I acknowledge good arguments can be made for asking for a trial, going on the 'offensive' and calling witnesses, etc., with a view towards exposing all of the Dems' wrongdoing since 2015 (including the items Ray lists above), I am inclined (after reading the response) to think that the President should simply move for dismissal of the utterly insufficient Articles.

      The Articles are insufficient and there is no good legal reason to have a trial on charges that are simply insufficient. They literally beg for dismissal, which would destroy the legitimacy of the entire Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler/Lawfare impeachment endeavor.

      If successful, a dismissal would deprive the Dems of the megaphone that a trial would put in the hands of the NYT and CNN for the next six weeks or even longer. Remember, there is little (no) chance the MSM would report fairly on the evidence adduced at a full blown trial. While I believe Trump wins following a full-blown trial, a full-blown trial gives the Dems six weeks or more to deliver more bogus 'bombshells' and thereby continue to publicly undermine Trump's 2020 re-election efforts.

      Dismissal would not, in my estimation, deprive Trump of an opportunity to expose Dem wrong-doing or have his well-deserved revenge. The actions of the Hoaxers, including the Schiff/Nadler Ukraine Hoaxers, is and will be investigated by Barr/Durham and Trump will have plenty of opportunity to see these conspirators indicted and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Also, in a second term, he can turn his full attention to eliminating these conspirators and their fellow travellers from positions in the federal government.

      The tactical question which remains, is whether McConnell can arm twist Delecto and the two or three other squishy GOPe-rs into doing what is unquestionably the right thing in order to obtain 51 votes for dismissal. Or bring Manchin and a couple of vulnerable (or right thinking) Dems over to his side.

    3. Overall, I do think this is the best approach. The temptation to try to use the trial to expose is big, but to dignify it as legit is probably a bad precedent. There are hopefully other ways to educate the public. And possibly better ways.

  6. Is that a young, future corrupt Rosie sitting on the couch on the far right?

    Me thinks it is.

  7. Matt Gaetz was just on Tucker's show, expressing fear that it looks like the Senate is going to rig things, so that the Dems get their witness wish list, while the side of DJT gets crumbs (e.g. no Bidens).
    Any thoughts?

    1. What reasons did he offer for that belief?

    2. Here's what I just read, and it doesn't sound like Gaetz's version:

      After both sides present, senators will then have the opportunity to ask questions in writing for a period of 16 hours. Once that concludes, the Senate will consider "the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents."

      The Senate would then vote on whether to move forward with witnesses or documents. Democrats need the support of four Senate Republicans, who control the chamber, to make it to that stage.

      The resolution makes it clear that if witnesses and documents are approved, the witnesses must first be deposed "and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify."

      "No testimony shall be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses," it adds.

      Depositions typically occur behind closed doors, as was done with witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry last year.

      The resolution makes no mention of a motion to dismiss the case, slthough it leaves the door open for motions to be made by Wednesday morning.

    3. Gaetz doesn't specify why he has such fears. See him at , starting c. 1:15.