What Is Kevin McCarthy Talking About?

A number of commenters have questioned the efficacy of GOP pushback against the Dem House's request for  telecom records that probably targets GOP representatives in the context of the January 6 Event "insurrection" witchhunt that Pelosi hopes will save her House. Initial reports characterized these requests as congressional subpoenas, but it now appears that they are simply request letters issued by the Dem House. Commenters questioning the efficacy of any GOP pushback assume that the telecom companies will simply and joyfully turn over all records to the Dems, ignoring McCarthy's threats of payback if or when the GOP retakes the House.

Commenter aNanyMouse cites a sentence from The Hill's generally good account, which questions McCarthy's assertion that it's illegal for the telecom companies to comply with these request letters:

"McCarthy did not cite which law prohibits telecommunications companies from complying with the committee’s request."

To understand what's in play here, we need to review some basic matters of criminal and national security investigations.

MAJOR UPDATE: Is This Pelosi's Master Plan For Election 2022?

If so, my bet is that it's headed for a fail. Perhaps even a backfire.

Law prof Jonathan Turley has the story at The Hill:

Democrats' Jan. 6 subpoena-palooza sets dangerous precedent

For "Dems" I think it's entirely fair to read: Pelosi. As Turley details, the Dems are going full witch hunt on the GOP side in the House, issuing an tidal wave of subpoenas for their phone records. Given that the FBI has announced that, woops! there really wasn't any "insurrection", one assumes that the idea behind this tactic is to find in the phone records contacts that might prove embarrassing for GOP members and useful in the campaigns of endangered Dems.

My view is that Americans, for all their foibles and gullibility, have a constitutional aversion to witch hunts. This will NOT distract them from the many manifest failures of the Zhou regime. It just may anger many Americans, who all polling shows have moved past January 6.

Anyway, Turley has some points to make, and they're worthwhile.  This tactic may never get the chance to backfire--it could get quashed in court:

What Is It About Dems And Witchhunts?

Everyone knew this nonsense about "unity" was eyewash. Likewise, that Pelosi's January 6 Commission would be a latter day HUAC targeting, basically, all normal people, but especially conservatives. Nevertheless, as Roddy Martindale would say, One does like one's perfidy to be subtle--and this isn't subtle at all:

Pelosi’s Pick To Lead Capitol Security Investigation Thinks Hawley Is A ‘Little Piece Of Sh-t’ Who Should Lose His Job

The next time I hear someone say, Thanks for your service! I may literally puke. So many of these retired military and LE have spent years being stroked by sycophants and throwing their supposed weight around--and liking it. It's easy when you can pull rank.

Oh, did I mention?

Pelosi has appointed a retired lieutenant general, Russel Honore, to run her pet commission. Get a load of this guy--runs his mouth off then deletes his tweets:

On January 12, 2021, Honoré tweeted about the US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.): "This little peace of shit with his Yale law degree should be run out of DC and Disbarred ASAP [Senators] Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz aaa hats these Yale and Harvard law grads is high order white privilege."

On January 7, 2021 Honoré speculated that those in charge of security at the Capitol could have been "complicit" in the attack: "By a percentage, 30 to 40 percent of the officers are Trumpsters. That's a fact Jack".

On the same day he called for a boycott of companies advertising on Fox News, claiming that Sean Hannity is a Russian asset: "These are Sean Hannity's leading advertisers. PLEASE stop buying their shit stocks Sean Hannity speaks #Russian iNFO OPERATIONS TO SUCK UP TO #45" ^{[14] [15] [16]}

On January 15, 2021, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that Honoré would lead a review of security failures following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol that will focus on “security infrastructure, interagency processes and procedures, and command and control”. ^[17] [18] On February 17, 2021, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) criticized Honoré appointment: "General Honoré is an extreme partisan and should be the LAST person to head up an investigation of what happened at the Capitol on Jan 6th." ^[14]

Interestingly, in August, 2020, Honore called for a "march on Washington" to "stop" what he referred to as "Trump's sabotage" of the coming election. Incitement anyone?

I wonder what Mitch McConnell is doing right now? Looking for a bridge to other GOPers to burn, if there are any left that he hasn't torched yet? His rhetoric plays right into the latest witchhunt, but I doubt many senators will be amused.

It's Great To Be Lucky

OTOH, it helps to make your own luck--per Red State:

​Last month:

Nancy Pelosi and/or her husband purchased 25 call options of Tesla Inc. stake price of $500 with an expiration of March 18,​ ​2022, paying between $500,000 and $1,000,000 for the options.

They’ve gone up from $640.34 over this time to $890 as of today, which means they’re worth $1.12 million, according to Money Control.​

​Today:

​President Biden on Monday pledged to transition the U.S. Government vehicle fleet with electric vehicles as part of his “Buy American” executive order aimed at refocusing federal procurement on domestic-made products.

“The federal government also owns an enormous fleet of vehicles, which we’re going to replace with clean, electric vehicles made right here in America by American workers, creating millions of jobs — a million autoworker jobs in clean energy — and vehicles that are net-zero emissions,” Biden said during a speech announcing the initiative.

 

Shares of electric-vehicle makers Workhorse and Lordstown were up as much as 10 percent in early pre-market trading Tuesday, Tesla was also higher.

​Think she knew something was coming?​

Why Not Ask The Obvious Questions About The Swalwell Case?

There are two obvious questions in the Eric Swalwell case, regarding his sexual compromise by a Chinese spy: Who knew what, and when did they know it?

Notice that I framed the question in the plural.

This afternoon James Freeman in his Best of the Web column at the WSJ claimed to offer us:

The Swalwell Timeline

Did a communist spy know the congressman was about to assume oversight of the CIA?

What good is a timeline if none of the obvious names show up? As far as I can tell from the article, Swalwell--by his own words--was likely to have been contacted by the FBI as early as 2014 or even earlier: 

According to the Axios story, the interactions included the alleged agent known as Fang Fang or Christine Fang placing an intern in Rep. Swalwell’s office and also helping to raise funds for his 2014 re-election campaign. Axios reported that the FBI gave Mr. Swalwell a defensive briefing sometime around 2015 to warn him of the threat.

Since Axios broke the story, one of the few disclosures Mr. Swalwell has been willing to make occurred in an interview with CNN’s Jim Sciutto, when the lawmaker clarified the timeline. Mr. Sciutto asked the Congressman if he had had any concerns about the woman before receiving the defensive briefing from the FBI. Rep. Swalwell responded:

No. Jim, I was shocked when, you know, just over six years ago, I was told about this individual. And then I offered to help, and I did help and I was thanked by the FBI for my help and that person is no longer in the country.

If Mr. Swalwell’s story is accurate, it means he was told sometime in late 2014 or earlier that he had unwittingly been conducting a relationship with a communist spy.

Now, here's the only really solid date we have:

Coup, Coup, Coup

Three good reads today, all relating one way or another to the coup-coup crazy Dems' anti-constitutional efforts to seize total control since Trump's unapproved election victory.

Thomas Lifson leads off with a startling article on the Dem strategy, working off recent public statements by Pelosi and Hillary. As Lifson notes, those statements give the game away:

Dems no longer even bothering to hide their strategy to steal the election

The statements themselves could be termed 'unhinged', except that they unquestionably reflect thinking and strategy at the highest level of Dem organization. Here they are:

Hillary: “We’ve got to have a massive legal operation, I know the Biden campaign is working on that… Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”

Pelosi: "One thing I’ll say to the American people: Do not pay any attention to Donald Trump. It is his goal to scare people from voting, to intimidate them by saying he’s going to have law enforcement people at the polls, to welcome, in fact, Russian intervention into our election, ... the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., with their allies in the Congress of the United States ... enemies of the state."

That's right. Pelosi labeled the Trump and the entire GOP as "domestic enemies", "enemies of the state."

Fact Or Fiction?

You decide from the titles:

Top Pelosi Staffer Registered As ‘Foreign Agent’ To Lobby For Chinese State Media Outlet

Nation’s Empty Churches To Become Spirit Halloween Stores

Sorry--I know that was too easy.

Pelosi's Call To The Ramparts

Earlier this evening I wrote referring to Nancy Pelosi's bizarre impeachment address:

Joel Pollak at Breitbart has an excellent article debunking the central Dem claim that their impeachment theater is a revolt against a president who claims the powers of an absolute monarch--a sort of We The People against George III Redux. That was the tenor of Pelosi's bizarre address, and it came up repeatedly in the Nadler committee testimony by law professors. 

Frank Miele has written a wonderful article that deconstructs that meme in more detail. What Miele writes is more profound than the title might suggest, so don't be tempted to pass it by as just one more "coup" article: Speaker Pelosi Declares a Coup Against President Trump.

Just as the Dems have ripped Trump's words out of context, so too they now rip the words of the Declaration of Independence out of context. Pelosi speaks of "dissolv[ing] ... political bonds," as if the declaration was merely referring to resistance to a distant monarch. But the the Declaration actually speaks of something fundamentally different:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Viewed in this context, Pelosi's words are ominous. Miele begins with that in mind. Excerpt:

Quick Hits

More trouble for the FBI:

BREAKING: A second Comey FBI agent in addition to FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith will be cited for misconduct in the Russia "collusion" probe, making it more implausible that their supervisor Strzok was unaware of their conduct and that they were rogue agents operating on their own

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) December 5, 2019

BREAKING: Justice IG Horowitz has 104 criminal or administrative investigations of alleged misconduct related to FBI employees open as of Sept. 30, according to new OIG report. The criminal investigations involve "serious allegations of official misconduct."

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) December 5, 2019

Bill Barr and his pal "Bob", the butt of his jokes:

BASED BILL BARR pic.twitter.com/c6yl31toIL

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) December 5, 2019

https://t.co/q7knGtLjMu pic.twitter.com/NPcMXV17Cf

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) December 5, 2019

Nancy's Speech for the Ages:

Except that...E pluribus unum means "FROM many, one." Not "FOR many, one." 🙄 @SpeakerPelosi https://t.co/rbTanlqehp

— shane@theshow (@shanetheshow1) December 5, 2019

Pelosi's Outrageous Fake Narrative Of Impeachment

OK, The Hill has it: Pelosi's 'fact sheet' on Trump impeachment. Here's the lead in by The Hill:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) office on Monday released a "fact sheet" detailing allegations against President Trump amid House Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry. 

“President Trump has betrayed his oath of office, betrayed our national security and betrayed the integrity of our elections for his own personal political gain,” the document argues. 

It goes on to list what Pelosi's office calls proof of a "pressure campaign" and "cover up" by Trump related to Ukraine. The sheet includes quotes from Trump and the anonymous [spy] ...

So, this isn't serious--in fact, it's an outrage. What it is is a fraud perpetrated on the public.

The Hill rightly puts "fact sheet" in quotes because the sheet or screed is not factual in any real world sense. The second paragraph, the charge for impeachment, is actually the tired old Jerry Nadler scam. This scam script was written out as soon as Trump took the oath of office--in fact, Maggie Hemingway overheard Nadler outlining it to a friend. It was written before any "facts" were known. Anyway, if the Dems had actual facts to support the allegations presented in this BS narrative, why has there been no vote to impeach?

Here's why. What follows is the beginning of the "fact sheet"--really a non-factual narrative put together to attempt to influence the public discussion:

THE SHAKEDOWN 

On September 25, the White House released a record of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, which paints a damning picture of Trump abusing his offce by pressing a foreign government to interfere in our 2020 elections.  

President Trump has betrayed his oath of office, betrayed our national security and betrayed the integrity of our elections for his own personal political gain.

IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN WORDS: 

“I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine…. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal
necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”  

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”  

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to and out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.”

“I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out.”

Now, what Pelosi presents bears the same relation to Trump's actual words as a presentation titled "IN THE NYT'S OWN WORDS" would if I were to take a copy of the NYT and select paragraphs from four separate pages and string them together as if each paragraph came from one connected passage. Note that there are no ellipses setting off the paragraphs to show that the quotes are actually taken out of context, which makes this presentation not just a misrepresentation but an outright fake--as if it were an audiotape that had been edited and then presented as correct and true.

Thus, the key part, in which Trump is presented as asking for a "favor" with regard to Biden and his son:

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

There should be an ellipsis here to signify a gap in the quotation. 

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to and out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.”

in fact should read like this:

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. 

"I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation."

As I said, that's not mere misrepresentation--it's outright falsification. As such, if in the wildly improbable circumstance that such a charge were voted out of the House, Trump's attorney's would be strongly advised to present a motion to the Chief Justice (who would preside in the Senate) to dismiss the charge based on its patent falsity. It would be a fraud on the Senate--presenting, in actual fact, a falsified document.

Therefore this is clearly not serious and is presented by Pelosi only to stoke the left wing loon base.

On an only slightly more serious level, I suspect the real target here is not so much Trump, as AG Bill Barr. Note how Barr is presented as acting in concert with Giuliani and both are presented as acting to investigate the Bidens. That's another, and very serious, falsification of the actual text of the document. The point of it is to portray Barr as engaged in a political witchhunt rather than an investigation with a proper criminal predication. In other words, just as we've seen in the barely controlled hysteria of the media accounts since we first heard of the Durham investigation's "expanded timeline", what we're seeing here is evidence that the Left is spinning out of control in its alarm over Barr's investigation.

That's good news.

UPDATED: The House GOP Just Voted For Impeachment

It's a bipartisan thing now--a thundering bipartisan majority of the House voted to impeach President Trump, with only 60 nay votes.

Don't believe that's what yesterday's Syria vote was? Just ask Nancy Pelosi. She was out this morning in front of the surrogate media telling them that "All roads lead to Putin with this president, and Trump's Syria policy was intended to help Putin." That's right. The Syria vote wasn't just the rejection of a policy. It was a rejection of a president who is aiding and abetting our enemy Russia. Count on hearing that constantly from the Dems from now on.

If the GOPers try to back out of this, saying that the vote wasn't really about impeachment, Pelosi will just say--

They're too stupid to understand these things just now, but the reality is that they do recognize that Trump is a mortal threat to our national security. Russia is our enemy. We know that because Putin hacked the DNC, Putin meddled in our election. And Trump is helping our enemy Russia by betraying our "allies" in Syria and Ukraine. He has to be removed, and this Syria vote was the first step on that road back from denial for The Stupid Party (h/t Daniel Patrick Moynihan). They'll be with me when it comes time. And then we'll move on to impeaching Brett Kavanaugh.

At the very least the GOPe losers voted thunderously to remove any pressure on Pelosi to hold an impeachment inquiry vote. There is no pressure now that the GOPe has validated her talking points. But the reality is probably much worse.

This may well have been a vote by the GOPe to return to permanent minority status. Can they really expect that Trump voters whom they've so blatantly betrayed will turn out for them? Last night Lou Dobbs interviewed Steve Scalise. It was pathetic, and Dobbs just sat in disbelief, shaking his head. Scalise kept trying to deflect from the Syria vote to things they supported Trump on. And Dobbs kept returning to reality: This is a president the Dems are seeking to impeach; he needs your support; 57% of your voters support the policy--and you just betrayed him. Scalise had no answer to that. No answer at all.

How to explain it all? In politics "Follow the money" is usually a sound principle. We're talking about Representatives, most of whom probably could not explain where Kurdistan is located--maybe not even Syria. Yet they voted to impeach Trump. Only money can explain that degree of idiocy. It's all about the Benjamins. Follow the trail of Benjamins.

It's pretty much up to Trump and Barr at this point.

ADDENDUM: We the People still have a part to play. Sorry I forgot to say that. I guess I'm still in a state of disbelief.

UPDATE 1: McConnell signals to Trump not to count on his support unless Trump caves to him--or to whoever has the Benjamins. From DM via FR:

Mitch McConnell steps up Republican rebellion over Syria saying he wants 'something STRONGER' than the House resolution. 

Mitch McConnell said Thursday that he wants 'something even stronger' in the Senate than the House's resolution formally opposing Donald Trump's troop withdrawal from northern Syria last week. 

The Senate Majority Leader said he was 'encouraged' by the House, including 129 Republican members, voting to condemn the president's highly contested decision. 

'I believe it's important that we make a strong forward-looking strategic statement. For that reason my preference would be for something even stronger than the resolution that the House passed yesterday which has some serious weaknesses,' McConnell said from the Senate floor Thursday. 

The vote Wednesday – where more than a hundred Republicans broke ranks with the president – showed the overwhelming bipartisan opposition to Trump's decision to remove troops from a region as Turkey took military action against Kurdish forces in Syria.

UPDATE 2: I forgot this earlier. This vote also takes some of the pressure off "moderate" Dems by making opposition to Trump bipartisan.

More On The Impeachment Strategy

Yesterday in The Ukraine Hoax Looks Like Russia Hoax Redux I wrote briefly on the obvious strategy for impeachment. Nancy Pelosi gave that game away when she told the assembled media hoaxers: "All roads lead to Putin with this president." So:

Nancy Pelosi's statement yesterday regarding the ongoing Impeachment Theater made it pretty clear that the endgame is to try to tie Trump's consideration of withholding military aid to Ukraine to renewed allegations that Trump is doing Putin's bidding. That reflects the claim that Glenn Simpson (following others) will make in his book, which we reviewed in What Did Obama Know--And When? 

     "After four years on his trail, the authors' inescapable conclusion is that Trump is an asset of the Russian government, whether he knows it or not."

I don't think there's any other way to interpret Pelosi's remarks:

Once you understand this, then the parade of seemingly nonsensical charges and witnesses begins to make sense. A bit like a Rohrschach test. Of course there was no quid pro quo in the phone call, not in a formal sense. Of course Trump, like any president, would ordinarily be entitled to fire any ambassador, etc. But just like the Weissmann obstruction theory, in which the President's claimed intentions become obstructive even when his actions are lawful, so too the claim will be made that even Trump's lawful acts are impeachable because--whether he knows it or not!--he's acting as Putin's agent, doing Putin's bidding.

Thus, when the WSJ reports today:

Former Pompeo Aide McKinley Testifies in Ukraine Probe

Michael McKinley, who resigned from State Department last week, faces questions from House committees

A former senior adviser to Mike Pompeo told lawmakers that he left his post over frustration with the secretary of state regarding the treatment of the ousted U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, according to people familiar with the testimony.

... 

Mr. McKinley said that in the past month he asked Mr. Pompeo repeatedly to show support for the former Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch.

we understand that the charge will soon surface--as, indeed, Pelosi has strongly indicated--that Trump fired Yovanovitch (whether he knew it or not) to do Putin's bidding. Yovanovitch was a supporter of Ukraine against Russia. Trump fired her to please his handler, Putin. Just as Andy McCabe said--Trump is an agent of a foreign power whether he knows it or not and so must be impeached. Being an agent of a foreign power in this sense is the "high crime or misdemeanor," the "political crime" that supposedly harms the body politic. It's The Russia Hoax Redux. There's no evidence, but that's not the point. There's never evidence in a hoax.

Imagine the depth of corruption--financial, policy, and political--a thorough inquiry into Ukraine would reveal! Imagine the lengths to which the Deep State will go to conceal everything that's going on. Ukraine is the tip of an iceberg and the American public must not see what's below the waterline.

I continue to believe this morally bankrupt strategy will backfire. Even after the mass GOP betrayal of Trump in the Syria vote yesterday.

The Ukraine Hoax Looks Like Russia Hoax Redux

Nancy Pelosi's statement yesterday regarding the ongoing Impeachment Theater made it pretty clear that the endgame is to try to tie Trump's consideration of withholding military aid to Ukraine to renewed allegations that Trump is doing Putin's bidding. That reflects the claim that Glenn Simpson (following others) will make in his book, which we reviewed in What Did Obama Know--And When?

After four years on his trail, the authors' inescapable conclusion is that Trump is an asset of the Russian government, whether he knows it or not.

I don't think there's any other way to interpret Pelosi's remarks:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "All roads seem to lead to Putin with the president." https://t.co/JsAo4rT8TM pic.twitter.com/52iWUykcLx

— ABC News (@ABC) October 15, 2019

It's a shockingly bankrupt strategy--both morally and strategically. Morally bankrupt, because it IS morally bankrupt to consciously  and cynically attempt to dupe the public in this way with patently false conspiracy theories. It's a bankrupt strategy because it's certain to backfire. 

Pelosi's Son Had Energy Ties To Ukraine

File under: Can't Make This Stuff Up. Nancy Pelosi's son Paul is on the board of an energy company that does business with Ukrainian companies. He has also traveled to Ukraine--the hot destination for San Francisco liberals, apparently. Read all about it here: Nancy Pelosi’s Son Was Exec At Gas Company That Did Business In Ukraine. And we thought liberals all just loved Ukrainians. Who would've thought what they really wanted was to enrich themselves off that sad country's trouble's and corruption? How is that the supposedly idealistic scams of liberals--We need to protect against Russian aggression, don't look at those Neo-nazis!--somehow leads to liberals making millions? I wonder whether Putin is aware of this? I bet he is. It's just us dummies that are catching on a bit late.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s son Paul Pelosi Jr. visited Ukraine in 2017 to meet with government officials in connection to a business initiative. Now, unearthed records reveal that Paul Pelosi Jr. was an executive of a gas industry company that did business in Ukraine – and his mother Nancy Pelosi was featured in one of the company’s promotional videos. 

Journalist Patrick Howley broke the story Thursday:

Patrick Howley‏ @HowleyReporter

BOOM: Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Pelosi Jr. (who went to Ukraine in 2017) was a board member of Viscoil and executive at its related company NRGLab, which DID ENERGY Business in UKRAINE! And Nancy Pelosi appeared in a promotional video for the company! 

3:59 PM - 3 Oct 2019

Follow the link for much more. US politicians have been bilking Ukraine--side by side at the trough with Ukrainian "oligarchs"--for years.

Will Impeachment By Innuendo Work?

This evening sundance identifies Pelosi's impeachment strategy as "impeachment by innuendo." I agree that that's a pretty good description. The proof, as always, is in the pudding--will it work? Here is sundance's description:

Both Trump-Russia (obstruction) and Trump-Ukraine (corruption) have similar footprints because they both held the same end-goal purpose, impeachment. 

Trump was framed for stealing a horse; Trump was subsequently accused of trying too hard to avoid hanging for it. Mueller eventually conceded that Trump didn’t steal the horse; however, by then the focus was on his efforts to avoid hanging.  Eventually Mueller testified; it surfaced there was never a horse to begin with… Impeachment was stalled.

I luv that metaphor!

We would be well served to avoid focusing on the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, and subsequent anonymous whistle-blower complaint narrative, to understand their objective. 

The background facts are not the priority for those who are constructing the impeachment articles.  Like the Russian horse, the Ukraine horse never existed. Pelosi’s political committee needs center around exploiting a manufactured corruption narrative. 

The primary objective of Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings and Eliot Engel is not the material within the anonymous CIA ‘whistle-blower’ complaint.  The priority is the use of the complaint as a vehicle. The complaint was fabricated to deliver an outcome in the same way the Steele Dossier was fabricated to deliver an outcome.

I believe this strategy will not work. The reason is related to sundance's comparison of the Ukraine Hoax to the Steele Dossier hoax. The Steele Dossier based impeachment effort came, in my opinion, dangerously close to succeeding. The near success had nothing to do with the actual non-factual narrative propagated through the Steele Dossier. Rather, the near success was based on Trump's supposed obstruction of a non-factual narrative--as sundance puts it, the horse that never existed!

That lynching was definitvely put down by Bill Barr.

No Halfway Impeachment

Michael Goodwin gets it very right in his NYPost article: Pelosi’s impeachment flip-flop changes everything. The whole thing is good, but here's a teaser quote:

Pelosi may think she went only halfway Tuesday and could eventually back down on impeachment if the Ukraine issue fizzles, but that’s wishful thinking. Anything less than a public flogging of Trump will not satisfy the far left of her own party, including the 150 or so House members who already demanded impeachment before the Ukraine issue appeared. 

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s endorsement also pushes the presidential candidates toward the impeachment path, whether they like it or not. None of them can possibly be against it, nor can they be wishy-washy about it. 

Bet that within days, there will be virtually unanimous support among the White House wannabes. Anything less will be disqualifying among the loud left. 

In short, Pelosi just changed everything. The next election is now about impeachment. 

If you think America is polarized today, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Peter van Buren at AmCon:

The big difference this time around is that there’s no holy grail pee tape to quest after for three years. A transcript of the call between Trump and the Ukrainian president exists. What did Trump say? The Ukrainian government version, which is as close as we have to the truth at present, has been quietly online for two months now. It reads, “Donald Trump is convinced that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve image of Ukraine, complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA. [sic]”

Oh, ouch! WaPo:

It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

And Ed Henry at Fox reports the Inspector General found that the "whistleblower" had political bias in favor of a candidate to run against Trump:

Three Good Reads: The Mueller Circus; Trump Picks Pence

The first article is Michael Goodwin's Dems take desperate final shot at Trump with Mueller testimony. You won't be surprised by a thing Goodwin says, but he says it well--captures the desperation and futility of the whole circus.

The second article fascinated me in a totally different way. It's by Tim Alberta, who is the chief political correspondent at Politico, so if you're guessing that he's not a Trump fan, then you're on to something. And that's part of what makes the article so fascinating.

The article is You Crossed The Rubicon ... There's No Going Back": Karl Rove, Kellyanne Conway, And The Odd Couple Marriage Between Mike Pence And Donald Trump. It's a chapter from the just released American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump. Of course Alberta has his own slant, his own agenda, and of course there are repeated efforts at snark, attempts to depict Trump as the buffoonish caricature we're all familiar with. But what keeps coming through the portrait of Trump the person, and especially the positive qualities that suit him as President. His relentless inquisitiveness, his willingness to accept being challenged, his impatience with the BS factor. And his basic humanity and likeability.

Here's the blurb about the overall theme of the book, from which you can readily grasp the author's slant:

Only by viewing Trump as the culmination of a decade-long civil war inside the GOP—and of the parallel sense of cultural, socioeconomic, and technological disruption during that period—can we appreciate how he won the White House and consider the fundamental questions at the center of America’s current turmoil. How did a party once obsessed with national insolvency come to champion trillion-dollar deficits? How did the party of compassionate conservatism become the party of Muslim bans and family separation? How did the party of family values elect a thrice-married philanderer? And, most important, how long can such a party survive?

This chapter doesn't get into much of that, but here's one sample from Kellyanne Conway:

“The Republican Party was always looking for the next Ronald Reagan, but it kept picking Bushes,” Conway says.

It's longish but very interesting. Highly recommended.

Heh, the third is an addon:

Pelosi Can’t Disown Her Political Progeny

The squad was weaned on Pelosi’s mother’s milk of identity politics, bad faith, and fear-mongering. Now, her political offspring make up the face of a party defined by race and gender with a hearty strain of anti-Americanism, animated by name-calling and threats. Diversity, not merit, rules the day. Capitalism is evil, socialism is just. Global warming, not terrorism, is the existential threat to humanity. We are citizens of the world, not to one nation. 

Bullying is a substitute for persuasion. Critics are silenced by smears, not by facts. Imaginary systemic injustices excuse any bad behavior; indignation supersedes hard work. Seniority is a nice word for white patriarchy. Respect flows only one way. 

The squad’s political hubris was a generation in the making, during which time Pelosi was a Democratic Party leader. Aside from her relatively tepid criticism of late, Pelosi, like a bad parent, has mostly accommodated the squad’s tantrums and antics since Election Day. As I wrote in January, it was obvious that Ocasio-Cortez would be the shadow speaker as Pelosi sucked up to her unruly freshman caucus early on.

UPDATED: What Might Come Of The Epstein Case?

I'll admit very frankly that, while I've read a certain amount about the Jeffrey Epstein case, I've shied away from writing about it for the simple reason that I don't want to get dragged down into the salacious details. Because I'm a bit squeamish about dwelling on such matters. Nevertheless, Epstein's arrest by federal authorities (actually, a joint FBI/NYPD task force) in the Southern District of NY--even as the US Attorney in Miami continues to resist reopening the case, and coming as it does in the runup to the 2020 elections as well as in the aftermath of the Mueller Dossier--raises unavoidable speculation. Fortunately I've come across an article that addresses some of these issues without the salacious details. The article is by Monica Showalter, So the Epstein bust means Democratic 'faves' may roll out of the woodwork? and it may prove a useful jumping off point for speculation on what to look for going forward.

As we'll see, Showalter's title is a reference to a tweet by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine, but let's first glance at Showalter's first paragraph:

The bust of Bill Clinton's buddy and airplane-mate Jeffrey Epstein, monickered by Forbes as "Palm Beach pervert," for sex trafficking in underage girls, is a complex one. The news is speculative about whether Epstein was being protected by Robert Mueller's special counsel's office, and why the Department of Justice acted now, given that he's been problematic for years. There's also his role as a bigfoot Democrat donor, same as Ed Buck and other perverts who've financed the Democrats. A while back, I made a list here. But one thing's pretty clear, based on a tweet by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine: Democrats knew.

And here's what Christine Pelosi tweeted:

"This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may — whether on Republicans or Democrats."

The first point, which most readers are no doubt already familiar with, is that when Christine Pelosi refers to "some of our faves" she's referring directly to the same person Showalter singles out: Bill Clinton. The reason is twofold. First, Clinton ditched the Secret Service 26 times to take trips to Epstein's private island on his private jet--the Lolita Express. Secondly, the fact that Epstein was "a bigfoot Democrat donor" is highly suggestive of just who Epstein's chosen companions were. Christine Pelosi says that the chips should be allowed to "fall where they may--whether on Republicans or Democrats." But she gives the game away with her sole reference to "faves." Coming from Pelosi's daughter that can only mean "Democrats." There is no such pointed reference to Republicans, no warning that Republicans are likely to be complicit.

Further, Showalter raises a shrewd point:

UPDATED: Has The Left Thought This Impeachment Thing Through?

Robert Mueller and John Brennan are nothing if not card carrying members of the Deep State. Thus, Mueller's parting shot at President Trump--with his less than subtle observation that "the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," which was quickly followed up by Brennan's full throated call for Congress to act on Mueller's prodding--is surely a measure of the desperation that the Deep State is feeling. Trump has come through the Russia Hoax inquisition in better shape than ever, with a Department of Justice primed under AG Bill Barr to get to the bottom of Deep State plotting against our electoral processes. The Deep State took its best shot at the king and failed with its Russia Hoax, but now the king is about to take his best shot at them.

That much I get. But I wonder whether the Left, which appears delighted with Mueller's irresponsible performance and is in full cry for impeachment, has taken stock of what impeachment would inevitably lead to. Have they weighed the speculation that Trump may actually want to be impeached, and what might be behind that? They might want to stop and think before taking the impeachment plunge, but then that might not be their style.

Those making the case that Trump wants to be impeached are, in fact, savvy observers of the political scene and they include a broad spectrum of pundits and politicians. Typically the argument runs that the American people don't want impeachment, especially with the economy booming, and will penalize the Dems for their madness in 2020. For example:

Don Surber:

President Donald John Trump wants them to impeach him because this is the best way to penalize Democrats for trying to frame him and remove him from office in a Deep State coup.

Conrad Black:

The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. They must put up or shut up, impeach or back down. The president has called their bluff and the game is about to end, either an embarrassing defeat for the Democrats or political annihilation.

And, yes, Nancy Pelosi:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told her Democratic colleagues Thursday that President Donald Trump “wants to be impeached” so that he can be vindicated by the Senate.

In fact, the implications of impeachment go far beyond these political considerations and get to the heart of the almost palpable fear now gripping the Deep State. Let's first review the approach Mueller took, because that will have a direct bearing on how impeachment would work in the case of President Trump.

Ever Wonder How Americans Feel About Impeaching Trump?

Wonder no more!

Yesterday I asked, Does Trump want to be impeached? And I cited some savvy observers--Don Surber and Conrad Black--for the proposition that, yes, Trump really does want to be impeached. It just may be part of that conspiracy that Adam Schiff is so worried about.

The most recent Harvard-Harris poll (April) has an answer to our question, and helpfully links to an article at The Hill that summarizes the findings: Two-thirds of voters oppose impeachment proceedings.

Marc Thiessen comments on these findings today. It appears that Dems have only been listening to themselves talking to one another in their closed door conferences, and have learned nothing in the month or so since the poll was taken: