Tag Archives: Impeachment

Impeachment hearings causing Independent voters to turn against Democrats

Trump reading out impeachment hearing testimony to reporters
Trump reading out impeachment hearing testimony to reporters

Good news, everyone! Last week, I was posting a lot of videos from the impeachment hearings, featuring Devin Nunes, Elise Stefanik, John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan and others. Although the mainstream news media reporters were anxious for the Democrat witnesses to provide evidence to impeach Trump, it didn’t work out. And now independents are turning against the Democrats.

Here’s a good summary from The Federalist:

Emerson polling showed that support for impeachment flipped since October from 48 percent support with 44 percent opposing to now 45 percent opposed and 43 percent in support. Among key independents, the switch was even more pronounced. In October, 48 percent supported impeaching President Donald Trump, with 39 percent opposed. Now, 49 percent of independents oppose impeachment, while only 34 percent support it.

A new Marquette University Law School poll found that 40 percent of registered voters in the swing state of Wisconsin think that Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 53 percent do not think so. Another 6 percent weren’t sure.

A new Gallup poll shows that Trump’s approval has ticked up two points since the impeachment drama began, with 50 percent of Americans opposed to it and 48 percent in support. Henry Olsen notes that Gallup polls all adults, not just registered voters, meaning that a poll of registered voters would have Trump’s job approval even higher and impeachment opposed by closer to a 52-46 margin.

Even more interesting are the numbers for black voters, who traditionally vote Democrat. The Epoch Times reports:

Both polls—Rasmussen, which usually tilts Republican, and Emerson, which is considered even-handed—came out almost exactly the same, putting Trump’s support among blacks at a surprising, almost astonishing, 34 percent. Typically, Republicans poll in single digits among blacks.

“Game Changer” may be one of the great clichés of our our time, but this would actually be one. If even remotely true, Democrats should be having a nervous breakdown. They depend more than ever on African-Americans for success in elections. If Trump were to garner even 18 percent of the black vote, he would easily win in 2020. If he had anything close to the 34 percent, it would be a runaway, a disaster for the Democrats.

So, those are good numbers for Trump. What happened at the hearings? Well, the Democrats were trying to prove that Trump had held up foreign aid to Ukraine, in order to get them to investigate why Joe Biden’s son was collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars when Joe Biden was vice president. But it turned out that no one in the new Ukrainian government thought that their aid was being held up. And that the aid was released after a short delay over concerns that the new Ukraine government was as corrupt as the last one. Once those concerns were investigated, the aid was released. And the aid included lethal defensive anti-tank weapons, something that Obama had never done for Ukraine. And there was never any investigation of Hunter Biden before the aid was released. So, there was no quid pro quo.

I posted a lot of videos showing all the admissions on Facebook, but this 1-minute video was the slam dunk of the hearing:

The mainstream media reported that Ambassador Sondland had said the exact opposite as what you see in the video above, and that’s just because they don’t expect American voters to look at the video of the hearing.

So, what did we learn from all this? We learned that Trump doesn’t like to give American taxpayer dollars to other countries. He thinks that their immediate neighbors ought to help them, not America. And we learned that Trump is concerned that we not throw money away to corrupt regimes. And we learned that far from withholding aid, Trump gave them USEFUL anti-tank Javelin missiles, something that Obama was never willing to do. And he didn’t get any investigation of any Bidens before that aid was sent.

The Federalist article notes that viewership of the hearings decreased as they went on, probably because people realized that there was no evidence there.

Media outlets did all they could to bolster Schiff’s show and ran the impeachment hearings non-stop, as if Schiff’s inquiry had a legitimacy it never quite managed to earn on the merits. But instead of viewership increasing over time, it decreased.

[…]While the argument for impeachment was difficult to understand, Democrats’ own witnesses kept making Trump’s case against “the swamp” for him. There is no question that these bureaucrats, sometimes using third-hand information, were deeply opposed to Trump, his policies, and his behavior. Their problem was that they were not elected president. In fact, they weren’t elected anything. Some of them were political appointees — a testament to the awful job Trump has done at finding personnel who can accomplish his policy goals — and other times they were career bureaucrats.

[…]In part because Schiff and his team seemed confused about what case they were prosecuting, questions to witnesses were almost always leading, but never focused on a particular or consistent goal. Conversely, Republicans kept focused during their questions, always pointing out that the witnesses didn’t actually have first-hand information, or were basing their views on their own conjecture, a shaky basis for impeachment.

In general, Republican members did a surprisingly good job on cross examining witnesses. The Democrats kept rolling out new star witnesses, and some, such as Gordon Sondland and Lt. Col. Alex Vindman had opening statements that were quite strong for Democrats. Their opening statements withered under strong GOP questioning.

I was thinking about what the Republicans should do next, and wondering whether they should vote to advance the impeachment investigation to the Senate. Democrats were able to make the hearings look bad for Trump at the beginning, before Republicans could question the Democrat witnesses.

Initially, Schiff insisted that this whistleblower testify. Schiff repeatedly demanded that testimony. That all changed the precise moment that it was revealed the whistleblower had communicated with Schiff’s staff, something both the whistleblower and Schiff had been dishonest about.

Republicans hammered Schiff about his self-serving about face, even if the media wanted to pretend it wasn’t a big deal. They also reminded him that they weren’t being allowed to call their own witnesses, ask questions, use transcripts of previous depositions, and other things that a fair proceeding would allow. It worked to their benefit.

But imagine if the Republicans were the ones calling witnesses, and they were given more time to ask questions of the leaker, the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, etc. to really find out who is behind all of this. It might be worth it to get all of this settled properly.

Transcripts show that top U.S. military officials briefed Obama on Benghazi terrorist attack

Investors Business Daily reports.

Excerpt:

Newly declassified transcripts show top defense officials who briefed Obama on the day of the Benghazi attack described it as a terrorist attack and told the president so, yet he pushed a false narrative about a video.

Just as the new book by former Defense Secretary Bob Gates confirmed what many believed, that President Obama was a politically motivated commander-in-chief who had no faith in an Afghan surge he put 30,000 Americans in harm’s way to execute, transcripts of congressional testimony by military leaders confirm that President Obama knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack before he went to bed to rest for a Las Vegas fundraising trip.

Fox News reporter James Rosen examined 450 pages of declassified testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in closed-door hearings held last year by Congress. In those hearings, Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time headed Africom, the Defense Department combat command with jurisdiction over Libya, testified that he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its start, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, from the Africom Command Center.

Ham said he immediately contacted Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey to say he was coming down the hall at the Pentagon to meet with him.

“I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta,” Ham testified, adding “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, asked 29-year Army veteran Ham what he told Panetta and Dempsey. “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack,” Wenstrup said.

Ham responded that “there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack” and that was the “nature of the conversation” Ham had with Panetta and Dempsey moments before their 30-minute meeting with President Obama.

This confirms Panetta’s testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was he who told the president “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.”

“Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

“There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.

Despite a briefing by Dempsey and Panetta that it was a terrorist attack, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would trumpet the false narrative that four Americans were murdered due to an inflammatory video — something Obama would repeat six times before the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice would say on five Sunday talk shows five days after the terrorist attack.

It is a disgrace that the only person ever jailed for the Benghazi attack was the maker of that irrelevant video. The terrorists got away with it.

The terrorists got away with it, because the Obama administration didn’t bother to conduct an investigation, or hold anyone accountable. And now we know why – because the person who should have been fired was Barack Obama. He should have been fired in the 2012 election. This whole Benghazi cover-up was just another case of “if you like your doctor, you can keep him” and “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”. The wonder was that the American people were stupid enough to believe that someone with no experience of any kind at running anything could do a good job as President.

And don’t count on the mainstream media to investigate these stories. They are Democrats. This was their Watergate, and they covered it up.

Related posts

Republicans introduce bill to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder

Breitbart News reports.

Excerpt:

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) has introduced an Articles of Impeachment resolution against Attorney General Eric Holder for his role in Operation Fast and Furious and other scandals of President Barack Obama’s administration.

Seven congressman have signed onto the resolution thus far in addition to Olson. They are Reps. Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Phil Roe (R-TN), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Roger Williams (R-TX), Ted Yoho (R-FL), and Randy Weber (R-TX).

The Articles of Impeachment has four different sections. The first calls for Holder’s official removal because of his failure to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to Operation Fast and Furious. Holder has been voted on a bipartisan basis into both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with the Fast and Furious subpoenas from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

The second section of the Articles of Impeachment deals with Holder’s refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The third section calls for Holder’s impeachment on the grounds that he has refused to prosecute any IRS officials involved in the “scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.”

The fourth section of the Articles of Impeachment goes after Holder for his involvement in the targeting of reporters. Holder testified under oath on May 15, 2013, the resolution states, that he “he was neither involved in nor had heard of a potential prosecution of the press.” Three days later, though, Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) “released documents naming journalist James Rosen as a co-conspirator in an alleged violation of the Espionage Act.” Holder later confirmed to Congress that he had in fact “approved a search warrant on James Rosen.”

See the links below for a review of Holder’s many failures.

Related posts

Benghazi liar Susan Rice to be appointed National Security Adviser by grateful Obama

Katie Pavlich of Townhall explains how Obama rewards those who lie to the American people on his behalf, just before an election.

Excerpt:

President Obama won’t condemn Attorney General Eric Holder for spying on reporters and now, he’s tapped Benghazi YouTube video liar Susan Rice to serve as a top security adviser.

President Barack Obama plans to appoint Susan Rice as his national security adviser, replacing Tom Donilon, who is resigning, in a major shift to the White House’s foreign policy team.

Obama plans to make the appointment, first reported by the New York Times, later on Wednesday. He will also fill Rice’s current position, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

It’s no surprise Rice is getting a promotion. After all, she served as a good foot soldier for the Obama administration when she went in five Sunday talk shows five days after the attack and lied about a YouTube video.

We know a YouTube video was never part of the equation the night of the attack. Acting Libyan Ambassador and whistleblower Greg Hicks called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at 2 a.m. from Libya and said, “We were under attack.” Hicks told Congress under oath that a YouTube video was a “non-event” in Libya. A lack of security was one of the main reasons why the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked on 9/11. Many security requests were sent to the State Department and Clinton but were repeatedly denied.

I noticed that the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol did a podcast on the pick, and he was very concerned.

Description:

THE WEEKLY STANDARD podcast with editor William Kristol on Susan Rice’s promotion, the nomination of Samantha Power to be the next ambassador to the United Nations, and Congress’s investigation into the Internal Revenue Service scandal.

Here is the MP3 file of the podcast.

How serious could this administration be about national security when appointments like this are made?

Related posts

Released e-mails show that State Department edited terrorism out of Benghazi talking points

Fox News reports on the newly released e-mails.

Excerpt:

State Department officials repeatedly objected to — and tried to water down — references to Islamic extremist groups and prior security warnings in the administration’s initial internal story-line on the Benghazi attack, according to dozens of emails and notes released by the White House late Wednesday.

[…]Individual emails leading up to that assessment show State officials repeatedly objecting to the intelligence community’s early version of events. 

The early versions stated that “Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda” participated in the assault and discussed links to militant group Ansar al Sharia — and referenced prior attacks against western targets in Benghazi, as well as intelligence warnings. 

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland complained that she had “serious concerns” about “arming members of Congress” to make assertions the administration was not making. “In same vein, why do we want Hill to be fingering Ansar al Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results … and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned …” 

She also wrote that the line saying the administration knows there were extremists among the demonstrators “will come back to us at podium,” voicing concern that some would question how the administration knows that. She said she would “need answers” if that line is used.

In response to her concerns, Assistant Secretary of State David S. Adams voiced agreement. He said the line about prior incidents “will read to members like we had been repeatedly warned.”

The emails show Petraeus’ deputy Mike Morell involved in circulating revised points. In one email, he too noted the State Department had “deep concerns” about referencing prior “warnings.”

A page of hand-written notes showed Morell scratching out mentions of Al Qaeda, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration. Ultimately, all of that was scrubbed from the talking points. The final version said “extremists” participated, without mentioning prior attacks and warnings in the region.

This editing of the talking points is what Barack Obama called “a sideshow”. Not worth talking about.

The motivation behind the State Department’s editing was pretty clearly to avoid identifying the attackers as Muslim terrorists. The timing of the election was undoubtedly a factor in the decision making. They edited the talking points in order to create the impression for voters that Obama had been effective at reining in terrorism with his weak foreign policy and appeasement. Democrats are weak on foreign policy. They do ignore warnings. They do prefer to blame America for the bad actions of Muslim extremists. This approach does not deter aggression. Rather than admit their mistake and toughen up, the Democrats preferred to cover up the facts. And they won the election.

Related posts