RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sondlands-unimpeachable-offenses-11574294949

The House impeachment hearings roll on, but the most important news is how little new we are learning about President Trump and Ukraine. The witnesses from the diplomatic and national-security bureaucracy are filling in some details—many of which are unflattering about how policy is made in this Administration—but none change the fundamental narrative or suggest crimes or other impeachable offenses***

That includes Wednesday’s testimony by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union who described what he saw and heard from May through September. His account essentially confirms that Mr. Trump had a negative view of Ukraine, was reluctant to keep supplying U.S. aid, and asked Mr. Sondland and others to work with Rudy Giuliani to press Ukraine’s new President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce that he was opening an anti-corruption probe.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/some_nasty_antipresident_quotes_to_offer_perspective.html

Here are just a few choice quotes leveled at the president (read to the end):

“The president has continued during the last week to make a fool of himself and to mortify and shame the intelligent people of this great nation.”

“He is evidently a person of very inferior character.”

“The president is a fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism, a worse tyrant than has existed since the days of Nero.”

“Those who vote for the president’s re-election are traitors.

“He is universally an admitted failure, has no will, no courage, no executive capacity.”

“There is a strong feeling among those who have seen the president, in the way of business, that he lacks practical talent for the job.  It is thought that there should be more readiness.”

Yes.  These nasty things were said about President…Lincoln. By Democrats and “NeverLincolns” of their day.  All while he won the Civil War and ended slavery. 

So keep fighting, President Trump.  While your opponents try everything they can to demean, demoralize, and depose you, the decent people of this country appreciate your tireless efforts in giving us this great economy, a stronger military, better trade deals, and a restored sense of America’s true greatness.

Seth Swirsky is a songwriter and filmmaker living in Los Angeles.

https://spectator.us/schiff-vindman-impeachment-flop/

No.’ ‘No.’ ‘No.’ ‘No.’

That pretty much sums up yesterday’s testimony.

‘Did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo?’

Former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker: ‘No.’

Devin Nunes to Tim Morrison, former NSC official: ‘Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?’

‘No.’

This follows the responses of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the question of whether he was offered a quid pro quo: US aid in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden’s corrupt dealings with the natural gas company Burisma: ‘No.’

Ditto Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union: was there a quid pro quo: ‘No.’ (Sondland’s testimony has just begun at the time of writing: rest assured it will be more of the same.)

Last week’s hearings were preposterous, a disaster for the Democrats. This week’s hearings are shaping up to be even worse news for the partisans of the Adam Schiff Show.

Remember that old hippie slogan, ‘suppose they gave a war and nobody came?‘ It’s been updated and applied not to international conflicts but partisan intramural sniping: suppose they gave a hearing and nobody came?

For that’s the truth of the matter. The ratings for this reality TV show are in the tank. During Watergate, during the Clinton impeachment, people were glued to the news. Now, despite the screaming CNN chyrons, anti-Trump Washington Post and New York Times sermons, nobody cares.

https://spectator.us/founding-fathers-focus-group-impeachment-1787/

House Democrats are concentrating their impeachment drive on “bribery” because focus groups liked it so much better than other terms Democrats have floated.As all thoughtful citizens know, focus-group testing is the best way to deal with grave constitutional matters, as well as marketing breakfast cereals and e-cigarettes.
That’s why we are so fortunate our leading scholars have discovered the most important of focus group in American history, one dealing precisely with this topic. Adam Schiff has finally released the transcript of the 1787 meeting. I am publishing it here for the first time.

Focus-group testing is widely recognized as the best way to deal with grave constitutional matters, as well as marketing breakfast cereals and e-cigarettes. It is not surprising, then, that legal scholars are scouring focus groups throughout American history to see what light they shed on the Trump impeachment.

The most important of these earlier focus groups was that of the Founding Fathers, secretly convened in Philadelphia in 1787. Chairman Adam Schiff has finally released the much-anticipated transcript:

Speaker Pelosi: Hi, everybody. Let’s keep this informal and fun. Just call me Madam Speaker. Anybody want a cappuccino before we get started? Perhaps a vegan sandwich?

Mr Benjamin Franklin: What the hell is a cappuccino? Give me a plain ole venti with soy milk.

Mr James Madison: What the hell is vegan?

Speaker Pelosi: It’s sort of like eating grass, Mr Madison. Let’s just skip it and get to the main topic for today.

Mr George Washington: Yes. Let’s leave this grass thing up to the states. What’s the next topic?

Speaker Pelosi: What if the people are stupid enough to elect the wrong president? How can we kick him out of office?

Mr George Mason: Are they really that dumb?

Speaker Pelosi: Take my word for it. It happens. Have any of you been to Kentucky? Alabama? Just kidding. What if we really, really don’t like the president? What do you think about that as a reason for giving him the heave-ho?

Mr John Jay: ‘Really, really not liking him’ seems a little vague.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/20/all-eyes-on-judge-in-michael-flynn-case-after-weeks-of-shocking-developments/

After a flurry of court filings and blockbuster developments last month, the Michael Flynn criminal case has been dormant for nearly three weeks. The parties and the public now await word from presiding Judge Emmett Sullivan on the pending motion to compel and motion for sanctions filed by Sidney Powell, the lead attorney who took over Flynn’s case shortly after the special counsel team disbanded.

Powell’s motion seeks to force federal prosecutors to provide Flynn an array of documents withheld from his attorneys and to sanction government lawyers for their failure to provide relevant evidence to the defense team in a timely manner. When and how Judge Sullivan will rule is unclear.

A Flurry of October Surprises

In late October, Judge Sullivan issued a short order canceling a hearing on Flynn’s motions previously scheduled for November 5, 2019, prompting predictions that the long-time federal judge had already made up his mind. This development also triggered a panicked filing by the government complaining that Flynn’s lawyers had raised new issues in their reply brief and cautioning the court not to rule without hearing more from the prosecutors. Sullivan okayed a response by the government and a final rebuttal by Flynn’s attorneys, but added a terse endnote that no more briefing would be had on the issue.

Then, mere days after the final briefing came in, federal prosecutors found themselves forced to admit that for nearly three years, they had wrongly identified the authors of the handwritten notes taken by the FBI agents during their January 24, 2017, interview of then-National Security Advisor Flynn. Prosecutors had told defense counsel (and the court) that the notes written by Peter Strozk had been compiled by FBI Agent Joe Pietka, and those taken by Pietka had been written by Strozk.

This embarrassing mea culpa surely added strength to Powell’s plea for access to other withheld evidence. After all, if federal prosecutors made such a basic blunder concerning key evidence, what other mistakes lay buried in the undisclosed evidence?

Foreshadowing a Motion to Dismiss

While the currently pending motion concerns only the question of access to evidence and sanctions for the never-provided, or the late-provision of, evidence, Powell’s briefing foreshadows the filing of a motion to dismiss the indictment. In her briefing, Powell teases several factual and legal theories supportive of such a motion.