Impeachment outcome: Meh.

From TheHill dot com: Senators are expected to acquit Trump

Comment:

If it plays out this way, it will be unsatisfying to almost everyone.

People expect a clear-cut result.  This leaves many questions unanswered.  There will be those who will say that this means the GOP is hiding the truth.  However, it is unsatisfying to those who believe that the truth is on Trump's side.  That is my position.

The never-Trumpers get to hurt Trump, but they didn't get to oust him.

The partisan Democrats get to run against the GOP Senate and Trump, but they didn't get to oust him.  Given that they are in the wrong, this is actually a good outcome for them.

As usual, the GOP faction that includes the never-Trumpers are the spoilers.  They spoil everything for themselves and the rest of us.  If they were capable of doing the right thing, they would approve a plan in which Bolton could testify, and Trump could get his witnesses.   I believe the truth is on Trump's side, and I do not fear what Bolton would say.

The only thing to fear from witnesses is to have only those who the Democrats want.  That is what happened on the House side.  The President got no witnesses at all there, and not even legal representation.  It was totally one-sided.  Too bad the Senate couldn't even manage an even-handed treatment of the POTUS.

The argument that this would be unprecedented may be plausible, but the Democrats should have been spanked for this.  As usual, the GOP spoilers made sure to hurt Trump the most at the least cost to themselves.

Update:

It looks like I may have goofed a little in my argumentation.

There's a very good reason to exclude any NEW witnesses after the impeachment.  The reason is that the trial should have a definite limit placed upon it.  Otherwise, they could call NEW witnesses forever ( or until election day).

In a trial court, the witnesses are already lined up ( I would think).  It is a fair bet since I don't know for sure, that no trial court will accept NEW witnesses either.  They might do it for the defense, but not for the prosecution.  The bias is in favor of the defendant.

In other words, the parameters of the trial are well-defined before the trial.  If you allow witnesses after the fact, then the trial can continue indefinitely.  This also favors the defendant, since the government can go on with this forever, but any individual has limitations.

Once again, the left-wing is in the wrong.  The reason we are in need of witnesses for the POTUS is that the Democrats would not allow any witnesses for the POTUS in the impeachment inquiry.  You cannot correct that defect.  To allow witnesses for the POTUS would open the door for the Democrats to demand their own NEW witnesses, which would bring about a chaotic process that could never end.

Therefore, no NEW witnesses for anybody is a fair outcome and the only correct outcome.

Victor Pinchuk--- Politics of Shut up equals politics of impeachment

Update:

1.30.20:

Bongino links Pinchuk to John Bolton.  The Democrats want to call John Bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial.  

So what's the deal with Pinchuk?  Pinchuk has tentacles everywhere, it seems.  Bongino says he partnered with Burisma.  The company that hired Hunter Biden?  Yep, the very one.

Biden is crucial.  But so are a lot of other witnesses.  In the House, the POTUS got none of his witnesses.  Hopefully, the Senate won't allow another Star Chamber.

Here's one of the links to Bongino's show back in September:  Hillary Clinton's Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran

According to Conservapedia, Pinchuk helped fund Crowdstrike.

9.27.19:

Bongino is going on and on about this guy.

His theory is that the Mueller gang investigated Pinchuk's contribution to Trump for purposes of intimidating Pinchuk into silence.

But the leftist spin is the reverse.  The idea is to intimidate Trump into shutting up about Ukraine. ( My take, btw.  Bongino's?  I dunno.)

It seems that Bongino is on to something here, and that is why I thought I would mention it.

This is episode 1076, at about 24 minutes into the podcast.  He riffs on about this for several minutes.

Connect the dots.  Millions from Pinchuk to Clinton in order to get what?  Investigation of Pinchuk afterward to do what?

The striking thing is that Pinchuk contributed MILLIONS to the Clinton Foundation, while Trump got 150k for a speaking fee---which isn't illegal. Pinchuk trades in violation of sanctions against Iran, but he isn't on the poop list for trading with Iran. Why not?  Mueller investigated Trump's speaking fees, but not the Clinton cash.  Go figure.  Oh, but the way Bongino riffs on it makes you see what this was really about.  Silencing Pinchuk!

Kinda figures, doesn't it?  Also figures that they would impeach Trump for talking to the new Ukrainian president about an internal Ukrainian matter.  Also for which the new Ukrainian president owes his recent victory to-- stamping out corruption.

Is this a game of chicken?

  

Lindsey Graham knocks Chuck Schumer: ‘There’s 53 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden’ 

Grow up.

They aren't listening

After listening to the Bongino show yesterday, I am now filled in on the Bolton thing.  Bongino has a rule, which is to wait when the latest bombshell proves to be a dud. The Bolton thing is probably going to be a dud, but it won't matter. The Pierre Delecto types will want their witnesses anyway.

What's going on here?

It is the same old tired game that they have been playing for the longest time.  It may go back to the Goldwater campaign.  During that campaign, the liberal wing of the GOP left the party and went with LBJ.   LBJ got a huge landslide, which gave us the Vietnam War and the Great Society. Both of these were massive failures.

Since that time, the so-called conservative wing of the party has been scared to death of the liberals. Ronald Reagan was supposed to be the cure for that, but we got huge budget deficits instead.

What I'm getting at here is that the GOP's successes are a mirage.  Whatever Trump has done will be undone in s short time.  The liberal wing of the GOP will torpedo the conservative wing like they do every time. The bottom line is that this alliance must come to an end.

The only reason to ask for witnesses after hearing the POTUS' rebuttal is that you cannot possibly be listening. Therefore, there won't be any meaningful defense of the POTUS.  If a liberal Republican was in office, the conservative wing would defend them, but it doesn't go both ways.   Just like I voted for Romney only to have that creep turn on the President.

Romney and his ilk didn't want to win. They just want to pretend to run.  If they actually DO win, then the last thing they want to do is actually govern according to any conservative principles.  But they sure like to use conservatives to get themselves into positions of power.  That has to stop. No more self-delusion here.  At least not for me.

The rest of ya'll can fool yourselves. I'd prefer to keep my feet firmly planted on the ground of reality, not these silly dreams of having a real political opposition to these pinkos.

Same old same old

There is a break in the impeachment drama.

While we wait for it to resume, I thought I would comment a bit on the defense.

So far they are rebutting the House point-by-point.  It is a safe strategy.  Unfortunately, it may not be the strategy needed.

Why not be more aggressive?  It seems to me that the GOP wants to play by all the rules, but the Democrats do not play that way.  It seems that the GOP is content to complain about how the Democrats don't play by the rules while continuing to play by the rules themselves.  Again, this is pretty safe, but it may prove to be ineffectual.

We have some news about Bolton.  This wasn't in the House's case but we now going to hear about it?  Not by the rules, kids.

This is a dangerous game they are playing.  If you continue to play by the rules and look like a chump when you do, you lose the confidence of your supporters.  It's like Mike Tyson biting Evander Hollyfield in the ring, but being allowed to continue with the fight.  If you don't stop the fight right there, then what prevents the whole thing from devolving into an all-out street fight?

Are there to be rules or not?

Obligatory, 1.27.20

Hats off to Dan Bongino.  I've listened to his most recent show several times now.  My
problem is that my attention wanders off frequently.  I miss important points, then I forget them soon after.

He brings a lot of enthusiasm to his show.  This is important because enthusiasm is kind of magical.  If you do it the way I do it, it is too dry.  Facts matter, but feelings can
matter a whole lot more.

There's one caveat to this high praise.  If there's any inaccuracy in it, it loses all of
its power.  It has to be 100% truthful.

Now, let's look at the Democrats.  They are always bringing it.  These guys could sell ice cubes to Eskimos.  They saturate us all with their message.  The message is false, but you are lucky if you get a chance to get a word in edgewise.

It has been 100% anti-Trump in the media and the usual outlets for information in our
society.  The trouble with it is that it is false.  The Democrats cannot afford to have
people like Bongino bursting their bubble.

But we need to burst this bubble.  It needs to be busted because it is false.  The Democrats are covering up their own malfeasance.  They are counting on enough people to be fooled with their constant false narratives.

We need a good defense for Trump.  It worries me that he might not get it.  Even though these Democrats are wrong, it may not be clear to a lot of people.  You have an opportunity to get to the truth of this matter if you choose.  But you have to dig for it.  If you allow the usual suspects to lie to you, it is your own fault.

But I blame the GOP as well.  They could destroy the Democrats' false narratives here.  It worries me that they won't.

If anyone needs to get their message out, it is the GOP and the conservatives.  Especially the conservatives.  That is--- the real ones.  I'm not so sure that there's enough to do this job.

Bongino is a good start.  But he's not enough.