Dodging a Bullet

The Democrats just got lucky. Now that the Senate has shut down the possibility of further witnesses and testimony, they no longer face the prospect of testimony by Joe or Hunter Biden under oath in the Impeachment Hoax Trial. But that’s not their big win. Trashing the Biden presidential campaign would probably be worth it for the Democrats if they could bring down Donald Trump. What might not be worthwhile from their point of view would be the stories that would come to light in the truthful testimony of individuals such as Eric Ciaramella or Alexandra Chalupa.

There is a reasonable argument to be made for moving on from the House Impeachment Hoax and letting it fade away. That argument is reasonable, but it is also wrong. The Democrats have failed again in their effort to overturn the 2016 election, but they don’t yet seem to have grasped the fact that they’ve lost. They’ll be back for another return grudge match, and they’ll keep coming back until they are finally convinced that they’ve been defeated. (In this sense, they’re not unlike certain Germans after WWI.)

Therefore, there is a strong case to be made for going forward with vigorous investigations, both criminal by the Justice Department and political by the Senate, into the underlying crimes associated with the 2016 election and the subsequent coverups. The facts need to come out, and the bad actors should be held to account. Some politicians should be voted out of office, some bureaucrats’ careers should end, and some people should go to jail. (Note that I wrote “should.” Some corrupt constituencies will reelect corrupt politicians.)

That won’t end the competition between the Left and the Right or between populists and elitists, but it would bring the 2016 election debacle to closure.

39 thoughts on “Dodging a Bullet


  1. “Now that the Senate has shut down the possibility of further witnesses and testimony, despite EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTING FOR WITNESSES, the democrats are the ones who got lucky?”

    Like I said the other day, actions are where the truth lies, not statements. The Republicans were the ones who didn’t want anyone to testify, not the Democrats. You know this because of how they voted. If it was the opposite, like you say, they’d have voted against witnesses.

    But, remember, black is white, up is down, and the people who voted against witnesses were totally not the people who were genuinely afraid of them.


    • Yes. it is interesting that Chuck Schumer was able to maintain 100% party discipline on that vote, but that Nancy Pelosi couldn’t when it came to passing the articles of impeachment.


      • Depends on if you count Amash as a Republican or not, for that one. He was elected as one, after all.

        Basically, if you break with Pelosi, she’ll negotiate with you. If you break with Trump, about anything, you’re dead to the world and a traitor to the republic. One is the act of a politician, one is the act of a coward.

        The best examples of that are all the people Trump’s hired and put into administration jobs, only to turn on them as soon as they seem to be political liabilities. “Oh, look at this horrible liar, this awful person who knows nothing. It’s amazing that I was the one who chose to hire him in the first place.”


    • They’ve had testimony from 18 witnesses, although Schiff decided to play hide the ball with one of them. None of the witnesses Schiff wants (but didn’t bother to get in the House) are going to change the fact that the Articles don’t allege impeachable offenses.

      How many witnesses do you think we need to hear from and aren’t you across the pond?

      When you’ve won the case, you sit down and shut up. Trials aren’t vehicles for “seeking the truth” trials are for seeking a verdict. Investigations are for truth seeking. The House did its slapdash work and created the record it created. Now we move on to the verdict.


      • “None of the witnesses Schiff wants (but didn’t bother to get in the House)”

        Mmm, that’s one lie. Implying that Shiff did nothing to put a case together, again, and still never providing one thing he could have done to put one together. Doesn’t fit with all the stuff he laid out the case in the Senate, or the times he answered questions there. And doesn’t fit with the video evidence presented then.

        Look, I know you are here to not recount facts, as the president’s defense didn’t bother doing so either, but it’d be nice to see someone, at any time, say anything that even implies the President didn’t do what he was accused of doing.

        “the fact that the Articles don’t allege impeachable offenses.”

        Violating the concept of sovereign immunity to have a foreign government investigate your political rival for an 11th hour boost at election time is apparently not impeachable? Really? That’s the line of argument you’re going with? How isn’t that impeachable?

        It’d be a much more meaningful statement if you indicated what those articles actually are. I’m suspecting you’ve never read them, which apparently is what you need to do to be certain they weren’t impeachable.


  2. “The facts need to come out, and the bad actors should be held to account.”

    I agree with you there. I also don’t understand how you can simultaneously support that point of view, and support the utter cowards who voted against witnesses.


      • A lot of them have been mutually inconsistant, too, such as “They should have subpoenaed (person they did subpoena)” or “They should have let the courts enforce those subpoenas” which seems inconsistant with the President’s arguments being made with the ones they did send to court, which is that the court has no right to enforce subpoenas on anyone related to the President, and it’s a matter for impeachment. (While telling the house lawyers the exact opposite.)

        The best one I’ve heard is that “The house didn’t try hard enough to enforce their demands.” which doesn’t seem consistant with the idea that it’s okay to ignore them, as they’re a rabid bunch of partisans who’ll do anything to remove the President.

        That’s been the ones I’ve heard of.. an a la carte menu, where you pick whichever argument that appeals to you, never mind that five minutes later someone will make another line of argument that is only accurate if the previous one was invalid.


          • Yeah. It’s also where you find the president’s lawyers supporting the process of impeachment as a solution to them not following the dictates of the court. IOW, he’s saying that if the court rules against him, he will not comply with the courts ruilings, because he considers impeachment to be the proper solution. We know this because court rulings have already been ignored.

            Of course, publicly he’s screaming how impeachment is invalid, and stating that going through the courts is the proper method. When a court ruling is against him, it’s appealed or ignored, and the defense is, according to him, to impeach the president. When subpoenaed through the house, the defense is to claim the courts have jurisdiction and that the house dictates are invalid.

            It’s pretty straightforward. Trump says that the house is valid to the courts, and that the courts are valid to the house, and uses both lines of argument to justify complying with neither. That means he’s lying to both of them, because his actions demonstrate he considers neither of them valid.


          • You’ll quote them saying they won’t comply with a court order, won’t you?

            Despite many opportunities, they’ve never done so.


          • How about examples of court orders that have been ignored in the past? I do put more stake into actions rather than statements after all.

            The easiest examples would be for individuals who have been deported despite court orders blocking the deportation. Would those qualify?


          • Good to know. You asked for an example, I give you some, and you say that those don’t count.

            That’s assuming of course that you checked.


        • That would require there being witnesses. There were no witnesses in the Senate.

          I’ll repeat my question to Hoge to you. What would have been proper handling of witnesses?


          • Schiff is the Chairman of the House intel Committee. They took testimony from 18 witnesses. That testimony is in the trial record.

            Proper handling would be to have your case put together before you take it to trial.


          • I like that statement. “He should have had his case put together before he took it to trial.”

            It containins no specific criticisms or actionable requests.

            What should he have done to put his case together, then?


          • That would mean gathering the evidence you need to prove the defendant’s guilt rather than hoping to discover it in the course of the trial.


          • “That would mean gathering the evidence you need to prove the defendant’s guilt rather than hoping to discover it in the course of the trial.”

            Another statement with no actionable requests!

            Again, what precisely should he have done? Or are you going to rephrase “gather evidence” in a third way this time?

            It’s also a nice way of dismissing the whole “They took testimony from 18 witnesses.” thing without actually mentioning the testimony given by said witnesses. Say they had no evidence, don’t mention what the witnesses said.. because that would be evidence. Don’t mention the acts of obsruction, because those would be evidence. Don’t mention the video evidence of the White House chief of staff admitting that the accusations are with merit, and telling the house to ‘get over it.’ Say that Schiff should have done it differently, but when asked what should have been done better, be as vague as possible and repeat the talking point that he should have done it differently.

            That line I quoted is also a wonderful example of ignorance of the concept of “discovery” in a trial.


          • I’m making criticisms not requests. If you don’t understand me, find an English speaker to explain it to you.


          • “I’m making criticisms not requests.”

            Okay. So what action should he have done, then?


      • “Trials aren’t fact-finding missions”

        that’s exactly what they are. A trial is to determine what happened when you have two opposing points of view. That’s a fact-finding mission.. you use the trial as a method to determine what happened, i.e, if the defendant is guilty of something.


        • You use the trial to render a verdict. In a criminal trial, you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not equal “determine what happened” and the jurors aren’t playing detective. You bring your facts to trial with you and the jury assesses them in the context of the applicable law. A good lawyer at trial rarely asks a question he doesn’t already know the answer to.


          • “In a criminal trial, you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

            That’s not the goal of a trial. The goal of a trial is to establish a resolution to the dispute at question. In the case of a criminal trial, the goal is to establish the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In other words.. to come up with a verdict or, so to speak, to judge the merits of the case.

            In the United States, this is done through an adversarial system, where, at the most basic, both sides present evidence as to the facts of the case, and then the judge or jury come to a conclusion based on the facts presented.

            What I remember through the process of investigation in the house, was endless complaints from the President about how he would destroy the democrats if only he could call witnesses. If only he could present evidence. If only he could destroy those horrible people who are ruining his reputation out of naked hatred.

            What we got was nothing. The members of the President’s legal defense team argued at great length theories attempting to justify presenting no evidence, calling no witnesses, and acting completely opposite his publicly stated desires about the course of events. In a normal trial, rules of evidence and witnesses may have established certain limitations over who he could call and what he could present, but the Senate could establish whatever rules they wanted, call basically anyone, most certainly including the people the President was calling horrible liars who he’d like to punish in court. They could delay things, prepare in whatever ways they wanted, do anything, and he certainly had the votes to get whatever he wanted done.

            So.. he was given an extremely public forum, with every opportunity to do basically anything, and.. chose to end it. Nothing public, nothing open, no questions asked, no evidence presented. The best opportunity ever to “Own the Libs”.. if his repeated statements about having proof of their perfidity were true.

            The whole time through these events, nothing has been presented contrary to what the house claims occured. Did Trump block the money? Yeah. Did Trump ask a foreign country to investigate an American? Yeah. Did Trump do so through the american legal system, or did he waive the concept of sovereign immunity? Of course not, he invited a country he himself called corrupt.

            That’s why I say he lies, and his defenders are misrepresenting the facts. If he didn’t do even one of the things he was accused of, that one would have been hammered endlessly. Instead we get misquotes, out of context statements, stuff presented representing one moment of time as representing another moment of time, such as your video below. On the other side, they have direct quotes from his freaking chief of staff and personal lawyer admitting that it happened.


      • The best way to demonstrate why that isn’t a truthful reason for Senators voting to not admit witnesses or evidence is to watch those same senators for the next house investigations or subpoenas. Will they assist the house on doing a proper investigation, like they say currently they wanted them to do, or will they claim he’s being investigated for something that was already dismissed?

        I’m pretty sure the new investigations will be called biased and invalid, despite complaining that they didn’t investigate enough with the current one.


        • Biased? They impeached based on an anonymous complaint about a phone call that happened on July 25, 2019 with a Ukrainian President who took office on May 20, 2019.


          • They impeached the president on the specific charges listed in the two articles of impeachment.

            Which of those two articles do you consider describe an inaccurate version of events? The abuse of power, or the obstruction of justice?

            Complaining that they started the investigation based on a tip is like complaining that the cops investigated because of a 911 call, and then saying they can’t convict because the identity of the 911 caller was never established.


          • It’s simple. They had plenty of evidence. Hence the witnesses you mentioned above at the House. The blanket statements about not cooperating with an investigation are enough for obstruction on it’s own. Complaining that the hearings weren’t public, and after made public, that there wasn’t a vote, and after a vote, that the vote doesn’t count, are more evidence of obstruction, due to arguing through bad faith.

            It’s not complicated. It’s wrong to say that the President can’t be investigated. Claiming that they can’t investigate without proof of guilt is stupid, because an investigation is required to prove innocence or guilt.

            Saying that the Presidency should depend on an election, but that the electorate can’t know what the President actually does, is tyranny. Saying no investigations is saying that people can’t be allowed to see what the President does.

            The reason why an investigation is done by Congress is because the President doesn’t appoint congress, and having an investigation done by someone placed into a job by the President is a conflict of interest.

            It’s.. simple. Not one of these concepts is hard, and I’d love for you to tell me which one is wrong.


          • “The acquittal settles it.”

            Some people would understand that not presenting evidence or witnesses, or arguing a line of defence that at no time even suggested the president didn’t do what he was accused of, isn’t a good way to settle things, because at the least it won’t convince anyone who hasn’t already bought into Trumpism.

            A Trumpist, who has been told that all witnesses are garbage, that all evidence is fake, and everyone working for the government is an awful profit-seeking liar, might make such a statement.

            ..but his rambling, ranting statement about hating everyone just makes me sad. Sad for a person who follows him, and wondering why one would do so.

            So.. do you have a reason for following Trump, one that doesn’t revolve around hating someone?


          • 18 witnesses….errrr, no 17 witnesses (what is Shifty hiding?) and 28 thousand pages of documents were in the record. “What the President did is perfectly legal and not impeachable” is a perfectly reasonable defense. Saying there were no witnesses or documents is a very dumb and very false.

            The acquittal settles it. Trump’s 10 point bump in approval since the House started down this path to utter failure confirms it.

            Reasons for Trump? Only one matters: He was elected.

            Have another nice day.


          • “What the President did is perfectly legal and not impeachable” is a perfectly reasonable defense.

            You’ve also refrained from mentioning what the president did, or the terms of the articles of impeachment.

            I don’t see what’s reasonable about violating the concept of sovereign immunity, in particular with this example. It’s at the core of what he campaigned on.. preventing foreign laws from affecting Americans and american busness, and working against globalism.

            Saying that it’s then perfectly okay to use said foreign nations to attack Americans makes no sense. Is there an explanation for this?


          • Also, stating that there are so many people and so many documents in the record seems contrary to your insistance that Schiff didn’t put a case together.


          • Congress was also elected. More recently and with a significantly larger vote share.

            I know that’s an intentionally weak argument intended to make conservatives look stupid, but I’m not falling for that one. Do you have a better one than that, or are you misrepresenting Trump supporters intentionally?

            Because, really, that’s a dumb argument intended to remind me of stuff like Birtherism and the mini-scandal where Obama was supposedly not president due to oath-of-office stuff, things long forgotten in the current wave of worship for the elected chief executive.


  3. John Solomon has reported, backed by documentary evidence that Ukraine’s FBI called NABU publicly announced an investigation into Burisma in March 2009. Why did the Whote House not know? Col Vindman? Eric Chiamarella? Deep State.

Leave a Reply