Los Angeles Times,
by
George Skelton
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
12/4/2019 12:29:15 PM
Post Reply
California Sen. Kamala Harris should never have run for president in the first place. Her ambition far exceeded her ability.
She hadn’t yet established herself in the U.S. Senate. And she hadn’t exactly excelled in her previous job as California’s attorney general. There wasn’t much of a record worth bragging about on the campaign trail.
After being elected to the Senate in a 2016 cakewalk, she should have spent the next three years focused exclusively on representing Californians in Congress, helping the state on such vital issues as water development, environmental protection, healthcare and homelessness.
But people around her — political advisors and her sister Maya Harris
Real Clear Politics,
by
Philip Wegmann
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
12/4/2019 10:16:09 AM
Post Reply
Unbridled ambition and aggression have their place in presidential politics – as the man in the Oval Office reminded the nation in 2016 -- but in the case of California freshman Sen. Kamala Harris, they weren’t enough to overcome the lack of a clear policy vision.
The candidate who threw some of the hardest punches on the debate stage ended her presidential bid after high hopes faded amid a string of underwhelming results. Her quest concluded with an open letter. Her campaign, Harris admitted Tuesday, is broke.“My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue,” she told supporters just 62 days before absentee ballots
American Spectator,
by
Betsy McCaughey
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
12/4/2019 9:38:45 AM
Post Reply
On Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) takes over as ringmaster for the ongoing impeachment show. He’s billing his opening act as an inquiry into the “historical and constitutional basis of impeachment” and “the Framers’ intent.” Nadler claims he’ll be looking into what the Constitution’s authors meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Don’t be fooled by Nadler’s scholarly posturing. He isn’t planning a civics lesson. Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching Trump, so Nadler has to rewrite American history and massage the meaning of the Constitution’s impeachment clause to fit the pile of non-evidence Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee has produced.
Real Clear Politics,
by
Philip Wegmann
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
12/3/2019 11:02:08 AM
Post Reply
Kellyanne Conway has promised to represent President Trump at upcoming impeachment hearings, but only if the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is called to testify.
“Is Adam Schiff going to testify? Because he is a fact witness. That would be great,” the senior Trump adviser had told reporters on Monday. And then Conway made an offer: “I’ll tell you what, if Adam Schiff testifies, I’ll show up on behalf of the White House.”Conway still has time to swerve in this game of political chicken, since the House Judiciary Committee begins hearings on Wednesday. But don’t expect a crash on Capitol Hill as Schiff has already dismissed Republican calls
American Greatness,
by
Julie Kelly
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
12/3/2019 10:57:47 AM
Post Reply
There are a few bombshells tucked in the new book authored by Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, co-owners of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm responsible for the most infamous dossier in American political history.
Here’s one that—as far as I know—hasn’t been disclosed until now: Before Fusion hired Christopher Steele in 2016 to produce his sketchy dossier on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, Steele hired Fusion to help him with a client at odds with a key figure in the Trump camp. The London-based operative, misleadingly portrayed in the press as a mere former British intelligence officer, needed help investigating the Trump advisor for his client.
American Spectator,
by
David Catron
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
12/2/2019 5:09:05 AM
Post Reply
Their rhetoric notwithstanding, congressional Democrats understand that their chances of ousting President Trump from office are infinitesimal. There are a few, like AOC and “the Squad,” who still cling to the pipe dream that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and perp-walked out of the White House for multifarious yet oddly ill-defined crimes. More realistic Democrats understand that this is never going to happen, but they also know that mere censorship of the president is not an option if they wish to avoid a revolt by the left wing of their congressional caucus and voter apathy that could manifest itself in low turnout next November.
The Hill,
by
Douglas MacKinnon
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
12/1/2019 10:46:16 AM
Post Reply
Writer Nancy Cook detailed in a recent Politico article that, counter to the tradition of past presidents, Donald J. Trump apparently has decided — on his own, shockingly — to circumvent the fish-bowl exposure of the Oval Office and West Wing and conduct meetings and phone calls that demand privacy and strict confidentiality in the privacy of his residence in the White House.
There, away from the prying eyes of the media — and, as we have come to learn, certain staff members who may be pursuing agendas counter to his — the president can conduct some of the nation’s business with at least a bit more comfort and seclusion.
The Hill,
by
R. David Harden
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
12/1/2019 10:42:12 AM
Post Reply
The impeachment hearings last week demonstrated the rising risk of American polarization and democratic dysfunction. This political divide is undermining the integrity of the American experiment and its political, economic and values-based leadership of the global order. While dysfunction and chaos can be contagious, President Donald Trump is an accelerant.
Dr. Fiona Hill warned in her testimony last Thursday, “Some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”
American Spectator,
by
David Catron
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
11/26/2019 5:16:30 AM
Post Reply
The Democrats have manifestly failed to build the national consensus necessary to remove a sitting president from office. The “impeachment inquiry” decreed by Nancy Pelosi in late September, combined with Adam Schiff’s inequitable conduct of the subsequent public hearings, have produced the reverse of their intended result. Several reliable voter surveys show that they weakened support for impeachment among Independent voters, particularly those in crucial swing states, while hardening support for the president among Republicans. Yet the Democratic leadership is clearly determined to pass articles of impeachment against Trump, without regard to the legal merits or the misgivings of “moderate” members of their own caucus.
Real Clear Politics,
by
Frank Miele
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
11/25/2019 8:53:43 AM
Post Reply
Cue Peggy Lee. The theme song of the Democratic conflagration known as the Trump impeachment hearings is now “Is That All There Is?”
I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire…
I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames
And when it was all over I said to myself, is that all there is to a fire?
Is that all there is to an attempt to overthrow the president of the United States? Just a bunch of bureaucrats who felt overlooked? Because if there is more to it than that, I haven’t seen the evidence.
New York Post,
by
Saleno Zito
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
11/25/2019 8:45:55 AM
Post Reply
JEFFERSON, Ohio — Bonnie Smith no longer sets her alarm for 1:45 a.m. so she could head into town to make her heavenly pastries, cookies and cakes. It’s the only thing she doesn’t miss about her bakery, which she had to close last June.
“My eyesight was failing. I just couldn’t do it anymore, or at least until the doctors could figure out what was going on,” said Smith, who hopes that eye surgery will allow her to bake professionally in her home kitchen sometime next month.
Real Clear Politics,
by
Charles Lipson
Original Article
Posted by
Garnet
—
11/23/2019 10:49:46 AM
Post Reply
Assessing the Democrats’ impeachment drive depends on answers to three crucial questions:
1) What did President Trump really want from Ukraine?2) Can Democrats prove he wanted something so improper, so lawless that it meets the high bar for "high crimes and misdemeanors," bribery, or treason?
3) What’s the rush? Do voters think the charges are so serious, the proof so convincing, and the need to remove the president so urgent that it cannot wait until the election next November?
Question 1: What did the president want from Ukraine?