Tag Archives: impeachment

Democrats are further out of touch with reality than ever…

Dems still way out in left field

Leading Capitol Hill Democrats are apparently drifting toward delusion as Fox News is reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer will “simply refuse to accept (President Donald Trump’s) all-but-certain acquittal because his ‘sham’ trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.”

The report came as Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Friday she will oppose extending the Senate’s impeachment trial in order to hear more witnesses, a move that essentially dooms the year-long effort by Democrats to remove Trump from office. According to the Washington Times, with Murkowski’s announcement, Senate Republicans “believe they have at least 51 votes to close the trial down and move to a final vote acquitting the president.”

But that will not sit well with Pelosi, who declared, “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial, and you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and that.”

And Schumer, quoted by Fox News, insisted, “The president’s acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.”  [NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Democrats ought to know what a political sham looks like. That’s what they specialize in, sham politics.]

Democrats have reason to panic, as CNBC is reporting that socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders has “jumped into a virtual tie with Joe Biden nationally,” citing an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Friday.

Sanders has the support of 27 percent of Democrat primary voters, according to the story, which is up 6 points since December. Biden, meanwhile, trails slightly at 26 percent, which is two 2 percentage points since last month.

This is shaping up like the perfect storm of politics, with the president’s State of the Union address coming up on Tuesday in the House chamber with Pelosi having to sit directly behind Trump as he could easily talk to the nation about the impeachment “sham,” as he has called it. Democrats have been talking about impeachment virtually since the day after Trump was elected in 2016, and it was one of the talking points in the 2018 elections that saw several new Democrats come to the House, shifting the majority and putting Pelosi back in the Speaker’s chair.

With a strong economy, low unemployment and increasing anger in middle America about impeachment, extremist gun control efforts, and the widening gap between anybody with common sense and the radical left, Pelosi’s Democrats have much to think about with the national elections just 10 months away.


[From an article published by CONSERVATIVE FIRING LINE]


[NORM ‘n’ AL Note: The real problem is even greater than Democrats realize, inasmuch as they have completely given up thinking altogether.  If they were able to think rationally, they would have gotten over Mr. Trump’s election long ago, and they certainly would not have put America through an impeachment which was able to come up with two of the weakest Articles of Impeachment imaginable.  Seems like a class of first graders could have done better than Pelosi and Schiff’s “obstruction of Congress” nonsense.  Pelosi and Schiff and the rest of the “Demolition Derby” crew assembled in the House DESERVE to be obstructed…and kudos to the Trump legal team who knew exactly how to do it.]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Impeachment continues to backfire as majority oppose it

My personal favorite Latin saying is “alea iacta est.”

That’s what Julius Caesar is purported to have said when his armies crossed the Rubicon river in 49 B.C. (The only living witness to this is Larry King, so we have to take his word for it.) Translation: “The die is cast.”

Caesar, who was then in the midst of fighting the Roman Civil War, had taken his armies beyond what was then the northern boundary of Italy in defiance of the Roman Senate.

At that point, he knew he’d reached the point of no return.

This is where “crossing the Rubicon” comes from, as well, but there’s no better way to wax pseudo-intellectually than to use Latin phraseology in place of an English idiom.

Plus, it’s not like anyone knows where the Rubicon is, anyway.

We have a different caliber of officials than ol’ Julius these days, which is a bit of a good news/bad news situation.

The good news, at least in our country, is that they’re elected — unlike Caesar, whose ejection from office was a bit less orderly than if it had happened at the ballot box.

The bad news is that they don’t quite know when to cast the die.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her House Democratic caucus, for instance, had an “alea iacta est” moment a few weeks ago.

They, like everyone else in the country, were no doubt aware of how polling was trending when it came to the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump.

According to the RealClearPolitics average, since mid-December, a plurality of Americans have been against it or the polling average has been a tie.

This is as opposed to the high-water mark of mid-October, when 49.5 percent were for removing Trump from office compared to 44.8 percent against it.

In December, the Democrats threw the die for the first time.

This involved the impeachment vote against Trump, which coincided almost precisely with the moment the polling average began turning against the Democrats.

One could say the die had been cast long before the vote had been taken; the impeachment inquiry, like an ocean liner at full steam toward a predetermined destination, is a tricky and unwieldy thing to turn in an instant.

They were no closer to removing him, but they’d rolled the dice and taken their chances. And the polling average continued to turn against them.

Since then, they’ve cast the die again, this time in terms of their messaging in the run-up to the trial.

Because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold the Senate trial that Democrats would have preferred — which is to say, messy and protracted, with privileges and protections afforded to Democrats in the Senate that Democrats would have never dreamed of extending to Republicans in the House — Pelosi decided to sit on the articles and only handed them to the Senate last Wednesday.

Even then, the Democrats made sure to let America know how solemn and somber an occasion the delivery of the articles was — I mean, if you discount the signing ceremony with those nifty pens.

Now that most Senate Republicans have made it clear they don’t support allowing new witnesses to be called — that should have been the House’s job, not the Senate’s — Democrats are predictably livid.

“He doesn’t want to hear any of the evidence and he doesn’t want to hear any new evidence,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said of McConnell, according to the U.K. Daily Mail. “That’s a cover-up, not a trial.” (This petulance, presumably, will last throughout the trial, however long it goes.)

How’s that party line holding up? A newly released poll from Gallup of 1,014 U.S. adults surveyed between Jan. 2 and Jan. 15 — as much of this messaging was taking form — shows that if it’s having an effect, it’s not an observable one.

“Forty-six percent of Americans say they would like their senators to vote to convict Trump and remove him from office, while 51% want their senators to vote against conviction so Trump will remain as president,” a statement from Gallup, released along with the poll on Monday, read.

“Like his approval rating, Trump’s impeachment figures are also sharply divided along partisan lines. Ninety-three percent of Republicans are opposed to convicting Trump and 84% of Democrats favor doing so. Independents are evenly divided, with 49% in favor and 46% opposed.”

The poll’s margin of error was plus-or minus-4 percentage points. These numbers are, like the larger polling average, flipped from last autumn.

In October, a Gallup poll found that 52 percent of respondents favored Trump’s impeachment and removal compared to 46 percent who were opposed.

So maybe the American public isn’t in favor of impeaching and removing the president, but perhaps this whole controversy is souring conservatives and independents on Trump?

Again, not so much.

“As the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins, 44% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. Trump’s approval rating has been steady in the past three polls — between 43% and 45% — slightly above the 39% to 41% ratings he received as the impeachment inquiry started in the fall,” Gallup’s Monday release read.

“Trump’s recent job approval ratings — though below the historical average 53% for post-World War II presidents — are among the highest of his presidency. His personal best is 46%, while he has averaged 40% job approval for his entire term.”

One poll taken in isolation isn’t much of a big thing unless you take into account this is how things have been trending, more or less.

The RealClearPolitics average has Trump’s job approval at 44.2 percent, essentially the same as Gallup poll.

It also shows the same trend: His approval hit a low in October and has since rebounded. The events of the last two months have changed little. The die has been cast multiple times and the Rubicon has been crossed.

There were plenty of times the Democrats could have turned back. But, even staring down poll numbers that should have disabused them of any desire to go the way of impeachment, they marched on unabated.

At least Caesar became the dictator of the Roman Republic for his trouble.


[From an article by C. Douglas Golden, published in the WESTERN JOURNAL]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis







Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Former congressman Trey Gowdy on the impeachment outlook

It’s the new year and we are getting closer to the end of this impeachment charade. Democrats were hoping to impeach Trump as a way of ending his chances at re-election. But from all appearances, their impeachment push is backfiring. Former congressman Trey Gowdy spoke about the left’s scheme. He tore it and them to shreds.

You might remember Trey Gowdy’s role in uncovering what Hillary Clinton did (or better put, did not do) during the siege on Benghazi. It was Gowdy’s work that revealed how the former Secretary of State sat back and refused to send help as terrorists attacked our embassy. Four Americans died, including an ambassador, because Hillary Clinton denied them aid—and went to sleep as the fighting raged.

During her campaign for president, Clinton was trying to hide all this information. But Gowdy released his committee’s findings around that time, showing the world exactly how Clinton abandoned our men when they needed her most.

You could say his report helped ensure Clinton’s ultimate defeat.

Now, Gowdy is setting his sights on the left’s bogus impeachment campaign. He was set to become a member of Trump’s defense. But D.C. swamp rules prevented him from doing so. That hasn’t stopped him from weighing in on the left’s pathetic attempt to remove your president from office.

“He’s got great facts… I think for several months we’ve been talking about the process and how fundamentally flawed it’s been. Imagine being investigated by somebody like Adam Schiff, that’s the process.… The single best piece of evidence for the president is the transcript itself…”

“Go pull the transcript from the first phone call. Not a single word. Look at the remainder of the transcript. What does the president say? He said I want you to do ‘us’ a favor. For those wondering who ‘us’ is, he answered it, he said I want you, our country has been through a lot. The ‘us’ is linked to the country…”

“The only thing President Trump did is he inserted Bill Barr and if it’s an impeachable offense to ask the attorney general, the top law enforcement official of the country, to look in to potential impropriety… then we’re not going to have presidents serving very long.” [Source: Daily Wire]

Gowdy set the record straight by looking at the facts. Democrats have been pushing hearsay and rumor all this time. They want us to believe their interpretation of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine, based on the opinion of partisan hacks. But the transcript itself clears Trump’s name.

President Trump was, in fact, doing his job. He was asking for Ukraine to aid the United States is rooting out corruption. Isn’t that what we want the president to do? Shouldn’t he rely on the AG to catch criminals? On the other side, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a man who was investigating his son’s company. He threatened to withhold a billion in aid. Biden later bragged about it to anyone who would listen.

So who was really offering an illegal quid-pro-quo?

Once again, we see Democrats accusing the president of something they are guilty of. This entire impeachment scheme has been a cover for Joe Biden’s crimes. That’s the reason they are doing it.

That’s also the reason Nancy Pelosi is too scared to send the articles to the Senate. When the Senate trial is held, Trump will actually have a chance to defend himself. Do you think he’s going to sit back and say nothing?

Of course not. He’s going to hammer the Democrats over Ukraine. He’s going to expose every time the left offered quid-pro-quos or broke the law. He’s going to show the country that the real abusers of power are in the House, not the White House.

Gowdy stood up for the president when he said: “look at the facts.” The facts are on Trump’s side. Democrats only have their partisan slander. But Americans are seeing through their web of lies.

We demand the Senate trial. We demand the president have the right to defend himself and reveal the truth.


[This article was published by THE BEARDED PATRIOT]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Legal options when (and if) the articles of impeachment get to the Senate

Bradley A. Blakeman, former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush and an adjunct professor of public policy and international affairs at Georgetown University, argues that “there’s no requirement — or need — for an actual trial in the Senate.”

When (if?) the House Democrats finally hand over their two articles of impeachment — for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — to the Republican-controlled Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has at least five options, Blakeman explains. One of those options, he argues, is to simply dismiss the trial altogether.

“The Senate could entertain a motion by the president’s counsel to dismiss — before the start of a trial — both articles of impeachment, for failure to meet the constitutional threshold for stating a cause of action,” Blakeman writes. The decision would require only a simple majority vote (51) to pass because it is a procedural motion.

After detailing four other options, Blakeman lays out unequivocally where he stands:

“In my opinion, a trial is unnecessary. The House articles, on their face, are defective. Both fail to meet the constitutional threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’  This would negate a trial but does not give the president any formal ‘acquittal,’ after a trial on the merits of the articles, which would prove the president’s innocence. While this would be true in a traditional criminal judicial proceeding, it is not the case in a political trial. No matter how the Senate deals with the articles of impeachment, Democrats and Republicans will put their own political spin on the outcome. Since the House articles of impeachment were voted strictly on party lines, and the country is so divided on the whole impeachment process, in my opinion, a trial is less important.”

President Trump highlighted Blakeman’s “dismissal” argument in a pair of tweets Thursday morning, quoting Blakeman from an appearance on Fox News.

Citing Blakeman, Trump wrote: “I happen to believe as a lawyer that the charges are defective, they don’t meet the Constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, so I would like to see a Motion to Dismiss. At least 51 Republican Senators would agree with that — there should be no trial.”

“Nancy Pelosi has no leverage over the Senate,” Trump added in a follow-up tweet, again quoting Blakeman. “Mitch McConnell did not nose his way into the impeachment process in the House, and she has no standing in the Senate.”

Blakeman goes on to outline the other four options he maintains are available to Senate Republicans. If McConnell chooses not to dismiss the trial outright, he could begin the trial but (quickly) end it “whenever the Senate majority deems it has heard enough and calls for a vote.” Republicans would only need to be certain that impeachment does not have two-thirds approval, a near impossibility.

McConnell could also take the opposite approach, conducting a “full-blown trial,” deliberately dragging it out and calling a variety of witnesses “as long as the Senate majority feels doing so is in its interests.” This option, Blakeman predicts, would result in Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts being forced to intervene and issue “numerous rulings, some of which would be unpredictable in their outcomes.”

Another option: hold the trial but then vote for dismissal, a procedural motion requiring a simple majority.

Finally, Blakeman argues, Republicans could employ the “nuclear option”: “make a procedural motion to adjourn the start of a trial until Nov. 4, 2020,” allowing voters to decide Trump’s fate. That option also would only require a simple majority vote.


[From an article by James Barrett, published by SONS OF 1776]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What’s next for GOP as Pelosi plays (more) games with impeachment?

The House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton on Dec. 19, 1998. It was a Saturday. The votes, in which two articles of impeachment passed, were held around midday. By 3 p.m., the House had passed a resolution naming its impeachment managers, and those managers had physically delivered the articles to the Senate for trial.

Impeachment was on. The House, controlled by a Republican majority, was serious about its ultimately failed effort to remove Clinton from office.

Contrast that to today. On Wednesday, Dec. 18, at around 8 p.m., the Democratic-controlled House passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump. Speaker Nancy Pelosi immediately announced that the House would not appoint managers, and the articles would not be delivered to the Senate. The next day, Pelosi told reporters she did not want to talk any more about it, and the House went into recess until Jan. 7.

Impeachment was not on, or at least a Senate trial was not on. Pelosi was holding out, apparently, for better terms in a Senate trial.

That is where events stand today.

Pelosi acted after a Harvard professor and zealous impeachment advocate, Laurence Tribe, published an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing the Democratic strategy should be “voting for articles of impeachment but holding off for the time being on transmitting them to the Senate.”

Withholding the articles, Tribe said, would strengthen Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s hand as he negotiates with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on the terms of the trial. It would do so, Tribe speculated, “because of McConnell’s and Trump’s urgent desire to get this whole business behind them.”

Without McConnell’s concessions, Tribe urged Democrats to withhold the articles indefinitely because a trial dominated by majority Republicans “would fail to render a meaningful verdict of acquittal.”

It seemed a far-fetched idea, to be generous. McConnell and Senate Republicans would be perfectly happy if they never had to hold a trial; after all, they didn’t impeach Trump. “I admit I’m not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want,” McConnell said drily.

After the weekly Senate Republican lunch, I asked one GOP lawmaker, via text, what the party’s reaction was. He texted back a one-word answer: “Laughter.”

Nevertheless, Tribe’s idea took off like a rocket in some circles of the Democratic left. He published the article on Monday afternoon, and by Wednesday night, Pelosi had adopted his plan.

Just to be clear: Pelosi has no leverage at all over a Senate proceeding. The Constitution gives the House the “sole power” to impeach, a power Pelosi and her majority used to its fullest. But the Constitution gives the Senate the “sole power” to try all impeachments. The speaker of the House has no role.

Given that, Republicans have been wondering what Pelosi is up to. Crazy theories (at least, they seem to be crazy theories) have emerged. Democrats would impeach the president repeatedly. (That was actually a serious suggestion from a New York Times columnist in October.) Or Democrats would never send the articles to the Senate, to keep impeachment hanging over Trump’s head. Or whatever.

The key Democrats involved aren’t saying. But one plausible notion came from Hill columnist A.B. Stoddard, who keeps a close eye on Democrats. Party leaders have their eye on the ongoing investigations into Trump, Stoddard said on Fox News Thursday. What about reports of Russian money going to Ukraine figure Lev Parnas’ wife? What are prosecutors in the Southern District of New York doing? Is something big coming? There is, Stoddard said, “a lot of pressure on Democrats to wait this out until there is more to throw at the president.”

It’s not clear precisely how that would work because the House has already passed two articles of impeachment that make specific accusations against Trump. Beyond that, withholding impeachment indefinitely in hopes that a federal investigation will come up with something big (basically what Democrats did in the Trump-Russia affair) might end in disappointment.

In any event, Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment. It is unclear how long she will do it, but it seems they will be withheld at least until Jan. 7, when the House returns for business. That alone will delay a Senate trial significantly. (In the Clinton impeachment, as noted above, the House vote was on Dec. 19, the articles were sent to the Senate the same day, and the trial began Jan. 7.)

In the limbo Pelosi has created, almost anything seems possible. On Saturday, Brit Hume, of Fox News, tweeted that “if House Democrats continue to play this game, I can’t see what would prevent McConnell and the Senate Republicans from dismissing the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution. It would take two-thirds to convict, but only a simple majority to dismiss.” That seemed like an entirely sensible option for Senate Republicans, although one certain to draw howls of opposition from Democrats.

During the House impeachment inquiry, Republicans often complained that Democrats did not observe basic rules of fairness. On one hand, Democrats denied the charge, and on the other, they argued that the majority can do what it wants. It’s true. Given the constitutional authorities involved, the House Democratic majority could do what it wanted during impeachment. Now, if there ever is a trial, the Senate Republican majority can also do what it wants. And whatever they choose in the end, Pelosi’s gamesmanship will likely make the GOP more united.


[This article by Byron York was written for the Washington Examiner]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

In thousands of pages of impeachment inquiry testimony, the only bribery reference is to Biden, not Trump

It’s a very telling thing that the most successful hearings the Democrats have held during the “impeachment inquiry” thus far have taken place behind closed doors.

If you can control who testifies, what questions get asked and what information gets released, things seem to work out as desired. You can’t do that when the hearings are public, however, no matter how few people are watching.

The Comey hearing was a disaster. The Mueller hearing was even worse because at least Comey didn’t seem like he was the victim of mentally diminishing returns. And while the Trump impeachment inquiry hearings have just begun, let’s face some facts: The way this is going, the streak is intact.

“Opening Day of the impeachment hearings hardly hit blockbuster status, generating middling viewer interest compared with other Trump-era political hearings,” Neil Rothschild and Sara Fischer wrote for Axios.

Michael Goodwin from the New York Post was more critical: “Tuesday wasn’t much help. As they did in the first hearings last week, Dems again failed to make the Ukraine ­issue the crime of the century or even of the Trump presidency. Their hyperbolic descriptions are not even close to the pedestrian evidence they’re producing.”


[From an article published by the WESTERN JOURNAL]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Democrats admitting that impeachment furor is really all about preventing Trump’s second term

It has become apparent that a substantial portion of those on the left simply can’t abide the thought of President Donald Trump serving a second term in the White House, and they are prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent that from happening.

It would seem, by virtue of commentary offered up in a recent CNN interview by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that the purpose of the current ongoing impeachment inquiry against the president is one such example of “whatever is necessary.”

The freshman congresswoman spoke with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in the aftermath of the day’s first public impeachment hearings in the House, which didn’t go quite as well as Democrats had probably hoped.

Following some nonsensical remarks that blamed Trump for starting the whole discussion around “quid pro quos” with regard to his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ocasio-Cortez said, “What we’re centrally focused on is, really, him using the power of the United States government to engage in extortion of a foreign government in order to intervene in our elections.”

“And so I think that’s our message, the fact that he undermined national security, that he is trying to undermine our elections, that he is engaged in flagrant abuse of power, should be a concern to all Americans who believe in the rule of law in the United States of America,” she added.

Blitzer noted that Ocasio-Cortez had been in support of impeaching Trump since before she even took office and pointed out that her prior reasoning for such had been Trump’s alleged profiting off the presidency and supposed misconduct during the Robert Mueller-led special counsel investigation. He asked what it would mean if those allegations, among others, were not incorporated into a broad set of articles of impeachment that went beyond just the Ukraine issue.

“Well, I think many of those considerations will be taken up by the Judiciary Committee when all of this evidence is brought forth, so we’ll see,” she replied. “I personally do believe that the president has engaged in flagrant violations of the emoluments clause. I’m concerned that we would allow this corruption to continue.”  [NORM ‘n’ AL Note: The emoluments clause is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value.  It applies both to foreign and domestic sources, and is intended to prevent corruption of US officeholders.]

“But at the end of the day, we have to be able to come together as a caucus, and if it is this Ukrainian allegation that is what brings the caucus together, then I think we have to run with however we unify the House,” the congresswoman added.

Ocasio-Cortez stated that she believed there needed to be congressional investigations into the president’s purported violations of the emoluments clause, particularly with respect to allegations of his alleged enrichment by “suspicious stops” that had been made at his properties around the globe by government officials and employees on foreign trips.

“But we also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections,” the congresswoman said, alluding to the allegation that Trump had sought Ukraine’s help in “interfering” in the upcoming election by way of investigating allegations of corruption involving former Vice President — and 2020 candidate — Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“This is not just about something that has occurred, this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year,” she said.

That last remark from Ocasio-Cortez about “preventing a potentially disastrous outcome” from happening in 2020 could be taken in two different ways. The first involves the accusation that Trump had encouraged Ukraine to meddle in the elections with the requested Biden investigations, foreign election interference that must be prevented from occurring.

While that may be exactly what she was inferring in her remark, it is far more probable that the “potentially disastrous outcome” she hoped to prevent was President Trump’s re-election, which the left would undoubtedly view as an unmitigated disaster if he were to have another four years in office to continue implementing his own agenda while undoing and blocking their own.

In May of this year, Democrat Texas Rep. Al Green bluntly told an MSNBC host that “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” That line of thinking aligns remarkably well with what Ocasio-Cortez had to say.

It would seem that the Democrats are willing to use the sacred and scarcely-used power of impeachment as nothing more than a partisan tool to interject some “interference” of the domestic variety into the 2020 election for the sole purpose of overriding and subjugating the political will of the American people — a dangerous precedent that must not be allowed to happen.


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  “If we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” (Al Green)  “We have to pass this (Obamacare) bill so you can find out what’s in it.” (Nancy Pelosi)  “Obama is the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” (Joe Biden)  “I’ve now been in 57 states. I think there’s one left to go.” (Barack Obama)  “Cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming.” (Al Gore)  “I personally do believe that the president has engaged in flagrant violations of the emoluments clause. I’m concerned that we would allow this corruption to continue.” (AOC)  Bottom line: “We have no proof whatsoever that there has been anything done by our president that violates the law.  We think, or maybe we even believe, that some legal violations have occurred, but we don’t know that to be true.  Nor do we know what they are, or might be.  But because we think, or believe, that such violations did, or might have, occurred, we are moving forward with an impeachment inquiry which is going to cost a LOT of money, and waste a LOT of time, before it’s all over.  And when it is all over, we are going to look a lot more stupid than people think we already are.”


[From an article published by WESTERN JOURNAL.com]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized