In Private, Republicans Admit They Acquitted Trump Out of Fear

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/opinion/trump-senate-acquittal-impeachment.html

One journalist remarked to me, “How in the world can these senators walk around here upright when they have no backbone?”

05Brown-articleLarge.jpg

Fear of President Trump guides many Republicans in Congress. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

Not guilty. Not guilty.

In the United States Senate, like in many spheres of life, fear does the business.

Think back to the fall of 2002, just a few weeks before that year’s crucial midterm elections, when the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was up for a vote. A year after the 9/11 attacks, hundreds of members of the House and the Senate were about to face the voters of a country still traumatized by terrorism.

Senator Patty Murray, a thoughtful Democrat from Washington State, still remembers “the fear that dominated the Senate leading up to the Iraq war.”

“You could feel it then,” she told me, “and you can feel that fear now” — chiefly among Senate Republicans.

For those of us who, from the start, questioned the wisdom of the Iraq war, our sense of isolation surely wasn’t much different from the loneliness felt in the 1950s by Senator Herbert Lehman of New York, who confronted Joe McCarthy’s demagogy only to be abandoned by so many of his colleagues. Nor was it so different from what Senator George McGovern must have felt when he announced his early opposition to the Vietnam War and was then labeled a traitor by many inside and outside of Congress.

History has indeed taught us that when it comes to the instincts that drive us, fear has no rival. As the lead House impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff, has noted, Robert Kennedy spoke of how “moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle.”


Playing on that fear, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, sought a quick impeachment trial for President Trump with as little attention to it as possible. Reporters, who usually roam the Capitol freely, have been cordoned off like cattle in select areas. Mr. McConnell ordered limited camera views in the Senate chamber so only presenters — not absent senators — could be spotted.

And barely a peep from Republican lawmakers.

One journalist remarked to me, “How in the world can these senators walk around here upright when they have no backbone?”

Fear has a way of bending us.

Late in the evening on day four of the trial I saw it, just 10 feet across the aisle from my seat at Desk 88, when Mr. Schiff told the Senate: “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that Republican senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’” The response from Republicans was immediate and furious. Several groaned and protested and muttered, “Not true.” But pike or no pike, Mr. Schiff had clearly struck a nerve. (In the words of Lizzo: truth hurts.)

Of course, the Republican senators who have covered for Mr. Trump love what he delivers for them. But Vice President Mike Pence would give them the same judges, the same tax cuts, the same attacks on workers’ rights and the environment. So that’s not really the reason for their united chorus of “not guilty.”

For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators, fear is the motivator. They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “Low Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted,” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty. Or — worst of all — that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the Republican primary. They worry:

“Will the hosts on Fox attack me?”

“Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me?”

“Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me?”

My colleagues know they all just might. There’s an old Russian proverb: The tallest blade of grass is the first cut by the scythe. In private, many of my colleagues agree that the president is reckless and unfit. They admit his lies. And they acknowledge what he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard Nixon never did. And they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out.

So watching the mental contortions they perform to justify their votes is painful to behold: They claim that calling witnesses would have meant a never-ending trial. They tell us they’ve made up their minds, so why would we need new evidence? They say to convict this president now would lead to the impeachment of every future president — as if every president will try to sell our national security to the highest bidder.

I have asked some of them, “If the Senate votes to acquit, what will you do to keep this president from getting worse?” Their responses have been shrugs and sheepish looks.

They stop short of explicitly saying that they are afraid. We all want to think that we always stand up for right and fight against wrong. But history does not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming election. They might claim fealty to their cause — those tax cuts — but often it’s a simple attachment to power that keeps them captured.

As Senator Murray said on the Senate floor in 2002, “We can act out of fear” or “we can stick to our principles.” Unfortunately, in this Senate, fear has had its way. In November, the American people will have theirs.

You are an idiot.
 
Sorry there corporal, I know the talking points you are parroting have been repeated to you so many times you actually believe that shit but..

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Despite his impeachment trial acquittal, Trump clearly guilty of a high crime

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jud...cquittal-trump-clearly-guilty-of-a-high-crime

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." – George Orwell, "1984"

The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump ended not with a bang but a whimper. What different outcome could one expect from a trial without so much as a single witness, a single document, any cross-examination or a defendant respectful enough to show up?

Law students are taught early on that a trial is not a grudge match or an ordeal; it is a search for the truth. Trial lawyers know that cross-examination is the most effective truth-testing tool available to them.

But the search for the truth requires witnesses, and when the command from Senate Republican leaders came down that there shall be no witnesses, the truth-telling mission of Trump's trial was radically transformed into a steamroller of political power.

And in its wake is a Congress ceding power to the presidency, almost as if the states had ratified a constitutional amendment redefining the impeachment language to permit a president to engage in high crimes and misdemeanors so long as he believes that they are in the national interest and so long as his party has an iron-clad grip on the Senate.

How could presidential crimes be in the national interest? Here is the backstory.

When the House of Representatives voted in favor of two articles of impeachment against Trump, it characterized his lawlessness as contempt of Congress and an abuse of power.

The contempt of Congress consisted of Trump's orders to subordinates to disregard congressional subpoenas. Both Republican- and Democratic-controlled Houses of Representatives have deemed such presidential instructions in an impeachment inquiry as impeachable per se.

The abuse allegations address Trump's solicitation of assistance for his reelection campaign from a foreign government by holding up the release of $391 million in military aid to the same foreign government. These funds were congressionally appropriated and ordered to be paid by legislation that Trump had signed into law.

Federal law prohibits such solicitation as criminal and prohibits government officials from seeking personal favors in return for performing their governmental duties. The latter is bribery.

Because the solicitation that Trump committed was a crime against the government, it is among those referred to when the Constitution was written as a "high" crime. High crimes are a constitutional basis for impeachment, along with bribery and treason.

The evidence that Trump did this is overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt, and no one with firsthand knowledge denied it. Numerous government officials recounted that the presidential leverage of $391 million in U.S. assistance for a personal political favor did occur and the government's own watchdog concluded that it was indisputably unlawful.

The favor Trump sought was an announcement by the Ukrainian government of the commencement of an investigation of Trump's potential presidential foe, former Vice President Joe Biden.

While the Senate was hearing House prosecution managers argue their case, and Trump's lawyers challenged those arguments, The New York Times revealed that John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, had authored an as yet unpublished book demonstrating that the House case against Trump was true.

True because, unlike the senators who shut their eyes and ears at Trump's trial, Bolton saw for himself the presidential tit-for-tat machinations that the House had alleged and, if proven, were criminal and impeachable.

The Times also revealed the existence of 24 emails sent by Trump aides manifesting indisputably his lawless behavior. But the emails are secret.

At the same time, two signal events occurred in the impeachment trial. The first was an argument by Trump's lawyers that every president seeking reelection believes his victory will be in the national interest and thus all presidential efforts toward that victory are constitutional and lawful.

This morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest argument – which effectively resuscitates from history's graveyard President Richard Nixon’s logic that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" because the president is above the law – must have resonated with Senate Republican leaders.

The leaders coerced their Senate Republican colleagues into embracing the view that – since the president did not want Bolton to testify or White House emails to be revealed – they must bar all witnesses and documents.

The second signal event was shameful. It was the 51 to 49 Senate vote to bar witnesses and documents from the trial.

Isn't it odd that a president who clamors for exoneration, who claimed loud and long that he committed no crime and did no wrong, who insisted that his request to the Ukrainian president to seek dirt on Biden in return for American financial assistance was "perfect," would command the members of his own party to block testimony adverse to him – rather than hear it, cross-examine it, challenge it and thereby obtain the exoneration on the merits that he seeks?

Do innocent people behave this way?

If Trump really believes he did not commit any crimes and any impeachable offenses, why would he orchestrate blocking evidence? And who – having taken an oath to do "impartial justice" – would close their eyes to the truth? How could such a marathon of speeches possibly be considered a trial?

Trump will luxuriate in his victory. But the personal victory for him is a legal assault on the Constitution. The president has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Instead, he has trashed it.

How? By manipulating Senate Republicans to bar firsthand evidence and keep it from senatorial and public scrutiny, Trump and his Senate collaborators have insulated him and future presidents from the moral and constitutional truism that no president is above the law.

Somewhere, Richard Nixon is smiling.
And where is the tape, recording, some actual evidence of republican senators saying they voted to acquit because they are afraid of Trump and/or the conservative press. That's what this thread claims, so lets see the evidence.
 
And where is the tape, recording, some actual evidence of republican senators saying they voted to acquit because they are afraid of Trump and/or the conservative press. That's what this thread claims, so lets see the evidence.

if it exists, the Senate will vote to suppress it as you cheer on. Remember when you were asking to see the proof of Trump's quid pro quo and did a 180 once shit got real? Good times
 
Sorry there corporal, I know the talking points you are parroting have been repeated to you so many times you actually believe that shit but..

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Despite his impeachment trial acquittal, Trump clearly guilty of a high crime

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jud...cquittal-trump-clearly-guilty-of-a-high-crime

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." – George Orwell, "1984"

The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump ended not with a bang but a whimper. What different outcome could one expect from a trial without so much as a single witness, a single document, any cross-examination or a defendant respectful enough to show up?

Law students are taught early on that a trial is not a grudge match or an ordeal; it is a search for the truth. Trial lawyers know that cross-examination is the most effective truth-testing tool available to them.

But the search for the truth requires witnesses, and when the command from Senate Republican leaders came down that there shall be no witnesses, the truth-telling mission of Trump's trial was radically transformed into a steamroller of political power.

And in its wake is a Congress ceding power to the presidency, almost as if the states had ratified a constitutional amendment redefining the impeachment language to permit a president to engage in high crimes and misdemeanors so long as he believes that they are in the national interest and so long as his party has an iron-clad grip on the Senate.

How could presidential crimes be in the national interest? Here is the backstory.

When the House of Representatives voted in favor of two articles of impeachment against Trump, it characterized his lawlessness as contempt of Congress and an abuse of power.

The contempt of Congress consisted of Trump's orders to subordinates to disregard congressional subpoenas. Both Republican- and Democratic-controlled Houses of Representatives have deemed such presidential instructions in an impeachment inquiry as impeachable per se.

The abuse allegations address Trump's solicitation of assistance for his reelection campaign from a foreign government by holding up the release of $391 million in military aid to the same foreign government. These funds were congressionally appropriated and ordered to be paid by legislation that Trump had signed into law.

Federal law prohibits such solicitation as criminal and prohibits government officials from seeking personal favors in return for performing their governmental duties. The latter is bribery.

Because the solicitation that Trump committed was a crime against the government, it is among those referred to when the Constitution was written as a "high" crime. High crimes are a constitutional basis for impeachment, along with bribery and treason.

The evidence that Trump did this is overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt, and no one with firsthand knowledge denied it. Numerous government officials recounted that the presidential leverage of $391 million in U.S. assistance for a personal political favor did occur and the government's own watchdog concluded that it was indisputably unlawful.

The favor Trump sought was an announcement by the Ukrainian government of the commencement of an investigation of Trump's potential presidential foe, former Vice President Joe Biden.

While the Senate was hearing House prosecution managers argue their case, and Trump's lawyers challenged those arguments, The New York Times revealed that John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, had authored an as yet unpublished book demonstrating that the House case against Trump was true.

True because, unlike the senators who shut their eyes and ears at Trump's trial, Bolton saw for himself the presidential tit-for-tat machinations that the House had alleged and, if proven, were criminal and impeachable.

The Times also revealed the existence of 24 emails sent by Trump aides manifesting indisputably his lawless behavior. But the emails are secret.

At the same time, two signal events occurred in the impeachment trial. The first was an argument by Trump's lawyers that every president seeking reelection believes his victory will be in the national interest and thus all presidential efforts toward that victory are constitutional and lawful.

This morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest argument – which effectively resuscitates from history's graveyard President Richard Nixon’s logic that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" because the president is above the law – must have resonated with Senate Republican leaders.

The leaders coerced their Senate Republican colleagues into embracing the view that – since the president did not want Bolton to testify or White House emails to be revealed – they must bar all witnesses and documents.

The second signal event was shameful. It was the 51 to 49 Senate vote to bar witnesses and documents from the trial.

Isn't it odd that a president who clamors for exoneration, who claimed loud and long that he committed no crime and did no wrong, who insisted that his request to the Ukrainian president to seek dirt on Biden in return for American financial assistance was "perfect," would command the members of his own party to block testimony adverse to him – rather than hear it, cross-examine it, challenge it and thereby obtain the exoneration on the merits that he seeks?

Do innocent people behave this way?

If Trump really believes he did not commit any crimes and any impeachable offenses, why would he orchestrate blocking evidence? And who – having taken an oath to do "impartial justice" – would close their eyes to the truth? How could such a marathon of speeches possibly be considered a trial?

Trump will luxuriate in his victory. But the personal victory for him is a legal assault on the Constitution. The president has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Instead, he has trashed it.

How? By manipulating Senate Republicans to bar firsthand evidence and keep it from senatorial and public scrutiny, Trump and his Senate collaborators have insulated him and future presidents from the moral and constitutional truism that no president is above the law.

Somewhere, Richard Nixon is smiling.
Furhter, I'm surprised the esteemed judge would make the following statemebts.
Do innocent people behave this way?

If Trump really believes he did not commit any crimes and any impeachable offenses, why would he orchestrate blocking evidence? And who – having taken an oath to do "impartial justice" – would close their eyes to the truth? How could such a marathon of speeches possibly be considered a trial?
One, the accused does not have to prove their innocence and the judge should know that. The burden is on those bringing the charges. Two, Trump was in no position to block anything. The senate can and does act separately from the executive branch. They could have brought any evidence they liked regardless of what Trump wanted. The senate decided that the House had all the time and opportunity to bring forth whatever evidence there was to show and anything further was just more blatant political grandstanding in order to drag this out as long as they could. The senate acted rightfully and put a stop to this charade.
 
The Dems have no evidence of anything - if they did they would have presented it.
all they have is conjecture and hearsay. And a shitload of lies.
3 years of impeachment sport for the Housetards.
And now the process is weaponized for future Presidents.

Great job Libtards!
 
Furhter, I'm surprised the esteemed judge would make the following statemebts.
Do innocent people behave this way?

If Trump really believes he did not commit any crimes and any impeachable offenses, why would he orchestrate blocking evidence? And who – having taken an oath to do "impartial justice" – would close their eyes to the truth? How could such a marathon of speeches possibly be considered a trial?
One, the accused does not have to prove their innocence and the judge should know that. The burden is on those bringing the charges. Two, Trump was in no position to block anything. The senate can and does act separately from the executive branch. They could have brought any evidence they liked regardless of what Trump wanted. The senate decided that the House had all the time and opportunity to bring forth whatever evidence there was to show and anything further was just more blatant political grandstanding in order to drag this out as long as they could. The senate acted rightfully and put a stop to this charade.
Cool argument. Keep bucketing.

upload_2020-2-7_8-24-34.jpeg
 
Cool argument. Keep bucketing.

View attachment 218723

It is hard to find the energy to respond to the Captain, he and the others are barely people anymore, just synapses twitching in a larger organism, the fucking blob.

He completely avoids thinking about Judge Neo agreeing with everyone who is not brainwashed and goes for anything he thinks he can spin.

Somehow I never really thought I'd be seeing the same brainwashing techniques dictators have used for tens of thousands of years played out on this scale.

The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President
How new technologies and techniques pioneered by dictators will shape the 2020 election

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/
 
Reply to this article is inline, below:

“Frederick Foresight, post: 5009068, member: 488296"]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/opinion/trump-senate-acquittal-impeachment.html

One journalist remarked to me, “How in the world can these senators walk around here upright when they have no backbone?”

05Brown-articleLarge.jpg

Fear of President Trump guides many Republicans in Congress. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
Here we go. How are we going to spin our crushing defeat with our latest sham impeachment effort into sounding like a win?

Not guilty. Not guilty.


In the United States Senate, like in many spheres of life, fear does the business.

Think back to the fall of 2002, just a few weeks before that year’s crucial midterm elections, when the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was up for a vote. A year after the 9/11 attacks, hundreds of members of the House and the Senate were about to face the voters of a country still traumatized by terrorism.
Impressive. Trying to imply an established Islamic terrorism act with a concocted story how US Republicans fear Trump. If there is to be fear, what is the fact pattern as seen from recent events? Events that include: Christina Blasey Ford’s false rape accusation of now Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh. Christina allegedly deleted her social media accounts prior to her accusation. What state of mind does this suggest of the accuser? It seems to me Christina felt what she said in the past could hurt her and she wanted to destroy it.

Jussie Smollett’s false police report of a racially motivated attack. The evidence of his guilt is strong, but what motivated this popular star to do this? Did he have a political reason to do this? Was he trying to influence voters and public opinion by bolstering an ongoing Radical Leftist narrative? Chicago Democrat politicians were able to influence a decision to not prosecute Smollett to the dismay of investigating officers, but there is a current Federal Investigation going on.

CNN settles defamation lawsuit brought by a Covington High School student as a result of their biased coverage. Here the media attacked children for their beliefs because they were apparently unacceptable to what the News media considers as acceptable.

In the first failed impeachment effort, “Evidence” was obtained under false pretenses under FISA, investigator conflicts of interest were not resolved, there was clear evidence of bias with Strock and Paige, there were many leaks of “Information” that consistently appeared to be timed to cause most possible political damage to Trump and the Republicans, AKA Interfering with elections, and a general lack of transparency.

Several long established Republicans were convicted or plead guilty on charges of obstruction or other laws that while some were actually significant law violations, other convictions were based on evidence obtained during trial where the defendant was charged with obstruction for lying and possibly obstruction for not fully cooperating with an investigation. In other words, several charges and convictions came not from original charges, but as a result of a defendant testifying. Democrats apparently moved the status quo with campaign finance laws from what was historically considered to be not prosecutable to accommodate their politically based investigatory objectives. In addition, Liberal News jumped on leaks to suggest new charges that could possibly levied on Trump. A lot of the effort appeared to be not the Democrats actually had evidence of a specific crime, rather it was an attempt to find a charge Democrats could make stick to Trump. Why else are the Democrats so desperately attempting trying to obtain Trump’s tax returns, while not offering to release theirs? A Fishing expedition comes to mind.

In the second successful Democratic led impeachment effort, did not the Democrats attempt to dictate terms of what evidence could and could not be used in the Senate trial?

Nancy Pelosi stating ANTIFA violence would continue until they no longer had any reason for violence, or words to that effect.

The reason we have things like probable cause, search and seizure laws, separation of powers, rules of evidence, right against self incrimination, attorney-client privilege is to prevent the abuses by the Democrats in their attempt to take down Trump. The Democrats violated every one of these protections in their “Investigations” repeatedly.

From the facts presented above, it is clear Republicans, and for that matter, all American citizens have reason to fear Democrat politicians.


Senator Patty Murray, a thoughtful Democrat from Washington State, still remembers “the fear that dominated the Senate leading up to the Iraq war.”
Any author that quotes Patty Murray, widely regarded by seemingly most, regardless of political affiliation, as the most stupid Senator to ever been elected is in trouble from a credibility standpoint in my opinion.

“You could feel it then,” she told me, “and you can feel that fear now” — chiefly among Senate Republicans.
It’s fear of Democrats and what they might do to our country if they gain even more power Patty may be picking up on.

For those of us who, from the start, questioned the wisdom of the Iraq war, our sense of isolation surely wasn’t much different from the loneliness felt in the 1950s by Senator Herbert Lehman of New York, who confronted Joe McCarthy’s demagogy only to be abandoned by so many of his colleagues. Nor was it so different from what Senator George McGovern must have felt when he announced his early opposition to the Vietnam War and was then labeled a traitor by many inside and outside of Congress.


History has indeed taught us that when it comes to the instincts that drive us, fear has no rival. As the lead House impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff, has noted, Robert Kennedy spoke of how “moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle.”
Impressive fantasy characterization for what would be more accurately characterized as a Benedict Arnold type of person (Adam Schiff) and Party (Democrats).

Playing on that fear, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, sought a quick impeachment trial for President Trump with as little attention to it as possible. Reporters, who usually roam the Capitol freely, have been cordoned off like cattle in select areas. Mr. McConnell ordered limited camera views in the Senate chamber so only presenters — not absent senators — could be spotted.
In the grand scheme of things, how is this a relevant point and assuming this point has a basis in fact, why doesn’t the author ask McConnell about this?

And barely a peep from Republican lawmakers.

One journalist remarked to me, “How in the world can these senators walk around here upright when they have no backbone?”

Fear has a way of bending us.

Late in the evening on day four of the trial I saw it, just 10 feet across the aisle from my seat at Desk 88, when Mr. Schiff told the Senate: “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that Republican senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’” The response from Republicans was immediate and furious. Several groaned and protested and muttered, “Not true.” But pike or no pike, Mr. Schiff had clearly struck a nerve. (In the words of Lizzo: truth hurts.)
The author somehow knows what Republican Senators are thinking? Could it be they were thinking that comment may tend to hurt their hero, Donald Trump?

Of course, the Republican senators who have covered for Mr. Trump love what he delivers for them. But Vice President Mike Pence would give them the same judges, the same tax cuts, the same attacks on workers’ rights and the environment. So that’s not really the reason for their united chorus of “not guilty.”

For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators, fear is the motivator. They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “Low Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted,” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty. Or — worst of all — that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the Republican primary. They worry:

“Will the hosts on Fox attack me?”

“Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me?”

“Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me?”

My colleagues know they all just might. There’s an old Russian proverb: The tallest blade of grass is the first cut by the scythe. In private, many of my colleagues agree that the president is reckless and unfit. They admit his lies. And they acknowledge what he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard Nixon never did. And they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out.
Oh the irony of the author quoting Russian proverbs: Leftist Democrats have a long history with the Communists starting with the labor movement. Republican Senators motivations, as is Trump’s is to protect America from its enemies, foreign and domestic. Another irony is Trump is the one being prosecuted and not the other way around. Hopefully, with Trump’s reelection and Republicans recapturing the House, that will all change.

So watching the mental contortions they perform to justify their votes is painful to behold: They claim that calling witnesses would have meant a never-ending trial. They tell us they’ve made up their minds, so why would we need new evidence? They say to convict this president now would lead to the impeachment of every future president — as if every president will try to sell our national security to the highest bidder.
Is this coming from someone who is afraid of missing out on lucrative defense contracts or kickbacks?

I have asked some of them, “If the Senate votes to acquit, what will you do to keep this president from getting worse?” Their responses have been shrugs and sheepish looks.
More impressive characterizations. Getting worse? In what way? Equity markets rising at a even faster rate? All time record Employment rates among minorities accelerating even faster yet? Wage growth accelerating even faster due to greater demand of workers in short supply? Keeping us out of wars is somehow an area of concern were Trump may get worse at? Reestablishing the United States as the most favorable environment for business and investment Trump with accelerating money flows should get worse? If Trump is bad and getting worse, then I don’t want to be good and getting better! In reality, The Democrats are getting worse and their desperation shows. From Leftists getting thoroughly rejected in the recent Great Britain elections to the Democrat Iowa debacle to Democrat lack of viable Presidential candidates, all they are left with are their lies, mischaracterizations, narratives, political correctness, identity politics, and media intimidation tactics. Fortunately for us, voters, especially independents as implied by recent polls and betting odds, are finally getting tired of their shit show.

They stop short of explicitly saying that they are afraid. We all want to think that we always stand up for right and fight against wrong. But history does not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming election. They might claim fealty to their cause — those tax cuts — but often it’s a simple attachment to power that keeps them captured.
It seems fair to say someone is setting themselves up for a rude awakening in 2020. The funny thing is, the outcome Democrats are hoping for will be the real rude awakening, while the outcome they don’t want is the one that will actually help them.


As Senator Murray said on the Senate floor in 2002, “We can act out of fear” or “we can stick to our principles.” Unfortunately, in this Senate, fear has had its way. In November, the American people will have theirs.
Amen.
 
Back
Top