The Daily Nooze

"All the news we deem fit to print"

You are here: Home / Archives for politics

The Real Oath Senate Republicans Took Within Their Minds

By 3 Comments

The United States Senate likes to call itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” But as we are seeing with Trump’s impeachment trial, the only thing senators are doing is deliberately violating their oaths of office.

The Oath Act of June 1, 1789, was the first legislation passed by the Senate and the first law signed by President George Washington. It simply read: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

Following the Civil War, the Oath was amended several times to now read:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Besides the above oath taken by each senator-elect before assuming office, all 100 senators took the following special oath before the start of Trump’s impeachment trial:

 “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [Donald John Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.”

We all know, because some have actually told us, not all Republican senators will be living up to their sacred oaths to do impartial justice.

I’m guessing while mindlessly mouthing their prescribed oaths, these were the words that actually registered within their brains:

“I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump I will do all I can to exonerate him even though I will be presented with a mountain of incriminating evidence which will clearly show he violated his oath to the Constitution and laws: so help me my constituents.”

Of course, the more religious members of the Senate had their fingers crossed behind their backs while the impeachment oath was administered by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Photo | msnbc.com

R.I.P. Political Satire – Republican Senator Asks Whether John Bolton Is Really A Firsthand Witness

By 4 Comments

Clearly we are living through some weird times. The line between the factual and the absurd just keeps getting blurred beyond recognition.

Satire is dead.

Senate Republicans have complained that all the evidence against Trump has come from people with secondhand, third-hand and even fourth-hand knowledge. Yet when Democrats asked, during Trump’s impeachment trial, to subpoena witnesses with firsthand knowledge of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing, all such requests were voted down along a straight party-line vote.

Then, over the weekend, the Bolton book bombshell hits the streets.  In the unpublished manuscript of his tell-all book, former national security advisor, John Bolton, says Donald Trump told him that he was withholding military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure Ukrainian president Zelensky to help him with political motivated investigations, i.e. dirt on the Bidens.

In a normal world this would be considered the ultimate firsthand knowledge … unless you could produce a witness who inhabited Trump’s subconscious!

But, no. Missouri junior Senator Josh Hawley is actually questioning whether John Bolton is that much-sought, indispensable witness.

When CNN’s Haley Byrd caught up with Hawley yesterday and asked why the Senate wouldn’t want to hear from Bolton, he replied, “Well, I don’t know. Is he a firsthand witness? I’m not sure.”

Folks, we have reached a point where writers of political satire need to just pack their bags and go ply their trade on some less absurdist terrain otherwise known as today’s political world. Well, at least until we can return to more normal times … if that is even possible.

Sorry, Mr. Borowitz, but it seems the current crop of Republican politicians may have put you, and all your clever fellow satirists, out of business.

Did you hear that Donald Trump is thinking of pardoning Charles Manson, Ms. Williamson?

Photo | washingtonpost.com

Graham On Calling Witnesses: “I Really Don’t Want To Turn The Trial Into A Circus”

By 6 Comments

Now that Trump’s lawyers have begun offering up their arguments against impeachment, many Democrats are saying they just made a great case for calling witnesses.

Trump’s defense team began this morning’s Senate session arguing that no one has testified they heard Trump directly demand a political quid pro quo from Ukraine or say he explicitly held up foreign aid to benefit himself.

So, wouldn’t calling witnesses with direct knowledge of the issues potentially solve the problem?

Not for Lindsey Graham. He stated, after this morning’s “brief” presentation by Trump’s lawyers, “I am more intent on ending this thing now with my vote. I really don’t want to turn the trial into a circus.”

Any person with even the slightest knowledge of trial procedure would tell you Graham has it completely backwards. A trial without witnesses IS a circus; nothing but a sham trial.

Yes, Senate Republicans have heard enough after three grueling days of arguments by the Democrats. They want to move on to other things … lunches with lobbyists and fundraising for the next election.

Having witnesses, like Bolton or Mulvaney, testify would only complicate things and make it more difficult for Senate Republicans to acquit Trump without looking like the unpatriotic, partisan hacks that they are.

Welcome to our brave new, dystopian, world of Orwellian doublespeak!

Photo | cnbc.com

Did Pompeo Get Stumped On A Simple Word Definition?

By 2 Comments

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is regarded as a very smart man. His academic accomplishments have been well documented: graduated first in his class at West Point; a Harvard Law School graduate who served as editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review.

Yet there he was at a press conference on Friday, “unable” to define a relatively simple word.

Pompeo has insisted that the killing of top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was necessary because he was planning “imminent attacks” against the U.S.

During remarks made on Fox News Thursday night, Pompeo told host Laura Ingraham that Soleimani was plotting a “series of imminent attacks,” but added, “We don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.”

Pressed during Friday morning’s White House briefing about how he could know the Soleimani threat was “imminent” if he did not know when or where the Iranian general planned to attack, Pompeo insisted that his two sets of statements represented “completely consistent thoughts.”

In an effort to somewhat walk back his “we don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where” Fox comment, Pompeo said, “I don’t know exactly which minute. We don’t know exactly which day it would have been executed, but it was very clear: Qassem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests, and those attacks were imminent,” Pompeo said.

When asked by a reporter to give his definition of “imminent,” Pompeo demurred, replying that administration officials “would have been culpably negligent had we not recommended to the president that he take this action” against Soleimani.

For the record, a generally accepted definition of “imminent” is: “likely to occur at any moment.” (Dictionary.com)

So, it is reasonable to conclude that either Pompeo is not the brilliant mind he is purported to be … or he is just another Trump fabulist.

You know which one I’m going with!

Photo | gannett/usatoday.com

Graham to Pelosi … We Can Hold Sham Trial Without Your Stinkin’ Articles of Impeachment

By 2 Comments

Ever since the House voted to impeach Trump on December 18, Nancy Pelosi has refused to send the two impeachment articles to the Senate for a vote. She has wanted just one simple thing from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell … an assurance of a fair trial.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has apparently had enough of Pelosi’s “political stunt.” He has given her until sundown to get out of town.

Graham’s ultimatum to Pelosi is this … if she does not deliver impeachment articles against Trump to the Senate by the end of the week, the Senate should “take matters in our own hands.”

“What I would do, if she continues to refuse to send the articles as required by the Constitution, I would work with Senator McConnell to change the rules of the Senate so we could start the trial without her, if necessary,” Graham proposed.

Now isn’t that just peachy? So simple … so Republican!

You have to hand it to GOPers, they are masters at the the art of political cheating. If they don’t like rules, they change them. If they don’t like laws, they ignore them!

This is what actually came out of Graham’s mouth:

“Well, we’re not going to let Nancy Pelosi use the rules of the Senate to her advantage. This is dangerous to the presidency as an institution. They impeached the president, but the speaker of the House is holding the articles back, trying to extort from the majority leader of the Senate a trial to her liking. They’re trying to hold these articles over the head of the president.”

So Nancy Pelosi is using the current rules of the Senate to extort a promise of a fair trial? What gall, what brazenness!

Unfortunately for Graham, it’s unlikely Republican senators would vote for such a radical move.

According to Rachael Bade of the Washington Post, “Senate rules suggest such a move would be difficult, if not impossible. It would take 60 votes to pass a resolution on impeachment outside a trial and 67 votes to change the impeachment rules. That threshold would require Democratic support, since McConnell has only 53 Republicans — and Democrats would be loath to undercut Pelosi.”

But with Graham, McConnell and all the other Republican sycophants in the Senate, is anything really beyond the realm of possibility?

Photo | Joshua Roberts/Reuters, nationalreview.com

A D.C. Christmas Poem

By Leave a Comment

‘Twas the night before Christmas and all through the House

Not a representative was stirring, having gone home to a spouse

The votes had been taken and counted with care

To impeach “the imposter,” the pretend billionaire

They returned to their districts to explain what they’d done

Said Nancy to members, “no gloating, no fun”

While Democrats performed their mandated duty

Republicans trashed the Dems, acting all snooty

They defended their leader with passion and glee

Facts be damned for the Reps from Tennessee

They asked, “So what if he asked Zelensky a favor?”

That certainly didn’t rise to impeachable behavior!

His protectors insisted no “quid pro quo”

Even as Trump asked, “Do us a favor, though”

It was a “perfect call” they in unison said

While visions of McConnell danced in their heads

The “Grim Reaper” would save them, of this they all knew

It didn’t matter what high crimes and misdemeanors the Dems did pursue

The fix in the Senate was made oh so clear

Not only by old Mitch but Miss Lindsey, oh dear!

So now we must wait for the start of 2020

To hold a Senate trial, or maybe not any

One thing’s for certain as we look to next year

The ride will be bumpier than we can imagine, I fear

If there’s one hope for all of us Dems

It’s that some patriotic Republican senators will in fact Trump condemn

And even though he might remain in his office

A majority of the Senate may denounce Trump as lawless.

So do not fear, Dems, for having done what was right

Your conscience is clear

“Happy Christmas to all and to all a good night!”

By John DeProspo

Photo | rd.com

There are 250 Congressional Republicans … Is There One Patriot Among Them?

By 4 Comments

Last week’s impeachment hearings were devastating for Trump. Witness after witness testified to his scheme to extort the Ukrainian president to do his political bidding by “investigating” a company named Burisma and “the 2016 election.”

We all know now, as some of the witnesses made clear, Burisma is codeword for the Bidens and “the 2016 election” means the debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, no Russia, that meddled in our 2016 elections.

And yet not one single Republican member of Congress (53 in the Senate; 197 in the House) has come out in support of Trump’s impeachment.

The closest we’ve come are a few timid souls who have stated that while what Trump did was wrong, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. 

The most notable Republican to hold this view is Rep. Will Hurd, a so-called moderate from Texas who is not running for reelection.

Said Hurd:

“An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous, and it is not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I have not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion. I also reject the notion that holding this view means supporting all of the foreign policy choices we have been hearing about over these last few weeks.”

With someone like Hurd, who many called one of the most likely Republicans to break ranks to vote for impeachment, holding firm, the prospect of any Republican doing what their oath of office compels them to do is very unlikely.

Just look at the lengths to which some Republicans have gone to defend Trump and his conspiracy theory about “the 2016 election.”

When Chris Wallace of Fox News today asked Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, “Who do you believe was responsible for the hacking of the DNC and Clinton campaign computers, their emails – was it Russia or Ukraine?” Kennedy gave the absurd and delusional answer, “I don’t know. Nor do you. Nor do any of us.”

The wagons have been circled. For Republicans, it’s defend Trump no matter the costs … to our country, to our Constitution, and to our dignity.

What’s so alarming is this lockstep support for Trump just might work. In a recent poll of independents, after the House hearings, support for impeachment has actually declined

Photo | businessinsider.com

Biggest Takeaway From Impeachment Hearings? No, Not Trump’s Guilt But Schiff’s Brilliance

By 2 Comments

The House impeachment hearings have ended and, after a parade of witnesses, we’ve come to learn what we already knew. In the simple words of Rep. Denny Heck, “The president did it.”

It was always going to be hard to come to any other conclusion after the release of the telephone “transcript” of the conversation between Trump and Ukrainian president Zelensky. The smoking gun was never going to come out of the impeachment hearings as it was already revealed in Act One of this national tragedy.

But many did learn of something new … the impressive ability and smarts of the man chosen by Nancy Pelosi to be the face of the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings, Adam Schiff.

The Stanford graduate and Harvard-trained lawyer ran the hearings like the consummate professional that he is. He was cool, calm and collected at all times, even when Republicans on the committee tried to rattle him with useless points of order and requests. Schiff kept order over hearings that many feared could devolve into a TV spectacle; a circus.

For those who did not get the chance to see Chairman Schiff in action, here is a video of his closing statement made at today’s final public hearing:

Video | youtube/pbsnewshour

Photo |  nationalreview.com/REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

For Republican Candidates, Is Trump A Welcome Sight Or The Kiss Of Death?

By 2 Comments

Donald Trump linked his allegedly mighty clout to two gubernatorial races. The Republican candidate lost in both.

Trump tired to drum up support for both Matt Bevin, in Kentucky, and Eddie Rispone, in Louisiana, by holding rallies the day prior to their elections. And in each case, the Democratic candidate eked out a win over his Republican rival.

Some Republican strategists are concerned Trump’s interjection in the contests hurt the Republican candidate’s chance for victory.

Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor, described the Kentucky race as a “wake-up call” for Republicans that “President Trump’s coattails may not be long enough.”

“Coming after a defeat in the Kentucky governor’s race and sizable losses in Virginia’s legislative races,” writes Melinda Deslatte of the AP, “the Louisiana result seems certain to rattle Republicans as they head into the 2020 presidential election.”

It seems that while Trump might have riled up conservative Republicans, he also powered a surge in anti-Trump turnout in both races.

Those close to Trump argue that he can’t be faulted for the Kentucky and Louisiana results. Bevin was one of the country’s least popular governors, while Rispone was a relatively unknown political newcomer who was facing a popular incumbent. While Trump can help, they contend, he can’t always be expected to pull flawed candidates over the finish line.

It should be noted Trump won Louisiana by 20 points, and Kentucky by nearly 30 points, in 2016.

The bottom line? Trump attempted to turn each contest into a referendum on himself — especially Louisiana, and ended up with a black eye in both.

Republicans have cause for concern … indeed.

Photo | imgflip.com

 

 

 

“This Thing (Presidency) Is Costing Me A Fortune” Says Trump

By 3 Comments

Donald Trump wants the world to know he did not seek the presidency in order to become richer. In fact, “this thing” has cost him billions!

At a rally in Pennsylvania a few weeks ago, and again at this week’s G7 summit in France, Trump made the claim he has lost “3 to 5 billion” being president.

Chase Peterson-Withorn of Forbes writes:

“Trump is not losing $3 billion to $5 billion. His income isn’t anywhere near $3 billion. And his net worth has not dropped by $3 billion since he went into politics—let alone $5 billion, which is more than he’s ever been worth. Forbes pegged Trump’s fortune at $4.5 billion in 2015. Today we estimate it to be $3.1 billion, a drop of $1.4 billion.”

Forbes attributes the drop in Trump’s fortune mostly to market forces. “The presidency, we found, accounts for only about $200 million of the $1.4 billion drop in Trump’s net worth,” says Peterson-Withorn.

In a normal world, a person wanting others to believe he is taking that kind of financial hit would only have to show his tax returns to prove his point.

But, of course, that will never happen with 45. Instead we’ll all shrug our shoulders and chalk this up as just another one of Trump’s many whoppers.

Photo | deadline.com

 

 

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.