Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 18, 2019

How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party

The House Democrats continue to party on their Titanic voyage even as there are clear signs that the impeachment iceberg will sink them:

President Trump’s job approval rating has ticked up 6 percentage points since the Democrats' impeachment inquiry began, according to a new survey.

The Gallup poll released early Wednesday found Trump’s approval rating at 45 percent, up from 39 percent when the inquiry was launched in the fall. The new findings mark the third-consecutive increase in Trump's approval rating, Gallup noted.
Gallup’s new poll found that 51 percent of respondents say they oppose impeachment and removing Trump from office, an increase of 5 percentage points since the Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the impeachment inquiry into the president's dealings with Ukraine. By contrast, 46 percent of respondents now support impeachment and removal, down 6 points.

Not even the Democrats core supporters are enthusiastic about the step the House Democrats will take later today when they will vote to impeach Donald Trump:

Liberal groups organized more than 600 events from Alaska to Florida, following a familiar model of mass protest that has come to define the left during the Trump administration.
For all the passion among activists, the gatherings were notably smaller than many of the other recent mass protests ..
Some activists acknowledge that impeachment doesn't fire up people like life-and-death issues such as health care, guns or climate change.

The Democrats hope that by November 2020 the voters will have forgotten about impeachment and vote for Democratic candidates. But Donald Trump and other Republican candidates will take care that everyone will keep the issue in mind.

It is the reason why Trump's letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reads like an overlong campaign ad. Its content will be at the core of each of his campaign speeches. It is no holds barred but surprisingly factual.

Trump partisans are not the only to think that the impeachment articles the Democrats brought forward are astonishingly weak and not supported by the facts. The Senate will need little time to exculpate Trump.

So how did the Democrats get here? Trump's letter notes that talk about impeachment started as soon as he stepped into office:

Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for “two and a half years,” long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office, the Washington Post published a story headlined, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.” Less than three months after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, “I’m going to fight every day until he’s impeached.” House Democrats introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration ...

Since Trump stepped into office the Democrats were looking for something that would make him impeachable. The deep state delivered them Russiagate, the claim that Trump 'colluded' with the Russian government, by taking seriously an obvious fake dossier the Clinton campaign had ordered and paid for. FBI agents who hated Trump even faked FISA court certification submissions to be able to spy on the Trump campaign. They found nothing that supported the 'collusion' claims.

The FISA court is not amused about that:

"The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable," Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in an order published Tuesday.

For nearly two years the Democrats had hoped that the Mueller investigation would come to their help and deliver them the evidence they needed to impeach Trump. But Mueller did not deliver what the Democrats had hoped for. It turned out that the CIA and FBI driven Russiagate was a nothing-burger.

In 2018 eleven former intelligence and military operatives joined the House as representatives for the Democrats. This was presumably a planned invasion by the security state.

After the Mueller bubble had burst something else was needed to impeach Trump. The deep state delivered again.

A day after the Mueller act had played out Trump had a phone call with the new president of the Ukraine Zelensky.

A lunatic Lieutenant-colonel Vintman in the National Security Administration found that during the phone call Trump was not following the Colonel's preferred foreign policy. He informed a former colleague, the CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, who then contacted two former colleagues who worked for the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. They cooked up a scheme in which the CIA analyst would play a 'whistleblower' and accuse Trump of wrongdoing. When the legal review of the complaint within the CIA found that the 'whistleblower' had no case, the Schiff folks leaked the issue to the press to put pressure on the Trump administration to publish the complaint.

On September 23 2019 seven freshman Democrats published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called for impeachment.

CNN noted approvingly that all seven op-ed writers were (former) members of the security state:

The reason they made their announcement and explained their reasoning as a group, in an op-ed in The Washington Post, is because they had already formed a bond over their national security background -- especially the five women: Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, both ex-CIA officers; Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania who was in the Air Force; Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia were Naval officers.
The op-ed the women penned, along with Gil Cisneros and Jason Crow, two freshmen male veterans, opened the floodgates for others who had been resistant, and gave House Speaker Nancy Pelosi critical political cover as she announced a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday.

Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave the impulse for impeachment. A day after the op-ed was published House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the opening of her 'impeachment inquiry'.

The 'whistleblower' claimed, solely based on hearsay and public sources, that Trump had pressured the President of the Ukraine during the phone call to deliver dirt on Joe Biden. His complaint was published and the deep state then used it to again push for impeachment.

Trump then ambushed Pelosi and the whole impeachment effort by declassifying and publishing the memorandum of the phone call in question.

Reading the memorandum it was immediately clear to us that the impeachment attempt was dead in the water:

The immediate impulse to start an impeachment investigation came from some whistle blower in the intelligence community who claimed that Trump did something nefarious during a phone call with the newly elected President of Ukraine Zelensky.

The White House published a memorandum of the phone call. The call was made on July 25 2019, a day after the final Robert Mueller testimony in Congress. There are two passages which the Democrats will claim are damaging:

...[analysis of the transcript]...

Trump asks for investigations and Zelensky assures him that those will happen. Trump applied no open pressure.
How the Democrats want to construct an impeachment out of this is beyond me.

It was therefore easy to predict this outcome that we are now seeing:

Pelosi has nothing. Six committees have investigated Trump issues but so far found nothing to charge him with. Nor did the Mueller investigation find anything damaging. How will combining all those nothing-burgers make an impeachment meal?
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House voted for one the Senate would never act on it. No one wants to see a President Pence.

The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will motivate them to vote for him.

The current polls, quoted above, seem to support that conclusion. A majority of U.S. citizens reject the Democrats' impeachment act while Trump's approval rating is back at its previous top.

The actions of the deep state, and the Democrats falling for them, will cost them the 2020 election.

Russigate was a false story, invented by the CIA chief John Brennan with support from MI6. The Steele dossier was recognizable as an obvious fake as soon as it was published. But the FBI still used it. To find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russiagate the crooks at the top of the FBI went as far as to make false sworn statements to the FISA court. It did not help.

As soon as Mueller busted the Russiagate bubble the deep state cooked up a new issue. A Brennan man in the CIA colluded with Adam Schiff to create Ukrainegate.

Seven representatives of the security state then pushed Pelosi into launching the impeachment proceedings. Schiff again sprang into action by holding abstruse hearings in which some deep state minions were allowed to vent their antipathy to Trump and to Russia. The hearings exposed the sham for what it was.

It is unlikely that any Republican will vote today in favor of impeachment. No Republican senator will dare to vote against Trump.

Russiagate, Ukrainegate and the impeachment nonsense were all driven by members of the deep or security state. The Democrats have been riding on these issues while neglecting the real life-and-death issue of their voters - health care, guns or climate change. They will be punished for it. 

The Democrats would be well advised to distance themselves from those services that invited them to travel on the Titanic. They should remember that historically they have been far more often the victims of CIA, FBI or military overreach than the Republicans.

As the failure of this impeachment affair is imminent the deep state will likely try to cook up a new issue that it can use against Trump.

If the Democrats want to prevent the further sinking of their ship they must avoid becoming associated with it.

Posted by b on December 18, 2019 at 20:47 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Democratic Party - Henceforth known as the Anti-Democracy Party.

Posted by: librul | Dec 18 2019 21:10 utc | 1

The dead Kennedys are turning in their graves.

Posted by: Realist | Dec 18 2019 21:12 utc | 2

The Democratic Party cannot be sunk because it is not a party: it is one half of the American electoral machine.

American electoral system is very different from any other: vote is by land, not by people, the maps are drawn by the two dominant parties -- GOP and Dems.

Nancy Pelosi is the Dems' leader for the same reason Jefferson Davies was the president of the Confederate States of America: location. She's from San Francisco, the capital of the liberal billionaires, the Mississippi Valley of the "coastal" system. She's not the best, not the smartest, not the fittest, not the most representative: she's just from the right place, at the right time.

That's why the American electoral system will always be not only bi-partidary, but GOP-Dems bi-partidary. As a result, both parties essentially fused with the American electoral system, they are the American electoral system. It is for this very simple and self-evident reason that Bernie Sanders gave up his independent status and is trying to be POTUS through the Democratic Party: contrary to the other frauds that arose during America's recent History (Nader, Stein et al), Sanders is actually going for the win.

The GOP survived FDR. The Dems will definitely survive Trump.

That's why I maintain my hypothesis that the Dems, giving their socialist invasion, are really not trying to win 2020. Instead, they are doing what Americans like to call "God's work", which in this case means stopping the socialist charge in the political front (AOC, Bernie Sanders, Gabbard, Warren etc. etc.).

Posted by: vk | Dec 18 2019 21:13 utc | 3

Thanks b, it sure looks like distraction politics from the avoid doing anything for people party. I am astounded at how pathetically weak their case is. But most astonishing is the failure to have the LEAKER not whistleblower attend any public hearing to give evidence.

We are now well aware of Ciaramella's role in this absurd theatre. But he gives no evidence, fails to submit to a cross examination. He is a real Star Chamber performer.

The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill. Tragic.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 18 2019 21:20 utc | 4

Another masterpiece of reasoning.
The only question that I can't understand is why did Pelosi and the other Dimocrat rulers fall for this? Or are they just too old, too much inside the corrupt bubble and too stupid?

(Should be "sunk" BTW)

Posted by: Patrick Armstrong | Dec 18 2019 21:25 utc | 5

Sheesh. I should read, re-read and proof read again. should be "sank"

Posted by: Patrick Armstrong | Dec 18 2019 21:27 utc | 6

There is no such thing in the U.S. as an honest media poll. Don't put your reasoning in the result of a media poll. It's undoubtedly shaped for someone's political purposes.

Posted by: Tony B. | Dec 18 2019 21:29 utc | 7

The FISA court is not amused about that:

"The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable," Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in an order published Tuesday.

She's shocked, SHOCKED the FBI lied to her.

Seems to me that judges at every level systematically encourage cops and prosecutors to lie to them. And what kind of legal repercussions are these agents going to face for lying to the court? Same as any other "law enforcement" personnel caught lying.

Posted by: Russ | Dec 18 2019 21:30 utc | 8

Posted by: Tony B. | Dec 18 2019 21:29 utc | 7

"There is no such thing in the U.S. as an honest media poll. Don't put your reasoning in the result of a media poll. It's undoubtedly shaped for someone's political purposes."

Gallup is hardly an anti-establishment outfit. If the poll was manipulative in any way (and I agree, they usually are), it would be in order to obtain an anti-Trump result.

Posted by: Russ | Dec 18 2019 21:32 utc | 9

Trumpery, pure and simple.

There is no effort to overthrow the will of the people as expressed in the election, because Trump lost the election. Only scum pretend otherwise.
Further, there was an actual crime committed, using his office for campaigning in an illegal way. No part of presidential duty requires circumventing the ordinary process of law to pressure any official, foreign or domestic, to rig an investigation. And the insistence on announcing it at the outset of the investigation when it could only subvert effective prosecution proves the malice of Trump and his stooges who defend him. for a mere governor to pressure law enforcement to announce an investigation before actually investigating would be despicable. No lies about policy difference can possibly make this decent.

This unsavory fealty to lies is not saved by crank theories about Deep State or CIA prosecution, not here nor in would-be left venues, like WSWS or Tulsi Gabbard. Trump's credentials as an opponent of militarism are like his credentials as a re-industrializing nationalist: Fake, fake, fake.

Lastly, as to the how impeachment is supposed to whack the Democrats? It didn't even in 2000. Bush lost the election then too. Trump may take the presidency again for the reasons he won before: Massive support from the rich, which means their media (and the sleazy frauds propagandizing Trump the defender of the free state against the Deep State camarilla etc.,) the should-be criminal Electoral College, and a continued decrease in black turnout. The ludicrous effort of the Democratic Party to fight the Republic party from even further right won't do much at all. No doubt the Trumpery says the economy is great, but it isn't. If turnout is high, Trump is toast, because he's a loser and his base is the losing side in a high turnout election. The Democratic Party is more apt to split in a desperate effort to court its own billionaires (who are abandoning the party---and no, wanting as a personal vehicle is not a commitment to the party!) while escaping any taint of the left. But that's not Trump's doing. Trump didn't play the genius Electoral College game in 2016, and he's not playing it now, no matter how obsequious his defenders are.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Dec 18 2019 21:33 utc | 10

Sure Democrats can go after guns but history shows that when they do that, they loose. Watch what happens in Virginia now that Dems have won the statehouse for the first time in a long time and immediately went after guns. They can kiss the Old Dominion goodbye in the next election.
Abortion and guns are wedge issues used to get folks to vote for scum they ordinarily wouldn't even want walking on their lawn.

Posted by: Rabbit | Dec 18 2019 21:34 utc | 11

Life is strange. Just as I was reading b's summary of a poll showing increased support for Trump, NPR ran a story of a poll taken of military people showing just the opposite. Neither poll can be taken seriously, since neither bothers to include a margin of error, likely to be about the same amount as the difference between "yes" and "no".

Keith Olbermann is the only media person I have ever heard that talked about polls and margin of error. He actually included the margin of error in every poll-related story he did while on MSNBC. Too bad there aren't more journalists like Mr Olbermann.

I did not know about former admitted spooks being elected to Congress. It is very disturbing that they are operating so openly as to publicly organize and promote the impeachment circus. It suggests to me that the spooks will not accept a Not Guilty verdict from the Senate. Not sure I want to think about what they might try next.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Dec 18 2019 21:36 utc | 12

It would seem that the Democrats need this impeachment circus over and done with before the end of 2019 so they can concentrate on cleaning up Joe Biden as their Presidential candidate and pretend he had no history before April 2019 when Volodymyr Zelensky became President of Ukraine. That must explain their strange and shaky choice of issue on which to try to impeach Donald Trump: so that during the campaign season, Biden's past and his son having been on the Board of Directors of a shady energy company (with a licence to explore and drill for oil in an area of eastern Ukraine not far from where a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was shot down in 2014) can be kept off-limits to the MSM and anyone who dares to challenge Biden on his record. If the President of the United States can be punished for pursuing the Bidens on their record of corruption, then that alone should (in theory) stop anyone else from pursuing them.

There are so many other issues on which to impeach Trump but the issue of Joe Biden's conflict of interest regarding his son's involvement in Burisma Holdings and eastern Ukraine generally is the weakest and the oddest. Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's cyber-security.

Posted by: Jen | Dec 18 2019 21:37 utc | 13

vk @ 1 said;"The GOP survived FDR. The Dems will definitely survive Trump."

Agreed, but it's not impeachment that hurts the DEMS, but their abdication of fighting for working class issues, instead of their uber-wealthy patrons.

Posted by: ben | Dec 18 2019 21:56 utc | 14

Oops, make that vk @ 3....

Posted by: ben | Dec 18 2019 21:57 utc | 15


Trump's letter notes that talk about impeachment started as soon as he stepped into office:

IMO the Deep State wanted to initiate a new McCarthyism.

Russiagate was the means to do so and that means that Impeachment was always a possibility (though likely a red-herring, as I explain below).

IMO After the Mueller investigation progressives pressed for Impeachment but establishment Democratics (led by Pelosi and Hillary) wouldn't allow it. People were (rightfully) asking why establishment Democrats were protecting Trump.

With this in mind, Ukrainegate is a convenient diversion from Russiagate while providing the Impeachment satisfaction that progressives had clamored for.

It's difficult NOT to notice that ...

... America First Trump actually furthered Russiagate when he hired Manafort (who was known to have worked for pro-Russian Parties in Ukraine and had NO recent experience in US elections) and called upon Russia to publish Hillary's emails (which were KNOWN to contain top-secret information - making any publication a crime under US law);

... and America First Trump furthered Ukrainegate by the mentioning the name of an announced political opponent when talking about investigating corruption on a call with Zelensky.

One might excuse this in many ways: Trump's ego; his unfamiliarity with politics and statecraft; or just bad luck. But one can also see these actions, in a larger context, as disturbing part of the effort to initiate the new McCarthyism.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 18 2019 21:58 utc | 16

vk #3

That's why I maintain my hypothesis that the Dems, giving their socialist invasion, are really not trying to win 2020. Instead, they are doing what Americans like to call "God's work", which in this case means stopping the socialist charge in the political front (AOC, Bernie Sanders, Gabbard, Warren etc. etc.)

That exactly !! I suspect that is why HRC threw the election by not campaigning in three key states because within her ranks there were evil socialists and the oligarchs would not tolerate that. Only in that way did Bernie "hurt her campaign".

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 18 2019 21:58 utc | 17

Tulsi Gabbard did the smart thing and abstained in the vote from the circus. But as we know it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown makeup and join the circus. But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any and all who resist their attempt to rule the world.

This is a new article on Tulsi and her battle with the deep state: Tulsi Gabbard: Enemy of Their State

Posted by: Kali | Dec 18 2019 21:59 utc | 18

Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials, often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and incipient tyranny.

Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well.

Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM) taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.

Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never win in a free clash of ideas.

Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world.

Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.

Posted by: Russ | Dec 18 2019 22:00 utc | 19

b, Thought it was a typo last time but apparently not. The word is complaint with a t on the end.

Posted by: NOBTS | Dec 18 2019 22:03 utc | 20

Watching the House impeachment live on TV reminds me of what the 19th century writer, historian and political observer said: "Never underestimate the influence of stupidity on history." This exercise in political sado-masochism however, must traced back to Hillary Clinton and the Clintonista hold on the Democratic Party. It began when Hillary started crying sour grapes about her loss in the 2016 election. In a previous post I have compared the Clintons and their followers to be the 21st Century's version of Typhoid Mary. Anybody who works with the Clinton's is invariably infected with corruption.

Posted by: GeorgeV | Dec 18 2019 22:04 utc | 21

Just saw this video Twitted by a peer and thought it clearly illustrates all this imbroglio...

Posted by: Sasha | Dec 18 2019 22:04 utc | 22

Oops! In my previous post I forgot to identify the author of that quote; it was Lord Acton. Many apologies to MoA readers.

Posted by: GeorgeV | Dec 18 2019 22:11 utc | 23

I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a target for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who want real change get sunk

Posted by: Bobburger | Dec 18 2019 22:15 utc | 24

More kudos for vk @ 3. Your last paragraph IMO, is absolutely right on point.

Stopping the Party's socialist wing is job one, for the bought and paid for segment of the Dems, which, I suspect, is the majority.

Including Pelosi & Schumer...

Posted by: ben | Dec 18 2019 22:18 utc | 25

The House impeachment is driven by several factors:

1. After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.

2. The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign, Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.

3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor. It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.

All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.

The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.

Posted by: Lk | Dec 18 2019 22:19 utc | 26

Kali #18

This is a new article on Tulsi and her battle with the deep state: Tulsi Gabbard: Enemy of Their State

YES to that ! Thank you. Mighty good journalism by Pam Ho at

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 18 2019 22:27 utc | 27

If anyone was watching The Horowitz hearing in the senate today
it would be hard to conclude that russiagate and ukrainegate will
not have have serious consequences going forward. The whole sordid,
nasty conspiracy seems on the verge of being exposed, maybe as high
as Obama himself, although he is just a puppet himself,and indictments
are sure to follow. I don't see how anyone could think that this will
not be catastrophic for the democratic party.

Posted by: evilempire | Dec 18 2019 22:32 utc | 28

Now I understand clearly why the symbol of the Democratic party is a Jackass!

Posted by: Dick | Dec 18 2019 22:45 utc | 29

As things stand, I think neither the Dems nor the Repubs have as much to hope for, or to fear, from the impeachment as it may seem right now. It is set to play out pretty quickly, and once it’s over (with Trump still in office, of course), notwithstanding all the self-important pronouncements about “historic” this all is, it will be a lot like it never happened, except for one more inert lump stuck in the nation’s gut, evidence the U.S. political system stopped functioning long ago.

If the Repubs were wise (or maybe just studied judo with Putin), then when Dem Senate leader Schumer tries to call votes during the trial to compel the appearance of witnesses such as Mulvaney and Pompeo, the Repubs should throw a couple of their senators his way and let him win. This would be a political gift to some Repub senators (such as Collins of Maine) who want to show some distance from Trump, but more importantly it would prolong the Senate trial for months as the summonses are fought in court, forcing the Dems to twist in the wind with this nonsense well into next year before the inevitable acquittal.

(While a 2/3 majority in the Senate is required to convict in impeachment, a simple majority will carry procedural questions during the trial, such as calling witnesses.)

Posted by: David G | Dec 18 2019 22:51 utc | 30

The Democrats did the "right" thing - considering their options.

Option A: Counter Trump with real policy issues; policies that the majority of Americans support: ending unending wars, healthcare, environmental protection, income equality, etc.. But that would cost them money from their BIG DONORS, and as such all privileges of the Dem bosses. Not a good option

Option B: Follow the Russiagate/Ukrainegate/Impeachment path and thereby avoid having to oppose Trump on policy. Their BIG DONORS are happy (because there is no policy change). Even if the Dems lose 2020 election, the party bosses still retain their privileges.

Disclaimer: The Dims and the Repugs are the same party - just two different brands of it. Anyone doubting this assertion should check out who finance them .... big oligarchy, even if there may be slight differences in composition.

Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Dec 18 2019 23:07 utc | 31

Hello, on a different note, has anyone else noticed in the IG report that Comey is never spelled correctly, in fact 163 times it is spelled as Corney, this is a deliberate intent to mislead so that any requests for FOIA info will not bring up Comey, that if one googles Comey, nothing re the IG is listed, however try Corney and you will see how it comes up. The same happened with Obama (deliberately misspelled Obarma) and Podesta (Poclesta) and Clinton, the L is instead a capital i. This is outrageous.
Nowhere else are the fonts used incorrectly, this is deliberate and obviously Horowitz is in on the whole thing as well. The USA is lost as far as I am concerned, could they well be the most corrupt country in the world???

Posted by: anne | Dec 18 2019 23:14 utc | 32

"It is no holds barred but surprisingly factual."

This is by far the best, drollest description I've read of Mr. Trump's recent missive to Ms. Pelosi.

As for "sank" versus "sunk":

"Sunk" is accepted by American dictionaries as an alternate simple past tense of "sink," as well as being the agreed past participle for everybody ("the ship had sunk"). But accepting this laissez-faire, "usage determines correctness" conjugation of "sink" would oblige me to also accept the execrable "I had drank the Kool-Aid" in place of "I had drunk the Kool-Aid." I refuse to do either.

Posted by: Emily Dickinson | Dec 18 2019 23:15 utc | 33

The Dems have given Trump's insane military budget more than he asked for, they got no bargains in renewing the NDAA (both of which betray the lie they think Trump is compromised), and finalized a huge new trade deal with him. The impeachment farce and most of the battle with Trump is kabuki for the rubes. Business as usual continues in DC, except the swamp realizes more and more that their grip on power is slipping. They are far more frightened of Bernie Sanders. These are dangerous times.

Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | Dec 18 2019 23:16 utc | 34

I would like to put forward my understanding of the "deep state" and see if I have any company.

In my view the deep state (the interagency consensus) is the hired help of the oligarchy, which infects the gov and occupies every key position of power(except president for the first time in over 75 years).

People are constantly saying the deep state wants this or it wants that and that is off the mark. The deep state follows the orders of the oligarchy it does not make policy or make independent decisions.

In effect, the CIA is nothing more or less than a secret army of the oligarchy.

The dems funded the wall, they gave the treasonous Trump another 100+ billion to do Putin's bidding with, the dems fast tracked 115 Trump judges (Bernie could have stopped it and did not) at least two nuclear treaties were abandoned and a third will be soon. The oligarchy and its empire laugh at all the pledbs caught up in their macabre pantomime covering the non-stop for 75 years slaughter of innocent people.

It should be clear who is in charge - the people who own the world run the world.

Posted by: Babyl-on | Dec 18 2019 23:21 utc | 35

Trump then ambushed Pelosi and the whole impeachment effort by declassifying and publishing the memorandum of the phone call in question.
Nah, Trump was being nice to the Democrats, probably because he wanted the impeachment BS to stop. If he'd really wanted to ambush the Democrats he'd have refused to release the memo while anonymously leaking the alleged contents showing that he'd committed every crime under the sun. Then he'd reveal the memo at the impeachment hearing and sit there with a straight face as some of the Democrats, not Schiff nor Pelosi who are too far gone, realized he'd fucked them good and proper. Trump might be pond life but he does have some principles.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Dec 18 2019 23:32 utc | 36

I am moving my comment from the Open Thread where karlof1 had provided a link to the Trump/Pelosi letter

@ Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 18 2019 17:53 utc | 131 with the Trump letter to Pelosi

Thanks for that.

I just read it and besides what you and others have said I was struck by the blame for the impeachment attempt being put on the "deranged and radical representatives of the far left"."

That sentence was then followed by one saying that the Dems are motivated by and living in fear of socialist primary challengers.

Think about that context in lieu of what many barflies here understand to be reality.

1. We live in a dictatorship of global private finance
2. The far left, if it exists, know that Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton bears no claim to anything left of fascism.
3. America use to have a socialist government, because that is what government is by definition, and still has, to a degree, a mixed economy of socialism and capitalism....(gawd I hate those terms anymore)

Those are just my first thoughts......

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 18 2019 23:36 utc | 37

Its all Fake Wrestling. The sponsors working in the shadows have decided Trump will be reelected and Dem leadership are simply playing their role. They put out a few candidates that have as much chance of winning as the tooth fairy, and play along.

Why Trump? Besides the tax breaks he has signed an EO telling universities no Federal dollars if they allow criticism of Israel. Universities are so dependent on Federal Government which guarantees student loans and are paying the full tuitions of the many veterans of our many foreign occupations. You can bet no professor will dare say a negative word about Israel because Trumps EO equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. I am sure Trumps apologists have a ready made excuse.

Following the WalMart and NZ shootings (false flags no doubt) Trump also proposed a new federal agency to be known as HARPA that would work with the Department of Justice to use "breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence," specifically "advanced analytical tools based on artificial intelligence and machine learning."  Legislation was passed in a stealth like manner. The other purpose for the Impeachment Proceedings is likely to distract us from stuff like this.

The data will be collected from consumer electronic devices as well as information provided by health-care providers to identify who might be a threat by not believing official truths

Trumps HARPA and Barr's new and recently announced Pre-Crime program are likely to define "mental illness" to include political beliefs. The FBI recently stated in an internal memo "conspiracy theories" were motivating some domestic terror threats and a series of questionable academic studies (funded by government no doubt) link "conspiracy theorists" to mental illnesses.  Get ready for the rounding up and detaining of people for thought crimes. Sounds like trials and due process may be optional. Stay tuned.

More on the fake wrestling front the Dems handed Trump a Hanukkah /Christmas present by approving Nafta 2.0. I thought he was scrapping Nafta and not just renaming it and giving another present to Big Pharma by extending the patent length of biologics. Of course, people forget but Nafta was actually a Bush initiative, and Clinton just signed off on his negotiated deal. Both parties serve the
same master.

Then there is the fake wrestling trade deal with China termed Phase I, which basically is just a repeat of last years verbal deal which amounted to a nothing burger. The only given is tariffs which are paid by the US consumer stay, albeit at a lesser rate for some products (toys and cell phones) and China buys some agricultural products they actually need , but less than they used to, while using dollars they have from our trade deficits (because we would be naked without their clothes and footwear and can’t build weapons without their rare metals) . I am sure my dog understands this, but the US voter might not get it. Just enjoy the show kids.

Nobody knows Fake Wrestling better than Trump and the sponsors know this. Israel and the Rich know they have a winner. Coming soon will be mandatory vaccinations for adults backed up by travel restrictions and denial of benefits for the rich.

Fortunately Trump has not started any foreign wars, maybe because he is so focused on tackling his own people who are too dumb to know they are under attack. History says that probably wont hold. My bet is he follows the playbook of Clinton and holds back on war till his 2nd term. Clinton coincidentally or not was the last President subject to impeachment hearings. But we never really know what’s coming. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Pft | Dec 18 2019 23:39 utc | 38

Bobburger @24

"I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a target for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who want real change get sunk."

Pretty much his only domestic policy achievements have been to deliver what Wall Street, real estate and the oil and gas sector wants. The benefits of the tax cuts and gutting of enforcement activity by the regulatory agencies (including the IRS) are weighted towards those industries. Also, on the foreign policy front, keeping oil prices artificially high by keeping Iranian and Venezuelan crude off the markets is a boon to the E&P sector.

Posted by: Schmoe | Dec 18 2019 23:43 utc | 39

There is one glaring contradiction that I did not see
addressed in the Horowitz hearing. Priestap has
testified that he inherited
(page 14 of the pdf) operation crossfire hurricane. If
he inherited the investigation then how could he have
played any role in opening crossfire hurricane? Yet in
the FISA report, Horowitz's finding that there was no bias
in opening the investigation was almost exclusively based on finding
no bias in Priestap. I have not seen this contradiction addressed anywhere.

Posted by: evilempire | Dec 18 2019 23:48 utc | 40

Tony B. | Dec 18 2019 21:29 utc | 7:

Never trust polls.

anne | Dec 18 2019 23:14 utc | 32:

IMO, the USA was lost a long time ago. They certainly hid the corruption well, but it's all coming to light now.

Posted by: Ian2 | Dec 18 2019 23:51 utc | 41

My 2nd set of thoughts follow my first and those of other barflies comments and b's posting

1. Trump is giving the Dems cover to neuter the "socialist" candidates like Bernie and Tulsi
2. Trump is setting the stage for a new McCarthyism.
3. As Posted by: Babyl-on | Dec 18 2019 23:21 utc | 35 who wrote
In effect, the CIA is nothing more or less than a secret army of the oligarchy.
This true and goes for all of the Deep State
4. This impeachment shit show will continue to override any social discussion of domestic or foreign issues including the Depression that the US is clearly in....never having recovered from the Recession of 2008
5. This is what control of the narrative looks like......get out in front of the train, make lots of noise and carrying on to obfuscate reality.

And meanwhile the rest of the world is getting on with the evolution of a multi-polar world.....while America and Americans are being thrown under the bus in a managed Shock Doctrine event.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 18 2019 23:53 utc | 42

And while the Dims are pursuing the Impeachment, today a Federal Appeals Court Judge made a ruling on ObamaCare: the court has ruled that the "individual mandate" requiring Americans to purchase health insurance as part of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional, but punted on the larger question of what it means for the rest of the health law.

"The rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it exists today," the justices wrote for the majority.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans remanded the case back to a federal judge in Texas to decide just how much of the rest of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), if any, is also unconstitutional.

The suit was spearheaded by Texas (18 US states as plaintiffs). The Trump DOJ refused to defend.

more details of the decision at, of all media, Sputnik

[.]the individual mandate injures both the individual plaintiffs, by requiring them to buy insurance that they do not want, and the state plaintiffs, by increasing their costs of complying with the reporting requirements that accompany the individual mandate.[.]

Posted by: Likklemore | Dec 18 2019 23:57 utc | 43

Since b provided a copy of the speech that one can copy/paste from I can now pull out the part that most infuriates and motivates my thoughts

Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger—this is what is driving impeachment.

The West lives in a Top/Bottom dictatorship of global private finance at the core of our social contract and the concept of Left/Right is malign obfuscation of the reality of the Top/Bottom inequality facts.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 19 2019 0:10 utc | 44

Lk @26,

I think you hit the nails on their head. I would add just two more points.

1. The need for HRC and the DNC to distract from their criminal conspiracy during the 2016 primary, and to avoid any and all accountability for forcing through the worst and most unpopular nominee in the history of modern US presidential elections.

2. The need for the Democratic Party to appear to be opposing Trump,which is crucial for the seeming legitimacy of the two party system in the US. The Dems don't *actually* oppose Trump because both they and the GOP serve the same oligarchs, financiers, and arms dealers. So Russiagate and then Ukrainegate allowed the Dems to generate the appearance of opposition to their truly idiotic voters.

Posted by: WJ | Dec 19 2019 0:24 utc | 45

"The Democrats did the "right" thing - considering their options.

Option A: Counter Trump with real policy issues; policies that the majority of Americans support: ending unending wars, healthcare, environmental protection, income equality, etc.. But that would cost them money from their BIG DONORS, and as such all privileges of the Dem bosses. Not a good option

Option B: Follow the Russiagate/Ukrainegate/Impeachment path and thereby avoid having to oppose Trump on policy. Their BIG DONORS are happy (because there is no policy change). Even if the Dems lose 2020 election, the party bosses still retain their privileges.

Disclaimer: The Dims and the Repugs are the same party - just two different brands of it. Anyone doubting this assertion should check out who finance them .... big oligarchy, even if there may be slight differences in composition.
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Dec 18 2019 23:07 utc | 31

This IMO is the best synopsis posted to date. Salient, and to the point. Thanks NM!!

Posted by: ben | Dec 19 2019 0:36 utc | 46

If the democrats actually ran on life changing policy for We The People like healthcare reform, ending interventionist wars, or strengthening the economy by rebuilding the infrastructure then they'd have a real shot at winning. The only way Trump loses is if the economy tanks or if he's crazy enough to do the bidding of his bosses Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson by attacking Iran.

Posted by: Deathevokation | Dec 19 2019 0:50 utc | 47

@ D @ 47; Yes, another truth expressed!!

Posted by: ben | Dec 19 2019 1:00 utc | 48

@ Bobburger | Dec 18 2019 22:15 utc | 24

I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a target for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who want real change get sunk

You are a bit late, but welcome to the party nevertheless!

Sit back, relax and have a drink, but not too many, lest you start seeing trolls everywhere.

Posted by: Lurk | Dec 19 2019 1:16 utc | 49

As several have said, I would like to add my voice in support of only "logical" conclusion is this is pure theater, dems are helping to get Trump re-elected. Seems to me that change is somewhat inconvenient for the owners. Change is really the only constructive weapon that the little people have. So they must be herded into thier respective pattison positions - choose a color and cheer like heck.

Will vote for Gabbard, if she runs. Maybe even if she doesnt.

Posted by: jared | Dec 19 2019 1:27 utc | 50

So Trump gets another 4 years by when he is essentially Teflon.
Big question is:
Does he use the next 4 years to get revenge over the Deep state that so openly and flagrantly attacked him?
or does he attempt to co-opt and buy the new deep state?

If so what for? Asset inflation seems to be his dark motive.

Posted by: Michael Droy | Dec 19 2019 1:42 utc | 51

jared @ 50

dems are helping to get Trump re-elected

Nah, they're just idiots.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Dec 19 2019 1:42 utc | 52

Yes, yes, the deep state, brennan, clapper, whoever, had their knives out for trump from the beginning. not a surprise. trump should have known better. he stepped right into their trap. sorry b. you may be good on global affairs, but go easy on the American political and legal systems. trump committed at least two obvious crimes. his defense which you surprisingly back, makes sense only to a mobster. really, whether impeachment helps or hinders his electoral odds, he deserves it. from peddling his protection racket from ukraine to yemen to israel to kids in cages, it's all one piece and call it what? shakedown imperialism?

Posted by: mark | Dec 19 2019 1:43 utc | 53

IMO, some parts of the world are finding the D-Party v Trump battle quite entertaining and informative. For example, given what the Outlaw US Empire just did to Hong Kong, this observation made in China's Global Times was quite measured yet pointed:

"To many Chinese, it seems that US-style democracy has already become a negative concept, which has brought ceaseless chaos and produced absurd farces.

"Democracy itself is a good thing, but the point is how to utilize it. Democracy is never the purpose, but an approach, of governing. A government's primary job should be meeting the needs of the vast majority of the people and driving the country forward, which requires national consensus.

"In other words, it is true that all people should be entitled to freedom of expression. But when it comes to policymaking, democracy alone is not enough - democratic centralism is needed."

Many of us have noted this charade will serve to cover-up lots of happenings domestically and globally. And as I've written before, Trump's committed impeachable offenses, but they're not even being questioned because the Ds have done and will want to continue doing the same things.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 19 2019 1:44 utc | 54

The Bear is Trump. The rabbit is anyone he wants it to be next term

Posted by: Michael Droy | Dec 19 2019 1:45 utc | 55

My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton Foundation.

The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:

Posted by: Lurker in the Dark | Dec 19 2019 1:49 utc | 56

hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...

Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave the impulse for impeachment.

is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...

good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."

Posted by: james | Dec 19 2019 1:51 utc | 57

@anne 32

Weird. "Corney" indeed appears in the DOJ's official PDF more than 100 times.

Autocorrect prank by loving employees?

Posted by: ptb | Dec 19 2019 1:57 utc | 58

Forgive me for the somewhat redundant post, and again I hope this is not a waste of anyone's time, but this is the source of the Interfax report I posted just above currently at #56. It is relevant to the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco. (again, link brief enough not to require re-format).

The U.S. and lapdog EU/UK media will not touch this with a 10 foot pole.

KYIV. Dec 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukraine and the United States should investigate the transfer of $29 million by businessman Victor Pinchuk from Ukraine to the Clinton Foundation, Ukrainian Member of Parliament (independent) Andriy Derkach has said. According to him, the investigation should check and establish how the Pinchuk Foundation's activities were funded; it, among other projects, made a contribution of $29 million to the Clinton Foundation. "Yesterday, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered criminal proceeding number 12019000000001138. As part of this proceeding, I provided facts that should be verified and established by the investigation. Establishing these facts will also help the American side to conduct its own investigation and establish the origin of the money received by [Hillary] Clinton," Derkach said at a press conferences at Interfax-Ukraine in Kyiv on Tuesday, December 17.

According to him, it was the independent French online publication Mediapart that first drew attention to the money withdrawal scheme from Ukraine and Pinchuk's financing of the Clinton Foundation.

"The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357 million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF's disbursement. Delta Bank was given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria's Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv's] Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at $800 million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred $29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party," Derkach said.

Posted by: Lurker in the Dark | Dec 19 2019 2:00 utc | 59

that is more of an ongoing reflection of o just how bad things are in the usa - annes post @32... thanks btw anne...

Posted by: james | Dec 19 2019 2:02 utc | 60

Patrick Armstrong @ 5
-- Patrick, I honestly no longer assume that the Dems are oppositional in the way we might have grown up thinking they would be. More like Opponents, in the dramaturgy of professional wrestling, sense. Not sure what part of Canada you grew up in, but for us out West watching Stampede Wrestling, it was Sweet Daddy Siki and Abdullah the Butcher against some kind of white paladin in muttonchops and a mullet.

As long as their sinecures and perquisites remain secure, I'm not really sure they much care who is the nominal head of state.

Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 19 2019 2:07 utc | 61

@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC, and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select future generations who will eventually take their place.

They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from there.

Posted by: ptb | Dec 19 2019 2:07 utc | 62

Well, the Dems have impeached Trump. Eyes on the Senate now.

Posted by: Ian2 | Dec 19 2019 2:37 utc | 63

Democratic Party - Henceforth known as the Anti-Democracy librul @ 1Tulsi Gabbard <= I got a bridge.. in fact several of them.. ..

Re: the Article by Pam Ho at suggested by: uncle tungsten @ 27| <= not trying to make an enemy but IMO there is no expression of the problem in Pam Ho's article; just proposes another new person (Tulsi Gabbard) to be elected to solve the as yet undefined problem.

None of the 8 billion people God has produced on this earth are going solve the nation state leadership dilemma until first the problem is adequately defined including all of its nuances. Unless Tulsi Gabbard completely articulates <= the true nature of the problem, <=offers a fully workable solution <= gets the entire electorate (democrat and republican voters) involved directly with the solution,<=before the nomination, she is over cooked candidate toast and Americans are without a solution to the problem that their leaders use their government for personal gain.

I suggest 100 questions should be worked up and agreed on maybe by vote here in the bar (if B agrees, drinks on the house?), Then appoint B to invite Tulsi Gabbard to deliver her written answers to the 100 questions on condition that TG personally answer the original round of questions AWA >= one round of rebuttal.

Posted by: snake | Dec 19 2019 2:37 utc | 64

Likklemore #43

Wow. I gotta say that this provision struck me as unconstitutional from the get-go. This was a real hardship for many, many self-employed. Individual insurance is just too expensive. But the "weight" of Obamacare is so great, I really didn't think any judge would "go there" to state that there is an unconstitutional provision at the heart of Obamacare. I thought they would continue to twist the logic to leave it in place.

The real problem is that in the growing gig economy more and more people are de facto self-employed, and they really cannot afford insurance.
The whole system needs to be dismantled, or insurance needs to be made a lot cheaper than it is. No co-pays, etc. We need an NHS. Perhaps we can buy the UK's.

Posted by: Really?? | Dec 19 2019 2:41 utc | 65


No, much, though not all, of Trump's letter to Pelosi is delusional nonsense.

His general points about his conversation with the Ukrainian president have some, only some, grounding in reality.

Want an example of a fact free part of the letter:

"Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present."

This entire paragraph is pure delusion:

You and your party are desperate to distract from America’s extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world’s number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord; becoming the world’s top energy producer; recognition of Israel’s capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release, and the building of the Southern Border Wall—and that is just the beginning, there is so much more. You cannot defend your extreme policies—open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan obstruction of both common sense and common good.

Telling that Trump can't use the correct name for the Democratic Party, insisting on Democrat Party; it's an ugly rightist trope.

More Trump lying:

This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.

Impeachment of a president, whether he/she likes it or not, is not a coup. And given the behavior of the Republicans in 1998, Trump is in no position to
call into question the validity of impeachment.

Indeed he looks to be trying to delegitimize a constitutional process with that coup garbage.

Now it is of course extremely unlikely that the Senate will convict Trump and remove him from office.

And yes, pushing impeachment has not helped the Democrats.

Posted by: Jay | Dec 19 2019 2:47 utc | 66

"Now it is of course extremely unlikely that the Senate will convict Trump and remove him from office."
Pelosi hinted that the move to the Senate will be delayed. This will drive the Fat Boy to a even crazier state than he is already in.
Obviously, the Dims knew the Senate was not going to convict the Fat Boy.
There is more in play than is assumed here.
We must realize these are two capitalist parties- a bit different on a micro level (women's rights ,etc), but the same on a macro level.

Posted by: Duncan Idaho | Dec 19 2019 2:56 utc | 67

Lurker #56

From the Youtube video it is all about the gas.
Of course. I have said this repeatedly. I say this with confidence because I have read a book that is solely about Gazprom and all aspects of gas production, distribution, payment etc. etc. within and outside Russia. Which of course includes the major special problem of Ukraine. You cannot understand any Ukraine politics and scams (and Uk-RF politics and conflicts) without understanding the role of gas, and of Ukraine as a bottleneck for a LOT of the gas flowing between Russia and the EU. The Ukrainians have always been fiddling the Russians and their gas. And then the EU got into the picture and caused more trouble for Russia. Anyhow, it is fitting that the scam described in the video runs on GAS.

Posted by: Really?? | Dec 19 2019 2:57 utc | 68

You sunk my battleship!

Posted by: ptb | Dec 19 2019 3:11 utc | 69

@ Really?? 65

not to distract from Impeachment discussion, here is the nut in the case: Recall ACA hung its validity on the Interstate Commerce clause?

The New Orleans-based US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, "The individual mandate is unconstitutional because, under [a previous ruling, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius], it finds no constitutional footing in either the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause."

In sending the case back to a Texas district court, however, the federal panel is asking for a central question to be resolved: whether the individual mandate is "severable" from the rest of the law, leaving it intact.
If the district court eventually decides that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ACA, the entire law will likely be ruled invalid.

Instead of attending policies such as fixing ACA the DIMwits spent over 3 years of hating Trump and this Impeachment makes him untouchable.

Posted by: Likklemore | Dec 19 2019 3:24 utc | 70

Thank you b, another great post.
But also may I compliment Kali@18 and Russ@19 for their terrific comments. I have just finished reading the link provided by Kali, which is an outstanding essay by Pam Ho- a paradigm shifter if ever there was one! I have been making a determined effort to liberate my thinking from ideological partisanship and reading this essay was like pressing a refresh button in my brain.
Despite the ra ra b. s.,Trump's letter will become an historical document, as it does encapsulate all the manufactured tribulations that have been foisted on his presidency, though I would have liked b to include all those words which were CAPITALIZED. He's quite a personality, your president The best summation of the man is, curiosly enough, provided by Syria's president Assad. There is an honesty about him even when he's uttering a bald-faced lie!
Tulsi has been newsworthy for a number of years now and right from the getgo I said to myself "she's my kind of gal"
Here is a woman of courage and presence. She's young and principled, even if she's a member of a very corrupted party.
May she go far.

Posted by: Australian lady | Dec 19 2019 3:26 utc | 71

The polls really only show what the public thinks after the Democrats' charges have dominated the news for months. Once the sordid truth about ukraine, and the attacks on Biden, Clinton, Kerry et al are launched Sanders is going to face his Brexit moment: the sensible thing to do, and the one that he must know is right, not least because he was its first target, will be to denounce both Russiagate as a tissue of lies and the Ukraine as a Foreign Policy disaster bigger than Iraq.
Just as the Blairites in the UK contrived to defeat Corbyn by imposing their Remain policy on his campaign, so the DNC Clintonites would be very happy to saddle Russiagate and the impeachment on Sanders. Then, when he is defeated, blame his loss on his left wing policies. Such is their shamelessness that they will do this while insisting that these impeachment proceedings made Trump vulnerable...
It is the sordid tactic of Triangulation taken to a higher plane.

Posted by: bevin | Dec 19 2019 3:30 utc | 72

@ Posted by: Australian lady | Dec 19 2019 3:26 utc | 71 who ended her comment expressing support for Tulsi Gabbard

When the impeachment vote was taken today, there were two Dems that voted against and Tulsi voted Present

She will be ostracized for her non vote but I give her credit for distancing herself from the impeachment circus. Given that she has stated that she won't run again for Congress, I speculate that she may jump to the Green Party if given the chance to run ahead of or with Jill Stein.....any barflies know how the Greens are shaping up for this coming election?

I read in a couple of places today that the strategy of the Dems is to not forward the impeachment to the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time......let the stew, the Senate and Trump simmer a bit.....more kabuki for the masses while the public continues to be screwed economically.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 19 2019 3:53 utc | 73

On both articles of impeachment... I'm happy Tulsi Gabbard voted "Present.”
And I'm going to make a bigger than normal donation she deserve my support.

On Agreeing to Article I of the Resolution: H.Res. 755: Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and ...

Posted by: JC | Dec 19 2019 4:03 utc | 74

My personal opinion’s Trump unfit to be President, even before 2016 and I haven't changed my mind. I will never votes for any Democratic except maybe Tulsi Gabbard if she switches to Green Party. Green Party candidate is Howie Hawkins.

Posted by: JC | Dec 19 2019 4:14 utc | 75

psychohistorian #73

I read in a couple of places today that the strategy of the Dems is to not forward the impeachment to the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time......let the stew, the Senate and Trump simmer a bit.....more kabuki for the masses while the public continues to be screwed economically.

Thank you for that observation and I have seen that idea about the traps too.

I don't see the impeachment as being held up for too long as Durham will likely press on hard with his prosecutions and may even go after Biden for wire fraud or some such very soon. The minute Durham moves the demoncrazies will try to obstruct, They dont have much dry powder right now but then they are good at imagining things so they might try and manifest more powder. If speculation confirms that it is a kabuki hoax to kill their own leftish insurgency then that too will emerge mighty soon.

I am unfamiliar with the USA system but if the Congress has made a clear resolution and its next destination is normally the Senate then what is to stop the Senate Leader Mitch McConnel from tabling the decision of the Congress for immediate vote. Does the impeachment referral to the Senate actually have to be moved by the Minority Leader representing the Democrats or is that just a polite convention?

Good to see Tulsi keep her distance from this turd just dropped the Congress.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 19 2019 4:38 utc | 76

regarding the failure of the house to move the articles of impeachment to the Senate I recommend reading: article entitled:

The article breaks down the legal strategy behind Pelosi's move, the strategy is quite clever, evil actually and the article tracks how it was done, what it means and what it will allow the Dems to do; well worth a read.

Posted by: frances | Dec 19 2019 4:49 utc | 77

Well, there's always Belarusgate though these stumble-bum forays are getting increasingly hard to pronounce.

Posted by: Lawrence Magnuson | Dec 19 2019 5:13 utc | 78

I agree that this is the likely outcome. Surer than Hillary winning the 2016 election. It would mean that Pelosi, Schiff, et. al. are really politically stupid.

Which makes me wonder. The obviousness of this losing hand, and the fact that the most politically-seasoned, can’t-be-that-stupid Democrats seem determined to play it out, has my paranoid political Spidey senses all atingle. What are the cards they're not showing? What lies beneath the thin ice of these Articles of Impeachment? If the apparent agenda makes no sense, look for the hidden. Something that better explains why Pelosi, et. al. find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they think they can succeed in doing that.

There is one thing that I can think of that drives such frantic urgency: War. That would also explain why Trump’s “national security” problem—embedded in the focus on Ukraine arms shipments, Russian aggression, etc.—is the real issue, the whistle to Republican war dogs. But if so, the Ukro-Russian motif is itself a screen for another “national security”/war issue that cannot be stated explicitly. There's no urgency about aggression towards Russia. There is for Iran.

So here's my entirely speculative tea-leaf reading: If there's a hidden agenda behind the urgency to remove Trump, one that might actually garner the votes of Republican Senators, it is to replace him with a president who will be a more reliable and effective leader for a military attack on Iran that Israel wants to initiate before next November. Spring is the cruelest season for launching wars.
From my article: Impeachment: What Lies Beneath?

Posted by: ThePolemicist | Dec 19 2019 5:23 utc | 79

Howie Hawkins of NY is the frontrunner for the Green Party nomination for President, to be officially decided at the national convention July 9-12 at Wayne State University in Detroit (as a Michigan Green, I'll be among the hosts). But there are several others also seeking the nomination -- though neither Jill Stein nor her 2016 running mate Ajamu Baraka are among them. For more information, visit:

Posted by: jalp | Dec 19 2019 6:00 utc | 80

evilempire #40

Horowitz put the telescope to his blind eye, its an old deep state trick that Lord Nelson used in an illegal war that the British mythologize about. IMO Horowitz is a whitewash man and there most likely will be questions that Durham will be asking Priestap IF that is the Giuliani plan. Wont hold my breath though. Trump seems to be acting MAD as hell but then so do wrestlers in their fake as fake can be.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 19 2019 6:17 utc | 81

@ Posted by: jalp | Dec 19 2019 6:00 utc | 80 with the Green Party status....Thanks

If Tulsi is totally left out of the Democratic race, is it possible that she could be a Green candidate? When is the "drop dead" date for that to occur? How is the VP pick handled?


Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 19 2019 6:20 utc | 82

Whitewash, or is Horowitz dissembling for a reason? It might
be that in the counteroffensive against the empire, they don't
want to tip their hands just yet. Horowitz was being awfully
cagey in his comments today, as if not wanting to spill the
beans this early.

Posted by: evilempire | Dec 19 2019 6:31 utc | 83

Classic case of the author reading too many rational motives into behavior based on his own rationality! (sorry b).

Most democrats do really believe, in a group mind sort of way, that more and more evidence will pile up and be uncovered. That they are looking at the top of the iceberg. That collusion with Russian was real after all, that the mafia sits in the White House and so on. For them it's a matter of time before the house of cards that is the Trump presidency in their eyes, will fall.

Only through this lens events make sense: impeachment and afterglow is meant to kindle a bigger fire and not to be forgotten.

Posted by: John Dowser | Dec 19 2019 7:16 utc | 84

Since the whole impeachment farce already has been a political loser for the idiot Democrats, they'd have to be doubly stupid to double down on political stupidity by obstructing the transmission to the Senate, when most Americans just want this crap to be over with.

Meanwhile the Senate Republicans, once they get the charges, would be stupid to do anything but vote them down immediately. Otherwise they'll become complicit in the odious circus and rightly incur their share of the political blame.

Posted by: Russ | Dec 19 2019 7:30 utc | 85

The Trump Card was and is a masterstroke of scripting live, non-stop, divisive, politically paralytic distraction while the US oligarchy goes all-tard-in for private power.

Posted by: Artful Dodger | Dec 19 2019 8:00 utc | 86

The Tuls is unlikely to be the Dem candidate.

Her options are open.

Pres. Trump wants to go down in history for something other than the impeachment charade.

He thinks outside the box, is afraid of nothing, can turn on a dime, and may be the only person who can kick open a door that seems jammed, thereby healing half the nation.

Posted by: powerandpeople | Dec 19 2019 8:43 utc | 87

I see Tulsi Gabbard managed to distance herself from the affair and rise above it by voting "present" instead of "yes" or "no". I sense she is purposely putting a lot of space between herself and the DNC, and may even be positioning herself to run as an independent come spring, despite saying that was not her objective only a couple of months ago. Given the lack of wisdom and loss of sense of direction being shown by the Democrat leadership it would be a very wise move.

Posted by: Bryan Hemming | Dec 19 2019 9:10 utc | 88

- The one senator that decides whether or not Trump will be forced out of office / impeached is a Republican senator called Mitch McConnell from Kentucky. If McConnell wants Trump to go then Trump will be gone tomorrow.

- When I pulled up McConnell's bio on Wikipedia then I noticed that McConnell is already 77 years old. This reminds me of the Soviet Union in the last 2 decades of its existence. In those 2 decades the soviet leaders were all VERY old men. Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko all died in their 70s.
- Just look at the current leaders of the US. Bill & (K)Hillery Clinton, Trump, Biden, McConnell, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg all are 70 years or older.
- Dianne Feinstein is even older than 80 years old. 86 years to be precise.

Posted by: Willy2 | Dec 19 2019 9:11 utc | 89

The Dems a deliberarely losing the fight. They formally, legaly, abandoned internal democracy in the last century. I beats me why anybody bothers with them.

Posted by: Johny Conspiranoid | Dec 19 2019 10:08 utc | 90

I am a survey expert by training and profession. I cant add to the excellent summary article and many comments on the main issue.But I want to add to those skeptical about polls. Polls are commissioned. They are not produced as a public service. Invariably their findings satisfy the political views of those who commission them. Polls are anything but objective and shouldnt even be called "polls". They are simply PR dressed up as "evidence". We know that the failure rate of polls is about the same or worse than guessing or random tallying. There are many reasons that polls fail to meet even the most basic of scientific criteria. Here is one. Polls are almost all done by telephone calls. In the vast majority of cases, those called just hang up. When the "pollsters" have reached their target number (say 1000 requiring 2500 calls). they present the results as representative of the nation, the state, o some larger sample. In fact, the results are only those from people who agreed to participate. No one knows the views of those who refused. Therefore, to call the results "representative" is bizarre. That is why a "margin of error" is irrelevant.The margin of error would need to be based on a projection on the likely distribution of votes which is almost impossible to determine. The old phrase: "garbage in...garbage out"

Posted by: Leedon | Dec 19 2019 11:06 utc | 91

Russ @ 8 says:

She's shocked, SHOCKED the FBI lied to her

well, that should teach 'em.

meanwhile, Comey's cut a multi-million dollar book deal and is making more than his former annual salary of $170,000 for single speaking engagements.

meanwhile in Pakistan...

Posted by: john | Dec 19 2019 11:09 utc | 92

evilempire #83

Whitewash, or is Horowitz dissembling for a reason? It might
be that in the counteroffensive against the empire, they don't
want to tip their hands just yet. Horowitz was being awfully
cagey in his comments today, as if not wanting to spill the
beans this early.

Horowitz has every reason to be cagey but he won't be spilling any beans. Any authoritative person in that position NEVER publishes a report with errors such as reported here. Every key word misspelt many times. NAH the man has Whitewash as a middle name. The FBI would never appoint an independently minded person to that sensitive role. Been there, seen that. Only trustees with their balls in a vice would be appointed. Remember he is from the old guard.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 19 2019 11:12 utc | 93

Correction: " on the likely distribution of votes which is almost impossible to determine" should read "on the likely distribution of votes OF THOSE WHO REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE which is almost impossible to determine" Other factors making polls unreliable ....lack of anonymity.....the pollsters call you so they know who you are, so many people will say only what they think is safe or what they think is the "most respectable" response. Secondly, polling organisations use LEADING QUESTIONS, "would you agree that ....." Thirdly, there is no control group whose results can be compared to the survey group. Fourthly, as the pollsters dont know who is going to answer the phone, there is little control over the distribution of the demographic variables, which should exactly mirror the entire entity from which the sample was drawn.

Posted by: Leedon | Dec 19 2019 11:18 utc | 94

Bryan Hemming #88

It is possible she could run as a vp for Bernie should he get the nomination but that is a looooooong shot. She seems way too smart to even contemplate a run on the Green ticket. There is a glass ceiling on top of the greens and it isn't lifting any time soon.

If not this election then maybe the next she might run again or if the DNC does crash and burn she could make a key person doing the massive internal rebuild.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 19 2019 11:21 utc | 95

Commenting from a Togolese airport.
Who elae is ready for Trump v. Hillary 2: FINAL RECKONING?
(I don't vote)

Posted by: TIME POLICE | Dec 19 2019 11:27 utc | 96

What's the difference between being a political party and being the electoral machine disguised as a party?

The difference is that the later has its existence guaranteed. Not only the Dems don't need to dispute every election to win in order to survive, there are and will be elections where it actively won't want to win. That is because when you're an electoral machine protected by Law disguised as a political party, your most sacred allegiance is not with your electorate, but with the bureuacracy ("the system") itself.

The GOP and the Dems are the American electoral system itself. They are not political parties. They will never seek to destroy each other. The American electoral system itself guarantees that.

It's different with the British case, where they are living a de facto two-party system, but it is not enconded in their electoral system: we had the rise of the SNP (which wiped out Labour in Scotland) in the 2010s and the rise of Labour to the mainstream in 1944, which wiped out the old Liberal Party (the old adversary of the Tories until the pre-war). Plus we have the Northern Irish parties.

In opposition, the USA will always have a two-party system, where the two parties will always be called the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties fused with the system itself and are now the system itself. That's why serious politicians like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are trying to earn the nomination through one of these two parties (which is the hard way), and not simply go as independent or as some fringe party.

That's why my hypothesis at #3 doesn't necessarily needs Trump to be reelected in 2020. If the Democrats are able to at least force the GOP to go with another, more "moderate", candidate (a la Mitt Romney), then their strategy will already be a success. They can then fraud the system to weed out Bernie Sanders and maybe even Elizabeth Warren later, since they control the DNC.

Posted by: vk | Dec 19 2019 12:06 utc | 97

John Dowser @ 84 has got it right. Does anyone else here know any Democrats? They believe every word. Trump is Putin's puppet. We may not know how they secretly communicate, so what, every action Trump takes every day was scripted in Moscow. The plucky Ukrainians are fighting a shooting war with the Russian Army. Trump is terrified of taking on Mighty Joe Biden in the coming election so he went looking for help. All of this tripe is swallowed whole. Persons of considerable intelligence believe all this. One fad I've noticed among the party faithful is taking classes to learn the Ukrainianian language. What do you say to that? Telling them that there is no Ukrainian language or pointing out that every significant author of Ukrainian origin wrote in Russian simply makes them recoil in horror while mouthing Putin treason KGB bot.

Posted by: oldhippie | Dec 19 2019 12:11 utc | 98

it's a pro wrestling match in slow motion. wake me up when they start hitting each other with folding chairs.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Dec 19 2019 12:23 utc | 99

I like bobburger's take. From 'inside the box' this opera all looks very impressive. But, when you realize that it is a box, then step out of it... Then you start to observe the entirety of these machinations from a more realistic perspective.

Posted by: Josh | Dec 19 2019 12:30 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.