@willchamberlain's Threads
One very simple explanation for why the base has so uniformly rejected impeachment
Democrats, collectively, have never expressed even the slightest bit of loyalty to the Presidency as an OFFICE so long as it as been held by Donald Trump
They called themselves the RESISTANCE!
Democrats, collectively, have never expressed even the slightest bit of loyalty to the Presidency as an OFFICE so long as it as been held by Donald Trump
They called themselves the RESISTANCE!
That, in and of itself, was a betrayal of the basic American contract
We have elections, and then we have peaceful transitions of power
Democrats breached that contract, and betrayed that trust, as did the #NeverTrump coalition
We have elections, and then we have peaceful transitions of power
Democrats breached that contract, and betrayed that trust, as did the #NeverTrump coalition
Now, Democrats and #NeverTrump accuse President Trump of betraying the country in Ukraine
Nonsense, of course
But more to the point - YOU ARE THE RESISTANCE. You are - by definition - disloyal! HOW DARE YOU try to use "loyalty" as an excuse for impeaching the President?
Nonsense, of course
But more to the point - YOU ARE THE RESISTANCE. You are - by definition - disloyal! HOW DARE YOU try to use "loyalty" as an excuse for impeaching the President?
The most powerful argument against impeaching the President is the simple, textualist one: that "high crimes and misdemeanors" means what it says.
Crimes and Misdemeanors are violations of *established law*.
"High" refers to them being serious crimes against the state.
Crimes and Misdemeanors are violations of *established law*.
"High" refers to them being serious crimes against the state.
That's at the core of Pat Cipollone and the Trump team's argument.
Very, very simple.
You can't impeach someone for something that isn't a "crime."
Which means you can't make it up on the fly.
Very, very simple.
You can't impeach someone for something that isn't a "crime."
Which means you can't make it up on the fly.
I've heard a few arguments from the Democrats about why this simple, plain reading of the Constitutional text shouldn't apply.
First, they rely on Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 65 to argue that they only need prove an "abuse of power."
Nonsense.
First, they rely on Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 65 to argue that they only need prove an "abuse of power."
Nonsense.
Hate to break it to Democrats, but OMB retroactively concluding that the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding aid to Ukraine isn't impeachable
A slew of Obama executive actions were found to be unconstitutional, 9-0!
A slew of Obama executive actions were found to be unconstitutional, 9-0!
Obama lost unanimously in the Supreme Court 44 times
Republicans sure missed a lot of impeachable offenses from 2009-2016!
Republicans sure missed a lot of impeachable offenses from 2009-2016!
Shockingly the executive branch does things that violate federal law every single day
That's why we have an entire regime of administrative law, so that people can challenge the legality of certain executive branch decisions!
That's why we have an entire regime of administrative law, so that people can challenge the legality of certain executive branch decisions!
I would love someone to explain why it makes sense to negotiate with Iran but not North Korea
#DemDebate
#DemDebate
My position is that we should negotiate with North Korea because they have actual leverage (they have nukes and could obliterate Seoul)
And that we don't have to negotiate with Iran because they have zero leverage
And that we don't have to negotiate with Iran because they have zero leverage
But then the Democrats thought they could force Mitch McConnell to agree to their procedural preconditions
Democrats are terrible terrible negotiators
Democrats are terrible terrible negotiators
If you’re wondering why the Fifth Circuit just ruled for the administration on the border wall, I explained it in this scope a few months ago
pscp.tv/w/cOc4gTUzMzM2…
pscp.tv/w/cOc4gTUzMzM2…
Basically: the Supreme Court has strongly hinted that plaintiffs trying to challenge the President’d funding maneuver are not in the “zone of interests” and thus lack article 3 standing
*or rather, that the plaintiffs cannot state a claim
Today, the DOJ filed its new sentencing memorandum in @GenFlynn's criminal case (where he has pled guilty).
Key takeaway - DOJ has changed its mind and decided that Flynn did not provide "substantial assistance" to prosecutors, and wants a prison sentence of 0-6 months.
THREAD
Key takeaway - DOJ has changed its mind and decided that Flynn did not provide "substantial assistance" to prosecutors, and wants a prison sentence of 0-6 months.
THREAD
@GenFlynn Why is DOJ mad? Well - they were prosecuting General Flynn's former business partner at the Flynn Intelligence Group for various federal crimes.
Rafekian was convicted by the jury - but the judge THREW OUT the conviction for lack of evidence.
Embarrassing!
Rafekian was convicted by the jury - but the judge THREW OUT the conviction for lack of evidence.
Embarrassing!
@GenFlynn Prosecutors argued that Flynn's shop did some lobbying/PR work at the Turkish government's behest.
Judge noted that at trial, the prosecutors presented zero evidence that the Turkish government was involved.
Strange, right? Seems like an important point to prove!
Judge noted that at trial, the prosecutors presented zero evidence that the Turkish government was involved.
Strange, right? Seems like an important point to prove!
Starbucks Reserve is where you go when you want small-lot, exclusive, single origin burnt coffee
“Hey - we’re losing market share to La Colombe and Philz. What should we do?”
“Stop burning the coffee?”
“Nah let’s just keep doing the same crappy brewing just with more expensive beans.”
“Stop burning the coffee?”
“Nah let’s just keep doing the same crappy brewing just with more expensive beans.”
Really frustrating because this would be a decent cup of light roast if not for the fact that they scalded it
To the alt-right, free speech is about harassing people while they are with their wife and children
Update: Fuentes claims “victory” after successfully harassing a conservative Jewish man who was walking with his wife and children
UPDATE: Nick refers to Ben’s wife and children as “human shields” to explain his decision to harass them
"Nothing in the Constitution, in the history of impeachment, or in the counterpart processes of the criminal justice system requires the Senate to suspend its independent judgment of whether the charges against the President actually warrant a trial."
- Judge Richard Posner
- Judge Richard Posner
"Just as a regular criminal court can dismiss an indictment as insufficient without putting the defendant to the bother of a trial, so the Senate can properly dismiss articles of impeachment lodged with it by the house...
"...if it concludes that even if all the facts alleged in them are true they do not warrant removing the impeached official from office."
Posner, again, from his book on the Clinton Impeachment, AN AFFAIR OF STATE
#NoTrial
Posner, again, from his book on the Clinton Impeachment, AN AFFAIR OF STATE
#NoTrial
A thread of false statements from Adam Schiff's "response" FISA memo, from January 2018
Yes, a thread
Because there's a ton
Yes, a thread
Because there's a ton
FALSE
"DOJ made only narrow use of information from Steele's Dossier"
FALSE
FALSE
WaPo does some good journalism for once, and proves that government officials lied about the Afghanistan war for two decades
Echoes the Pentagon Papers, where it revealed systematic lying about progress during the Vietnam war
There are lessons here
washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/…
Echoes the Pentagon Papers, where it revealed systematic lying about progress during the Vietnam war
There are lessons here
washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/…
1) Government officials lie
This may seem banal, but it's essential to remember whenever ANYONE presents a major new government program
When there's a choice between revealing an ugly truth and telling a pretty lie, bureaucrats and politicians WILL choose to lie
This may seem banal, but it's essential to remember whenever ANYONE presents a major new government program
When there's a choice between revealing an ugly truth and telling a pretty lie, bureaucrats and politicians WILL choose to lie
This isn't true in the private sector
Why? Because if you lie to the investing public about material problems at your company
You can go to jail for securities fraud
So, generally speaking, corporate officers tell the truth - in full - every three months
Why? Because if you lie to the investing public about material problems at your company
You can go to jail for securities fraud
So, generally speaking, corporate officers tell the truth - in full - every three months
Adam Schiff messed up. BIG TIME.
His impeachment report explains that President Trump developed a negative view of Ukraine due to conversations with @RudyGiuliani and Viktor Orban.
That means President Trump's requests for investigations was lawful and proper!
His impeachment report explains that President Trump developed a negative view of Ukraine due to conversations with @RudyGiuliani and Viktor Orban.
That means President Trump's requests for investigations was lawful and proper!
@RudyGiuliani The VERY FIRST "finding of fact" in Adam Schiff's report is that President Trump was acting solely in his own personal interests
But if President Trump had a negative view of Ukraine - for POLICY reasons - he was acting on behalf of the American people, not himself!
But if President Trump had a negative view of Ukraine - for POLICY reasons - he was acting on behalf of the American people, not himself!
@RudyGiuliani Convienently, @neal_katyal - author of IMPEACH: THE CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP - explains this well
For the President's actions to be impeachable, he must have been seeking a personal benefit
If he was requesting a quid pro quo on behalf of the people - not impeachable!
For the President's actions to be impeachable, he must have been seeking a personal benefit
If he was requesting a quid pro quo on behalf of the people - not impeachable!
Stupid things in Adam Schiff's - sorry, the House Intelligence Committee's - Trump-Ukraine impeachment report
A THREAD
A THREAD
First, allegation #1 - that the President "forced out" Ambassador Yovanovitch
There's a word in English that describes what President Trump did
He *fired* her
As he has the absolute right to do
Because Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President
There's a word in English that describes what President Trump did
He *fired* her
As he has the absolute right to do
Because Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President
Adam Schiff claims that @RudyGiuliani promoted "conspiracy theories" about Ukraine meddling in the 2016 elections
Nonsense; it's no conspiracy, it was reported by Politico's @kenvogel in 2017
Nonsense; it's no conspiracy, it was reported by Politico's @kenvogel in 2017
The Democrats are relying on a very contrived definition of impeachable offenses to go after Trump: "abuse of the public trust for personal political gain."
The problem? They have ZERO evidence that President Trump's intent was corrupt
Game over, everyone can go home
The problem? They have ZERO evidence that President Trump's intent was corrupt
Game over, everyone can go home
They brought forward a pile of fact witnesses, but not one who could testify to Trump's state of mind
They are simply asserting President Trump had corrupt intent without evidence
Trump thinks Ukraine is corrupt, and associates Burisma/Crowdstrike with that corruption
GG
They are simply asserting President Trump had corrupt intent without evidence
Trump thinks Ukraine is corrupt, and associates Burisma/Crowdstrike with that corruption
GG
If this were being litigated - even under a preponderance of the evidence standard - Trump would win on summary judgment before it even got to a jury
No evidence on intent = everyone can go home
No evidence on intent = everyone can go home
Ban decorative pillows
Ban the Macy’s thanksgiving day parade
This is a new Thanksgiving tradition
Appreciating what you are grateful for by arguing for other things to be made illegal
Appreciating what you are grateful for by arguing for other things to be made illegal
Line of questioning for a Republican member:
"Mr. Holmes, you testified earlier that President Trump had a negative view of Ukraine, correct?"
"That was from a meeting with Senator Johnson, who said the President thought Ukraine had meddled in 2016, yes?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
"Mr. Holmes, you testified earlier that President Trump had a negative view of Ukraine, correct?"
"That was from a meeting with Senator Johnson, who said the President thought Ukraine had meddled in 2016, yes?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
"You would concede that the President is allowed, by our Constitution and laws, to think poorly of Ukraine, correct?"
"And you would also concede that, as the elected President, Donald Trump has the authority to set US-Ukraine policy, correct?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
"And you would also concede that, as the elected President, Donald Trump has the authority to set US-Ukraine policy, correct?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
"So, Mr. Holmes, if President Trump thought poorly Ukraine, he had the absolute right to make American policy more neutral there, correct?"
"And, to your knowledge, there would be nothing unlawful or even improper about doing so, correct?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
"And, to your knowledge, there would be nothing unlawful or even improper about doing so, correct?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
Key points from Gordon Sondland's prepared testimony, a thread
FIRST: Sondland insists there was a quid pro quo involving a Trump-Zelensky meeting, in exchange for a public commitment to investigate Crowdstrike and Burisma
#ImpeachmentHearing
FIRST: Sondland insists there was a quid pro quo involving a Trump-Zelensky meeting, in exchange for a public commitment to investigate Crowdstrike and Burisma
#ImpeachmentHearing
SECOND: Sondland *guessed* that the hold on military aid was also subject to the same quid pro quo
He was never told that, he just made an assumption
#ImpeachmentHearing
He was never told that, he just made an assumption
#ImpeachmentHearing
THIRD: Sondland basically exculpates Trump on intent.
Trump believed - according to Sondland - that Ukraine was corrupt BECAUSE they intervened in the 2016 election.
Thus, Trump's MOTIVATION in pursuing the Burisma/Crowdstrike investigations was legitimate.
#ImpeachmentHearing
Trump believed - according to Sondland - that Ukraine was corrupt BECAUSE they intervened in the 2016 election.
Thus, Trump's MOTIVATION in pursuing the Burisma/Crowdstrike investigations was legitimate.
#ImpeachmentHearing
I can construct a line of questioning easily
"Mr. Vindman, you described your job as "coordinating US policy on Ukraine, correct?"
"Earlier, you described your rank, Lt. Col., as fairly, low, correct?"
"Because, in fact, you are fairly low on the totem pole in the NSC, yes?"
"Mr. Vindman, you described your job as "coordinating US policy on Ukraine, correct?"
"Earlier, you described your rank, Lt. Col., as fairly, low, correct?"
"Because, in fact, you are fairly low on the totem pole in the NSC, yes?"
"So when you say you coordinate Ukraine policy, Mr. Vindman, all you do is compile opinions from others, correct?"
"You do not SET Ukraine policy, correct?"
"Who is ultimately responsible for setting American policy towards Ukraine, Lt. Col. Vindman?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
"You do not SET Ukraine policy, correct?"
"Who is ultimately responsible for setting American policy towards Ukraine, Lt. Col. Vindman?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
"Correct, Mr. Vindman. President Trump sets American policy towards Ukraine."
"Earlier, you said you were aware of Rudy Giuliani's 'advances' towards Ukraine, correct?"
"But you said you didn't know whose authority he was operating under, yes?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
"Earlier, you said you were aware of Rudy Giuliani's 'advances' towards Ukraine, correct?"
"But you said you didn't know whose authority he was operating under, yes?"
#ImpeachmentHearing
THE OVERSIGHT WARS
The legislative branch cannot legislate; that's it's raison d'ĂŞtre
Instead, House Democrats are encroaching on executive and judiciary powers by launching investigations under the pretext of "oversight"
So far, the @SenateGOP has been AWOL
The legislative branch cannot legislate; that's it's raison d'ĂŞtre
Instead, House Democrats are encroaching on executive and judiciary powers by launching investigations under the pretext of "oversight"
So far, the @SenateGOP has been AWOL
@SenateGOP Bill Barr characterized this as a war on the executive branch; he's right.
Republicans cannot unilaterally disarm, nor can they count on the Judiciary to step in
They, too, must wield their oversight powers aggressively
The subpoenas must fly
Republicans cannot unilaterally disarm, nor can they count on the Judiciary to step in
They, too, must wield their oversight powers aggressively
The subpoenas must fly
@SenateGOP House Democrats must be made to feel the pain of "oversight"
It's time to provide oversight of FOIA compliance, and investigate, thoroughly, Hillary Clinton's private email server
By subpoena'ing her public testimony
It's time to provide oversight of FOIA compliance, and investigate, thoroughly, Hillary Clinton's private email server
By subpoena'ing her public testimony
All I’m saying is that I don’t understand how Hogwarts hasn’t been bankrupted by wrongful death/disappearance lawsuits
Who thought it was a good idea to put children on single-person flying machines without a parachute or even a seatbelt
“Don’t go into the third floor hallway unless you want to die a horrible death”
How about you stop being a negligent asshole Dumbledore and remediate the attractive nuisance
How about you stop being a negligent asshole Dumbledore and remediate the attractive nuisance
The Barr Doctrine
The legislative and judicial branches are encroaching on the executive
Legislators are bored with legislating want prosecutorial power - so they've transformed their "oversight" responsibilities into an all-out attack on the executive
The legislative and judicial branches are encroaching on the executive
Legislators are bored with legislating want prosecutorial power - so they've transformed their "oversight" responsibilities into an all-out attack on the executive
Liberal judges want policymaking power - so they've fostered the idea that individual district court judges can unilaterally thwart the actions of the entire executive branch
40 nationwide injunctions against the administration by district court judges
This must end
40 nationwide injunctions against the administration by district court judges
This must end
We need to support a new re-assertion of executive power
It is a co-equal branch of government, not the subordinate of Congress and the Judiciary
The President has the constitutional duty to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed
It is a co-equal branch of government, not the subordinate of Congress and the Judiciary
The President has the constitutional duty to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed
The best way to understand the deep state is that it is a collection of independent, decentralized cliques of civil servants
Many of them have taken independent shots at Trump
Many of them have taken independent shots at Trump
There's the FBI clique - Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page
Then, there's the DOJ clique - Andrew Weissmann and friends
Now, we're looking at the NSC clique - Ciaramella, Vindman, etc
Then, there's the DOJ clique - Andrew Weissmann and friends
Now, we're looking at the NSC clique - Ciaramella, Vindman, etc
There was a CIA/Intel specific clique too, with Brennan and Clapper leading that one
There's not some grand conspiracy behind the scenes, because there doesn't need to be
Every clique hated Trump so they all started working against him at various points in 2016-17
There's not some grand conspiracy behind the scenes, because there doesn't need to be
Every clique hated Trump so they all started working against him at various points in 2016-17
This isn't going to fly
Fuentes and his fellow anti-semites brigaded and harassed Donald Trump Jr. at his event
Why?
Because - simply put - they hate Charlie Kirk more than they love their country
Fuentes and his fellow anti-semites brigaded and harassed Donald Trump Jr. at his event
Why?
Because - simply put - they hate Charlie Kirk more than they love their country
Hey, it looks like Nick Fuentes has some new fans!
CNN and Vox are absolutely THRILLED with his work
At this rate, he'll take Richard Spencer's place as the mainstream media's favorite white nationalist
CNN and Vox are absolutely THRILLED with his work
At this rate, he'll take Richard Spencer's place as the mainstream media's favorite white nationalist
News flash:
If you're helping CNN and Vox dunk on Donald Trump Jr. then you aren't Pro-Trump and you're not America First
If you're helping CNN and Vox dunk on Donald Trump Jr. then you aren't Pro-Trump and you're not America First
One of the overlooked reasons why Team Ahoy has lost their influence is their total lack of understanding of social dynamics
See, e.g., Jeb!
See, e.g., Jeb!
There is literally no circumstance where it would be strategic for Trump to apologize for anything related to Ukraine
Don’t take political advice from socially inept men
