Seven indisputable facts about this ‘historic’ impeachment that historians will use to condemn it as ‘folly’

So Speier is impartial, and McConnell is not?  It's laughable: Democrats have had it in for President Trump from the day he was elected. 

Thomas Lifson

"Derangement is a mental impairment that causes those afflicted with it to make very bad decisions, often ignoring or disputing realities that would caution them against their self-destructive actions.  Even though the leftist-dominated psychology and psychiatric professions refuse to acknowledge it, Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, a genuine mass psychosis, and it is at the root of the impeachment vote today.

"It is often speculated that the real goal of Democrats is to "place an asterisk" next to President Trump's name.  But as the passion of the moment subsides and historians take a longer look, here are seven facts that will place an asterisk next to this impeachment, as a monumentally foolish act of political malpractice:

1. First ever purely partisan impeachment.
2. First ever impeachment advocated by House members before the president took office and took any official actions.
3. No crime is alleged.
4. The first ever impeachment brought less than a year before voters speak on the incumbent.
5. Hearings led by a man who brazenly, extensively, and provably lied (Nunes vs Schiff memoranda).
6. The speaker of the House opposed it but was bullied by young radicals she called "the Squad."
7. Impeachment hearings drove approval of the target higher.

California Lefty Rep. Jackie Speier looks for an excuse to shut impeachment down

. . . "Even Rep. Jackie Speier, a grizzled old swamp leftist from the Bay Area, seems to be looking for a way for Democrats to get out of this growing fiasco.

"According to the Daily Caller:

Democratic California Rep. Jackie Speier said Tuesday that impeachment might be heading for a mistrial before it even gets to the Senate.

The Democrats' one-night stand with the founders  " 'I'll respect you in the morning" is what I half expect to hear.  Of course, the Democrats now invoking the Founding Fathers' memory in their effort to impeach President Trump won't respect our colonial progenitors at the next dawn any more than they did at the last one.

"Nonetheless, the Left has interrupted its regularly scheduled programming of trying to tear down the Founders' reputations and life's work — the Electoral College, the First and Second Amendments, and the Constitution generally — to claim that those Enlightenment men are on their side." . . .

Are the late night TV talk show hosts aware of this?

Rich Terrell

Democrats are talking to each other on impeachment  "Today's the big impeachment day, and the Democrats are still yelling and piously intoning about it about its importance. It's big. It's rare. It's "historic" as newsman David Muir was saying last night.

"There's just one problem: The public is not paying attention. Actually, it's bored as hell, and the evidence of it is everywhere. 
"It's like they gave an impeachment and nobody came." .  . .

In contrast, President Trump is kind of exciting. He's a natural showman and puts on a great campaign rally. He startles the public by keeping his promises. He's funny, and the voters like his 'doesn't give a s***' attitude, according to a recent Axios focus group of Michigan swing voters. He's got the overseas rogue actors on their backfoot. His tax cuts, deregulation and constant standing up for the little guy have brought a stellar economy with employment figures like no one's seen in their lifetimes. Black people, Latinos, the poor, the people with criminal records, the handicapped, women, across the board everybody is gaining.

Read Trump’s Letter To Pelosi. It’s One For The History Books.

Chicks on the Right  "On what is being called the “eve of his impeachment,” President Donald Trump remains indefatigable. The proof is in his letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"In a scathing 6-page missive, Trump defends himself in no uncertain terms, while protesting the “unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power” by his accusers.
"And he shouldn’t have to do so. Everything about this impeachment inquiry is shady. We’ll see just how shady tomorrow, when the final vote is likely to be cast.
"No matter what I may think of this man on a personal level, I find the way he has been and is being treated unconscionable. Never in the history of our country has any president been so viciously and undeservedly attacked. It started from the day he took office…or from the day Hillary lost, in point of fact." . . .   Source: WhiteHouse.gov

Liberal Lawyer Torches Democrats' Impeachment Circus: Two Articles Don't Meet Constitutional Standards

Townhall  "This impeachment circus is still going on—and it could become one of the biggest in-kind contributions Democrats can give the Trump 2020 re-election effort. Impeachment over this July phone call with Ukraine, where some quid pro quo businesses was hashed out between military aid and a corruption probe into the Bidens has engulfed D.C. House Democrats made a promise to their progressive base to impeach Trump. they thought it would be popular. It was a gross miscalculation. It’s not popular in key swing states or with Independent voters. The numbers for impeachment are now officially underwater. And the two charges, obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, lobbed against Trump further proves that this is a partisan clown show. Also, where’s bribery? I was promised that would be on their rap sheet. It’s not. 

"Liberal lawyer Alan Dershowitz scorched Democrats for pushing two articles of impeachment that simply do not meet constitutional standards. I mean I don’t think you need to go to law school to know that these charges are just liberal speak for “we don’t like this guy.” We all know that Democrats haven’t been able to handle Trump’s 2016 win. That’s not a good enough reason to impeach a duly elected president. He won. Hillary lost. Deal with it. Most Americans have done so, but for the most liberal, most disgusting parts of this country—it’s been an obsession top impeach Trump. It’s quasi-stalker-like behavior (via The Hill):" . . .

Retiring Democrat: Endless Trump Investigations Are Wearing on the Souls of Americans But... . . . "Meanwhile, new polling shows even fewer Americans support the Democrats' impeachment efforts. Even among the Party, backing of the measure has dropped by significant margins." . . . 

President Trump's letter to Pelosi

Trump calls for halt to impeachment in scathing letter to Pelosi on eve of vote

The president, who said in the Oval Office moments after the letter was publicized that he takes "zero" responsibility for facing impeachment, instead accused Democrats of committing the same actions they have alleged Trump is guilty of.

 READ President Trump’s Scathing Letter to Nancy Pelosi Hours Before Impeachment Vote   "President Trump fired-off a scathing letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Tuesday just hours before an impeachment vote; warning the top Democrat her party will likely face a public reckoning during the 2020 election.

“I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the 

partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by the Democrat lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and half centuries of American legislative history,” begins the letter.“This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting both. You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party,” Trump wrote. “History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade.”“I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election. They will not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power,” he added.  

Read the full letter here. 

Democrats are going to try to “Kavanaugh” the Impeachment Trial with new accusations  . . . "The most dangerous place on earth, Bob Dole wisely observed, is between Chuck Schumer and the TV cameras.

"Not surprisingly, while Mitch McConnell usually gets his way, Schumer gets the headlines and TV coverage.

"Schumer did that again today with his demand for a “fair” trial, meaning to Schumer that Democrats get to reopen the investigation of Trump during the trial, including calling witnesses who did not testify, and doing the job the House Democrats failed to do. A do-over." . . .

The impeachment itself is the trophy example of a weaponized investigation being used for political purposes.

House Democrats need to admit that the impeachment hearings that were supposed to end Trump’s presidency have backfired spectacularly.

Report: Trump-Supporting Women Allegedly Abused at D.C. Event, Called ‘Nazis,’ ‘C*nts’  "Attendees of a “high-profile Democrat wedding” stalked, harassed, and physically assaulted guests of an event hosted by Women for America First at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, on Saturday, the pro-Trump group alleged in a press release issued late Monday evening.

"Approximately 200 women attended the aforementioned Women for America First event — titled a Very MAGA Holiday Weekend — at the Willard Hotel. The alleged “high-profile Democrat wedding” took place in an adjacent ballroom.

"Women for America First is an outside conservative organization that supports President Donald Trump and is run by longtime grassroots conservative activist Amy Kremer.

The press release alleges that the private event held by Women for America First was interrupted “at least” 30 times by the wedding’s participants, including a physical assault against Jonathan Gilliam, a retired Navy SEAL and former FBI special agent, who attended the event. Gilliam himself tweeted a reference to the alleged events:" . . .

This is a developing story. Women for America First has not yet stated the identities of the alleged attackers or whose wedding it allegedly was.

The Democrat cartoon and clown show

Ian Macfarlane

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

The Senate during impeachment hearings

Tony Branco

Report: Democrats Have the Votes to Impeach President Trump

Breitbart

"The Wall Street Journal‘s Siobhan Hughes, Lindsay Wise, and Natalie Andrews wrote Monday evening:  

By Monday afternoon, at least 18 from the 31 Democratic-held districts that Mr. Trump won in the 2016 presidential race had announced they would support the abuse-of-power and obstruction of Congress charges, according to a Wall Street Journal survey, with two saying they are opposed.

"In other words, given the recent surge over the weekend into early this week of announcements of support for Articles of Impeachment from a number of vulnerable House Democrats who had been holding out until now, the Democrats have crossed the threshold necessary to impeach the president–barring any unforeseen surprises.

"The fact that Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan–an independent who left the GOP over his impeachment support–is going to vote for impeachment, and that there are four vacancies in the House, the Democrats need 216 votes at a minimum to pass Articles of Impeachment, assuming all House members are present and voting. That also means that if 19 total Democrats from these districts that President Trump won in 2016–of which there are 31–were to join all Republicans to vote against Articles of Impeachment, it would fail on the House floor.

"One Democrat, a member of leadership, House Agriculture Committee chairman Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) has announced he will vote against impeachment. Another, Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, has also announced his opposition to impeachment and is expected to abandon the Democrat Party over this and join the GOP sometime this week.

"But, now that 18 of these Trump district Democrats–according to the Wall Street Journal–have joined ranks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s push for impeachment, only 11 more remain possibilities for no votes, meaning that is inevitable that President Trump will be impeached by the House on Wednesday barring some unforeseen outcome wherein several Democrats from somewhere else in the conference oppose impeachment."  . . .

Who approved Hallmark's decision to air same-sex wedding ads?

M. Catharine Evans  "Hallmark Channel's decision, first to air ads from the wedding registry company Zola that feature same-sex couples kissing on their so-called wedding days, then to pull the ads due to an outcry from the conservative group, One Million Moms (1MM), and ultimately to reverse course after backlash from the LGBT organizers of GLAAD, created all of this inane whiplash by airing the ads in the first place.  That Crown Media, the parent company of Hallmark, did not see fit to filter out the Zola commercials before their target audience of conservative-minded families watched in disbelief, raises the question, "Who approved the Zola ads?"

"On December 13, Crown Media Family Network's CEO, Bill Abbott, told reps from One Million Moms the advertisements "aired in error" and he was informed about them only after hearing from concerned 1MM supporters.  Crown Media pulled the ads saying, "The debate surrounding these commercials on all sides was distracting from the purpose of our network."

"Abbott's move to ban the ads conveniently led to a reciprocal backlash from high profile LGBT activists, catapulting the controversy into the public arena.  Two days after tweets from Pete Buttigieg; Ellen DeGeneres; and, of all people, William Shatner, Hallmark's CEO, Mike Perry, promised to reinstate the Zola commercials. Perry said Abbott made the initial call to stop the ads from airing.  Perry not only announced that the ads will run, he stated that Hallmark will work with GLAAD to "better represent the LGBTQ community across our portfolio of brands."

"In other words, Judas Hallmark executives betrayed their faithful and lucrative audience with a lesbian kiss." . . .

Flashback: Corruption, Thy Name Is Hillary Clinton

PJ Media

"Now that President Donald Trump is being accused of all sort of misdeeds -- although I think it's limited to abuse of power at this point -- because he asked Ukraine to investigate possibly corrupt practices by Joe and Hunter Biden, perhaps it's time to revisit news about actual blatant corruption. It involved, who else, Hillary Clinton.
"Back in 2016, the Clinton Foundation admitted that it received a "gift" from Qatar to the tune of $1 million while Hillary Clinton was U.S. Secretary of State. Although she promised to let the State Department review any new or significantly increased foreign donations, she (and her husband) failed to inform the agency of Qatar's royal donation.
"Oops, sorry about that!"
"According to Reuters, Qatari officials "pledged the money in 2011 to mark the 65th birthday of Bill Clinton." They also wanted to meet Bill "in person the following year to present him the check.' " . . .

Big Win – Covington Boys Lawsuit Against CNN Moves Forward

PJ Media

Cernovich  "Nicholas Sandmann’s lawsuit against CNN will proceed to discovery, a federal judge has ruled. This will be a devastating blow to CNN, which will now have all of its emails examined by lawyers for a severely wronged client.
"Sandmann was one of the the high school student falsely accused of a racially-motivated attack against Nathan Phillips in Washington, D.C. Phillips was called a “Vietnam veteran” by the media, when in fact Philips was stolen valor. He never served in the Vietnam War and he was discharged from the military under circumstances suggesting a poor service record.

"Sandmann sued CNN for lying about him.
"Sandmann had been confronted earlier by a group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites – the group responsible for the deadly terrorist attack at a New Jersey Deli.
"CNN wasn’t the only outlet to attack Sandmann. The National Review’s Rich Lowry and Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro joined the hate mob against Sandmann – although they at least sort-of apologized after realizing they had been hoaxed by the left wing media. (Why do those guys trust the media would be a good question for conservatives to ask them.)
"Although the judge’s ruling was short, the court’s rationale was explained in the orders allowing Sandmann’s lawsuit to go forward against the Washington Post.
"You can read my reporting on Sandmann v. Washington Post below, as the judge’s rationale and other policy considerations apply to the lawsuit against CNN….and if you enjoy this article, you can donate to our journalism here." . . .

Sandmann had been confronted earlier by a group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites – the group responsible for the deadly terrorist attack at a New Jersey Deli.

Phillips in the past had made claims of being a "recon ranger" and a "Vietnam times veteran" who came home and was "spit on" and "called a baby killer," even though his service record shows that he had zero deployments and never left the United States.

Sorry, Joe; Barack has made his choice and it's not you

Bad news for Joe Biden: Obama endorses Michelle for president ... and in the most ickily avuncular* way  . . . "Yet even the supposedly politically savvier Obama does it in the worst kind of way - with an avuncular patronization of "the little ladies" that comes off as worthy of Joe Biden.

"Obama threw out these ridiculous rationales for what had to be Michelle, whose name is often bruited around as a last-minute brokered candidate for the Dems because she is supposedly popular:

“Women, I just want you to know, you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you’re better than us,” Obama reportedly said Monday. “I’m absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on Earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything."

...and...

Among the issues Obama thinks female leaders would excel are war and youth issues.

"Statements like these have been said about the little ladies since the pre-suffragette era. They're stupid. They're patronizing. They roll women up into an identity-politics wrapper and end their individuality entirely. A candidate is not a candidate if she's a woman, if she's a woman candidate, then she's just a woman. Obama  accentuated the stupidity by bring up women as good with kids and against war, which is another stereotype. Some are, some are not. Same as politics: Some women are good, some are not. Some women are really good but not the people Obama has in mind. Memo to Obama: Margaret Thatcher.
(Ed: I cannot see a single Margaret Thatcher in US politics; only possible guest stars on some late-night talk show.  TD)

"And I doubt that by his statement, Obama was thinking of Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Hillary Clinton or Amy Klobuchar as his vaunted women who'd do it all better than Obama did, most of these people are people he fights with. Nope, it had to be Michellem who, by the way, looks like she's lost some weight and has had a makeover.

"Michelle Obama is a ridiculous choice, of course, because she has no political record other than being someone's wife.

"But with no political record at all, she's easy to put forward under the argument: Vote for me, I'm a woman. It's actually all she has, and Obama thinks it's enough.

"Apparently, he thinks the voters are stupid."

Barack Obama's feminist nonsense By Cheryl K. Chumley  "Former President Barack Obama, at a leadership event in Singapore that he attended with wife, Michelle, told the no-doubt adoring crowd that women were awesome, men were scum and people of the world, unite! It’s time for the fairer sex to take over both boardrooms of business and power offices in politics. To paraphrase, that is.
“ '[M]en have been getting on my nerves lately,” he said, The Hill reported.
"Gag. Barf. What’s Obama trying to do — score points with his wife or start a fire of feminism?" . . .

Perhaps the endorsement is still an ongoing penance for this incident. I doubt any of America's enemies would get the look Michelle just gave in this video.

*Avuncular: ADJECTIVE;  relating to an uncle.

1. • kind and friendly toward a younger or less experienced person.
     "an avuncular manner"
     synonyms:

     paternal · fatherlike · protective · supportive · encouraging · vigilant · 
     

     [more]
   • 
     

     anthropology

     relating to the relationship between men and their siblings' children.

     Michelle Obama, back with a racially charged vengeance