Friday, December 20, 2019

Call Their Bluff, Yertle

Now, the slapdash half-assed and fullashit shampeachment will not be forwarded to the Senate, and the House has adjourned until next year.

Some folks are worried this could slide out from under us.

I'm not.

If they stage a successful coup, it will simply be time to shoot the bastards, and no more fucking around wondering about when it's time. (Claire Wolfe, call your office...)

At that point, it ain't about Trump, it's about not tolerating living in a banana republic dictatorship.
Open season, no bag limit, screw the regs.

Say "when".

They want to play for blood, they're going to find a lot of folks who'll be their Huckleberry.
Let's see if they really want to open that ball.

But it all becomes moot if Senate Majority Leader Yertle McTurtle simply states,
"Since the House refuses to send forward any notification of impeachment in a timely manner, we hereby consider the entire baseless process null and void, and serve notice that we consider the matter closed to further consideration. If the Speaker is so uncertain the House's action passes the basic fairness test, and meets normal standards of jurisprudence, we consider that no impeachment has been duly enacted by that body. If the House decides to do this all over again, from scratch, and this time they can find a shred of evidence for any of their charges that actually exist in U.S. Code, and an actual bona fide crime, and allows confrontation of witnesses and cross examination by the minority as well as the majority, and observes other basic and fundamental rules of American jurisprudence, the Senate may be inclined to take notice of an actual bill of impeachment that passes the standard set forth in the United States Constitution at that time, should the House return to the rule of law; but in an election year, we're liable to be awfully busy. All in favor, say 'Aye'. Motion passes. Senate adjourned."
If he did that, and called Nancy Alzheimers' bluff,
1) he'd win the argument
2) the Leftards' heads would explode
3) The House would shift right by 50 seats
4) rank and file Democrats would march on their leadership and set them on fire, alive
5) right after Pres. Trump carried 45 states next November
6) popcorn stocks would go through the roof

Bring it.


MMinLamesa said...

I guess if we're wishing, I'd like to be a wideout for the Broncos with Manning drilling them deep to me.

Your scenario is as likely as mine.

In a body of DC scumsuckers(yeah Cory Gardener, I mean you) with McConnell leading them, don't be counting any chickens. They're NUMBER 1 concern is getting reelected but contrast any of their actions up until this point to the dem senators during Clinton's trial.

Imagine a senate full of the like of Kevin Nunes and Jim Jordan. Instead we've got a couple of stand outs like Tom Cotton, Braun and Johnson and a senate full of Cornyns and Ernsts.

Good fookin' grief.

Anonymous said...

Another option would be to call their bluff:

The Senate could simply say that the House has NO standing to be able to dictate how the Senate operates. IF the Sham-Peach-Ment is so important to the House, then ALL Senate legislation will await the bill that the House is currently withholding.

If I am not mistaken the bill funding the government still has not passed the Senate.

With this action the nation will see that it is the demoncrats who will cause the government shutdown. Since the media and the demoncrats always like to blame any government shutdown on the Republicans, they can see how that shoe feels on the other foot. (or more appropriately in the other mouth or shoved halfway up their third point of contact)

Nancy and the boys will be holding the bag "o" crap that is this legislative coup and they will own it on election day.

MSG Grumpy

Anonymous said...

Maybe Pelosi is scheduling a lobotomy and doesn't want to spoil Democrat's Christmas ?

If Trump is clear and present danger to our country, then a delay would only increase the chances of worse damage. I guess Pelosi is fine with that.

This turd is getting riper by the minute ...

Badger said...

Claire Wolfe had pretty good perception when she said that over 20 years ago.

Fred ∆ said...

It's not a question of IF, but of WHOM will be Waco'd first. Then what "lone wolf" retaliatory measure by comrades of the fallen will be and where.

Sandtabling Piglosi's and Yertles' circle jerk is useless.

We are already at war. We are already dead.

Anonymous said...

Since the actual process of transferring the impeachment from House to Senate is not addressed in the Constitution, McTurtle should show some nads and pass Senate procedural rules that specify the following:

Any impeachment document from the House to the Senate must be forwarded for action within 96 hours of the impeachment vote.

All high crimes and misdemeanors that are addressed in the impeachment document must be annotated with the respective US code.

Any failure to follow the above rules makes the impeachment null and void in the eyes of the US Senate.

Since the Senate makes it's own procedural rules, and the pubs own the Senate, McTurtle could easily do something along those lines. For shits and giggles he could also pass a procedural rule that states if the House passes impeachment that becomes null and void, the sitting Speaker of the House should be beaten with rebar wrapped with barbed wire - but that is just a dream I guess.

Old Grayback Grunt

James M Dakin said...

Who said, "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal"? Mark Twain? Not sure. Just know that there is ONE party in this country. Call it Rich Bitches Party, or call it The Imperial Party. Not sure why we pay any attention to the food fight between two sides of the same coin, part of the Kabuki Theater. In my humble opinion, and I know you won't agree because only the American Empire among all empires throughout all of history won't crash, this idiocy is just a distraction from the derivatives imploding and the liquidity crises. Not to say I won't enjoy shooting communists, you understand, even if they are Federal Reserve stooges. Everyone needs a hobby. Got food? Got ammo?

Aesop said...

What in blistering fuck makes you wildly imagine I think America is uncrashable?

Nothing is writ larger in world history but that what cannot continue, will not.

We are headed for that bridge out like an express train.
And Pelosi and her fellow retards are greasing the brake shoes.

Aesop said...


Not saying Claire wasn't right about things 20 years ago.
That's the point: it was 20 years ago.
But Awkward Time is rapidly drawing to a close.

As CA notes frequently on WRSA: "This is where we are. Imagine where we'll be."

Borepatch said...

The test for the Republic is whether the Democrats get a proper thrashing at the polls next year. If they do, it will force the (remaining) Democrats to be more sane - or join the Whigs. unusually for a President's second term, he will be in a stronger position, with party loyalty cemented and his opposition weakened. Ideally, we'd see a carload of indictments. There are a lot of "ifs" there.

The Democrats are playing a very weak hand, trying to bluff into an inside straight. Trump isn't the kind to blink, and RINOs who *would* blink (**cough** Mitt Romney **cough**) can't scrounge up enough support in the Senate. Schumer doesn't have any good cards in his hand, and all Cocaine Mitch needs to do is insist on the same rules as for the Clinton impeachment. At this point if the Dems don't give in, then every day will see them lose support as the clock ticks towards November 3.

If the Dems actually cheat their way to the inside straight (say, by ballot box stuffing) then the rest of us know that the game is "One man, one vote, one time".

DTG said...


Bear Claw Chris Lapp said...

They will hold the impeachment in hopes for a senate flip. Until then just more election screeching.

Anonymous said...

What is missing in most analysis is the radical element, using the correct etymology of the term. (There has been a great diminution in fundamental knowledge, what used to be called reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar, civics, geography, science, history, and rhetoric. I and my contemporaries were blessed to receive such; I think that it is generally unusual now, and rare in a government school.)

Going back to the term radical; it does not mean "extreme" as how it is now often used. It means the very root of things: "of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: such as. a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant." Foundational, primary and original are all synonyms.

When I say that the radical is missing from many analyses, I mean that frequently the topic in view is the political position(s) or tactics contemplated or being used.

What I do not see often is the foundational (radical) premise: good versus evil. There seems to be a general tendency to label the players as stupid, disingenuous, crazy, and other attributes, which all can be true. I do not often see the willingness to call them what they truly are: evil.

After all, if good and evil do not exist, then all we are speaking of is consensus, which retains zero moral authority. In the absence of good and evil, morality does not exist.

If we lose sight of this distinction, we could eventually descend into their same crazy stupid world. Since good and evil does exist, it is incumbent to maintain a strong grip on good.

Since good and evil does exist, and I can, using the standards of the "old paths", easily define these people as evil. As such, arguendo, what then would you expect if you believed that your opponent was truly evil? When you use that premise as your measuring stick, you are better prepared to estimate where they are willing to proceed.

Aesop said...


radical: adj.:

1. (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.

2. advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.

Radical means a drastic change going all the way down to the foundation.
It does not signify the foundation itself.

When last I looked, a classical education included some familiarity with the dictionary.

Good and evil are indeed the foundational framework of understanding.
Making them interchangeable is the radical revision of that framework.
It undoes the entire fundament upon which human understanding and behavior is predicated.

Anonymous said...

Classical indeed. Which includes both Latin and Greek, the former being the principal origin as in radix.

radical (adj.)
late 14c., in a medieval philosophical sense, from Late Latin radicalis "of or having roots," from Latin radix (genitive radicis) "root" (from PIE root *wrād- "branch, root").

Only relatively later was a modern twist placed upon it: "Political sense of "reformist" (via notion of "change from the roots") is first recorded 1802 (n.), 1817 (adj.), of the extreme section of the British Liberal party (radical reform had been a current phrase since 1786); meaning "unconventional" is from 1921. U.S. youth slang use is from 1983, from 1970s surfer slang meaning "at the limits of control." Radical chic is attested from 1970; popularized, if not coined, by Tom Wolfe. Radical empiricism coined 1897 by William James."

Gunner said...

We want a trial!!! We do not want the senate to dismiss the impeachment! Why?! In a trial, all the facts about the Dems paid for Russian dossier, Clinton’s emails, Biden’s money laundering, etc.
NO trial - the Dems win the PR war and wave the impeached Flag to victory in the election with the Press shouting it from the rooftops.
They then impeach Supreme Court justices, and dismantle the rest of the constitution and bill of rights.
Game over.
Demand tha Mitch McConnel have a fair trial, with TV cameras. Demand that That the Spotlight be shown on the Truth bright and True!

Anonymous said...


Your assumption is that "fair" has an objective meaning. Sort of like attorney-client privilege or presumption of innocence?

That is all so last year.

You have just watched the modern communist party (the media, which is the real party) and their apparatchiks (The Dems) insist that DJT has to provide and prove his innocence. Do you really think that any process or procedure is sacrosanct sufficiently to your point of obtaining something objectively defined as "fair"?

At the moment of triumph, anticipate that the R's will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Then, if you are surprised, it will only be pleasantly.

Robin Datta said...

The Senate should NOT nullify anything. Have the House eat their own turd.

The Senate should resolve immediately, that:

•"All high crimes and misdemeanors that are addressed in the impeachment document must be annotated with the respective US code."
•"ALL Senate legislation will await the bill that the House is currently withholding."

That would be the finest Christmas present to America!

Bear Claw Chris Lapp said...

Nobody is going to jail. The House will not send it to the senate it has more screeching value and no truth coming out.

James M Dakin said...

Dear Benevolent Host-speaking to the readership at large. You've demonstrated your preparedness chops before. Apologies at the misunderstanding.

Aesop said...

No harm, no foul.