Democrats Try to Dirty Up Acquittal, Don’t Really Want Witnesses

RUSH: It is so pleasing. I have to admit, it is so satisfying to see all of my predictions about what the Democrats are gonna do come true. Even after 31 years, folks, it still provides imminence pleasure when I am able to tell you in advance what they’re gonna do, and then they do it. What I’m specifically talking about is Chuck You Schumer. We just heard Chuck You Schumer lay out what the Democrats are gonna be saying from now to the election.

What did I tell you yesterday? What did I say the day before? They’re gonna dirty up the acquittal. They’re gonna claim, “The acquittal is illegitimate because the Republicans are partisan. The Republicans are scared. The Republicans don’t have any witnesses. The Republicans know Trump did it and this is the worst thing that could happen. We’re setting Trump up to be a dictator,” and that is exactly — that is exactly — what Schumer was saying in his press conference today.

And the rub is, these people do not even want witnesses, is the bottom line.

We got some audio sound bite evidence of that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I mentioned in the first hour that I can show you that I am right that the Democrats really don’t want witnesses. Now, the media does. The media’s a whole different ballgame. The media wants witnesses. The media’s convinced that they can get a conviction. They are convinced they can get Trump thrown out of office in this impeachment trial. They’re fit to be tied that the Democrats are not gonna see this through. So just to remind you, this is what I said about witnesses yesterday. The audio sound bite number 4.

Three, two, one, here we go…

RUSH ARCHIVE: I don’t think they have the votes to call witnesses, and I think they know it — and I think that what isn’t being reported and probably nobody will ever admit. But I think there are a lot of people on the left, Democrats, secretly happy about this. When this is all over, folks, just like all the rest of this stuff has been over, it is Adam Schiff who’s gonna look stupid. It is Adam Schiff who is going to be exposed.

RUSH: Okay. Now, I said that… That was yesterday on this program. So when I say it… This is a strange thing. It’s the way this happens. When I say it, it enables other people to go ahead and admit it. When I break the ice, when I go ahead and explain what’s what, then a lot of people feel freed up to echo the claim, knowing they can always blame it on me if it ends up to be incorrect.

This is a classic example of being on the cutting edge societal evolution. So yesterday afternoon on ABC special coverage of the impeachment trial of President Trump, we had the anchor George Stephanopoulos talking to the chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl, and the question to Jonathan Karl: “Do you get the sense McConnell has a very good idea where this is going?”

KARL: Frankly, George, I really don’t get the sense that the Democrats either want the witnesses that they want or they don’t want witnesses. They don’t want to see any talk of the Bidens coming in the Senate, which is what the Republicans will be talking about with a deal.

RUSH: What was that? Did you hear them at ABC? “I really don’t get the sense that the Democrats either want the witnesses that they want or they don’t want witnesses. They don’t want to see any talk of the Bidens coming in the Senate…” So next we go to CBS. “CBS Special Coverage: The Impeachment Trial of President Trump,” and here’s the anchor, Norah O’Donnell, talking to former Hillary campaign manager Robby Mook. She said, “We put up on screen the three Democrat senators there who could vote with Republicans for acquittal, and that would allow the White House to say, ‘This a bipartisan acquittal.’ Is that the worst nightmare for the Democrats?”

MOOK: I don’t think this is gonna be a big part of the election. I think the election is gonna be litigated over people’s economic reality, over big questions like leadership, commander-in-chief, so on and so forth. I think the Democrats are gonna want to move on. … Democrats are gonna move on and talk about people’s economic reality. Has the country gotten better? Do you want this man’s finger on the trigger of our nuclear arsenal?

RUSH: Did you hear that? Not only do they not want witnesses, they want this thing over yesterday. They don’t think… This is Hillary’s campaign manager; he doesn’t even think this is gonna be part of the campaign, that they’re somehow are gonna beat Trump (laughing) on running the economy, or Trump’s finger on the nuclear launch code button? “I don’t think this is gonna be a big part of the election. I think the election’s gonna litigated over people’s economic reality”?

What is their economic reality, Mook? It’s such a damn sight better than it was during the eight years of the Obama administration. Anyway, the fascinating thing here is, “I don’t think they’re even gonna be talking about this in the campaign. ” The bottom line is, whether this guy’s right or wrong about that, they don’t want witnesses.

Here’s a picture. For those of you watching the Dittocam, here’s a picture of the coronavirus task force and we’re throwing it up on the Dittocam now. This, CNN says, is proof that there’s no diversity in the Trump administration — and this is proof that we have no business listening to what this task force comes up with ’cause it’s a bunch of racist pigs. That right there, that picture right there proves that there’s no diversity in the Trump administration.

That’s what CNN sees when there is a meeting on the coronavirus convened.

RUSH: Here, move on to sound bite number 8. This is Alisyn Camerota, CNN this morning. CNN has just found out in this sound bite that Trump’s approval numbers continue to go up during impeachment.

CAMEROTA: His approval rating, they’ve gone up since the impeachment process began October 2019. This is Quinnipiac University. He’s at 38%; now he’s at 43%. You saw the same thing happen with President Clinton. What is that! What is that, the Americans approve of the president when more information comes out — out about what they’ve done wrong?

RUSH: Totally disconnected from the country — and after three years, they’re still in denial. They have no… See, to them, it made perfect sense that Clinton’s numbers would go up during impeachment ’cause everybody hates the Republicans. But they can’t understand how Trump’s numbers are going up when they think everybody hates Trump. So here is Joe Lockhart, the former press secretary for Clinton, former press secretary for the NFL for a while, and I guess… Da-da-da. I don’t know if this is in response to Camerota or not, but let’s listen and see what he’s talking about.

LOCKHART: What happened with Bill Clinton, there is a rally around your guy, you know, among your base. But I don’t think that this significantly changes his position as he goes, uhh, to face the voters. He has his base. He has done nothing to expand his base in three years, and that’s a problem for him.

RUSH: Wrong.

LOCKHART: Democrats have an opening —

RUSH: Wrong.

LOCKHART: — over the next eight or nine months, which is —

RUSH: Wrong.

LOCKHART: — and it’s a two-pronged attack on Trump — which is, A, he doesn’t care about you. He cares about himself. He hasn’t really helped you; secondly, he’s corrupt.

RUSH: Can you believe this guy, how literally divorced from reality he is? Trump doesn’t care about you? The reason they hate Trump is that he cares about you! The reason they hate Trump is because of who you are that Trump cares about. They have to go so far as to make fun of you and the way you talk. They can’t stand that Trump cares about you. They can’t stand that Trump has a connection with you. They can’t stand that you have a return connection with Trump.

They can’t stand it.

And Trump’s base has expanded. What do you think a rising approval number means? His base is expanding. Lockhart, do you see the crowds wherever Trump goes compared to no crowds where any Democrat goes? He hasn’t really helped people? How about eight years of Obama and the people being told, “Well, you gotta let all these illegals in. We don’t have any choice. They’re doing jobs the Americans won’t do. We need ’em to come in. Stop being a racist! Stop being a xenophobe. We’re not in crisis.

“These people are better Americans than you are!” That’s what we were told during Obama’s years on illegal immigration. “Those people are probably better Americans than you are,” they said. Then they said, “The economy’s in decline. Our best days are behind us. You need to get used to the fact that economic growth ain’t gonna be what it was.” “You people in Ohio and Michigan who lost your jobs? Those jobs aren’t coming back,” Obama said, but they’re back now. What do you mean, he doesn’t care about people, Lockhart?

What do you mean he hasn’t really helped people? And “second, he’s corrupt”? Corrupt? The American people have been watching full-fledged corruption on full display going on four years now at the FBI, the intelligence agencies, throughout the law-enforcement apparatus. Corruption? Trump? You guys haven’t made that case, despite trying.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is evidence again — and I just want you to know, as I’ve been telling you all week, that the primary objective here is to dirty the acquittal, dirty it up, make it have an asterisk, suspect. “It’s illegitimate like the whole President Trump presidency is! It’s because of partisanship. The Republicans don’t want to hear the evidence,” whatever it is. Here’s Chuck You Schumer making the case today. Number 12, sound bite number 12, three, two, one…

SCHUMER: If my Republican colleagues refuse to even consider witnesses and documents in this trial, this country is headed towards the greatest cover-up since Watergate.

RUSH: (laughing) Really?

SCHUMER: What will the president conclude?

RUSH: (laughing) Really?

SCHUMER: We all know. He’ll conclude he can do it again, and Congress can do nothing about it. He can try to cheat in his election again. If my Republican colleagues refuse to consider witnesses and documents in this trial, the president’s acquittal will be meaningless.

RUSH: See!

SCHUMER: There will be a permanent asterisk —

RUSH: See!

SCHUMER: — next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.

RUSH: “[T]his country is headed towards the greatest cover-up since Watergate. What will the president conclude? We all know. He’ll conclude he can do it again, and Congress can do nothing about it.” He didn’t do anything! It remains (laughing) the most amazing aspect of this. He didn’t do anything, and yet all of Washington is captivated by it. He didn’t do anything. He did not do what these allegations are. “Yes, he did, Rush. He really — he really wanted Ukraine to investigate.”

But they didn’t!

“And he didn’t want to give ’em the aid.”

But they got it!

This is Realville, Literalville. This ain’t Washington. That makes no sense to anybody that has even a smidgen of common sense. The only way it makes sense is if people understand the abject hatred that the Democrats have for Trump.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/31/democrats-try-to-dirty-up-the-acquittal/

---

Related Links

• RushLimbaugh.com: It’s Almost Over: Democrats Know They’ve Been Beaten Again - 01.30.20
• MSNBC: Schumer Warns Trump Could 'Try To Cheat In His Election Again' If Acquitted
• Breitbart: CNN’s Lockhart: Dershowitz’s Argument What You Hear from Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler
• PJ Media: Schiff Throws Tantrum Over His Staff Getting 'Smeared' by Reports on the 'Whistleblower'
• Politico: Democrats Are Already Bracing for a ‘Hostile’ Trump Transition
• https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/31/senate-votes-down-extra-impeachment-witnesses-paves-way-for-trump-acquittal/

Do Democrats really care about election integrity?

What does "election integrity" actually mean to Democrats?  A perspective is provided by the Democrat-sponsored "For the People Act" (H.R.1 in the current Congress), a dreadfully misnamed legislative mess that purports to improve election integrity and transparency.  Some of its features are:

• Mandates automatic, universal voter registration, and makes it a crime to interfere with registration

• Allows voter registration at age 16

• Mandates early voting of at least 15 days and requires paper ballots

• Restricts and impedes routine voter roll maintenance

• Prescribes strict rules for redistricting and authorizes court takeover of redistricting

• Regulates digital political advertising outright, and restricts corporate political engagement

• Requires disclosure of donors by Super PACs and so-called "dark money" groups

• Requires presidential candidates and incumbents to release 10 years of tax returns

• Supports a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision

• Supports statehood for the District of Columbia

You can see where this goes -- a grandiose "big picture" reform program that mostly suppresses free speech, cements Leftist influence, and protects incumbents -- but does virtually nothing to address actual, on-the-ground election integrity.

In any plain understanding, "election integrity" demands two things:  The trustworthiness of the voting process, and responsible voters.  So, what exactly does genuine election integrity look like?  And how can the election process help to ensure responsible voting?  Here are some necessary characteristics:

Citizen-Only Voting.  Allowing non-citizens to vote is, effectively, allowing foreign interference in our elections.  Illegal aliens in particular have by their action disrespected our laws and evaded any formal obligation to the nation.  The right to vote extends properly only to the nation's citizens, citizenship being a useful marker of allegiance and commitment.

Voter ID.  Affirmative identification is necessary to guarantee that only citizens vote, and only once per election.  Voter ID is often criticized as a barrier to voting designed to exclude certain segments of the population.  But, let's be real -- no legitimate voter in society today is unable to get proper identification.

Advance Registration.  Bluntly, if you can't get off your butt one time to go out to register in advance of elections, you plainly don't give a damn about participatory democracy and you simply cannot be counted as a responsible voter.  Automatic voter registration and election-day registration are detrimental to both election integrity and responsible voting.

Election-Day-Only Voting.  Same as above.  Apart from a few legitimate reasons for absence on voting day, all of which are adequately covered by absentee ballots, you need to express your commitment to participative democracy by voting in person, on voting day.  Early voting facilitates "ballot harvesting," bribery, and similar forms of vote fraud.

Election Roll Purging.  Voter lists need to be pruned of citizens who have moved, died, were convicted, or failed to vote over a period of time.  This is just basic, sound election-management practice.  Failure to maintain the accuracy and currency of election rolls opens up vast opportunities for election fraud.

These are commonsense features of a well-designed election process that can go a long way toward minimizing election abuses while advancing responsible voting.  But apart from paper ballots, you won't find Democrats supporting any of it.  Instead, Democrats seek to thwart such controls, suppress political speech, and cite money and influence as the corruptors of our elections, while in other venues they advocate for non-citizen voting "rights" and other electoral vandalisms.

One purpose of H.R.1, and the ostensible goal of free-voting advocates, is to make it "easy" to vote.  This is entirely wrong.  The goal instead must be to ensure conscientious voting, and only by legitimate voters, period.  Affirmative voter registration and in-person election-day voting are small but significant acts of citizenship that demonstrate a voter's civic commitment.  Making it easy to vote conversely invites reckless voting, enables voter manipulation and facilitates fraud -- which plausibly are the true goals of unrestricted voting.

But what about electronic voting technologies, both for voter convenience and to help prevent election fraud?  Do we really have to use "dark-ages" methods to achieve trustworthy elections?

Technology-enabled free-for-all voting can have outcomes such as Boaty McBoatface and similar absurdities.  Beyond that, so long as even facial-recognition and fingerprint authentication technologies can be compromised, there is much to be said in favor of the assurances that physical voting processes, paper ballots (which H.R.1 surprisingly supports) and in-person voting can provide, despite their archaic nature.  While you can generate thousands of bogus votes either way, electronic means of doing so are fast, low-cost, and can be difficult to trace and audit.  Hardcopy voting records are tangible proof of election results and invaluable evidence in discovering and prosecuting election fraud.  Though technology may improve over time, we cannot today afford the purported "efficiency" and "economy" of voting technology, in light of the risks and with so much at stake.

Accepting all that, shouldn't every citizen vote?  H.R.1 requires universal voter registration.  It is an almost mechanical assertion:  Isn't 100% election participation a worthy objective?

Emphatically not.

Voting without civic engagement is a dereliction of civic duty.  You can perhaps compel every citizen to vote, but you can hardly make them all vote responsibly.  The proper thing for disinterested citizens to do is not vote, something that can be largely self-selecting -- and would be, if they were left alone.  Let engaged, conscientious citizens, those whose diligence reflects their stake in the outcome, vote instead.  Others should stay home.

Of course, all law-abiding citizens have the right to vote.  But your fellow citizens have an equal right to expect that you will vote responsibly.  Responsible voting begins with a genuine interest in the substance of governance; it means being properly informed of issues and candidates, including being skeptical of personality and unpersuaded by propaganda and emotion.  It demands a knowledge of history and of the processes and institutions of government.  In short, it means civic engagement.  It means applying sober, informed judgment to electoral decisions.

Democrats of course reject such requirements or qualifications for voting, conveniently ignoring the essential connection of rights with responsibilities whenever it suits their purposes.

On-the-ground election interference has a long and ignoble history -- backroom ballot creation, voter intimidation, bribery facilitated by "walking-around money," with "vote early and often" a semi-facetious characterization of common corrupt practices.  But modern tendencies toward relaxed voting requirements, wholesale elimination of vital election controls and, more recently, voting by illegal aliens, are now presented fully above-board, unapologetically proclaimed as proper and just.  Today, any measure that has the effect of denying the vote to any individual is summarily dismissed as "discriminatory" and "racist" voter suppression.  This is patently obnoxious.  Unrestricted voting is arguably more corrupting than "big money" in our elections.  Requiring citizens to vote on their own initiative is hardly nefarious; it is honest common sense.

Finally, while elections may be the expression of the people's will, voting alone is neither the sole nor the overriding determinant of our governance.  The claim that "Hillary beat Trump" because of the popular vote total is as ignorant as it is meaningless, besides being boldfaced Leftist deceit.  Such a solitary focus on "the will of the people" and elevation of the popular vote is seductive but misguided.  The United States is constituted as a democratic republic, in which the brilliant inventions of the Senate and the Electoral College provide representation for the 50 sovereign states.  (Remember them?  They still matter.)  Every vote counts, but only in the context of limited, representative government.  In both lawmaking and the election of presidents, the popular vote is only one component of "what counts" for our self-governance.  If consistency mattered to leftists, they ought to embrace the Electoral College inasmuch as it embodies our country's authentic "diversity."  Instead, they call for its destruction.

The Founders trusted the people, but realized that effective self-governance needs engaged, informed citizens.  Enabling and respecting the will of the people requires trustworthy, responsible voting.  You have to wonder why the Democrats have a problem with that.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/do_democrats_really_care_about_election_integrity.html

WATCH: Deranged Liberal CNN Analyst Suggests Ted Cruz’s Young Daughters Should Be In Jail

A deranged liberal CNN analyst was filmed saying that Senator Ted Cruz’s young children should be in jail.

Brian Karem asked Senator Ted Cruz during a press conference about the impeachment trial of President Trump, “So basically what they said is Hunter Biden got a job. His dad was Vice President. If that’s a crime. I mean, shouldn’t half of your children be in prison?”

Senator Ted Cruz slammed Karem for implying that Senator Cruz has committed crimes that justify jailing his 9-year-old and 11-year-old daughters.

WATCH:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/watch-deranged-liberal-cnn-reporter-suggests-ted-cruzs-young-daughters-should-be-in-jail/

The Democrats and Socialist Contradiction

When is a socialist not a socialist?  When he or she is a Democrat.

Many people are perplexed that in the middle of one of the greatest economic periods in our nation’s history, the longest economic expansion on record, at a time when more people are doing well than ever before, so many people appear have such an attraction to what they call socialism.  Many were shocked when a Gallup poll earlier this year found that 43 percent of Americans believe socialism would be a good thing for America and a later Pew Poll found 42 percent of Americans expressed a positive view of socialism.

The Gallup poll was an attitude survey exploring how American’s attitudes toward socialism have changed over the years.  The Gallup survey indicated that American’s definition of Socialism has changed.  Today, nearly a quarter of Americans associate socialism with social equality and only 17 percent associate it with the classical economic definition of controlling the means of production.  Ever since 2010, a majority of Democrats polled by Gallup have viewed socialism positively. 

In an interesting variation to the question on preference for socialism, Gallup asked its respondents whether they would prefer government control or a free market in a number of market and societal activities.  The answers were mixed.

The respondents strongly favored a free market in technological innovation (76 percent), distribution of wealth (68 percent), the economy overall (62 percent) and wages (62 percent).  They favored government control of environmental protection (66 percent) and protecting consumer privacy online (57 percent).

In healthcare, the respondents favored free market control by 53 percent and in higher education they favored free-market control by 56 percent.  This is interesting since these are two of the major socialist legs of the current Democratic platform and they seem to have tepid support.

The significant takeaway from the Gallup Poll is that Americans tend not to view the word “socialism” in classic terms but the view is very mixed.  They say they favor equality and fairness but then strongly favor free-market control of innovation, wealth distribution and wages.  Definitely not Marx or Engels.

While 47 percent of those surveyed say they would vote for a socialist candidate for President, 58 percent said they would vote for an atheist and 60 percent for a Muslim.  So does socialist mean anything?

Today’s definition and concept of socialism is apparently muddy and ill defined.  What remains consistent and strong is the American disposition toward the free market, even in those who call themselves socialists.

While the Gallup Poll looked at changing attitudes, the Pew Poll was more of a snapshot of what people are thinking today and a contrast of America’s views of capitalism versus socialism.

Here, the contrasting views were interesting in that those who had a positive view of socialism and a negative view of capitalism tended to hold the very shallow “talking point” issues so common among the generally uninformed.  Those who held a positive view of capitalism and negative view of socialism demonstrated a slightly higher understanding of the systems.  Neither set of views really captured the essential qualities of either system and indicated a general systemic emotional response.

Respondents viewing capitalism negatively cited “benefits only a few/unequal distribution of wealth” (23 percent) and “exploitive in nature” (20 percent).  On the positive side of socialism they cited “creates a fairer, more generous system (31 percent) and “builds upon and improves capitalism” (20 percent).  No explanation for how this might work was offered.

On the positive view of capitalism, respondents noted “promotes individual opportunity” (24 percent), “general positivity” (22 percent) and “essential to America” (20 percent).  On the negative side of socialism, respondents cited, “undermines the work ethic” (19 percent), “historic and comparative failure” (18 percent) and “undermines democracy” (17 percent).

Collectively, what do these two surveys indicate?  Gallup said that in technology, the economy and wages, roughly 75% of Americans favored the free market.  The Pew Poll said that 65 percent of Americans had a positive view of capitalism.

Of those surveyed by Gallup, about 60 percent favored government control of the environment and online privacy.  The Pew Poll indicated that those positively disposed toward socialism were so inclined because it promotes a fairer, more generous system and that it builds upon and improves capitalism.

None of those surveyed commented on socialism as a form of government or seemed aware that under a socialist system they lose individual rights.  Those who viewed socialism positively seemed to do so mostly because they saw it as “fairer”, presumably because at present others had more than they did.  None commented on the tax implications of socialism and, in fact, were negatively disposed to this facet of socialism because they were strongly supportive of the free market with regard to the market and the distribution of wealth. This is an internally contradictory view.

If roughly two thirds of Americans are not favorably inclined to socialism and favor the free market with regard to economic issues, and over half favor free market control of healthcare and higher education, to whom do the current slate of Democratic candidates think they appeal?  The campaign platforms of all the remaining candidates are decidedly socialist; universal healthcare, free college, elimination of college debt, Green New Deal.  While the surveys indicate that roughly two thirds of those surveyed were in favor of government control of environmental issues, that quickly becomes an economic issue where free market again becomes the favored mechanism.

As the Democratic field falls all over itself to move ever further left toward a more classic socialism, it appears that there is ample data to substantiate what most know intuitively; they are moving further away from their voters, who have no idea what that is.  This is when a socialist is not a socialist -– when they are Democrats.

The only common thread in all of Democratville is their hatred of Donald J. Trump -- Trump Derangement Syndrome.  That is clearly manifest in the sham impeachment frenzy but that will fall far short of sufficient substance to win the election.  It is disintegrating as we watch.

With no discernable path to victory for the Democrats and a bacchanalian rite in progress guaranteed to shred their party, one can

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/the_democrats_and_socialist_contradiction.html

BREAKING — Senate Votes Against Impeachement Witnesses 51-49 …Romney and Collins Vote with Democrats

The US Senate voted on impeachment witnesses for their impeachment trial.

18 witnesses were already called in the House.

The Republicans were not allowed any of their requested witnesses in the US House sham impeachment.

Republican Senators Romney and Collins voted with Democrats.

The motion failed 51-49.
There will be no witnesses.

The US Senate then went on recess.

Right Side Broadcasting is showing the entire trial today from the US Senate.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/breaking-senate-votes-against-impeachement-witnesses-51-49/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/former-cia-chief-john-brennan-who-spied-on-trump-freaks-after-sen-lamar-alexander-announces-vote-for-no-witnesses/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/meeting-never-happened-trump-responds-to-last-minute-failed-bombshell-bolton-ny-times-story-meant-to-shake-up-impeachment/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/trump-attorney-patrick-philbin-no-new-witnesses-will-change-the-fact-that-dems-articles-of-impeachment-on-their-face-are-defective-video/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/the_right_to_a_fair_trial.html