The Sunday Four

                      By Florida Bill 

                                If you tune into the Sunday morning news shows, there is a common thread running from moderator to  moderator. It's the continued fantasy, which has been totally debunked,  that President Trump is a Russian pawn who  operates with the blessings of Vladimir Putin, who is supporting him in his re-election bid. 
                                 The conduct of the "Sunday Four" is sad and pathetic as these moderators assert the Democratic party talking points which guide their agendas. Are they competing in who can say the most to denigrate President Trump?  Bosses in the DNC appreciate  their loyalty, as do the six unimpressive candidates seeking to become the nation's 46th President.  Truth and fairness do not  seem to matter in any way to avowed "never Trumpers."  
.                                 The ranking "Sunday Four" as I see them, are NBC's "Meet  the Press" with Chuck Todd;  CBS's "Face the Nation" with Margaret Brennan; ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos and Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace. In past years, Democrat or Republican guests were treated with respect, and the goal was truth; and citizens appreciated it. But this is a new day, where partisan policies rule these "journalists."  
                                  Really, it is all kind of irrational since special prosecutor Robert Mueller determined at the end of his $32 million dollar investigation that President Trump did not "collude" or conspire in any way with Russians in his 2016 campaign. Mueller acknowledged that Russia, and other nations, have been attempting to insert their influence in American elections for years, and the USA is mindful of this and is doing its best to make the Kremlin go away. But then honesty and reality do not fit into the Democrat  agenda which looks only to blame President Trump for fabricated wrongdoing.   
                                  On the Sunday news shows, I kind of skip about and record and watch as I listen to their Q and A sessions of guests put on the hot seat.  In bygone days, these moderators were classy journalists who asked tough, objective questions. 
                                  On a recent Sunday, the aggressive four were onto more nonsense about Russians and their alleged hand holding with President Trump who supposedly will always do their bidding, national security be damned.   

                                 NBC's Chuck Todd, with his new full beard, similar to one worn by his wise and Trump hating idol, Wolf Blitzer, questioned the respected National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien  and demanded to know what he knew about how the Russians are supporting the President in his bid for reelection. And the President has been told that Russia is helping him in his campaign. 
                                   O'Brien told Todd that you have "bad information."  "I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the Russians are helping President Trump." Relentless, Todd kept demanding and demanding that O'Brien admit it all, but O'Brien remained poised explaining common sense should tell you that the Russians don't like Trump since he has been so hard on them. He pointed out that Trump has been a friend to Ukraine, Russia's enemy, providing them with financial aid and military weapons; and in America he has restored its military to its position as the most powerful fighting force on the planet; and has maintained sanctions against Russia. 
                                   After Todd, I  skipped over to 39-year-old Margaret Brennan, the distaff dope from CBS, and she too had O'brien as her guest and she too peppered him with questions demanding that he acknowledge that the President has been told that Russians  favor him and are helping him. She would not back off despite the NSA chief's denial of her assertions, and she then announced that she and CBS "stand by" the report that the Russians are helping President Trump and that the President has been told that Russia favors him--even though he has denied that he has ever been told that.  
                                    Brennan's focus on the Russians reminded me of her dedication to Democrats in a past session. A few weeks ago, John Kerry, Obama's Secretary of State guested on "Face the Nation," and claimed that President Trump had told a lie in negative comments he made about the Iranian nuclear deal from which he has withdrawn the USA. "Margaret," said Kerry, "you know that the president was telling a lie" and you are an "expert" on the Iran deal and its relationship with the USA.  Brennan was pleased at being called an "expert," by such a distinguished liberal as Kerry.  She exhibited a wry and confident smile when called an "expert, and she clearly  appreciated the flattery--like a bashful child given an unexpected cookie.    Kerry can certainly look forward to future guest appearances on Brennan's show.    
                                   And then came George Stephanopoulos, ABC's liaison with Democrats, and with the NYT,  and he too opined on how the President was being helped by the Russians. NSA's O'Brien made that show too and he told George that he had seen "no evidence" of the Russians  favoring Trump--and that Trump did not "fire" the Director of Intelligence because of revelations by someone that Trump was told that Russians were helping him. "Don't you have a responsibility as NSA chief to find out" what is going on?" Stephanopoulos demanded--but O'Brien refused to acknowledge any truth in George's declarations.  
                                Stephanopoulos has been carrying water for both Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Democrats for about  30 years. He has benefited from their influence and now earns some $20-30 million each year. He has shown his gratitude with donations to the Clinton Foundation (he tried  to keep his largess secret) and through his soft ball interviews with the former president and Mrs. Clinton through the years.  
                                     The final voice of the "Sunday Four," is the deep baritone and mushy voiced 72-year-old Chris Wallace of Fox News television.  Wallace is a registered Democrat, but he shuffles about the halls of Fox pretending to be a conservative-- and he takes a shot at Trump whenever the opportunity arises.  He is much like his former liberal colleague at Fox, Shepard Smith, whose enmity for Trump became so apparent that he had to resign last year from Fox after nearly 20 years there.  
                                                Wallace had as his guest, Marc Short, Chief of Staff for Vice President Mike Pence.  He hit Short with the same old Democrat line about how the Russians are assisting President Trump now, as they did in 2016.   Short attempted to convince Wallace that there is no evidence to support that accusation. It just isn't true and he emphasized that such a belief  defies common sense.  Why would President Putin support Trump who is assisting the Ukraine, Russia's enemy?  But Wallace would have none of it, and he continued with accusatory inquiries, containing negative reflections on the President.       
                                      Chris Wallace is the son of Mike Wallace,who, for many years, was a regular liberal inquisitor  on CBS' "60 Minutes" and was employed in the media in varying capacities for seven decades.  The senior Wallace died when he was in his 90s, and his son seems to be a liberal chip off the old block.  
                                       That Sunday was pretty typical of what is happening on the Sunday morning news shows.   They are a major element of the biased and flawed media which has clearly forgotten its role in a society which asks for truth, and which abhors a media which is tethered to one political party and has disregarded the tenets of unbiased journalism. 
                                     Trump describes the product from the biased media as "fake news,"and has said that lying journalists are the enemy of honest Americans. Undeniably, the President is on target with the "Sunday Four." 

                                             XXX

                                                      
                                   







                            

The "Get Ready for Nevada" Debate.

                  By Florida Bill                              

                                Was there anything memorable about the Democratic debate held as a runner up to the Primary election in Nevada?  The arguing and nit picking at each other, and a main cannon aimed collectively at the "Fat Cat" Michael Bloomberg, went on for two hours.  When it was over, the pundits, including the fawning Democrat-controlled media, acknowledged that the result was a zero for Democrats, and and a victory for President Trump. Even candidate Michael Bloomberg called it a win for the President.                               
                               The smart and confident face of Sen. Amy Klobuchar took a rip from candidate Pete Buttigieg who stood next to her on the six-person stage.  It was a "gotcha" as the 39-year-old Mayor Pete reminded everyone that the Senator was recently interviewed by a reporter from Telemundo, and was unable to name the President of Mexico. Wake up and smell the roses, and get with it, Buttigieg told Klobuchar in so many words. 
                                 The Minnesota senator, who is 59, grimaced and her wide mouth quivered at the corners at the put down from the former mayor of South Bend, Ind. She snapped, "Are you saying that I am dumb....or are you mocking me here, Pete?"  Obviously embarrassed, she said that she had suffered from "momentary forgetfulness" of the President's name, and so what's the big deal. She pointed out that she works in "the arena" with the pros and that Buttigieg's workplace is small and meaningless. As a way of putting down the smiling Buttigieg, she told of having had passed 100 bills in the Senate, more than any other Democratic senator.  She sought to show that Mayor Pete was in the minor leagues compared to her and operated a long way from "the arena," where she has toiled since 2007. 
                                   On and off for much of the debate, candidates offered negative comments about billionaire Bloomberg, who in  recent weeks has spent some $400 million for print and televised ads suggesting to citizens that "Mike can do it"--if they just vote for him.
                                With the help of that big wallet,  he has actually catapulted his new candidacy to a spot as one of the leaders seeking to become the Democratic standard bearer, according to the polls. 
                                    Bloomberg is a former Republican mayor of New York, who has flipped over and become a Democrat.  Reportedly, he has a net worth of $60 billion.  He is small in stature, often referred to by President Trump as "Mini Mike;" but for this debate Bloomberg did not stand on a box in an effort to gain altitude.  Generally, it is reported, he is on a box behind his podium whenever he has a mike in his hands. . 
                                    Sen Warren took off her gloves, began waving her arms and then tore into Bloomberg.  You are  a billionaire who wants to be President and you have called women "fat broads and horse-faced lesbians."  Bloomberg appeared a bit shaken at the accusation, but didn't deny it so maybe he once had made the remark. 
                                    Warren was just getting started. She then demanded to know how many non-disclosure agreements had been signed with women of his company who had complained of being harassed in the workplace.   Bloomberg said "a few" but that he did not intend to cancel the agreements as Warren was demanding, and that the nondisclosure was binding on the parties  to the contract. He said that he has hired many, many women in top positions and they are paid no less than any man and that he has a respect for the "MeToo" movement and for the rights of all women.  
                                    Others peppered Bloomberg for his endorsement of the "Stop and Frisk" policy used on New York streets when he was mayor.  He apologized for the policy, acknowledging that African American young men and Latinos suffered at the hands of aggressive policemen.  He said he regretted his endorsement of the policy which had reduced street crime by some 50 per cent.  
                                     Joe Biden actually had little to say, and when he did speak he appeared confused in trying to express himself and make his point. He actually had that far away look of a person who is not quite hitting on all cylinders.  In between his criticism of Bernie Sanders for his unworkable dreams of a socialist society which would cost trillions, he asserted that a Nevada poll had found Biden, and Biden alone, was most electable to beat President Trump in the coming election. 
                                    When Bloomberg had a chance to attack, which was in between his trying to defend himself for his treatment of women and his "stop and frisk" policy detrimental to African Americans, he called Sanders an unpopular "communist" with his pushing of programs which he had admired so in Scandinavia and Russia.  He also referenced Sanders' three homes with his position as a hard headed socialist who did not like people with money.  
                                    Sanders, 78, was criticized for not releasing all of his medical reports detailing all problems as a result of his heart attack a few months back, but he argued that he had released everything necessary to  answer all questions about his health,which he said was good. 
                                   Buttigieg noted that the Nevada Culinary Union had sent out a flyer to its members knocking Sanders because of his wanting to to "End Culinary Healthcare." Sanders flailed his arms and claimed to be a long time friend of unions and that the accusation is ridiculous, and everyone knows it. 
                                   All in all,  it was a 120 minutes stage presentation showcasing six non descriptive, and unappealing  men and women who made a strong case that they do not belong in or anywhere near the White House.

                                           XXX
                 

                                    ..

VINDMAN IS OUT, DESERVEDLY SO.

                                                            BY FLORIDA BILL

                      Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman has had his day in the sun, angling to help the Democrats put down his Commander in Chief, but it didn't work.  For all of his twisted testimony and his alliance with the sneaky, lying Congressman Adam Schiff, he has been dumped from his prestigious desk in the White House and escorted by Secret service agents out the door-- "reassigned" to a paper shuffling position at army headquarters.  
                     After monitoring President Trump's July 25, 2019, conversation with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, career officer Vindman put together an inaccurate version of the telephone call claiming that the President, his Commander-in-Chief,  had "demanded" that Zelenskyy dig up dirt on his political opponent, or else.  The "or else" meant that millions in foreign aid for Ukraine might not  materialize.  Inappropriate, and improper, said Vindman.  
                     Vindman promptly delivered his skewed oral version of the  conversation and apparent "quid pro quo" to colleagues and skipped the normal chain of command. One went to a superior and another to his twin brother,Yevgeny, who also is an army officer working for the NSC.  The dagger narrative went to an  intelligence officer who had no real need to know of the conversations of President Trump, and whose identity is being kept secret. It appears that that recipient, reportedly a friend to Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden,  had a consultation with Rep. Schiff, a Trump detractor who has vowed to take the President down and have him booted from office.  
                      The unnamed carrier of the Vindman "spin" became the "whistle blower" and attached his name to a formal complaint filed with the Justice department alleging Trump's misconduct  The complaint was drafted with all necessary legalese and appropriate background.  It is strongly believed by Republicans, independents and even some Democrats that the actual complaint was composed for the complainant by the prevaricating Schiff or a member of his staff, or even by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Jerrold "Fat Jerry" Nadler, whose enmity for the President is widely known.  
                       The filing of the complaint engendered a news frenzy with the biased media excoriating President Trump for his "quid pro quo," bribery and even extortion, and for endangering America's national security.  The clamor reinforced the Democrats' demand for impeachment of the nation's 45th President. 
                       But Trump surprised everyone by taking the unprecedented action of releasing for public consumption a transcript of the conversation,  and it clearly refuted the Vindman version as false; and it countered "Trump-hate" screams from CNN, MSNBC and others in the biased media mob.  President Zelenskyy held  a news conference in which he said that his conversation of July 25 with President Trump was friendly with no "pressure" and that the subject of foreign aid was never mentioned. His comments confirmed all that the President had said, and it destroyed Vindman's make-believe version of the conversation. 
                       The Democrats pushed for impeachment and took depositions in a basement office, sans representation on behalf of the President. Subsequently, the Adam Schiff Judiciary Committee held public hearings and called Vindman as its most important witness.
                      In the witness seat, the uniformed Vintman  squirmed and frowned at questions from Republicans on the committee who questioned the accuracy of his version of the telephone call, and wanted the names of everyone to whom he told of the call and provided them with his "spin."  He even became peeved at a congressman who addressed him as Mr. Vindman.  Please, he snapped, "that's Lieutenant  Colonel Vindman." When it was all over, his testimony fell flat. 
                       At conclusion of the hearings. two feeble and lame Articles of Impeachment were voted by the completely partisan House and sent to the Senate for trial in accord with dictates in the Constitution. After long and lame question and answer sessions before the presiding chief judge of the Supreme Court, and following nonsensical arguments about calling witnesses, the Senate voted that President Trump was"not guilty" and was acquitted of all charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment.  
                       Two days after the Senate acquittal, President Trump  focused on Vindman and had him "reassigned."   He predicted that the military may well investigate him for his false testimony, and his dodging of military protocol.  The decision as to an  investigation, he said, belongs entirely to the military.  But he emphasized that Lt. Col. Vindman was through working in the Trump White House.   
                      Asked by newsmen if he was being vindictive, Trump said "should I be happy about the way he has acted?"  It appears  that Vindman  will be staying in the army since the army is his career, but his pitching of poisonous darts at his Commander in Chief will not be helpful in advancing his career as a soldier.  
                      Vindman, 44, is a native of the Ukraine.  He and his twin brother, and a sister came to the USA with their parents when they were children.   Alexander Vindman is a recipient of a Purple Heart while in combat in the Middle East.  It was his credentials as a brave soldier with an ability to speak the Ukrainian and Russian languages which apparently lifted him from  being a line officer to a position of trust inside the Trump White House.  
                      Former Trump Chief of Staff General John Kelly commented recently that Lt. Col. Vindman had spoken out as he was trained to do, indicating that criticism of him was misplaced.    Perhaps Kelly is right in some ways.  However, Kelly fails to confront the fact that Vindman's testimony and depositions were grossly inaccurate and aided Democrats in a completely partisan attack upon his Commander-in-Chief.  The impeachment was undeserved and disgraceful and it was Vindman's tailored narrative which was key.
                                                 xxx     



                                 


                                   
            

. Alcee Hastings, the Impeached Democrat Congressman.

  By Florida Bill  

                                                                              One Democratic member of the House of Representatives has credentials as a genuine expert on the subject of impeachment.  He gave it his all in the House's partisan effort to take down President Trump,  but the Senate had other ideas and on February 5 found him not guilty of a long list of make believe charges against him. 
                                                    On the side of his Democratic colleagues, bug-eyed Adam Schiff and Schiff's hypocritical partner, "Fat Jerry" Nadler,  was 83-year-old Alcee Lamar Hastings who has been elected to Congress 14 times from his 20th Congressional district in South Florida, and is a senior member and vice-chairman on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.                                                                  Hastings' call for and expertise on impeaching the President flows from his activities in the l980s when he, himself, a federal judge appointed by President Carter,  was impeached for bribe taking and dishonesty by Congress and booted from the bench.  But the disgrace, disbarment and appellation of being a thief,  did not slow down the smooth talking, skirt chasing, silver tongued Hastings from embarking on a change of professions and a  new political career.  But, hey, that's the way it goes when Democrats give the green light. 
                                                   Hastings was a busy attorney and a contributor to Democrat causes when President Carter nominated him to be a United States District judge.  His  appointment sailed through the Senate and he promptly picked up a gavel and went to work.  He became the first African American Federal judge in the state of Florida.  
                                                   Federal judges in the USA have a special aura  about them. Unlike jurists in the state systems where judges are elected, federal judges answer to no one, and are appointed for life.  It is virtually impossible for federal judges to be removed from the bench because of  controversial rulings.  The only way to remove a federal judge is impeachment by Congress, and that has happened only six times in American history.  Hastings was the last and his incredible rebound is one for the history books.
                                                  In 1989, the People's House brought charges against Hastings for trying to sneak some $150,000 in bribe money into his pocket.  After much controversy and various types of litigation, the impeachment by the House went forward and in  1989, Senators found him guilty of bribery and high crimes and ordered his removal from the bench.  Hastings was removed from the federal bench because he was dishonest, but the senate failed to provide in its finding of guilt that he should be barred from ever holding any other federal office.  Hastings impeachment and ouster from the federal bench by Congress was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
                                                   Hastings epitomizes the Latin phrase of "Sui Generis" which means only one of its kind. He attained that distinction because he is the only federal judge impeached by the House of Representatives, and now sits as a member of that chamber.  Along with his credentials as a U.S. congressman, he has garnered praise from Speaker Pelosi who made him a permanent member of the select House committee on Intelligence. 
                                                  After expulsion from the federal bench and disbarment as an attorney,  Hastings promptly ran for  Florida Secretary of State, but lost.  The following year, 1992, he ran for Congress and was elected in a predominantly African American district by a close margin after he accused his white opponent of being a "racist bitch."                                                                                                        He brought to the People's House  a fiery rhetorical style and a penchant for controversy.  He became a favorite of Speaker Pelosi and she was prepared to  appoint him as the chairman of the select committee on intelligence, but then backed away from that plan following complaints that citizens did not want a "crook" in that spot.
                                                    Several years ago as the "MeToo" movement was gathering steam, it was revealed that Hastings was being sued by a woman who had been on his staff for targeting her for sexual favors.  Hastings found a way to settle the matter by having a special House fund pay her $220,000.  Republicans and others objected to the misuse of the money supplied by american taxpayers, but promises of a full investigation of his conduct never materialized. 
                                                     After President Trump took office, Hastings was among Democratic congressman who declined to stand for the President at his swearing in and later displayed his displeasure and refused to  applaud during Trump's state of the union messages.                                                                                   The nattily-dressed congressman is garrulous and friendly and is said to have snake-oil charm and skill in peddling his medicine of choice. Inside the 435-member House of Representatives, he is now part of the Democratic leadership, sitting as a senior member of the House Rules committee; and as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Congressional Black Caucus.
                                          Money seems to remain a necessary goal of Hastings, as it was when, in his black robes, he was accused of granting leniency in exchange for money.  He is reported to have a net worth of nearly five million dollars, yet, a few years ago, he was in the forefront of congressmen demanding an increase in their annual $174,000 salary. The demand fostered an uproar and the ex-judge was castigated for his "arrogance" and "insensitivity." One man observed that with the country's shaky economy and a median American household income of $51,000 a year, the congressional cry of poverty over a $174,000 salary is grossly misplaced. The Wall Street Journal took issue with the congressman's poor mouthing, and pointed out in an article that Hastings spent $25,000 in one year--2008--to lease a luxury car.
           Hastings has employed his girl friend on his staff and she has been paid  several million dollars since 2000. In 2012, Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan government watchdog organization, reported that Rep. Hastings was Congress' number one practitioner of Nepotism on Capitol Hill, having paid Ms. Patricia Williams $622,000 between 2007 and 2010. Hastings did not quibble about the amount of her earnings, but argued that since she was a girl friend, and not a family member, it did not equate to "nepotism." Williams had served as his counsel and companion during his trial and impeachment problems, and the generous staff salary helps with his relationship and maybe an unpaid legal fee. Williams' annual salary was reported as $168,000.
          With all of his history as a dishonest federal district judge and his congressional maneuverings for money, Hastings remains popular with Democrats and the liberal media, and is endorsed and re-elected regularly. Still, with his history and unique "credentials," it seems like he should "zip it."  He is the last person to be criticizing President Trump. for being corrupt and dishonest.  
                                                    XXX














                                                         

Joe Biden's Story

                                                       BY  FLORIDA BILL 

                                          For nearly a half-century, Joe Biden has been around Washington politics.  He was a U.S. senator from Delaware for six terms and then put in eight more years as Vice President in the administration of Barack Obama.
                                            Now he is running for President and aiming to become the Democrat standard bearer in next November's election.  It's the third time he has sought the office. He drew some puzzled looks when he told a crowd that he was 77 and would be a one-term president, vowing that he would never seek reelection. His comments made sense, but were nevertheless  unusual and unexpected, but not uncharacteristic coming from the Biden mouth.  
                                           To some political masterminds and analysts and to the media which fawns over Democrats and loathes Republicans, his promise to be a one term President was consistent with his unpredictable rhetoric.  Free swinging and inane  comments have always marked him as dippy "Uncle Joe." His gaffes and frequent malapropisms were just "Joe being Joe." 
                                          Recently, old story teller Uncle Joe showed up at a rally and  recounted memories of years ago when he was a life guard at a beach and that a bunch of kids hanging with a guy called "Corn Pop,"  rubbed his "hairy legs" and made the hairs stand out and turn blond in the burning sun. Not quite sure of his point, but that was Joe letting it all hang out. 
                                           Biden has always been a decent, friendly well-liked guy who got along well with the hoi polloi. He told a lot of stories and most were not true, but they were fun to listen to.  Then, in 2008 Barack Obama picked him, a fellow senator,  as his vice presidential running mate and that team became residents of the White House for the next eight years. 
                                           Last April the white-haired Biden who had once been bald, but nowadays has regrown hair, announced that he was a candidate for President in next November's election and currently leads a big pack of contenders seeking to be their party's nominee. His old friend Barack Obama, the former President, has dodged endorsing Biden, and Biden has explained that he persuaded Obama to stand down on this explaining ---"I wanted to win and do it all by myself." 
                                          If he becomes the Democratic standard bearer, he will be running head on against incumbent Donald Trump who is seeking his second four year term.  Trump calls Biden, "Creepy, Sleepy Joe" and seems to be looking forward to taking him on.   
                                          Biden's announced positions such as endorsing open borders and free medical care for everyone as well as bringing millions of poor people into America, might be a tough sell, but Democrat strategists have confided that he appears to be the only Democrat who realistically has a shot  at beating the blustering incumbent whose policies have made the nation's economy shine. 
                                          Biden is an attorney who says that law school was his most boring time in life.  He graduated from the Syracuse University College of Law, but just barely, finishing 79th out of a class of 85. He almost got booted for plagiarizing some papers, but instead he was given an "F" in that class, but then allowed to retake the class --which he did-- and the school deleted the "F" from his record.
                                           Personally, I find it amazing that Joe Biden was so successful in the face of his many years of his "touchy-feely" conduct toward women and his unusual statements and malapropisms.  In one article by the Washington Post he was described as the "Lamborghini of Gaffes."  Some politicians make blundering idiotic statements, and  malapropisms and it assures defeat. With Biden, his bone-headed comments netted mostly chuckles and the shaking of puzzled heads.  One former defense official once observed that in Biden's entire career, he has always been on the "wrong side" of foreign policy decisions and solutions. 
                                            Who can forget him saying upon the passing of Obamacare that "this is a f....ing big deal."----and his  admitting a bit later, that as to the Obama-backed plan, "there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong." Then there was the political rally and Biden called for those attending to applaud a particular guest.  "Stand up Chuck," he called out to the paralyzed man who was in a wheelchair. In another rare moment He mourned a woman ("God rest her soul") who hadn't died.  

                                            He often labels President Trump as a "racist." He could have trouble with that one as a result of telling an audience a few years back that "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven ...unless you have a slight Indian accent."                                                  
                                           After his selection as President Obama's running mate, Biden got carried away praising the presidential candidate with whom he had served in the U.S. Senate. He heralded  the aggressive nature of Obama and noted that the future African American president was cut from the same cloth as Republican Teddy Roosevelt.  "I can  tell you this," said Biden:  "Barack has a big stick."  
                                            Actually, Biden opened 2007 by announcing that he (Biden) was a candidate for the highest office of the land, and that Obama would need "on the job training" if he ever got the job. But he was a Democrat and then apparently in an attempt to be fair, added that Obama was " the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.  I mean that's a storybook, man."  (Biden was severely criticized for the comment.)  Obama never held ill will toward Joe, and apparently took him under his wing, accepting that Biden's foolish comments were just an unavoidable part of his genes.  
                                         You might wonder if his uncontrolled and nit-witty comments splashed about for nearly 50 years will hamper his campaign.  Will his  observations be just the spark enabling incumbent Trump to paint Biden as perhaps too uncontrolled or just too dumb to be president? 
                                     Primary elections will be beginning soon and while Biden has been leading in  the polls, he is certainly not a shoo in to become the nominee of the Democrat party. Even with endorsement by the popular Obama, the loose-lipped Biden would have a tough road ahead. 
                                     While President Trump has been impeached by the House and is now awaiting decision by the Senate, the partisan attack on him seems to have actually pushed up his popularity.  The vitality of the nation under his administration has brought greater prosperity and job opportunities for all citizens, including African Americans. Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani have asserted that the loose-lipped Biden, "Lamborghini of Gaffes" has been corrupt in his Washington dealings for many years. 
                                    Trump and Giuliani are demanding that Biden explain his conduct in dealing with Ukraine when he was the "point man" to that European nation during the Obama administration. His son, Hunter, a lawyer and a cocaine addict who was kicked out of the Navy, was a board member of the Ukraine gas company,  Burisma Holdings, earning some $83,000 a month.  Hunter did not speak the Ukrainian language and did not relocate and live in Ukraine; and had no expertise in gas matters.  
                                      Biden keeps saying that there is no evidence that he or his son did anything wrong, and the Democrat- tethered media backs him.  But Biden may yet be put on a stand and made to testify under oath.  Giuliani has said that Joe Biden had his fingers in Ukraine policies and did his best to discredit President Trump when he ran for election in 2016.  President Trump has said that the Bidens are "stoneface corrupt."  Giuliani has said that "Joe Biden has been corrupt his entire life.  I know it and I can prove it." 
                                     
   
                                               xxx

                              
                                             
                                                                                

                                              
       ."                                     

IMPEACHMENT AND WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT

                                            
     By Florida Bill                        
                                             Stumbling and slurring her words, sanctimonious Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues on her ill-fated mission to bring down the nation's duly elected 45th President. But, she says that she still "prays for him." 
                                             Standing with Pelosi are her malleable point men in the House of Representatives--- the bug-eyed lying machine, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, and the hypocrite of record, "Fat Jerry" Nadler of New York.  Also out front in the impeachment effort are the screaming Trump-hater, Mad Maxine Waters and the flatulence-afflicted and mouthy Eric Swalwell, a Pelosi comrade from California.
                                             Every Democrat in the Democrat- controlled House, except for three, voted in favor of impeachment, and every Republican, joined by the errant Democrats, voted against impeachment. Shamefully, it was the most partisan act for impeachment in the history of the republic.  
                                            The case against the the President is contained in two feeble Articles of Impeachment.  One accuses the President of pressuring the president of Ukraine to do his (Trump's) bidding or suffer the loss of about $400 million in U.S. foreign aid; and the second Article asserts that the President abused his office by obstructing congress in its oversight duties.
                             The alleged Ukraine wrongdoing is a fantasy created by Democrats driven not by a duty to country, but because of a basic dislike and even raw hate for Republican Donald Trump who belittled, ran over and defeated Hillary Clinton for the high office three years ago. 
                             In neither article did the Democrats articulate and point to a crime committed by the President, or to any conduct in violation of a federal statute.   In Article Two, House accusers alleged that the President thumbed his nose at Congress  by declining to respond to subpoenas for documents from Trump or from members of his family, friends and administration, worded so as to invent something to show criminal behavior.
                            The inanity of Article Two is blind to the fact that the constitution empowers the President to exert executive privilege as a right, and if his detractors wish to prevail with their subpoenas, they must seek resolution from the federal court.  Pelosi's Democrats did not exercise that option, and the result is that Trump's order to ignore the subpoenas as part of a "hoax" and a phony "witch hunt" stands unchallenged. 
                            Article one accuses the President of pressuring  President Zelensky of Ukraine to do his (Trump's)  bidding and investigate former Vice President Biden and Biden's cocaine- addicted son, Hunter, or suffer the loss of $400 million in USA foreign aid. The allegation is grounded on a July 25, 2019, telephone call which Trump made to the Ukraine president  and became the subject of a so-called "Whistle Blower" complaint by an intelligence officer in the state department who was a close friend of  former Vice President Biden.
                           Despite weeks of hyping, and a televised House "inquiry" supervised by the disingenuous Schiff, an actual  transcript of the call was released for public consumption  by Trump and it showed that there was no "pressuring" spoken or insinuated by him.  The Democrat charge of a Trump "quid pro quo" went up in flames totally when the Ukraine president held a news conference in which he praised President Trump and confirmed that there was no "pressuring" of him  and that he was unaware that millions in foreign aid had any relevance to the conversation.
                           It would seem that Pelosi Democrats with a moral compass would have dropped the matter upon hearing from the Ukraine president, but they did not and instead disgraced themselves further by passing off to the "never Trump" media allegations that President Trump was guilty of "bribery" and "extortion," and then delighted as the false allegations were repeated on CNN, NBC and other Trump-hating stations.   
                           Pursuant to the Constitution, the voted Articles of Impeachment must be delivered to the Senate so that a trial can be held on the charges. But the misguided, teary-eyed Pelosi has elected instead to sit on the articles with a demand that she have a say in how the Senate proceeds with the trial of President Trump. She said that she would do nothing with the articles and accusations until later in January after congressmen return from celebration of the holidays. 
                             The constitution, along with abundant case law, gives to the Senate, the upper house of Congress, the total and sole authority in how an impeachment trial is to be conducted.  The House has no voice in determining the rules for the trial. There may or may not be witnesses testifying other than by those whose testimony during the "inquiry"powered the Articles  of Impeachment. 
                              President Trump has said that he favors a full trial in which his defenders would bring on witnesses to testify; and that those witnesses should include former Vice President Biden and his cocaine addicted son Hunter, who the President has called "stone-faced corrupt."    Other witnesses,  urged by the President and Republican congressmen, should include the Whistle blowing friend of Biden's, and fact witnesses, to include Adam Schiff who allegedly counseled  the whistle blower and and may have actually composed the formal complaint which was filed.     
                              The Senate would also have the option of examining the articles from a legal position, and could simply dismiss them for their failure to state a cause of action. If there is a trial, a finding of guilty would require a yes vote by two-thirds of the sitting 100 senators.    
                                

                                                    xxx    
                             
                                             

Pelosi "Prays" for the President

. 

              By Florida Bill                              

                                   In Nancy Pelosi's recent news conference, she announced to the press that its full speed ahead, and that she has given the order to the Judiciary Committee chairman, Jerrold "Fat Jerry" Nadler  to draft Articles of Impeachment against the nation's 
45th President. 
                                  She had a sanctimonious aura about her as she informed the press and those listening in on television that impeachment would go forward.  It is with "confidence and humility" that I now speak to the need to take the president down in accord with the constitution.                
                                   But as she turned haughtily, and prepared to leave the stage,  Reporter James Warren, a tough, no-nonsense newsman for Sinclair TV, stopped her in her tracks with the question: "Speaker, do you hate the President?"  It was a rhetorical question for sure and Warren knew the answer.  If the 79-year-old Pelosi was a slave to honesty, she would have responded, "Yes, I do--and he ought to be in prison." 
                                 But telling the truth is not part of the Pelosi playbook, as her accusations that President Trump is a criminal and an  "imposter" who has violated his oath to the constitution are so disingenuous and far-fetched that her ability to be truthful about anything is suspect.  She is the first and only woman to serve as Speaker of the People's House and in that role she is the powerful, central figure in the completely partisan attack by Democrats on the Republican President. 
                                 But then, instead of exiting the platform in the face of Warren's question, Pelosi did an about face and exhibited an even more  sanctimonious face;  and then avowed that she does not "hate" the president..."Do not accuse me," she snapped.  She was raised a Catholic, she told the news reporters, and was taught not to hate anyone.  And in this case,  she does not "hate" the President.  She actually thinks of him every day and  "prays for him."  
                                 Though not hating him, she added:  "I think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids, who are afraid of gun violence." I think he is cruel when he doesn't deal with helping our Dreamers, of whom we are very proud.......and he denies climate change. She avoided saying that he belongs behind bars as she has said in the past.  
                                Her voice was low and a bit raspy as she poured out this political drivel, acting as though she was fighting her emotions. That teary-eyed drama is a technique often used by politicians trying to make a point, and to escape ridicule for embarrassing blunders. At that point, she turned her big gun on Warren and castigated him for his arrogance and for his daring to ask such an insulting question.   Acting as though she was  speaking to an underling in the great halls of Congress, she told the veteran reporter: "Don't mess around with me with those kind of words."  On that note, Pelosi turned and left the room. 
                                 Very likely that Warren, a veteran reporter that has been at odds with bureaucrats in the past, was not particularly moved by the emotions from the aged speaker whose overall political performance has been dismal and way too partisan for any capable leader. He observed to Pelosi that he was merely asking a legitimate question, and then made notes of her meltdown..  
                                                               The House with its 233 Democrats are expected to vote yes on impeachment of the President. All 197 Republicans in the chamber have said they will vote against impeachment.   The partisan effort runs contrary to two previous impeachment efforts by Congress.  With President Clinton, Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of impeachment.  President Nixon,  who resigned prior to formal action by the House, was facing bipartisan demands that he be impeached. 
                                  If the articles of Impeachment are voted, those charges will be sent to the Senate for trial and two thirds of that body, 66 senators, would be needed for a conviction. The Senate is controlled by the Republicans and acquittal of President Trump is regarded as a certainty.
                                  President Trump has called the entire impeachment attack on him a "hoax" and a political "witch hunt" pushed by Democrats " who have gone completely insane" because  Hillary Clinton was the loser in 2016.  President Trump's attorneys have said that if there is a trial, Republican defenders of the President are prepared to "mess around" with Democrats; and will  subpoena everyone with relevant information and that will include Congressmen Schiff and Nadler as well as former Vice President Biden and his cocaine addicted son, Hunter; and other lying   individuals in "the swamp" who participated in the disgraceful effort to attack a duly elected President. 
                                                 xxx