New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution

From Professor Jonathan Turley, at the Hill, "Swift new impeachment would damage the Constitution":

The author Franz Kafka once wrote, “My guiding principle is this. Guilt is never to be doubted.” Democrats suddenly appear close to adopting that standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump. With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends.

Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his remarks to supporters before the rioting at the Capitol. Like others, I condemned those remarks as he gave them, calling them reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. But his address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court.

When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress. Trump told the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”

Still more (via Memeorandum).  

Nancy Pelosi Drunk Video is Preview of 2020

The video's still up.

See, "Watch: Politics Watchdog Video of Drunk Nancy Pelosi."

And at the Los Angeles Times, "A doctored video of Nancy Pelosi shows social media giants ill-prepared for 2020":

Hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed a conference Wednesday, a distorted video of the California Democrat’s conversation began spreading across the internet.

The manipulated clip, slowed to make Pelosi sound as if she were slurring her words, racked up millions of views on Facebook the following day. It was posted to YouTube, and on Thursday night was given a boost on Twitter when Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer and former mayor of New York, shared a link with his 318,000 followers.

By Friday, the three social media giants were forced to respond to this viral instance of political fakery. How they dealt with the issue, three years after being blindsided by a wave of fake news and disinformation in the 2016 election cycle, may serve as a harbinger of what’s to come in 2020.

And for those who had hoped that new technology, stricter standards and the full attention of these powerful Silicon Valley companies might stem the tide of lies, the case of the Pelosi video does not bode well.

Facebook, where the clip found its largest audience, refused to take it down. A spokesperson for the company said that the video does not violate Facebook’s Community Standards, adding in a statement that “we don't have a policy that stipulates that the information you post on Facebook must be true.”

Instead, Facebook ran the video through its official fake news process, codified since the company admitted it had a problem in late 2016. It submitted the clip to a third-party fact-checking company, which rated it “false.” Following that judgment, the company drastically decreased how often the video is automatically displayed in users’ newsfeeds and appended an info box below it linking to articles that say that the clip is a fake.

“We work hard to find the right balance between encouraging free expression and promoting a safe and authentic community,” the spokesperson said. “We believe that reducing the distribution of inauthentic content strikes that balance. But just because something is allowed to be on Facebook doesn’t mean it should get distribution. In other words, we allow people to post it as a form of expression, but we're not going to show it at the top of News Feed.”

YouTube deleted all copies of the video on its site after being notified of its existence following a Washington Post report on the video. The company said in a statement that the clip violated its policies, and added that it did not “surface prominently” on the site or in search results.

The Google-owned video platform said last year that it was tweaking its algorithms to promote more authoritative news sources. The company also introduced panels similar to Facebook’s info boxes that appear below videos dealing with common conspiracy theories or produced by state-run media outlets to give viewers more context, though a Buzzfeed investigation in January found that they were inconsistently used.

Twitter declined to comment on the Pelosi clip in particular and has not taken formal action...

You know, who's helping who here?

I noted yesterday that Big Tech had deep-sixed the video in search results, not only Facebook, but Twitter and YouTube as well. I had to dig around myself to find it, and that took a while.

So, a parody video that's a literally laugh riot, of a public figure who can't claim libel, because such speech is protected, gets full censorship on offer from her political allies. That's practically a political contribution, which is regulated under federal law.

It's more than antitrust as a basis for regulation of Big Tech. It's also political racketeering, influence-peddling, and campaign finance violations.

We're in a political war. And it's the left that's waging it against normal Americans. Don't ever let the leftist media tell you otherwise.

More at that top link.

Watch: Politics Watchdog Video of Drunk Nancy Pelosi

Neither Google nor Facebook will let you search for this video. I had to go in and find Politics Watchdog and scroll down.

And people wonder why the fury at leftist social media and tech?

Watch, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on President Trump walking out infrastructure meeting: 'It was very, very, very strange'."

Who knows how long this will be available. Leftist media outlets are in a rage, raging to have Facebook take it down.

At the Guardian U.K., via Memorandum, "Facebook refuses to delete fake Pelosi video spread by Trump supporters."

And at WaPo, "Pelosi videos manipulated to make her appear drunk are being shared on social media."

She does sound drunk, lol. What a freakin' masterpiece!

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi Become Instant Memes with Democrat Response to President Trump's Border Wall Address (VIDEO)

Robert Stacy McCain has the analysis, "Schumer and Pelosi Own the Shutdown Even as They Try to Blame Trump."

And at Instapundit, "STEPHEN GREEN: “The content of the speech reminds me of Bill Clinton, in that it’s smartly triangulated and far more reasonable than his critics tried to make you expect.”

It really was instant meme town last night --- Schumer and Pelosi looked terrible!

The meme's were practically writing themselves! See Twitchy:

‘Chuck and Nancy already look like a meme’: Democrat response is an optics fail https://t.co/fCPEPm1OSN

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 9, 2019

Emily Miller had some of the best tweets analyzing the optics (although not included at Twitchy):

TV tip for Schumer and Pelosi - When on a two shot, look at the person talking, not at the camera. Gives impression of hostage tape.

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 9, 2019

I’m sure Chuck and Nancy have been on TV as much as I have. How do they not know to look at the speaker ?

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 9, 2019

2. The other TV tip reason Chuck and Nancy seemed weird to viewers is they were both reading along the TelePrompTer as the other spoke. They weren’t reacting to the other’s message. Thus the dead in the eyes appearance.

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 9, 2019

And here's the full video, for the lolz:

Nancy Pelosi Claims Democrats Are 'Capitalists' (VIDEO)

This has to be one of the biggest laughers of the new year.

The Democrats are "capitalist"?

Well, no.

The Democrats are a quasi-Marxist socialist party that can't stand the free market. The only thing holding back leftists from nationalizing huge sections of the American economy is the historic commitment to free enterprise by the American people. Polls do show lagging support among the young for the free market, but of course these people are idiots. One of the greatest benefits of electing President Trump is the brake he puts on Democrat attacks on the free market economy. Trump's literally saving this country from ruin. And leftists hate him for it.

In any case, more from John Sexton, at Hot Air, "Nancy Pelosi on Democrats: ‘We’re capitalist and that’s just the way it is. However…’"



More at PuffHo, "Why Nancy Pelosi’s Comments About Capitalism Disappointed Progressives."

House Democrats Brace for Potentially Tense Retreat

"Potentially tense."

Well, as long as Pelosi's in charge the only tension will be whether to even speak. Time to throw water on that witch.

At Roll Call:

The official theme of the House Democrats’ annual “issues conference” this week is “Grow America’s Economy, Grow American Paychecks.”

But the three-day retreat in Philadelphia, which kicks off Wednesday afternoon, could be a test of whether leaders and rank-and-file members can return to Washington, D.C., having found some common ground.

For House Democrats, the months since the demoralizing midterm elections have been characterized by several public episodes of party infighting — about the culture of the caucus, the “brand” and the perceived lack of opportunities for younger members to climb the ranks.

Power struggles and friction between factions are old story lines for the Republicans who came to power in the House in 2010, while Democrats have long been envied for keeping it together. But midterm losses that relegated the party to the biggest House minority in nearly a century have fueled some second-guessing among Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s troops.

“When you lose, the warts come out,” a House Democratic aide said of lawmakers’ sudden nitpicking of caucus politics. “Winning is what cures everything.”

One target of frustration has been the minority leader herself. As the most nationally recognized House Democrat, many members see her as the face of the caucus’s electoral woes and for ambitious lawmakers, she is an obstacle in the way of new blood flowing into senior leadership ranks...

The very personification of defeat and decay. Boil the bitch.

Pelosi Forgets Linda Sanchez's Committee Assignments During #Benghazi Announcement

At the Washington Free Beacon.

Pelosi should retire, the old bag.

Also at Politico, "Nancy Pelosi names Democrats for Benghazi panel."

Nancy Pelosi Opposed Persian Gulf War, Iraq War, the Surge — Yet She's Now Shamelessly Beating the Drums for War in Syria

Years ago I came to the belated realization that Democrats are traitors to America on the question of national security (and on other questions as well, no doubt).

President Obama, of course, throughout his entire career, has possessed not one ounce of credibility on matters of war and peace. Recall that as a candidate for president in 2007 he was farther to the left and more antiwar than any other Democrat seeking the party's nomination. His hypocrisy on America's national security interests is a total abomination and the supreme miracle feat of political posturing and opportunism. Disgusting.

Secretary of State John Kerry this week denounced Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons as a "moral atrocity" of world historical proportions, and has implored the international community to stand up to Syria's assault on "civilization." But in 2004, as Democrat Party standard-bearer for the office of the presidency, running against vigorous war leader President George W. Bush, he denounced the war in Iraq after having voted in 2002 to authorize the deployment as member of the U.S. Senate: "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."

And now we have the words of that arch antiwar Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the current House Minority Leader in Congress, and total hypocrite on anything dealing with the nation's security.

At WaPo, "Pelosi urges military response to Syria."

And at Politico, "Nancy Pelosi the hawk tells President Obama to act on Syria" (via Memeorandum):

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pressed top administration officials Thursday night to take military action to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad in response to reports that he used chemical weapons in his nation’s ongoing civil war.

“It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security,” Pelosi said in a statement after the 90-minute conference call with members of the National Security Council and 26 high-ranking lawmakers.

Rank hypocrisy.

Pelosi boasts perhaps the most consistent antiwar war record of any current member of Congress (see Wikipedia). In 1991 she opposed the U.S. move to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, a war that would ultimately be approved by an overwhelming margin in the Congress, and would win Security Council backing at the United Nations (heralding a "new world order" in the emerging post-Cold War international system). Pelosi also voted against the 2002 Iraq war authorization, and in 2007 she opposed the Bush administration's new counterinsurgency program in Iraq --- "the surge" --- that within a year had stemmed the tide of terrorist violence and allowed the United States to wind down the war.

But in 2013 Pelosi is all gung-ho, arguing that Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons is so egregious that even a "war weary" nation should fall in line behind the administration's headlong rush to conflict.

Sorry, but this is extreme partisanship and political posturing of the worst kind. It's no wonder that support for Congress and this president is at historic lows. This shameless Democrat Party warmongering marks a new milestone in wag the dog political expediency.

See more on this from Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage, "Liberal Hypocrisy in Iraq and Syria":

Democrats vociferously opposed any plan to stop the flow of terrorists from Syria into Iraq. Now they are about to fight Assad anyway in support of their own twisted Muslim Brotherhood version of regime change.

The anti-war party has become the war party and in a supreme irony, its cause for a new war is the familiar one of stopping a Baath Party regime from using weapons of mass destruction against civilians.

Everything old is new again and every hypocrisy rises again to become policy. In New Hampshire, Howard Dean is reportedly sniffing around his presidential prospects and in Washington [Nancy Pelosi], John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama will begin a war that they were against… before they were for it.

More at Memorandum.