For decades, I have watched elected Republicans cave to coordinated Democrat-media attacks – including on issues that would have been easily won with just a TINY BIT of push-back. Before the “Gingrich Revolution” in 1994, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 58 of the prior 62 years and the Senate for 34 of prior 40 years. One downside of that 40-50 years of political history is that a generation of Republicans elected to Congress grew comfortable with being in the minority and became complacent in letting Democrats run roughshod over federal policy implementation while letting federal agencies run wild.
The practical result of that dark period in American political history was that the socialists Democrats and the Deep State bureaucracy made their “great leap forward” in establishing near-complete control over the federal government. That set the table for what we see being exposed in 2019: the Democrats’ impeachment farce, the FISA abuse report, Ukraine corruption, and the criminal investigation into the origins of the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in 2015-6.
Only during the brief respite of the Reagan presidency, as well as the early years of the Gingrich revolution, was there any semblance of organized Republican political warfare aimed at countering the Democrat-media complex. Republican complacency returned during the Bush 43 and Obama years, with RINOs happily ceding the political turf to activist Democrats and the Deep State.
Enter Donald J. Trump who has been waging effective political warfare against the Democrat-media cabal since declaring for the presidency in 2015. Apparently, a few congressional Republicans have watched and learned how to properly deal with Democrats and the media at the feet of the President.
After watching Kevin “Caspar Milquetoast” McCarthy up close for years in California, I was shocked to learn yesterday that he has actually grown some stones. I have to tell you that I was greatly concerned when he was picked as House minority leader, but he appears to have exceeded my expectations and “grown into his leadership role,” as his presser in response to Nancy Pelosi’s big “articles of impeachment” announcement sure surprised the heck out of me. Here is some of what he said:
Back in 2016, the Democrats called those who Donald Trump “deplorables,” and now they’re trying to disqualify their votes. Democrats can still not get over the fact that the President won the election, and that they lost. Just last week at this podium, Nancy Pelosi pointed out that they created a timeline to impeach President Trump that she said started two-and-a-half years ago. Many of you know that once they took the majority, they had to decide who would become committee chairmen. For the impeachment committee in the Judiciary, who could win (was their main criterion for selection)? Jerry Nadler campaigned on that he would be the very strongest member to lead a potential impeachment.
On the day of swearing in, these new Democrat freshmen that gave them the majority – a mere few hours after being sworn in – Congresswoman Tlaib proclaimed, “We are going to impeach the muthah.” We had Al Green admitting that the Democrats had true fears that if they did not impeach President Trump that he would win reelection. And now and today, we watched them introduce two articles of impeachment. They changed the course of Congress to take away due process (to get to) where we are. This is a fear that Alexander Hamilton had that came to fruition in this Congress. I just hope no Congress ever repeats what we are going through today.
They have a lot of members on their side very concerned because from the very moment they started impeachment and letting the American public see what they believed, and kept changing the terms of what they thought was out there (bribery, treason, etc.), it has been falling in the polls. If you need any more evidence of how unpopular impeachment is, watch the two press conferences today (this one and Nancy Pelosi’s).
After announcing the impeachment articles, within less than an hour, the Speaker finally relented and said she would bring USMCA up (for a vote). She had held it for more than a year, making America weaker in our negotiations with China. The trade agreement with our number one and number two trade partners Mexico and Canada was being held up (by Nancy Pelosi). But those (Democrats politically) vulnerable in this vote for impeachment were continuing to make the argument (for USMCA) as the rest of America was, too. At no time when she would have brought this bill up was there any fear of it not passing, but the only reason she finally relented was because of the unpopularity of impeachment itself.
We watched in a hearing … a Democrat constitutional scholar (who) did not vote for President Trump say this is the weakest, the thinnest, the fastest impeachment in the history of America. He then went (on) to say that if there was abuse that it would be abuse by the Democrats to move forward. The Speaker must not have listened to that hearing.
If the Speaker had only waited 48 hours for the release of the (phone call) transcript, America would not (have been) put through this nightmare. If the Speaker would pause and read the IG report … to think that it took place in America … that we would have a law enforcement agency spy on a presidential campaign and in more than 51 instances not hold up to the rule of law or change all the information and evidence to be able to move forward on something that they knew or should have known was not true is a sad day for America. But to compound that … just because you created a timeline to impeach a president that you disliked that you ignored facts … we would never be here if they had paid attention to the facts of the hearings.
This is not a day that America will be proud of. It’s not a day that history will write that anybody wants to repeat. Alexander Hamilton warned us that this day would come – that a majority would use their political power just for politics even though we all raise our hands to uphold the Constitution. I just hope no Congress, regardless of who is in the majority, will ever take us down this path again. We have such potential in this nation, but to have wasted a majority in this is an embarrassment to this Congress.
It is not hard to defend this president surely on the facts that are out there. I think it’s hard for the Democrats to move forward when they start with a quid pro quo, (shift) to bribery, (shift) to every other (term) … it’s hard for the Democrats to continue this when the people they bring forth in their hearings are pretty much donors. Their expert witnesses when it comes to their legal scholars were donors to Democrat presidential campaigns.
The idea that they’re going to change the course of history … that staff is going to interview staff … and that then they’re going to come out with articles of impeachment. What powers do members of Congress who run to represent their districts have that they just take it away?
The idea that Democrats would control who could ask questions inside a hearing, or how the structure would go – that’s an embarrassment. So no, it is not difficult to defend this president because this president did nothing that’s impeachable. It’s hard to defend Democrats on how they’re running this House and what they’re doing inside their majority. That’s the difficulty that I have.
[Media question: what about Giuliani?] He’s a private citizen; this is about impeachment. You’ve got to understand about what impeachment means. Impeachment is the removal of the highest elected person in this land. I don’t care if you think Americans who support President Trump are deplorables, but you do not have the right to disqualify their vote just because you do not like President Trump. We are a nation of laws, and the idea that they would use their power … that they would like and continue to lie just because they dislike this president.
They would change the course of history where they would move it from the Judiciary (committee) to the Intelligence (committee). They would disallow individuals to even ask questions. They would disallow the President to have due process to ask questions. They would not allow the minority to have witnesses. And they’re proud about that? The idea of a vote of impeachment – the only higher vote I think we have a member of Congress is whether we send women or men out to war. But the way they have handled this from the very beginning – I know they set a timeline, and they wanted to keep their timeline – they just never paid attention to the facts. So they changed the rules to meet their timeline.
They may think it’s not important, but it goes to the sheer fact of the country of who we are. One of our greatest strengths is the rule of law. Other countries admire us because we believe in the rule of law; we believe in due process. But not in Nancy Pelosi’s House when she became speaker. She has weighed and hinged her entire majority on the impeachment of the President. When she selected Adam Schiff to be the Intel Chairman and kept him there after he lied to the American public that he had proof beyond circumstantial (of Russian collusion). When we walked down through a nightmare – spent millions of dollars, went to 14 different countries, and found that was a lie?
You had an Inspector General who just gave you a report yesterday to show that a law enforcement agency spied on a presidential campaign, and when they couldn’t get their own facts, they changed it to go to a secret court and FISA to try to spy further. They based that all on something that the Democrat Party spent money on – that was a lie – to try to discredit somebody running for office.
I would have used the majority to clean that up – to go BACK to the rule of law. I would not use the majority simply for your own political gain, and if you can’t meet your timeline, then change all the rules of that (congressional) history has ever seen (like Pelosi did).
So it is not hard to defend this president, but it is very difficult to defend this Congress on what they have done, and history will not be kind to them.
[Responding to a question about whether he agreed with the president that “the phone call was perfect”] The question we have before us is, was what happened on that phone call impeachable? Even their own witnesses (could not say the President didn’t anything impeachable). We’re members of Congress; we’re going to vote on articles of impeachment. We’re not going to take a vote on whether the phone call was perfect because that’s not what’s before us. You may think that impeachment’s not important, but it hinges not only on our nation but also on what the rest of the world is going to look at from an idea of who we are.
See, I simply believe that America is more than a country – America is an idea … an idea so powerful that millions in Hong Kong would rise up for the idea of the freedoms we say we uphold. The idea that these individuals in the majority … they got the transcript of a phone call … and making a president do that only made our nation weaker … because tell me what other foreign leader is going to be open and honest with whoever is sitting in the Oval Office.
But they did that because they said they had a whistleblower they did not know, but the head of the Intel Committee actually met with the whistleblower. They started this all on the idea that the Administration would not allow the whistleblower to come forward. We saw all of the Sunday shows; we saw all that Adam Schiff said – that he’s gonna fight so hard to get that whistleblower to come forward. He is the only one who has denied us the whistleblower from coming forward. But anywhere else in a (courtroom) in America, that when you face something based on hearsay or an informant, that informant has to come forward – but not in the course of impeaching this president. Because somehow the rule of law doesn’t apply to him because they think that the people who voted for him are deplorable. Nothing on that phone call was wrong. That was a case that has already been opened. The Attorney General was already looking into it.
… They just entered two articles of impeachment, and you’re asking whether the phone call is “impeachable”? The answer is absolutely no. And even their own witnesses when asked, “name me something that’s impeachable,” they could not name it. When the American public watched these hearings, the support went further down. …
That was pretty dang good! Bravo, Kevin McCarthy! Glad to see you’re fully on board the Trump train and are taking it to the Democrats. In particular, I loved how he said that Adam Schiff lied. No beating around the bush like many keep doing (e.g., “not the truth,” “that’s incorrect”, “that’s simply not true,” etc.). People need to hear the real word that describes Schiff – and also the other Democrats, too. Liars!
The Democrats ran a star chamber and controlled the process completely in order to obtain the results that they wanted – a false impeachment narrative built on hearsay and personal conjecture that they spin with the assistance of Democrat operatives in the media. Will the Democrats at risk in Red districts carried by President Trump in 2016 walk the political plank and vote yes on the two articles of impeachment? It wouldn’t surprise me if Pelosi is forced to walk the dog back to a censure vote instead. Time will tell.