A little seltzer down our pants at the impeachment trial

“A little song, a little dance/ a little seltzer down your pants.” 
— Chuckles the Clown (RIP)

The Senate impeachment trial is must-see T.V.! It’s Army-McCarthy, Watergate, Who Killed J.R.

Trump’s legal counsel even provided a laugh track. Never a good sign for your case when the jury laughs. Mr. van der Veen also did a little soft shoe. Check back here for video of his little Walter Huston dance straight out of Treasure of Sierra Madre.

That old lawyer adage applies: when your case is strong on the law, you pound on the law. When your case is strong on the facts, you pound on the facts. When your case is strong on neither law nor fact, you pound on the table.

This is how they do it in Philly-delphia!

Trump’s reported “expletive-laced” conversation with minority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy is a bombshell. “Fake News” CNN broke the story

“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy. McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.

A furious McCarthy told the then-President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

Of course it is relevant to incitement to insurrection. Trump’s “so what” response (echoing Pelosi’s “they’re going to do what they’re going to do”), evinces his mindset: I Love It When a Plan Comes Together! Trump did not cry out, “Omigod! Terrible! I’ll go down there in a glass-top sound truck and tell them to stand down (and stand by).”

⇒ Why did Lindsay Graham switch his vote to favor calling witnesses? Discuss amongst yourselves.

As God is my witness!

If House impeachment managers can call Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Washington) — one of the Republicans whom McCarthy allegedly briefed of his conversation with #45 — Mr. Song and Dance can call Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren for all the times they excused, encouraged, and subsidized violence in the BLM insurrections of 2020. No one was tougher on the nihilism of the social justice warriors that Blaska Policy Werkes.

We call to the stand that notorious RINO and Trump Traitor, Ronald Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan.

Trump’s defenders are saying “Everyone knows the storming of the Capitol was being planned before the President’s rally. … This exonerates him? If the government Mr. Trump headed knew trouble was coming, it’s evidence of both imminent lawless action and Mr. Trump’s intent — the legal elements of incitement. It makes him more culpable, not less.

January 6 Truthers update

The latest line from the January 6 Truthers is that it was Antifa (not Barzini) all along! Proof: those backpacks! Contained a change of clothing. Antifa changed out of their all-black into MAGA wear for the assault on the Capitol! All to make Trump look bad! 

Blaska Policy Werkes asked how poor Ashli Babbitt fit into that scenario. Did she take one for the team? Awaiting answer.

January 6 Truthers are also suspicious of why all those cameras? (Boss Tweed would say of Thomas Nast’s muckraking editorial cartoons: “Stop the pictures!”) Aha! The riot was a Hollywood production!  Staged to prevent Trump from arising from the crypt at Mar-a-Lago on the third day and ascending back into the White House. That’s how afraid THE SWAMP creatures are of the Big Fella! They must destroy him!

Guys, it is Washington D.C.! A big rally at which the President spoke. Congress is ratifying the Electoral College vote. You don’t think there will be cameras? One more fact: smart phones! Most of the footage presented by the House managers was posted by the insurrectionists themselves.

Jonah Goldberg said attorney van der Veen was hard to like but admitted, “I’m not trying very hard.” Cut the guy some slack: he’s doing the best he can with what little he has to work with.

Blaska’s Bottom Line: Subpoena Kevin McCarthy to testify. While we’re at it, get Mike Pence out of witness protection and swear him in, too.

Who is on YOUR witness list?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2020, election challenges, Impeachment, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to A little seltzer down our pants at the impeachment trial

  1. madisonexpat says:

    Rumor has it, all experts agree, previously reliable sources, its been reported, data indicate, 17 intelligence organizations are agreed…..
    They all prove what everyone knows and no one can produce the quote.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Kooter says:

    This impeachment attempt is more of a farce than the first one. Let’s move on already!

    Liked by 3 people

  3. sentient7 says:

    For NOW, only a couple of points, since I prefer to gather as many salient facts as might become available before rushing to judgment, a process that both Peggy Noonan and Herr Blaska reject.
    1. Noonan’s wordsmithing, including today’s column in the WSJ, cannot transform this event into a constitutional act. No matter what she or Rino-Dave write, this event is Unconstitutional. Trump was denied Due Process.
    2. It is difficult to imagine what only a select few now know. Consider how perceptions of this event would change if the following information was not just speculative imagination:
    Pelosi was informed by the FBI and the Capitol Police of the Proud Boys plan to attack several days before Trump’s speech. However, neither Pelosi nor the FBI shared this information with Trump. In discussions with her staff (revealed in meeting notes from her laptop) she declined to order greater police protection, and she refused Trump’s explicit offer to provide assistance from the National Guard.
    Subsequent to the events of Jan 6, again Pelosi was informed, exclusively by the FBI, that the autopsy of Brian Sicknick revealed the cause of death – an allergic reaction to pepper spray that was dispersed by other members of the Capitol Police, not from the protestors. And again, the FBI withheld this information from the public and from Trump.
    The FBI further informed Pelosi (and not Trump) that their summary evaluation of the Capitol protestor interviews: Only 49 individuals pre-planned to attack Capitol Police to gain entry to the building; 276 others, who illegally entered the building acted spontaneously, had no intent to vandalize the building or its contents. Rather, most were motivated to speak/protest directly to congressional members. The FBI and the NSA also determined from email intercepts that the two pipe bombs were placed by a member of the Portland Antifa affinity group, though they have been unable to apprehend the perp. The unexploded devices were identical to one that was discovered last year in Portland.

    Liked by 3 people

    • John Popanz says:

      Very informative, if only the MSM had been so forthcoming. Thanks for the info..


      • sentient7 says:

        —> no links…I was speculating on how a story of TRUTH changes as new facts arise or are shared. Thus, I tried to be careful and clear with this sentence:

        Consider how perceptions of this event [trial] would change if the following information was not just speculative imagination:

        Liked by 1 person

        • David Blaska says:

          In other words, you have no proof, no evidence — just wild conspiracy theories. I guess one should not expect better of true believers.


        • sentient7 says:

          No proof? Ha. I never said or intimated such. MY point, which you have failed to understand, is that until we have a more complete set of facts, we cannot know. For example, do we know how officer Sicknick died? Do we know whether, pre-insurrection, Pelosi or DC police chief knew about plans to attack the Capitol? Do we have the the record of their tweets and contemporaneous emails? [No] Do we have a complete record of communications of Pelosi-Trump-Pence- etc.? [ No, we do not.] Do we have a record of internal DoJ communications? Do we know the factual [?] basis (if any) to support Barr’s contention that there were no voting irregularities? Do we have access to FBI field reports about election irregularities in swing states?

          There are many issues about which we have no knowledge. Let’s all Rush to Judgment!


    • Scott F says:

      If you watch the several hours of video, you will see that for the most part the “insurrectionists” looked and acted like a “mob” of unruly tourists. You’ve seen worse on State St on a Saturday night after a football game. The few who were the instigators, and obviously there to do real damage, are easily identifiable and should be prosecuted without delay. The hand wringing and moral outrage should then be focused on the rioters, looters and arsonists that created chaos across our cities over tge summer and fall. Both have no place in civil society.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. jimydandy says:

    There you go again Dave with the word “insurrectionists’. More like dumb MAGA hat wearers. I won’t be attending an overthrow of the gubbermint without proper gear.


  5. madisonexpat says:

    Fair warning. The last time the Washington Party had the opportunity to put the boots to citizen Trump was at the WH Journalist party when then President Obama ridiculed citizen Trump. How’d that turn out? I wonder if Hillary or Gropin Joe remember that.
    Betcha Trump does.
    Who is for open borders? Hands?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Jon Burack says:

    I am amused at the two Republicans who voted to call this proceeding unconstitutional yet still voted to convict Trump in, by their own lights, an unconstitutional proceeding. What self-contradictory political grandstanding! I have yet to see any reasonable argument in support of the idea that impeaching and convicting a former president who is now private citizen is constitutional. I’ve read all the relevant parts of the Constitution, but then I am not a lawyer so what do I know.) I also see no way to determine “incitement” in this case without interrogating Trump’s state of mind and motivation directly, and that simply was not done in this proceeding. Moreover, I agree with Andrew McCarthy that if conviction really ever were the Democrats’ aim there were much firmer grounds for an impeachment article than incitement of insurrection (for instance, urging Pence to violate his constitutional duty in the Electoral vote counting procedure). But I do not believe the Democrats ever INTENDED (since we are speculating about intent) to gain the bipartisan consensus actual Senate conviction would have demanded. They want Trump, they want him forever, and the want the Republicans tied to him and this issue in hopes of dividing Republicans for the next four years and more. They got that. It is up to Republicans to move past and around that, and so far, except for Nikki Haley, I see no one close to able to do that.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.