Never did the lady from California look more childish.

“I don’t see any real support on our side for [proposed
impeachment],” one GOP lawmaker said, noting that Rep. Adam Kinzinger is so far the only House Republican to call for Trump to leave office immediately, and even Kinzinger said Sunday that impeachment is “probably not the smartest move right now.”

The lawmaker continued: “I think most people recognize [impeachment] is futile. The Senate doesn’t go into session until January 19th. It’s more Pelosi just one more time trying to poke everybody’s eye — another political stunt to tie Trump around our whole party one more time.”

(The number-three House Democrat, Rep. James Clyburn, said on Sunday that Pelosi might impeach Trump and then not send the articles to the Senate until after the new Biden administration passes its 100-day mark, creating an unprecedented but apparently constitutionally permissible situation in which the Senate would hold a trial for an ex-president.)

Good luck with that, Ms. P.

Rings on his fingers, bells on his toes? Not exactly a credit to his race with this kind of palaver.

Free men in a free market are not lightly dismissed.

. . . Wall Street isn’t happy with Twitter’s decision to permanently ban President Trump, one of the service’s high-profile users. Analysts are afraid the decision could expose Twitter to more regulation, as Mirabaud analyst Neil Campling said the ban could open Twitter up to more regulation under the next administration now that the platform is clearly making editorial decisions about what type of political content is, and isn’t, appropriate.

Traders are clearly worried, as Twitter shares are down 7% in premarket trade, building on losses from after-hours trading on Friday, as well as Sunday night.

They pay their money, they make their choice. And there’s no locking them up.

He’s a nothing burger.

And rightly so. You can get only so far with a plastic grin.

Put his finger in the dyke.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement-11610303966?mod=hp_opin_pos_3

The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.

This the conclusion of former asst. atty. general of the District of Columbia, who as a prosecutor has been there, done that.

As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. . . .

Dems barking up no tree at all . . .

Authored by Jonathan Turley, reprinted at Zero Hedge:

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on my concerns over the planned “snap impeachment” this year. In my view, impeaching on the speech alone would raise serious concerns over the use of impeachment in the future. Many Democrats, including members of Congress, refused to accept Trump as the legitimate president when he was elected and refused to do so as rioting broke out at the inauguration. Many of the same members have used the same type of rhetoric to “take back the country” and “fight for the country.”

The concern is that this impeachment will not only create precedent for an expedited pathway of “snap impeachments” but allow future Congresses to impeach presidents for actions of their supporters. The point of this column is to call for greater caution and deliberation before we take this step to consider the basis and implications of this impeachment. As with the calls to use the 25th Amendment, there are real dangers to any opportunistic or hurried use of this option. There is also the alternative of a joint and bipartisan condemnation of both houses, which would be both justified and unassailable.

As I have said, there could be evidence to support impeachment on the proposed incitement article but it would have to be found before or after the speech to show an intent to spark rioting or to allow it to continue. As with the 25th Amendment claim, such evidence would be found from within the White House and through a traditional impeachment inquiry.

Calmer head, which will not prevail.

Mysteriously held back:

President Trump’s last days in office offer a final opportunity to declassify critical information on the Russia investigation that engulfed his lone term.

Already voluminous public records – including investigative reports from Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general – have established that Trump and his associates were targeted with a baseless Russian collusion allegation. The fraudulent claim originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign, was fueled by a torrent of false or deceptive intelligence leaks, and was improperly investigated by the FBI, potentially to the point of being criminal. Despite these disclosures, key questions remain about the origins and the spread of the conspiracy theory. And with a Biden administration set to take office and Democrats taking control of both chambers of Congress, there are no guarantees that the ongoing probe of Special Counsel John Durham will fill in the remaining gaps.
Both the CIA and FBI have been slow to produce much material that Trump reportedly wants declassified. They argue that disclosure would reveal sources and methods vital to national security. Such claims arouse skepticism because they have been used in the past to cover up malfeasance – as the public learned when deceptive FISA warrant applications used to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page were finally released.

Before he leaves office on Jan. 20, Trump could use his declassification authority to help clear up some of the following critical issues of the Russiagate saga: . . .

more more more here . . .