monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked House leaders to proceed with drafting articles of impeachment against
President Trump. The following is a transcript of her remarks as prepared by The New York Times.

SPEAKER PELOSI: Good morning.

Let us begin where our founders began in 1776. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another. With those words, our founders courageously began our Declaration of Independence from an oppressive monarch, for among other grievances the king’s refusal to follow rightfully passed laws.

In the course of today’s events, it becomes necessary for us to address, among other grievances, the president’s failure to faithfully execute the law. When crafting the Constitution, the founders feared the return of a monarchy in America. And having just fought a war of independence, they specifically feared the prospect of a king-president corrupted by foreign influence.

During the constitutional convention, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, warned that a president might betray his trust to foreign powers which might prove fatal to the republic. Another founder, Gouverneur Morris, that a president may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust. He emphasized that this magistrate is not the king. The people are the king.

They, therefore, created a constitutional remedy to protect against a dangerous or corrupt leader: impeachment. Unless the Constitution contained an impeachment provision, one founder warned, a president might “spare no effort or means whatsoever” to get himself re-elected. Similarly, George Mason insisted that a president who procured his appointment in his first instance through improper and corrupt acts might repeat his guilt and return to power.

During the debate over impeachment at the constitutional convention, George Mason also asked, shall any man be above justice? Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?

In his great wisdom, he knew that injustice committed by the president erodes the rule of law, the very idea that a fair justice, which is the bedrock of our democracy. And if we allow a president to be above the law, we do so surely at the peril of our republic. In America, no one is above the law.

Over the past few weeks, through the Intelligence Committee working with the Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees, the American people have heard the testimony of truly patriotic career public servants, distinguished diplomats and decorated war heroes — some of the president’s own appointees.

The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security, by withholding military aid and crucial Oval Office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival.

Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee, at the Judiciary Committee, the American people heard testimony from leading American constitutional scholars who illuminated without a doubt that the president’s actions are a profound violation of the public trust. The president’s actions have seriously violated the constitution, especially when he says and acts upon the belief “Article 2 says I can do whatever I want.” No. His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our constitution. A separation of powers, three co-equal branches, each a check and balance on the other. A republic, if we can keep it, said Benjamin Franklin.

Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit. The president has engaged in abuse of power undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections. His actions are in defiance of the vision of our founders and the oath of office that he takes to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment. I commend our committee chairs and our members for their somber approach to actions which I wish the president had not made necessary.

In signing the Declaration of Independence, our founders invoked a firm reliance on divine providence. Democrats, too, are prayerful, and we will proceed in a manner worthy of our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Thank you

Trouble in paradise?

Oh come now, you were flattered

overwhelming burden of proof.

remove 700,000 people from the federal food stamp program.

Mass Psychosis: Trump Derangement Syndrome

Here is the definition of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), according to the urban dictionary:

A term for criticism of, or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump that are alleged to be irrational and have little regard towards Trump’s actual positions or actions taken. T.D.S. does not allow people to see the facts clearly. For example, if President Trump cured cancer in children, it would be reported negatively to somehow make the President look bad. Everyone with T.D.S. would then start protesting and spreading the false negative information while forgetting that children no longer would have cancer. Hating trump would be more important.

Reference: Urban Legend

Quote:

Oh come now, you were flattered

The more you talk to me the greater chance you have of looking like fool again. Don't say I did not warn you.

The more you talk to me the greater chance you have of looking like a fool again. Don't say I did not warn you.

Welcome to Best of Late Night, a rundown of the previous night’s highlights that lets you sleep — and lets us get paid to watch comedy. If you’re interested in hearing from The Times regularly about great TV, sign up for our Watching newsletter and get recommendations straight to your inbox.

With Allies Like These ...

On Tuesday, a video of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada laughing about President Trump with other world leaders at a NATO meeting in London surfaced. In the video, Trudeau could be heard telling leaders of France, Britain and the Netherlands that Trump was late to arrive because of the lengthy news conferences that he sometimes holds before photo ops. At one point, Trudeau says, “You just watch his team’s jaws drop to the floor.”

“That video is amazing for two reasons. One, it is crazy that we were able to hear a private conversation between major world leaders. Like did they not know this was happening? And, two, that when world leaders get together, they’re gossipy bitches just like the rest of us.” — TREVOR NOAH

“Yeah, it turns out NATO is so catty, they should get Andy Cohen to host it.” — TREVOR NOAH

“And now the bombing of Canada begins. This is absolutely unacceptable.” — JIMMY KIMMEL

“How dare they laugh at our ridiculous president? That is our job!” — JIMMY KIMMEL

“And this is what they are saying in public. Like I would love to see what goes down in that group text chain.” — JAMES CORDEN

“Here’s how you know when you are really disliked: when you get a Canadian to talk smack about you.” — JAMES CORDEN

On Wednesday, Trump referred to Trudeau as “two-faced,” and returned to America earlier than planned, canceling a news conference.

“To be fair, Trump’s not wrong. Justin Trudeau is two-faced — he’s got a white one and a brown one.” — TREVOR NOAH

“Yeah, it’s like Trump was at a sleepover and all the other kids turned on him, you know, and now he’s just there like, ‘Mom, I know it’s a day early, but can you come pick me up from NATO?’” — TREVOR NOAH

“Mr. President, you shouldn’t be in a place where people are going to laugh at you behind your back. You get on Air Force One and you fly straight back home, where we promise that we will laugh at you to your face.” — TREVOR NOAH

“He was like, ‘Take me back to where I’m respected’ and then flew home to where he’s being impeached.” — JIMMY FALLON

“Trump is like, ‘If you are going to trash somebody, do it like a man. You know, at 3 a.m. on Twitter.’” — JAMES CORDEN
The Punchiest Punchlines (Impeachment Edition)

“The impeachment hearings in Washington have now moved over to the judiciary committee where today they heard testimony from four constitutional legal scholars, or as Donald Trump calls them, ‘nerds.’” — JAMES CORDEN

“They said his actions were worse than any president ever. Basically, they rolled up the Constitution and spanked him with it.” — JIMMY KIMMEL

“Yes, the founders agreed the presidential punishment should be impeachment, after rejecting Ben Franklin’s original suggestion: a spanking machine of French whores.” — STEPHEN COLBERT

“This is the part of the story that will be too boring to put in the movie, but there’s a lot of speculation in this committee about what the founding fathers would do if they were here to see this. And to me, the answer is obvious: They would vomit. They’d be throwing up in their wigs. But if the founding fathers were here now, they’d be like, ‘Take that orange ape and throw him in the harbor with the tea!’” — JIMMY KIMMEL

Too funny.

If you're referencing Trump's policies as a stand up comedy routine, you've nailed it.

Jonathan Turley, Impeachment Witness, Says Liberals Are Threatening Him Now

However, what he didn’t realize is that you’re not allowed, apparently, to venture off the liberal plantation — and if you don’t walk in lockstep with your progressive comrades, you will be destroyed by the mob.

Bolton can be subpoenaed and, when he testifies and purjors himself

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) made rather predictable comments to Fox News about the impeachment process targeting Donald Trump, though he made a point to connect the congressional effort to an upcoming holiday.

Quote:

"The whole thing is a joke. It is frankly very, very close to what Clarence Thomas once described as 'a modern-day lynch mob.' ... And really, on the eve of Christmas, it is really sad to see the dishonesty and the partisanship that the House Democrats are displaying."

As luck would have it, the current presidential impeachment process isn't the first to unfold "on the eve of Christmas." In fact, the last one did, too.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane. In 1998, the Republican House majority, led by Gingrich, expected to see its ranks grow by 30 seats in the midterm elections. Voters had a different idea: with widespread opposition to the GOP's impeachment effort against then-President Bill Clinton, it was House Democrats who actually gained seats that cycle, a historical rarity for the White House's party in a president's sixth year.

Republicans, unwilling to take the hint, proceeded with the process anyway, using Congress' lame-duck session to impeach Clinton, the will of the electorate be damned. Gingrich and his party held the votes on the impeachment articles -- which fell largely along party lines -- on Saturday, Dec. 19, 1998, six days before Christmas.

It was around this same time that Gingrich announced that he'd resign, in part because his GOP conference blamed him for their electoral misfortunes, in part because of the ethical lapses, and in part because he'd engaged in an extramarital affair while leading the push to impeach Clinton over an extramarital affair...