On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) named impeachment managers, nine of them, who will lead President Trump’s second impeachment including Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who it was recently discovered had a Chinese spy who targeted the dopey congressman for information since he sits on the House Intelligence Committee, and the Communist Chinese Party felt he was the easiest target to fool because the man is a fool himself.
On Wednesday, the House will begin impeachment proceedings against the president as Democrats say that he incited the riot that took place last week at the Capitol building. We know from experience that Democrats don’t care about exculpatory evidence after they impeached Trump the first time where the only fact witness testified that everything the Democrats accused the president of doing during his diplomatic phone call with the president of Ukraine was false and exactly the opposite. This time there is compelling exculpatory evidence that the president did not incite a riot as we have seen his speech live and on video where he asks the supporters at the rally to peacefully march to the Capitol to let their voices be heard.
There are at least three House Republican turncoats who are going along with the impeachment farce.
The impeachment managers will present the charges and will start promoting them to sway the country in their favor. The managers are most important during a Senate trial.
Pelosi’s choice of making Swalwell a House manager is beyond the pale as he was warned by the FBI during his first year on the House Intelligence Committee back in 2015 that a Chinese spy Fang Fang, or Christine Fang, was working and socializing with him. Swalwell refuses to say if he was involved with the Chinese spy romantically. Swalwell shouldn’t even be on the Intelligence Committee after the FBI warning, but Pelosi apparently doesn’t care. Even his father and brother kept in contact with the spy up until last month after the operation was reported publicly. And Representative Swalwell went on television and blamed the Trump administration for the timing of the disclosure to take the focus off the fact that he was colluding with a Chinese spy.
Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) will act as the lead manager for impeachment. Raskin will assume the role formerly held by the liar and manipulator Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) during Trump’s first impeachment. Hopefully, Raskin won’t hold secret hearings where Republicans cannot ask specific questions, and he won’t fake evidence the way Schiff did when he read a phony transcript he wrote during an opening statement of things that Donald Trump never said.
The other impeachment managers are Representatives Diana DeGette (D-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Stacey Plaskett (D-VI – Virgin Islands), Joe Neguse (D-CO), and Madeleine Dean (D-PA).
Pelosi gave a statement where she said, “It is their constitutional and patriotic duty to present the case for the President’s impeachment and removal. They will do so guided by their great love of country, determination to protect our democracy and loyalty to our oath to the Constitution. Our Managers will honor their duty to defend democracy For The People with great solemnity, prayerfulness and urgency.”
Nancy Pelosi is evil and sick. The Democrats are impeaching the president over the riot that took place at the Capitol building last week. They are claiming that Trump incited the riot even though he is on video saying that he wanted the people to march “peacefully” to the Capitol and let their voices be heard. Some members of Congress are saying that the president incited the riot and then didn’t intervene to quell it. That’s also not true because the president called out the National Guard but the Sergeant at Arms turned them away. The Sergeant at Arms reports directly to the Speaker of the House. The president also did videos asking for peace and he asked the people to go home. The president also posted on social media asking for peace and reminding people of law and order and to respect law enforcement. Social media and the mainstream media deleted all of it.
So we have Democrats and some misguided Republicans claiming there is evidence the president incited the riot and that there is no evidence the president did anything to stop it when we know from the evidence that does exist but was scrubbed by the mainstream media and social media that Trump did not say anything to incite and he did try to stop the rioting right away and social media interfered in his communications to make it appear he did nothing. Can you follow all of that? Geesh.
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesman, pointed out that the impeachment team has diversity: “7/9 are women, people of color or LGBTQ.” Raskin and Swalwell are the only straight white men.
Are you kidding me? The Democrats are concerned about diversity to impeach a white male president? And they do this with a straight face. I think we need to send some recon people over to the leftward land of silliness to learn their language and figure out why they think things like race, gender, and sexual orientation are important criteria for building an impeachment manager team.
Although Trump is expected to become the first and only president in US history to be impeached twice (and both times over things he did not do), the Senate isn’t going to be able to begin his trial until after The president leaves office on January 20. There is a Constitutional question of whether or not the Senate can try a president who has already left office, because the main purpose of impeaching and trying a president is to remove him from office. If he’s already out of office then the only reason they are doing this is that if he is convicted the president could be banned from ever holding office again.
Walmart, who took to Twitter to lash out at Senator Josh Hawley as he was going viral for committing to represent the concerns of the American people, is one of those brands that has survived numerous public relations hits by the elitist left and yet just damaged their own brand from the inside by trashing their own shoppers. It is doubtful they will be able to recover.
“Go ahead. Get your 2-hour debate. #soreloser,” Walmart posted (and took down).
Hawley tweeted: “Thanks, @Walmart , for your insulting condescension. Now that you’ve insulted 75 million Americans, will you at least apologize for using slave labor?”
He added: “Or maybe you’d like to apologize for the pathetic wages you pay your workers as you drive mom and pop stores out of business.”
TROUBLE IN CCP MERCHANDISE HEAVEN?
“Every time you have the urge to shop at Wal-Mart, remember this multinational corporation is the single greatest enabler of the theft of American jobs. It’s way past their corporate charter to go after Hawley and reveals their pro-CCP bent,” Peter Navarro posted on Twitter in reaction to the story.
The left collectively and publicly mock Walmart shoppers as low class, deplorable, and tacky. The left even has a popular meme series called “the people of Walmart,” which is nothing more than branding Walmart shoppers as tacky and low class.
So it made big news when tone-deaf Walmart struck out at Hawley as a “sore loser” on Tuesday after his announcement to champion the people’s interest in the 2020 Presidential election and then quickly pulled their tweet down.
But not before many people saw it.
Here is the timeline of what happened.
Hawley did something that was somewhat uncharacteristic of him and announced that he was planning on supporting President Donald J. Trump and the American people in their concerns over voter fraud.
“Millions of voters concerned about election integrity deserve to be heard. I will object on January 6 on their behalf,” Hawley posted.
So Walmart sided with the Democrats and Trump’s opposition, and the very people who mocked their shoppers and posted that Hawley was a loser, and by proxy- rebuking the working-class Trump supporters who have been defending Walmart for years.
Today U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced he would object during the Electoral College certification process on January 6, 2021. Senator Hawley will object to highlight the failure of some states, including notably Pennsylvania, to follow their own election laws and the unprecedented interference of Big Tech monopolies in the election. He will call for Congress to launch a full investigation of potential fraud and election irregularities and enact election integrity measures.
Democrats have previously objected during the certification process for the 2004 and 2016 Presidential elections.
Senator Hawley said, “Following both the 2004 and 2016 elections, Democrats in Congress objected during the certification of electoral votes to raise concerns about election integrity. They were praised by Democratic leadership and the media when they did. And they were entitled to do so. But now, those of us concerned about the integrity of this election are entitled to do the same.
“I cannot vote to certify the electoral college results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws. And I cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega-corporations, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election, in support of Joe Biden. At the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress has so far failed to act.
“For these reasons, I will follow the same practice Democrat members of Congress have in years past and object during the certification process on January 6 to raise these critical issues.”
Background On Previous Objections to Electoral College Vote Certification
In 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones Objected to the Electoral College Votes from Ohio.
Stephanie Tubs-Jones Said, “I Raise This Objection Because I Am Convinced That We As A Body Must Conduct A Formal And Legitimate Debate About Election Irregularities.” (C-SPAN, 1/6/05, 3:10-3:20)
Boxer views her 2005 objection as “her proudest moment on the Senate floor,” according to CNN. (CNN, 12/27/2020)
In January 2005, 31 Congressional Democrats Voted To Reject Ohio’s Electoral Votes. (CNN, 1/6/05)
Nancy Pelosi Praised The 2005 Objections, Saying Democrats Were “Speaking Up For Their Aggrieved Constituents” During “Their Only Opportunity To Have This Debate While The Country Is Listening”
Nancy Pelosi Said, “We Are Witnessing Democracy At Work,” And “This Debate Is Fundamental To Our Democracy.” “[T]oday we are witnessing democracy at work. This is not, as some of our Republican colleagues have referred to it, sadly, frivolous. This debate is fundamental to our democracy.” (C-SPAN, 1/6/05, 32:49-33:08)
Pelosi Said Democrats Were “Speaking Up For Their Aggrieved Constituents, Many Of Whom May Have Been Disenfranchised In This Process.” “The Members of Congress who have brought this challenge are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom may have been disenfranchised in this process. This is their only opportunity to have this debate while the country is listening, and it is appropriate to do so. If there were other venues of this caliber, we would have taken that opportunity. But this is the opportunity. We have a responsibility to take advantage of it.” (C-SPAN, 1/6/05, 34:14-34:45)
Pelosi Said, “This Is Their Only Opportunity To Have This Debate While The Country Is Listening” And “We Have A Responsibility To Take Advantage Of It.” (C-SPAN, 1/6/05, 34:14-34:45)
Pelosi Said, “Do Not Talk About This As A ‘Conspiracy Theory.'” “[P]lease do not talk about this as a ‘conspiracy theory.’ It is not about that. It is not about the conspiracy; it is about the Constitution of the United States.” (C-SPAN, 1/6/05, 39:50-40:03)
In 2017, At Least Seven House Democrats Sought To Object To Electoral Votes In Favor Of President Trump:
Jim McGovern Said, “The Electors Were Not Lawfully Certified, Especially Given The Confirmed And Illegal Activities Engaged By The Government Of Russia.” (CNN, 1/6/17)
Raul Grijalva Objected After North Carolina’s Tally. (CNN, 1/6/17)
Pramila Jayapal Objected To Georgia’s Vote Certificate. (CNN, 1/6/17)
Jamie Raskin Objected To 10 Of Florida’s 29 Electoral Votes, Saying “They Violated Florida’s Prohibition Against Dual Office Holders.” (CNN, 1/6/17)
Remember Walmart shoppers are trashed constantly by the elite left, to the point where the political class refers to Trump supporters as “smelly Walmart people,” which started with Lisa Page texting her lover, corrupted FBI agent Peter Strok, that she could smell the hated Trump supporters in a Walmart.
And the left wants to dictate to Walmart what they call sell:
And makes fun of their shoppers:
The Washington Examiner reported on Hawley’s move:
“Hawley became the first senator to confirm his intention to object despite Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s insistence that his caucus not support the challenge. Several House Republicans have said they plan to challenge it. Biden is set to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021.
Congress members objecting during this certification step is not unprecedented. Democrats have attempted this maneuver twice since the turn of the century, but neither was successful because a member of the Senate did not sign on to either.”
Walmart later in the day issued an apology, claiming that the post was a mistake.
“The tweet was mistakenly posted by a member of our social media team who intended to publish this comment to their personal account,” Casey Staheli, Walmart’s senior manager of national media relations, told Newsweek.
“We have removed the post and have no intention of commenting on the subject of certifying the Electoral College,” Staheli added. “We apologize to Senator Hawley for this error and any confusion about our position.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday filled out the Democratic roster on a special committee overseeing coronavirus relief spending, naming six new members to the newly created panel,
Schumer and Pelosi are at it again. They have followed through with their promise to create another oversight committee. This time it’s to have aggressive oversight of President Trumps CCP Virus relief packages. It’s funny to me how they call it “Trumps” spending when they have been approved by both Democrats and Republicans. But that’s not what this committee is really about. It is another committee looking for something to impeach or use against their rival President Trump. Today Pelosi named the group of Democrats that will be leading the oversight. It includes Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is a huge proponent to impeach Trump. It also includes Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), Nydia Velázquez (N.Y.), Bill Foster (Ill.), Jamie Raskin (Md.) and Andy Kim (N.J.). Notice three are Democrats from hard-hit states New Jersey and New York. No doubt Pelosi’s picks were intentional and they have a goal to make Trump look like he has done a terrible job. One of goals Pelosi said they have is to ensure there isn’t any fraudulent activity. I actually laughed out loud. They want to make sure they no one else commits fraudulent activity but them. Let’s see if this leads to hearings.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday filled out the Democratic roster on a special committee overseeing coronavirus relief spending, naming six new members to the newly created panel, including some of President Trump‘s harshest congressional critics.
The announcement is a clear signal that Democratic leaders intend to conduct aggressive oversight of the Trump administration’s coronavirus spending — a process occurring in the midst of an election year — as trillions of dollars go out the door.
The panel, created by a party-line vote last week, will be led by Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the Democratic whip. In a letter to Democrats Wednesday, Pelosi named six additional members: Reps. Maxine Waters (Calif.), Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), Nydia Velázquez (N.Y.), Bill Foster (Ill.), Jamie Raskin (Md.) and Andy Kim (N.J.).
Democrats are billing the panel as a commonsense safeguard to ensure that the historic levels of emergency funding — money designed to prop up businesses, workers, families and medical providers most affected by the coronavirus fallout — aren’t frittered away by fraud and abuse.
“We must be sure that the money we put forth goes to those who need it most, in a way that addresses disparities in access to health care and credit,” Pelosi wrote in her letter. “We also owe it to the American people to prevent waste, fraud and abuse and to protect against price-gouging and profiteering.”
The oversight panel, Pelosi says, is modeled on the Truman Committee, the bipartisan, 1940s panel headed by then-Sen. Harry Truman (D-Mo.), which was formed to rein in fraud and profiteering among federal contractors during World War II.
Yet Clyburn’s oversight committee is already shaping up to be a distinctly more partisan enterprise than its historic predecessor.
Although the parties have united to approve almost $3 trillion in emergency relief since the start of March, they’re already clashing over the design, intention and necessity of the Clyburn panel.
Congress last month had created a five-member panel of bipartisan lawmakers charged with overseeing hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout loans for corporations. And that enormous relief package also created a separate panel of inspectors general, as well as a third oversight post: the special inspector general for pandemic recovery.
With that in mind, Republican leaders in Congress and the White House have said the Clyburn committee is both redundant and politically motivated. They’re accusing Democrats of establishing the panel merely to embarrass Trump in the months leading up to November’s elections — a debate that’s the mirror image of that over the GOP’s special Benghazi committee, which investigated Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the 2016 elections.
“Instead of looking for innovative ways to help the American people, Speaker Pelosi has chosen to pursue ‘impeachment 2.0’ with a partisan and unnecessary oversight committee,” a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told The Hill.
“The roster the Speaker has chosen makes clear that this is not an honest effort at transparency and accountability, but rather another attempt to politically damage the Trump administration.”
Fueling those accusations has been Pelosi’s picks for the oversight panel. Waters, for instance, has called for Trump’s impeachment since before he was sworn into office. Raskin, a constitutional law expert, had also been on the front-lines of the impeachment push.