Excellent speech.

CNBC

Here’s why Trump’s poll numbers are defying the impeachment mess

KEY POINTS
A very large number of Americans don’t have high levels of trust and respect for the government, and they’re generally OK with Trump being the junkyard dog who digs it all out, writes Jake Novak.

No matter where you turn, the news is filled with embarrassing stuff about President Trump. The CIA whistleblower complaint about his conduct on a call with Ukraine’s president has turned into a full-court impeachment scandal.

But through all of this, Trump’s approval rating is at its highest level of the year according to the Hill-HarrisX survey, and the other major polls taken since this Ukraine phone call whistleblower story emerged show few changes from the last surveys taken before the news broke.

How is this possible?

Anyone still asking that question simply hasn’t come to terms with why Donald Trump won the 2016 election in the first place. In short, Trump was elected to be the ultimate disruptor and to play that disruptive role as much as possible. “Drain the swamp” wasn’t just a campaign slogan, but a visceral feeling against establishment Washington in every way. Millions of Americans who voted for Trump and still support him chose him precisely because he is nasty, breaks the rules, and shows little respect for the political establishment at every level.

To really be mad at Trump for asking foreign leaders to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden or Hillary Clinton, the voters need to believe that Clinton and the Bidens aren’t inherently corrupt. They must also believe that just about all the rules and established groups within American government, especially the intelligence community, deserve unquestioned respect.

Here’s a newsflash: a very large number of Americans don’t have that trust and respect, and they’re generally OK with Trump being the junkyard dog who digs it all out.

This is Donald Trump’s brand.

Comedian Dennis Miller put it as succinctly as possible with a Facebook post Thursday where he simply wrote: “The simple fact is that if Trump was vaguely presidential he wouldn’t be President.”

This goes beyond scandalous or nasty behavior. Even little things like frequent misspellings in his tweets reinforce his brand of being anything but a polished politician.

It became clear during the end of the 2016 election, that this is also why Trump’s many exaggerations and outright falsehoods are judged by a different standard. Going back to his days as a casino mogul and reality TV show host, Trump established a brand for bluster or “puffing” that we accept when we see commercials for the “best car ever,” and the “greatest show on earth.” Fact-checking Trump is almost a waste of time as much of the public accepts his bluster in a way no established politician can ever get away with.

Branding is an important guide when it comes to seeing how any given president can weather scandals. We know that from two very different presidents in the past who came out of their own impeachment scandals very differently, thanks largely due to their political and personal branding.

For President Richard Nixon, who was elected in 1968 largely on “law and order” branding, the revelations that he himself had likely broken the law were devastating. Nixon’s approval numbers began to tank as soon as the Watergate accusations and investigations reached regular front page status. Nixon was never impeached, but the House Judiciary Committee did vote in favor of sending articles of impeachment to the full House floor. That helped force his ouster and by the time of his resignation in 1974, his approval rating was at an all-time low of about 22%.

Fast forward about 20 years and President Bill Clinton was actually impeached by the Republican-controlled House. But while the official charge was perjury, Clinton was really mired in an extramarital affair scandal. As embarrassing as the Lewinsky scandal facts were, they were in no way a surprise to most Americans who were already aware of Clinton’s philandering history. In essence, it was part of a brand that made him seem much more real to voters compared to the stodgier George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole.

Clinton was also helped by something that didn’t exist in Nixon’s time: a 24/7 cable news media that provided his supporters ample opportunities to make their cases for him and attack his accusers. Right now, Trump is getting at least some of that support on Fox News and some smaller conservative networks. Also unlike Nixon, Trump has his own Twitter account and many other supporters on social media. Throw in the conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin who are defending him daily, and this is yet another reason why the rules are very different than they were in 1973-74.

Branding and different standards aren’t the only reasons why Bill Clinton and Trump fare better than Nixon when it comes to scandal. Nixon was also straddled with high inflation and a generally weak economy during the final years of his presidency while Trump is riding a still strong economy and Clinton enjoyed the same scenario.

None of this means the Ukraine scandal won’t hurt the president in the long run. That’s especially true if it coaxes another truly non-establishment candidate off the sidelines to challenge him. But those seeking to impeach and remove him don’t seem to understand that this push is just as likely to help Trump, as his generally static poll numbers and improved fundraising since the scandal broke continue to prove.

Donald Trump is different. He plays by different rules and is judged by different rules. As long as his opponents play by the old rules, he’s likely to survive this scandal and the 2020 re-election battle.

Jake Novak is a political and economic analyst at Jake Novak News and former CNBC TV producer. You can follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.

Trump Fundraising Haul Shows Impeachment Backfiring on Dems

https://www.realclearpolitics...._on_dems_141397.html

By now it's clear that the Democrats have made one of the first great political blunders of the 21st century by trying to impeach the president of the United States based on a half-understood rumor.

If the groundswell of small-dollar donations flowing into the Trump campaign's coffers offers any indication, the Democrats are going to pay a terrible price for indulging the demands of their radical base. The Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign raked in a $13 million haul within 36 hours of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s embarrassingly vague announcement of a “formal impeachment inquiry.”

That’s significantly more than most of the Democrat presidential candidates are able to raise in a whole quarter. It’s more than Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke raised in two whole quarters, which many liberals hailed as potentially game-changing at the time.

The sudden flood of donations to President Trump’s reelection effort provides undeniable evidence that this impeachment gambit represents a massive miscalculation.

The White House has now publicly released both the rogue CIA agent’s “whistleblower complaint” and the transcript of the call -- the one that the “whistleblower” didn’t even hear, yet felt entitled to use as the basis for anonymously accusing the president of the United States of a crime. The allegations contained in the complaint are based entirely on hearsay. And according to the president’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, they appear to have been professionally prepared at an outside law firm. If true, that would all but confirm that the complainant’s motivation was political, not patriotic.

The complaint that Democrats are using to plunge the country into an impeachment morass is already coming apart at the seams. Parts of the account have already been proven false — just like CNN’s bogus claim that acting Director of National Intelligence Joe Maguire was threatening to resign. DNI Maguire flatly denied the report, and was on hand to testify to both the House and Senate intelligence committees last week to nip the “coverup” conspiracy theories in the bud.

The fact that the speaker of the House didn’t even wait for the transcript to be released before declaring her intent to impeach is a clear indication that the whole exercise is a sham.

The Democrats desperately need a distraction from their party’s alarming lurch toward radicalism. The first few rounds of Democrat presidential primary debates have been unmitigated disasters. Their leading candidates are openly advocating for policies — such as free health care for illegal aliens, fracking bans, and multitrillion-dollar government takeovers of the economy — that are so far outside mainstream opinion that they’re guaranteed to drive voters away from the eventual nominee in the general election.

Pelosi, who has been under constant pressure from the far-left wing of her caucus to start impeachment proceedings on virtually any pretext, needed to do something to mollify the radicals.

That may have bought the speaker a short-term reprieve, but the long-term political ramifications will come back to haunt her. The Democrat base that has been clamoring for impeachment since Inauguration Day was always going to vote for the Democrat candidate in 2020, no matter who it is.

Republicans and independent voters, on the other hand, are reacting to the impeachment announcement by showing their support for the president in the only way they can for the time being: by going online and making a contribution.

If this week’s GOP fundraising haul is any indication, Pelosi didn’t just drive another nail into the coffin awaiting the Democrats’ nominee next year, she may also be looking at serious losses in the swing House districts that handed her the speaker’s gavel in 2018. The moderate Democrats in those seats are already being put on the spot by the impeachment push. Their Republican challengers are poised to hold them accountable back in their home districts, hoping to ensure that those freshman legislators find themselves out of office next year.

The true toll of the Democrats’ decision to proceed with this Ukraine farce, of course, is the damage it is already inflicting on our government institutions. The American people won’t look kindly on their politicization of a process that exists as a last resort in a genuine crisis — which this clearly is not.

We know that this charade won’t result in Donald Trump leaving office, but it may well result in many Democrats leaving theirs.

Blue skies, boys and girls. Blue skies.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Trump Fundraising Haul Shows Impeachment Backfiring on Dems

https://www.realclearpolitics...._on_dems_141397.html

That article links to a doozie of a list- 86 Things Democrats Have Said Trump Could Be Impeached For

The list has now grown from 86 reasons, to 90 reasons, and I am certain it will continue to grow. What a hoot. Take a look at some of the reasons.

It's like a couple of 12 year olds with daddy's Platinum Visa. "WE CAN DO EVERYTHING NOW!"

Speaks for itself.

That list is fantastic. They should be noted as more of his accomplishments. (Driving Democrats dingy.)

That is not the goal, I trust, but a byproduct of getting the country back on track.

Why am I not surprised that Romney and Kasich don't support the president?

They'll sit by and ignore the railroading but quickly (concerned look on face) worry about the president.

The left represents the destruction of America as stated in their policy proposals and they're just acting out their tantrum over not getting their way.

To not recognize it is a form of blindness.

It's not about policy differences over how to achieve the same goal of American greatness. It's a difference over what the goal should be.

I personally know of historically active Democrats who are in a daze, wondering what has happened to their sober Democrat party. It's nowhere to be found.

When Kasich goes on TV and says Trump is what the founders warned us against, does anyone know what he is talking about?

I am serious. Anyone have a specific clue from the US Constitution or a founder debate or warning from the founders?

Or, is Never-Trump just pontificating from its wishful thinking again?

^^^^ Maggott Kasich is trying to be relevant. Please, do not GAF.

I've studied this stuff a lot in college and etc. But, when you study a lot you know that there's always more to learn.

I can't think of a single clear instance in the Federalist Papers, the debates or the US Constitution that was a warning against someone like Trump.

Maybe there's something that has been hidden from me or unseen by me. Or, maybe Kasich's just talking out of his ass again.

I'm open to new things but I seriously don't know what he's talking about.

Our founders were radicals about freedom and oppressive, non-responsive government. They looked a lot more like President Trump than emasculated Kasich.

Indeed, many founders were more radical than President Trump but instead of a threat to the Republic, they were seen as its life blood.

The circus keeps going. Go Trump Go !

This whole thing since inauguration, is more like the battle of Guadalcanal, with Trump playing the role of Al Schmid. Hell, they even both have German ancestry in them.

Trump has landed and taken Henderson field. Now he is just fighting the swamp, never Trumpers, Democrats, using twitter as his machine gun.

Schmid received the Navy Cross for his heroic action in face of a vastly superior enemy. And the Navy took the Island after a long bitter struggle.

Trump, will get re-elected for 2nd term, and probably with a Republican Congress to boot. Trump will take the swamp, after a long bitter struggle - well for a short time at least.

Now, can the democrats keep Bader-Ginsburg Alive for 4 more years?

I'm looking forward to this battle.

Couldn't agree more, Mr. President. I despise Romney. I voted for him first for President then for Senator. I promise I'll never cast another vote for him ever again.

Amazing Coincidence That Nancy Pelosi’s Son Also Has Business Connections With Ukraine

If you’re wondering why Nancy Pelosi is laying low as the effervescent maelstrom of corruption and influence peddling descends upon Joe Biden’s hairplugs, we may have the answer. She has a son of her own involved in oil importing from Ukraine.



He even used his Mom to promote his business.
Junior Pelosi’s company, Viscoil is under investigation for securities fraud. It seems as though the public management of the company, which included Paul Pelosi, Jr., as President and COO, was actually a Potemkin arrangement that hid the fact that the company was actually controlled by a pair of convicted felons.

So now we have two major Democrats with kids involved in financial dealings in Ukraine. We also know that Ukraine was involved in trying to assist the Clinton campaign to dig up evidence of wrongdoing by Paul Manfort. My guess is that there is a lot more lurking out there once President Trump motivates what passes for law enforcement in Ukraine to start investigating in earnest.

https://www.redstate.com/strei...connections-ukraine/

https://thefederalist.com/2019...peachment-narrative/

Sean Davis

Congressional testimony from the former top American envoy to Ukraine directly contradicts the impeachment narrative offered by congressional Democrats and their media allies. Ambassador Kurt Volker, who served for two years as the top U.S. diplomatic envoy to Ukraine, testified on Thursday that he was never aware of and never took part in any effort to push the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter. He also stressed that the interactions between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials were facilitated not to find dirt on Biden, but to assuage concerns that the incoming Ukrainian government would not be able to get a handle on corruption within the country.

Volker opening statement :

https://www.scribd.com/documen...er-on-October-3-2019

“As you will see from the extensive text messages I am providing, which convey a sense of real-time dialogue with several different actors, Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion” during negotiations with Ukraine, Volker testified. Cherry-picked snippets of those texts were released by the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., late Thursday evening.

“[A]t no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden ,” Volker told lawmakers.

Volker said that an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked Volker to connect the advisor to Rudy Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Donald Trump.

“[I]n May of this year, I became concerned that a negative narrative about Ukraine, fueled by assertions made by Ukraine’s departing Prosecutor General, was reaching the President of the United States, and impeding our ability to support the new Ukrainian government as robustly as I believed we should,” Volker said. “After sharing my concerns with the Ukrainian leadership, an advisor to President Zelensky asked me to connect him to the President’s personal lawyer, Mayor Rudy Giuliani.”

“I did so solely because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those, like Mayor Giuliani, who believed such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that, under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of U.S. support,” Volker said. “ I also made clear to the Ukrainians, on a number of occasions, that Mayor Giuliani is a private citizen and the President’s personal lawyer, and that he does not represent the United States government .”

Volker vehemently denied that he ever urged the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on the Biden family.

“As you will see from the extensive text messages I am providing, which convey a sense of real-time dialogue with several different actors, Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion ,” he said.

Volker testified that he never even mentioned a delay on U.S. military assistance to Ukrainian officials until late August , when news reports indicated that funding had been put on hold. Volker’s statement directly undercuts claims that the funding was part of a quid pro quo meant to force the Ukrainians to take certain actions in order for the military aids to be released.

“I became aware of a hold on Congressional Notifications about proceeding with that assistance on July 18, 2019, and immediately tried to weigh in to reverse that position,” Volker testified. “I was confident that this position would indeed be reversed in the end, because the provision of such assistance was uniformly supported at State, Defense, NSC, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the expert community in Washington.”

“As I was confident the position would not stand, I did not discuss the hold with my Ukrainian counterparts until the matter became public in late August,” he said.

Volker explained in his remarks that Trump had a dim view of the Ukrainian government given its involvement in 2016 efforts to damage Trump’s presidential campaign, and that the president’s view of rampant and widespread corruption in the country was a significant barrier to cooperation between the two nations going forward. According to Volker, the interactions between Giuliani and Ukraine were sought in an effort to persuade Trump that Zelensky’s government could be a trusted U.S. partner.

“It was clear to me that we had a growing problem in the negative narrative about Ukraine, built on these earlier accusations by Mr. Lutsenko, that was impeding the development of our bilateral relationship and the strengthening of our support for Ukraine,” Volker said. “I therefore faced a choice: do nothing, and allow this situation to fester; or try to fix it.”

“I tried to fix it,” he testified.

Volker said Giuliani eventually came to believe that the Ukrainian prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, was not credible.

While Volker said he did not believe any of the accusations of corruption levied against Biden, he felt that allegations of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections were “plausible.” Contrary to Democratic assertions that Trump’s diplomatic team was actively demanding that Ukraine interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, Volker said his team did the opposite.

“The point about Ukraine avoiding anything that could play into U.S. elections in 2020 is a message that I know our Chargé in Ukraine, Amb. Bill Taylor, reinforced in other meetings,” Volker said.

The diplomat also said he didn’t even know the Biden family had been referenced at all in Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky.

“I was not on the July 25 phone call,” Volker said. “I received a general readout via our Chargé and my own State Department staffer, as well as from Mr. Yermak.”

“All said it was a good, congratulatory call, that they discussed the importance of fighting corruption and promoting reform in Ukraine, and that President Trump reiterated his invitation to President Zelensky to visit the White House,” he testified. “I was not made aware of any reference to Vice President Biden or his son, which I only learned about when the transcript of the call was released on September 25, 2019.”

this will bring a smile

Pelosi went to Greenville SC for a fundraiser for SC DEM Party

watch the videos at the link

She was "greeted" by hundreds of Trump supporters

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...-supporters-n2554231

You were right. That did put a smile on my face.

Just the beginning.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind

These fools don't think ten seconds ahead and they're going to pay a very steep price for their blind obsession.