Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz Discuss the Backroom Impeachment Discussion…

Appearing on Ted Cruz podcast, Senator Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz share the backroom discussions that preceded the vote for witnesses.  Interesting background information on the arguments and debates, for those who followed events closely.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Lawfare, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

262 Responses to Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz Discuss the Backroom Impeachment Discussion…

  1. J Gottfred says:

    I listened to this yesterday. Until this pod cast I didn’t care much for Cruz; I felt we had had enough of one term Junior Senators running for President. Well he won me over. He still needs some time to fully mature, but he won me over. And LIndsey? Keep your promise to hold some hearings in the next few weeks, and you will win me back too.

    Liked by 24 people

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      Cruz should stay as Senator or some day on the Supreme Court. Not so much as future President though. The Deep State, Dems and RINOs would eat him alive. Rush always says that not one of the other 2016 GOP candidates could have survived what Trump has been through.

      Liked by 41 people

      • Judith says:

        Cruz is not a *natural* born citizen. He is therefore Constitutionally ineligible to be President. I don’t care if he wins the nobel peace prize. Nothing changes the fact that he cannot be the President of the United States. Ever. Same for Nikki Haley.

        Same for President Trump’s children. All except Tiffany can *never* be president. Can’t argue with the US Constitution. Nor should we try.

        Liked by 11 people

        • Do Stop Thinking About Tomorrow says:

          Yeah how did that argument work the last time?

          Liked by 3 people

          • dilonsfo says:

            Exactly! But none of the people saying this will take the time to file the lawsuit. They just keep talking. Obama wasn’t eligible either but he spent 8 years ruining this country as President. So, at this point, either put up or shut up because the boat has left the port and is over the horizon.

            Liked by 1 person

          • hitgirl18 says:

            I still say the senate should have never taken up this shit show, because there was never an initial vote in the house, so therefore it was illegal from the start! Peelousy never had the votes to begin with… I think this was a constitutional mistake!!!

            Liked by 7 people

        • mimbler says:

          The supreme court has never ruled on the undefined phrase natural born citizen.

          So your opinion above is exactly that, an opinion.

          I have a different opinion of what it means, but it carries no more legal weight than yours.

          If one of the above chooses to run, then the SC will need to rule on what the phrase means, and rightly, or wrongly – their decision, by definition, will be constitutional.

          Liked by 4 people

          • Judith says:

            The supreme court has never ruled on a lot of things. When it comes to Presidential eligibility though, The Constitution distinguishes “natural born” citizen from run-of-the-mill everyday citizens. There *is* a difference.

            Liked by 4 people

            • mimbler says:

              Your opinion, once again. People have posited several versions of what that means, that do indeed have a difference, but yours is just one of those positions.

              Probably the most common interpretation is any citizen whose citizenship is derived by lawful birth, rather than attaining citizenship through naturalization.

              You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I still maintain that is all it is. Might be proven correct, in the future, might not.

              Liked by 3 people

              • Sherri Young says:

                Ted’s mother was born here. Only his father had foreign citizenship. Ted did not have to be naturalized. He was an American citizen through his mother, born in Canada while his parents were working up there. Canada granted him birthright citizenship, making him a dually.

                Any thoughts on Kamala Harris? Neither of her parents had been naturalized at the time of her birth in California.

                Liked by 2 people

                • mimbler says:

                  My guess on a court decision is 50/50. Born here means she doesn’t have to be naturalized, but born to parents beholden to foreign countries has been suggested to be not a natural born.

                  And I would vote not natural born for her case, but I won’t get a vote🙂

                  Liked by 2 people

                • Rob Allison says:

                  Ted’s mother was born here but when he was born she was living in Canada and Canadian voting records show she was registered to vote there, which under Canadian law at that time was only allowed for Canadian citizens and they had to give up other citizenship at that time to be citizens. So, it appears she was not an American citizen when Ted was born. Ted sealed his records when he ran for president, which is interesting because when he ran for senate he was interviewed and asked about a future run for the presidency and he said he was ineligible because he was not natural born.

                  Also,the founders saw the natural born issue quite clearly and it was commonly understood what the term meant or they wouldn’t have left it undefined in the Constitution. John Quincy Adams, our 6th president and son of our second president, John Adams, was living in Prussia when his son was born and he said he could never be president because he was not born on American soil.

                  Those are just a couple of many issues that are clear if you study what was written at the time of the founding. A friend of mine who was a political pundit and retired a few years ago, spent over a year studying the writings from the time of the founding and it’s quite clear. A person must be born on American soil and must the the child of two American citizen parents.

                  And we can add to the ineligible list from 2016, Marco Rubio (his parents weren’t citizens when he was born). Bobby Jindal has the same problem. And this nonsense that because Obama got away with it it no longer matters is just that, nonense. Just because someone gets away with breaking the law doesn’t mean you should go ahead and break the law. If you respect and love the Constitution then you should live by it regardless of what other people do.

                  Liked by 4 people

              • Hiker Mike says:

                No less than four Supreme Court cases have defined ‘natural born citizen’. There are other case but these four show an understanding of what the Supreme Court over the years have considered and in my opinion define who is to be considered a natural born citizen especially in the third case listed below. Minor vs Happersett 1875.

                By the definition in the Minor case, in my opinion, Ted Cruz’s father being a Cuban national at the time of his birth renders him not eligible under the U.S. Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen to be the President of the U.S.

                The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814). In the Venus case – “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

                Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) – ….for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country….

                Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) – “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

                United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) – “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

                Liked by 5 people

              • Debra says:

                The dictionary meaning of ‘naturalization’ is ‘to confer citizenship on’, and the authority to enact uniform naturalization is Constitutionally under the umbrage of Congress.

                The Constitution also tells us that there will ALSO be natural born citizens.

                The former ‘citizens’ are ANY citizens whose citizenship occurs due to a law passed by Congress (see for example, the Naturalization Law of 1795) including the law that defines how people who come to this country from a foreign country can go through the ‘Naturalization Process’ to be sworn in as ‘citizens’.

                Via the brilliance of the Constitution, we are apprised that there will thus be ‘citizens’ AND ‘natural born citizens’. We are also given the fact that one is either a ‘citizen’ OR a ‘natural born citizen’ under the logic distinguishing the requirements of a President/VP vs. Senators.

                Further examination of the President/VP requirements are crucial to having that ‘aha’ moment as to what our Founders meant by using the phrase ‘natural born citizen’.

                Pop quiz, Treepers! Discover your ‘aha’ moment and provide elucidation . . .

                Like

          • cboldt says:

            Cruz fits squarely in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
            He was naturalized at birth by operation of a statute – but for the statute he would not have been a citizen of the US.
            There is no serious legal question Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Just another example of how our people are ignorant and our government does not apply the rule of law.
            Cruz survived about 20 lawsuits on this, even getting courts so say Rogers v. Bellei stands for the opposite of what it says. This too is not unusual. courts are just as lawless as the politicians. That’s how we got a behemoth FedGov.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Rob Allison says:

              No Cruz did not survive any suits, they were never taken through the process of allowing the cases to be considered. Courts through them out mostly because of the danger of bringing up something that would cause Obama to be questioned. He couldn’t have been naturalized at birth given that not only was he born in Canada of a Cuban citizen father and a mother whose American citizenship is in question (she was registered to vote in Canada and Canada did not allow dual-citizenship at the time nor did they allow non-citizens to vote, so she couldn’t have been registered to vote if she wasn’t a Canadian citizen. Ted sealed his records so they cannot be checked. The list goes on and on and the deeper a person seriously looks the clearer it is that Ted isn’t a natural born citizen.

              Besides, after the terrible thing he did as Solicitor General of Texas it’d be insane for anyone to want him as president even if he was eligible. A man was sent to prison for stealing a $2 calculator. A mistake was made as Texas had a limit on how long he could be sentenced for such a crime (if my memory is correct it was either 2 years or 5 years maximum), but they accidentally put him away for much longer. His attorneys filed to get his sentence reduced to the state required maximum but Ted, as Solicitor General, fought it all the way to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS admonished Ted and asked him if Texas wasn’t willing to admit their mistakes. The man in prison ended up spending over 15 years in prison because of Ted dragging it through the courts.

              That action on Cruz’s part was disgusting and he should have been penalized for it. That should be enough to not support Ted Cruz.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Sherri Young says:

              A hard-working Ted Cruz volunteer who was a local light in the TEA party movement nearby and I briefly discussed Ted in 2016. She had even traveled to Iowa and stayed in a college dorm for a few weeks to be able to campaigned for him. I told her that even though I liked him and intended to vote for him in the primary as an acceptable favorite son, I would be more than happy to have Trump on the ballot in November. I told her that I had a concerns regarding Ted’s status as a natural born citizen, as I did Obama’s.

              It would be good to have these citizenship questions cleared up.

              Liked by 1 person

          • old white guy says:

            If your parents are American then you are an American no matter where your mother wound up delivering you.

            Liked by 1 person

            • no-nonsense-nancy says:

              Not true. You still have to born on American soil. It can be a military base. which is considered American soil, or a territory, which I believe is also. John McCain was not, contrary to what he claimed because he was not born on the base in Panama. The base hospital where he claimed to be born was not built until 3 years after his birth.
              I was not able to respond to the question of Alexander Hamilton above. He was not a NBC because he was born in Jamaica and immigrated here.

              Liked by 1 person

            • no-nonsense-nancy says:

              You would be an American but not a natural born one.

              I wasn’t able to respond to the statement concerning Alexander Hamilton above. He was not a NBC because he was born in Jamaica or the East indies and immigrated here. He and the founders would have known that at the time as they all knew the definition of NBC.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Rob Allison says:

              It’s not about being American, it’s about being a natural born citizen. You can be a naturalized citizen but not a natural born citizen. That’s why John Quincy Adams, our 6th president, said his son, who was born while Adams and his family were in Prussia, Adams said that his son was not natural born and could not be president. I think he’d know far better than any of us who live today. But don’t mistake the idea that just because you’re an American citizen means you’re natural born. It’s far different being a citizen by being natural born than being naturalized.

              Like

            • mimbler says:

              Yes, I don’t think that is a point of contention by anyone.

              Like

              • no-nonsense-nancy says:

                I meant to state above that you have to be born on American soil to citizen parents. One or both can be naturalized citizens, but have to be at the time of birth.

                Liked by 1 person

          • MustangBlues says:

            ”’mimbler says:
            February 1, 2020 at 9:39 pm” on citizenship???

            Help us understand: Are the children of diplomats born on American soil, American citizens, who can run for president?? Does being born on American soil negate the citizenship of the parents who are foreign nationals, giving their offspring their citizenship???

            Like

            • mimbler says:

              IIRC, children born on American soil to Diplomats and military, etc. with foreign allegience, are not even citizens let alone natural born. There are words about subject to the jurisdiction of the US for their parents in order for the child to be a citizen.

              IMO that makes anchor babies not citizens as well, but no one seems to be touching that live wire. I wish they would.

              Anyway, Obama had one foreign parent, and survived a number of court challenges as to being eligible to be president. So current law appears to allow natural born to a child with one American and one alien parent.

              Like

          • MeJane says:

            The Supreme Court doesn’t need to rule on this at all, it already is in the Constitution if you look hard. The Left have muddled the definition purposely, and we have been dumbed down in our education, they want this to go to the supreme court but it shouldn’t. Yet Congress seemed to understand precisely the meaning in 2003 Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to repeal the natural born citizen clause prohibiting citizens who were naturalized from holding the office of President .

            We already KNOW from past Supreme Court rulings and history who Natural Born Citizens DEFINITELY are: children born on US soil to “two” US citizen parents, who can be naturalized citizens. Which is logical. That is what every US President has been with the exception of the founding Presidents who were grandfathered and were not natural born, Chester A Arthur (found 15 years ago he was a usurper) and Obama ( a usurper who has not been charged with the crime). These citizens: dual, birthright and naturalized citizens are citizens through an act of Congress. The Left would like everyone to believe that they are natural born also, which is ridiculous, Congress cannot and has no Constitutional power to bestow natural born citizenship on anyone, they can only bestow basic citizenship, Also remember that as per Art. II the only “citizens” eligible for the Presidency had to be present at the time of the signing of the Constitution, so any basic citizen is not eligible. To argue this further Naturalized citizens we all know are not eligible, or we used to. Dual is highly questionable because the person would have dual allegiances and not be able to function as a commander in chief in the event of a war or an intrigue . Birthright citizens are definitely not natural born citizens, I don’t believe that they’re even US citizens as they’re under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. The Left want to water down the eligibility requirement of the Presidency. I do believe their final goal is to a foreign national be eligible also, not a ridiculous notion because in 08 a foreign National with a green card Roger Calero ran for President and got on the ballot in NY and received votes.

            Minor v. Happersett: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

            https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2014/05/natural-born-citizens-and-minor-v-happersettmichael-ramsey.html

            Like

        • Rich Gorman says:

          Ever heard of Barry Soetoro
          ( aka OBAMA ). The man with NO COUNTRY OF LEGAL ORIGIN. TRUE. PERIOD.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Lady Sid says:

            Photographic evidence is available of the parents of the man called Barack Obama. Both his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and biological father, Frank Marshall Davis, were natural-born American citizens with horribly foreign ideas about our country’s governance. As President, Obama was excruciatingly careful not to leave any traces of his DNA around. Flew in a Chicago barber bi-weekly to cut hair in the White House; rarely ate at banquets or donor cocktail parties, leaving few traces behind. He publicly enjoyed the occasional Martha’s Vineyard ice cream cone. Wonder what became of the “cigarettes” he smoked at the WH? Probably flushed the evidence down the commode. He’s about as Kenyan as I am. Not. It is just too awful to admit that We The People elected a bastard for a President, although we’ve had plenty of them serve;-) He’s a Yankee Doodle Dandy to the bone.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Tl Howard says:

          Yours is not a modern interpretation of the phrase.
          I’m no expert on the intention of the Framers in their use of the phrase. I simply know your understanding of what it does mean or did mean or should mean is not generally accepted by those who argue such topics today nor by the people who’d decide to confirm or not confirm a candidate, the members of the US Senate.

          Like

          • wildsailor2018 says:

            At what point in history did we finally have a President that was born in the USA post 1789? Until that point they were either citizens of the UK and subjects of the King, or born in the Confederacy. So what does natural born mean? The opposite of un-natural born? So no c-section babies? LOL…

            Like

            • Sherri Young says:

              “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

              A citizen under the Articles of Confederation was a-okay to be President. Under the Articles…

              “Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;…”

              Like

          • Debra says:

            Modern interpretation?

            Our founders understood that we are all created equal. The ‘mechanism’ to create another human is the same today, yesterday, and always: it requires human male sperm fertilizing human female eggs.

            Male AND female. The ‘modern interpretation’ CANNOT alter that.

            Our Founders were not ignorant of biology, and we should not capitulate to any ‘modern interpretation’ of biology . . . should we? It takes a human man and a human woman to produce a natural born human baby.

            It takes a human male citizen and a human female citizen to produce a natural born (baby) citizen.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Cathy M. says:

          George Romney, Mitt’s dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born in Mexico.

          Like

        • Raven78 says:

          Wrong, All one needs is to have ONE American born citizen as a parent and no matter where they are born they are considered natural born citizen’s.

          Liked by 1 person

        • hitgirl18 says:

          No, not true, Trump was a citizen, but his wife was a legal alien. Only one parent needs to be a natural citizen, not both!

          Like

        • DebbieSemms says:

          “Same for President Trump’s children”

          You don’t no what your talking about,.

          Like

        • Xavier says:

          Ted Cruz is a citizen by birth because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Somebody says:

            My memory is foggy from all the Obama arguments, but I seem to remember something to do with laws changing. Maybe the Kennedy 1965 immigration bill or maybe a different law. Bottom line it used to be the father and/or both parents then it changed in the law to reflect only one parent, father or mother.

            I remember a bunch of arguments that if Obama had been born after X year, then he’d be a NBC by way of his mother. Was it a female attorney a lot of people were following at the time?? Foggy memory, but I remember something about the law changing. Also, Obama and his passport and the trip to Pakistan most likely he used Indonesian passport.

            Like

          • Debra says:

            Yes. He is a citizen at birth which status was CONVEYED to him via the Naturalization Law of 1795.

            Because his citizenship at birth did not require an individual naturalization process DOES NOT EQUTE to natural born citizen status.

            Yes. Natural born citizens ‘are’ citizens at birth, also, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF ANY ACT of Congress. Rather, we are natural born citizens via an Act of God Who Deigned who our parents are.

            If you were born in rural KY in 1890 to an American citizen father and an American citizen mother, WHAT OTHER citizenship could you even claim? What other ‘act’ by Congress covers your citizenship? I will tell you, NONE.

            That is because our Constitution, when enacted, told us there would be natural born citizens IN THE FUTURE who are eligible when they turn 35. NO ONE was a natural born citizen of the U.S. at the time of our independence. Why? Because no one had been born to citizens of the U.S. until AFTER we became a country.

            This is a logic procedure one has to undertake in their mind to grasp the brilliance of our founders in wording our Constitution the way it is worded . . . Sorry if your created equal vessel may not contain the requisite thinking skills to give rise to the analysis.

            Like

        • Heather says:

          https://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/the-natural-born-citizen-book/

          If you read each link you will educate yourself on natural born citizenship. Both parents need to be american citizens in order for the child to be natural born. If one parent is a natural born citizen and the other is naturalized citizen your child can still be potus/vp. they qualify. Trumps kids are natural born because Trump is natural born and Ivana his 1st wife is a naturalized american citizen prior to the birth of the kids. Barron is natural born because Melania was naturalized years prior to his birth. Kamala Harris is not natural born, the Tulsi Gabbard is not natural born, she was born in a US territory, the castro brothers are not natural born, their mother was never naturalized but their father was a naturalized citizen, they are all ineligible to be potus and vp. Most of the congress now are not natural born today. They all need to be vetted and investigated from birth from now on. Obama was never a natural born citizen, his father was a citizen of Kenya and his step father an Indonesian citizen Obama was a usurper and the congress allowed him to run for fear of being called racist and bigots. The entire congress and obama are all guilty of treason for this. Congress and the FBI and CIA and other countries all investigated Trump from birth and found nothing on him other than he was a natural born citizen. So what they did to him every potus and vp need the same done to them.

          Like

        • larry griffith says:

          you forget one thing obama was born in kenya and they still put him in.

          Like

      • Tl Howard says:

        I think he’s SCOTUS material, yet it would be a confirmation hard to achieve if he Dem Party stays like this and if the Gop can’t get a majority in the Senate that HANGS TOUGH TOGETHER.

        Liked by 1 person

      • VVV VVV says:

        They wouldn’t have been attacked as they would have played their Uniparty (swamp) role as President. None of them would have taken on what Trump has taken on,

        Liked by 2 people

      • MJJ says:

        How the House lost the witness battle along with impeachment
        By Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor:
        “This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. This very series of events was expressly laid out before the vote, and House Democrats made a decision to choose certain failure over completing their impeachment case…The hard truth is that House Democrats lost this case the minute they rushed an impeachment vote, and they knew it. With the approaching Iowa caucuses, they chose a failed impeachment rather than taking a few more months to work on a more complete case against Trump, a case more difficult to summarily dismiss. That is the hard truth.”
        Link To Think:
        https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/481015-how-the-house-lost-the-witness-battle-along-with-impeachment

        Liked by 1 person

        • Redzone says:

          Turley- don’t forget, there was no legitimate case. Please stop leaving that fact out of your analysis. It didn’t matter how much longer the Dems spent on their case, PT didn’t do it!

          Like

      • Neil Horn says:

        Ted Cruz for SCOTUS

        Like

    • L4grasshopper says:

      Cruz has always been a very solid conservative. Unfortunately, he has the personality of a pine cone 🙂

      He was my guy in the nomination contest in 2016…but he never caught on. I live in TN, which should have been solid Cruz territory. Trump, however, won 92 of the 93 TN counties in the primary…and the 1 Trump did not win went to….Rubio! My county!

      As for Graham….I just don’t trust the guy. But it does appear that he understands that his and the country’s success depends on the success of President Trump. It’s just that his “go along to get along” DNA is awfully powerful 🙂

      Liked by 6 people

      • L4, Texans saw Cruz as a snake oil salesman, perhaps he has truly seen the light, or more than likely he has seen the Trump karma hit those who oppose Trump. Who knows really? I do tell his people who call me wanting money that I will never give him money and if he wants me to check his box in 2024 rather than leaving it blank, then he had better support President Trump 100%. Cornyn has 4 running against him in the primary and I WILL be voting for one of them. I can’t imagine I will ever trust Graham, he changes day to day.

        Liked by 6 people

        • L4grasshopper says:

          sherry….I’ve always seen Cornyn as a less trustworthy vote on conservative issues and nominations than Cruz. An upgrade to a more conservative person than him would be welcomed. That said…if Cornyn is the nominee, it should be easy to vote for him against whatever Leftist the Dems put up 🙂

          BTW — lived in San Angelo for a while. Loved it! Hated to leave…….

          Liked by 4 people

          • L4, San Angelo is beautiful. I spent a few days there 30+ years ago and thought it was wonderful for a city and loved the way it was laid out in a grid. I’m in East TX with the closest town population of 304. I’m about 30 mi to the closest gas or grocery store and wouldn’t have it any other way. In November elections when cornyn has no one opposing him I leave his little square blank but I do force myself to color it in when there is a dem. But for the primaries…it will NOT be cornyn. As for Cruz, time will tell.

            Like

        • Sherri Young says:

          I was a delegate at the 2016 Texas GOP convention. There was an undercurrent from delegates who wanted to force a brokered national convention to try to get the nomination for Ted that way. There were a lot of delegates with hurt feelings.

          Trump did not appear at the state convention to make a speech as would have been expected. Jeff Sessions came instead and spoke for him. Sessions’ speech was conciliatory in nature, a far cry from the type of rousing rally speeches Trump would have wanted to give. However, it was the right speech to give. Too many people in that room could not wrap their heads around not having Ted Cruz as the nominee.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Orygun says:

            Interesting ….Thanks.
            As soon as President Trump entered the race I put all my faith in him. He had name recognition, money, people liked him, seemed sincere, loved the country and was a tough hombre.

            At the time, ,my bar was so low I just wanted someone who loved our country as I do.

            Liked by 1 person

        • JTaylor says:

          Cruz has been elected twice in Texas and has the benefit of being detested by Mitch McConnell, the true snake oil salesman. If you don’t like Cruz, you can have Cornyn.

          Like

      • Tl Howard says:

        What Cruz did to Trump in his speech at the GOP convention that nominated Trump was horrendous. Trump was magnanimous in letting him speak at all, and then Cruz stabbed him in the back.

        I wonder what the actual relationship between him and POTUS is today.

        Liked by 6 people

      • dilonsfo says:

        Pine Cone Cruz….I love that because is the perfect description. Congrats.

        Like

      • Vince says:

        Cruz was never my candidate, and what he did at the convention was petty and childish. I can also empathize that failing at such a public thing that you have worked so hard at is not easy on the ego. But I think I do see some real maturity coming from him over time. I stand by my feelings on election day, that President Trump was the best candidate to fight and win, and maybe with all the attacks on President Trump since the election, Cruz has come to realize that too.

        At least today Cruz is effectively defending the president. Romney is still being childish. and petty.

        Liked by 4 people

        • JTaylor says:

          What was petty and childish was Trump accusing Cruz of being the son of one who helped Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK. Trump repeated this many times in the primaries. Cruz was very rational at the convention and has been a consistent supporter of Trump since he took office, despite the nastiness of the Trump campaign.

          Liked by 1 person

      • hitgirl18 says:

        Do you remrmber in 2016 how cruz campaign said was a prophet? I do! Do you remrnber the dirty trick he played on Ben Carson in Iowa? Do you remember how he stole Trump votes? Do you remember how he acted at the convention? He and rubio bought the picture of Melania modeling and told people she was a hooker? He was disgusting! He’s ok but I dont cinsider him a conservative really. I think he has become more conservative in the Trump years, but he lost his way for quite a while. He really acted like a jerk in 2016! My opinion!

        Liked by 9 people

      • bruzedorange says:

        I’m from Tennessee and also supported Cruz. He was the only candidate I heard who sounded serious about getting this nation back under the Constitution and rule of law. I liked pragmatically what I was hearing from Trump, but I wasn’t hearing anything principled undergirding his ideas. I feared he was a purely pragmatic problem solver.

        When I voted for Trump in November, I still had my fingers crossed.

        I believe Donald J. Trump heard so much BS in his life, and encountered so many talented liars, that he chose instead to just do what he said he would do, and leave it to observers to connect the dots as to what his foundational values and principles must be.

        Today I’m an extremely satisfied customer.

        Liked by 2 people

    • GB Bari says:

      Rush is 100% correct on that observation. Cruz has always been able to articulate concepts and reasoning quite well, in fact, masterfully much of the time. Just never seemed to generate much warmth from his colleagues.

      I think Ted Cruz has the potential to be similar to Scalia if he could ever be nominated for SCOTUS.

      Liked by 5 people

    • dottygal says:

      I want to see Lindsey call for all the investigations he talked about. Sadly I don’t think it will happen because he is probably corrupt too. I hope he proves me wrong. Cruz rocks!

      Liked by 4 people

      • hitgirl18 says:

        Grahamnesty lied over and over and never did any investigation!

        Liked by 4 people

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        Senate Foreign Affairs Commitee is a mixed bag.
        Cruz, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul
        but also
        Pierre Delecto and L’il Marco

        On FISA…
        US Freedom Act reauthorization was delayed until March.
        The IG FISA Report will play a big role in this. (note Cruz’s response)

        Should be fun to watch THESE “Three Stooges” coming back….hat in hand…now that the Report is out and DOJ has invalidated 2/4 Carter Page FISAs

        Senate Judiciary Committee reauthorization hearing Nov 2019

        Mike Lee was on fire and Dick Blumenthals question is THE BEST.@ 1:08:00 mark
        If you watch anything watch the Stooges respond to it
        Uh Oh.

        House Judiciary Committee reauthorization hearing Sep 2019

        Will be interesting to see how Nadler handles this renewal grenade.
        House Republicans asked some very pointed questions.

        Like

    • BigTalkers says:

      When you recall Teddy leading the fight for TPA (to enact the TPP) you’ll come back.

      Liked by 1 person

    • MaineCoon says:

      I agree. I wanted to near more of what Cruz had to say but Lindsy kept hogginh the air space. Cruz has matured a bit. His has a keen legal mind and clearly he caught Sciff’s error in his presentation and used it against him and for the reasoning Lamar and Murkowski needed to hear. lindsy might have helped but I think Cruz was the lead lawyer in the trial. I’d say he exonerated himself for his R convention stint. POTUS will take note.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lolli says:

        MaineCoon,
        Cruz is pure con.
        It is not just the convention. Cruz is not at all who he pretends to be. Fake. As bad as LG.
        I have been following him since he became Senator. He has a lot to hide. He should unseal his records.

        Like

      • Peppurr says:

        It looked to my like Lindsey might have had a few drinks before this Podcast. 🙂 Nevertheless, I thought they were both pretty funny. I LOL when he brought up Nadler cutting off Schiff to get to the podium and Lev Parnas not being able to get into the proceedings because of his Court ankle bracelet. lol

        Like

    • John55 says:

      >>”… he won me over”

      He continues not to do a damn thing. I’ll wait for some actual action before I give him any credit.

      Liked by 1 person

    • John McMaster says:

      LG is a fraud. He swore up and down he would hold the left accountable for Spygate, ZERO HEARINGS.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Hoofhearted says:

      Thank you, very enjoyable podcast. A refreshing time of letting down after several intense days and the levity was great.

      Liked by 2 people

    • theasdgamer says:

      Graham has to deliver some results…as in criminal referrals that result in indictments…otherwise he’s as useless tits on a boar.

      Liked by 3 people

    • MJJ says:

      What Will Happen If President Trump Inquiry Of Congressman Schiff, Pelosi & Nadler As Fact Witnesses Just What Howard Hughes Once Did To Senator Brewster’s Inquiry Committee:

      When Senator Ralph Brewster Was made A Fact Witness To Howard Hughes Inquiry Committee During The Investigation Of 40 Million!

      Like

    • MJJ says:

      How Senator Lindsey can Call Congressman Adam Schiff To The Judiciary Committee As Howard Hughes challenged the Intelligence “Inquiry’ Committee In The 1950s.

      Senator Ralph Owen Brewster claimed concern that Hughes had received $40 million from the War Department without actually delivering the aircraft he had contracted to provide, but Brewster may have had an ulterior motive. Hughes aggressively combated the inquiring Brewster, alleging that the senator was corrupt. In response, Brewster, stung by the allegations, stood aside from chairing the inquiry and became instead a witness before the committee – which also allowed Hughes to question Brewster directly. Brewster denied Hughes’ allegations and made several counter-claims, but by the time the hearing ended Brewster’s reputation had suffered greatly. Ironically, Hughes, for all his wealth, came across as what Dietrich described as the “little guy” who “fought City Hall and won.”! Later, Brewster Resigned his Senate Seat in December 1952.

      The Best of HOWARD HUGHES Part 1 of 3:

      Citation:
      Dietrich, Noah; Thomas, Bob (1972). Howard, The Amazing Mr. Hughes. Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, Inc. pp. 198–208.

      Like

      • MJJ says:

        How It All Began Between Senator Brewster’s Accusations & Howard Hughes Explanations Is Similar To Ukraine Aid Telephone Calls That Impeached A President By Congressman Adam Schiff Secret Whistleblower Not Available As TV In the 1950s Media Recorded The Hearings! How Past Investigations Very Relevant Today!

        Howard Hughes And Ralph Brewster Speak On Investigation Educational Clips:

        Like

    • JTaylor says:

      He is the same Ted Cruz. The one Trump forever branded “Lyin’ Ted Cruz. He was good then. He is good now. But, there is a cottage industry of commenters who must trash him because he is good and was good even when he was “Lyin’ Ted”.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Donzo says:

      When you’re innocent and have all the facts on your side calling witnesses is to your favor. I think the Deep State won by “failing” in the vote to get witnesses. It would have been Trump’s chance to finally reveal to the nation the treasonous plot to oust him. Dems knew the constitutional issues of executive privilege and the Chief Justice casting the 51st vote to break a tie would end the their failed bid remove PDT. It was time for Dems to throw in the towel because all that was left was for Trump’s team to expose them on national TV by calling crucial witnesses who could only take the 5th, including House managers. That said, it was the right decision to preserve the Constitution, but it goes to show you how Dems play Republicans like a fiddle. Criminals will always have the upper hand, especially when the Main Justice is asleep at the wheel. But now it’s all the more important for Trump to get his day in court that was deprive of him in both the House and then the Senate.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Redzone says:

      Listening to 2 anti-Trumpers pat themselves on the back for 30 minutes did not make either one more qualified to be President or lead any other Committees.

      I do appreciate them having PT’s back in this situation, though. Graham and Cruz are too easily bought and both are lushes. Cruz finally figured out if he will vocally support the President more people will support his Podcast which will result in a nice advertising payday for him.

      I expect we’ll be hearing much more vocal support from Cruz for awhile. The people in TX are not fooled. That is obvious by the fact that Beto actually had a distant chance to beat him.

      Like

    • Yy4u says:

      Agree J Gottfried. Well said.

      Cruz us smart. Trump should consider him for SCOTUS

      Like

    • jackalix says:

      I enjoyed it also they became human.I really liked Cruz’s rendition of Nadler speech and Roberts reaction I laughed at that part.

      Like

  2. Harvey Lipschitz says:

    Schiffty, Nadler and Pelosis say it ain’t over. The bad dude is still going to be on the ballot.

    Like

  3. psmithez says:

    I hope Ted Cruz will continue to give his analysis and I am hoping there will be other guests from Congress who will speak freely without a biased interviewer to interrupt. I might not always agree, but I hate to see the media interfere with the message. I was hoping that Prof. Dershowitz’ presentation would be as consequential to them as I thought it was. The Democrats are hoping that Bolton’s book will reveal something new. I think new revelations about Schiff and others will be much more revealing. Durham’s investigations will start to become more important in the next months too.

    Liked by 6 people

  4. John55 says:

    Cruz and Graham are both on the Judiciary Committee. The committee which is supposed to conduct oversight of the DOJ and FBI, but which has watched in silence for the last several years as these agencies have engaged in widespread criminal behavior.

    We’re way past the stage where making some nice-counding noises is worth anything. They need to get off their worthless butts and finally DO SOMETHING.

    Liked by 26 people

    • WSB says:

      I agree, John. I have a lot of cold anger. Lots.

      Liked by 10 people

      • Daniel M. Camac says:

        WSB, You and me too. My cold anger is morphing into tepid anger soon to become hot anger will then turn into,
        as Seal Team 6 leader called it, “blankety blank, blanking &(%^$’s” sh*t”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ray Runge says:

        Forget the cold anger. Lindsey has no interest in questioning any of the criminals involved in the IC or FISA related abuse. And Ukraine investigation is equal to chopping Lindsey’s digits off to expose the honey pot that Lindsey wholly participated in.

        Liked by 3 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      I have a wistful hope that now that there are no more formal investigations ongoing, that Trump will begin to go on offense without being accused of “obstruction!!”.

      It’s past time to start assessing some legal accountability on some people. Long past time.

      But I’m learning to not hold my breath 🙂

      Like

    • MaineCoon says:

      Too little, too late – now that they allowed PDJT to be put through the coup 1.0 and 2.0 plus impeachment wringer. Now they are going to investigate? Only after he survived it without any help from Chairman Lindsy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dixie says:

      So what difference did Cruz and Graham make as members of the Judiciary Committee? Being a member of it is a big failed whoop-de-doo because they couldn’t stop the railroading of President Trump carried on by Jerry Nadler who couldn’t even stay awake. I call bullshiff.

      Liked by 2 people

    • powderdayrules says:

      I agree also John55. It would only take ONE senator to buck the turtle and allow President Trump to recess appoint a bunch of conservative judges. IMO all the republican senators are RINOS for this alone.

      Liked by 2 people

    • JTaylor says:

      Trump is the President who appoints the AG and can / could have fired all the Obama political appointees and didn’t. Trump has the power to declassify all the Russia investigation documents and has promised this for years but has never done it. I have growing anger myself.

      Like

  5. Kaco says:

    I just got done watching this and hadn’t noticed this new post. I’m just going to repeat what I said there.

    This was good. They gave some cover for Murkowski and Alexander in their waffling, but they made it seem somewhat understandable. However, given the stakes, I think Collins is utterly stupid, and Romney is just treacherous and is no way ever presidential material that he would be willing to destroy many parts of our government for his desire for revenge. What a sicko.

    Lindsay, you were going to get to the bottom of the Kavanaugh witch hunt, too, like you said? How’s that going? Let’s see if he is serious about the FISA and this corruption. They didn’t mention going after the coup plotters, though.

    I am glad to see the Republicans are fighting back compared to the past. They have to understand how the Dems are off their rocker and bent on destroying this country and its laws. Some one has to be the grown up and put a stop to it to save our Constitution. No cowering anymore, President Trump has taught you to fight like he said he would.

    Liked by 5 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      Collins must sincerely believe that she needs to demonstrate her anti-Trump credentials in order to get re-elected in liberal Maine. Only explanation.

      Liked by 2 people

      • She is not a particularly intelligent person.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lee Moore says:

        Maine ain’t that liberal. Trump only lost 48-45 in 2016.

        I’d say that Maine is one of the two States Trump lost in 2016, that he could win in 2020, even in a close election. The other is Minnesota.

        Not seen a poll from Maine, but I’d be very surprised if Collins lost. If the GOP loses its Senate majority, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia are more likely losses than Maine.

        Like

      • mimbler says:

        I believe she does, and I believe she is correct. However, I’ve been watching for some time, and her votes seem to be show votes for Maine, while coming through when she is really needed.

        At a casual glance she looks bad, but when paying attention, she is nothing like a flake, romney or mccain who actually voted to obstruct.

        I think she is as good as we can get from Maine at this time, and if some hotheads primary her with a real conservative, IMO she will be replaced with a dem.

        Liked by 3 people

    • hitgirl18 says:

      Where is the republican senate fighting? Not at all the frredom caucus guys are now they got rid of that turd amash!

      Like

  6. Sammy Hains says:

    Interesting how two of President Trump’s biggest opponents for the 2016 nomination became his most valuable defenders during impeachment.

    Liked by 3 people

    • WSB says:

      They want to keep the Ukraine money laundering scheme quiet. Therefore, they could never open up to other witnesses.

      Liked by 5 people

      • H.R. says:

        Absolutely, WSB.

        If witnesses had been voted a ‘Go’, I believe that somehow, magically, by a convoluted rules vote, President Trump’s team would not be allowed to call any witness who could even pronounce Ukraine, let alone have any Ukraine involvement.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. It’s nice that they find so much humor in the situation, but there is no indication of how this has affected Trump, his family, and we his supporters. This has not been funny for me; it has been very stressful and I do not find Alexander or Murkowsky to be intelligent thoughtful people because they actually thought it would be fair to allow the further slander against Trump and most of all that they would believe anything they read in the NYT and then vote to hurt our country based on that. To me that is a sign of someone not able to think for themselves. Low level IQ.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Zoe says:

      I agree with you that this whole affair has been incredibly stressful and it won’t get easier before the next election. I keep reading psalms 34 that begins “do not fret because of evil doers nor be envious of the workers of iniquity, for they shall soon be cut down like the grass and wither as the green herb”. I keep reminding myself that God didn’t fall off the throne because President Trump is being hassled. So I keep praying that God will confuse and confound his enemies and let them fall into the pit they have dug for President Trump and he would roll the stone back onto them. And now all I can do is keep praying and trust God.
      God Bless you.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Jan says:

      I’m with you. While I appreciate being refreshed on civics, the Constitution & Dershowitz has been outstanding, this is entirely too stressful because it will not end unless we keep the Senate & take back the House & even then we still have the Communist media.

      Knowing the Dimms want us dead is not reassuring me about our country’s future.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Magabear says:

      I dunno, if I were held captive having to listen to Schiff, Nadler & Co for endless hours of repetive lies and legal jabberwhocky, I might want to unwind a bit too.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Mike in a Truck says:

    All I can say about Cruz- thank God he grew a beard. He was starting to look like Grandpa Munster.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Daniel M. Camac says:

      Mike, Starting? hahahaha. He’s now made the full transition.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tl Howard says:

      I feel a bit guilty suggesting anyone have plastic surgery, but as people age, their features grow more exaggerated.

      I think Cruz would benefit from a nose job. There. I said it.

      Like

    • Debra says:

      Grandpa Munster could be LBJ’s father . . .

      Like

      • 1stgoblyn says:

        And LBJ could actually be Ted Cruz’ father. I remember reading all the information back in 2016 that could lead one to that conclusion. Look at pictures of LBJ at Ted’s approximate age now. Practically identical. I know that isn’t proof, but too many other coincidences to just pooh pooh the possibility. I always had a thorough distrust and dislike for LBJ. He is slimy and Ted, although a brilliant lawyer is smarmy and reminded me of a snake oil salesman.

        Like

  9. freepetta says:

    That podcast was loaded with goodies. I will have to watch it again when I have more time.
    Lindsey time to investigate this Biden corruption and several others which were promised and not delivered.

    Like

  10. Sammy Hains says:

    “If Jerry Nadler is outrunning you, you need to get in better shape.”

    Liked by 8 people

  11. All Too Much says:

    Great interview.
    The Nadler/Schiff bit was funny, and LG’s discussion about what the Judiciary Committee has coming down the track, which Cruz calls ‘breaking news’, well. who knows, but I liked the fact Cruz joined in on LG’s comments. Cruz and LG were having a good time.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Have a good time and GETTING SOMETHING DONE are two very separate things.

      Like

    • bruzedorange says:

      I enjoyed that! I really felt like I was seeing the real Graham and Cruz because they were tired and this was recorded after a long, long day of a long, long week. They were relaxed and–LG especially–acted like they didn’t expect many people were watching anyway.

      In other words, you did not hear the guarded tones “appropriate facial expressions” and carefully worded phrasing that they present in TV interviews. I didn’t hear anything defensive. It was like listening in on shop talk, with candid, teasing remarks about their fellow Senators’ personalities. They didn’t even seem to want to fight over the microphone!

      Sometimes I wonder if the highest talent required for a successful political career is to be sincerely honest while displaying the ability to lie about not lying without looking like you’re lying.

      That’s why rogues always make popular politicians. They aren’t the best liars, but they do know how to look into the camera and give you that wink when they’re lying, that lets you know they know that you know and so it’s okay because you’re “in on it.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • bruzedorange says:

        In other words, we’re more trustful of politicians who we know when they’re lying. A truly honest politician has no tell. And that is unsettling.

        Like

  12. MAGADJT says:

    Great insight in this podcast. Interesting to hear Graham and Cruz say they wrote a bunch of questions together and some they asked, and some they let other Senators ask, but they were all targeted at getting Murkowski and Alexander to decide to vote for no witnesses.

    To us it seems common sense to hear POTUS say there was no quid pro quo, but when the NYT comes out with a story that says Bolton says there was a quid pro quo, people like Murkowski (in an effort to be evenhanded) think they need to flesh it out.

    Amazing how weak minded some of these rinos are, and the effort that Cruz and Graham put forth to bring them around. Wow. It’s scary how dumb some of our folks are.

    Liked by 4 people

    • mimbler says:

      You are more charitable than I am. IMO,

      If Murkowski was trying to be even handed, she would have wanted 18 witnesses for the Republicans to make up for the 18 dem witnesses, and 0 republican witnesses.

      She would have wanted to have the IG deposition taken in Schiff’s basement made public that has not had a word see the light of day.

      She had her reasons, but I can’t see wanting to be even handed as being one of them.

      Liked by 3 people

    • WSB says:

      I just shake my head. Any contract has conditions. And the contract for foreign aid…had conditions.

      GD, some days I just want to choke something.

      Gosh darn…

      Liked by 6 people

    • bruzedorange says:

      What Graham and Cruz didn’t say (and wouldn’t have said explicitly) was whether by those questions they were seeking answers that would CONVINCE Murkowski, or answers that would give her COVER for voting no.

      Alexander is retiring and had no need for political or media cover–only legacy. Sadly, that means he needed convincing. But easy to imagine that living +20 years in that Washington house of mirrors could do that to a person.

      Like

  13. TradeBait says:

    Lindsey and Ted did work, but this is grandstanding. Collins and Romney are losers – Utah and Maine are insane for electing them. Glad Alexander is out after November – he always did what he wanted to do instead of what the voters who elected him wanted to be done. We the People meant zippo to him, and he has represented by state. So goodbye Uni-party RINO. Murkowski is a loon. Alaska – Ted Stevens. Get some.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. visage13 says:

    Lindsay is just part of the tick tock club, talks a big game but nothing ever happens.

    Liked by 3 people

    • bruzedorange says:

      Not asking this in defense of Lindsay, but asking an honest (and sadly, probably hypothetical) question…

      What if Lindsay was not corrupt? But what if pursuing the truth at this moment (meaning outing ALL the corrupted Senators and Representatives) would result in loss of the Senate and House for Republicans? What if winning the investigation battle resulted in losing the war against the Deep State, so that Trump was unable to accomplish any more changes in his second term, and the Swamp got its choice of both candidates in 2024?

      I know.. I could be overthinking this. But so much is on the line now! We can’t be taking counsel of our emotions. Everything has to be thought out, even further ahead than the 24/7/365 lawfare generals who have been gaming their plans for years.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Michael Davis says:

    I found it very interesting they never discussed being able to move Mittens to vote with the Republicans. They must have known he was a lost cause. I wonder if Pierre has worn out his welcome already.

    Liked by 7 people

  16. All Too Much says:

    This can not be the bombshell.
    If it is, I won’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    Liked by 2 people

    • WSB says:

      Shelve it, Lev. The real story will be out soon enough.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Scott Miller says:

      laugh heartily…they forgot to ‘implicate’ Cippolonne too (as they have trialed elsewhere). parnas is up a creek and double-dealing with whatever bent oar they dangle in front of him to avoid decades in prison. he can be shower buddy with cohen. the statements of a convicted liar hold little weight in anything but media spin

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mr e-man says:

      Trump didn’t need a “plot” to remove an Ambassador. He could do it for any reason or no reason, at any time, so this story is completely false to even begin with.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tl Howard says:

      LOL.

      Like

    • Tl Howard says:

      Is this guy doing Magic Mushrooms?

      Like

    • John55 says:

      The only “shakedown” of Ukraine which occurred was that carried out by Biden and the DNC, who tied billions in US aid to Ukraine to millions in kickback to their own family members.

      Liked by 2 people

    • jebg46 says:

      Gee, did he leave anyone out?

      This story is suppose to take out Pence so Pelosi can be President before her botoxed brain freezes her body!

      Liked by 1 person

    • 1stgoblyn says:

      I think he spelled ‘take-down’ incorrectly. VSPGPDJT and team were going to take down the corruption in Ukraine, whereas, Biden, Soetoro and company were doing a ‘shake-down’ to keep their tax-payer funded kickbacks flowing. Parnas just wants a ‘get-out-of-jail-free card like Hills has.

      Like

  17. daylight58 says:

    There’s some rumblings here in #49 that Lisa was not going to run in 2022, anyway.

    She’s toast. Those of us who are conservative here in Alaska threw her out in the last primary, and she’s persona non grata among Alaska conservatives.

    Her base of support among the Alaskan Native community is, now, going to evaporate – as will her support among undecideds and liberals who helped her write-in candidacy.

    The only – and I mean ONLY – way that she’s reelected to the Senate is if (a) we Alaska Republicans put a weak candidate as our candidate and (b) decides to run as a write-in candidate against a Democrat as liberal as Anchorage’s Mayor: Ethan Berkowitz (who is termed-out as Mayor in mid-2021), or, one of the g-d Begich spawn.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. WSB says:

    The 50/50 argument they describe with the CJ voting to end the tie is false. A 50/50 tie does not have to be manipulated by the CJ. A 50/50 tie is a no vote.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Linda K. says:

      Roberts answered at some point, that a tie kills the amendment.

      Liked by 3 people

    • OlderAndWiser says:

      The point they were making was NOT a legal one. It was a POLITICAL one.
      The Dims KNOW that the CJ can’t break the tie. But they wanted him to say it in the ACTUAL CASE of a tie – and then they would hang that around his neck and claim that he was political, not an apolitical judge.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. Linda K. says:

    At the end, Lindsey says he is going to ask hard questions of the State Department , about why they didn’t understand this conflict of interest (Biden/Burisma), why didn’t they do something about it? And Maria Yavonovich , the fired ambassador, just retired.

    Like

  20. Sparo says:

    Wait, so executive privilege raised during the Senate trial isn’t adjudicated by the courts?

    Like

    • jebg46 says:

      I read that that question could still go to a court. The senate has to vote on rule changes. Shift was constantly demanding that Roberts do everything, telling the senate what to do. No way would the President’s lawyers agree. I was surprised Cruz & Graham were agreeing?

      Liked by 1 person

      • OlderAndWiser says:

        The Senate IS the high court during an impeachment.
        So the issue was – Who would rule on executive privilege? If the Senate did rule on it, it would change the constitution – something the SC has had full jurisdiction on. And if the Senate did rule on it, could the SC also then overrule the Senate?
        Either way you look at it, it would be an absolute mess. And the country would be even more torn apart.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. Bogeyfree says:

    How is it possible that a Republican US Senator (Graham) sends a letter directly to a Republican appointed Secretary of State (Pompeo) back in Nov asking for all Biden communications he had with Ukraine back in 2016 and under a Republican appointed AG responsible for investigating corruption there is ZERO response from Pompeo and ZERO follow up ever mentioned by Graham.

    This is just another example why Americans are so pissed at those in charge. And to make matters worse all of these guys are suppose to be on the same team.

    So is Pompeo hiding info or just ignoring Graham??

    Is Graham’s letter just all show??

    Why do so many who say they support Trump and MAGA work so hard at undermining him and us??

    Again IMO this is why Americans do not trust our DOJ, FIB, CIA, NSA, State Dept and Congress.

    Liked by 7 people

    • bruzedorange says:

      Not saying this in defense of Pompeo, but how would anyone get the truth from hundreds of people, each under a layer of supervision and dept heads, who would be at least implicated in not realizing that one of their charges was participating in such activities?

      Even if Pompeo had nothing to do all day but ferret out vermin, how long would it take, knowing that even the unimplicated will be motivated to prove “it never happened with any of my people!”

      And who would he entrust with this task? Obviously, someone who he knows was not party to this–meaning, someone not in the State Dept.

      But even if he knew someone inside who was clean and could be trusted, does anyone believe there is a single person in the State Dept who knows–even by face or name–everyone who works there? This is the tactic behind Obama adding so many federal workers to the rolls.

      And why we all want to bail and just say, “Burn it to the ground.”

      But this is not only a Herculean task in scope, it is at the same time the most delicate brain surgery, removing a thousand microscopic tumors without destroying the brain’s ability to function.

      Attempting micro brain surgery in the Stables of Augeas sounds like an apt description of doing anything with integrity in DC.

      Like

      • OlderAndWiser says:

        Exactly.
        Pompeo has a LOT on his plate. Just like Barr. They have extremely large organizations that employ tens of thousands of staff, many of whom are incapable and many of whom are partisan hacks.
        Always examine the priorities of the people involved. In Pompeo’s case, it is international relations – dealing with his counterparts in other countries. He also has to meet with the President many times to ensure they are on the same page. Then he has to do PR work for their policies. Then he has to manage his staff – his direct reports.
        And, in case people missed it, the SofS plays a huge part in national defense,

        Like

  22. john says:

    Impeach Roberts. Replace with Cruz.

    Like

  23. milktrader says:

    I’ll have to admit that was an awesome podcast and I’m now giving my senator a pass despite my frustration.

    Let’s go Lindsey!

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Just Some Guy says:

    This is the most genuine I’ve seen Lindsey Graham. Maybe it’s the format (Hannity sucks), but Lindsey scored a few points with me after watching this interview.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Cathy M. says:

    Who Knew!

    “Saturday Night Special – The Jay Sekulow Rock Band”

    Jay Sekulow, @realDonaldTrump’s personal lawyer and defense lawyer in the impeachment trial, performs “Undemocratic” with his band – The Jay Sekulow Band🙃

    The song is based on Sekulow’s book titled Undemocratic.

    https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/saturday-night-special-the-jay-sekulow-rock-band/

    Liked by 5 people

  26. Pokey says:

    After you have been through a bruising primary battle for the Presidential nomination and survived until nearly every State was decided, and then lost, then we get to see how you handle it. I watched that speech at the convention and I was not offended that he wanted to throw one more punch after the bell. I think he was ill advised to do it, but he did and lived to regret it. But he has been 100% in the PDJT camp since the campaign against the Hillary began. Politics is not bean bag and the outcomes are many times humiliating, especially if the victor does a public victory lap or two just to rub it in. Ted Cruz made a mistake at Trump’s convention, but both men were big enough to put it behind them.

    Ted Cruz would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice, because he is a Constitutional Originalist and I think that is exactly what we need on the SCOTUS for the next 1000 years or so. I also think Donald Trump is a great enough President to decide for himself who should be on the Court whenever he gets his chances. If he decides someone else is a better choice to get confirmed by the sad sack Senate, I am sure Senator Cruz will put on his big boy britches and support PDJT and the nominee. We have much bigger dragons to slay than people who offended us by something they said 4 years ago. Our enemies are on TV day and night lining up to say and do much worse harm to our President than Ted Cruz has ever done. We won that election, lets be sure we win in 2020. Ted Cruz is a stand up guy who is politically burdened by his God given mousey sounding voice, and he knows it. But he is a lot smarter than me, even though I always supply everyone here with excellent and prosaic literature to read.

    As for Lindsey Graham, he needs to get off of the porch before he tries to run with the big dogs.

    Liked by 3 people

  27. I am not amused, governateurs, good ol’ boys. If those were the deciding arguments, it just shows me it is a senate full of incompetents, who couldn’t be bothered to already know the facts, which amount to a Democrat treasonous hoax, in fact one in a continuing series of Democrat hoaxes.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      They didn’t pay attention to the House Sham hearings anymore than most Americans did.

      Said Senator Kennedy:
      “If you asked 10 Senators whether they read the House transcripts…
      9 would say “NO” and the 10th would be lying”

      Liked by 1 person

  28. Newt Love says:

    In “real” courts, the prosecutor brings his case. The Judge [and the Jury] do not call witnesses. They judge and render a verdict.

    In the Impeachment’s House Managers delivered a half baked cake, and asked/directed the Senate to finish baking the cake. The Senate said “Not our job.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • No, this time (and for the first time …) they delivered an unconstitutional “cake.” The Constitution sets deliberately-made standards for what impeachment is, and isn’t: it isn’t “maladministration.” It must be an accusation that someone committed a crime for which he could be “indicted, tried, convicted and punished” by a Court of Law. It cannot be a Bill of Attainder. Every other Article of Impeachment did meet the constitutional standard – even though the law Johnson was said to have broken was declare unconstitutional. These do not.

      Lawfare, Inc. merely wants the Senate to accept this bill of attainder by rendering a verdict instead of throwing the case out. That’s all they need to trot out one set of articles after another after another … wrecking the separation of powers forever. But, any Court may dismiss a case without trial if it concludes that the case is defective. “Unconstitutional” is the biggest defect of all.

      The Senate tries “all impeachments,” not just individuals. Therefore it does have the prerogative to dismiss for cause. And I think that our founders, who anticipated 100% of this more than 230 year ago, would have that happen.

      Like

  29. MBB says:

    Everyone should listen. They’re having a really good time as they’re a bit punch drunk after all these long days listening to crazy Schitt. But it’s also very enlightening. You will learn a lot and have a lot of fun Leslie

    Liked by 3 people

  30. Newt Love says:

    Bolton is a warmonger, who believes in “peace through strength.”

    As Sundance has pointed out, the Trump Doctrine is peace through commerce and trade. Companies will force their politician to not go to war, because they don’t want their customers killed.

    Like

  31. A2 says:

    Great podcast. It confirmed from 10k distance that I had called it. Nice to hear the inside baseball.

    Your Republican senators, know the score. Many arguments were on display in the hearings, but they get the constitutional principals, as well as the political manoeuvring by the House Dems.

    What’s not to like.
    👍

    Like

  32. Maquis says:

    So now is the beginning of a day of reckoning for Joe Biden’s herd of scintilla.

    Like

  33. TwoLaine says:

    I have the #1 podcast.
    ~Ted Cruz”

    I’be heard that phrase repeatedly, especially out of his mouth, for at least the last week, if not more. Let us hope that Not Eligible for President Canadian Ted Cruz has finally found his calling.

    Like

    • TwoLaine says:

      If President TRUMP or FLOTUS Melania decided to have a podcast, they would eclipse him in seconds.

      Like

    • TwoLaine says:

      Sunday Storytelling.

      Like

    • JTaylor says:

      He is eligible and he is a great lawyer and an excellent person.

      Like

    • lolli says:

      TwoLaine,
      Lyin Ted should join Beck and they can both roll their faces in Cheetos.
      I wish Teddy bear Ted would just go back to Canada.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Pokey says:

        I just roll my eyes. You are reliving an election campaign that is over and our guy won. I just hope you have this much fervor to get our guy re-elected this year. And I bet Ted will be doing his best to help us this time around, since he does not want the same job this time.

        I wanted Ted to win 4 years ago. But now I am very happy that he didn’t. So far, PDJT is the best President of my lifetime and I have been around a long time.

        Like

        • lolli says:

          Pokey,
          I have followed Ted since day 1. He is my senator.
          I did not come to this conclusion due to the campaign.
          So much more. He is truly a phony.
          I think a President Trump if the best President our country has ever seen, other than G Washington.

          Like

        • TwoLaine says:

          No one is reliving anything. I was paying Ted a compliment.

          Like

          • Pokey says:

            So was I. I am damned tired of this circular firing squad full of people who can’t see the forest through all of the trees.
            By the way, lolli. I lived in Houston for 14 years and I am very familiar with Ted Cruz. I don’t need to read specious arguments from authority from anyone else, either. Without him, we likely don’t even have a Second Amendment anymore.

            Like

            • TwoLaine says:

              Reminder to all: 4 years ago Ted Cruz was already cheating in the Iowa causus.

              Some of us here accept Ted Cruz for what he is and what he isn’t. Get used to it. If you think you can come here and bend people to your will, you are in the wrong tree.

              BTW, don’t reply to someone else in a post to me. If you have something to say to someone, say it to them, not me. I;’m not your conduit.

              Like

  34. TwoLaine says:

    Here’s the real question:

    WHY HAS IT TAKEN SO LONG TO GET TO THIS PLACE?
    AND, why did the President have to be drug through the mud AGAIN to make it so?

    Because these same Senators FAILED the American people.

    These Senators, in fact ALL Senators, have known at least since the video came out in Apr 2019 ?, that Joe and the Biden family are totally corrupt, and that Creepy Joe did a Quid Pro Quo on Ukraine.

    They all know that Ukraine meddled in our 2016 election, BIGLY, and that our then Ambassador in Ukraine was running a 2016 DNC campaign satellite office out of our US Embassy in Ukraine. They knew that the State Department was covering it up and STILL is. AND THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING. Talk about disgusting.

    They have held the Senate since WHEN? Where was the outrage then? Where were the hearings then?

    Honestly, there is nothing they can ever do to ever restore my faith in them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s always that “somebody ‘meddled.'” Not that the American electorate made a “thoroughly American” choice entirely on their own. I guess it’s hard to accept rejection. When you’ve spent thirty years doing something badly, for one President after another, and then one guy appears out of nowhere and shows you all to be chumps. Hard to take that, I guess.

      Liked by 1 person

    • lolli says:

      TwoLaine👍

      Liked by 1 person

  35. Donzo says:

    When you’re innocent and have all the facts on your side calling witnesses is to your favor. I think the Deep State won by “failing” in the vote to get witnesses. It would have been Trump’s chance to finally reveal to the nation the treasonous plot to oust him. Dems knew the constitutional issues of executive privilege and the Chief Justice casting the 51st vote to break a tie would end their failed bid remove PDT. It was time for Dems to throw in the towel because all that was left was for Trump’s team to expose them on national TV by calling crucial witnesses who could only take the 5th, including House managers. That said, it was the right decision to preserve the Constitution, but it goes to show you how Dems play Republicans like a fiddle. Criminals will always have the upper hand, especially when the Main Justice is asleep at the wheel. But now it’s all the more important for Trump to get his day in court that was deprive of him in both the House and then the Senate.

    *I posted this comment inadvertently as a reply to another comment.

    Like

  36. Gary Lacey says:

    Informative and entertaining, apparently they’re listening to the American people wanting something done about the corruption.

    Thank you sundance, had you not suggested listening. I would have passed it by.

    Like

  37. thedoc00 says:

    Never has it been attempted to blow this much smoke up so many butts.

    Missing discussion of veracity of the evidence and that even the 18 witnesses heard offered exonerating evidence.
    Missing the threats and insults to the “Institution” by Pelosi, Her Management Team, MSM and Democrat Senators.
    Missing threats and insults vs the Chief Justice.
    Missing explanation for the no votes by Romny and Alexander.

    I did hear Biden is a good guy and “I protected Mueller” with threatened legislation
    I did hear the lie that Murkowski was worried her “constituents” needed an explanation.
    I did hear the BS excuse that Collins has to worry about re-election but that worry would remain no matter what happened yesterday, because she is Republican.

    Graham is still a snake and I will still participate in efforts here in TX to primary Cruz.

    Like

  38. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    interesting inside baseball.

    More exciting is I finally found out where my bedroom carpet ended up after that mid-70s remodel!

    Hile pile deep shag-a-liciousness.
    I wonder if they found my missing mojo..

    Liked by 1 person

  39. CNN_sucks says:

    That was a good podcast. Unfortunately Lindsay Graham only likes to Grandstand but Never follow through. It is all game to him.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    Saw a senator on FNC last night saying that the reason why impeachment sham this has been dragged out to Wednesday after the SOTU Address is all Chuck Schumer’s fault. He threatened to continue offering up bogus amendments on Friday night if he didn’t get the final vote postponed. He said that McConnell relented and declared that it was the best deal they could come up with.

    Like

  41. Deserttrek says:

    Lindsey hot air graham cracker. Nothing will ever happen to anybody

    Like

  42. Moe Grimm says:

    Does anyone, any one, really believe this fraudulent cuck Graham will investigate anything Biden/Ukraine, let alone anything else he claimed he would do over the past 2 1/2 yrs? Anyone remember his serial claimed, recorded cameras running and in print, that he was going to “investigate” the Dept. of Just-Us and its armed jackboot proxy the fbi along with the DNC-Perkins Coie, et al, and later the
    Kavanaugh conspiracy? Do you? Graham will do now as he’s alway done. (N)othing. This morning with Maria Bart he actually stated *Richard Burr*, of course with his dominatrix Mark Warner (aka co-chair of senate “intel” committee) along with THE: sen. judiciary, sen. f-relations committees would too “investigate the “whistleblower” and Biden/Ukraine & Co. Richard Burr continues to escape scrutiny as one of the most dangerous serpents in Mordor. Thus far Burr’s sum total “investigation” is the subpoena and questioning of Donald Trump Jr. which had already been done in the “house” That’s real impact, no? Sundance also published Burr’s letter promising a warm reception for the “whistleblower”.

    One more thing. Graham’s well aired Kavanagh diatribe signaled one (1) thing – his launching of his 2020 re-election bid. His duped S.C. supporters will send him back for another six years as will Texas send back Cornyn.

    Like

    • thedoc00 says:

      Yet Lindsey left a public quote an astute Republican rival should use during his heroic Kavanuagh moment.

      “Every President should be granted their top picks. We (the Republicans) gave Obama his top picks”.

      Notes to Senator “I am almost Spartacus” Graham:
      1. Kavanuagh was NOT the President’s Top Pick.
      2. The President has been prevented from having his Top Picks for Executive Branch appointments.

      Liked by 1 person

  43. CarolynH says:

    I loved every minute of this podcast.

    Like

  44. rustybritches says:

    Ted Cruz and Graham are always really good at saying what they think people really want to hear but following threw is not usually what they do,. Case in Point, Cruz was losing in Texas and he finally called and begged the President to come and do a rally for him, and the President did go packed another venue for him and Cruz won, On election night when he won He went before the camera and said, that he had won because he had been packing rallies and that there had never been any doubt in his mind he would win, and looking at his wife that night she seemed a bit shocked at what he was saying and yes, Ted Cruz seems to be supportive now but he made no mention of the Presidents help and he said thanks to every one but not the President, people talked about the speech the next day.. I believe that the President gives people to many chances to stab him in the back and a lot of it is because he is kind hearted and he wants to give everyone a chance Look at how many times Graham has turned against what the President has wanted done and because of him running to the camera’s he comes out on top and lately saying all he does on TV he has made major big moves in gaining a lot of money from donors, more than any time in the past , I pray for these people in the Senate to do the right thing on Wed.

    Like

  45. Roddy Pine says:

    WOW – one of the best videos to watch – they were so informative and personal – and scared the hell of me how close pelosi/schumer and company were in destroying our system of separation of powers and law. I mean 49 votes in favor – what are those senators thinking.

    Like

  46. Retired USMC says:

    Lindsey was three sheets to the wind…

    Like

  47. Sheree Thompson says:

    Great! 3 great men worth listening to! Thank you for all you do for U.S!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s