Patterico's Pontifications

11/19/2019

Email Purporting to Be from John Cornyn: Trump “Did Nothing Wrong”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:34 pm



I got an email today from the email address action@standupforliberty.net. It purports to be from Texas Senator John Cornyn, and bears his name at the end of the email like a signature. It seeks money for Rep. Elisa Stefanik, a partisan Republican hack who has been throwing dust in the air for Trump during these hearings. Cornyn describes her as someone whom the Democrats are trying to destroy “all because she had the audacity to stick up for a president we all know did nothing wrong.”

Cornyn Says Trump Did Nothing Wrong

Pay close attention to what Cornyn is saying here: not just that Trump didn’t commit an impeachable offense, but that he “did nothing wrong.” And that “we all know” it.

He’s not even pretending to withhold judgment until the evidence is in.

This is a political exercise, to be sure. And in this political exercise, voters are entitled to watch the evidence come in, knowing that the Republican Senators do not care in the slightest what the evidence says.

I’m sorely tempted to send my first check to a Democrat. Not because I think Stefanik’s opponent is a better candidate. She almost certainly would support fewer of my policy views than Stefanik has. (Putting aside anything having to do with Donald Trump.) But she’s one of 435, and people are seeing this fundraising contest as a proxy for support for Trump’s corrupt actions in bending the foreign policy apparatus of this country to his own personal political advantage.

To hell with Trump and to hell with Elise Stefanik. And to hell with John Cornyn and the rest of the Republicans. If they go down in flames in 2020 I will do a dance. And then cringe at the policy nightmare to follow.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

55 Responses to “Email Purporting to Be from John Cornyn: Trump “Did Nothing Wrong””

  1. I remember when our side told the truth.

    Dave (1bb933)

  2. Most of us know Californians views have always been different.

    mg (ebf6c2)

  3. “Pay close attention to what Cornyn is saying here: not just that Trump didn’t commit an impeachable offense, but that he “did nothing wrong.” And that “we all know” it.”

    PLEASE PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS CAMPAIGN MAILER…READ BETWEEN THE LINES….WHAT HE’S REALLY DOING IS IMPLYING WE SHOULD WORSHIP TRUMP AS A GOD! DOESN’T THAT SEEM COMPLETELY EVIL AND BLASPHEMOUS WHEN I PUT IT LIKE THAT? WOULDN’T YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS INTERPRETATION WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS AT THE ROTARY CLUB? I THOUGHT SO!

    “He’s not even pretending to withhold judgment until the evidence is in.”

    Well, it’s not like the legislative branch’s failed Mueller report and failed Christine-Blasey Ford report are indications of future results that you can set your clock by. Exonerated once may be a fluke, exonerated twice may be coincidence, but assuming the President gets exonerated again just because the investigatory target is a methhead, the star witness is a pasty time-serving blob delusions of grandeur, the whistleblower is way past his sell-by date, and the ringmaster lies so lazily and obviously that no one even bothers pretending that he isn’t actively directing the performances is just CRASS and RUDE and PRESUMPTUOUS!

    “Trump’s corrupt actions in bending the foreign policy apparatus of this country to his own personal political advantage.”

    I’m just amazed at the amount of work the word ‘personal’ is doing in that sentence, even more than I should be amazed that you seriously think that ‘joining America’s enemies in using the words ‘extortion’ and quid pro quo’ to describe overt and covert foreign policy actions common to every single American President since George Washington’ is a good argument that should make us take you more seriously.

    “I’m sorely tempted to send my first check to a Democrat.”

    Pretty sure the checks are all flowing in the opposite direction in this case.

    Overwrought Failure (54165d)

  4. Republicans used to be able to point to evidence that they were policing their own while Dems circled the wagons around their crooks. Not anymore.
    The GOP’s servility to a shallow, ignorant sociopath is a disgrace.

    Radegunda (539c00)

  5. Be careful about clicking any links in that email.

    I do not believe it is actually associated with Cornyn, and looks crafted so as to lure people into giving up email addresses, credit card info, and who knows what other kinds of mischief. The domain directs to an ad serving page, with the ‘technical infrastructure for domain monetization is provided by’ a company in Germany. The domain itself is registered with ‘NAMECHEAP.COM’, and has it’s ownership info masked with pointers to Panama.

    That being the case, I detest Trump and his cronies as much as the next guy, but I really doubt Cornyn had a hand in constructing this email.

    Glenn (ff8126)

  6. I have not yet seen any impeachable charge leveled by the Democrats. Oh, there are some that I’d vote for (being a liar, a thief, a crook and an all-out scoundrel) but no politician wants THOSE to be impeachable charges.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  7. trump is guilty of running you conservative libertarian free traders out of the republican party and you are now never trumpers. go to libertarian party if you want to be stooges for china selling out american workers.

    asset (0fcbdc)

  8. Never understood why anybody would ever consider sending their hard earned money to either one of these major parties given how poorly they power government.

    Like pouring sand into your gas tank.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  9. Hypocricy, thy name is Patterico. Like you, they won’t wait until the evidence is in.

    ALL THE EVIDENCE.

    Or is that the way you operate as a prosecutor?

    Darth Chocolate (0615d0)

  10. 9. Vera Coking and Michael Forbes. Serial bankruptcy and stiffing contractors. Just how much evidence do you need that Donald Trump is unfit for office?

    Gryph (08c844)

  11. Elise Stefanik! Isn’t that a Slovakian name?

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Trump’s supporters don’t care what he did. They don’t care what he does. So long as they can feel like he’s fighting for the tribe they affiliate with anything that happens is good. Anything he does is OK, if it’s not OK than it’s justified because whatabout.

    If you base your view of politics on results, principles, or actual behavior you’re probably not a trump supporter, at most you’re looking at the available options and picking the least bad.

    Time123 (cd2ff4)

  13. @6, you don’t think using US foreign policy to force an ally to manufacture dirt on a political opponent is impeachable?

    Time123 (cd2ff4)

  14. To hell with Trump and to hell with Elise Stefanik. And to hell with John Cornyn and the rest of the Republicans. If they go down in flames in 2020 I will do a dance. And then cringe at the policy nightmare to follow.

    Lots of “Conservatives” in the media agree with you. Wasn’t that the David French, Kevin Williamson, George Will, Burt Stephens and Bruce Bartlett’s attitude in 2016?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  15. As Scott Adams would say, we’re watching two different movies. I see nothing wrong with what Trump did, and if you’re going to impeach him over this, then every President since Hoover should be impeached. Even Ike lied to the American People about the U-2 Incident.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  16. As a Trump supporter I’m not going to abandon him because the liberal democrat media and the D’s hate him. OR because they hypocritically attack him and have fainting spells over what he says and does, when they’ve defended worse by “Their side”.

    Like it or not, we’re in a culture/political war, and the choice isn’t between perfection and Trump but Trump and the D’s. Get rid of Trump, and the D’s will soon be calling Pence “just like Hitler”. The constant pandering and compromise and sucking up to the media by the California R’s didn’t help them one bit. The D’s are now using every tool they have to cleanse EVERY R in California from Office – moderate or not.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  17. To me, the amazing thing is the insane attempt by the DNC-Media and the Democrats to protect Eric Ciaremella, the so-called whistle-blower from accountability and public scrutiny. The D’s don’t want anyone to know how this whole thing was orchestrated by Schiff from the very beginning. LT Col Vindmann had no right to leak a confidential President-Ukraine call to Ciaremella, and the Ciaremella’s complaint should have been shot down the CIA-IG, since it was based on 2nd hand information. I’d be interested to know if Vindmann’s actions were legal/ethical under the United States Military Code. Somehow, i think not.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  18. 16. Here’s the thing; if we’re going to try to pin a crime on Trump and make that an impeachable issue, I think that’s a yuge mistake on the part of the Dems. Impeachment is going to end up looking like a fishing expedition, and there are other better reasons that Donald Trump is unfit for office than some debatably shady telephone call.

    Gryph (08c844)

  19. @19, He’s not being investigated for a call. He’s being investigated for wide ranging scheme to abuse his power to get Ukraine to fabicate dirt. The call was part of that, but not all of that.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  20. 20. Wide-ranging scheme? Are you and I watching the same movie? The call has been the focus of everything the Dems have done and said in this hearing over the past three days. Regardless, I don’t think the Dems are doing themselves any favors here. By the standards being set in this hearing now, every post-WWII president was guilty of impeachable offenses. Dems are simply banking on Trump’s abrasive personality to make this impeachment politically palatable. That’s not something I’d bet on.

    Gryph (08c844)

  21. Our disgruntled host wrote:

    To hell with Trump and to hell with Elise Stefanik. And to hell with John Cornyn and the rest of the Republicans. If they go down in flames in 2020 I will do a dance. And then cringe at the policy nightmare to follow.

    If President Trump wins re-election, he will still be out of office in 5¼ years. If one of the Democrats’ cavalcade of clowns wins the 2020 presidential election, he will be appointing Supreme Court Justices to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas; these will be actions which will hurt our country well beyond 2025. The President elected in 2020 will be appointing perhaps a quarter of the federal judiciary, and that’s a “policy nightmare” which will last well beyond 2025.

    If one of the cavalcade wins, we can expect federal policies allowing ‘transgender’ persons back into the military, attempts to completely socialize our health care systems, a return to President Obama’s interpretation of Title IX, more Affirmative Action, the floodgates to be opened on illegal immigration, higher taxes, the idiotic ‘green new deal’ to be legislated into our lives and our economy slowly trashed by global warming climate change regulations.

    President Trump’s personal scumbagginess really doesn’t affect the vast majority of us, but the next President’s policy proposals most assuredly will. Every one of the cavalcade is promising to have all cars produced by 2030 emissions-free; you’ll just love having to sit at the recharging station for 45 minutes every day when your Tesla or Chevy Dolt Bolt doesn’t have a 230 mile range because it’s sitting in southern California’s 3 MPH traffic jams. (How many people really have a place to have a recharging unit at their homes?)

    President Trump has been able to undo only some of the mischief created by his predecessor. If a Democrat is elected President in 2020, the next (purportedly) conservative President, even if he’s Ted Cruz taking office in 2025, will be able to undo only some of the damage Elizabeth Warren or whomever does over the next presidential term.

    Is your hatred of Mr Trump really so great that you’d rather see that than his re-election?

    The Dana in Kentucky (13dd7c)

  22. @18

    1. 2nd hand information is allowed in whistle blower complaints. This has been confirmed explicitly by the IGs office and pointed out to you many times.

    2. Since the allegations from the WB complaint are being substantiated by direct testimony what is the relevance of the WB at this point? Genuinely asking. If we’re not using anything the WB said to make this decision why does it matter who they are?

    3. Since Trumps supporters have attacked Lt. Col. Vindmann repeatedly I assume we’d know by now or very soon if he’d violated USMC. I mean, that’s a much better attack than can’t trust (((people))) with dual loyalties.

    Time123 (cd2ff4)

  23. @21, The call by itself is alleged to be evidence that Trump was aware of and participating in a scheme to use the withholding of Military aid to force Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe & Hunter Biden.

    We’ve had sworn testimony that
    -The aid was being withheld by the WH.
    -The release of the aid was conditional on the public announcement of the investigation.
    -Ukrainian leadership was aware of the above 2 facts.
    -This work was being done partly outside of the normal/official State Dept. Apparatus.
    -The processed that are in place to ensure aid is spent appropriately were followed and the release had been approved.
    -President Trump was aware of the above.

    We’ve not had testimony
    -That there was a legitimate reason to withhold the aid.
    -About the extent of Trump’s involvement.

    Sondland’s testimony today is expected to address the last point. But given that he wasn’t fully forthcoming in private testimony I hope he has something to corroborate what he says now.

    What do we see differently?

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  24. 24. I think what we see differently is that I see Trump’s canoodling over military aid as business-as-usual where politicians are concerned. The Dems insistence on using terms like “bribery” and “extortion” make it sound to me like they have a weak case on the merits. But as I have said before, impeachment is and was designed to be an inherently political process. No matter how much the Dems want to make it look like a criminal matter, it isn’t. Everybody and their grandma has to know that this thing is DOA in the Senate.

    Gryph (08c844)

  25. Yes, the Democrats and most prominently Adam Schiff went off half-cocked, but why should Trump be the only one?

    nk (dbc370)

  26. If they go down in flames in 2020 I will do a dance. And then cringe at the policy nightmare to follow.”

    The policy nightmare to follow: Babies “aborted” outside the womb. repeal of the 1st & 2nd, dissolution of the Electoral College, maybe the entire Constitution. Open borders, Medicare for all (including illegal aliens), student debt forgiveness, infinity genders, wealth confiscation, courts packed with activist judges, permanent weaponization of government agencies against American citizens…

    The policy nightmare that follows will be much, much better for our children’s future than having to endure the cretin for another day.

    Got it.

    Matador (39e0cd)

  27. 27. Pure speculation on your part. Just as it is speculation to say that none of that will happen under Trump. I’m not brave enough to say that it will, but don’t kid yourself that it couldn’t.

    Gryph (08c844)

  28. Sorry, not buying this. This is a political solicitation, not a legal brief. Given that there has alreadly been an avalanche of evidence about what the President did or did not do, it is implicit that she is saying that, based on what we now know, he did nothing wrong.

    It’s like in a legal case where everybody concedes what the facts are, and just argue whether that constitutes a crime or tort. “We did nothing wrong” is a legal argument, not a factual one.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  29. The policy nightmare that follows will be much, much better for our children’s future than having to endure the cretin for another day.

    Yes, this sums it up well. It is policy vs. character. I will stick with the policy. Though I have to hold my nose to do it.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  30. The Charleston or are you a breakdancer?

    mg (ebf6c2)

  31. 29. It’s a “legal argument” being made on a fundraising letter. Go figure.

    Gryph (08c844)

  32. And just yesterday we once again saw the mass media collude to make up lies out of whole cloth that Trump had 100k illegal alien children in prisons. When they were told the statistics were bogus, they shrugged. When they were told the lies were actually about Obama’s Presidency and from 2015, they pulled the article.

    Those are the types of articles that used to be regularly fisked here when they were written in the LA Times. I miss those days.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  33. 28. Guess you haven’t been listening to the D campaign speeches, or seen the grotesque liberal states’ abortion legislative efforts. The only roadblock to that extreme agenda is “they” who should go down in flames.

    I’m not speculating, I’m taking the left at its word.

    Matador (39e0cd)

  34. 30. I held my nose on election day 2016, still holding it today.

    Then, again, I did the same in ’08 and ’12. That was “The right thing to do”. Even those Rs INO would have done less damage than O.

    Matador (39e0cd)

  35. I doubt Mr. Cornyn will recuse himself in the Senate trial, despite his inarguably prejudging the case. It’s sad to see another Republican selling what’s left of his soul to an utterly corrupt Trump.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  36. ALL THE EVIDENCE.

    IANAL, but I’m sure that a prosecutor goes to trial with sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but your goalpost-moving is noted.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  37. 34. And you haven’t been paying attention to Trump’s actions, before and during his assumption of office. Anyhow, I’m glad you can tell the future with utter reliability. You should teach me how, fortune teller!

    Gryph (08c844)

  38. Don’t call me fwiend, guy.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  39. It’s a “legal argument” being made on a fundraising letter. Go figure.

    Actually, I said the opposite. This is just an analogy.

    It is clear what Trump did. Having ten witnesses or twenty say it is not going to change the facts. Unless there is something new that comes out, it then becomes a matter of judgment whether Trump did anything “wrong,” or “unlawful” or “impeachable,” depending on what standard you are using.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  40. Been paying very close attention. Did not support Trump in any manner until it was Trump or surrender.

    Had we had either of the last two loser R candidates (or even JEB) as the opposition to Hillary in ’16 , he would have received my vote. Pure defense against “The policy nightmare that follows”.

    So, your bet is that the left doesn’t really mean what it is promising?

    Again, slower this time for you. I…am…not…speculating…or…fortune…telling. I am saying that if there is no opposition (“they go down in flames”), I will take the left at its word that it can and will do what it promises.

    If you’ve got something better to go on than their publicly stated policy goals and past practice when in power, I’m listening.

    Matador (39e0cd)

  41. @ Leviticus, #39:

    I ain’t your guy, buddy.

    Demosthenes (4ae175)

  42. 1. 2nd hand information is allowed in whistle blower complaints. This has been confirmed explicitly by the IGs office and pointed out to you many times.

    And has been pointed out to YOU many times, the standard IG Form did NOT allow 2nd hand information. It was changed in August 2019, AFTER the initial WB Concerns were voiced. There’s never been a good reason given as WHY it was changed – and it conveniently allowed Ciaremella’s complaint to go forward. Ciaremella was not part of the NSC, didn’t work at the White House, and wasn’t in on the call. Why he was allowed to “Blow the whistle” on the POTUS for things he had no first hand knowledge of, has never been explained adequately by the CIA IG. Hopefully this IG will be fired, because he’s obviously in on the D’s soft coup.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  43. As a general policy matter, we want whistleblower protections to be available in the broadest way possible.

    Looking at it from a corporate perspective — if the CEO *is* in fact violating his duties to the shareholders by violating the law in a way that could blow up in the company’s face, the shareholders want to be able to find out and correct it. But if their only source of information is the CEO, they can’t. It’s *far better* to entertain second hand claims of malfeasance, investigate them, and dismiss them, then it is to establish super restrictive rules that will prevent whistleblowers from coming forward.

    aphrael (458f1d)

  44. @ rcocean, #43:

    Why he was allowed to “Blow the whistle” on the POTUS for things he had no first hand knowledge of, has never been explained adequately by the CIA IG.

    If memory serves, the guy who blew the whistle on the Tuskegee experiment had no firsthand knowledge of it, either.

    Demosthenes (4ae175)

  45. It’s *far better* to entertain second hand claims of malfeasance, investigate them, and dismiss them, then it is to establish super restrictive rules that will prevent whistleblowers from coming forward.

    This is true as far as it goes. But there is a difference between relying on hearsay to investigate and relying on it to punish someone or remove them from office.

    The whistleblower law does not mean that the information is reliable, just that the person has immunity from retaliation. The person could be lying, mistaken, confused, or misinformed from hearsay.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  46. Is your hatred of Mr Trump really so great that you’d rather see that than his re-election?

    You’re new here, aren’t you?

    PTw (894877)

  47. Well, it’s good then that no one is relying on the whistleblower for any testimony, since all these other witnesses are testifying, Sondland being both damning and first hand, the others just damning and first hand to others carrying out the order. Rudytooty, Ricky, Pompeo, Pence, can all hall there butts over to the capital and specifically refute his testimony, given under oath, or let the testimony stand and hope that the Senate only censures Trump.

    He did the thing, now, is that thing enough to get him booted. So is this more or less than lying about a BJ? Factually, it’s worse, but since that wasn’t enough, and Nixon quit before being booted, where is the line, and does the line depend on which party the President is, and which party controls the Senate? Theory of relativity applies to all things.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  48. PTw wrote:

    Is your hatred of Mr Trump really so great that you’d rather see that than his re-election?

    You’re new here, aren’t you?

    Yes and no. I’ve been commenting, off and on, here since 2004, much more frequently a few years back. This is a great site, but the comments get so numerous it’s hard to keep track at times.

    I’ve understood that our host doesn’t like Mr Trump, but I was asking a serious question. This is the question that the conservative opponents of President Trump really do have to weigh. There is some serious cutting off of noses to spite faces going on.

    My thoughts expanded here.

    The serious Dana (13dd7c)

  49. It is the corrupt criminal traitor who is destroying America. Otherwise, I would not care that he is cowardly, back-stabbing, filthy New York sewer scum who would put his mother on the streets for a quarter a pop.

    The closest I’ve been to New York City is JFK on my way to Long Island and the closest I’ve been to Palm Beach is Tampa Bay, and he can be their problem for all I care. As long as he’s not the rest of us’ problem.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. Anyone who won’t vote against their party has no power in their party. The party can do or say anything and put anyone up for election and still get that person’s vote. There is no reason for the party to listen to them.

    Nic (896fdf)

  51. Isn’t that “cut off your nose to spite your face”?

    steveg (354706)

  52. My thoughts expanded here.

    The serious Dana (13dd7c) — 11/20/2019 @ 3:07 pm

    I noticed a certain ordained sandwich left a comment.

    Kishnevi (54fe57)

  53. I read your post, Dana, but I didn’t want to say what I said at #50 above at your site.

    nk (dbc370)

  54. At least the parson of grinders picked a believable avatar, considering how sketchy the bio narrative was starting to sound, nk.

    urbanleftbehind (a5a437)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2791 secs.