Suddfluffel Chain, Dem Impeachment & Senate Trial – Oh My!

John R. Houk

© November 3, 2019

A good Facebook friend shared a purported article by a “Hyram F. Suddfluffel”. At first I didn’t pay attention to the name and just went on to read. As a Trump supporter who whole-heartedly believes the Dems and the MSM are fabricating excuses (Note “excuses” because there is not one crime pointed to, merely politically charged excuses that Dems have been committing against Conservatives for decades) to impeach President Trump, the read brings an aura of excitement that impeachment will lead to a Senate trial that will lead to Dem indictments rather than a Trump removal.


My exuberance was so high I then went back to the attributed author’s name which is “Suddfluffel”. That’s when I realized this was more than likely an inventive chain (aka chain mail, chain email, chain message, etc.). Whoever the inventive author actually is even tried to add a sense of bona fides by placing “PhD” and in parentheses “Political Science”.


So I Googled, Duck Duck Goed and StartPage.comed “Hyram F. Suddfluffel”. Of course Left-Wing Snopes that castigates all things Conservative comes up first, flowed closely by an article in The American Spectator and


I can give Leftie Snopes credit for not going to the “False” label but rather going with “Unproven” likely because no Suddfluffel author can be found even as a pseudonym.


The American Spectator implies the subpoenaing of lying Deep Staters is possible in the Republican controlled Senate especially if those liars have anything to do with Dem approved articles of Impeachment. examines the Suddfluffel online pedigree and history of past Senate rules and procedures of Senate removal trials of President Andrew Johnson and Slick Willie (Bill) Clinton. And to me those procedures and rules managed by a Republican Majority Senate could quite probably spank wicked Dems.


A point of interest I did discover search engines the existence of a Hiram College webpage emphasizing a Political Science undergrad program. Could a clever student or Professor wanting to keep their Conservative leanings anonymous have come that institution of higher learning? Hmm…


So, in my cross posting fervor, I will begin with R.R. Brown’s Facebook Messenger share, followed excerpts the American Spectator and minus any reposted versions of the mysterious Hyram F. Suddfluffel. (Snopes bias is annoying to me, you’ll to visit the Leftist website to get their slant on Suddfluffel.)


JRH 11/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.


Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.


Shared by Rose Reed Brown

From Facebook Messenger

October 31, 2019 10:05 PM

Interesting Read…


By: Hyram F. Suddfluffel, PhD, (Political Science)

I have a degree in Political Science, and I am a card-carrying Libertarian. I’ve been studying politics and political history for the past 30 years. My specialty is U.S. Presidents. That said, I hope that the House of Representatives impeaches Trump. Let me tell you what will happen next!

1. The House can pass articles of impeachment over the objections of the Republicans and refer to the Senate for trial.

2. The Senate will conduct a trial. There will be a vote, and the Republicans will vote unanimously, along with a small number of Democrats, to not convict the President. Legally, it will all be over at that point.

3. However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President’s attorneys will have the right to subpoena and
question ANYONE THEY WANT! That is different than the special counsel investigation, which was very one-sided. So, during the impeachment trial, we will be hearing testimony from James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Glenn Simpson, Donna Brazille, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, and a whole host of other participants in this whole sordid affair and the ensuing coverup activities. A lot of dirt will be dug up; a lot of truth will be unveiled. Finger pointing will occur. Deals will start being made, and suddenly, a lot of democrats will start being charged and going to prison. All this, because, remember, the President’s team will now, for the first time, have the RIGHT to question all of these people under oath – and they will turn on each other. That is already starting.

4. Lastly, one more thing will happen, the Senate will not convict the President. Nothing will happen to Trump. Most Americans are clueless about political processes, the law, and the Constitution. Most Americans believe that being impeached results in removal from office. They don’t understand that phase 2 is a trial in and by the Senate, where he has zero chance of conviction. Remember, the Senate is controlled by Republicans; they will determine what testimony is allowed — and everything will be allowed, including: DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to fix the election in favor of Hillary, the creation of the Trump dossier, the cover up and destruction of emails that very likely included incriminating information. They will incriminate each other for lying to the FISA court, for spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign, and for colluding with foreign political actors, especially George Soros. After the Senate declines to convict the President, we will have an election, and Trump will win. It will be a backlash against democrat petulance, temper tantrums, hypocrisy and dishonesty. Even minorities will vote for Trump, because, for the first time, they will see that democrats have spent 2+ years focused on maintaining their own power, and not doing anything at all about black murders in Chicago, homelessness, opioids, and other important issues that are actually killing people. And, we will spend the following four years listening to politicians and pundits claim that the whole impeachment was rigged.

So let’s move on to impeachment.


Absolutely, Let’s Have an Impeachment Trial

The House should vote to impeach President Trump and the Senate should start a trial — so the REAL fireworks can begin.


Donald Trump Speaking – TAS YouTube screenshot



October 1, 2019, 12:57 PM

The American Spectator


There is an email/social media post, bearing the delightful nom de plume of “Hyram F. Suddfluffel,” going around the internet at present, one which is pretty timely and quite well reasoned and which might make you rethink your preconceived notions about how much resistance we should all have to the Democrats’ impeachment madness.


At least, until the process gets to the Senate.


Here’s the email, cribbed in full so as to do it justice:



This thing has become such an underground sensation that Snopes has even weighed in, claiming that it’s “unproven.”


No kidding.


Snopes writer Dan MacGuill, whose nom de plume is nowhere near as colorful as Hyram F. Suddfluffel, claims that the email’s conclusion that a two-thirds vote for impeachment in the Senate is impossible is “exaggerated,” but he concedes most of the rest of the premise to be realistic.


But he argues it nonetheless. For example, MacGuill quibbles with the idea that Trump could call any witness he wants during an impeachment trial while conceding that the “Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials” does include a formula of words for subpoenas in such trials, specifying that the subpoena can be issued on behalf of “the party impeached, or of his counsel.” He says that doesn’t mean an unlimited exposure to subpoena, as some of those potential subpoenas could be quashed by a federal court.


News flash: none of the people Trump is likely to call as witnesses in an impeachment trial are going to have their subpoenas quashed as irrelevant to the bill of particulars brought to the Senate by a House impeachment. The clowns in charge of the impeachment show in the House will make sure that’s true by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Trump in the impeachment. And therefore all of the past three years will be relevant to the case — James Clapper, John Brennan, Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, James Comey … we can go on and on about the Democrat and Deep State conspirators who came together in an attempt to derail and overturn the legitimate results of an American election under the guise of saving democracy from untoward meddling from foreign powers colluding with bad actors here.


They’re all fair game, and they’ll all go under oath to be cross-examined without end by the best trial lawyers money can buy — with the unlimited resources of the White House and the executive branch generating evidence to support and direct those questions.


And with the Senate Republicans in charge of the trial.


Does this sound at all like an environment Democrats believe will benefit them?


Increasingly it’s apparent the Democrat party isn’t very good at thinking through their actions before uncorking them. That’s precisely what impeachment, which plays exceptionally badly with people in red, purple, and light-blue states, is an example of.


Consider your author at least a half-serious proponent of the theory that what’s really at stake here isn’t a Democratic coup against the president, but rather a hard-left coup against Joe Biden within the Democrat party. Biden, whose dealings on behalf of his ne’er-do-well son in Ukraine and elsewhere cannot escape the steamroller an in-depth investigation of the Ukraine matter would become, would be finished, once again, as a presidential candidate. When he is, there would be no further old-school center-left leadership in that party, and the socialist crowd would inherit its ashes. Impeachment means Elizabeth Warren as the 2020 nominee and virtually certain defeat. And not just in the presidential election: the House would return to the GOP, and Nancy Pelosi, who is the captive queen of Capitol Hill, would be through.


But in 2024, the Democrats would become the Socialists, and a fresh new avatar of the Hard Left would be cut from whole cloth just as Barack Obama was. And should that candidate win election thanks to indoctrinated millennials and Generation Y-ers, the Hard Left believes, the long project to convert this country from the Land of the Free to the Home of the Tax Slave would be complete.


It’s hardly set in stone that this is our future. And it’s just a theory. But it’s as plausible as the idea the Democrats really are so arrogant that they think they can convince two-thirds of the Senate to vote to remove a duly elected president on accusations that, at worst, are a shadowy reflection of conduct their own people engaged in during the previous administration.


Scott McKay is publisher of the Hayride, which offers news and commentary on Louisiana and national politics. He’s also a novelist — check out his first book “Animus: A Tale of Ardenia,” available in Kindle and paperback.


Hyram F. Suddfluffel: The Origin & What’s True about the Viral Impeachment Post


By Stephanie Dube Dwilson

Updated Sep 26, 2019 at 12:46am


US President Donald Trump claps during a campaign rally in Rio Rancho, New Mexico – Getty Photo


A post from several months ago claiming to be from “Hyram F. Suddfluffel” about President Donald Trump’s impeachment is making the rounds on social media again. And as a result, a lot of people are searching for Suddfluffel on Snopes. Is Suddfluffel real? What’s the post’s origins? Interestingly, the post that claims Trump is playing a version of 4D chess with the impeachment first made the rounds back in June before it started making the rounds again in the last couple of days. The earliest signs that Heavy can find of that post didn’t show the Suddfluffel name attached. Read on to learn more about the post’s origins and what’s true and what’s not.


Early Versions of the Suddfluffel Post from June Didn’t Have the Name Attached


No one has ever officially come forward claiming to be the person who wrote the Hyram F. Suddfluffel post, and searches for Hyram F. Suddfluffel came up empty. Although there some elements in the impeachment post itself that are accurate regarding Trump’s chances of being impeached and some procedures, other elements are not. And an actual person named Hyram F. Suddfluffel cannot be verified. In fact, the earliest signs of this post didn’t have a name attached to it.


Here’s what the long post making the rounds says. Not everything in this is factual, but some points are.


The earliest version of this post showing up on an Internet search, Facebook, or Twitter is on a Freepublic discussion here. It was posted verbatim on June 3, 2019 with the subject line: “Come on Trump haters, PUSH for impeachment ‘PLEASE.’” The post was shared by contributer lonster who said “This was passed on by an old friend.” The name Suddfluffel did not appear.


Free Republic Screen Shot of ‘Impeachment Dam Breaking’


Later on that same day, someone else referenced the post as coming from lonster on Freepublic.


Impeachment screen-shot- Accredited to FReeper Lonster


Lonster very well may have gotten the copy from another source, but searches for the copy in that post showing up anywhere else on Google prior to that June 3 date came up empty. (Note: Below is just an example of one attempt to search the copy.)


screen-shot-Google Search Prior 6/3/19 Comes Up Empty


The note quickly started making the rounds at this point. You can see one person sharing pieces of it on Twitter on June 16, 2019.



Interestingly, searches on Duck Duck Go pulled up more information than Google searches. But the results date-wise are the same. Blogs began posting the same story in June frequently, and then it died down until the last couple of days when impeachment news started surfacing again. For example, Fergus Falls Journal just shared the post again in Letters to the Editor, submitted by Bill Schulz but quoting Suddfluffel.


The name Hyram appears to start showing up in late June, so it was connected to the post pretty quickly, although not widely used until August.


screen-shot- Suddfluffel Shows Up Late June


The post was also shared on 4 Chan’s /pol/ on June 18, 2019, and the poster at the time was “Anonymous” and they did not include the Hyram name with the post.


screen-shot of 4-Chan Hyram Suddfluffel version


The post also showed up on June 12 on Government in Exile without the name. By June 16, it was already making the rounds on Facebook and being shared on forums from Facebook posts. The June 16 post noted that the story was seen on a comment on a Wall Street Journal article. Subsequent searches showed the post has appeared frequently as a comment on news articles, which has probably helped it spread so fast.


Although the exact origin isn’t known, the long comment appears to have first shown up in early June 2019 and did not have the Hyram name attached in the earliest iterations. This article will be updated if earlier versions of the comment are discovered in subsequent searches.


Is Anything in the Content of the Post True?


Interestingly, some things in the content of the post are true, but certainly not everything (including some of the more conspiracy-theory-sounding notes.) But certain comments about procedures, for example, are true. The House can pass articles of impeachment over the objections of Republicans.


If all 435 House members vote, they would need 218 votes for a majority to be reached and for Trump to be impeachedThere are 235 Democrats in office in the House, one Independent, and 199 Republicans, Reuters explained. This means that it wouldn’t be too difficult to get those impeachment votes simply from Democrats alone. But like the post says, an impeachment does not mean removal.


The post is also correct in that the Senate would conduct a trial and, most likely, Republicans would not convict Trump. A 2/3 majority is needed in the Senate after the trial in order to remove a sitting President. In Trump’s case, a total of 67 Senators would need to vote to convict and remove the President. There are 45 Democrat Senators and 53 Republican Senators, plus two Independents who typically vote Democrat. So to reach the 67 total needed to remove Trump, they would need at least 20 Republicans to join with Democrats in voting to remove Trump (plus the two Independents), Reuters reported. This is unlikely to happen, although not impossible. If Trump is not convicted then he would be considered acquitted and would continue his term and could run again.


It’s also unlikely that anyone could be subpoenaed about anything. There isn’t a lot of precedent for Presidential impeachment trials. The most recent Senate impeachment trial involved Bill Clinton (and before him, Andrew Johnson), so Clinton’s trial can be reviewed for the most recent precedent and examples.


Rules for Senate impeachment trials can be read here. The 1868 rules are here. The Senate formulated its trial procedures and then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson wrote them down, and then additional rules were added by the Senate during Johnson’s trial, Heritage noted. Those rules were largely followed during Clinton’s trial.


The rules mention that subpoenas (spelled subpena in the document), would call people to testify their knowledge regarding the cause before the Senate.


In Clinton’s Senate trial, the Senators voted on procedural rules that would govern the trial, how many hours each side would have to present its case, and the like. They decided not to call live witnesses for Clinton’s trial, but instead showed video testimony. Senators debated their votes behind closed doors.


Interestingly, Heritage pointed out that the Chief Justice sometimes makes procedural rulings. In 1868, the Senate overruled the Chief Justice’s procedural rulings. In Clinton’s trial, the Senate never challenged the Chief Justice’s procedural rulings.


The Washington Post had an interesting article noting that Mitch McConnell, as the Senate Majority Leader, would have a lot of influence over the trial. The article posits that rules against hearsay evidence could be ignored if desired and the Chief Justice’s rulings overruled (as happened in Johnson’s trial.) McConnell might seek to have Joe Biden and Hunter Biden as live witnesses, for example, and they might look into Biden’s alleged actions in the Ukraine too. There also might be a lot of leeway in determining what would count as exculpatory evidence and, thus, necessary subpoenas to defend Trump.


In summary, Hyram F. Suddfluffel’s identity can’t be authenticated or verified, and the earliest examples of this post that’s circulating don’t include his name. There’s no evidence that Trump actually wants the impeachment or somehow planned for it to happen. There is quite a lot of reason, however, to imagine that Republican Senators likely would not vote for Trump’s removal. If more information about the post’s origins are found, this story will be updated.


Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.


Suddfluffel Chain, Dem Impeachment & Senate Trial – Oh My!

John R. Houk

© November 3, 2019


Absolutely, Let’s Have an Impeachment Trial


The American Spectator Homepage




The American Spectator was founded in 1924  by George Nathan and Truman Newberry over a cheap domestic ale in McSorley’s Old Ale House. In 1967, the Saturday Evening Club took it over, rechristening it The Alternative: An American Spectator, but by November 1977 the word “alternative” had acquired such an esoteric fragrance that in order to discourage unsolicited manuscripts from florists, beauticians, and other creative types, the club reverted to the magazine’s original name. Published remarkably without regard to gender, lifestyle, race, color, creed, physical handicap, or national origin.


The American Spectator Foundation educates the public on new ideas, concepts, and policies that favor traditional American values, such as economic freedom, individual liberty, self-sufficiency, and limited government.  To this end, the Foundation also trains and cultivates young writers for careers in journalism and serves as an outlet for a host of both young and established conservative writers and thinkers.


Hyram F. Suddfluffel: The Origin & What’s True about the Viral Impeachment Post


Copyright © 2019 Heavy, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Heavy


Heavy Inc. is a privately held U.S.-based digital media company that owns and operates and is a real-time news and information platform visited by 25 million unique visitors per month. is overseen by Editor-in-Chief Aaron Nobel. Heavy’s rapid reporting and user-friendly formats provide timely coverage of breaking news, sports, entertainment and consumer trends.


Heavy’s Gift and Shopping Guides provide 16 million shoppers a year with information to assist them in making the right buying decision at the time of purchase. Heavy’s entertainment guides help 2 million readers per year determine “what to watch” in a world of proliferating streaming content options.


Heavy’s goal is to provide our community with satisfying, accurate and actionable information to enhance their day-to-day lives. is Heavy’s Spanish language platform reaching 2 million unique visitors per month.


Author: oneway2day

I am a Neoconservative Christian Right blogger. I also spend a significant amount of time of exposing theopolitical Islam.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: