If you didn’t watch tonight’s Almanac Roundtable discussion, you’re in luck. I watched it so you didn’t have to. Predictably, impeachment was the main topic discussed by former DFL State Senator Ember Reichgott-Junge and former GOP Lt. Gov. Candidate Annette Meeks. My first impression of the discussion is that it’s painful to watch Ember Reichgott-Junge mix the Democrats’ political talking points with the Constitution.

At one point in the discussion, Junge trotted out the latest Democrat talking point. Junge said that “It isn’t just President Trump that is on trial. The US Senate is on trial, too.” She then posed a hypothetical question, saying “What happens if new information comes out 6 months from now?” Here’s what I’d say had I been debating her Friday night:

Ember, you’ve got it backwards. It isn’t the US Senate that’s on trial. It’s the US House that’s on trial. Specifically, it’s Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler that are on trial. They’re the people who were tasked with the responsibility of conducting a thorough impeachment investigation. If this was truly about patriotism, Speaker Pelosi would have stopped the investigation once she learned that Chairman Schiff’s committee didn’t unearth proof that President Trump committed high crimes or misdemeanors.

She didn’t stop the investigation because she wanted to use impeachment as a partisan weapon. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the morning after he won the election. This wasn’t an investigation. It was a search-and-destroy mission. That isn’t about finding the truth. That’s about crippling the President of the United States for purely partisan purposes.

Democrats who voted for impeachment aren’t as guilty as Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff but they’re guilty, too. They’re guilty of impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime. House Democrats voted to impeach a president without investigators identifying a single piece of direct proof that verifies the crime President Trump committed.

Prof. Jonathan Turley’s ‘indictment’ of the House Democrats still stings. In his testimony, Prof. Turley said “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”

Honestly, it’s exceptionally dishonest to blame the US Senate for US House Democrats not finishing their investigation. The Constitution states that the House of Representatives has the sole responsibility for impeachment. If House Democrats don’t properly finish their investigation, then that’s their fault. Honest historians won’t criticize the US Senate for conducting a sloppy impeachment investigation.

Senate Democrats better think this through thoroughly. If Senate Democrats want to call witnesses, they’d best be prepared to get buried with fact witnesses by the defense attorneys. That means the trial lasts until well after Super Tuesday. By then, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar will have been forced to suspend their campaigns.

By the time an extended trial ends, President Trump will be well on his way to winning re-election, Republicans will be well on their way to regaining their House majority and well on their way to solidifying their majority in the Senate. That’s the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

The ideal situation for a prosecutor is a crime that a) multiple people saw, b) has a significant amount of forensic evidence (think DNA or fingerprints), and that only one explanation makes sense. This impeachment doesn’t have any of those things. For all of the Democrats’ huffing and puffing, the evidence is deficient and multiple innocent explanations exist that would explain President Trump’s actions.

Thanks to the declassified transcript of the July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy, we know that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy for an official favor, not a personal favor. We know that because of the context and wording. “Can you do us a favor? Our country has been through a lot?”

That isn’t the wording of a personal favor. Those words are found at the top of page 3 of the transcript. The Bidens aren’t mentioned until the bottom of page 4 of the transcript. Even then, President Trump doesn’t connect the Bidens with any official reward. Had the Democrats found a White House document that explicitly said that President Trump wanted dirt on the Bidens, they’d have their smoking gun. Democrats don’t have that.

What the Democrats have is a pile of speculation, projection and presumption. That isn’t proof. That’s the legal equivalent of gossip and innuendo. It isn’t the type of thing that professional prosecutors build their case on. Listen to the weasel words in this interview:

This impeachment’s biggest flaw is that the evidence is virtually nonexistent. This impeachment’s next biggest flaw is that neither article of impeachment accuses President Trump of committing a crime, much less a high crime. This impeachment’s other fatal flaw is that it isn’t complete.

Republicans should stick together on this. Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul should tell Democrats that it’s the impeachment managers’ fault if they haven’t heard from enough witnesses. If they weren’t in hurry-up-and-wait-mode, Democrats could’ve heard from these additional witnesses. It’s their fault that they didn’t compel the testimony of Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair and Duffey.

Finally, Republicans need to consistently remind Democrats that it’s the House Democrats’ responsibility to finish the investigation before voting on articles of impeachment. If Democrats were sloppy, that’s their problem. It’s the Senate’s responsibility to try the House Democrats’ case, not finish the House Democrats’ incomplete investigation.

This GAO opinion reeks of Deep State intervention into the Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump. Today, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s watchdog office, issued an opinion stating that the Trump administration had broken the law by temporarily withholding lethal military aid to Ukraine. The GAO specifically stated that the Trump administration had violated the “Impoundment Control Act.

Anyone who knows the Constitution knows that Article II gives the Executive Branch sole authority on foreign policy. Further, as James Freeman points out, the GAO’s boss is the Legislative Branch. Quoting from Freeman’s article, “For people who aren’t students of the Washington bureaucracy, it should be noted that few people consider GAO the authoritative word on legal issues. The Justice Department and ultimately of course the federal courts make the big calls.”

According to the gospel of Schoolhouse Rock, the Legislative Branch isn’t equipped to render verdicts. At best, the Legislative Branch might be authorized to offer an opinion on legal matters but that opinion is purely advisory. It isn’t the type of thing that has legal weight behind it. It shouldn’t be surprising to find out that the Deep State is attempting to tip the Senate’s trial of President Trump’s impeachment in the Democrats’ favor. This is how we know that’s what’s happening:

At the urging of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, (D-MD), GAO now says that Trump administration delays in sending aid to Ukraine were illegal. In a new letter GAO’s general counsel argues that even though the Trump administration made aid for Ukraine available last September 12—before the Sept. 30 deadline for obligating funds—it still should have happened earlier. It’s not entirely clear which date would have made GAO happy but in the agency’s view the White House did not have an unavoidable “programmatic delay” which prevented funds from going to Ukraine.

Again, the Executive Branch doesn’t obey the Legislative Branch. If that were reality, then we wouldn’t have a constitutional republic. We’d have a parliamentary system in which the president would serve the Parliament. That isn’t the system we have. Our system is one that insists upon co-equal branches of government.

The GAO counsel didn’t have the authority to say this:

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

That isn’t the GAO’s decision to make. The appropriation was spent with time to spare. The GAO admitted that. This was done to give Democrats a fresh talking point. Even if the GAO is right about this potential infraction, at best, this wouldn’t be a high crime, which the Constitution requires to impeach.

Despite this declaration, we haven’t seen proof that this isn’t a president exercising his authority in setting foreign policy. That constitutional question is something that a federal court would need to sort through. It isn’t something that the GAO can unilaterally decide.

If people still entertained the silly notion that CNN was impartial about who wins the Democrats’ presidential nomination, that notion just disappeared. That notion disappeared because CNN moderator Abby Phillips ignored Sen. Sanders’ answer to her question.

The fight started when Phillips asked “Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?” Sen. Sanders replied, saying “Well, in fact, I didn’t say that.” Sen. Sanders’ answer apparently didn’t fit CNN’s narrative so Phillip asked Sen. Warren “what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

Welcome to the club, Bernie. You now know how Republicans feel when the Agenda Media ignore their answers. Implicit in the Agenda Media’s response is the inference that both parties know that the aggrieved party is lying. The answer isn’t important. What’s important to CNN is whether they maintain the narrative.

After the debate, CNN went further in antagonizing Sen. Sanders, releasing audio of Sanders and Warren fighting. During that fight, Sen. Warren said “I think you just called me a liar on national TV.” After that accusation, Sen. Sanders replied “What?” That led Sen. Warren to respond, saying “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

Bernie’s supporters aren’t taking this lightly:


Sen. Warren went into this debate needing to regain momentum going into the first contest for the Democrat presidential nomination. Sen. Warren came across as dishonest and vindictive during the debate and afterwards, too.

Yesterday, like other days, Democrats insisted that a Senate impeachment trial without witnesses should be considered a sham trial. Those statements, whether they’re made by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Nadler, are part of the Democrats’ strategy to extend their investigation in the hopes of finding a nugget of incriminating evidence against President Trump.

Rather than passively accepting that, Republicans should highlight the sham investigation that Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler conducted for House Democrats. The point should be to highlight the Democrats’ intellectual inconsistency. This video highlights the fact that Chairman Nadler refused to allow a hearing where Republicans could call witnesses:

The Judiciary Committee, traditionally the ‘impeachment committee, didn’t call any fact witnesses. The first hearing consisted of 3 partisan Democrat activists and liberal law professor Jonathan Turley testifying. The other Judiciary Committee hearing consisted of the majority and minority counsels answering questions about the Schiff Report. Chairman Schiff wasn’t required by Chairman Nadler to testify about his own report.

A simple question screams out for attention. Where are the witnesses? We’re now told that a Senate trial must include witnesses. If we don’t have witnesses, we’re told, it’s a sham trial, a “cover-up”:

Why didn’t Adam Schiff testify about his own report? Why weren’t Republicans allowed to call a single witness in the House impeachment hearings? What are Democrats trying to hide? What exculpatory evidence are these Democrats trying to omit?

Democrats don’t want Chairman Schiff testifying because that might force him to explain whether the faux whistle-blower worked with 2 of Schiff’s new hires when they worked at the National Security Council. If Schiff testified, he might be forced how many times he or his staff met with the faux whistle-blower. If that happens, they might be forced to tell Congress if they worked with each other to conspire against President Trump.

Democrats didn’t permit Republican witnesses because actual fact witnesses would’ve interrupted the Democrats’ carefully-edited narrative. With the weakest articles of impeachment in our nation’s history, Democrats couldn’t afford a) to let Republicans offer exculpatory evidence or b) to let Republicans call witnesses who might have provided truly bombshell testimony.

It isn’t that I want the Senate to conduct an unfair trial. Republicans don’t need to shaft Democrats because these facts are on their side:

  1. Neither article rises to the level of Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanor
  2. The exculpatory evidence that Republicans tried presenting during the impeachment hearings will come in on the Senate side.
  3. This time, the ‘jury’ won’t be composed of outcome-based partisan Democrat hacks.

This time, Democrats won’t get a pass from the jury. This time, Democrats will need to actually to prove their case. This time, America will see the difference between the partisan political hacks that make up the House impeachment managers and the professional litigators on President Trump’s legal team.

This time, America will notice the difference between a hurried sham impeachment investigation and a fair, properly conducted impeachment trial.

When the history books get written about this impeachment, the record won’t be complete without mentioning the facts that a) the House Democrats didn’t meet their evidentiary burden, b) this was the most partisan impeachment in this nation’s history and that c) Democrats attempted to flip the burden of proving innocence to the accused rather than insisting that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

For all of Speaker Pelosi’s BS about Democrats doing their constitutional responsibilities, the truth is that Democrats failed at guaranteeing everyone’s civil rights. Let’s remember that the precedents set during the 2 House impeachment investigations in the Twentieth Century were totally ignored by House Democrats. This wasn’t fair in any sense of the word.

What’s worst is that the exculpatory evidence produced by Republicans was thrown out or ignored by Democrats. When Republicans on the House Intel Committee blew gaping holes in the Democrats’ star testifiers’ testimony, Adam Schiff ignored those inconsistencies like they didn’t exist. Had this taken place in a court of law, the case would’ve gotten thrown out the minute the Democrats finished calling witnesses.

That’s because Democrats only called one witness who actually spoke with President Trump. That’s Ambassador Sondland. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call and quibbled a little with the transcript. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he objected to parts of the call but his boss overruled him on that. In short, the Democrats’ case has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.

Democrats insist that witnesses need to be called for it to be a fair trial. Due process was written into the Bill of Rights to protect the accused. It wasn’t written to protect the government. I won’t be lectured by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Nadler or Chairman Jefferies on integrity. None of them have any of that virtue. They’re nothing more than a collection of partisan hacks who put partisanship ahead of patriotism.

Democrats read off the same script, whether they’re talking about Iran, the economy, impeachment or anything else. If the information changes, like it did this week with Iran, they just continue with the same script. At last night’s Democrat presidential debate, when the candidates were asked about Iran, the candidates each insisted that President Trump had isolated us from our allies.

These stiffs said that despite the fact that the British, French and Germans notified Iran that they’d better get back into compliance with the JCPOA or they’d snap tougher sanctions on. That doesn’t sound like the US is isolated. That sounds like a nation with stout-hearted allies.

That didn’t matter to Democrat activists. That’s because they don’t care about being right. Democrats just care about reciting their talking points correctly. Whether it’s evidence in an impeachment trial or the truth on a debate stage, Democrats are indifferent towards those things.

It’s been that way for almost 30 years. When Anita Hill testified against Justice Thomas, Democrats said it didn’t matter whether it was true or not. What mattered was the seriousness of the charges.

I didn’t watch last night’s Democrat presidential debate but it sounds like the fight between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren took a nasty turn after the debate. This upsets the Democrats happy little family storyline:

Sanders and Warren approached one another and he stuck out his hand. She did not shake it. What followed was a brief but clearly uncomfortable conversation. As Sanders’ campaign co-chair Nina Turner put it on CNN: “I’m not sure what she said, but you can read the body language. Obviously, their conversation was not pleasant.”

Then the fight turned to social media. As of Wednesday morning, the hashtag “#neverWarren” was trending as Bernie allies took to Twitter to attack the Massachusetts senator as a lying snake.

There’s little doubt that Warren is lying, not Sanders. Sanders doesn’t have a history of lying. Warren does. This is from last night’s debate:

Elizabeth Warren has a lengthy history of lying:

Policy-wise, Bernie and Pocahontas are nuttier than fruitcake. From a character standpoint, though, they’re different. Warren is utterly corrupt.

This reeks of desperation on Warren’s part. She’s been sinking in the polls ever since she couldn’t explain how she’d pay for her health care plan. With the first votes looming, she needs, to use a football metaphor, a Hail Mary pass. This intentional leak is likely Sen. Warren’s attempt to regain momentum and relevance.

Jim Geraghty’s article on Sen. Klobuchar doesn’t hide the things that the Twin Cities press has ignored for years. In his article, Geraghty writes that “If you squint, you can make the “Klobuchar’s getting hot at the right time” argument, as the latest Monmouth poll has her at 8 percentage points, her second-highest number yet. Except … getting any delegates out of Iowa requires getting 15 percent of the vote. Klobuchar needs to more or less double her current support to walk out of the state with any delegates.”

Then Geraghty cuts to the heart of Sen. Klobuchar’s problem, saying “Klobuchar wasn’t that well-known when the race began; it was a crowded field; her debate performances ranged from okay to easily forgotten; she’s not the choice of the party establishment or the progressive grassroots, she doesn’t have the resources to blanket the airwaves the way Bloomberg and Steyer can … she’s a perfectly fine, almost generic Democratic candidate in a field that was bursting with more exciting options.”

Don’t mistake Sen. Klobuchar’s lack of presence as proof that she’s a moderate Democrat. That’s BS. She thought that Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were extremists. In fact, she thought that Kavanaugh didn’t deserve the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, she thought that Sonia Sotomayor was a centrist. Klobuchar voted for the ACA, which destroyed Minnesota’s health care system but voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which has produced the strongest economy in the last 20 years. That doesn’t sound too bright, does it?

While she’s been protected by the Twin Cities media, she’s been portrayed as a moderate/centrist. Clearly, that isn’t accurate. While she isn’t as far left as Ilhan Omar or Keith Ellison, her policies are more than a little leftist. On her campaign website, Klobuchar has a page titled a safer world. On the subject of foreign policy, she says:

Amy believes that we need to stand strong, and consistently, with our allies and that we must respect our frontline troops, diplomats and intelligence officers, who are out there every day risking their lives for our country, and deserve better than foreign policy by tweet. She would invest in diplomacy and rebuild the State Department and modernize our military to stay one step ahead of China and Russia, including with serious investments in cybersecurity.

This past week, President Trump has convinced the British, French and Germans to force Iran’s mullahs back into compliance with the JCPOA. Next, President Trump has rebuilt the military the past 3 years, too. Third, President Trump has seen to it that the troops have gotten pay raises the past 2 years. Fourth, rebuilding the State Department, aka the Deep State, is downright stupid. The last thing we need are ‘diplomats’ who think it’s their job to undermine a president they think isn’t qualified. Finally, President Trump, working with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have significantly upgraded our cybersecurity.

In other words, the things Sen. Klobuchar says she’d do are things that President Trump has already done. This is a perfect example of how the Twin Cities media protect St. Amy of Hennepin County:

Sen. Klobuchar is kinda right in that tensions are rising in Iran. It’s just that the pressure on Iran is increasing. Tuesday was a major breakthrough for US-British diplomacy. Thanks in large part to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s behind-the-scenes work, we’re on the verge of getting Iran back to the negotiating table where a proper treaty will get negotiated. When the JCPOA was negotiated, Iran didn’t have a worry in the world. Now, 5 years later, Iran’s mullahs are worried about students protesting, Iran’s economy is in virtual freefall and the international community is exerting maximum pressure on the regime.

Last night’s Democrat presidential debate got stupid fast when the moderators changed the subject to Iran. Democrats didn’t attempt to abandon the DNC’s talking points. From there, things went downhill fast.

Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden stood out but not in a good way. Sen. Klobuchar said “Because of the actions of Donald Trump, we are in a situation where Iran is starting to enrich uranium again in violation of the original agreement. What I would do is negotiate. I would bring people together just as president Obama did years ago. And I think that we can get this done. But you have to have a president that sees this as a number one goal. I would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

First, it’s stupid to negotiate if the country you’re negotiating with isn’t feeling pain or is frightened of you. When John Kerry negotiated with Iran, Iran wasn’t worried about whether their people would overthrow the regime. The product was an agreement that was so weak that the Obama administration wouldn’t submit it as a treaty for ratification. The agreement was so terrible that most Democrats opposed it.

Next, President Trump’s taking out of Gen. Soleimani triggered an uprising against the Regime, with 5 straight nights of protests against the regime. With Iran’s economy collapsing, unemployment skyrocketing, inflation hitting 50% and students having lots of time to protest, there’s reason for Iran’s regime to worry about getting overthrown.

Third, Sen. Klobuchar should pay attention to events. Yesterday, Boris Johnson announced that the British, French and Germans had taken the first step in dragging Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA:

Britain, France and Germany on Tuesday formally accused Iran of breaking the 2015 agreement that limited its nuclear program, taking the first step toward re-imposing United Nations sanctions.

The European countries started the clock running on what could be some 60 days of negotiations with Iran about coming back into full compliance with the nuclear deal. Under the agreement, if they cannot resolve their dispute, that could revive United Nations sanctions on Iran that had been suspended under the deal, including an arms embargo.

Call me crazy but I’d argue that President Trump’s strategy is working beautifully. Biden sounded almost as incoherent:

“I was part of that deal. It was working,” he said. “It was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer to a nuclear weapon. And look what’s happened. We’re now isolated,” he continued. “We’re in a situation where our allies in Europe are making a comparison between the United States and Iran saying both ought to stand down, making a moral equivalence. We have lost our standing in the region; we have lost the support of our allies.

“The next president has to be able to pull those folks back together, reestablish our alliances and insist that Iran go back into the agreement, which I believe with the pressure applied as we put on before we can get done. And quite frankly, I think he’s flat out lied about saying the reason he went after [Soleimani] was because our embassies were about to be bombed,” Biden added.

That’s breathtakingly uninformed, which is dangerous for us. Biden being this uninformed gives credence to his nickname of Sleepy Joe. We can’t afford a president who isn’t paying attention to the world around him.

It’s either that Biden is uninformed or he’s unwilling to admit that President Trump’s strategy is well thought out and working. This information about the British, French and Germans accusing Iran of breaking the JCPOA didn’t happen right before last night’s debate. It was announced during Tuesday morning’s BBC Breakfast Show. That should’ve been part of these candidates’ morning briefing.

In short, the Democrats’ presidential candidates couldn’t admit that a) President Trump’s strategy is working and b) US allies are joining us in increasing pressure on the Iranian regime. This is what the Democrats’ stupidity towards Iran looks like:

God help us if any of these idiots becomes our next commander-in-chief.

When Republicans complained that anti-Trump lawyer David Kris had gotten appointed to oversee the FISA reforms, people predictably questioned whether Republicans were playing politics with the appointment. That hasn’t disappeared yet but it should now that independent reporter Sharyl Attkisson has written this article on the subject.

In her article, Ms. Attkisson highlights the main problems associated with this appointment, starting with this:

On Twitter, Kris called Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) “a politicized, dishonest [Intelligence Community] overseer who attempts to mislead,” and wrote that Trump and his advisers should be “worried” that the “walls are closing in” regarding the Mueller probe. Kris also bought into the now-disproven conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with Russia and Putin.

In other words, the FISC appointed a political hack at a time when the FISC needed a nonpartisan person to supervise these FISA reforms. Then there’s this:

To some, the appointment of Kris to help with the job is as mysterious as to why the FISA Court’s judges failed to flag the FBI abuses on their own. It would seem more important than ever to have an apolitical person, or a balanced group of people, conducting oversight of these politically sensitive matters.

Why didn’t the FISC police these warrant applications? It wasn’t until after the Horowitz Report had been published that the judge put out a warning. That isn’t policing the process. That’s CYA after the fact.

There’s no question that we need something that hunts the bad guys but that also keeps Big Brother playing fair. If anything is certain, it’s that FISA won’t get renewed without major changes. If Christopher Wray doesn’t step forward with a lengthy list of reforms, then FISA should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

Things get more questionable with this tweet from whistle-blower attorney Mark Zaid:


The op-ed written by Mike Morrell and David Kris says “This summer, a whistleblower complained to the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community of an alleged ‘violation’ of law, ‘abuse’ of authority or similar problem. The inspector general, in turn, advised the acting DNI, and later the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint was both credible and ‘urgent,’ meaning it involved something ‘serious or flagrant’ or otherwise significant.”

Why didn’t Kris and Morrell highlight the fact that the faux whistle-blower isn’t covered by the ICWPA? For that matter, why didn’t Kris mention that the person who tweeted about the op-ed is the faux whistle-blower’s attorney? Additionally, Mr. Zaid is the partisan Democrat who tweeted that “the coup” had started about 10 days after President Trump had been inaugurated?

Anyone associated with Mr. Zaid shouldn’t be associated with FISA reform. Period.