Archive for the ‘Democratic Culture of Corruption’ Category

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.

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.

Last week, we were told by the Agenda Media that the Iranian people hated President Trump because he killed Gen. Soleimani. This weekend, Iranians ripped the mask off the Democrats’ attempt to spin their anti-Trump story. It’s clear that Iranians hated Gen. Soleimani as much as Iranians hate Ayatollah Khamenei.

Democratic congressional leaders and presidential candidates who were unsparing in their criticism of President Trump for the escalation with Iran over the past two weeks largely have gone silent now that the protests on the streets of Tehran and beyond have turned their rage toward the regime and not the Trump White House.

Even as videos emerged online Monday that purportedly show Iranian police and security forces firing live ammunition to disperse protesters, so far among the 2020 Democratic candidates only former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., have spoken out in support of the people.

The Democrats’ hatred of President Trump helped fuel the Democrats’ anti-Trump spin rather than cheering the killing of a terrorist mastermind. How sick that these Democrat presidential aspirants hate President more than they hate a cold-blooded Iranian terrorist mastermind.

Democrats will have difficulty gaining traction until they start a) backing away from the partisan socialist ledge, b) siding with the American people again and c) running away from Bernie Sanders’ socialist policies and AOC’s environmentalist policies. But I digress.

The story starting this week is that the Iranian people are, without American provocation, rising up against their religious leadership. These Iranian protesters are protesting the mullahs because they’re frustrated with out-of-control inflation and unemployment. People are noticing the Democrats’ behavior:


Yashar Ali isn’t a conservative, though he’s certainly an Iranian patriot. He’s upset that Democrats won’t pick the Iranian patriots’ side in this fight. Democrats won’t pick Iran’s side because that’s the side President Trump is on. Lord knows that Democrats can’t side with President Trump on anything. That’s why they’ll get thrashed this November.

When you combine obviously biased ‘reporting’ with obviously biased polling, don’t be surprised if the polling is essentially worthless. That’s what happened with this ABC News/Ipsos Poll. Q1 of the poll is “Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Trump is handling the current situation with Iran? The result of the poll was that 43% approved and 56% didn’t approve. Q2 of the poll asked “Do you think the U.S. airstrike in Iraq that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani has made the United States: Less safe – 52%, More safe – 25%, didn’t make a difference – 22%.”

Polling that asks slanted questions like that is angling for a specific set of responses. In this instance, that’s precisely what ABC got. Further, the polling was done on Friday and Saturday. Finally 525 adults were surveyed. That means that this poll was junk. The MOE was 4.8%, which is terrible.

Q3 and Q4 deserve a category unto themselves. Q3 asks “How concerned are you about the possibility of the United States getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran? A: 32% replied that they’re “very concerned” and 41% are “somewhat concerned.” Q4 is about Speaker Pelosi’s handling of impeach. It asked respondents “On another subject, three weeks ago the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not immediately deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate that would trigger a trial. Which of the following statements comes closest to your point of view even if neither is exactly right?”

“The fact that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not immediately transmit the articles of impeachment shows that the allegations against President Trump are not serious and that the Democrats are just playing partisan politics” A: 37%
“By not immediately transmitting the articles of impeachment, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are doing their constitutional duty to ensure that there is a full and deliberate trial in the Senate and that the jury in the Senate is impartial.” A:39%

The frightening thought is that votes cast by these uninformed idiots count just as much as the votes of informed citizens. Still, how can serious people think that we’re on the brink of full-scale war with Iran? Then again, how can anyone think that Speaker Pelosi is an honest person? After watching this video, it’s impossible for me to think that she’s honest:

Early in the interview, Pelosi said that Sen. McConnell will be involved in a cover-up if he doesn’t allow witnesses. If that’s true, then Adam Schiff is a co-conspirator. Chairman Schiff didn’t call Bolton, Blair, Mulvaney and Duffey and he didn’t subpoena them, either. Further, Democrats should’ve called for a special counsel to investigate the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. Congressional partisans like Chairman Schiff aren’t qualified to investigate corruption. There’s a reason why people don’t take partisan congressional investigations seriously.

We were told that this was a national emergency that couldn’t wait. Pelosi insists that GOP senators will pay a price if witnesses aren’t called. Coming from the woman who turned impeachment into a political weapon because Democrats can’t win this election if their lives depended on it, that’s rich. Pelosi and Schiff are nasty partisans who don’t have a bit of integrity between them.

There’s a new Democrat coalition. It consists of corrupt Democrat politicians like Pelosi and Schiff, partisan Democrat journalists like George Stephanopoulos and intentional push-polling aimed at providing a dishonest picture. Republicans have to defeat that coalition just to stand a fighting chance. That’s why President Trump hasn’t listened to people instructing him to stop tweeting. Without Twitter and other social media platforms, he would’ve gotten buried by now.

Finally, thank God he’s a fighter.

Back in June, 2013, Rep. Ryan Winkler stepped in it when he criticized Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices for ruling against the Voting Rights Act, which I wrote about here. At the time, Winkler tweeted “#SCOTUS VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.” He obviously was referring to Justice Clarence Thomas with his Uncle Thomas quip.

Despite that exercise in racism, the DFL didn’t see anything wrong with making him the House Majority Leader after the 2018 midterm elections. He still isn’t bright enough to stay out of trouble. This past week, counties across Minnesota voted on whether they were willing to accept primary refugees. This week, Beltrami County voted 3-2 to not accept additional primary refugees. After the vote, Leader Winkler threatened counties that voted not to accept refugees with funding cut in this tweet:


Talk about strong-arm tactics. Considering his past racist comments, this shouldn’t surprise people. Still, it’s something that shouldn’t be tolerated. State Sen. Justin Eichorn published this statement criticizing Rep. Winkler:

I am deeply disturbed by DFL House Majority Leader Winkler’s threat to cut off funding to Beltrami County simply because the county did not vote the way he wanted. This hostile behavior from the Majority Leader has no place in government, and we should not move towards a society that requires quid pro quo or else. Rather than engaging in this destructive behavior, I encourage the Majority Leader to visit Beltrami to learn the importance of state aid for the area and why continued support will be critical in the future.

Ultimately, local control is one of the most important principles in our country. When President Trump empowered counties to have a voice in the decision-making process for the federal refugee resettlement program to empower them to make choices that are best for their area, that is the choice that the Beltrami County Commissioners made last night.

I’d add that President Trump’s executive action is simply enforcing federal law.

Specifically, the Refugee Act of 1980 requires consultation “with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments.” That’s found in 8 U.S. Code §?1522 Clause B. Here’s the exact text of that part of the bill:

The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.

It doesn’t say should, may or has the option of. It says that the federal government “shall develop and implement … policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.”

I don’t doubt that Rep. Winkler doesn’t like Beltrami County’s decision. Elections have consequences, though, so if he doesn’t like the vote, he can run against one of the people who didn’t vote the way he wanted them to vote. Otherwise, he should shut his pie-hole. At minimum, he should deliver a speech saying that he’s retracting his threat.

The DFL governor has let the Minnesota Department of Human Services operate a slush fund within various programs, starting with the Child Care Access Program, aka CCAP, and programs for opioid addiction. The fraud in those programs literally run into the tens of millions of dollars. Now, the DFL House Majority Leader is threatening independent units of government because they didn’t do what he expected them to do.

This is gangster government at its worst. It should be utterly rejected this November.

Much was made this week of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s statement that he’ll be working closely with the Trump administration on the Senate impeachment trial. When told of that, Sen. Murkowski told Anchorage TV station KTUU “And in fairness, when I heard that I was disturbed. To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process.”

I wasn’t upset with either senator’s statement. When Sen. Schumer and other Democrats criticize Sen. McConnell for already having made up his mind, they left out the fact that each of the Democrat senators who’ve run for president this year have answered affirmatively that they’d vote to convict President Trump. The obvious question is then If McConnell is disqualified for that statement, why aren’t Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren disqualified, too?

The other question that Democrats haven’t addressed is why anyone should think that partisan senators like Blumenthal, Schumer, Whitehouse, Leahy, Hirono, Smith, van Hollen, Durbin, Markey and others have kept an open mind. They haven’t so let’s stop pretending.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, (R-PA), stated things perfectly in this interview:

Rep. Reschenthaler said “If it was a judicial proceeding, let me tell you as a magisterial district judge, I would’ve dismissed these charges on day no. 1 for lack of merit.”

This is much adieu about nothing. This isn’t a court trial. If it was, the judge would’ve already thrown it out because it’s built almost totally on hearsay testimony. Further, Democrats ignored the testimony given during cross-examination. Virtually every testifier has made a provocative statement in their opening statement. Every testifier has then been demolished on cross-examination. Bill Taylor got demolished by Jim Jordan. Gordon Sondland got demolished by Mike Turner. Marie Yovanovitch got demolished, too.

This impeachment is a sham. President Trump is the first president impeached who isn’t accused of committing a crime. The articles of impeachment will be laughed at when the history books are written. They’re both so open-ended that I could drive a truck through them. What are the elements that must be proved for abuse of power? What are the elements that must be proven to convict a president for abuse of congress? Senators can’t identify the elements because they’re making this up on the fly.

That’s the difference between made-up charges like these vs. the articles that were voted on with Nixon. Those articles involved real crimes. These don’t. That’s why this trial shouldn’t happen. It shouldn’t happen because President Trump shouldn’t have gotten impeached.

This article highlights the stupidity of Washington, DC’s political class. It offers 13 theories from DC insiders on why Speaker Pelosi hasn’t sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Let’s look at the ones that are best characterized in polite society as foolish. Let’s start here:

Impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Pelosi was forced into impeaching the president by liberals in her caucus. She’s wanted to apply a hand brake and halt the process now in order to protect vulnerable freshmen Democrats who supported impeachment.

The votes have been cast. The time to protect those freshmen was before they voted. If Ms. Pelosi wanted to apologize to these freshmen (and others in Trump-won districts), the thing to do is to buy each of them a nice Christmas present.

That being said, impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Imagine Ms. Pelosi’s fear in picking impeachment managers, where your top 3 choices are Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff or Steve Cohen. That’s like picking between a heart attack, a stroke and major blood clots. I haven’t had a stroke. I’ve had the others. There aren’t any good choices in that bunch.

Pelosi feared a Senate trial. The president and many Republicans have said they wanted to summon her, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Bidens and the whistleblower as witnesses in a Senate trial. Nothing good would come from a wide-open Senate trial for Democrats.

Holding onto the articles of impeachment wouldn’t prevent the Senate from calling these witnesses. They’d be called during regular committee hearings. In the case of Adam Schiff, they wouldn’t need to call him. President Trump could beat him up on the campaign trail.

Pelosi wanted to hold the articles of impeachment through the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. This would delay a Senate trial until the field of 2020 Democrats settled – and would protect senators running for president.

This is totally stupid. Let President Trump embarrass these candidates during his State of the Union Address on national TV. Anyone that thinks that President Trump’s speechwriters wouldn’t figure out a way to highlight the corrupt process while hurting House vulnerable freshmen is kidding themselves.

By holding the articles, Pelosi was daring McConnell to advance some sort of resolution (which wouldn’t have direct parliamentary bearing on the articles of impeachment approved by the House) to condemn the House’s action. Support for such a resolution could be a challenge, and politically dangerous, for vulnerable Republican senators facing re-election in 2020: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Martha McSally of Arizona and Cory Gardner of Colorado.

Either that or Sen. McConnell could just set a date for the trial to start. After that, Sen. McConnell could tell Ms. Pelosi that the Sixth Amendment guarantees President Trump a right to a speedy trial. He then tells her to comply or else.

By holding the articles, Pelosi could dictate when a Senate trial could begin. After all, the Senate is pretty much bound to go through the motions of a trial at least. Perhaps Pelosi could send the articles in the early fall – right before the presidential election.

What idiot camp up with this idea? Whoever it was is constitutionally illiterate and a terrible political strategist. President Trump’s lawyers would’ve filed a lawsuit long before the Democrats had picked their nominee. They would’ve won that lawsuit for a speedy trial. President Trump’s legal team would’ve won his acquittal by then, too.

From a strategic standpoint, it’s stupid. President Trump would be attending. The senators would be though, one of whom might be the Democrats’ nominee. Further, we’re back to highlighting the fact that President Trump was impeached solely on hearsay testimony. We’re back to highlighting the fact that Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler would be the Democrats’ lead prosecutor. Any day or week that Adam Schiff is the face of the Democratic Party during the campaign’s stretch drive is a win for the GOP.

By keeping the articles in the House, Pelosi would maintain control, instead of Trump. McConnell wouldn’t have control either. With the articles of impeachment in limbo, everyone else would be off balance – except Pelosi.

Anyone that’s studied Trump and thinks that he’d sit idly by without upsetting that applecart is kidding themselves. It’s foolish to think that Pelosi is this magical creature that controls DC with her magical powers. Finally, anyone that thinks that President Trump wouldn’t greenlight his attorneys to file a lawsuit forcing a trial is foolish.

This article highlights the thinking of DC insiders. If that’s the case, then it’s easy to see why Washington, DC is nicknamed the Swamp. The facts speak for themselves.

When it comes to impeachment, it isn’t just the process that’s BS. It’s the things that’ve gotten said, too. For instance, Debbie Dingell said at the start that she would monitor the hearings before making a decision. Ms. Dingell just said that she’ll vote for impeachment.

While Rep. Dingell, who’s late husband was the longest-serving Democrat in Congress, sounds reasonable, that’s just imagery. Especially during the Schiff Show, the testifiers didn’t provide any first-hand evidence of anything approaching an impeachable offense. This isn’t a portrait in remaining open-minded. It’s a portrait in staying loyal to Speaker Pelosi.

Another Michigan Democrat legislator, freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, told Fox News’s Bill Hemmer that “I’m not going to be pushed into voting for impeachment. I literally have not made up my mind.” That’s BS, too. Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz have emphatically stated that a) the evidence isn’t there, b) nothing that President Trump did rose to the level of impeachment and c) the charges are so vague that, using these standards, every president in US history would’ve gotten impeached.

How can voters take Democrats like Rep. Slotkin seriously after watching this testimony?

The thought that these Democrats are taking these charges seriously tells us that they’re partisans first, patriots far down the Democrats’ list of priorities. Picturing Democrats deep in thought over whether to impeach or not is ridiculous. The charges are weak and getting weaker. On Friday, the Supreme Court granted cert for President Trump’s lawsuit challenging the Democrats’ subpoenas. They don’t grant cert on frivolous lawsuits.

According to this USA Today article, Article 2 of Impeachment “accuses Trump of directing ‘the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas.'” According to the Supreme Court, President Trump didn’t violate the Constitution by appealing the Democrats’ subpoena to the Supreme Court. That’s how disputes between the legislative and executive branches are resolved.

If the Supreme Court thinks that appealing a congressional subpoena is legitimate, then it’s impossible to think of that as an impeachable offense. If we’re being intellectually honest, then we’d admit that the Supreme Court’s decision should eliminate half of the articles of impeachment just voted on. It’s impossible to take House Democrats seriously if they insist that following the Constitution is an impeachable offense. Alan Dershowitz explained the foolishness better in this interview:

Later in the interview, Prof. Dershowitz was asked what he thought of his Democratic Party. He replied “Well, it should hurt them. The American people should hold them accountable. They have damaged the Constitution. They have inflicted a wound on our system of checks and balances and separation of powers.”

Let’s be exceptionally clear about this. Article 2 of the Democrats’ impeachment charges shouldn’t be passed. Let’s say, for the sake of this conversation, that the Senate convicts President Trump based on Article 2. That would mean that the Legislative Branch wasn’t a co-equal branch. It would mean that the Executive Branch took its orders from the Legislative Branch. That isn’t how the Constitution was written.

Professor Turley is right. This would be an abuse of power. Specifically, it would be Congressional Democrats’ abuse of power.

Last week, the nation found out that Jonathan Turley a) voted for Hillary Clinton and b) is a man of integrity. This morning, it’s worth examining Prof. Turley’s op-ed about the Horowitz Report.

For instance, Prof. Turley wrote “Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama.”

Prof. Turley continued, saying “In the meantime, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.” How can that be? Jim Comey insists that the FBI did nothing wrong. Comey saying that the FBI did nothing wrong ranks right up there with Adam Schiff saying that he’d seen evidence that was “stronger than circumstantial.”

Then there’s this:

Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself.

This won’t turn out well for Adam Schiff, who put out a report in February, 2018. In that report, which was published after Devin Nunes published “a memo with these explosive revelations that the FBI had targeted [former Trump campaign adviser] Carter Page with surveillance warrants that the dossier from a rival campaign had been the basis for that, and that the FBI had not been straight up with the FISA court.”

This morning, Speaker Pelosi announced that she’s instructed the House Judiciary Committee to start drafting articles of impeachment. In making the announcement, Speaker Pelosi said “His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution. Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit.”

It’s frightening to think that someone as constitutionally illiterate as Ms. Pelosi is just 2 heartbeats away from the Oval Office. We don’t have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic. It’s frightening that a person that’s 2 heartbeats away from the Oval Office is so corrupt that she’s willing to say that President Trump is trying to rig the elections. What’s worse is that she’s saying this without offering a bit of proof.

“Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders, and our heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with the articles of impeachment,” she said.

That’s insulting in the extreme. Ms. Pelosi just instructed the Judiciary Committee to start writing articles of impeachment with what Prof. Jonathan Turley described as a “paucity of evidence and abundance of anger.”

Democrats seem willing to forge ahead despite the fact that the only firsthand evidence is exculpatory evidence. The people who listened to the call verified that the transcript was accurate. Ukraine’s president has repeatedly stated that he wasn’t pressured into investigating the Bidens. Despite that verified and verifiable proof, Ms. Pelosi said this:

“The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security by withholding military aid and crucial oval office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival.”

When Democrats insist that ‘the facts are uncontested’, what Democrats really mean is that they’re contested but Democrats aren’t willing to listen to exculpatory evidence. Further, Democrats haven’t hesitated in trusting hearsay evidence.

It’s incredible that Ms. Pelosi didn’t hesitate in saying that an Oval Office visit was crucial to our national security. After saying something that stupid, we shouldn’t take Ms. Pelosi seriously. It’s noteworthy that each time Ms. Pelosi speaks about impeachment, she talks about the Constitution, national security, the survival of our democracy and that President Trump didn’t leave Democrats a choice.

Since opening the impeachment inquiry, not a single bit of convicting evidence has been introduced. GWU Law Prof. Jonathan Turley was right in saying that there’s a “paucity of evidence.” When Ms. Pelosi says that President Trump left them no choice, what she meant is that her socialist activist base insists on impeaching President Trump.

If she holds to form, the House will vote for impeachment within 48 hours of Christmas. That’s what she did with the ACA. If that’s what happens, expect House Democrats to experience a similar electoral bloodbath. Expect it to be Ms. Pelosi’s second Christmas Massacre.