Archive for the ‘Mitch McConnell’ Category

The SC Times editorial board apparently didn’t learn from President Trump’s impeachment. At least, that’s the impression I got from this Our View Editorial. The editorial starts by lecturing its readership, saying “The scariest aspect of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump is how both sides of the aisle dramatically weakened the tools the Founding Fathers provided to allow the three branches of government to hold each other accountable.”

This isn’t that complicated. Jonathan Turley, a far wiser man than anyone sitting on the Editorial Board, made an important point when he made an emphatic point when he said this:

I can’t emphasize this enough and I’ll say it just one more time: 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.

It isn’t surprising that the Editorial Board didn’t notice their intellectual stupidity was showing.

This is how the Editorial Board expressed their foolishness:

Had that been the case, the Democrat-led House impeachment team would have used the full force of the courts to enforce subpoenas issued to key witnesses, hear their testimony and gain access to key documents the Trump White House refused to release. Instead, with eyes clearly focused on the next election, they rushed through their process, apparently hoping the Senate trial would do that hard work for them. Or perhaps they realized their case was not going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders.

The Republican-led Senate proved even more pathetic. When confronted with overwhelming proof that the House did not provide all the evidence, a majority of senators chose blind allegiance to party and voted in favor of the president instead of pursuit of the truth. Among the tools at their disposal, but not used, are hearing witness testimony and cross-examining those witnesses.

I’d love hearing the Times’ explanation for them saying that House Democrats probably “realized their case wasn’t going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders”, then have them say that Republicans, “when confronted with overwhelming proof that the House didn’t provide all the evidence” … “chose blind allegiance to party” rather than pursuing the truth. The case can’t have overwhelming proof and not rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office.”

The Constitution gives the House “sole authority for impeachment.” That means the House receives the report from the special counsel or their own investigation, then the House Judiciary Committee writes up the articles of impeachment. This isn’t a joint responsibility shared between the House and Senate. That’s because the Constitution gives the Senate “sole authority” to try impeachments. They aren’t investigators. They are, literally, both judges and jury. The Senate determines what comes in as evidence. The Senate can overrule the Chief Justice of the United States. They are also the jury.

The Senate sent the message that they wouldn’t accept House Democrats’ shoddy investigation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called these articles of impeachment “a half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable. They also sent the message that they wouldn’t accept a flimsy case because articles of impeachment are considered a privileged resolution. That means, literally, that everything stops in the Senate until the verdict is reached.

Finally, this paragraph is downright stupid:

Rather read this for what it is: a commentary about elected officials from both parties who put their partisan allegiances above the constitutional oaths they took after you elected them.

The Founding Fathers were reluctant to put impeachment into the Constitution. When they finally agreed that such a provision was required, they established 2 important requirements. They required a) a two-thirds majority to convict and remove and b) that people could only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They wanted to guarantee that impeachment was only used as a tool of last resort. That didn’t happen here. The Founding Fathers wanted impeachment used only when it was clear that something so egregious had happened that a bipartisan majority agreed that such a high crime had been committed. House Democrats impeached knowing that there wasn’t a chance of conviction and removal.

The simple fact is this: House Democrats screwed things up badly. Senate Republicans rendered the only just verdict allowed by the Constitution.

This week’s events have produced a multitude of winners and some distinct losers. Let’s start with the losers.

Mitt Romney- Mitt Romney sided with Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi when he voted to convict President Trump on Impeachment Article 1. Mitt’s constituents in Utah want him censured.
Nancy Pelosi- In a planned attack, Pelosi ripped up her personal copy of President Trump’s SOTU Address. In ripping up her copy, Pelosi played into President Trump’s hand by looking like a petulant school child. Here’s the scene:

Iowa Democratic Party- We’re almost a week removed from the Iowa Caucuses and we still don’t know who won the Caucuses. The chairman of the party apologized on Tuesday. The chairman of the DNC called for a recanvas of the results. That’s the personification of humiliation.
Biden, Klobuchar and Warren- This trio is essentially a trio of zombie candidates. Biden isn’t attracting any positive attention. What he’s missing in positive attention, he’s making up for in negative attention. According to her allies, Klobuchar keeps gaining ground on the leaders. Unfortunately, she finished in 5th place in Iowa and looks likely to repeat that performance in New Hampshire. Back-to-back 5th place finishes will seal Sen. Klobuchar’s fate. Warren finished third in Iowa, which is decent enough but she’s got race relations problems. Stick a fork in her. She’s finished.

Winners
Mitch McConnell- Despite what CNN, MSDNC and the Washington Post say, he’s the true DC master tactician. Pelosi isn’t the master tactician.
Devin Nunes- The Democrats’ impeachment trial showed that Devin Nunes got virtually everything right on the FBI scandal and with FISA abuse. Everything he got right, Schiff got wrong. Literally.
Iain Lanphier and Charles McGee- Iain was mentioned in President Trump’s State of the Union Address this way:

Iain has always dreamed of going to space. He was the first in his class and among the youngest at an aviation academy. He aspires to go to the Air Force Academy and then he has his eye on the Space Force. As Iain says, “Most people look up at space. I want to look down on the world.”

President Trump then told the rest of the story:

But sitting behind Iain tonight is his greatest hero of them all, Charles McGee, who was born in Cleveland Ohio, one century ago. Charles is one of the last surviving Tuskegee airman, the first black fighter pilots and he also happens to be Ian’s great grandfather. On December 7th Charles celebrated his 100th birthday. A few weeks ago, I signed a bill promoting Charles McGee to Brigadier General. And earlier today I pinned the stars on his shoulders in the Oval Office. General McGee, our nation salutes you. Thank you sir.

That’s what I call a history lesson!
Jenaya Davis- “The next step forward and building an inclusive society is making sure that every young American gets a great education and the opportunity to achieve the American dream. Yet, for too long, countless American children have been trapped in failing government schools. To rescue these students 18 States have created school choice in the form of opportunity scholarships. The programs are so popular that tens of thousands of students remain on a waiting list. One of those students is Jenaya Davis, a fourth grader from Philadelphia, Jenaya. Jenaya’s mom Stephanie is a single parent. She would do anything to give her daughter a better future, but last year that future was put further out of reach when Pennsylvania’s governor vetoed legislation to expand school choice to 50,000 children. Jenaya and Stephanie are in the gallery. Stephanie, thank you so much for being here with your beautiful daughter. Thank you very much. But Jenaya I have some good news for you because I am pleased to inform you that your long wait is over. I can proudly announced tonight that an opportunity scholarship has become available. It’s going to you and you will soon be heading to the school of your choice. Now I call on Congress to give one million American children the same opportunity, Jenaya has just received. Pass the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act because no parents should be forced to send their child to a failing government school.”

President Trump reminded the politicians in the House chamber what it’s all about when he said “Members of Congress we must never forget that the only victories that matter in Washington are victories that deliver for the American people.”

Delivering for the American people has become President Trump’s legacy. That’s what makes him this week’s biggest winner. Despite all of the unrighteous fights he’s had to fight, despite all of the criticism he’s taken, despite the lies that’ve gotten told about him (Think Adam Schiff’s parody), President Trump kept his eyes on what’s important. He’s rebuilt the military. He’s killed the nastiest of terrorists. He’s built the strongest economy. He’s put young people like Iain and Jenaya first.

That’s the definition of a winner. He isn’t perfect but his priorities are fantastic.

Based on Fox’s reporting and this article, the Senate trial of President Trump’s impeachment is almost over. Wednesday’s questions opened with a question from Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney to President Trump’s legal team.

Before that, though, Mitch McConnell met with Sen. Murkowski “for about 20 to 30 minutes. That was seen as a sign by several senators that Democrats will fail to convince four Republicans to join them in calling for witnesses. Without a vote to hear from witnesses, the trial could end as soon as Friday.”

After their meeting, the mood in the GOP Conference was improved:

“We’re going to get it done by Friday, hopefully,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said following the meeting. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), emerging from the lunch, said, “I think I can say the mood is good.” Braun expressed confidence that McConnell will be able to keep his conference unified enough to defeat a motion to consider subpoenas for additional witnesses and documents.

Sean Hannity isn’t a great interviewer but he’s been right about the various Trump administration investigations. I take him seriously when he says that the trial is almost over, which he did in his opening monologue Wednesday night:

If Sen. Romney votes to convict President Trump, he’ll instantly become a pariah in Utah. It’s almost guaranteed that he’d get primaried, too. After seeing Matt Towery’s poll results, Mitt would be wise to think twice about rejecting President Trump.

Towery asked 400 registered voters in Utah these questions:

  1. How would you like your 2 senators to vote in the trial? Vote to acquit President Trump: 68%
  2. Do you support or oppose calling additional witnesses? Oppose 64%
  3. More or less likely to support Romney re-election if he votes for witnesses? Less likely 60%

At this point, I can’t picture an outcome were more than 49 senators vote for additional witnesses. If the vote comes out 51-49 in President Trump’s favor, this will become a non-factor in the 2020 senatorial elections. Impeachment just isn’t that important to the people.

It’s purely speculation on my part but I’m betting that Sen. Mitch McConnell will win the debate over whether the Senate will call additional witnesses to the impeachment trial. With senators like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul threatening to call a bunch of witnesses if Democrats insist on calling John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, Sen. McConnell is sitting in the power seat.

Further, Pat Toomey and Mitt Romney are talking about working out a swap with Chuck Schumer. Cruz, Graham and Paul want the trial to end quickly. That doesn’t mean they aren’t willing to play hardball with witnesses. If the Senate votes to call witnesses, expect Cruz, Graham and Paul to insist on calling Schiff, Chalupa, the Bidens and the whistleblower.

What Lindsey Graham is saying is that Democrats call witnesses at their own peril. This won’t be a John McCain-style deal where Republicans get screwed and McCain gets to act like a dealmaker. That ain’t happening this time. Check this out:

What I would say is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Biden’s connection to the Ukraine is inappropriate. There is a tsunami of evidence. So the House managers told the Senate that this is ‘baseless’ that it’s been ‘debunked,’ and I think the defense team, yesterday, made a damning indictment of what Hunter and Joe Biden allowed to happen and it’s not in America’s interest to see this happen again in the Ukraine where Hunter Biden turned it basically into an ATM machine. We’re going to go to that, and there’s media reports, people in your business, that suggested a DNC staffer [Alexandra Chalupa] met with Ukrainian officials about the 2016 election. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if we’re going to open this up to additional inquiry, we’re going to go down the road of whether it was legitimate for the President to believe there was corruption and conflicts of interest on the Biden’s part in the Ukraine. We’ll explore that, and whether or not there is any credibility to the idea that the DNC may have been working with the Ukraine.

Lindsey has figured out how to negotiate. The McCain-style negotiation is mostly groveling. The Trump-style negotiating means negotiating with a gun to the other guy’s head.. Make the other guy sweat. Make Democrats worry about whether it’s worth it.

Democrats are already worrying about voting:

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are all undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land.

If I had to bet, I wouldn’t bet against Sen. McConnell. He’s buried tons of people. Why would I think this time will be different? A month ago, he buried Nancy. Last week, he defeated Chuck Schumer 12 straight times.

Finally, I don’t think Mitch is tired of winning. Call your senator. Tell them to vote against witnesses.

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.

This morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized House Democrats of handing the Senate an incomplete piece of workmanship and calling it impeachment. During his speech on the Senate floor, Sen. McConnell called the House Democrats’ impeachment product a “half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable.

During his presentation, Sen. McConnell also said “There is a reason why the House inquiry that led to President Nixon’s resignation took 14 months of hearings, in addition to the separate special prosecutor. There is a reason why the Clinton impeachment inquiry drew on years of prior investigation and mountains of testimony from firsthand fact witnesses. That’s because both of those Houses of Representatives knew they had to prove their case before submitting it to the Senate for judgment. Both situations involved legal battles over executive privilege. Extensive litigation, both times, not after a trial had been handed to the Senate, but beforehand. When the case was actually being compiled. Mountains of evidence. Mountains of testimony. Long legal battles over privilege. And none of this discovery took place in the Senate.”

After putting those comments into the official record, Sen. McConnell got nasty:

The Constitution gives the sole power of Impeachment to the House. If a House majority wants to impeach a president, the ball is in their court. But they have to do the work. They have to prove their case. Nothing in our history or our Constitution says a House majority can pass what amounts to a half-baked censure resolution and then insist that the Senate fill in the blanks. There is no constitutional exception for a House majority with a short attention span.

Look, I think everyone knows this process has not been some earnest fact-finding mission with House Democrats following each thread wherever it leads. The Speaker of the House did not reluctantly decide to impeach after poring over the secondhand impressions of civil servants. This was a predetermined political conclusion. Members of her conference had been publicly promising it for years.

Let’s put Democrats through the grinder. They’ve been pretending that their case is strong. Let’s see how their testifiers do on cross-examination. Two ice ages ago, during the original Schiff Show, the Media Wing of the Democratic Party, aka the MSM, wrote breathlessly about that day’s “bombshell” testimony. At the end of each day’s testimony, Republicans had devastated the testifiers’ bombshell testimony. Anyone expecting a Perry Mason moment should tune into METV, not these hearings.

For goodness’s sake, the very morning after the House’s historic vote, Speaker Pelosi literally chastised reporters for asking too many questions about impeachment! She tried to change the subject to economic policy! She said: “Any other questions?… Anybody want to talk about the SALT tax… I’m not going to answer any more questions on this.”

Really? You impeach a president of the United States, and the very next morning, there’s nothing to see here? Does that sound like a Speaker of the House who really thinks the survival of the Republic is on the line? Does anyone really think that if Democrats truly believed the president of the United States was a criminal who is imperiling our country, they would have abandoned the search for evidence because they didn’t want to make time for due process?

Frankly, people living in the real world notice that Democrats aren’t serious. This is a partisan charade. This isn’t about saving the Republic or honoring the Constitution. This is the Democrats’ latest episode in trying to appease the Resist Movement.

For those who haven’t noticed, the Resist Movement is built on Democrats who hate America and want to cripple the Trump presidency. Fortunately, they’ve only slowed him down. The economic boomtime continues unstopped. That’s because, unlike House Democrats, President Trump and congressional Republicans addressed the economy properly.

This past Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi sent this Dear Colleague letter to House Democrats. In the letter, Speaker Pelosi wrote “Sadly, Leader McConnell has made clear that his loyalty is to the President and not the Constitution. Leader McConnell has insisted that the approach under consideration is identical to those of the Clinton trial and that ‘fair is fair.’ This is simply not true. This process is not only unfair but designed to deprive Senators and the American people of crucial documents and testimony. Under the Clinton trial, witnesses were deposed.”

I’m being charitable when I say that Pelosi’s paragraph is dishonest. First, Sen. McConnell hasn’t said that the rules would be rigged against Democrats. In fact, he hasn’t ruled out calling witnesses. Sen. McConnell, like the vast majority of senators in the chamber, has formed an opinion on President Trump’s guilt or innocence. (Does anyone think that Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennet are impartial? They’re running for president.)

Further, there’s nothing fair about Adam Schiff’s hiding of deposition transcripts from House committees. In that case, Schiff hid deposition transcripts of “Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs and White House deputy assistant; Jennifer Williams, Vice President Mike Pence’s special adviser on Europe and Russia; David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs; and Philip Reeker, a top State Department diplomat in charge of U.S. policy for Europe” from the Intel Committee Republicans. As a result, congressmen couldn’t question anyone about that testimony.

Ms. Pelosi, what part of that sounds fair?

The House called multiple witnesses to testify. They even subpoenaed them to testify. When these people refused to testify, the House didn’t file a lawsuit to compel the witnesses to testify. Apparently, Democrats didn’t think these people’s testimony was that important. Further, it isn’t the Senate’s job to investigate. If the Democrats wanted to do a thorough job with their part of this, they should have forced these people to testify. It isn’t the Senate’s responsibility to fix the House’s sloppy work. The Senate’s responsibility is to try impeachment cases.

Sen. Schumer is trying to get testimony from 4 witnesses:

The Trump situation could not be more different. The witnesses in question, Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair, Duffey, refused to testify in the House even though they were deeply involved in the events in question. Unlike the Clinton trial witnesses, who cooperated and gave testimony during the Starr investigation, these Trump officials refused, on the President’s orders, to testify or provide documents. They are in possession of information that’s directly relevant to the allegations in the articles of impeachment, yet the Senate is being denied that information because of Senator McConnell’s opposition to hearing it.

If these witnesses were that important, why didn’t House Democrats file the lawsuit to compel these witnesses’ testimony? If House Democrats didn’t get a court to compel these men’s testimony, their testimony isn’t that important.

If Sen. Schumer wants to whine about witnesses not testifying, he should complain about Chairman Schiff for his mishandling of his part of the impeachment.

I encourage you to review the attached document from Leader Schumer, which exposes Leader McConnell’s misleading claims about the Clinton trial process that are being used to justify the GOP’s decision to cover up witnesses and documentation that would fully expose the President’s wrongdoing.

If Speaker Pelosi is going to accuse Sen. McConnell of a coverup, she’d better accuse Chairman Schiff of covering things up, too. Further, Sen. McConnell hasn’t ruled out depositions or testimony at this point. This is just an assumption on Pelosi’s part.

Impeachment is only half of a two-step process. Accusing a president of committing high crimes and misdemeanors isn’t something that should be done in a rush. The Declaration of Independence says that people shouldn’t change governments “for light and transient causes.” I’d argue that elections shouldn’t be overturned “for light and transient causes”, either.

President Trump deserves his day in court to clear his name. To play games with the impeachment process is the opposite of justice.

Each time Speaker Pelosi or Sen. Schumer insist that they need additional witnesses, Republicans should remind them that the impeachment investigation wrapped up when the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve articles of impeachment. That vote signified the end of the impeachment investigation. In fact, a strong argument could be made that the Schiff Report to the House Judiciary Committee ended the investigation since the House Judiciary Committee didn’t call any fact witnesses.

The minute that the House voted to approve articles of impeachment is the moment that their authority died. The House, aka Speaker Pelosi, doesn’t have the constitutional authority to try the House’s articles of impeachment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 states “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

It’s clear that the House has the authority to appoint impeachment managers who will present the House case to the Senate. Once that presentation is finished, however, the House should totally irrelevant. Apparently, Republicans have the votes to pass the rules governing the impeachment trial:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he has the votes to set the ground rules of the impeachment trial for President Donald Trump — without Democrats’ support.

McConnell first made the remarks during a closed-door lunch with his fellow Republican senators on Capitol Hill, an official in the room told CNN, before McConnell made the announcement publicly during a news conference following the lunch. McConnell made clear he had no plans to move forward on a trial until the two articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, as he has said publicly.

“We have the votes once the impeachment trial has begun to pass a resolution essentially the same, very similar to the 100-to-nothing vote in the Clinton trial, which sets up what’s best described as a phase one,” McConnell said Tuesday.

That’s excellent. It’s fantastic that Sen. McConnell can tell Speaker Pelosi to butt out. Now that Sen. McConnell has the votes to pass the Clinton Impeachment rules, Speaker Pelosi can pick her impeachment managers and transmit the House’s articles of impeachment to the Senate. I can’t imagine that the Senate Democrats running for president want this dragging out that long. They’d prefer getting this in the rear-view mirror ASAP. In fact, those Democrats probably want it done faster than President Trump wants this over.

For the past 3 weeks, we’ve heard one article after another about what a brilliant tactician Speaker Pelosi is. Quietly, I’ve noticed what a skilled negotiator Sen. Mitch McConnell is. This time, the skilled negotiator got the better of the brilliant tactician.

It’s time for President Trump’s legal team to expose the Democrats’ partisan impeachment attempt as the joke that it is. I’ve frequently said that the only testimony that the Democrats have is hearsay testimony, which isn’t admissible in federal courts except in rare exceptions.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Mitch McConnell highlighted the Democrats’ hatred for President Trump while highlighting the Democrats’ limited patriotism for this nation. Sen. McConnell exposed them when he said “The Senate is supposed to be the chamber where overheated partisan passions give way to sober judgment. Can we not at least wait until we know the facts? Can we not maintain a shred, just a shred, of national unity for five minutes before deepening the partisan trenches?” Additionally, Sen. McConnell asked “Must Democrats’ distaste for this president dominate every thought they express and every decision they make? Is that really the seriousness that this situation deserves?”

When statesmen/patriots like Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan roamed the Senate, patriotism was in overabundance. Now that partisans like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer lead the Democrats, patriotism is essentially missing from the Senate. Since President Trump ordered the airstrike on Soleimani, Democrats have questioned whether we’re safer now than before the airstrike.

If Democrats are serious in asking that question, then Democrats should never get their hands on the levers of power. The answer to the Democrats’ foolish question is this: yes, we’re infinitely better off today than we were a week ago. Soleimani wasn’t just some rank-and-file general. Soleimani was Iran’s guy that established Iran’s proxies that spread Iran’s reach far beyond Iran’s borders. Soleimani was Iran’s guy who put in place the training for the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and other proxies.

Put into a sports analogy, taking Soleimani out is like taking Tom Brady in his prime off the field. This wasn’t like losing the backup offensive lineman on the Cincinnati Bengals. As for whether Iran retaliates, that’s likely but that shouldn’t have stopped the military from taking him out. The Department of Homeland Security should (and likely is) beefing up our defenses against cyberattacks. The Department of Defense is already shipping in reinforcements for our military bases around the world. The State Department is likely hiring additional FSOs (Foreign Security Officers) to protect our diplomats. (Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration puts a high priority on protecting diplomats.)

“My Democratic colleagues should not plow away at American unity in some bizarre, intramural competition to see who dislikes the president more,” he said. “They should not disdain our Constitution by rushing through a purely partisan impeachment process and then toying around with it. Governing is serious business.”

Thus far, I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that Democrats are serious about governing according to the will of the people. Unfortunately, I’ve seen tons of proof that Democrats are willing to govern according to their far-left ideology.

Reading through Nina Totenberg’s article on how Tom Daschle and Trent Lott put together the rules that dictated how the Senate’s impeachment trial would be held showed how partisan Democrats have gotten. It opens by saying “Twenty-one years ago Thursday, as the House approved articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was sitting in his study in Pascagoula, Miss., ‘looking out on a beautiful live oak tree.’ With a sigh, the Republican leader picked up the phone to call Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, his Democratic counterpart. ‘Whether we like it or not, this is sitting in our lap,’ he told Daschle, ‘and we’ve got to figure out how to deal with it.'”

That’s lightyears different than what’s happening today. Chuck Schumer is the first Democrat to openly state that Supreme Court justices should be confirmed or rejected based on partisan considerations. Now he’s insisting on calling witnesses that House Democrats insisted weren’t needed.

When House Republicans impeached President Clinton, they picked their impeachment managers, then immediately sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Newt Gingrich didn’t attempt to leverage them for partisan advantage. When Republicans impeached Clinton, Clinton had been credibly accused of committing felonies. Gingrich didn’t have to play games.

There was still a cordial between Gingrich and Dick Gephardt, then the House Minority Leader. Starting in 2017, Democrats publicly announced that they wanted to impeach President Trump. In March, 2017, Adam Schiff said on NBC’s Meet the Press that he’d seen evidence that “was stronger than circumstantial” that President Trump had colluded with Russia to win the election. Seemingly on a monthly basis, Schiff lied to the press that President Trump had committed treason or colluded with the Russians or made other incendiary and inaccurate accusations.

Nancy Pelosi didn’t give orders to Schiff and Nadler to rig the investigations. It isn’t that she’s a woman of integrity. She isn’t. She didn’t give that order because she didn’t need to. She knew that they’d rig the impeachment investigations on their own.

Democrats now scream about process. Isn’t that rich after all that Democrats like Schiff and Nadler did to rig the impeachment process? Senate Democrats now want to call the witnesses that House Democrats thought weren’t needed. Sen. Schumer then pushed the envelope by insisting that the Senate conduct the investigation that House Democrats didn’t conduct.

In this video, Schumer essentially admits that the House Democrats’ case is built on hearsay testimony:

That’s a stunning, idiotic, admission on his part. Why didn’t House Democrats compel the testimony with a lawsuit. Why didn’t House Democrats put together the strongest case possible. Why did House Democrats think that the White House didn’t have the right exert privilege? What is the House Democrats’ precedent for impeaching a president for exerting privilege?

McConnell should do whatever his caucus wants him to do in setting up rules that guarantee the prosecutors and the defense a fair opportunity to present their cases. If he does that, nobody except Democrat partisans will care what happened by the time we get to the conventions.