Archive for the ‘Civil Rights’ Category

If Adam Schiff isn’t worried, he isn’t getting good legal advice. Kim Strassel’s article highlights a multitude of crimes that Mr. Schiff might be prosecuted for. That’s the subject for others, though, so let’s unpack Ms. Strassel’s article.

In her article, she wrote “Mr. Schiff divulged the phone logs this week in his Ukraine report, thereby revealing details about the communications of Trump attorneys Jay Sekulow and Mr. Giuliani, ranking Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes, reporter John Solomon and others.” A paragraph later, she continued, saying “If we’ve never had a scandal like this before, it’s in part because it is legally dubious. Federal law bars phone carriers from handing over records without an individual’s agreement. The statute makes some exceptions, including for federal and state law-enforcement agencies. But not for lawmakers. ‘There does not appear to be any basis to believe that a congressional committee is authorized to subpoena telephone records directly from a provider—as opposed to an individual,’ former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells me.”

Members of Congress can’t access these phone logs because they fall outside the purview of their legislative responsibilities. For those saying that Schiff had additional authority thanks to impeachment, the reality is that Schiff requested these records a month before the House voted to initiate the impeachment inquiry. It was after Nancy Pelosi declared that they were starting the inquiry but that’s insignificant in the court’s eyes.

That’s because the Constitution gives the authority to “the House of Representatives.” Literally for decades, courts have ruled that the House hasn’t acted until it votes. Though Ms. Pelosi has frequently acted like a queen, it isn’t likely that a court will grant her queen status. It isn’t likely that a court will rule that a legislator, even a Speaker of the House, can unilaterally declare the start of impeachment.

The question is whether Mr. Schiff, in his zeal to bring down Mr. Trump, has made himself legally vulnerable. In Kilbourn v. Thompson (1881), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose.” Mr. Schiff might argue he has wider powers in an impeachment inquiry. But the House didn’t approve the inquiry until Oct. 31, a month after he issued his main AT&T subpoena.

Rep. Jim Banks wrote “It doesn’t take a constitutional lawyer to recognize that subpoenaing these call records violates the spirit of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures.”

Schiff didn’t go to court to get these records. He submitted the request directly to AT&T. The reason why legitimate requests go through the courts is to have the courts supervise the process.

“The subpoenas aren’t related to legitimate congressional oversight,” says constitutional lawyer David Rivkin. Because there’s “no conceivable legislative purpose to obtaining these call logs and publicly disclosing this information, Mr. Schiff would not be able to benefit from the Speech and Debate Clause immunity that otherwise protects members of Congress from civil and criminal liability.” Mr. Rivkin adds that any of the targets could sue Mr. Schiff under state law for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and potentially even compel Mr. Schiff to turn over documents in discovery.

The other thing that should be considered is throwing Schiff out of the House for violating another congressman’s Fourth Amendment rights. Nobody is above the law, especially the chairmen of powerful committees.

Schiff’s actions are reprehensible. Ethics charges should be filed with the House Ethics Committee immediately against Chairman Schiff. If Democrats protect him against those charges, highlight which Democrats protected Schiff for his disgusting behavior in campaign ads. Let Democrats know that they’ll pay a steep price for protecting corrupt members of their party.

Adam Schiff hasn’t displayed the proper caution for his high-ranking position. He hasn’t been accurate with his statements or findings of facts. His accusations aren’t based on verified information. Simply put, he’s been reckless. That’s why he needs to be stopped permanently.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, doesn’t care who he demolishes on his path to impeaching President Trump. Schiff’s latest act of intimidation was his “decision to publish the phone records of the president’s personal attorneys, a journalist, a fellow lawmaker, a National Security Council aide, and others.”

Schiff’s behavior since 2016 has been hostile and corrupt. The definition of corruption is “perversion of integrity” or “corrupt or dishonest proceedings.” If anyone personifies a “perversion of integrity”, it’s Schiff. He’s been caught lying so often that he’s often called ‘the little boy who cried wolf too often.’

Now Schiff’s depravity has reached a new low by releasing this private information. If Schiff is willing to do that about journalists and political opponents, why shouldn’t we think that he’ll next extend that behavior to anyone that stands in his way of impeaching President Trump. Unfortunately, Schiff can’t be arrested for this corrupt behavior because of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. What can be done is to expel him from the House the minute Republicans retake control of the House in 2021.

In a text exchange, I asked one Republican lawmaker with knowledge of the situation whether Schiff’s move raised any attorney-client issues:

Not legally. They used their subpoena authority. The decision to publish certain records is out of bounds as clearly political retribution, but it’s not illegal as far as I can determine.

Whether Schiff broke any laws is irrelevant. His actions were the personification of corruption. It isn’t a stretch to think that Schiff’s actions were meant as retribution against people who tried stopping his impeachment obsession.

Democrats who protect Schiff should be defeated at the next election. Schiff’s actions are reprehensible. Schiff has specialized in extreme lies. This is the most well-known example of Schiff’s lies:

What a worthless collection of human cells.

One thing that isn’t in question is whether House Democrats, starting with Chairman Schiff, (D-Calif.), rigged the rules to ensure an unfair impeachment process. Something that Chairman Schiff repeatedly made clear was that the CIA snitch’s identity would remain cloaked in anonymity. That’s foolishness. Eric Ciaramella’s identity will become known at some point.

Much bandwidth has been used to talk about the Sixth Amendment and whether its protections extend to impeachment hearings and trials. The simple answer is this: they do if the House and Senate write those protections into their impeachment rules. Ditto with federal rules of evidence. There’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits these considerations from getting written into the House or Senate rules.

There are, however, partisan reasons why Democrats wouldn’t write the federal rules of evidence into their rules. Ditto with omitting Sixth Amendment protections from their rules. The simple explanation is that Democrats didn’t insist on applying the federal rules of evidence into their hearings because those rules would utterly gut their case. Without hearsay testimony, the Democrats’ storyline collapses immediately. Remember this hearsay:

If that doesn’t qualify as hearsay, nothing does. WOW! Then there’s Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland:

Rep. Mike Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?
Ambassador Sondland: Yes.
Rep. Mike Turner: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?
Ambassador Sondland: Other than my own presumption.
Rep. Mike Turner: Which is nothing.

By not excluding hearsay testimony, each testifier was able to provide a juicy-sounding soundbite to the Agenda Media, which then dutifully splashed that “bombshell” across their website all day. The Agenda Media didn’t care that the soundbite got ripped to shreds on cross-examination. They had their juicy-sounding headline, their click-bait.

Democrats understood that, in these impeachment hearings, hearsay was their friend. Democrats understood that because their case was exceptionally weak. Had Democrats been interested in fairness, they wouldn’t have put the nation through this. That wasn’t their mission. The Democrats’ mission was to utterly demolish the president they’ve hated since he was elected.

That’s why Democrats approved the rules they approved.

Democrats understood that the CIA snitch would get ripped to pieces the minute his identity was confirmed, too. Without hearsay testimony, which got started with the CIA snitch, the Democrats don’t have anything. They have nice-sounding testimony from people with impressive resumes but they don’t have the evidence they’d need to win a high-profile case like this.

Democrats wanted this impeachment so badly that they’d do anything for it. In the final summation, that sums things up best. Democrats wanted this so bad that they ignored the needs of the country.

How sick is that?

Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, Democrat Impeachment Committee Chairman Schiff insisted that the Sixth Amendment’s protections shouldn’t protect President Trump. It’s time to out the CIA snitch, then demand that he testify. Lt. Col. Vindman essentially admitted that he spoke to the CIA snitch during questioning from Republican Ranking Member Devin Nunes:

Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman admitted to the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday to leaking information to the anti-Trump whistleblower at the center of the Democrats’ partisan impeachment proceedings. “Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did you discuss the July 25 phone call with anyone outside the White House on July 25 or the 26 and if so, with whom?” Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California inquired.

“Yes. I did,” Vindman answered in the affirmative. When pressed on who Vindman spoke with about the call, Vindman said he spoke with two individuals not in the White House, including Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent and another individual in the intelligence community that Vindman refused to name before being cut off by Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff.

“We need to protect the whistle-blower. Please stop. I want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistle-blower through these proceedings,” Schiff interjected. “If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, that is not the purpose that we’re here for. I want to advise the witness accordingly.”

At this point, it’s time to end this theatre. It’s disgusting that Adam Schiff is working with Trump-hating lawyer Mark Zaid to protect Zaid’s client. If House Democrats impeach President Trump, the CIA snitch will be forced to testify or be put in jail. (If the CIA snitch refuses to appear after getting slapped with a Senate subpoena, Mitch McConnell will march into court and demand that the court uphold the Sixth Amendment’s protections. At that point, the judge will quickly rule in the Senate’s favor. At that point, Eric Ciaramella will be forced to testify or go to jail.)

Republicans should confront Schiff on this constitutional issue. Forget about the ICWPA statute. The Sixth Amendment guarantees President Trump’s attorneys the right to confront his accuser.

Democrats, especially Schiff and Pelosi, have played hardball with impeachment. It’s time to confront them. These Democrats have shown that they aren’t interested in ending this stalemate. These Democrats are interested in extending this stalemate. Force vulnerable Democrats to s–t or get off the pot. This is truly a ‘you’re with us or you’re against us’ moment. This isn’t nuanced. This isn’t complicated. It’s just one of those situations where diplomacy should get replaced with brass knuckles and RPGs.

This weekend, Mark Zaid, the lead attorney for the so-called whistleblower, offered to have his client answer written questions from Impeachment Committee Republicans. It didn’t take long for Republicans to reject that offer:

But, late Sunday, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemingly rejected the offer from whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, saying “written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross examine the so-called whistleblower. You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it,” Jordan said.

Zaid’s reply came through this tweet:


About those whistleblower protections, it’s apparent that Mr. Zaid is doing the deflecting:

In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:

Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.

In other words, this anonymous informant isn’t a heroic whistleblower saving the republic. He’s just another CIA snitch spying on President Trump.

That means that Democrats are protecting this snitch for purely partisan purposes. This isn’t done for patriotic purposes. It’s done because Democrats want to impeach President Trump so badly they’d say or do anything to make it happen. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, knows this law. If he doesn’t, then he isn’t qualified to be the House Impeachment Committee. That’s part of his responsibility.

According to Jason Chaffetz, the former chair of the House Oversight Committee, that committee routinely went through whistleblower submissions. Why wouldn’t Schiff’s committee do the same? This anonymous informant doesn’t qualify for whistleblower protections because he/she isn’t “assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA).” Also, the informant isn’t reporting on a covered person. It’s obvious that this person is a snitch.

This is just posturing anyway. The minute that the House impeaches President Trump, the trial is held in the Senate. At that point, the Senate will set the rules and issue the subpoenas. At that point, Adam Schiff will lose his ability to protect this whistleblower. That will leave Mr. Zaid with little negotiating leverage at that future point.

I’d consider this offer a let’s-see-if-they-blink offer. If Jordan, Nunes and others blink, fantastic for Zaid’s client. If they don’t, which appears to be the case, Zaid hasn’t lost anything by trying.

For the past few days, Democrats have criticized Republicans for whining about the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff’s “process”, hinting that Republicans can’t win on the evidence. First, it’s important to admit that we don’t have any proof of wrongdoing. The leaked information suggests multiple things, all of which can be explained as either damning or thoroughly plausible.

Next, it’s essential to admit that Democrats, including the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff, have admitted that they’re acting as a grand jury. That’s a legitimate constitutional crisis for Democrats because the only federal personnel permitted to impanel grand juries are employed by the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch. Nobody in the legislative branch is constitutionally authorized to impanel a grand jury.

The question thus becomes whether Republicans are fighting for legitimate constitutional principles, for process or both. At this point, it’s apparent that Republicans are fighting for constitutional principles like separation of powers, due process and the right of the accused to confront their accuser. Further, Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has admitted that he’s violated the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. Schiff is guilty of violating President Trump’s due process rights because we’ve heard from people who participated in the hearings that each day brings a different set of rules. It’s impossible to uphold a person’s due process rights when you don’t have a process.

After hearing the Democrats’ spin that this process was damning, John Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, set things straight in this interview with Martha McCallum:

It isn’t indisputable that Democrats have put a strong case together. When Bill Taylor is called as a ‘witness’, he admitted in his opening statement that he didn’t have firsthand information. If that’s in his 15-page opening statement, how can Democrats say that his testimony was explosive? In a judicial setting, his wouldn’t be permitted to testify because it’s hearsay, which isn’t permitted.

Republicans aren’t fighting for process. They’re fighting for the most important constitutional principles. The judicial system couldn’t exist if the right to defend yourself didn’t exist. The judicial system couldn’t exist if defendants’ attorneys weren’t allowed to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. The judicial system couldn’t exist demolish a witness’s testimony.

Apparently, that’s what John Ratcliffe did to Ambassador Taylor’s testimony. Adam Schiff isn’t interested in constitutional principles. Schiff’s interested in achieving a specific outcome. That outcome is overturning the 2016 presidential election. It doesn’t bother him if that overturns the will of the people.

Overturning the will of the people is horrific. In fact, it’s intolerable. What’s worse is overturning the will of the people while violating President Trump’s most important constitutional protections.

It’s infuriating to think that it’s happening in the bottom of a building known as the People’s House. This is proof that, with Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, it’s amazing how low it can go.

Just 2 months ago, I didn’t know who Bill Taylor was. Now I know that he’s another career diplomat who doesn’t like it that President Trump is implementing the foreign policy that the American people elected him to implement. Tuesday, Taylor testified that “President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate both election interference and a company linked to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son — and was willing to hold up military aid and a White House meeting to get a public announcement from the country that the probes were underway.”

Even if that’s true, that’s still a nothingburger. Unfortunately for Taylor, there was a man of integrity in the room during Taylor’s testimony. That man’s name is John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe is a former US attorney who now represents TX-04. Tonight, Ratcliffe appeared on The Story to be interviewed by Martha McCallum. After Ratcliffe said that he couldn’t repeat what he said in the secret room, Ratcliffe figured out a legal way to say what happened during his cross-examination of Taylor. Here’s the video of that interview:

Predictably, Democrats described today’s testimony as “the most damning they’ve heard.” Ratcliffe had a different perspective. First, though, is part of what Taylor testified to:

“I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations.”

In this instance, Taylor’s testimony was third-hand information at best. Third-hand testimony heard behind closed doors and which doesn’t come with a transcript of Congressman Ratcliffe’s cross-examination is virtually worthless.

Congressman Ratcliffe noted that “At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld and on that most important issue, neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that any military aid was being withheld on July 25th. Unless and until they can bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone who speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a legal quid pro quo is impossible.”

Ratcliffe also noted that “[Schiff] keeps trotting in career ambassadors who are alarmed at Donald Trump’s unconventional approach to foreign policy. Who’s surprised at that? And again, today, I found Ambassador Taylor to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, but again, the MSM keeps reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him on that and, under Adam Schiff’s rules, I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And he nor any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You have a quid pro quo without the quo.”

Ratcliffe’s final major contribution of the interview came when he said this:

Martha, if this was a court case, the lawyers for the defense would be moving for a directed verdict. They’d be saying ‘this case isn’t allowed to go to a jury because the prosecution is missing an essential element of their case.’ There is no quid pro quo until someone from the Ukraine says ‘We knew that military aid was being withheld during that July 25th call and that testimony hasn’t come and it isn’t going to come.”

This impeachment case is collapsing, albeit behind closed doors. It isn’t just that the case is weak. It’s that the Senate is about to vote on Lindsey Graham’s resolution that essentially says that the House process has been a travesty:

Sen. Graham is right in pushing that the impeachment trial be dismissed without a trial if the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, aka Adam Schiff, isn’t willing to afford to President Trump the same rights that were granted to President Nixon and President Clinton. The House Democrats’ impeachment process is a travesty. It shouldn’t be treated like it was an honest investigation based on constitutional rights.

Democrats have spent the last 3 years morphing into the ‘Verdict first, investigation later’ political party. Rep. Scott Perry, (R-PA), made the case that Democrats have become that party in this op-ed:

The most solemn duty undertaken by members of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We swear an oath before the beginning of every Congress. My Oath is something I’ve taken seriously throughout a lifetime of public service – from solider, to state representative to congressman. Unfortunately, leftists in Congress are using their sacred oath to the Constitution as justification to flout the primacy of its principles. We see this no more clearly than in the most recent push to impeach the president.

These rushed, faux impeachment proceedings are shrouded in secrecy. No one knows what the rules are, and it gives liberal members, like Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an opportunity to blatantly fabricate facts of convenience and mislead the American people.

That’s Schiff’s M.O. He’s spent the last two years misleading the American people about the contents of the Mueller report. Once hopes fizzled with that (findings: “No collusion, No obstruction”), they’ve rolled out the next phony investigation with yet another forgone conclusion.

Republicans have argued that there wasn’t any obstruction of justice. The legal-dictionary.com explains what it takes to obstruct justice:

To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

I’d think that it’s difficult to prove corrupt intent without a wiretap recording or an email stating that intent. I don’t doubt that Schiff and other Democrats would speculate about that. It’s one thing to speculate. It’s another to prove.

Democrats first talked about impeaching President Trump before he became President Trump. The Constitution says that impeachment involves “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States.” Before he’s inaugurated, Trump didn’t fit the constitutional definition. That’s irrelevant to these hyper-partisan Democrats. They just know that Trump is evil and he must be removed.

With Democrats like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, President Trump has been guilty since before his inauguration. This trio of troublemakers don’t really care about the Constitution. They care about impeaching and removing President Trump. If that requires throwing the Bill of Rights out, then that’s what they’ll do.

With her actions, Nancy Pelosi admitted that she’s violated President Trump’s due process rights. While she’s right that there isn’t a checklist to follow for impeachment, she’s stupid if she thinks that there aren’t some constitutional principles that must be adhered to. She’s stupid if she thinks that past impeachment investigations haven’t set a path that subsequent impeachment investigations must meet.

When the House initiated their impeachment investigation of President Nixon, there was a defined set of rules that guaranteed the House’s ability to investigate and President Nixon’s right to cross-examine witnesses. The rules adopted by Peter Rodino’s Judiciary Committee permitted President Nixon’s attorneys the right to subpoena witnesses. When Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee adopted the Rodino-Nixon rules.

This sham investigation doesn’t have a clear set of rules and procedures. It doesn’t have any consistent rules or procedures other than to thwart President Trump’s legal team. That’s a violation of President Trump’s due process rights. Then there’s this:

Executive privilege was one of the protections mentioned by Counsel to the Vice President Matthew Morgan in a Tuesday letter to the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees, who are overseeing the ongoing inquiry. Morgan’s letter claimed that the committees’ request for documents was overbroad because it included some documents that were “clearly not vice-presidential records,” and that the request was not within the realm of “legitimate legislative oversight.”

Morgan continued, saying this:

“Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an ‘impeachment inquiry’ against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process,” Morgan wrote, noting that “House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.”

Ms. Pelosi can’t speak rules into existence. They have to be written, then approved of by a majority of the “Committee of the Whole”. Without that vote, no committee has authorization to start impeachment. As with other points in her career, Ms. Pelosi is acting like the autocrat she’s always wanted to be.

The goal of due process is to guarantee fairness, consistency and predictability. You can’t have due process if there isn’t a process. When this lawsuit gets filed, Pelosi’s Democrats will have problems:

“Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Wednesday morning blog post. “Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment.”

Doug Collins nails it with this tweet:


Pelosi’s fatal flaw is that she thinks she can run the House like a tyrant. Frequently, she gets away with that. This is a totally different situation. It’s like the difference between a sandlot football game and the Super Bowl. The scrutiny is through the roof and the stakes don’t get higher.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that Speaker Pelosi delegated a responsibility to Adam Schiff that will leave him in a difficult position. While Ms. Pelosi puts Schiff ‘in charge’ of the Democrats’ anti-transparent impeachment inquiry, what she’s actually done is dumped all the grief that’s heading his direction into Schiff’s lap. When Ms. Pelosi declared the start of impeachment, she thrust on Schiff the day-to-day details of the impeachment inquiry. Forever the attention-seeker, Schiff gobbled up the attention.

Ms. Pelosi left it up to Schiff how the investigation would be run. Would they hold public hearings? Would President Trump’s attorneys be permitted to cross-examine the Democrats’ witnesses? Would the Democrats allow Republicans to call witnesses? Those are just some of the day-to-day details that Ms. Pelosi dropped into Schiff’s lap. That way, when the shit hits the fan, Pelosi is a mile away while Schiff is holding a ticking time bomb.

This isn’t a matter of if it happens. It’s a matter of when. Anyone that thinks that this isn’t finishing with a lawsuit is kidding themselves. President Trump’s due process rights weren’t merely violated. President Trump’s rights have gotten trampled.

Republicans who haven’t gotten kicked out of the room by Schiff have noted that there aren’t any rules that govern these interviews and depositions. In fact, different rules govern interviews and depositions. Rep. Lee Zeldin notes that minority members of the committee are allowed to talk about the content of witness interviews, albeit in a limited fashion, whereas minority members of the committee aren’t allowed to speak publicly about depositions.

This is the definition of making the rules up as you go along. You can’t have due process where process doesn’t exist. Jim Trusty and Ken Starr explain what’s at stake in this video:

This isn’t complicated. If Adam Schiff wanted to run a fair process, he could. He doesn’t want that. That’s why this process isn’t happening in public. Trusty is right that there isn’t a set procedure codified into the Constitution on conducting impeachment investigations. That doesn’t mean there aren’t safeguards that are built into the process.

Schiff says that he doesn’t want witnesses to fabricate their testimony. What proof does Schiff have that anyone’s done that? Is that proof like the proof he had that was “more than circumstantial” that Schiff didn’t show, that Rep. Zeldin didn’t see and that Robert Mueller didn’t find?

At the end of the day, the American people will reject this process because it’s built upon deception, inconsistencies and the process keeps shifting. That isn’t the definition of fair. Further, Democrats haven’t identified anything approaching treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking a foreign country for help with an investigation into a corrupt US politician isn’t a high crime. It’s common sense.

President Nixon and President Clinton were allowed to defend themselves during the House impeachment investigations. Queen Pelosi ruled by fiat that wasn’t acceptable. Queen Pelosi understood that the case was flimsy. That’s why Queen Pelosi won’t permit a vote of the full House to authorize a legitimate impeachment investigation.