Archive for the ‘Election 2020’ Category

The opening paragraph from Speaker Pelosi’s statement on the November jobs report indicts the Speaker. Here’s what she said:

Despite some encouraging numbers, the November jobs report offers little solace to the farmers and hard-working families who are struggling to stay above water with the costs of living rising and uncertainty surging.

If she’s so worried about “farmers and hard-working families”, why hasn’t she brought USMCA up for a vote yet. For over a year, Ms. Pelosi has said that a) USMCA would be easy to pass and b) she was working her way to yes on ratifying it. Simply put, she’s failed farmers. Ms. Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats have been more interested in impeaching a president who has created 7,000,000 jobs since taking office less than 3 years ago.

Ms. Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats unanimously voted against the Trump-GOP tax cuts that have lit a fire under this economy. These Do-Nothing Democrats voted against eliminating the Obama administration’s regulations that would’ve killed the fossil fuel industry. In short, Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats have stood in the way of pretty much every Trump administration plan that’s produced this prolific economy.

Thus far, the Trump administration’s record includes the lowest unemployment rate in half a century, the lowest black unemployment rate and the lowest Hispanic unemployment rate ever, the lowest unemployment rate for women since WWII, rising wages, improving workforce participation rate and soaring consumer confidence. That’s what Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats voted against.

Getting lectured by Ms. Pelosi about “struggling” farmers and manufacturers is insulting. Ms. Pelosi’s focus on impeachment has prevented her from reaching yes on USMCA. She can complain all she wants about the 275 bills waiting for Senate action but that’s bad-faith whining. Why should we trust a caucus of Do-Nothing Democrat Socialists who voted against the policies that built this fantastic economy? This sums things up perfectly:

“What a contrast? A great economy, terrible politics.”

Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t helped with anything. They’ve focused on impeachment, not the economy. They haven’t lifted a finger to close the asylum loopholes or the immigration system. The 275 bills are meaningless. It’s time for Democrats to focus on what’s important instead of focusing on appeasing their special interest base.

When Speaker Pelosi announced on Thursday morning that she was instructing Chairman Nadler’s committee to start drafting articles of impeachment, what she was really doing was admitting that Democrats would lose their House majority Next November. What I’ve been convinced of is that Republicans would retake the House barring a massive voter fraud effort by Democrats. Forget the 31 Democrats representing districts that Trump won in 2016. The majority of those districts will be flipped by Republicans next November. Depending on turnout and enthusiasm, it’s possible that the vast majority of those districts will get flipped by Republicans.

The next set of targets for flipping are seats where President Trump came close to winning but fell just a little short. MN-2 and MN-3 fit into that category perfectly, where Angie Craig and Dean Phillips currently hold the seats. Both are seats that Republicans have held literally for decades. It’ll take a bit of a fight but those seats should return to the GOP fold.

Thanks to the RNC’s fundraising haul, the GOP is hosting massive voter registration drives at Trump rallies across the nation. A significant number of those rallies aren’t hosted in districts that are GOP-friendly — yet. Depending on the national mood next fall, these districts might constitute the third set of districts targeted.

There’s no question that Pelosi wants to maintain her majority. She knows, though, that they’ve focused too much attention on impeachment and not nearly enough attention on fulfilling policy promises. There’s no getting rid of the Do-Nothing Democrats label. Resist Movement Democrats dug a hole with their my-way-or-the-highway attitude. That isn’t where the nation is.

If Democrats don’t get rid of that group of Democrats, which they really can’t, they’ll be the minority party for awhile. Pelosi fought the AOC wing. In the end, she had to cave to their pressure. Now, it’ll cost them their gavels.

Proving that he still swings a wicked wooden cane, Gramps Biden lashed out at a man at a townhall meeting during Biden’s No Malarkey tour. Biden’s overreaction started when a man at an Iowa townhall meeting “accused the 77-year-old former vice president of being ‘too old'” and after the man “took a swipe at son Hunter’s role on the board of a controversial Ukrainian natural gas firm.”

Then the man dug in deeper, saying “accused the 77-year-old former vice president of being “too old” and took a swipe at son Hunter’s role on the board of a controversial Ukrainian natural gas firm.” That was apparently more than Biden could handle, causing the former VP to respond “You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true and no one has ever said that.”

Then things got really heated:

“Look, the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people and I can get things done,” Biden said. “And you want to check my shape? Let’s do push-ups together man, let’s run, let’s do whatever you wanna do. And number two, no one has said my son has done anything wrong and I did not, on any occasion,” he continued, only to be cut off by the man in the audience who shouted that he “never said” Biden was “doing anything wrong.”

What a bunch of BS. It’s impossible to think that everything was innocent when Hunter Biden got a $1,000,000/yr. no-show job in an industry he knew nothing about in a nation he’d never visited.

What part of that sounds even slightly plausible? A: There isn’t a part of it that sounds plausible. Here’s the video of the exchange:

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.

Jack Brewer wrote about the black vote in 2020 in this op-ed, noting that “I’m one of those who have become full-fledged supporters of the president and want to see him reelected. Others, like Prince, haven’t endorsed Trump for reelection at this point, but support some of the president’s policies and appreciate what he has done.”

That’s where Brewer starts explaining why he supports President Trump:

We also recognized that while Democrats make big promises to black voters in the run-up to every election, too often those promises are forgotten once the polls close. In part that’s because Democrats take our votes for granted; they just assume the vast majority of black people will vote Democratic. If more of us voted for Republicans, candidates in both parties would do more to compete for our votes.

What good are big promises that aren’t kept? Back in the mid-90s, a men’s religious movement got started by then-University of Colorado Football Coach Bill McCartney. The movement was called Promise Keepers. Its first study book was titled “The Awesome Power of a Promise Kept”. The point behind the book is that keeping promises changes lives.

From another perspective, Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America gained popularity by keeping these promises made to the American people:

On the first day of their majority in the House, the Republicans promised to bring up for vote, eight major reforms:

  1. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
  2. select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
  3. cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
  4. limit the terms of all committee chairs;
    ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
  5. require committee meetings to be open to the public;
  6. require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
  7. guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

In 1994, Republicans took back the House for the first time in 40years. First, Newt’s Republicans stood for something appealing. Next, Newt’s Republicans kept their promises. Third and perhaps most importantly, Newt’s Republicans promised to not exempt themselves from the laws they passed. Period.

Since he took office, President Trump has worked hard to improve the lives of African-Americans. Democrats can complain all they want but that doesn’t change reality. President Trump has put in place policies that are putting smiles on people’s faces. African-Americans have the lowest unemployment rate in their history. Opportunity Zones have brought back wealth into poor neighborhoods, thereby creating middle class employment opportunities.

President Trump is keeping promises and making life better for African-Americans. It isn’t lost on people when comparing Trump’s pro-African-American accomplishments with the Democrats unfulfilled promises. That’s why President Trump is making significant inroads into the African-American community.

The biggest stars of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee’s hearing were George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley and the Constitution itself. Here’s why they starred today. First, Prof. Turley was a voice of unwavering principles. He consistently passed Professor Emeritus Dershowitz shoe-on-the-other-foot test.

Among the things that Prof. Turley highlighted was the speed with which Democrats are jamming this impeachment investigation down the people’s throats. This is Prof. Turley’s powerful opening statement:

Here’s part of the transcript of Prof. Turley’s opening statement:

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

Prof. Turley is right that there isn’t a good time to impeach a US president. Prof. Turley also mentioned that impeachment shouldn’t be attempted when there’s “a paucity of evidence.” This is something that Democrats have ignored. In the Schiff Report’s Finding of Facts, most of the ‘facts’ were opinions or theories. This is an example:

Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

Chairman Schiff’s theory is that President Trump suggested the investigation of the Biden family was to keep Joe Biden out of the presidential race. While that’s certainly a possibility, that isn’t a certainty. Without a communication between President Trump and President Zelenskiy that includes a quote from President Trump stating that Zelenskiy wouldn’t get the military aid unless he investigated Burisma and Hunter Biden, Schiff’s statement of ‘fact’ is just a plausible theory.

The other star from today’s hearing was the Constitution itself. With so many people talking about the Constitution from opposing perspectives, people who watched today’s hearings will be forced to read the Constitution for themselves, just like people read the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call.

Finally, let’s thank Prof. Turley and Prof. Emeritus Dershowitz for consistently passing the shoe-on-the-other-foot test on the Constitution. These are principled men who deserve our gratitude.

Democrats finally proved that they have a sense of humor when they released the Schiff Report. The report contains enough malarkey to qualify for a Biden bus tour through Iowa. One funny line from the Schiff Report said “President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign,’ the Democrats’ report said.”

Do Democrats seriously think that Joe Biden has a snowball’s prayer in H-E-Double Toothpicks of defeating a president with a fantastic economy? It’s difficult picturing Democrats getting enthusiastic about Joe Biden at the top of next fall’s ticket. If Democrats publicly take Biden’s candidacy seriously, President Trump doesn’t. President Trump doesn’t picture any Democrat presidential candidates seriously. This was written later in the report:

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

Just how did President Trump endanger “U.S. national security”? Second, if placing their “own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States” was an impeachable offense, half of U.S. presidents would’ve gotten impeached. The more you read from the Schiff Report, the more people should question its seriousness.

Then the Schiff Report sunk to this low:


A paragraph very early in the Schiff Report contains this information:

During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.

Here’s what the transcript says about investigating the Bidens:

I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First off, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to µs, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Yovanovitch.

First, it’s important to notice that the “I have a favor” paragraph is entirely different than the “Investigate the Biden” paragraph. In fact, they’re on separate pages. Where in the “I have a favor” paragraph does it mention military assistance? Further, the “I have a favor” paragraph doesn’t mention military assistance. Neither does the “Investigate the Bidens” paragraph.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he can just make things up and people will just take his word on it. Mr. Schiff hasn’t figured out that the American people stopped giving Mr. Schiff the benefit of the doubt years ago. Further, since House Impeachment Committee Democrats voted on a 13-9 straight party line vote to approve the Schiff Report, they’re complicit in Mr. Schiff’s lies.

In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry. Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.

Actually, President Trump didn’t claim executive privilege as often as Bill Clinton claimed it in 1998-99. It’s worth noting that Congress isn’t the final arbiter on claims of privilege. The Constitution gives the Judicial Branch the responsibility of settling disputes between the political branches, aka the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. Since Congress didn’t ask the judiciary to settle these disputes over privilege, it’s impossible to take the Schiff Report (or the Democrats who voted to approve it) seriously.

The Schiff Report isn’t a serious report. Its “Findings of Facts” section is especially farcical. That’ll require a separate post, which I’ll write Wednesday.

A while ago, Adam Schiff and other Democrats compared his secret impeachment hearings held in a SCIF in the basement of Capitol Hill to grand jury proceedings. That’s BS. They’re as similar as oil and water.

Most importantly, impeachment hearings involve the leader of the free world. The Democrats’ impeachment hearings have taken months, which have distracted President Trump from his important responsibilities. When a grand jury indicts a criminal, the only person getting penalized is the potential criminal. When the president gets impeached, the people get punished as much as the president does. (Does anyone think that China wouldn’t have caved by now on a trade deal if not for this impeachment fiasco?)

Next, when witnesses testify before a grand jury, they’ve actually witnessed something. Over half of the people that the Democrats deposed didn’t witness a thing about what the Democrats are impeaching President Trump about. Testifiers like Marie Yovanovitch, George Kent, William Taylor and others didn’t listen to the call. None of those testifiers has even met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call but hasn’t met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman raised a concern but that was determined to be insignificant. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the rough transcript was accurate.

Democrats have a very weak case. They’re whining that White House staff won’t testify. When they had the chance to take them to court to compel testimony, though, they declined to compel testimony through the courts. Democrats have frequently said that the White House exerting various privileges might add more articles of impeachment.

That’s why the White House has declined to participate in Wednesday’s hearing of the Judiciary Committee:

“This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continuing the West Wing’s attack on the procedural form of the impeachment proceedings. Cipollone said Nadler provided only “vague” details about the hearing, and that unnamed academics, and not “fact witnesses”, would apparently be attending.

“As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings,” Cipollone said. “More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.”

Thus far, Democrats have vetoed each of the Republican witness requests. They’ve blocked the CIA snitch from testifying because he knows whether Schiff’s office sought him out. They won’t let Hunter Biden testify because connecting him with Burisma’s corruption hurts their case. They won’t Joe Biden testify because explaining this away would prove difficult:

Democrats are afraid that good prosecutors like Matt Gaetz and John Ratcliffe will expose Biden’s corruption. It’s a safe bet that they’d make Biden look like a fool. That’s why Democrats can’t play this fair. Playing fair wouldn’t get the result they’ve wanted:

To summarize: Many Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the get-go. Frustrated at their inability to get it done, they jumped on their last, best hope, taking shortcuts to ensure their preferred result and racing to beat the political deadline imposed by their party’s presidential contest. Through it all, they have insisted they are acting only with great reluctance and sorrow.

The question now is whether the public will believe it.

Bit-by-bit, people are putting a higher priority on teaching old-fashioned civics. About five years ago, “a coalition of prominent leaders assembled by the Arizona-based Joe Foss Institute launched a Civics Education Initiative.” They started with the premise that students shouldn’t graduate unless they pass the same test that immigrants must pass when they apply for citizenship.

This movement started after it was discovered that “fewer than half knew that John Roberts is the current chief justice of the United States. More than one-quarter thought Brett Kavanaugh was.” When students were asked the term length for U.S. senators and representatives, “fewer than half of college graduates could give the correct numbers.”

While this is disturbing information, there’s more frightening news lurking on the horizon:

As Education Week has reported, the very idea of schools using the citizenship test elicits a “torrent of criticism from leaders who favor the new, broader conception of civics education.” Jessica Marshall, former social studies director for Chicago schools, put it this way: “[The citizenship tests] don’t tell us if young people know how to mobilize their communities to get resources or pass laws they care about.”

It isn’t the job of schools to teach students how to be progressive activists. Back in September, I wrote about Rep. Dean Urdahl’s op-ed (Part I and Part II). In that op-ed, Rep. Urdahl wrote this:

Next session, the MSBA [Minnesota School Board Association] plans to double down on its campaign against civic education. MSBA officials want to no longer have to offer the civics test. This crosses the line from passivity to enmity regarding civics. Testing conveys a message; we care about what we test. Eliminating the test implies MSBA doesn’t think civics is important. In Minnesota, it should not be about the number of tests, but rather, are we testing the right things.

Rep. Urdahl also wrote this:

The failure is measurable. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the highly respected “Nation’s Report Card,” reports that 75% of our graduates leave high school not proficient in civics. They are failing. A nationwide poll found that two-thirds of Americans can name an American Idol judge, but only 15% can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One-third of our graduates can’t name a single branch of our government. The Annenberg Study revealed that 37% cannot name one right guaranteed in the First Amendment. There are students who think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.

Rep. Urdahl also wrote that MSBA wants school boards, not voters, to have the final say on operating levies:

Over 332 school boards are elected by their communities. These members are trusted and charged with the governance of school property, budget, curriculum, technology, taxes, student achievement and teacher quality – ensuring excellence and equity in all public schools. Therefore, MSBA asks that you honor and trust the work of these local officials by allowing school boards to renew an existing operating referendum, by reducing the current number of mandates, and provide flexibility to meet the unique needs of their schools and communities.

TRANSLATION: Those pesky citizens shouldn’t have a say on their property taxes. We know what’s best. That’s what progressive arrogance sounds like.

Since the DFL controls the House in 2020, it isn’t likely that they’ll say no to MSBA. That means we’ll need the GOP Senate to stop this unaccountability initiative dead in its tracks. Trusting school boards to do the right thing is like giving matches to an arsonist, then expecting him to not set something on fire. That isn’t insanity. It’s stupidity.

It’s also imperative that we elect a GOP majority in the House and maintain the GOP majority in the Senate in 2020. We can’t afford unified DFL state government. We saw what a disaster that was in 2013-14.

These things should be taught until students understand why we adopted this Constitution and why the US is the greatest nation on earth. We should make it illegal to teach political activism in schools. That’s the job of political parties and outside groups. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for that stuff.

In addition to emphasizing teaching civics, it’s essential to emphasize teaching history, math and science, too. It’s important to de-emphasize the victimology classes, too. Civics classes unite us as a nation. Victimology classes divide us. Let’s work to unite, not divide, this great nation.

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?