Archive for the ‘Election 2020’ Category

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?

Democrats won’t let impeachment go. They’re too invested in it to let go until the Democrats’ House majority is pried from their fingers next November by voters. That will happen next November.

The Democrats are delusional. Here’s what the looniest Democrats think:

Right now, Democratic leaders seem intent on a quick process: impeachment in the House before Christmas and a trial in the Senate sometime in the next few months. House leaders believe they have enough evidence to impeach the president. Finding enough Republicans to convict him in the Senate by a two-thirds vote looks impossible.

That’s foolish. Democrats still haven’t found a scintilla of evidence of anything. They’ve found corroboration for the MSM’s storyline but that isn’t proof. The Democrats’ big moment was supposed to happen when Bill Taylor testified. Things didn’t go as expected:

Ambassador Taylor didn’t talk with President Trump so Taylor’s understanding of the situation was based on hearsay. With a few exceptions, hearsay can’t be used as evidence. The other man that was supposed to put the final nail in President Trump’s coffin was Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the EU. That didn’t end pretty either:

Though Democrats won’t admit it, they don’t have evidence that President Trump committed an impeachment offense. In Watergate, there was proof that Nixon told people to perjure themselves. That’s what real obstruction of justice looks like. In Watergate, there was evidence that President Nixon told FBI agents that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters’ phone calls. That’s what a legitimate constitutional crisis looks like. It’s disgusting to compare the Democrats’ attempt to impeach President Trump with hearsay ‘evidence’ with a unified House and a unified Senate telling President Nixon that he’d be impeached, then convicted if he dragged it out.

Democrats will lose their majority in the House if they keep this up. Here’s why:

When asked to rank 11 issues as top priorities, impeachment placed last among independents, with just 27 percent ranking it as the top priority. For comparison, 74 percent selected the deficit, 72 percent selected healthcare, and 70 percent selected infrastructure spending as the top priority.

Voters simply don’t care about impeachment. You can beat a dead horse until your arms are sore but that critter still won’t eat, drink or swim. If Democrats keep beating that dead horse, their only ‘reward’ will be electoral defeats.

One thing that Brad Parscale isn’t getting credit for is his installing efficiencies into the Trump campaign. That will change as more information (like this) gets out: Dr. Gina Loudon was at President Trump’s rally in Sunrise, FL, Tuesday night. She’s the national co-chair of the Women For Trump campaign. Dr. Gina reported that Republicans registered 31,000 voters at Tuesday night’s rally. First, that’s a staggering total. I’m certain that President Trump is the only candidate in this race who could accomplish anything like this, mostly because there isn’t a Democrat in the race who can attract that big of a crowd. It’s important to remind people that Sunrise, FL is in Broward County, one of the bluest counties in Florida.

Next, Dr. Gina reported that 30% of the registrations were Democrats who switched allegiances to the GOP. Again, that’s an astronomical number, one that certainly frightens Democrats. Third, Dr. Gina reported that 27% of the registrations were Hispanics.

This isn’t just happening in Sunrise. It’s happening at each of President Trump’s rallies. They’ve registered voters in El Paso, TX, Houston, TX, Orlando, FL, and New Mexico. If these attendees of Trump rallies turn into votes, which a high percentage will do, it’ll be a game-changer. Think of all of the new Republicans that this efficiency will create. That isn’t good news for Democrats.

Brad Todd was on The Story Wednesday night. He’s the co-author of The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics along with Salena Zito. He told guest-host Ed Henry that Democrats aren’t even trying to win back the blue collar workers they lost to Trump in 2016. If that’s true, then Democrats face an uphill fight in 2020.

Finally, there’s the Trump campaign’s minority outreach program. Based on multiple recent polling, President Trump’s approval rating is improving with minorities. He’s at 34% with African-Americans in a recent Rasmussen poll. He’s at 34.5% with African-Americans in a recent Emerson poll.

If Democrats aren’t attempting to win back blue collar voters, which appears to be the case, and if President Trump is making inroads into minority communities, which appears to be happening, then Pennsylvania and Michigan would be uphill fights for Democrats. Factor in the Trump/RNC cash advantage and the Democrats’ hill gets even harder to climb. Factor in the great economy and that hill might look more like Kilimanjaro than foothill.

Are Democrats staring at a perfect storm-nightmare scenario in 2020? Obviously there’s too much time between Thanksgiving, 2019, and Election Day 2020 to make a prediction but it isn’t too early to speculate. First, let’s talk about a potential storm brewing on the topic of K-12 education.

The article starts by saying “The night before Democratic presidential candidates took to a debate stage here last week, black and Latino charter school parents and supporters gathered in a bland hotel conference room nearby to make signs they hoped would get the politicians’ attention. ‘Charter schools = self-determination,’ one sign read. ‘Black Democrats want charters!’ another blared.”

Then it continues, saying “At issue is the delicate politics of race and education. For more than two decades, Democrats have largely backed public charter schools as part of a compromise to deliver black and Latino families a way out of failing district schools. Charters were embraced as an alternative to the taxpayer-funded vouchers for private-school tuition supported by Republicans, who were using the issue to woo minority voters. But this year, in a major shift, the leading Democratic candidates are backing away from charter schools, and siding with the teachers’ unions that oppose their expansion. And that has left some black and Latino families feeling betrayed.

This is apparently ruffling a few feathers in Atlanta and other major cities across the nation. Couple this perceived betrayal with record low minority unemployment and rising wages in minority communities and it isn’t a stretch to think that there’s a great opportunity for a pro-GOP realignment within minority communities. That’s what appears to be happening:

A Rasmussen poll released last week showed that 34 percent of black likely voters approve of Trump’s presidency, an increase from last year when it was in the 20s and a finding that lines up with an Emerson poll which showed 34.5 percent approval as well as a drop in support for impeachment.

If President Trump gets one-third of the African-American vote, Democrats will lose in a landslide. (In 1980, then-Candidate Reagan won 44 states and 489 electoral votes.) If Trump gets to 350-375 electoral votes, that’ll be the biggest GOP landslide since George H.W. Bush’s victory in 1988.

If Trump does well, it’s impossible to believe that it won’t be a big night for Republicans up and down the ticket. Going into this cycle, Democrats were facing difficult headwinds in maintaining control of the House because Democrats are defending seats that Trump won. That’s why Republicans will likely retake the House majority.

If I got $100 each time a CNN, NBC or MSNBC said “bombshell testimony”, I’d have nice-sized nest egg to live off of. If I got another $100 each time Adam Schiff or one of the pundits insisted that proof was overwhelming, I’d be a multi-millionaire. The thing is that we didn’t witness any bombshell testimony. I’m still waiting for the first bit of verified proof of an impeachable offense that wasn’t demolished on cross-examination.

Last week, the nation heard lots of testimony that corroborated the MSM’s storyline. We didn’t hear verified proof that President Trump committed an impeachable offense. Initially, Gordon Sondland used his opening statement to say “as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

Later in his opening statement, Sondland said this:

In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.

Notice that Sondland said “In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe…” Mike Turner noticed them. When it was his time to question Sondland, he utterly demolished Sondland’s testimony:

When Jim Jordan cross-examined Bill Taylor, this was the memorable moment from that exchange:

These were moments when the storyline was exploded. The thing they had in common is that they happened during cross-examination. Whether Sondland or Taylor are Deep State guys or not, they were billed as star witnesses by Chairman Schiff, Schiff’s Democrats and/or the MSM. When Taylor and Sondland were finished, their credibility was gone. That’s the truth.

The storyline didn’t withstand scrutiny. What proof did Marie Yovanovitch provide? What proof did Fiona Hill provide? David Holmes? David Hale? George Kent? Lt. Col. Vindman? They didn’t provide verifiable testimony that President Trump had committed an impeachable offense. In fact, the thing that Ms. Yovanovitch will be remembered for is admitting that she wasn’t the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine at the time of the Trump-Zelenskiy call because she’d gotten fired from that position in April.

The MSM hasn’t refuted the Republicans’ cross-examinations. That’s interesting because Republicans have refuted the MSM’s storyline and the testifiers’ opening statements. Call me crazy but that’s proof that Democrats have a weak case. If this was presented in a criminal court, Democrats wouldn’t have had a lengthy trial because most of their ‘witnesses’ didn’t witness anything. That’s why I’ve consistently called them testifiers.

The American people saw that. That’s why independents don’t support impeachment anymore. The ‘horserace’ polls show support for impeachment but diving into those polls show shrinking support amongst independents. For all intents and purposes, impeachment is dead.

Good riddance.

Based on this information, it’s apparent that impeachment isn’t inevitable anymore. As polling for impeachment craters, more Democrats are jumping ship. One of the latest Democrats that’s jumped ship is “Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry.”

Just like polls aren’t the most reliable predictors of election outcomes, polling doesn’t always paint an accurate picture of what’s happening with issues. Watching partisan politicians actions are often a better indicator. In this instance, Lawrence’s actions tell us everything we need to know. If the Democrats’ impeachment hearing had produced the quantity of “bombshell” testimony that the MSM reported, the Democrats that run the Impeachment Committee would’ve stayed in DC to write their report. That isn’t happening. This is:

When Adam Schiff responded to Jake Tapper’s question about impeachment, nobody in the civilized world would’ve anticipated his answer that he wanted to talk to his constituents and his colleagues. The Adam Schiff of a month ago would’ve quickly responded with a ‘yes, we’re moving forward with impeachment. The evidence is overwhelming and it speaks for itself.’ This Adam Schiff is more contemplative, cautious, less confident.

Lawrence occupies a safely Democratic district that includes eastern Detroit, and her reluctance to move forward with impeachment suggested that moderate Democrats in swing districts may also be getting cold feet now that all scheduled hearings in the probe wrapped up last week.

If Lawrence isn’t on board with impeachment, then it isn’t going anywhere. It’s one thing to favor censure if you’re a Democrat representing a purple district. It’s another thing when you’re advocating for censure from a safe district.

Expect more defections from the Democrats’ “impeachment bandwagon.” Whether enough defect to sink impeachment is still too early to tell. Still, this is proof that the Democrats’ impeachment hearings were a dud.

If Tip O’Neill is right that all politics is local, then this isn’t good news for Adam Schiff. Jennifer Barbosa, Schiff’s opponent, is attacking him because Schiff has paid too much attention to impeachment while ignoring the homeless crisis in his district.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Barbosa said “Adam Schiff has been my congressman since 2012. He became my congressman through the redistricting process. Since he became my congressman he has not presented any legislation that’s become law. In terms of homelessness, what he’s done is he’s basically rubber-stamped Maxine Waters’ bill to deal with homelessness, and her bill essentially replicated the same failed policies that [L.A.] Mayor Garcetti has implemented in our city over the past few years. We know they’re not working. So, what we need to do in terms of homelessness… we need to stop allocating federal funds for affordable housing which costs $500,000-700,000 per unit and really focus on mental health services for the people who are living on the street.”

At this point, Schiff appears to have a difficult path to re-election. Impeachment has flopped. Schiff has been ineffective in fighting the crisis in his neighborhood. Barbosa is hitting Schiff hard on the home front, too:

“Seeing the impeachment inquiry, when he’s wasting all these resources — we know that Ken Starr’s impeachment cost about $70 million,” she said. “That’s $70 million that really could be spent on much better things in our district.”

If Schiff doesn’t start paying attention to things at home, he might soon be unemployed. If Schiff’s actions in committee are an indicator, he’s too invested in impeachment to pay attention to the crisis in his district.

Stay tuned to LFR for updates on this and other races that affect the balance of power in the House of Representatives.