Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category

It isn’t surprising that Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s op-ed follows the typical Democrat script. Sen. Blumenthal is a typical liberal politician. In his op-ed, Blumenthal writes “Just hours after my Republican colleagues voted nine times against seeking documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial, President Trump bragged about the ongoing cover-up while rubbing elbows with billionaires in Davos. He proudly proclaimed that, ‘honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.’ Boasting about documents he has withheld sounds a lot like an outright confession to obstruction of Congress.”

Omitted from Sen. Blumenthal’s op-ed is the fact that the people and documents weren’t subpoenaed correctly. Patrick Philbin explains the defense’s logic behind the refusals:

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion:

The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s power of impeachment. The House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with impeachment-related subpoenas issued by House committees before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect.

Like other aspects of this impeachment investigation, the House did a sloppy job. That’s what happens when you pick partisan hacks to do a professional’s job. A different cliché is perhaps fitting — You get what you pay for. Speaker Pelosi often thinks that she’s a queen. I wrote this post to highlight Pat Cipollone’s letter to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler. In that letter, Mr. Cipollone wrote “Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an “official impeachment inquiry.”

I wrote this post, which I titled “This isn’t a monarchy & Pelosi isn’t the queen”, to highlight the fact that “Ms. Pelosi stepped up to the microphone and announced that she was starting the inquiry. That means this inquiry isn’t a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the eyes of the courts. When Chairman Schiff requests documents, the White House won’t hesitate in rejecting Chairman Schiff’s request. Had the whole House voted to start an impeachment inquiry, the House’s authority would’ve expanded substantially. Ms. Pelosi didn’t want Republicans to have the same rights that other minority parties had in past impeachment inquiries so she didn’t hold a vote.”

Speaker Pelosi thought she was an autocrat. Ditto with Chairmen Nadler and Schiff. Now that they’re up against a professional in Mr. Cipollone, they’re getting taught a lesson. As for Sen. Blumenthal, who cares? He’s a nobody, a cookie-cutter liberal politician.

After Saturday’s impeachment hearing, Sen. Schumer said that President Trump’s team underscored the need for more witnesses. That’s totally predictable but it’s totally wrong. One of the highlights of yesterday’s presentation was the number of times when President Trump’s team would play a clip from the House Democrats’ presentation. They’d let the clip sink in, then they’d play the full clip in context.

To use one of the senators’ words, it was like an episode of Paul Harvey’s Rest of the Story. (John Barrasso referenced Paul Harvey.) The House Democrats’ presentation included a snippet of information that sounded convincing in terms of convicting President Trump. Saturday, the Trump team played the full clip, including the exculpatory information. That served multiple purposes.

First, it served the purpose of re-highlighting Chairman Schiff’s untrustworthiness. Since Schiff’s reputation for dishonesty is famous, it didn’t take much time to prove that. Next, it served an important service in highlighting how following due process would’ve spared us this disaster. Had President Trump’s team been able to cross-examine the House Democrats’ witnesses in public during the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, there never would’ve been an impeachment because the exculpatory evidence would’ve already been part of the official record.


Now that everyone can see the whole picture, the Democrats’ case has been demolished. No amount of new testimony will revive Schiff’s case. There’s too much proof that contradicts Schiff’s opinions. Now that we’ve seen the video of Schiff making up the transcript, it’s impossible to forget it. Now that we’ve seen Schiff’s interview with Chuck Todd about Russian collusion, people can’t forget this:

This isn’t just an indictment against the House Democrats’ impeachment managers. It’s an indictment of each House Democrat who voted for impeachment. Each Democrat voting for this impeachment voted against full due process. Each Democrat who voted for this impeachment voted for an impeachment inquiry that’s incomplete. The Democrats who voted for this impeachment didn’t take their responsibilities seriously enough. They voted as partisan hacks. Those Democrats didn’t vote as patriots.

House Democrats can’t now say that they did their job as investigators after President Trump’s team exposed the gaping holes in the Democrats’ evidence. This didn’t just poke holes in the Democrats’ case. It’s left honest people wondering what’s left of the Democrats’ proof. Michael Goodwin got it right in this article:

The aim wasn’t just to create reasonable doubt. The goal was to demolish the entire case against the president and expose lead prosecutor Rep. Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi as pure partisans trying to overturn the 2016 election and steal the next one.

Now that a counterargument is being presented, it’s difficult picturing this going much further. The cross-examination of witnesses is essential to justice. One-sided stories aren’t sufficient for justice. As we’ve seen here, a rogue prosecutor that’s willing to twist information can improperly injure defendants. That isn’t justice. That’s the starting spot of corruption.

Democrats chose to participate in Speaker Pelosi’s and Chairman Schiff’s impeachment rather than doing the right thing. That isn’t patriotism. That’s the definition of partisanship.

If you didn’t watch tonight’s Almanac Roundtable discussion, you’re in luck. I watched it so you didn’t have to. Predictably, impeachment was the main topic discussed by former DFL State Senator Ember Reichgott-Junge and former GOP Lt. Gov. Candidate Annette Meeks. My first impression of the discussion is that it’s painful to watch Ember Reichgott-Junge mix the Democrats’ political talking points with the Constitution.

At one point in the discussion, Junge trotted out the latest Democrat talking point. Junge said that “It isn’t just President Trump that is on trial. The US Senate is on trial, too.” She then posed a hypothetical question, saying “What happens if new information comes out 6 months from now?” Here’s what I’d say had I been debating her Friday night:

Ember, you’ve got it backwards. It isn’t the US Senate that’s on trial. It’s the US House that’s on trial. Specifically, it’s Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler that are on trial. They’re the people who were tasked with the responsibility of conducting a thorough impeachment investigation. If this was truly about patriotism, Speaker Pelosi would have stopped the investigation once she learned that Chairman Schiff’s committee didn’t unearth proof that President Trump committed high crimes or misdemeanors.

She didn’t stop the investigation because she wanted to use impeachment as a partisan weapon. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the morning after he won the election. This wasn’t an investigation. It was a search-and-destroy mission. That isn’t about finding the truth. That’s about crippling the President of the United States for purely partisan purposes.

Democrats who voted for impeachment aren’t as guilty as Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff but they’re guilty, too. They’re guilty of impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime. House Democrats voted to impeach a president without investigators identifying a single piece of direct proof that verifies the crime President Trump committed.

Prof. Jonathan Turley’s ‘indictment’ of the House Democrats still stings. In his testimony, Prof. Turley said “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”

Honestly, it’s exceptionally dishonest to blame the US Senate for US House Democrats not finishing their investigation. The Constitution states that the House of Representatives has the sole responsibility for impeachment. If House Democrats don’t properly finish their investigation, then that’s their fault. Honest historians won’t criticize the US Senate for conducting a sloppy impeachment investigation.

Senate Democrats better think this through thoroughly. If Senate Democrats want to call witnesses, they’d best be prepared to get buried with fact witnesses by the defense attorneys. That means the trial lasts until well after Super Tuesday. By then, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar will have been forced to suspend their campaigns.

By the time an extended trial ends, President Trump will be well on his way to winning re-election, Republicans will be well on their way to regaining their House majority and well on their way to solidifying their majority in the Senate. That’s the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

Yesterday, like other days, Democrats insisted that a Senate impeachment trial without witnesses should be considered a sham trial. Those statements, whether they’re made by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Nadler, are part of the Democrats’ strategy to extend their investigation in the hopes of finding a nugget of incriminating evidence against President Trump.

Rather than passively accepting that, Republicans should highlight the sham investigation that Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler conducted for House Democrats. The point should be to highlight the Democrats’ intellectual inconsistency. This video highlights the fact that Chairman Nadler refused to allow a hearing where Republicans could call witnesses:

The Judiciary Committee, traditionally the ‘impeachment committee, didn’t call any fact witnesses. The first hearing consisted of 3 partisan Democrat activists and liberal law professor Jonathan Turley testifying. The other Judiciary Committee hearing consisted of the majority and minority counsels answering questions about the Schiff Report. Chairman Schiff wasn’t required by Chairman Nadler to testify about his own report.

A simple question screams out for attention. Where are the witnesses? We’re now told that a Senate trial must include witnesses. If we don’t have witnesses, we’re told, it’s a sham trial, a “cover-up”:

Why didn’t Adam Schiff testify about his own report? Why weren’t Republicans allowed to call a single witness in the House impeachment hearings? What are Democrats trying to hide? What exculpatory evidence are these Democrats trying to omit?

Democrats don’t want Chairman Schiff testifying because that might force him to explain whether the faux whistle-blower worked with 2 of Schiff’s new hires when they worked at the National Security Council. If Schiff testified, he might be forced how many times he or his staff met with the faux whistle-blower. If that happens, they might be forced to tell Congress if they worked with each other to conspire against President Trump.

Democrats didn’t permit Republican witnesses because actual fact witnesses would’ve interrupted the Democrats’ carefully-edited narrative. With the weakest articles of impeachment in our nation’s history, Democrats couldn’t afford a) to let Republicans offer exculpatory evidence or b) to let Republicans call witnesses who might have provided truly bombshell testimony.

It isn’t that I want the Senate to conduct an unfair trial. Republicans don’t need to shaft Democrats because these facts are on their side:

  1. Neither article rises to the level of Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanor
  2. The exculpatory evidence that Republicans tried presenting during the impeachment hearings will come in on the Senate side.
  3. This time, the ‘jury’ won’t be composed of outcome-based partisan Democrat hacks.

This time, Democrats won’t get a pass from the jury. This time, Democrats will need to actually to prove their case. This time, America will see the difference between the partisan political hacks that make up the House impeachment managers and the professional litigators on President Trump’s legal team.

This time, America will notice the difference between a hurried sham impeachment investigation and a fair, properly conducted impeachment trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s remember Democrat politicians and the Media Wing of the Democratic Party insisting that President Trump’s airstrike against Maj. Gen. Soleimani would provoke World War 3. Democrats like Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer called the attack reckless, a rash decision and part of a pattern that proved President Trump wasn’t fit for office. The Democrat mouthpieces at CNN and MSNBC, along with John Kerry, insisted that Iran would strike back.

There was a missile strike a couple days after the US took out Maj. Gen. Soleimani, then the world’s most dangerous terrorist. Reportedly, 16 missiles were shot off from Iran, with 4 never making it out of Iran, another targeting Erbil and the rest falling short of the al-Asad military base. Since then, the Iranian military has been silent with the exception of taking out a civilian flight, killing 176 people.

What these politicians haven’t talked about is the fact talked about is the fact that President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, composed mostly of crippling sanctions, is working. This article highlights what’s happening inside Iran:

Crippling sanctions imposed by the Trump administration have severed Iran’s access to international markets, decimating the economy, which is now contracting at an alarming 9.5 percent annual rate, the International Monetary Fund estimated. Oil exports were effectively zero in December, according to Oxford Economics, as the sanctions have prevented sales, even though smugglers have transported unknown volumes.

On Tuesday, pressure intensified as Britain, France and Germany served notice that they would formally trigger negotiations with Iran toward forcing it back into compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal, a step that could ultimately lead to the imposition of United Nations sanctions.

If France, Britain and Germany join with the US in the sanctions, that will hurt the mullahs even more. The maximum pressure strategy would bit into Iran’s already weakened economy. The worst part for Iran is that that’s just part of the mullahs’ problems. Here’s another pile of headaches for the regime:

Inflation is running near 40 percent, assailing consumers with sharply rising prices for food and other basic necessities. More than one in four young Iranians is jobless, with college graduates especially short of work, according to the World Bank.

The Iranian people aren’t stupid. They know that the government isn’t meeting their needs. The Iranian people can’t help but notice that they live in a nation of haves and have nots. That can’t last long. Iran’s situation will hit a tipping point, most likely sooner rather than later.

Newt Gingrich is one of the best election analysts in modern history. When he starts talking about the potential for wave elections, I listen. That’s what he’s talking about in this article.

One of the first things he mentions is “The liberal media likes to focus on how many House Republicans are retiring. Somehow this is supposed to make Republicans feel defeated and hopeless. In this context, I was startled recently to hear Congresswoman Elise Stefanik say 2020 was going to be the year of the House Republican woman. She went on to assert that there was a historic record being set for Republican women filing to run for the House.”

Speaker Gingrich then gets into candidate recruitment, online fundraising and a host of other things that give Republicans a distinct advantage. Here’s what he said about candidate recruitment:

I checked in with Chairman Tom Emmer at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and found that, if anything, Stefanik had understated the momentum of new recruits. With House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and the leadership team going all out, the House Republicans are setting a remarkably encouraging series of records.

Consider these numbers: The total number of Republicans filed for House seats so far is 928, according to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) figures – or 188 more than the total at the same time in 2010 (740). The year 2010 matters because it was the last time Nancy Pelosi was kicked out of the majority and Speaker John Boehner led the House GOP to its biggest gain in modern times – with his “where are the jobs” slogan.

Right now, the only accomplishment that the House Democrats can point to is the ratification of President Trump’s USMCA trade agreement. Compared with the things that Republicans can point to during their 2 years in office, the Democrats don’t have much to highlight during the campaign. Then there’s the fundraising portion of this equation:

In the 2018 cycle, this system raised $1.8 billion over the two-year period. When this scale of small-donor involvement was combined with massive donors like Michael Bloomberg (who spent $5 million on ads in the last two weeks in some elections) the Democrats’ money advantage was enormous. This helps explain the Republican House defeats.

The threat posed by the ActBlue system was reinforced in 2019 when it raised more than $1 billion for the Democrats. Republican leaders realized they had to match or exceed the small-dollar system the Democrats had invented. They developed a competitive model called WinRed. The intensity of support for President Trump, combined with growing anger over the Democrats’ investigation and impeachment strategy, has made WinRed a success much faster than anyone expected.

In its first two quarters, WinRed raised $101 million. Its effectiveness is growing rapidly. It raised $31 million in its first quarter of existence and more than doubled that in the second quarter with $70 million (fourth quarter of 2019). In fact, WinRed raised more in its first 190 days than ActBlue raised in its first five years.

The other factor that people haven’t talked about is the fact that most of the competitive seats that Republicans need to flip to return to the majority are seats that President Trump has done well in. It isn’t like Republicans have to flip tons of seats where Democrats traditionally do well in. That, in turn, means that they won’t need to raise as much money as Democrats raise.

House Democrats have to defend why they didn’t get important things done during this Congress. They promised to lower prescription drug prices, fix health care, work on infrastructure and strengthen the economy. They didn’t get any of those things done. They don’t have a list of accomplishments. Democrats have an accomplishment — USMCA. The rest of their time was wasted on impeachment, sour grapes and other waste-of-time investigations. If I were running the NRCC’s messaging, I’d have a single message, which would be “What have you done for me lately?”

It’s time to call Pelosi’s Democrats out. They’re essentially worthless. Democrats spent more time telling us that Iranians really loved Soleimani than they spent in court to compel witnesses that House Democrats said weren’t needed but that Senate Democrats insist are essential. Now Pelosi insists that not calling witnesses that House Democrats didn’t call amounts to a cover-up:

I’d love hearing Pelosi sell that BS to the American people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, thank God he’s a fighter.

Now that Speaker Pelosi has caved, Democrats, aka Nancy’s support group, have started spinning things to make it sound like her impeachment delay succeeded. It’s understandable why they’d spin that. They know that she needs to save face to avoid utter humiliation. If she wants to save face, she needs another Botox treatment, not this spin.

Byron York’s article is aptly titled Pelosi caves. In the article, Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying “in the last two weeks, there’s been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case, strongly bolsters the case, for witnesses and documents.” Consider this the Senate Democrats’ equivalent of House Democrats’ “bombshell testimony” coming from the Schiff Show. Spare me the spin.

During the Schiff Show portion of impeachment, we were told by the corrupt media that that day’s testifiers would provide “bombshell testimony” that would devastate Orange Man Bad. By mid-afternoon each day, that day’s star witness was the one decimated. By the time the Schiff Show transitioned into Nadler’s articles of impeachment hearings, Democrats were sinking fast. Impeachment had backfired to the point that the House Judiciary Committee didn’t bother calling fact witnesses. That’s because Democrats were still looking for a fact witness that wouldn’t hurt them.

There’s speculation that Democrats might try a second round of impeachment. Democrat activists were the only people who took the first round seriously. Why think that anyone would take another round seriously? Doug Collins appears to have this right:

“I believe she finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore,” Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday. “The case never changed, and the outcome has not been altered, but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate.”

The American people aren’t paying attention. They’re too busy enjoying their bigger paychecks, their latest promotions, their rising wages. They’re too busy taking vacations. Washington pundits are paying attention but that’s about it.

Now, the holdout is apparently coming to an end. A trial will begin. Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president. But the trial will be out of her hands.

Let’s hope for a quick trial. The Democrats’ House impeachment managers don’t have anything to present except hearsay testimony. The Trump legal team should present the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and the whistle-blower’s complaint to provide a contrast between what actually happened and the Democrats’ gossip. If Democrats succeed in calling witnesses, Republicans should call the whistle-blower as a witness. If he’s called, the Trump legal team should insist that he give up the names of the people who leaked information to him.

Further, we know that John Bolton won’t testify. He might get called but President Trump will exert executive privilege. If Democrats want to challenge that in court, that’s their option. It’s also their option to pound their head into a brick wall. No serious judge will side with the Democrats in forcing the national security adviser testify about classified communications between the president and another head of state. It’s time to put the Democrats’ fiasco in the rear-view mirror.

When impeachment started, Nancy Pelosi insisted that she loved the Constitution. I suspect that she loves the Constitution like she loves the Bible. I suspect that she loves them when it’s to her advantage. Yesterday, the House voted on a resolution that ignored the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to declare war.

While it’s fitting for Congress to weigh in on policy matters, it isn’t fitting that the Legislative Branch should tell the Executive Branch what it should or shouldn’t do. Yesterday’s non-binding resolution told President Trump how Congress wanted to restrict him in prosecuting military operations. That’s far outside the Legislative Branch’s authority.

The military is 100% within the Executive Branch’s authority. They take orders from the Commander-in-Chief, not 100 egotistical senators, not from an aging Speaker of the House, not from anyone in the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch’s constitutional authority over the military is confined to declaring war (then getting out of the way) and appropriating money to fund the military.

Democrats insist that they love the Constitution. If that’s true, why don’t they appreciate it all the time? The Democrats’ “living, breathing document” line apparently means that they like it when it says what they want it to say but they’ll change it when they don’t like what it says.

This interview says everything:

Congress doesn’t have the authority to tell presidents how to prosecute war. The Constitution only gives them the authority to declare war. Declarations of war have nothing to do with prosecuting wars.

Speaker Pelosi might not like that but she can’t ignore that fact.