Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last night, Democrat Chris Murphy issued a statement that accused the Trump administration of bringing the US to the brink of a region-wide war. Earlier this week, Murphy accused President Trump of implementing policies that made the US “impotent.” Apparently, Murphy can’t decide whether President Trump is making the US impotent or whether he’s bringing the US to the brink of war.

Lost in all of this is the fact that Gen. Soleimani was in Baghdad and that US intelligence found out that he was plotting harm against US diplomats and soldiers. What would Sen. Murphy want us to do? Send a plane filled with cash to buy off the Iranian terrorists like the Obama administration tried? How did strategic patience work out?

It’s safe to say that Ben Sasse isn’t President Trump’s biggest fan. That being said, it’s safe to say that he didn’t take any BS from Sen. Murphy, either:


When American lives are at risk, we have the right to defend ourselves. Protecting troops doesn’t require a declaration of war or even an authorized use of military force or AUMF. A declaration of war is needed if the C-in-C wants to expand it to a war.

Thus far, it looks like President Trump isn’t interested in expanding this into a full-fledged war. Major Gen. James A. “Spider” Marks [Ret.], now a military analyst with CNN, criticized Murphy, too:

“What I would say to Senator Murphy is, why don’t you just be quiet,” Marks said, questioning the notion that the strike has made the world “more dangerous.” “Look, when has Iran ever demonstrated self-restraint? I mean, that’s the question I have. So, is the world more dangerous today? Maybe it’s more dangerous, but when has it not been dangerous? When have we not been a target of a regime like exists in Tehran? I mean, it happens as a matter of routine,” said Marks.

Murphy isn’t supporting our troops and diplomats when he’s playing the part of partisan hack. That’s what Murphy did last night. Murphy, like far too many Democrats, care more about scoring partisan points than he cares about being a patriot.

It sounds like Pelosi and Schumer weren’t notified of the attack beforehand. That’s perfectly appropriate since neither has proven trustworthy with national security secrets. Pelosi and Schumer are partisans first. I don’t know that I could call them patriots.

There’s no doubt that Ben Sasse is a patriot. I don’t always agree with him but he wants what’s best for America.

Either Speaker Pelosi is taking lessons from Sen. Chris Murphy or Sen. Murphy is taking lessons from Speaker Pelosi. Whichever direction it’s coming from, it’s clear that both Democrats are both talking out both sides of their mouth. Earlier this week, Sen. Murphy accused President Trump of making the US “impotent” throughout the Middle East. Thursday night, Sen. Murphy accused President Trump of “knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war.”

At least, it took Sen. Murphy a couple of days to talk out of both sides of his mouth. It didn’t take Speaker Pelosi a full paragraph to talk out of both sides of her mouth in this statement:

American leaders’ highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American servicemembers, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions.

Got that? President Trump’s “highest priority is to protect American lives and interests” without “engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions.” Speaker Pelosi doesn’t explain how to do that. She’s just certain that President Trump failed.

What’s disproportionate about killing a terrorist who is organizing terrorist attacks against US diplomats and military personnel? Should President Trump have done nothing to prevent these terrorist attacks? That’s what President Obama would’ve done so that isn’t the right path.

Tonight’s airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America – and the world – cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return.

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi prefers talking tough while doing nothing. That’s what’s known as a doctrine of appeasement. That’s what Jimmy Carter tried in 1979. That resulted in 52 US hostages being held in the US Embassy in Teheran for 444 days. Five minutes after President Reagan was sworn in as the 40th president of the United States, the plane carrying those hostages cleared Iranian air space.

Jimmy Carter, like Pelosi and Obama, are Democrats who believe in appeasement. President Trump isn’t a Democrat. He doesn’t believe in appeasement.

Is retaliation likely? That’s definitely possible. Is there a better option than the option used Thursday night? That’s a matter of opinion.

This year’s campaign is about choosing candidates who are committed to getting sensible things done vs. rehiring the politicians that signed onto Adam Schiff’s endless investigations. The only bill that passed the House was the USMCA trade agreement. It sat on Speaker Pelosi’s desk for almost a year.

USMCA was used to bribe freshman Democrats into voting for impeachment. Speaker Pelosi was corrupt enough to hold that over their heads until they’d ruined their political careers. But I digress.

Adam Schiff’s mission has been to hurt President Trump. In March, 2017, he told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he had proof that was “more than circumstantial” that proved President Trump conspired with Russia to throw the 2016 election. After Special Counsel Mueller spent $40,000,000 and 22 months investigating Russia’s interference into US elections, Mueller’s team didn’t find proof of Rep. Schiff’s accusations. That isn’t surprising. Schiff appears to be a sociopath.

What proof has been found is proof that Adam Schiff is pathological. This is what Chairman Schiff said:

We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have, but you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent.”

Here’s the video of Schiff’s opening statement/lie:

There are so many lies in Chairman Schiff’s opening statement that it isn’t worth going through all of them. It’s worth highlighting the fact that President Trump never asked President Zelenskiy to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. It’s also worth noting that Chairman Schiff and other Democrats told the nation that President Trump had a personal favor to ask. The truth is that the transcript said this:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

Adam Schiff is currently the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He’s utterly corrupt. Schiff now says that it was a parody. That’s a lie. The definition of a parody is “a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing.” Schiff just made things up in his attempt to portray President Trump as guilty of extortion. There isn’t a thing in Schiff’s statement that’s accurate. Democrats have been obsessed with investigating President Trump. The legislation they’ve passed is highly partisan garbage that would either hurt our economy or limit our freedoms.

Senate Republicans have confirmed judges that rule on what the Constitution says or what the law says. These judges don’t rule that the law says something that it doesn’t say. Republicans have also tried passing bills that would tighten asylum laws, close immigration loopholes, some of which were created by House Democrats during the Trump shutdown and fix our immigration laws. Republicans are tirelessly working to fix the opioid crisis. Republicans, not Democrats, were the chief authors of criminal justice reform.

Resist activists control the Democrats. What the Resist activists say, Democrats do. The 8 years of Obama showed how that failed. The policies being proposed by today’s Democrats would ruin this fantastic economy while hurting families. No thanks. I want all families to thrive, including rich families. There’s a ton of socialist Democrat candidates running that think we wouldn’t have poverty if we didn’t have billionaires. The leading House socialist is AOC. She hates prosperity. She proved that by chasing Amazon HQ, along with 25,000 high-paying jobs, away from New York. Then she rejoiced about their decision.

She’s the ideological leader of the Democratic Party. Is that the type of leader we want? I prefer a leader who delivers on increasing prosperity, increasing security and strengthens communities. You won’t find that in the Democratic Party. Democrats are about endless investigations. They’re also about thoughtless partisanship.

This article highlights the stupidity of Washington, DC’s political class. It offers 13 theories from DC insiders on why Speaker Pelosi hasn’t sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Let’s look at the ones that are best characterized in polite society as foolish. Let’s start here:

Impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Pelosi was forced into impeaching the president by liberals in her caucus. She’s wanted to apply a hand brake and halt the process now in order to protect vulnerable freshmen Democrats who supported impeachment.

The votes have been cast. The time to protect those freshmen was before they voted. If Ms. Pelosi wanted to apologize to these freshmen (and others in Trump-won districts), the thing to do is to buy each of them a nice Christmas present.

That being said, impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Imagine Ms. Pelosi’s fear in picking impeachment managers, where your top 3 choices are Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff or Steve Cohen. That’s like picking between a heart attack, a stroke and major blood clots. I haven’t had a stroke. I’ve had the others. There aren’t any good choices in that bunch.

Pelosi feared a Senate trial. The president and many Republicans have said they wanted to summon her, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Bidens and the whistleblower as witnesses in a Senate trial. Nothing good would come from a wide-open Senate trial for Democrats.

Holding onto the articles of impeachment wouldn’t prevent the Senate from calling these witnesses. They’d be called during regular committee hearings. In the case of Adam Schiff, they wouldn’t need to call him. President Trump could beat him up on the campaign trail.

Pelosi wanted to hold the articles of impeachment through the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. This would delay a Senate trial until the field of 2020 Democrats settled – and would protect senators running for president.

This is totally stupid. Let President Trump embarrass these candidates during his State of the Union Address on national TV. Anyone that thinks that President Trump’s speechwriters wouldn’t figure out a way to highlight the corrupt process while hurting House vulnerable freshmen is kidding themselves.

By holding the articles, Pelosi was daring McConnell to advance some sort of resolution (which wouldn’t have direct parliamentary bearing on the articles of impeachment approved by the House) to condemn the House’s action. Support for such a resolution could be a challenge, and politically dangerous, for vulnerable Republican senators facing re-election in 2020: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Martha McSally of Arizona and Cory Gardner of Colorado.

Either that or Sen. McConnell could just set a date for the trial to start. After that, Sen. McConnell could tell Ms. Pelosi that the Sixth Amendment guarantees President Trump a right to a speedy trial. He then tells her to comply or else.

By holding the articles, Pelosi could dictate when a Senate trial could begin. After all, the Senate is pretty much bound to go through the motions of a trial at least. Perhaps Pelosi could send the articles in the early fall – right before the presidential election.

What idiot camp up with this idea? Whoever it was is constitutionally illiterate and a terrible political strategist. President Trump’s lawyers would’ve filed a lawsuit long before the Democrats had picked their nominee. They would’ve won that lawsuit for a speedy trial. President Trump’s legal team would’ve won his acquittal by then, too.

From a strategic standpoint, it’s stupid. President Trump would be attending. The senators would be though, one of whom might be the Democrats’ nominee. Further, we’re back to highlighting the fact that President Trump was impeached solely on hearsay testimony. We’re back to highlighting the fact that Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler would be the Democrats’ lead prosecutor. Any day or week that Adam Schiff is the face of the Democratic Party during the campaign’s stretch drive is a win for the GOP.

By keeping the articles in the House, Pelosi would maintain control, instead of Trump. McConnell wouldn’t have control either. With the articles of impeachment in limbo, everyone else would be off balance – except Pelosi.

Anyone that’s studied Trump and thinks that he’d sit idly by without upsetting that applecart is kidding themselves. It’s foolish to think that Pelosi is this magical creature that controls DC with her magical powers. Finally, anyone that thinks that President Trump wouldn’t greenlight his attorneys to file a lawsuit forcing a trial is foolish.

This article highlights the thinking of DC insiders. If that’s the case, then it’s easy to see why Washington, DC is nicknamed the Swamp. The facts speak for themselves.

Apparently, Democrats aren’t interested in the American people’s needs. That’s obvious since they’re talking about another impeachment investigation. This isn’t speculation. Democrats filed briefs “Monday related to their quest for testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn and secret grand jury material from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation” that referenced another impeachment investigation.

Whether they’re serious about another impeachment investigation or not is almost immaterial. It’s clear that Democrats are serious about another round of investigations into President Trump. Keeping Democrats in the majority in the House means that Democrats won’t focus on the people’s business. It means that they’ll spend their time investigating President Trump in an attempt to hurt him internationally and electorally.

Democrats insist that President Trump’s phone call to President Zelenskiy hurt the US’s national security. Quite the opposite is true. The Democrats’ intentional timing decisions on their investigations has weakened President Trump’s position while he negotiated with China, North Korea and the EU. Democrats scheduled an investigative hearing for the day that President Trump started the Singapore Summit. They pulled the same stunt when President Trump met with Xi Jinping.

Democrats should continue acting like dictators. That’s what Pelosi is acting like. She has a lengthy history of that type of behavior, starting with shoving the ACA down our throat. The House Democrats’ leader’s latest dictatorial move was what might be called Pelosi’s hurry-up-and-wait impeachment drama. That’s where she rendered a verdict at the start, then finished with a vote that confirmed that pre-ordained verdict.

The Resist Movement, which Pelosi’s Democrats are part of, hate President Trump. They’re the ones approving of the Judiciary Committee’s Democrats changing the rules virtually on a daily basis. They’re the ones approving of the Intel Committee’s Democrats changing the rules virtually on a daily basis when they were taking depositions. These Democrats don’t represent the rule-of-law. These Democrats don’t value fairness or due process, either. Here’s how they value due process:

As long as the Resist Movement is giving House Democrats their orders, House Democrats will continue their impeachment attempts. That’s why it’s time to throw these tyrants into the dustbin of history. Lindsey Graham got it right with this tweet:

Immediately after House Democrats impeached President Trump on a party-line vote, Speaker Pelosi announced that they’d be calling the USMCA up for a vote. With much pomp and fanfare, she announced that it was a much different trade agreement than the one that President Trump and Robert Lighthizer had sent them. The truth is that labor got a couple minor concessions.

The purpose of the vote on USMCA was to prove that Democrats could walk and chew gum at the same time. To use Mitch McConnell’s immortal words, “it’s time to stop this charade.” It isn’t that Ms. Pelosi isn’t a skilled legislator. It’s that the Resist Movement isn’t interested in legislating. They’re only interested in investigating, then impeaching. Without having sent articles of impeachment over to the Senate, House Democrats have started toying with the idea of impeaching President Trump again:

The lawyer for House Judiciary Committee Democrats revealed in a Monday court filing that there is a possibility lawmakers could pursue even more articles of impeachment against President Trump, despite having already adopted two of them last week following a grueling, historic and bitterly partisan debate. The prospect of additional articles, while perhaps unlikely, was floated as part of a court battle over Democrats’ bid to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

House Democrats are quickly becoming a total farce. They spent their first year investigating President Trump while waiting for the Mueller Report to be published. When it finally was published, it was a monumental flop. Then they waited for Robert Mueller to “breath life” into the report. That hearing was a disaster, too.

Finally, a CIA snitch allegedly filed a whistleblower complaint even though they aren’t covered by the ICWPA. Impeachment 1.0 was off and running. Just 6 weeks later, the House had completed its ‘investigation.’ House Democrats had impeached President Trump on what Jonathan Turley said would be “the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”

Shortly before a 4 p.m. deadline imposed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the committee counsel filed a brief making their case for why they still want to hear from McGahn, despite having already voted for impeachment.

Here’s the rest of the story:

While the Mueller probe never factored into the impeachment articles that were adopted, House Democrats’ counsel Douglas Letter argued that McGahn’s testimony is still vital, and could even be relevant to “consideration of whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment” against Trump.

This is another Democrat fishing expedition. Jerry Nadler shouldn’t be taken seriously because he’s changed the rules more often than a chameleon changing colors against a paisley background.

Let’s simplify this. Democrats just wasted a year investigating President Trump. In that time, another Democrat told them that they’d compiled the thinnest pile of evidence during the shortest impeachment investigation ever. They took a one-morning pause to vote for USMCA before returning to a second round of impeachment investigations.

It isn’t a matter of whether Democrats can walk and chew gum. It’s a matter of whether they’re interested in doing the people’s business. At this point, the verdict on that is pretty clear.

Finally, this video highlights how Democrats weren’t interested in hearing firsthand testimony or admitting that they’d heard exculpatory evidence:

Then again, Democrats weren’t interested in governing, either.

This morning, Sen. Schumer made a major mistake during his press conference. He said that “any Senate impeachment trial should be ‘focused on the facts that the House presented, not on conspiracy theories.'” Then he renewed his request for 4 new witnesses that didn’t testify.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to square those statements. At this point, they’re contradictory at best. How do you focus solely on the facts that House Democrats presented, then insist on calling 4 witnesses that House Democrats didn’t call?

It’s apparent that Sen. Schumer hasn’t figured it out that this is hurting Democrats. The longer Pelosi hangs onto the articles of impeachment, the more this looks like a partisan operation. The longer Sen. Schumer insists on calling witnesses that the House didn’t fight for, the weaker the prosecution’s case looks. And the Democrats’ case already looked weak.

The only thing that’ll hurt the Democrats’ efforts more is what’s inevitable. Picture Pelosi sitting in her office thinking of the nightmare of choosing between Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff to be the lead prosecutor. Then think of that nightmare happening on national TV. Then think of it happening for the next 2-3 weeks right before the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary.

On the other hand, think of how positive Republicans are, knowing that Doug Collins, Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe have been named impeachment managers for the trial. The thought of Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler making unsubstantiated accusations based on hearsay and presumptions, then watching Mssrs. Collins, Jordan and Ratcliffe present exculpatory evidence that’ll exonerate President Trump is something Republicans should look forward to. Anytime that the face of the Republican Party is Collins, Jordan and Ratcliffe, it’s a good day. Anytime that Nadler and Schiff are the faces of the Democrat Party, it’s a fantastic day for the GOP.

In the first half of this interview, Trey Gowdy dismantles Speaker Pelosi’s impeachment arguments and Sen. Schumer’s trial arguments:

Though President Trump just got impeached by a bunch of vitriol-filled House Democrats, there’s lots for Republicans to be thankful for. Because Republicans dealt with adversity after adversity after adversity, starting with President Trump, and because Republicans learned from him month-by-month, Republicans end the year stronger than they started the year.

First, this goes far beyond RNC fundraising and Trump rallies, though those are certainly signs of GOP vitality. Anyone who’s watched Nancy Pelosi’s post-impeachment press conference or any of Joe Biden’s debate performances couldn’t possibly mistake them for the vitality displayed at a Trump rally. How can you watch this video, then think that Speaker Pelosi is well?

Here’s the transcript:

We are, we have, I have… When we bring the bill, which is just so you know, there’s a bill made in order by the Rules Committee that we can call up at any time in order to send it to the Senate and to have the provisions in it to pay for the, for the impeachment. And then the next step, and the eh, que, uh… uhl … … whatever you want to call it, the qu uh, the trial.

But I digress from the topic at hand. The topic at hand is how strengthened Republicans are. Throughout the year and before, Republicans rose up and fought back. During the Kavanaugh fight, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins stepped forward. They became leaders. Thanks to their leadership, Judge Kavanaugh got confirmed and became Justice Kavanaugh.

A year prior to the release of the Mueller Report, Devin Nunes questioned the validity of the opening of the counterintelligence investigation. Shortly thereafter, Adam Schiff put out his own report that essentially said that everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. When the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019, the Nunes Memo was totally vindicated while the Schiff Memo was rendered total trash. The fight between then-Chairman Nunes and current Chairman Schiff is over. Schiff lost in a trouncing.

As for the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats outnumbered Republicans. This committee provides additional proof that quality is more important than quantity. Justice is chaired by Jerry Nadler, where his chief ‘assistants’ are Zoe Lofgren, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hakeem Jefferies and Eric Swalwell. Meanwhile, Doug Collins could call on talented people like John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, Ken Buck, Matt Gaetz and Tom McClintock.

Much needs to be said in praise of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. They both showed leadership at the most important times. Sen. McConnell helped confirm dozens of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. Most recently, Sen. McConnell totally obliterated Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff. To be fair, though, Devin Nunes pretty much softened Schiff prior to Sen. McConnell finishing Schiff off. Here’s how Sen. McConnell addressed Article 2 of impeachment:

“What it really does is impeach the president for asserting executive privilege, a two-century-old constitutional tradition.” Presidents beginning with Washington have invoked it and courts repeatedly have recognized it. The House requested extraordinarily sensitive information—exactly the type of requests against which presidents from both parties have asserted privilege.

“It’s not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up,” McConnell said. “That’s not a constitutional crisis! It’s a routine occurrence. Separation of powers is messy—by design. Here’s what should have happened — either the president and Congress negotiate a settlement or the third branch of government, the judiciary, addresses the dispute between the other two.”

During the Nixon impeachment inquiry, it was discovered that President Nixon told the FBI that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters. That’s a legitimate constitutional crisis. It isn’t an impeachable offense when a president asserts privilege. In fact, that’s how the Constitution is supposed to work. When there’s a dispute that can’t resolved through negotiations, the judicial branch should settle the dispute:

“Nobody made Chairman Schiff do this,” McConnell said of Schiff’s decision to forego court assistance to overcome the president’s lack of cooperation with the probe. “In Nixon, the courts were allowed to do their work. In Clinton, the courts were allowed to do their work.” But these House Democrats, he added, “decided that due process is too much work.”

McConnell further challenged House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s attempt to bully the executive branch out of asserting executive privilege. He quoted Schiff saying, “any action that forces us to litigate … will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”

Saying that a perfectly constitutional solution takes too much time is proof that Democrats were in too much of a hurry. That’s a political consideration. That isn’t a constitutional argument.

As Republicans approach a new year, there are lots of things to be thankful for. 2019 wasn’t a perfect year for the GOP but it was a strong year.

Jessica Tarlov is a Fox News contributor and quite the Democrat spinmeister. In this Fox News op-ed, she spins quite the tall tale. She starts by saying “Imagine you are accused of a crime and ordered to stand trial – and you happily learn that your defense attorney is the jury foreman, and a majority of the jurors are your close friends and undying supporters. Ridiculous? Well, that’s exactly the situation President Trump will face when he goes on trial in the Senate following his impeachment Wednesday by the House of Representatives.”

Ms. Tarlov is a smooth spinmeister. Notice how she insinuated that President Trump had committed a crime. She didn’t actually say that. She just said “Imagine you are accused of a crime.” It’s clear at that point that she’s talking about President Trump even though President Trump hasn’t been accused of committing a crime. In fact, he’s the first president impeached without committing a crime.

Later, she writes this:

Impeaching a president is a solemn event. This is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., came to work Wednesday in a black dress, the traditional outfit for a funeral, and gave House members who momentarily cheered when the first article of impeachment was adopted the look of a very, very disappointed mother.

In Pelosi’s attempt to make this impeachment look like a solemn event, the people who actually run the party, aka AOC + 3, decided to celebrate:

Later in the article, Tarlov wrote this:

What happens now? Will McConnell and Graham try to change the oath? Perhaps they’d like it to say: “I will do whatever Donald Trump tells me to do at all times, never questioning his orders. I will never convict him of anything, because he can do whatever he wants.”

The flaw with Ms. Tarlov’s thinking is that Democrats haven’t presented any proof that President Trump committed a crime. House Democrats passed a pair of crime-less articles of impeachment because they couldn’t find a crime. Here’s a thought — standing with a man wrongly accused is what people with character do.

But while the framers anticipated a rogue president who would put himself above the law, they never imagined the possibility that rogue senators would disregard their duty and pledge blind loyalty to support the president, no matter what he did. This effectively puts the president above the law and above the Constitution.

Again, Ms. Tarlov’s presumption is that President Trump has committed a crime. Democrats think that despite the fact that there isn’t any proof that happened. I’ve watched the hearings. I’ve seen people discredit the accusations made by Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland:

Ms. Tarlov, where’s the proof that President Trump committed a crime? Is it invisible? Or is it that it just doesn’t exist?