Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category

Thus far, all the ‘testimony’ taken by the House Intel Committee has been taken behind closed doors. Thus far, Schiff’s Democrats have leaked Chairman-approved portions of the testimony. Thus far, Chairman Schiff has refused to publish the full transcript of any of the testifiers’ testimony.

By contrast, President Trump released the transcript of his call with Ukraine President Zelenskyy. By contrast, President Trump released all 9 pages of the informant’s complaint. By contrast, President Trump released the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion.

To summarize, President Trump has specialized in transparency while Democrats have specialized in leaking and secrecy. That’s before talking about the Democrats’ attempts to hide the identity of the whistleblower. Speaker Pelosi has frequently talked about protecting the Constitution from President Trump, which is a joke. The Constitution requires that a defendant be allowed to confront his accuser. This isn’t a suggestion. This isn’t proper etiquette. It’s required.

Schiff’s Democrats don’t want that to happen, perhaps because the Democrats’ faux whistleblower is compromised:

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson told lawmakers last week that the whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump and Ukraine has set off an impeachment inquiry previously had “some type of professional relationship” with one of the 2020 Democratic candidates, the Washington Examiner first reported and Axios’ Jonathan Swan has confirmed.

This isn’t a little detail. By itself, it demolishes the Democrats’ faux whistleblower. Let’s put it this way. If Trey Gowdy or John Ratcliffe cross-examined this political operative in public, that operative’s reputation would be nonexistent within 10 minutes. This faux impeachment inquiry would be on life support at best.

Perhaps that explains why Schiff’s Democrats have been so secretive. If the Democrats’ witnesses have been that pathetic, I wouldn’t want their witnesses’ testimony made public either. Then again, if that’s what I had to work with, I’d end the inquiry before I got embarrassed in public.

It’s time for Democrats to admit that they don’t have any evidence that President Trump has done anything worthy of impeachment. Their whistleblower/political operative isn’t credible. The transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call is a major nothingburger. The Mueller report was a much-anticipated dud.

To the Democrats: the first call to impeach Trump came the day after he was elected. There was another call for his impeachment in December, 2016. There have been calls for President Trump’s impeachment virtually every month since then. Give it up. President Trump has been under investigation his entire presidency. Thus far, the best investigators in the US haven’t found anything.

Perhaps, you should take that as a hint that there’s nothing there.

Tuesday afternoon, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Engel and Chairman Cummings received this letter from Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President. The statement stated the administration’s case quite clearly, saying “you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.

Later, Cipollone wrote “For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency by declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was also powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiff’s decision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.

Clearly, House Democrats knew that this impeachment inquiry was a sham, an exercise in the nastiest partisanship seen in Washington, DC in decades. Despite that, Speaker Pelosi issued this statement that confirmed what Mr. Cipollone wrote. Ms. Pelosi wrote this:

The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the President’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.

This is proof that President Trump’s due process rights are being violated by Speaker Pelosi. This isn’t an impeachment inquiry. The definition of the word inquiry is “a seeking or request for truth, information, or knowledge.” Ms. Pelosi’s statement is just that — a statement. It wasn’t “a seeking or request for truth, information, or knowledge” by any stretch of the imagination. It was an accusation. Contained in Ms. Pelosi’s words was a verdict that President Trump, in her mind, was already guilty of “hiding the truth” and that he was already guilty of “obstruction.”

It’s noteworthy that President Trump released the transcript of his call with Ukraine President Zelensky virtually immediately, along with the informant’s complaint the following day. It’s noteworthy because it’s been a week since House Republicans started asking Chairman Schiff to release the transcripts of the witnesses the Democrats questioned. They still haven’t received any of those transcripts.

Further, it’s noteworthy that each of these witnesses have been interrogated in closed sessions. That’s the opposite of meeting a person’s due process requirements. This paragraph stings Ms. Pelosi:

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 titled this post “This isn’t a monarchy & Pelosi isn’t the queen.” It fits that paragraph perfectly. This is important:

To comply with the Constitution’s demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony. Likewise, the Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry. The Committees’ current procedures provide none of these basic constitutional rights.

If we had real journalists working at the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post, we wouldn’t require diatribes like this:

Thus far, Democrats have made up the rules each day. Further, Democrats have violated President Trump’s due process rights. Worst, they’re doing this all behind closed doors. The only conclusion that’s reasonable to draw is that Democrats don’t want people to hear what the witnesses have said.

Finally, Democrats are working to hide the identity of the ‘whistleblowers’. The whistleblowers’ law doesn’t cover these Democrat operatives. Further, we found out Tuesday night that one of them was recently employed by one of President Trump’s 2020 challengers. Does that sound fair? If that sounds fair to you, I’ve got a beautiful bridge I’d like to sell you.

During the course of this faux impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi first acted like she was the queen of the House of Representatives, then acted like she was judge, jury and executioner in President Trump’s trial.

Since Angie Craig and Dean Phillips announced that they supported impeachment proceedings, they’ve resisted making it a level playing field for Republicans and Democrats alike. Thus far, the ‘rules’ have been made up on the fly.

If that’s the Democrats’ definition of constitutional fairness, I don’t think many people will agree with Democrats. We’ve been told by Ms. Pelosi that this is a solemn matter that requires constant prayer and introspection. These hearings haven’t featured fairness, much less constitutional principles. Why haven’t Phillips and Craig insisted on investigative fairness? If this is supposed to be a time of solemnity, why hasn’t Schiff displayed fairness throughout?

Craig and Phillips flipped their opinions on whether to conduct an investigation into impeachment based on nothing. Let’s remember that these freshmen Democrats switched their opinions before the facts of the case changed. When Craig and Phillips switched to yes on the impeachment investigation, they didn’t switch their opinion on whether they think President Trump should be impeached.

Craig and Phillips switched their opinion the Friday before Queen Nancy declared the impeachment inquiry was official. Let’s not forget that the Trump-Zelensky transcript wasn’t released until the day after Queen Nancy’s declaration. Let’s not forget that the CIA snitch’s complaint wasn’t released until that Thursday. It’s fair to ask Craig and Phillips why they changed their minds.

Let’s ask this Democrat duo what rules must be put in place to ensure fairness and constitutional due process. Should President Trump’s attorneys have the right to confront President Trump’s accusers? If not, why not? If defendants’ representation are allowed to cross-examine witnesses, shouldn’t a man have that right if he’s about to potentially be thrown out of office?

Craig and Phillips haven’t pushed for a real impeachment vote. Apparently, they won’t vote for a real investigation. Apparently, Democrats are willing to vote for articles of impeachment without an investigation:

House Democrats believe they have the 217 votes needed to pass articles of impeachment against President Trump stemming from his Ukraine call, enough votes to impeach Trump and send articles to the Senate, even before their planned hearings or formal investigation.

That’s breathtakingly stunning. At least 40 of those Democrats just signed their political death certificate. It might reach higher; perhaps as much as 50-55 might get defeated. These Democrats just said that they’ll vote to undo an election without conducting an investigation. Remember this moment of solemnity?

That’s when Ms. Pelosi said “The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the President says that “Article II says that I can do whatever I want.” It’s time Ms. Pelosi went to law school. She apparently hasn’t figured out that due process is a constitutional right. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi apparently doesn’t know that the right to a speedy trial doesn’t mean skipping the investigation.

Angie Craig and Dean Phillips are part of that 217 vote majority who will vote to impeach President Trump without investigating him. If that isn’t the definition of radicalism, then such a definition doesn’t exist. Craig and Phillips should join a lengthy list of radical Democrats who’ll need to look for work come New Years Day 2020.

Susan Ferrechio’s impeachment article, not to be confused with articles of impeachment, highlights the pickle Democrats face. Ferrechio wrote “Republicans contend Pelosi was shielding politically vulnerable Democrats when she broke precedent and announced last month that the House is holding an impeachment inquiry without the customary vote. Democrats are defending dozens of contested seats, many in swing districts that support Trump and where constituents frown on the impeachment investigations. But Republicans say the political advantage Pelosi is trying to maintain by avoiding a vote is breaking decades of precedent and is fundamentally unfair to the Republican minority and the president.”

Pelosi hasn’t held a vote on initiating an impeachment inquiry for multiple reasons. One reason is to protect Pelosi’s vulnerable freshmen. Another reason for not holding a vote is to deny Republicans the right to subpoena witnesses and documents. Ms. Pelosi is trying to railroad a president. The last thing she wants is fairness.

She also wants to everything possible to hold onto her Speaker’s Gavel. Opening up those vulnerable freshmen Democrats for criticism on a difficult vote isn’t something she’s interested in. Pelosi expressed that in a letter to Kevin McCarthy:

The existing rules of the House provide House Committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction, including impeachment investigations. There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

Actually, without a vote, the White House can ignore most ‘impeachment’ subpoenas because Congress doesn’t have law enforcement authorities. Congress has subpoena power but only for things that fit into the category of legislative purpose. As long as Congress asks for things so that it can write legislation, the courts will usually approve their subpoenas.

The minute the House attempts to become a law enforcement institution, they’re in trouble, constitutionally speaking. The Constitution assigns specific responsibilities to each of the branches. To help each branch accomplish that specific branch’s responsibilities, the Constitution gives those branches the authority to successfully accomplish those responsibilities.

As far as I know, impeachment is the only exception. Normally, law enforcement and investigations are the executive branch’s responsibility. The exception to that is with impeachment. That can’t be left to the executive branch because they’d frequently be investigating colleagues. Until Pelosi holds a vote of the entire House, the Democrats will continue getting told no.

Until Democrats follow the rules instead of making them up as they go along, we’ll have a system of madness. It’s time to stop that madness:

When it comes to explaining the House proceedings currently known as an impeachment inquiry, I trust Andy McCarthy’s insights. When it comes to legal matters, Andy’s insights should be sought because he’s a legal genius. This article is another masterpiece by Mr. McCarthy. As is always the case with Mr. McCarthy, it’s a lengthy read but it’s totally worth it.

For instance, McCarthy starts by saying this:

The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It’s right there in black-and-white: In article I, section 2, clause 5, our Constitution vests the entirety of the power to call for removal of the president of the United States in a single body — the House. Not in the Speaker of the House. In the House of Representatives. The institution, not one of its members.

To be sure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a very powerful government official: second in the line of succession to the presidency; arguably, the most powerful member of Congress. She wields decisive influence on the business of her chamber. She even has the power to induce the House to vote on whether to conduct an impeachment inquiry. But she does not have the power to impeach on her own.

In other words, what Pelosi, Schiff, Cummings, et al, have been calling an official impeachment inquiry isn’t an official impeachment inquiry until the House of Representatives votes, as an institution, the impeachment inquiry isn’t official. Or, to use Mr. McCarthy’s words, “In point of fact, the House has no impeachment inquiry; congressional Democrats have an impeachment political campaign.”

That’s why McCarthy makes this statement:

This exhibition includes strident letters from a cabal of committee chairs, all Democrats, falsely claiming that a refusal by Trump-administration officials to comply with their demands for information and testimony “shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.”

Next, McCarthy explains the definition of obstruction:

Obstruction happens when there is tampering with documents or witnesses.

He also explains what obstruction isn’t:

Presumptively, a person who refuses to comply with a lawful document demand is not tampering with the documents; to the contrary, the subpoena recipient is asserting a legal claim of privilege that excuses compliance. If I am a lawyer, for example, and a congressional committee subpoenas notes from my meeting with a client, my refusal to surrender the notes is not an obstruction of the House’s investigation. It is an assertion that the attorney–client privilege justifies my withholding of confidential communications. If I am right about that, the legal wrong is Congress’s issuance of a subpoena, not my refusal to honor it.

I won’t pretend to be the legal scholar that Mr. McCarthy is. I’ll just point you in his direction, then tell you that listening to him instead of Ms. Pelosi, Chairman Schiff or DFL Party Chair Ken Martin is a wise decision.

I’ll leave you with this parting thought:

The Framers designed impeachment as a political remedy, not a legal one. I argued not that President Obama was a bad person but that he was behaving as the kind of chief executive the Framers feared — i.e., defying, in several ways, the separation-of-powers structure of the Constitution. Nevertheless, because impeachment is political, it is not enough to have acts that arguably qualify as impeachable abuses of power; there must also be a public consensus that gives Congress the political will to remove the president from power.

DFL Party Chair Ken Martin chose to follow the lead of Nancy Pelosi during the Almanac Roundtable Friday night. Let’s just say that Martin is as convincing as Pelosi when it comes to talking about how sad a time this is for our nation. In other words, neither was convincing. When Cathy Wurzer asked who would be the political winner from impeachment, Martin even recited a cheesy line that “nobody wins with impeachment.”

I thought Chair Carnahan started off ok when she said that Democrats started off the week by going after President Trump again. It’s indisputable that Democrats have spent far more time criticizing President Trump than they’ve spent trying to keep their campaign promises. It’s worth noting that Cathy Wurzer was particularly unfair as the moderator, too. Wurzer asked “Why is it appropriate for a president to call foreign leaders and suggest investigations of his political rivals?”

Personally, the obvious answer is that the political rival in question, Vice President Biden, is a corrupt SOB, as is his son. The best way to stay out of trouble is to not be as corrupt as Joe or Hunter Biden. If the Biden family wasn’t that corrupt, President Trump wouldn’t have to call them out for corruption. It doesn’t help when the elder Biden smarted off like this:

That’s the jackass Ken Martin is defending with a straight face. Then, with another straight face, Martin said “It’s a really sad day for America. The fact is that this is a solemn and grave situation we find ourselves in and no one should take glee in the fact that a sitting president of the United States is being impeached. The reality, though, is that this President, while in office, has tried to extort a foreign government to influence our elections. Not only is that wrong. It’s a brazen abuse of power which threatens our national security and it also violates a president’s oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is a serious matter. It’s not a political matter. There are huge questions that need to be answered and that’s what this impeachment is about. Look, we’re at a moment in our country’s history where our trust in government, our trust in politicians, our trust in institutions is at an all-time low and if we’re going to restore integrity and trust with the American people, we can’t have this type of behavior in the highest office in the land. We need to have accountability. There’s a reason why our Constitution is set up the way it is, with checks and balances and that’s what this is about. Not only to hold the president accountable to his actions but to make sure that we are doing our job of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.”

First, it’s time to call Martin out as a bald-faced liar, perhaps on the level of Rep. Schiff. Saying that “this President, while in office, has tried to extort a foreign government to influence our elections” is an outright lie. There’s no proof that supports that accusation. Period. Chairman Martin, which foreign government did President Trump extort? Chairman Martin, what thing of value did President Trump receive from a foreign government? Chairman Martin, what did President Trump use to allegedly gain this thing of value?

Next, insisting that this unmentioned thing that President Trump extorted from a foreign leader will “influence our elections” is laughable at best. If Martin thinks that Biden represents a serious challenge to President Trump, my first question would be ‘what drugs are you using?’ The next question would be ‘how expensive are they?’ Seriously, anyone that thinks that any of those nobodies running for the Democrats’ presidential nomination is a serious challenger is kidding themselves.

Third, the hint that this isn’t serious is when Martin says that “there are huge questions that need to be answered and that’s what this impeachment is about.” When Congress voted to open the impeachment on Nixon, there were multiple constitutional crises to deal with and multiple additional crimes to deal with.” I’m betting that Martin couldn’t honestly tell you if a crime had been committed. I’m certain that he’d admit that there isn’t a constitutional crisis.

Democrats continuously insist that “nobody is above the law, not even the president.” Here’s a radical thought for Democrats: nobody is above the law, not even former vice presidents and their kids. Hunter Biden shouldn’t get a free pass just because his washed-up dad is running for president. President Trump had an obligation to finish the Biden family’s corruption. If someone has a problem with that, that’s their problem.

Later in the interview, Chairwoman Carnahan rattled off a number of President Trump’s accomplishments. Chairman Martin couldn’t resist taking a cheapshot at President Trump, saying “President Trump made a lot of promises to Minnesotans and to Americans when he ran in 2016. He said he would fix health care. He said he would make it more affordable and accessible. He’s done nothing.

What a coincidence. Pelosi’s pilgrims promised to fix health care, too. Instead of fixing Obamacare, they spent tons of time investigating President Trump. Even while Robert Mueller was investigating President Trump, Democrats didn’t lift a finger to fix Obamacare. This election, rather than looking backward, Democrats will have to defend Medicare-for-All because Elizabeth Warren will likely be the Democrats’ nominee. Good luck defending that proposition, Kenny. You’ll need it.

Towards the end of the interview, Martin was stupid enough to say that Democrats believed in the rule of law. That’s from an idiot whose party thinks that citizens should pay for illegal aliens’ health care. That’s coming from someone whose political party thinks that illegal immigration should be decriminalized. Does that sound like a political party whose highest priority is the rule of law? Give me a break.

Later, Martin insisted that Democrats put a high priority on people of character. That’s difficult to accept considering that their point person on impeachment is Adam Schiff. Schiff lied about never meeting the CIA agent/snitch/Democrat activist. Schiff is the liar who pretended to read from the transcript while he made the entire thing up. That certainly sounds like a man of sterling character.

Finally, Martin asked “The other day, on the lawn of the White House, the President implored Ukraine and China to do an investigation of one of the President’s political rivals?” The correct answer to that question is ‘you’d better believe it.’ Hillary blamed the FBI for costing her the presidency. That’s BS. She cost herself the White House because she was utterly corrupt. This time, Vice President Biden is utterly corrupt. If he’d led an exemplary life, President Trump wouldn’t have a reason to have those countries investigate Biden.

The solution, Mr. Martin, is to stop having corrupt people who’ve been in DC for a combined 75 years run for president. If eliminating corruption is your top priority, that should be simple, Chairman Martin.

Friday night on Almanac, Larry Jacobs of the U of M’s Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey School was interviewed about the impeachment process. Early in the interview, Jacobs said that “these folks are new to the process. We’ve already seen Congressman Schiff make some mistakes. Washington Post already called him out for a Pinocchio because he wasn’t fully forthcoming about his relationships and his conversations with the whistleblower.”

Adam Schiff didn’t lie because he was “new to the process.” Schiff lied because he’s a dishonest political hack. Further, that isn’t the only lie Rep. Schiff told. His opening statement at the Maguire hearing was a complete fabrication. Why Speaker Pelosi picked Schiff to be her point person on this is puzzling.

Later, Jacobs said that we’ll start seeing subpoenas getting sent out to the White House. That’s wrong, too, because they aren’t considered by judges to be subpoenas until you have a vote of the Committee of the Whole, which is as it sounds. That’s where all 435 representatives vote, in this case to open an impeachment inquiry. Because Ms. Pelosi hasn’t held that vote, we don’t have an official inquiry.

That’s an important distinction because courts look at those so-called subpoenas as “requests for information” if they aren’t issued for “legislative purposes.” It’s an issue of separation of powers. If Congress wants to impeach a president, then it’s given limited law enforcement authorities. Otherwise, their subpoenas must be done for legislative purposes.

Later in the interview, Jacobs said “These are sacred values and law. The president has been, both openly and behind the scenes, talking to foreign powers about contributing to his domestic political campaign.” That’s false. Further, Jacobs doesn’t have proof that verifies his allegations. At the top of page 3 of the Trump-Zelensky phone call transcript, President Trump said “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. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike — I guess you have one of your weal thy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation.”

There’s no way that can be construed as President Trump asking foreign powers to contribute to his re-election campaign. This can’t be construed that way either:

The other thing, there’s a lot talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it — It sounds horrible to me.

You’d have to find a thoroughly liberal judge to rule that as a campaign finance violation. I’m talking about a judge to the left of the judges on the Ninth Circuit. I don’t know if such a critter exists. But I digress.

Let’s stipulate for this conversation that it is a campaign finance violation. Even if that’s true, that’s usually handled by the candidate writing a check to the FEC. I’ve yet to see that type of dispute resolved through impeachment.

It’s indisputable that Richard Nixon would’ve been impeached and convicted if he hadn’t resigned his office. Kenneth Starr cited multiple felonies that he accused Bill Clinton of committing. In the end, Clinton surrendered his Arkansas law license and pay the plaintiff almost $1,000,000. Both of those impeachment inquiries started by investigating charged crimes.

Can Professor Jacobs seriously insist that the Trump impeachment semi-inquiry is even close in terms of a constitutional crisis as Nixon telling staff to destroy documents and wiretap phone conversations without a warrant? That’s what a legitimate constitutional crisis looks like. What’s happening now is a farce. To mention the 2 things together is silly.

For a little over a week, Ms. Pelosi has been talking about this being a solemn time, that we should keep President Trump in prayer and that Jefferson, Madison and Franklin gave us “a republic if you can keep it.” Ms. Pelosi has repeatedly said that respecting the Constitution was the Democrats’ highest priority. Yet when she’s been asked to give Republicans the right to ask witnesses questions or to subpoena witnesses, Ms. Pelosi has been an autocrat.

When she started the impeachment inquiry, she didn’t do it by announcing the results of a vote from the People’s House. 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. No special rules were created for this special investigation. Impeachment investigations, we understand, aren’t like other investigations because so much more is at stake.

We’re talking about undoing the will of the American people with impeachment and conviction. Other than voting to go to war, I can’t imagine a more somber moment the House experiences. Instead of voting on impeachment, Ms. Pelosi walked up to a podium like a queen and declared that the House had officially started their impeachment inquiry:

Pelosi caved to the Squad, Maxine Waters and the other nutjobs in her caucus. The rest of her caucus didn’t even get a chance to express the will of their constituents. The somewhat more moderate Democrats were told what they’d signed up for. Queen Nancy had made her dictatorial ruling. Queen Nancy had made the Democrats’ decision for them, too.

Remember when Queen Nancy led the fight for the ACA? That’s when Queen Nancy shoved Obamacare down our throats and 63 Democrats into involuntary retirement. That’s when Queen Nancy became famous for this:

In 2010, TEA Party activists stepped into voting booths across America, along with other patriots, and voted out Democrats en masse. When the results were finalized, Queen Nancy was no longer Speaker/Dictator because Republicans were the new majority. It’s time to throw Queen Nancy out of House leadership once and for all. It’s time we put the Squad in the minority for the foreseeable future, too.

After reading House GOP Whip Steve Scalise’s op-ed, it’s easy to decide what the House should focus on. Democrats chose faux impeachment proceedings, complete with faux due process and faux solemnity. Meanwhile, Republicans use the tools available to the minority to push for ratification of the USMCA, aka NAFTA 2.0.

Democrats’ loss of interest in legislating is particularly bad when it comes to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). USMCA is the Trump administration’s replacement for the outdated NAFTA agreement, which was passed back in the 1990s, in a much different business and trade environment than the one we know now. USMCA is widely bipartisan, supported by everyone from trade groups to farmers, and could be the law of the land as soon as this year if Democrats would just put it on the House floor for a vote.

In other words, Democrats could put the bill on the House floor this week and see USMCA start creating jobs comfortably before Halloween. They’ve chosen instead to pursue history. These Democrats want to become the first group of politicians to impeach a president without evidence.

This is important:

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) — the independent, bipartisan agency charged with providing trade expertise to Congress and the President — estimated that USMCA would create 176,000 jobs and raise our GDP by $68.2 billion. Our exports to Canada would increase by $19.1 billion and our exports to Mexico would increase by $14.2 billion. Most importantly, USITC notes “the agreement would likely have a positive impact on all broad industry sectors within the U.S. economy.”

During next year’s campaign, rest assured that Republicans will ask Democrats, especially freshmen Democrats from Rust Belt and agricultural swing districts, why they didn’t push Democrat leadership to vote on pro-agriculture, pro-manufacturing treaties sooner. Those Democrats won’t have an answer during the campaign. It’s fitting that those Democrats won’t have DC jobs in January, 2021.

How often do we have the opportunity to pass a mutually-beneficial, bipartisan trade deal that will buoy all sectors of our economy? This historic, once-in-a-generation agreement is exactly the kind of legislation the American people send us to Congress to enact. We can level the playing field for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.

It’s time Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats did something productive. The next time Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats do something productive, it’ll be the first time they’ll do something productive this session.

President Trump will send a letter to Speaker Pelosi that will say the White House won’t cooperate with the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry until the full House passes a resolution approving an impeachment inquiry. Thursday afternoon, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter to Pelosi asking Pelosi whether Pelosi would grant co-equal subpoena power to the chair and the ranking member, whether Pelosi would allow President Trump’s counsel to attend all depositions and hearings.

At the end of the list of questions, McCarthy states “By answering ‘no’ to any of the above, you would be acting in direct contradiction of all modern impeachment inquiries of a sitting president. By answering ‘no’ to any of the above, you would be denying the President the bare minimum rights granted to his predecessors.”

Ms. Pelosi gave the game away with this reply:

Pelosi shot back at McCarthy, saying that “existing rules of the House provide House committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction.”

With that reply, Ms. Pelosi admits that this is just like any other congressional investigation from her perspective. She’s welcome to that opinion but that’s BS. Pay close attention to what Ms. Pelosi said in this tweet:


Ms. Pelosi said “The fact that the @HouseGOP’s loyalty is to Trump and not to the Constitution is not going to slow down or impair our ability to keep the republic our Founders envisioned.” Actually, it’s Ms. Pelosi that isn’t being faithful to the Constitution. To impeach a president, then convict that president requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which is 67 votes. That makes it unlike other congressional proceedings. The House only needs a simple majority but the Senate requires a two-thirds majority.

If Speaker Pelosi wants to make up the rules as she goes along, that’s her option. If she thinks that she can get away with that, she’s kidding herself. Making up the rules as they go along won’t meet the requirements for establishing due process. Republicans will squawk about that immediately. With the guy with the biggest, loudest megaphone leading the squawking, it won’t take long to demolish Ms. Pelosi’s pretending to care about the Constitution. (If you don’t establish due process that are adhered to consistently, you aren’t a constitutionalist. Period.)

Republicans can slow this thing down. They have a strong argument to make. If Democrats just want to push this through rocket-docket-style with ever-shifting rules, Republicans will, and should, throw sand in the gears of Ms. Pelosi’s railroad.

Impeachment without a search for the truth isn’t justice. The People’s House should be treated with reverence. Pelosi’s House has been ruled by a tyrant. That’s beneath the dignity of the People’s House. Pelosi didn’t call for a vote to start the impeachment inquiry. She walked up to a podium and announced it. That’s why this is the Democrats’ impeachment, not the House impeachment.

House impeachment requires a vote of the entire House membership. That’s a solemn moment, the kind of thing that Ms. Pelosi has been constantly chattering about for a week. Despite all that talk about solemnity, etc., House Democrats sure are acting like autocrats. FYI- the Constitution doesn’t have anything to do with autocrats. That’s because they’re opposites of each other.