Archive for the ‘Adam Schiff’ Category

God bless Louie Gohmert for exposing the Democrats’ total corruption. Last night, Rep. Gohmert highlighted the Democrats’ utter corruption in this rant:

“A vague abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, the very things the majority has done in preventing us from having the witnesses that could shed light on this, not opinion, but fact witnesses. We needed to hear from those witnesses,” Gohmert said. “People like Sean Misko [a former National Security Council aide who joined Adam Schiff’s staff], Abigail Grace [who also worked at the NSC], Eric Ciaramella, Devon Archer [an American businessman who worked at Burisma], Joe Biden, Nellie Ohr [a contractor for Fusion GPS in 2015 and 2016], and Alexander Chalupa, and so many others. They don’t want fact witnesses. Let’s hear from professors who hate Donald Trump, who are willing to sell their education just to make a point against somebody they don’t like. This is a dangerous, dangerous time in America.”

Instead of hearing from people with firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s nonexistent crimes, Democrats brought in testifiers who didn’t like President Trump. Nadler brought in 3 Democrat activists that insisted that they were constitutional law experts. Within 15 minutes, it was obvious that they weren’t unbiased legal historians. These professors were Democrat activists brought in to do a hit job against President Trump. Their legal theories were debunked by a legitimate constitutional scholar named Jonathan Turley.

Chairman Schiff brought in Democrat-friendly witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch, a woman who’d been fired by President Trump months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. What she added to the hearings is still a mystery. Schiff brought in Lt. Col. Vindman, who told the committee that he’d a) listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and b) told superiors that he had concerns about the call. That definitely got Schiff’s attention. Upon cross-examination, though, we learned that his superior, who also listened in on the call, found nothing wrong with the call.

It isn’t coincidence that virtually every piece of evidence found that either contradicted the Democrat witnesses’ testimony or that showed President Trump not guilty of the Democrats’ accusations was ignored by Chairman Schiff. It isn’t coincidence that Chairman Nadler rejected a request from Republicans to hold a hearing where Republican-requested witnesses. (Why let facts contradict the Democrats’ carefully-crafted storyline?)

That’s how you get 2 articles of impeachment that are so vague that every president in history would’ve been impeached by these Democrats. Think about this: the first article of impeachment, abuse of office, isn’t a crime. Democrats included it because it would’ve been an article of impeachment had Nixon gotten impeached. The difference is explained here:

ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.

Nixon told the FBI that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap the phones of antiwar protesters. It isn’t difficult to argue that’s exponentially more egregious than what President Trump did.

The Democrats’ impeachment process shouldn’t be taken seriously. However, the division and hatred that the Democrats have created through this dishonest process should be studied by historians. The Democrats’ abuse of power shouldn’t be allowed again.

Here’s Louie Gohmert’s rant:

This is Prof. Turley’s admonition to Congressional Democrats on abuse of power:

Obviously, Democrats ignored Prof. Turley. That’s proof of the Democrats’ total corruption.

In a display of the worst partisanship in Washington, DC in decades, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are set to lead the Democrats over the impeachment cliff. Nadler gave away the reason why Democrats are impeaching President Trump:

“We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems when the president threatens the very integrity of that election,” Nadler claimed during Wednesday’s session.

Saying that President Trump is a threat to the 2020 election is BS. That’s a statement that Nadler doesn’t have proof for, though it’s a provocative accusation he’s thrown around before. The American people have seen through Nadler’s and Schiff’s nonsense and have started turning on Democrats:

Democrats from districts that supported Trump in 2016, however, have been less enthusiastic. Recent polls have shown declining support for impeachment in key swing states, with two polls released Wednesday indicating that most Americans did not want Trump removed.

Politico reported earlier this week that the numbers were making a “small group” of moderate Democrats, who have held seats in districts where Trump won in 2016, nervous about how to vote. They instead have suggested Trump be censured, which would prevent the GOP from holding a potentially damaging Senate trial and give them political cover in the upcoming election.

To complicate matters for these so-called moderates, if they vote for censuring President Trump, it’s virtually guaranteed that they’ll get primaried by the Justice Democrats, the organization that propelled AOC. Follow this link to read the Justice Democrats’ platform. But I digress.

Over the cliff they go

Republicans, meanwhile, have vociferously opposed the impeachment effort. The committee’s ranking member, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, stated that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump since he took office. He echoed the White House’s argument that the impeachment was politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.

He and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., each argued that unlike previous presidents who have faced impeachment, Trump was not accused of an offense actually defined by law: neither “abuse of power” nor “obstruction of Congress” is a recognized federal or state crime. Those are the two offenses outlined in the articles of impeachment before the committee. (The separate charge of contempt of Congress, according to the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, exempts the president for separation-of-powers reasons.)

In the Nixon articles of impeachment, one of the articles would have been abuse of power. In that instance, though, there were multiple crimes attached to the article of impeachment. It wasn’t some fuzzy accusation like this article will be. Further, the obstruction of Congress article is utterly laughable.

After President Trump asserted various privileges, Nadler and Schiff insisted that this was obstruction of Congress because President Trump insisted that Congress go through the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is how the system is supposed to work. That’s the remedy envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution. Alan Dershowitz, who I think of as a consistent constitutionalist, highlights the fatal flaw of the Democrats’ articles of impeachment in this op-ed:

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

Nadler and Schiff won’t listen to Prof. Dershowitz so over the cliff they’ll go. Good riddance to these self-destructive Democrats.

Last week, the nation found out that Jonathan Turley a) voted for Hillary Clinton and b) is a man of integrity. This morning, it’s worth examining Prof. Turley’s op-ed about the Horowitz Report.

For instance, Prof. Turley wrote “Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama.”

Prof. Turley continued, saying “In the meantime, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.” How can that be? Jim Comey insists that the FBI did nothing wrong. Comey saying that the FBI did nothing wrong ranks right up there with Adam Schiff saying that he’d seen evidence that was “stronger than circumstantial.”

Then there’s this:

Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself.

This won’t turn out well for Adam Schiff, who put out a report in February, 2018. In that report, which was published after Devin Nunes published “a memo with these explosive revelations that the FBI had targeted [former Trump campaign adviser] Carter Page with surveillance warrants that the dossier from a rival campaign had been the basis for that, and that the FBI had not been straight up with the FISA court.”

While Jim Comey takes a victory lap of sorts, the truth isn’t on Mr. Comey’s side. In his op-ed, Comey said “For two years, the president of the United States and his followers have loudly declared that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. They repeatedly told the American people that the FBI had done all sorts of bad things, such as tapping Donald Trump’s wires during the campaign, opening an investigation without adequate cause, with the intent to damage Trump, and inserting secret informants into the Trump campaign.”

Kim Strassel, though, sticks with the facts in a series of tweets that are best titled “Horowitz findings of facts.” In the first tweet, she wrote “Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to note what a “low threshold” this is. Durham’s statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on reasonableness.”


Ms. Strassel’s third tweet is especially sweet:

4)In fact, IG report says dossier played “central and essential role” in getting FISA warrants. Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings.

In other words, Schiff lied while Devin Nunes got it right. That’s the inescapable truth.

Yes, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou (Mr. Comey, not Schiff), President Trump’s well-informed followers have said “that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.” Let’s talk about that a little. The Horowitz Report emphatically stated that “6)IG finds 17 separate problems with FISA court submissions, including FBI’s overstatement of Steele’s credentials. Also the failure to provide court with exculpatory evidence and issues with Steele’s sources and additional info it got about Steele’s credibility.”

Mr. Comey, if you think that vindicates the FBI, then you’re as delusional as Adam Schiff. In fact, it’s difficult determining who looks worse after reading the report’s findings. Let’s just call it a tie — for last place in the gutter.

10)Overall, IG was so concerned by these “extensive compliance failures” that is has now initiated additional “oversight” to assess how FBI in general complies with “policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons.”

Does Mr. Comey think that the inspector general adding additional oversight “to assess how FBI in general complies with ‘policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons'” is vindication for the FBI?

When the dust finally settles, the FISA warrant application process will be significantly changed to protect against the FBI’s abuses of the system. Those abuses started happening on Mr. Comey’s watch. Whether Mr. Comey or others in the upper echelons of the FBI committed crimes hasn’t been determined. That’s for Mr. Durham to determine. What’s been determined, though, is that Mr. Comey’s FBI made a series of mistakes (is it a mistake if it’s intentional?) that kept the surveillance on Carter Page intact.

What’s been determined is that the Horowitz Report vindicates Devin Nunes, the man that Democrats and Mr. Comey criticized from pillar to post. Unlike Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nunes didn’t just see what he wanted to see. Mr. Nunes saw what was actually there.

Something that’s gotten lost in the impeachment fight is how Speaker Pelosi was intimidated into impeachment by AOC + 3 versus how she’s essentially ignored ratifying the USMCA treaty that the Problem Solvers Caucus. Speaker Pelosi knows that she can intimidate the so-called moderates. That’s what she’s done the last 15 years. When they were debating Cap & Trade, she needed Collin Peterson to vote for it. At the time, I wrote that Collin was a Blue Dog Democrat … until Nancy needed his vote.

Pelosi can’t intimidate AOC + 3. In fact, they’ve intimidated Pelosi into supporting impeachment. Pelosi’s majority isn’t possible without moderates. Still, there’s no enthusiasm without AOC + 3. It’s a Catch 22 situation.

What isn’t a difficult thing to figure out is what will happen to Democrats running for re-election. Appearing on Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo, Kevin McCarthy said “Well, Nancy Pelosi, if you’re one of those 31 Democrats running for re-election — well, you’re a little afraid with hearing what Nancy Pelosi just did putting out this timeline for articles of impeachment. She just gave up your job. If you look at some new polling from American Action Network in these Democrat districts, 54% of their district is more likely to vote against you if you vote for impeachment — and they already have.”

That’s the news from the 31 districts that we’ve heard about since seemingly forever ago. If 54% of voters are voting against you if you vote for impeachment, that isn’t good news for those Democrats who Nancy Pelosi is forcing into voting for impeachment. Couple that information with the increasingly prevalent opinion that Democrats should be called the Do-Nothing Democrats and you’ve got the starting foundation for a wave election that will sweep Ms. Pelosi out of office.

This won’t end well for Democrats because people across the nation have turned on them. Democrats have peddled one impeachment story after another for the past 3 years. First, they peddled the Russia collusion story. When that went bust, they shifted to obstruction of justice. When that wasn’t taken seriously, they pounced on the whistleblower’s report. When that wasn’t taken seriously, Democrats impaneled some focus groups to come up with words that provided greater impact. That’s when they settled for bribery.

Of course, the story hasn’t changed. The transcript is still the transcript. The witnesses against President Trump are limited. It isn’t surprising that people have tuned out. The boy cried wolf a dozen times too often. The boy’s credibility doesn’t exist anymore. (In this story, the boy is played by Adam Schiff. Go figure, right?)

If Adam Schiff isn’t worried, he isn’t getting good legal advice. Kim Strassel’s article highlights a multitude of crimes that Mr. Schiff might be prosecuted for. That’s the subject for others, though, so let’s unpack Ms. Strassel’s article.

In her article, she wrote “Mr. Schiff divulged the phone logs this week in his Ukraine report, thereby revealing details about the communications of Trump attorneys Jay Sekulow and Mr. Giuliani, ranking Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes, reporter John Solomon and others.” A paragraph later, she continued, saying “If we’ve never had a scandal like this before, it’s in part because it is legally dubious. Federal law bars phone carriers from handing over records without an individual’s agreement. The statute makes some exceptions, including for federal and state law-enforcement agencies. But not for lawmakers. ‘There does not appear to be any basis to believe that a congressional committee is authorized to subpoena telephone records directly from a provider—as opposed to an individual,’ former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells me.”

Members of Congress can’t access these phone logs because they fall outside the purview of their legislative responsibilities. For those saying that Schiff had additional authority thanks to impeachment, the reality is that Schiff requested these records a month before the House voted to initiate the impeachment inquiry. It was after Nancy Pelosi declared that they were starting the inquiry but that’s insignificant in the court’s eyes.

That’s because the Constitution gives the authority to “the House of Representatives.” Literally for decades, courts have ruled that the House hasn’t acted until it votes. Though Ms. Pelosi has frequently acted like a queen, it isn’t likely that a court will grant her queen status. It isn’t likely that a court will rule that a legislator, even a Speaker of the House, can unilaterally declare the start of impeachment.

The question is whether Mr. Schiff, in his zeal to bring down Mr. Trump, has made himself legally vulnerable. In Kilbourn v. Thompson (1881), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose.” Mr. Schiff might argue he has wider powers in an impeachment inquiry. But the House didn’t approve the inquiry until Oct. 31, a month after he issued his main AT&T subpoena.

Rep. Jim Banks wrote “It doesn’t take a constitutional lawyer to recognize that subpoenaing these call records violates the spirit of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures.”

Schiff didn’t go to court to get these records. He submitted the request directly to AT&T. The reason why legitimate requests go through the courts is to have the courts supervise the process.

“The subpoenas aren’t related to legitimate congressional oversight,” says constitutional lawyer David Rivkin. Because there’s “no conceivable legislative purpose to obtaining these call logs and publicly disclosing this information, Mr. Schiff would not be able to benefit from the Speech and Debate Clause immunity that otherwise protects members of Congress from civil and criminal liability.” Mr. Rivkin adds that any of the targets could sue Mr. Schiff under state law for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and potentially even compel Mr. Schiff to turn over documents in discovery.

The other thing that should be considered is throwing Schiff out of the House for violating another congressman’s Fourth Amendment rights. Nobody is above the law, especially the chairmen of powerful committees.

Schiff’s actions are reprehensible. Ethics charges should be filed with the House Ethics Committee immediately against Chairman Schiff. If Democrats protect him against those charges, highlight which Democrats protected Schiff for his disgusting behavior in campaign ads. Let Democrats know that they’ll pay a steep price for protecting corrupt members of their party.

Adam Schiff hasn’t displayed the proper caution for his high-ranking position. He hasn’t been accurate with his statements or findings of facts. His accusations aren’t based on verified information. Simply put, he’s been reckless. That’s why he needs to be stopped permanently.

If these were normal times, Democrats would’ve already been laughed off the planet for attempting to impeach President Trump. Initially, they pinned their hopes on the Mueller investigation. The Mueller investigation was a historic failure. Mueller’s team of partisan lawyers didn’t find a crime during their investigation. They cited 10 instances that might’ve been categorized as obstruction of justice but they didn’t make a determination.

Next, Democrats pinned their hopes on Mueller testifying before Chairman Nadler’s committee. That was such a failure that it caused Speaker Pelosi to shift impeachment hearings to Adam Schiff’s committee. Had Democrats been smart, they simply would’ve dropped the investigation then. Democrats aren’t smart. Instead of dropping their investigation, they plowed ahead.

Ignore the media’s reporting. Schiff’s hearings were a disaster for Democrats. The testifiers couldn’t identify a single crime, much less an impeachable crime. That isn’t the Democrats’ biggest problem, though. The Democrats’ biggest problem, which will be highlighted during the Senate trial, is that they don’t have any evidence of a crime. The night before each hearing, the testifiers’ opening statements were leaked to the MSM. Immediately, the MSM declared the next day’s witnesses would deliver “bombshell” testimony.

What we quickly learned is that anyone could make provocative accusations in their opening statements. Sustaining those provocative statements through disciplined, hard-hitting cross-examination is a quite different thing. It didn’t help that the majority of testifiers didn’t witness anything. George Kent didn’t have first-hand knowledge of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. Bill Taylor didn’t either. Jim Jordan jumped all over Bill Taylor’s understanding of things:

Marie Yovanovitch, another of the Democrats’ “star witnesses”, was fired from her ambassador’s job in April, 2019, 3 months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. At the time of the call, she was teaching in the United States. At one point, Devin Nunes commented that he didn’t know why Yovanovitch was testifying. Considering the fact that she didn’t have any first-hand information of anything, that’s a fair point.

Last Wednesday, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley stated “this is certainly the thinnest of the modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which is almost wafer thin in comparison. There’s a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. It might be out there, I don’t know. But it’s not in this record.

None of this matters to the Democrats, though. When third-hand hearsay is considered “bombshell testimony”, the fix is in. When people who had nothing to do with the phone call are called witnesses, the fix is definitely in. When a crime can’t be identified and evidence is nowhere to be found, it’s best to just skip the illegitimate hearings in House and skip to the Senate’s legitimate hearings where you can call witnesses and offer exculpatory evidence.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, doesn’t care who he demolishes on his path to impeaching President Trump. Schiff’s latest act of intimidation was his “decision to publish the phone records of the president’s personal attorneys, a journalist, a fellow lawmaker, a National Security Council aide, and others.”

Schiff’s behavior since 2016 has been hostile and corrupt. The definition of corruption is “perversion of integrity” or “corrupt or dishonest proceedings.” If anyone personifies a “perversion of integrity”, it’s Schiff. He’s been caught lying so often that he’s often called ‘the little boy who cried wolf too often.’

Now Schiff’s depravity has reached a new low by releasing this private information. If Schiff is willing to do that about journalists and political opponents, why shouldn’t we think that he’ll next extend that behavior to anyone that stands in his way of impeaching President Trump. Unfortunately, Schiff can’t be arrested for this corrupt behavior because of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. What can be done is to expel him from the House the minute Republicans retake control of the House in 2021.

In a text exchange, I asked one Republican lawmaker with knowledge of the situation whether Schiff’s move raised any attorney-client issues:

Not legally. They used their subpoena authority. The decision to publish certain records is out of bounds as clearly political retribution, but it’s not illegal as far as I can determine.

Whether Schiff broke any laws is irrelevant. His actions were the personification of corruption. It isn’t a stretch to think that Schiff’s actions were meant as retribution against people who tried stopping his impeachment obsession.

Democrats who protect Schiff should be defeated at the next election. Schiff’s actions are reprehensible. Schiff has specialized in extreme lies. This is the most well-known example of Schiff’s lies:

What a worthless collection of human cells.

Democrats aren’t interested in bipartisanship when it comes to impeachment. Democrats don’t even care if their hearings take pot shots at teenage kids. Democrats don’t even care if they don’t have evidence that proves their charges. In the Democrats’ minds, they know that President Trump is evil and must be impeached and convicted. In the Democrats’ minds, they don’t need proof to impeach. They just need fanciful theories that support the Democrats’ bloodlust to impeach and convict President Trump. In this case, the fanciful theories that Democrats are relying on are found in the Findings of Facts section of the Schiff Report.

For instance, Finding of Fact #IV says “President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.”

Saying that “the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security or anti-corruption justification” isn’t proof. That’s opinion. The Constitution gives the President the authority to conduct foreign policy. Monies appropriated by Congress and signed by the President must be spent by the end of the fiscal year. In the case of the Ukraine appropriation, the money was sent to Ukraine with time to spare.

Saying that President Trump withheld aid from Ukraine without legitimate “anti-corruption justification” requires Democrats to look past the fact that, at the time, Ukraine was rated the third-most corrupt nation on the planet. Further, the NDAA required certification that Ukraine had met the anti-corruption standards.

Chairman Schiff didn’t mention that this happened with Pakistan, the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and from the nation of Lebanon. Why? Here’s Representative John Ratcliffe inquiring with State Department Undersecretary David Hale how often aid was withheld within the past year:

There goes that Schiff theory. Here’s another example of Democrat theory dressed up as proof:

In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump—directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Schiff’s Democrats don’t have proof of this accusation. In fact, the only proof in either direction comes from President Zelenskiy. He’s said twice that he was never pressured. This is third-hand testimony presented by Bill Taylor. It’s from one of the participants in the call. It isn’t surprising that Democrats have ignored President Zelenskiy’s statements that contradict their impeachment storyline. That’s what Democrats consistently do with exculpatory evidence. Either that or these Democrats insist that it’s just another discredited conspiracy theory.

It’s nothing of the sort. It’s an oft-repeated statement from Ukraine’s president. He was one of 2 people on the call. He knows what was said. He knows whether lethal military aid was tied to anything. That’s proof that would be admitted into any court in the United States. The Democrats’ hearsay testimony (like we heard from Bill Taylor) isn’t admissible anywhere in the United States.

The Democrats apparently want to become the first politicians to impeach a sitting president while using hearsay testimony. That isn’t just an abuse of political power. It’s corruption personified. If the same 232 Democrats vote to impeach President Trump who voted to open the inquiry, the American people will administer a punishment that will be studied for decades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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