Archive for the ‘Adam Schiff’ Category

This week, House Republicans boycotted a public hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. They didn’t attend because Democrats refuse to investigate FISA abuse outlined in the Horowitz Report. According to Ranking Member Devin Nunes, the Committee he used to chair goes months between closed-door intelligence briefings.

That leads to this question: why won’t Adam Schiff’s Democrats do the work of oversight and investigation? Perhaps, it’s because he’s implicated in the FISA wrongdoing? We know with certainty that Schiff insisted that the FBI followed the FISA warrant process perfectly. The truth is that they didn’t. This letter identifies “17 serious shortcomings”:


The letter criticizes Schiff’s unserious oversight of the Intel Community. Nunes and the other signatories criticizes Schiff for conducting PR stunt hearings rather than substantive, private hearings and briefings. This is once-powerful committee. They literally deal with protecting Americans both at home and overseas. At least, that’s what they did with Devin Nunes chaired the committee.

Having a failed Hollywood screenwriter as chairman is a surefire way to demolish the Committee’s sterling reputation in the past. That’s what happened with Schiff as chairman. This must be reversed ASAP.

Adam Schiff thought that he had another impeachment scandal within his grasp. Unfortunately for him, Nancy Pelosi won’t get rolled by AOC this time. Kim Strassel’s article highlights the silliness of the latest fiasco. Democrats of all persuasions criticized Bill Barr for politicizing the Roger Stone case. Virtually immediately, Pelosi and Schumer insisted that Barr resign and that an investigation be started. Richard Blumenthal demanded Barr’s resignation. From the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren said that Barr should be impeached if Barr doesn’t resign.

Well.

Let’s get to the bottom of the situation. Thanks to Ms. Strassel, we know that she acted like the adult in charge rather than the infants whining for attention. (The infants are Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren and Blumenthal.) Rather than whining, Ms. Strassel called one of her contacts within the DOJ and asked some basic questions. Here’s what Ms. Strassel found out:

Justice sources tell me that interim U.S. Attorney Tim Shea had told the department’s leadership he and other career officials in the office felt the proposed sentence was excessive. As the deadline for the filing neared, the prosecutors on the case nonetheless threatened to withdraw from the case unless they got their demands for these stiffest of penalties. Mr. Shea—new to the job—suffered a moment of cowardice and submitted to this ultimatum. The filing took Justice Department leaders by surprise, and the decision to reverse was made well before Mr. Trump tweeted, and with no communication with the White House. The revised filing, meanwhile, had the signature of the acting supervisor of the office’s criminal division, who is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.

My first reaction is this: that’s it? My next reaction is similar. Democrats must really hate President Trump if they’re going to make this molehill into a mountain. Either that or they’re too stupid to run anything beyond a kid’s lemonade stand.

Ms. Strassel didn’t act like an infant. Instead, she asked some questions before insisting that Barr resign or be impeached. That’s what rational people do. They find out the facts first. Democrats (like Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer) insist that Barr resign. That’s immaturity personified.

Next, let’s factor in Andy McCarthy’s opinions on the Stone sentence:

The fact is, it was well within the legitimate power of the attorney general to countermand the Stone prosecutors’ submission to the court — i.e., to substitute a recommendation that the court impose a stiff but reasonable prison sentence on Stone, in place of the prosecutors’ suggestion of an excessive term.

More to the point, what we are witnessing in the media-Democrat commentariat is a manufactured controversy, reminiscent of their mau-mauing the president’s Ukraine indiscretion into an impeachable offense. Hence, the unhinged calls for Barr’s impeachment. The judge, not the Department of Justice (DOJ), will determine Stone’s sentence. The shrieking over DOJ’s Stone sentencing memos, topped by the theatrical resignation of the four prosecutors (who now want to be seen as stalwarts against politicized law enforcement after they conducted a patently politicized prosecution), is much ado about nothing.

This might’ve been a bigger deal if President Trump had interfered with an investigation, instead of with a sentencing. It isn’t like President Trump has the authority to overrule the jury without pardoning Stone. That’s something that’s done for all the world to see. The people would get to consider that when voting. That’s the ultimate check and balance.

It’s time for Adam Schiff to put his impeachment gavel down, take a deep breath, then go back to doing intelligence oversight like he’s supposed to do.

It’s pretty apparent that Democrats enjoy investigating President Trump. Similarly, it’s apparent that they haven’t done anything to make people’s lives better. Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are calling on Michael Horowitz to investigate why the sentencing recommendation was reduced for Roger Stone. They’ve implied that President Trump improperly interfered in the matter.

The problem they’ve got is that the DOJ got involved in reducing the recommendation before President Trump criticized Judge Amy Berman-Jackson. It’d be quite the trick for William Barr to reduce the sentence recommendation at President Trump’s behest before President Trump made the request. That doesn’t matter to Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They just want to convince people that President Trump is a scoundrel who should be impeached again.

Not to be left out is Adam Schiff. He just got humiliated (if that’s possible with pathological dirtbags) through President Trump’s impeachment acquittal but he’s spoiling for another fight:

“I’m struck by the fact that it’s all out in the open. I mean, we will certainly learn about what’s taking place behind the scenes, the sort of clandestine effort to weigh in and help the President’s friends and hurt the President’s enemies,” the California Democrat told CNN’s David Axelrod on “The Axe Files” podcast. “But the fact that this is being done in the open in a way makes it more insidious, because it is normalizing this attack on the independence of our justice system.”

The fact that the prosecutors told DOJ one thing, then did another in front of the judge apparently doesn’t mean anything because Orange Man Bad. Now there’s accusations that one of the jurors was biased. There’s nothing insidious about this. Period. Full stop.

It’s time to get Mr. Schiff a new dictionary. The definition of insidious is “stealthily treacherous or deceitful or operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect.” How can President Trump, who has a bajillion Twitter followers, use Twitter and still be inconspicuous or stealthy? That’s right up there with Schiff saying during the impeachment trial that the cover-up is hiding there right in plain sight.

Schumer didn’t have a problem with Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Pat Leahy of Vermont writing a letter to the Ukraine prosecutor to help the Mueller investigation that was improperly predicated. Before the special counsel was appointed, it was known that Russian collusion didn’t happen. There was Russian interference in the election but the FBI knew that there wasn’t collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Democrats can’t help themselves. If there’s anything in the news about President Trump, Democrats insist that he needs to be investigated. The Democrats’ first instinct is to investigate, not to legislate. What a bunch of sick puppies. That’s why firing Pelosi as Speaker-in-Name-Only is essential. That’s why keeping Sen. Schumer as the minority leader is essential, too. Pelosi, Schumer and Schiff aren’t patriots. They’re money-grubbing conspiracy theorists who don’t have the spine to stand up to the Resist activists.

That’s the new definition of today’s Democrats.

FNC is reporting that Devin Nunes and Chris Stewart, the ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advance Research respectively, wrote a letter to Adam Schiff criticizing the Democrats “for not holding hearings on FISA in the wake of the IG report.”

In their letter, Nunes and Stewart wrote “Under your chairmanship, the House Intelligence Committee has strayed far from its mandate of overseeing the Intelligence Community. In fact, we have gone months at a time in which we’ve hardly held any oversight-related briefings or hearings at all.”

“During this period of inadequate oversight, numerous critical issues pertinent to this Committee’s jurisdiction were ignored,” they continued, noting that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his FISA report on Dec. 9 which identified “seventeen serious shortcomings related to the conduct” of the surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy aide Carter Page.

“The IG Report was followed by the release of a declassified assessment by the Department of Justice acknowledging that at least two of the four FISA applications lacked probable cause,” they continued. “Despite the seriousness of these issues and our clear jurisdiction, you have failed to hold a single briefing or hearing on this matter.”

It’s obvious that Chairman Schiff isn’t serious about the Committee’s responsibilities. He’s likely the worst chairman in the history of HPSCI, aka the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It’s been 2 months since the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019. Chairman Schiff hasn’t lifted a finger to find out why the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier in their FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page. Chairman Schiff didn’t lift a finger to find out why US intelligence agencies were weaponized to take down President Trump.

Further, the Horowitz report established as fact that the Nunes Memo was virtually 100% correct. The Horowitz Report discredited the Schiff Memo. The Schiff Memo took the opposite position on FISA warrant abuse, whether the Steele Dossier was relied on to obtain the FISA warrant and whether the FBI included exculpatory evidence as the Nunes Memo.

That’s likely why Chairman Schiff isn’t interested in conducting hearings into FISA abuse. If he held a hearing into FISA abuses, Republicans would certainly question the Schiff Memo’s fictional assertions.

It’s clear that Democrats are on the defensive. Republicans serving on HPSCI signed this blistering letter. Today, Republicans criticized Jerry Nadler’s mishandling of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler passed a bill to prevent President Trump from implementing a “Muslim ban”. Republicans fought back, saying “This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with securing our country,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., taking on Democrats for calling it a Muslim ban. “…If it really was, as you call it, a Muslim ban, why wouldn’t Indonesia be on this ban? I mean they have a lot of Muslims. This is just inaccurate. You are just spreading this falsity.”

Nadler and Schiff undoubtedly got stung by impeachment. Now, they’re just a pair of losers who didn’t hesitate to impeach a president while ignoring tons of exculpatory evidence. They’ve been exposed as partisans who put partisan politics ahead of patriotism.

Back when this first got started, CNN ridiculed then-Chairman Nunes, suggesting that he was President Trump’s hatchetman:

The Horowitz Report didn’t just dismantle Schiff’s spin. The Horowitz Report utterly demolished Schiff’s spin. Democrats are verifiably dishonest. Putting them in charge of protecting our liberties is beyond foolish. Chairmen Schiff and Nadler shouldn’t be entrusted to run a lemonade stand, much less the HPSCI and the Judiciary Committee.

When Devin Nunes talks about the Democrats’ next hoax, I listen. This morning, Nunes appeared on Fox & Friends to talk about the Democrats’ next impeachment hoax. Nunes has gotten vilified virtually daily on US intelligence-gathering. Time after time, Nunes has gotten things right. Most recently, the Horowitz Report vindicated Nunes, showing the Nunes Memo to be virtually flawless.

It’s noteworthy that the same Horowitz Report literally verified the Schiff Memo to be 100% wrong. In other words, Adam Schiff’s report was totally worthless while Devin Nunes’ Memo was almost 100% right. During his interview, Nunes talked about Pelosi’s press conference where she said “We will continue to do our oversight to protect and defend the Constitution … but those cases still exist, if there are others that we see as an opportunity we’ll make a judgment at that time.”

Nunes replied, saying “I’d say that old habits die hard. They’ve done nothing else for their entire time that they’ve controlled Congress and don’t forget the Democrats on the intelligence committee started this right after Trump was elected so that’s going over three years.”

The only way to end these investigations is by firing the Democrat majority in the House this November. Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler have proven that their interest is investigating President Trump. These Democrats have shown that they aren’t interested in fixing immigration, lowering prescription drug prices, establishing opportunity scholarships for students trapped in failing schools or cutting middle class taxes.

House Democrats want to raise taxes, raise the minimum wage and kill the fossil fuel industry. What’s frustrating is that these Democrats sat while America cheered for Iain Lanphier and his 100-year-old great-grandfather Charles McGee. McGee is one of the last living Tuskegee Airmen. Democrats sat when President Trump announced that Janiyah Davis was receiving an opportunity scholarship so she could escape her failing school.

What type of people sit on their hands when great news like that is announced? How cold-hearted do you have to be to react like that? America, remember these things when you enter the voting booth:

Nunes continued criticizing Pelosi’s Democrats, saying “They may concoct a new hoax, I’m not sure that the American people will believe it, but you can be sure of one thing, the mainstream media will support whatever the narrative is that they want to build.” It’s time to stop this hate-filled, years-long diatribe. It’s time to send an emphatic message to Democrats that We The People come first, not the nutjob conspiracy theorist Democrats.

Democrats haven’t done a thing. They didn’t make people more prosperous. They criticized President Trump when he killed the 2 biggest terrorists in the world. Democrats even tried telling us that President Trump’s killing of Gen. Soleimani would trigger a further destabilization of the Middle East. It’s time to get these idiots out of office. It’s time to put competent people in charge. That starts with giving Rep. Nunes the gavel back to the HPSCI. That starts with handing the Speaker’s gavel to Kevin McCarthy.

It’s difficult to take this article seriously. The article starts by saying “On February 6, 2020, the Senate acquitted Donald Trump on two articles of impeachment, bringing an end to a process the president has been hurtling toward since the moment of his inauguration.” After that, the writer turns into an emotional mess, writing “He and the Constitution are irrevocably at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here. But ‘here’ doesn’t just mean a world in which Trump has been impeached, of course; it’s also a world in which a majority of the Senate voted to bless his conduct.

Next, the trainwreck:

The two other presidents who faced impeachment in living memory both delivered natural ends to the drama. Richard Nixon’s helicopter lifted off the White House lawn after he resigned the presidency. Bill Clinton, the day of his acquittal in the Senate, stood in the Rose Garden and apologized for his conduct.

Richard Nixon resigned because he’d committed multiple felonies, including suborning perjury, obstructing justice and telling the FBI that they didn’t need a warrant to wiretap antiwar protesters’ phone calls. When Nixon resigned, few people thought he wasn’t guilty as hell. I had just graduated from high school and I knew he was guilty as hell.

When Bill Clinton apologized, he had a lot to apologize for. The Independent Counsel’s office issued this statement:

In the independent counsel’s judgment, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute President Clinton for violating federal criminal laws within this office’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the independent counsel concluded, consistent with the Principles of Federal Prosecution, that further proceedings against President Clinton for his conduct should not be initiated.

In other words, Clinton committed multiple felonies. The difference between Nixon and Clinton is that Clinton’s felonies were considered low crimes.

The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat impeachment articles didn’t charge President Trump with committing a crime. That, by itself, differentiates President Trump from Nixon and Clinton. Further, the investigators in Nixon and Clinton accumulated tons of proof that supported the investigators’ charges. The Mueller Report was the precursor to the Schiff Report. It didn’t find proof that President Trump committed any crimes.

So much for verifying the statement “at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here.” We shouldn’t have wound up here. That isn’t what the evidence said. Period.

That’s before looking at the process. The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat process was scandalous. In Nixon and Clinton, their legal teams were allowed to bring in witnesses, submit evidence and cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. President Trump wasn’t afforded any of those rights. For the first 71 days of the official 78-day investigation, President Trump’s legal team weren’t allowed in the room.

Comparing President Trump’s impeachment with Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachments is like comparing Stalin with the Pope. It’s a travesty. The MSM (and Pelosi) insist that President Trump is impeached forever. If that’s true, then there’s a stench and a stain forever on the Democrats’ investigation. It’s the most partisan investigation in presidential history. The Democrats ignored multiple pieces of exculpatory evidence, starting with the transcript of the July 25 phone call.

Simply put, President Trump deserved a victory lap like this:

This November, it isn’t just important to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation. It’s essential to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation.

Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi have accused President Trump of retaliating against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Lt. Col. Vindman testified against President Trump during Schiff’s public impeachment hearings.

What Pelosi and Schiff intentionally omit is the fact that Lt. Col. Vindman sidestepped his chain of command by talking to the NSC Counsel rather than talking to his boss, “Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.” Pelosi and Schiff intentionally omitted the fact that Jennifer Williams, who also listened in on the call, didn’t find anything inappropriate with the call that alarmed Lt. Col. Vindman. Check out John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Ms. Williams and Lt. Col. Vindman:

Predictably, there’s much more to this story than what Pelosi and Schiff are claiming. This isn’t retaliation. This is President Trump reassigning a disgruntled employee with a habit of ignoring his chain of command reporting responsibilities. For all his military heroics, Lt. Col. Vindman had a habit of insubordination and mutiny. That’s hardly a model employee.

During the hearings in November, his boss, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs, said that multiple other officials had cast doubt on Vindman’s judgment. Morrison said those colleagues had expressed concerns about whether Vindman had leaked information and confirmed that Vindman didn’t keep him “in the loop at all times.” Vindman also didn’t immediately speak to Morrison about his concerns about the July 25 phone call, Morrison said during the hearings.

Lt. Col. Vindman was thought to have been one of the NSC’s leakers. A person who’s insubordinate and who leaks hasn’t earned the right to serve on the NSC. Follow this link for more on the truth on Lt. Col. Vindman.

President Trump shouldn’t have been impeached for multiple reasons. First, the record brought over was the thinnest in impeachment history. That isn’t just my opinion, though I certainly agree with that statement. That’s Jonathan Turley’s opinion, too.

During his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Prof. Turley said “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.”

At a time when the nation is doing well on multiple fronts, especially the economic front, what’s required is a stabilizing agent. The Constitution is one of those stabilizing agents. We’d be wise to include the Declaration of Independence, too. There’s a specific part of the Declaration that I’m thinking about that fits into the impeachment discussion.

The second paragraph of the Declaration starts by saying this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The colonists talk about the usurpation of rights granted to them by “Nature’s God.” They passionately believed that the British monarchy wasn’t acting in good faith. In fact, the Declaration listed their items of contention later in the document. (We’ll return to that later.) The next part of this paragraph is important. Here’s the key part:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

Adam Schiff’s Democrats should’ve thought this through before injuring our republic. Were rights being violated? Were laws being broken? What was at the heart of this impeachment?

What was at the heart of this impeachment were 2 things. Democrats hate President Trump and Democrats disagreed with President Trump’s negotiating methods. Fighting a war to end slavery is a just cause. Impeaching a president because you don’t like him or you disagree with his handling of things is destabilizing. That’s dangerous and it shouldn’t be tolerated.

Impeachment should be reserved for Nixonian things. Nixon told the FBI that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters, a violation of the protesters’ Fourth Amendment rights. Nixon told members of his staff to lie to investigators, clearly a case of obstruction of justice. These are things that rise to the level of treason or bribery.

Compared to the things that Nixon did, the things included in the Schiff-Democrat impeachment of President Trump are trivial. To emphasize the Declaration of Independence’s cautionary note, we shouldn’t impeach a president “for light and transient causes.”

In this unserious op-ed, David Axelrod complained that “For all the righteous indignation about the outcome of Wednesday’s vote, I understand the reluctance of any senator to convict an elected president and forever ban them from the ballot. And if Donald Trump truly were “chastened” by impeachment, as several of the Republican senators who voted against removing him argued, it might have made their “let the people decide” argument more compelling.”

Democrats and some swampy Republicans aren’t the brightest people. President Trump wasn’t convicted because he shouldn’t have ever gotten impeached. The process in the House will forever be part of Nancy Pelosi’s, Adam Schiff’s and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry Nadler’s tarnished legacies. Let’s remember what happened in the House. Let’s start with the most disgusting part first.

Impeachment Article 2 is the product of an infantile temper tantrum. On Sept. 24, Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was starting an official impeachment inquiry. That’s a bald-faced lie. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It gives impeachment authority to “the House of Representatives” alone, not to the speaker, not to a committee. Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton didn’t want that authority resting in the hands of a Representative or a committee of representatives. They wanted everyone to share in the accountability.

When Democrats sent out the first set of what Democrats called “compulsory subpoenas”, the House hadn’t voted to authorize any committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry. In fact, the White House Counsel’s letter to House Democrats was sent 3 weeks before the vote authorizing impeachment. Ignoring long-settled precedent, which apparently is his specialty, Adam Schiff said that any delay in complying with the subpoenas would be considered an impeachable offense. The judiciary is there to settle privilege disputes between the legislative and executive branches.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he’s the exception to that ruling. He’s wrong about that. He isn’t the exception. Patrick Philbin laid out this reasoning in response to a question.

As for Impeachment Article 1, Abuse of Power, no high crime was alleged. In fact, no crime was alleged. What’s worse, most of the testimony provided to Mr. Schiff’s committee wasn’t provided by witnesses. Most of the testimony provided was provided by people who didn’t witness anything. That’s why I consistently called them testifiers, not witnesses.

The transcript of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy is the best evidence of what was said during the call. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call. He testified, reluctantly, that the transcript was “essentially correct.” The only fact witness called during the public HPSCI hearings was US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland. Here’s his testimony:

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler totally ignored this exculpatory evidence. They ignored this and other exculpatory evidence multiple times each. In a real court with rules of evidence, this wouldn’t have gotten to trial because the Democrats’ case had more holes than Swiss cheese. It would’ve gotten no-billed at the grand jury.

This isn’t surprising. Adam Schiff couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. Here’s the first of Schiff’s ‘golden oldies’:

When the Mueller Report came out, the evidence that Schiff allegedly saw wasn’t found. Here’s another of his biggest lies:

Axelrod also wrote this:

Even without the witnesses and documents Trump denied them, the House managers delivered a devastating circumstantial case that the President used the levers of his office to pressure Ukraine.

Hearsay testimony isn’t admissible in a real court, with a few exceptions, and Axelrod knows it. Then Axelrod said this:

He was, as Sen. Mitt Romney said in his courageous dissent from partisan orthodoxy, “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

This is the Mitt Romney that Axelrod accused of being a sexist who hated women. This is the Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign accused of tying the family pet to the roof of their vehicle. Forgive me if I don’t get a sense of sincerity with his statements about Romney.

President Trump isn’t chastened. “He’s triumphant.” He’s triumphant because a team of liars accused him of abusing his power. He’s triumphant because Democrats didn’t present evidence proving that allegation. Democrats lost because 30 allegations still doesn’t equal 1 piece of proof. Democrats lost because 5 allegations repeated 20 times each isn’t proof either.

Axelrod is still the same corrupt weasel that worked for President Obama. Good riddance.

We’ve all heard the cliché “too clever by half.” That applies to people who overthink things. What happens when people are too stupid to realize that they’re destroying themselves? There aren’t any clichés to fall back on so I created one. Democrats are too stupid by three-fourths.

Fresh off their thumping at the hands of President Trump’s legal team, Democrats Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are thinking about the self-immolation option by subpoenaing John Bolton to testify. What smart person thinks that’s a good idea? Apparently, there aren’t any smart Democrats in the House.

Let’s be blunt about something obvious. It’s been a terrible week for Democrats. Democrats failed at basic math when they couldn’t count after wrapping up the Iowa Caucuses. (They still haven’t gotten it right and it’s Friday.) During President Trump’s SOTU Address, Democrats couldn’t cheer for unprecedented prosperity for women and minority communities. What’s worst is that Ms. Pelosi thought it’d play well to rip up her copy of President Trump’s SOTU speech in front of the cameras:

I introduce you to the personification of too stupid by three-fourths. Her name is Nancy Pelosi. It could’ve just as easily have been Adam Schiff. Why think that Pelosi’s Democrats or Sen. Schumer’s shills are capable of anything beyond 2+2 = 4?

Senate Democrats aren’t any better. There wasn’t a Senate Democrat who voted against Article 2. Here’s what Article 2 says:

“In the history of the republic,” it reads, “no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.'”

The first set of compulsory subpoenas were sent out without House authorization. That’s why they were contested in court. President Trump doesn’t lose his right to contest subpoenas just because the House is intent on impeaching him. In other words, Senate Democrats, including many who are lawyers, think that following the Constitution’s path is unconstitutional. How stupid is that? These Democrats aren’t too bright. That’s why we need to throw them out en masse this November.