Archive for the ‘Adam Schiff’ Category

One thing that isn’t in question is whether House Democrats, starting with Chairman Schiff, (D-Calif.), rigged the rules to ensure an unfair impeachment process. Something that Chairman Schiff repeatedly made clear was that the CIA snitch’s identity would remain cloaked in anonymity. That’s foolishness. Eric Ciaramella’s identity will become known at some point.

Much bandwidth has been used to talk about the Sixth Amendment and whether its protections extend to impeachment hearings and trials. The simple answer is this: they do if the House and Senate write those protections into their impeachment rules. Ditto with federal rules of evidence. There’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits these considerations from getting written into the House or Senate rules.

There are, however, partisan reasons why Democrats wouldn’t write the federal rules of evidence into their rules. Ditto with omitting Sixth Amendment protections from their rules. The simple explanation is that Democrats didn’t insist on applying the federal rules of evidence into their hearings because those rules would utterly gut their case. Without hearsay testimony, the Democrats’ storyline collapses immediately. Remember this hearsay:

If that doesn’t qualify as hearsay, nothing does. WOW! Then there’s Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland:

Rep. Mike Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?
Ambassador Sondland: Yes.
Rep. Mike Turner: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?
Ambassador Sondland: Other than my own presumption.
Rep. Mike Turner: Which is nothing.

By not excluding hearsay testimony, each testifier was able to provide a juicy-sounding soundbite to the Agenda Media, which then dutifully splashed that “bombshell” across their website all day. The Agenda Media didn’t care that the soundbite got ripped to shreds on cross-examination. They had their juicy-sounding headline, their click-bait.

Democrats understood that, in these impeachment hearings, hearsay was their friend. Democrats understood that because their case was exceptionally weak. Had Democrats been interested in fairness, they wouldn’t have put the nation through this. That wasn’t their mission. The Democrats’ mission was to utterly demolish the president they’ve hated since he was elected.

That’s why Democrats approved the rules they approved.

Democrats understood that the CIA snitch would get ripped to pieces the minute his identity was confirmed, too. Without hearsay testimony, which got started with the CIA snitch, the Democrats don’t have anything. They have nice-sounding testimony from people with impressive resumes but they don’t have the evidence they’d need to win a high-profile case like this.

Democrats wanted this impeachment so badly that they’d do anything for it. In the final summation, that sums things up best. Democrats wanted this so bad that they ignored the needs of the country.

How sick is that?

Friday night, Robin Biro mentioned something that few in the Agenda Media have talked about. He talked about “Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania” as battleground states. That’s the truth. Those 4 states are battleground states. Then Biro, a former Barack Obama campaign director, said in a serious tone that those states were once part of Hillary’s blue firewall. That’s quite a transformation.

If Democrats are fighting to hold Minnesota, they’re in trouble. If Democrats are fighting to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin back into the Democrats’ column, they’re praying for a miracle. Considering the fact that there’s no sign that they’re trying to win back blue collar workers, Democrats might as well wish for a herd of unicorns.

According to Glenn Reynolds, this isn’t surprising:

If President Donald Trump is re-elected next November, he’ll owe a lot of his victory to the army of activists working tirelessly to put him over the top. No, I’m not talking about the red-hatted MAGA crowd, tireless as they are. I’m talking about the army of leftist activists whose nonstop craziness is moving moderates into the Trump column day by day.

Democrats are their own worst enemy. First, they unanimously rejected the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Immediately after the tax cuts passed, the economy took off like a supersonic jet. That wasn’t too bright. Next, Adam Schiff continuously insisted that President Trump had conspired with Russia to defeat Hillary. When the Mueller Report said that he hadn’t, they were in deeper hot water.

Finally, Schiff’s Democrats pushed their impeachment hearings down America’s throats without evidence or even an identifiable crime. Back in their districts, they’re getting an earful:

With cash pouring into the RNC, expect the RNC to put out lots of ads highlighting the fact that Democrats haven’t gotten anything done. If Democrats don’t turn legislation into signed laws, President Trump will campaign against Pelosi’s “Do-Nothing Democrats” until Election Day.

If I got $100 each time a CNN, NBC or MSNBC said “bombshell testimony”, I’d have nice-sized nest egg to live off of. If I got another $100 each time Adam Schiff or one of the pundits insisted that proof was overwhelming, I’d be a multi-millionaire. The thing is that we didn’t witness any bombshell testimony. I’m still waiting for the first bit of verified proof of an impeachable offense that wasn’t demolished on cross-examination.

Last week, the nation heard lots of testimony that corroborated the MSM’s storyline. We didn’t hear verified proof that President Trump committed an impeachable offense. Initially, Gordon Sondland used his opening statement to say “as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

Later in his opening statement, Sondland said this:

In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.

Notice that Sondland said “In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe…” Mike Turner noticed them. When it was his time to question Sondland, he utterly demolished Sondland’s testimony:

When Jim Jordan cross-examined Bill Taylor, this was the memorable moment from that exchange:

These were moments when the storyline was exploded. The thing they had in common is that they happened during cross-examination. Whether Sondland or Taylor are Deep State guys or not, they were billed as star witnesses by Chairman Schiff, Schiff’s Democrats and/or the MSM. When Taylor and Sondland were finished, their credibility was gone. That’s the truth.

The storyline didn’t withstand scrutiny. What proof did Marie Yovanovitch provide? What proof did Fiona Hill provide? David Holmes? David Hale? George Kent? Lt. Col. Vindman? They didn’t provide verifiable testimony that President Trump had committed an impeachable offense. In fact, the thing that Ms. Yovanovitch will be remembered for is admitting that she wasn’t the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine at the time of the Trump-Zelenskiy call because she’d gotten fired from that position in April.

The MSM hasn’t refuted the Republicans’ cross-examinations. That’s interesting because Republicans have refuted the MSM’s storyline and the testifiers’ opening statements. Call me crazy but that’s proof that Democrats have a weak case. If this was presented in a criminal court, Democrats wouldn’t have had a lengthy trial because most of their ‘witnesses’ didn’t witness anything. That’s why I’ve consistently called them testifiers.

The American people saw that. That’s why independents don’t support impeachment anymore. The ‘horserace’ polls show support for impeachment but diving into those polls show shrinking support amongst independents. For all intents and purposes, impeachment is dead.

Good riddance.

Based on this information, it’s apparent that impeachment isn’t inevitable anymore. As polling for impeachment craters, more Democrats are jumping ship. One of the latest Democrats that’s jumped ship is “Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry.”

Just like polls aren’t the most reliable predictors of election outcomes, polling doesn’t always paint an accurate picture of what’s happening with issues. Watching partisan politicians actions are often a better indicator. In this instance, Lawrence’s actions tell us everything we need to know. If the Democrats’ impeachment hearing had produced the quantity of “bombshell” testimony that the MSM reported, the Democrats that run the Impeachment Committee would’ve stayed in DC to write their report. That isn’t happening. This is:

When Adam Schiff responded to Jake Tapper’s question about impeachment, nobody in the civilized world would’ve anticipated his answer that he wanted to talk to his constituents and his colleagues. The Adam Schiff of a month ago would’ve quickly responded with a ‘yes, we’re moving forward with impeachment. The evidence is overwhelming and it speaks for itself.’ This Adam Schiff is more contemplative, cautious, less confident.

Lawrence occupies a safely Democratic district that includes eastern Detroit, and her reluctance to move forward with impeachment suggested that moderate Democrats in swing districts may also be getting cold feet now that all scheduled hearings in the probe wrapped up last week.

If Lawrence isn’t on board with impeachment, then it isn’t going anywhere. It’s one thing to favor censure if you’re a Democrat representing a purple district. It’s another thing when you’re advocating for censure from a safe district.

Expect more defections from the Democrats’ “impeachment bandwagon.” Whether enough defect to sink impeachment is still too early to tell. Still, this is proof that the Democrats’ impeachment hearings were a dud.

If Tip O’Neill is right that all politics is local, then this isn’t good news for Adam Schiff. Jennifer Barbosa, Schiff’s opponent, is attacking him because Schiff has paid too much attention to impeachment while ignoring the homeless crisis in his district.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Barbosa said “Adam Schiff has been my congressman since 2012. He became my congressman through the redistricting process. Since he became my congressman he has not presented any legislation that’s become law. In terms of homelessness, what he’s done is he’s basically rubber-stamped Maxine Waters’ bill to deal with homelessness, and her bill essentially replicated the same failed policies that [L.A.] Mayor Garcetti has implemented in our city over the past few years. We know they’re not working. So, what we need to do in terms of homelessness… we need to stop allocating federal funds for affordable housing which costs $500,000-700,000 per unit and really focus on mental health services for the people who are living on the street.”

At this point, Schiff appears to have a difficult path to re-election. Impeachment has flopped. Schiff has been ineffective in fighting the crisis in his neighborhood. Barbosa is hitting Schiff hard on the home front, too:

“Seeing the impeachment inquiry, when he’s wasting all these resources — we know that Ken Starr’s impeachment cost about $70 million,” she said. “That’s $70 million that really could be spent on much better things in our district.”

If Schiff doesn’t start paying attention to things at home, he might soon be unemployed. If Schiff’s actions in committee are an indicator, he’s too invested in impeachment to pay attention to the crisis in his district.

Stay tuned to LFR for updates on this and other races that affect the balance of power in the House of Representatives.

It’s easy to see that the Democrats’ impeachment hearings have pushed the 2020 presidential campaign into a higher gear. While I’d be wrong to call it full speed, I wouldn’t be wrong in saying that it’s sped up more than a notch or two. Lots of information is accumulating just begging to be deciphered.

First, there’s the effect that impeachment is having on shaping the election. For that, I turn to FNC’s Liz Peek, who writes “Newsflash: Rep. Adam Schiff is dithering over impeachment! On CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ Sunday, the House Intelligence Committee chairman claimed that grounds for impeaching President Trump are ‘not contested’ but also said he wants to ‘discuss this with my constituents and colleagues before I make a final judgment on this.'”

Whoa! That’s like watching Moses part the Red Sea, then decide that 400 additional years of slavery in Egypt sounded ok. It isn’t that impeachment went well for Democrats. It didn’t. It’s that Schiff saw things that weren’t there.

The thing is that the impeachment train left the station when Pelosi announced the inquiry. It picked up steam when 232 Democrats voted for the inquiry. By now, the train that left DC is likely heading through Kentucky or parts west. The Lunatic Left demands an impeachment vote and they’re gonna get it or they’ll stop writing checks to the Democrats’ congressional candidates.

Displeasure with the impeachment push is also showing up in the polls. While early surveys indicated widespread support for the investigation into Trump’s commerce with Ukraine, the tables have turned. A recent Emerson poll shows 45 percent of voters oppose the impeachment push while 43 percent support; a month earlier 48 percent supported impeachment and 44 percent were against it. Perhaps more significant for Democrats hoping to regain the White House in 2020, support among independents has nosedived. Some 34 percent approve of the push today, down from 48 percent in October.

The Emerson poll is not an outlier. An NPR/Marist poll also shows support for impeachment dropping over the past month and, even worse for the showboating Schiff, interest in the proceedings waning. Only 30 percent of the nation saying they were following the proceedings “very closely,” down from 37 percent in September. Adding insult to injury, Trump’s approval rating has actually gone up, not down, over the past month. And, the stock market keeps hitting new highs.

Then there’s this:

According to two new polls, Trump has now gained popularity with African-Americans— and the numbers are significant, even “bigly.” Both polls—Rasmussen, which usually tilts Republican, and Emerson, which is considered even-handed—came out almost exactly the same, putting Trump’s support among blacks at a surprising, almost astonishing, 34 percent. Typically, Republicans poll in single digits among blacks.

Check this out:

If President Trump gets 15%-20% of the African-American vote, Democrats would be looking at an historic bloodbath next November. It’s still a long ways from Election Day but the warning signs are accumulating. The bad news for Democrats is that they aren’t heading in the right direction.

Finally, the fundraising totals continue heading in the GOP’s favor. With the DNC essentially bankrupt, Pelosi, Perez and Schiff shouldn’t feel too confident.

Anyone with an IQ north of 75 and a willingness to view last week’s testimony honestly isn’t surprised that the Democrats’ impeachment hearings went terribly. Still, it isn’t surprising that Democrats are surprised that the polls are tanking for them.

New public opinion polls are moving against Democrats on impeachment, as independents sour on the House inquiry and increasingly express opposition to the hearings that have consumed Washington in recent weeks. The new data comes as a surprise to Democrats, many of whom believe the roster of witnesses have offered damning testimony about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump so badly for so long that they’d do anything to make it happen. The past 2 weeks, the Democrats’ testifiers would say something provocative in their opening statement, which was immediately leaked to CNN with the heading of “bombshell” testimony.

It didn’t matter that, in each of these instances, the testifiers’ provocative accusations was utterly shredded during the Republicans’ cross-examinations. For instance, Mike Turner got Gordon Sondland to admit that “I was presuming” the meeting was being conditioned on the investigation. Turner said that Sondland didn’t have anything on this theory, to which Sondland replied “Other than my presumption.” Turner immediately replied “Which is nothing.”

Democrats have based this impeachment on a series of nothingburgers. Seriously, each of the Democrats’ testifiers have gotten crushed. The apolitical people haven’t had any problems identifying the Democrats’ testifiers’ flawed testimony. That’s why the polling shows Democrats in trouble:

In October, independents supported impeachment 48 percent to 35 percent in Emerson’s polling. In the new poll released this week, independents opposed it by a 49 percent to 34 percent margin. In that time, overall support for impeaching Trump swung from 48 percent in favor and 44 percent against, to 45 percent in opposition to impeachment and 43 percent in favor.

Going from a +13 to a -15 is a 28-point swing in a month. That’s like falling off a cliff. This isn’t just a modest drop. It’s a warning sign to Democrats that the people want them to actually do things rather than insisting on impeaching a gruff but productive president. Voters have factored in President Trump’s personality traits and said ‘we can live with that as long as the economy keeps humming.’

Democrats bet everything on impeachment. They lied to the American people for 3+ years. When the Mueller Report went bust, Schiff’s Democrats found a CIA snitch, dressed him up as a whistleblower, then insisted that President Trump had tried strong-arming the Ukrainian president into investigating the Biden family. The problem was that President Trump released the transcript of the phone call. The minute that happened, the Democrats were screwed.

People could read the 5-page transcript and judge for themselves. They didn’t need to watch the Democrats’ testifiers to know what happened. Try as the media might, they couldn’t move the Democrats’ impeachment needle. As I’ve said consistently, these weren’t witnesses because they didn’t witness anything substantive. They were testifiers. Democrats voted to investigate a rabbit hole that was empty.

Only Democrats are surprised that they found nothing.

After watching the Democrats’ testifiers the past 2 weeks, something disturbing is emerging. Think of it as ‘the Democrats’ dark vision’. Of the people who testified, just 1 spoke directly with President Trump. The list of testifiers who’ve never met President Trump were Lt. Col. Vindman, Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes, Laura Cooper, Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, Jennifer Williams, Tim Morrison, David Hale and Kurt Volker.

What’s interesting is that Bill Taylor met 3 times with President Zelenskiy after the infamous July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy. Despite those conversations, Taylor apparently thought that communications with Sondland were needed to get a clear understanding of the lethal military aid that was the topic of discussion.

Amb. Sondland, the only witness to talk directly with both Presidents, admitted this during cross-examination:

It isn’t a stretch to think that the Democrats’ strategy is to deploy a splashy headline that implies (but doesn’t prove) the Democrats’ accusation du jour. Each day, the Democrats’ star witness du jour made a splashy accusation that the MSM immediately turned into a provocative headline. Do we want to live in a nation where a person can be accused of something without rock-solid proof? Isn’t it disgusting that an innocent person could get thrown out of office based on hearsay? Do we really want to throw out the votes of 63,000,000 people just because we don’t like a president?

What I’ve described to you is the Democrats’ vision. If I told Chairman Schiff, the chairman of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee, that President Trump would be impeached and convicted if Schiff admitted that he’d killed Jeffrey Epstein, he’d admit to that virtually immediately. That’s because Democrats haven’t paid attention to truth or first-hand evidence.

What Democrats did was corroborate a fictional storyline. That isn’t proof. A skilled writer can create a compelling storyline in minutes. In this instance, throw in some Swamp creatures who don’t like their world getting turned upside-down and you’ve got a corroborated corrupt storyline. Throw in a Lt. Col. with connections to a CIA snitch and you have a nefarious-sounding situation:

You still don’t have first-hand proof but it sounds juicy. The Democrats’ dark vision is to disenfranchise the votes of 63,000,000 people because their candidate didn’t win. The Democrats’ dark vision is to disenfranchise the votes of 63,000,000 people because they’re sore losers. That’s the portrait of people who couldn’t define patriot if their life depended on it.

Jonathan Allen’s article is either proof of his stupidity or his corruption. After 5 days of hearings and 5 days of biased headlines, it’s difficult not to chalk it up to outright corruption. For the foreseeable future, the MSM won’t get the benefit of the doubt from conservatives.

According to Allen’s article, “a string of current and former administration officials collectively described for the House Intelligence Committee over the last two weeks how the president directed a concerted effort to aid his own re-election efforts at the expense of U.S. national security interests.” What Allen omits is the fact that these testifiers got demolished on cross-examination. This is a perfect example of the Democrats’ star witness getting demolished:

Jim Jordan grilled Ambassador Taylor without being nasty. He simply got Taylor to admit that Taylor testified as to what he’d heard. Jordan replied that that’s what the problem was. Taylor testified as to what he’d heard. In this instance, it’s what Taylor heard third-hand. That’s what happened to the Democrats’ star witness on the first day of public testimony.

Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Gordon Sondland was pretty aggressive:

Rep. Turner questioned Ambassador Sondland:

Turner: No one on this planet told you that this aid was tied to investigations. Yes or no?”
Sondland: “Yes.”

Turner, who called Sondland’s testimony “somewhat circular,” questioned the ambassador’s assertion that “everyone was in the loop.” “If Giuliani didn’t give you any expressed statement, then it can’t be that you believed this [about the connection between investigations and aid] from Giuliani,” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Amb. Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to aid because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

Sondland said he was “presuming” that is what Trump meant.

“The way it was expressed to me was that the Ukrainians had a long history of committing to things privately and then never following through, so President Trump presumably, again communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on record publicly that they were going to do these investigations. That’s the reason that was given to me,” Sondland said.

In Taylor’s instance, he’d spoken 3 times with President Zelenskiy in a short period of time. In none of those instances did attach conditionality to the lethal military aid. In Sondland’s instance, he called President Trump directly to ask what he wanted with regard to the aid. President Trump said “I don’t want anything. No quid pro quo. I just want him to do what he campaigned on.”

Yesterday, David Holmes testified that it was his “clear impression” that the lethal military aid was tied to President Zelenskiy starting an investigation of Burisma. Burisma is the corrupt natural gas company that Hunter Biden got a no-show job with that paid him $50,000-$83,000 a month. That investigation didn’t happen. So much for clear impressions.

Gregg Jarrett’s article highlights the fatal flaw with the testifiers’ testimony:

These hearings have revealed a common and consistent thread. None of the witnesses have provided any direct evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable act. Instead, they have offered an endless stream of hearsay, opinion and speculation.

Of all of the people who testified, only Sondland had talked directly with President Trump.

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who testified on Day Two of the hearings, was fired months before the July 25th Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. That caused Devin Nunes to question why she was even there. Lt. Col. Vindman “testified that he felt ‘concerned’ about Trump’s conversation with Zelenskiy.”

The American people aren’t fooled. The TV viewership started off mediocre, then went downhill after that. President Trump’s approval rating went up. He’s now ahead of the Democrats’ top 4 candidates in Wisconsin. The momentum has switched.

If Democrats were smart, they’d put down their shovels and stop digging. That isn’t what’s likely to happen, though.

Most people understood that it wasn’t likely that Nancy Pelosi would put the USMCA trade negotiation up for a vote before the end of the year. This article seems to confirm that suspicion. The article opens by saying “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she doubts Congress has enough time left to pass the USMCA this year, but Democrats and the Trump administration will continue talks next week to work out a compromise on remaining issues.”

The latest DC rumor is that Pelosi is holding that vote up to pressure reluctant Democrats to vote for impeachment. In this scenario, Ms. Pelosi will withhold the USMCA vote until after they vote on impeachment. Ms. Pelosi knows that Schiff’s impeachment case was weak going in. Further, she knows that impeachment got beaten up quite a bit during the public hearings.

When Democrats voted to authorize the impeachment inquiry, 232 Democrats voted for it. When the entire House votes on Articles of Impeachment, there won’t be 232 Democrat votes. If I was scoring the hearings the way I used to score baseball games, I’d score it this way: Democrats pretty much won each day’s opening statements, especially the witnesses’ opening statements. I think that was intentional.

Think of the witnesses’ opening statements as political clickbait. Their job was to feed the MSM. It was then up to the MSM to plaster that day’s “bombshell” into that day’s chyrons to pound the message home. That message was simple — Testifier A, B or C delivered a “bombshell” testimony. The case against Trump is insurmountable. He’ll be impeached and removed. Pay no attention to what Fox says. Don’t pay attention to what Townhall or the Federalist says, either.

What Democrats wanted people to ignore was the cross-examinations, especially this one:

Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland all but officially finished the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. That’s the most powerful cross-examination of the 5 days of hearings. All of the other gossip from the other testifiers is worthless. Sondland spoke directly with President Trump and President Zelenskiy. He’s the only one with firsthand knowledge of the central characters in these hearings.

Turner, BTW, is just one of the new GOP heroes coming out of these hearings. For those of us who’ve followed this Russia Ukrainian Hoax, we already knew that Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe were heavyweights. During the 5 public hearings, Elise Stefanik, Mike Turner and Chris Stewart turned in their finest performances.

Holding up the USMCA is further proof that Ms. Pelosi is the nastiest partisan this century. She’d rather hurt President Trump than do what’s right for the nation. The US needs selfless leaders who put the nation’s needs ahead of partisanship. That isn’t what we’re getting right now. Right now, we’re getting overdoses of partisanship from Pelosi and Schiff.