Archive for the ‘Adam Schiff’ Category

This morning, Matt Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to listen to Fiona Hill, allegedly a Schiff-coached witness. Schiff didn’t permit his entry. The Democrats aren’t letting Republicans in even though Gaetz has the proper security clearance. Yesterday, Chairman Schiff told CBS’s Margaret Brennan that “If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can’t give away.”

Does Chairman Schiff, one of the nastiest, most dishonest partisan Democrats on Capitol Hill, have proof that any witnesses have provided false testimony? Do Democrats have any proof that any witnesses have thought about providing false testimony? Later, Schiff continued, saying “Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

Schiff has already let one liar into that secure facility. That person’s name is Adam Schiff. Remember this?

He called that a parody. I call it a bald-faced lie. Then there’s this:

That’s when Schiff insisted that he hadn’t talked with the whistleblower. Today, Schiff’s insisting that he “misspoke.” That’s BS. Schiff didn’t misspeak. Schiff lied intentionally.

In other words, the problem restricting liars isn’t keeping Republicans out. Democrats are secretive liars on the inside. Not just that but Democrats are prolific leakers, with Shiffty Schiff being the worst of the worst.

It’s time to expel Adam Schiff from Congress. Appearing on CBS’s Face The Nation, Schiff said “We want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

I went to the transcript of Margaret Brennan’s interview of Chairman Schiff. Stating that Schiff is paranoid is understatement. Here’s what Schiff said:

REP. SCHIFF: the Republicans would like nothing better because they view their role as defending the president being the president’s lawyers. If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can’t give away. There’s a reason why investigations and grand jury proceedings for example, and I think this is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, are done out of the public view initially. Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.

Actually, what’s upsetting is that this is the first impeachment inquiry in modern history where the president’s lawyers weren’t in the room during questioning. In fact, in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment hearings, the testimony was given in public. Further, the vote of the whole House stipulated that the President’s attorneys were allowed to cross-examine the House’s witnesses. Before anyone whines about how that that’s the Senate’s responsibility, it’s worth noting that the House allowed the President’s attorneys to cross-examine witnesses before the House voted on articles of impeachment.

This means that, for the first time in US history, the majority party states that part of their impeachment strategy is to violate the president’s due process rights. I can’t think of anything that’s more disgusting. This is a legitimate constitutional crisis. When a member of Congress states emphatically that his goal is to violate the President’s due process rights, that’s a huge problem. This is the oath that Chairman Schiff took less than a year ago:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

It’s impossible to support and defend the Constitution when you’ve stated that you want to deny people their constitutional rights. Further, in previous impeachment inquiries, the presidents’ attorneys were free to disseminate that day’s testimony to their client and the witnesses that they planned on calling, exposing Chairman Schiff’s statement as flimsy at best.

What Schiff didn’t mention is that Democrats don’t have the right to pick which constitutional rights they’ll enforce. Here’s the interview:

Equating a criminal grand jury with the impeachment of a president is ill-informed. A criminal grand jury investigation is an inquiry into whether a crime has been committed. In addition to investigating whether a crime has been committed, the impeachment of a president is the House’s step of negating an election. Later in the interview, Schiff states that he doesn’t want to give witnesses the opportunity “to fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

That’s a highly provocative statement to make without something to substantiate that worry. Chairman Schiff’s statements, including the opening statement to the Maguire hearing that he fabricated, are disgusting.

Back on March 27, 2006, I wrote this post. That’s when I coined the phrase Agenda Media. By definition, the Agenda Media is interested in furthering the Democrats’ leftist agenda. The Agenda Media isn’t interested in spreading the truth. If the Agenda Media had a mission statement, I’m betting that it would say that acquiring, then maintaining, power for Democrats is their mission. That’s a shameful mission.

Kim Strassel’s new book, titled Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America is essentially about the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Resist movement couldn’t exist without the Agenda Media’s help. Ms. Strassel writes:

Last week The Washington Post revealed the alarming news that House Democrats were considering having their anonymous “whistleblower” testify from a remote location, and in disguise. Just as shocking as the details of this plan was the justification the Post ladled on this Democratic effort to hide impeachment information from the public.

It explained, high up in the story, that the cloak-and-dagger approach was merely Democrats expressing “distrust of their GOP colleagues, whom they see as fully invested in defending a president who has attacked the whistleblower’s credibility and demanded absolute loyalty from Republicans.”

This year, House Minority Leader McCarthy coined a phrase that said “Democrats hate President Trump more than they love America. That’d sound extreme if you haven’t paid attention to the Democrats’ actions. If you’ve paid attention to the Democrats’ actions, Leader McCarthy’s cliché is legitimate.

It’d be wrong to call Pelosi’s Democrats a domestic terrorist organization but I wouldn’t be that far off. Since President Trump’s election, Democrats have voted virtually unanimously against prosperity and against giving President Trump some political victories. Let’s not forget that every Democrat in DC voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that’s been the heart of this incredible economic performance.

Let’s remember that every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against confirming Justice Kavanaugh. In fact, those Democrats did everything imaginable to destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation and Justice Kavanaugh’s family. It isn’t surprising that every Democrat voted against Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

The Resist Movement is spearheaded by the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Agenda Media is significantly to the left of traditional Democrats. That doesn’t mean that today’s Democrats are moderates. They definitely aren’t. The AOC wing of the Democratic Party is the biggest wing of the Party. They’re also the craziest part of the Party. Check out this interview:

Notice that Leslie Marshall cites polls favoring impeachment rather than defending the secrecy with which House Democrats are conducting their sham impeachment proceedings. Marshall didn’t attempt to defend Pelosi’s or Schiff’s indefensible actions.

That’s changed in the age of Trump. The press has embraced its bias, joined the Resistance and declared its allegiance to one side of a partisan war. It now openly declares those who offer any fair defense of this administration as Trump “enablers.” It writes off those who question the FBI or Department of Justice actions in 2016 as “conspiracy” theorists. It acts as willing scribes for Democrats and former Obama officials; peddles evidence-free accusations; sources stories from people with clear political axes to grind; and closes its eyes to clear evidence of government abuse.

It’s time for truth-loving Republicans and independents to shove the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post off a non-literal cliff. They’re propagandists. They aren’t real journalists.

Anyone that thinks that the so-called whistleblower isn’t a Deep State operative hasn’t read this article. The article starts by saying “CBS News has learned the full contents of what appears to be a memo written by the whistleblower one day after President Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July. The memo, dated July 26, is based on a conversation the whistleblower had with an unnamed White House official who listened to the call.”

Those opening words instill legitimacy, thanks in large part to a pair of unnamed people talking about a classified call. Why wouldn’t the people immediately trust the ensuing document? Speaking of the document, it starts like this:

The president’s call with Zelensky was held on the morning of July 25. The whistleblower wrote the memo the next day after speaking with the official in the afternoon. The whistleblower wrote that he or she spoke with the White House official for “a few minutes,” and summarized their conversation.

According to the memo, the White House official described the contents of the call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” The whistleblower said the official was “visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call.”

Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that an unnamed White House official was frightened to the point of spilling their guts to the unnamed Deep State snitch. We’re being asked to trust the people who insisted that they have proof that was “more than circumstantial” W-A-A-Y back in March of 2017. That’s the proof that we still haven’t seen. Sign me up. I’ll trust Shiffty Schiff. Later in the document:

The official described the call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” The official asserted that the President used the call to persuade Ukrainian authorities to investigate his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official’s view, the President had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own reelection bid in 2020.

I’ve read the transcript of the phone call. There’s nothing in that transcript that I’d call crazy or frightening. What I’d find frightening, though, is a snitch whose identity is being protected by corrupt politicians like Adam Schiff.

The point that needs to be made constantly is that this snitch/whistleblower/Democrat operative can’t be trusted. This document doesn’t match up with the transcript whatsoever. Since it isn’t difficult to find out who did the transcription but it’s virtually impossible to find out who these snitches are, it isn’t difficult to decide that Deep State snitches shouldn’t be trusted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an “official impeachment inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For instance, McCarthy starts by saying this:

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

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

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

That’s why McCarthy makes this statement:

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

Next, McCarthy explains the definition of obstruction:

Obstruction happens when there is tampering with documents or witnesses.

He also explains what obstruction isn’t:

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

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

I’ll leave you with this parting thought:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Pelosi gave the game away with this reply:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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