Archive for the ‘Jim Jordan’ 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?

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.

It’s time to step away from last week’s impeachment hearings to examine something significant. It’s apparent that Adam Schiff’s Democrats specialize in partisanship. It’s apparent because the supposed high crimes and misdemeanors President Trump was accused of committing kept changing.

In her article, Mollie Hemingway wrote “Before we get to the politics and how they were played by Republicans and Democrats, it should be noted that President Donald Trump has not been credibly accused of committing any crime, much less a high crime or misdemeanor. It’s almost shocking that Trump, of all people, keeps managing to do well on this score. Yet, as with the Russia collusion hoax, in which he was accused of being a traitor to his country, the lack of evidence for the charges against him is his ultimate saving grace.”

She continued with this:

What the charge is keeps changing, of course. The whistleblower initially suggested a campaign finance violation arising from a call Trump had with the president of Ukraine. That morphed into a quid pro quo for military aid to Ukraine, then extortion, then bribery, then obstruction of justice, then back to a quid pro quo, but this time only a quid pro quo for a White House meeting. The lack of certainty among even Trump’s critics certainly worked in his favor.

Let’s get this straight. Each of these charges is laughable. They’re laughable to the extent that extortion and bribery were suggested by focus groups commissioned by the DCCC, the Democrats’ campaign committee commissioned with losing the Democrats’ House majority in 2020. (That wasn’t what they were hired to do. That’s what will happen. It’s like the old Shakey’s Pizza saying — ‘We’re a non-profit. It wasn’t planned that way. That’s just how things worked out.’)

Seriously, though, Democrats kept switching from one ridiculous accusation to the next. They didn’t have proof for their accusations. Democrats simply relied on the MSM to sell the charges. That’s what happens when muscles atrophy. They relied more on the media, less on legitimate, well-researched arguments. The Democrats’ eutrophication was best displayed by Ms. Pelosi’s choice between Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to spearhead the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee. Schiff is terrible but he’s significantly better than Nadler.

To impeach a president, you need evidence of a major offense that everyone looks at, then says ‘Yep, that’s an impeachable offense.’ The Democrats don’t have that. It’s like the football team with 3 QBs. That team really doesn’t have any. When you have 3-5 impeachable offense theories, you’re really not in the ballpark. You might not even be in the parking lot outside the ballpark.

Meanwhile, Republicans on the Impeachment Committee took apart the Democrats’ ridiculous accusations with ease. Jim Jordan demolished Bill Taylor. Mike Taylor demolished Gordon Sondland. Elise Stefanik took apart Ambassador Yovanovitch:


John Ratcliffe demolished Lt. Col. Vindman:

The MSM won’t admit that they’re propping up House Democrats but that’s what’s happening. Republicans don’t need propping up because they’re taking the Democrats’ testifiers apart with precision and discipline. It helps that the facts are on the Republicans’ side. It helps that the Democrats’ testifiers have relied on weasel-word testimony.

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.

This article is the political equivalent of a pair of nuclear bomb explosions, one right in front of Nancy Pelosi’s office, the other in front of Adam Schiff’s office. The Hill is reporting that “‘Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,’ Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine.”

Foreign Minister Prystaiko continued, saying “I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Unlike most of the testimony Wednesday (or the expected testimony Friday), this is firsthand information. The testimony that we watched Wednesday that was supposedly damaging to President Trump wouldn’t have gotten into a court of law. More on that later.

The damaging testimony heard Wednesday would’ve hurt President Obama. For instance, when Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Trump had sent lethal military aid to Ukraine, Taylor affirmed that as accurate. When Ambassador Taylor was asked if President Obama had supplied lethal military aid to Ukraine, he said President Obama hadn’t supplied Ukraine with lethal military aid. When Taylor was asked which president’s military aid was better, Taylor affirmed that President Trump’s aid was superior.

FOOTNOTE: Both sides said that they won the day on Wednesday. The difference is that Republicans had proof of their victory. Democrats only had spin. Republicans could point to Jim Jordan’s dizzying recitation of the modification to Ambassador Sondland’s deposition. That’s the one where Jordan finished by saying that he’d seen church prayer chains that were less complicated:

Another explosive event from Thursday happened when Speaker Pelosi accused President Trump of bribery:

Jim Jordan reacted to Pelosi’s quote, saying “It’s ridiculous, just ridiculous.” Which it is. Let’s tie these stories together. First, let’s deal with Pelosi’s accusation:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharpened the focus of Democrats’ impeachment case against President Trump on Thursday, accusing the president of committing bribery when he withheld vital military assistance from Ukraine at the same time he was seeking its commitment to publicly investigate his political rivals.

There’s just one problem with that theory. Its premise just got blown out of the water:

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations,” Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, a man with firsthand knowledge of what as negotiated and what wasn’t negotiated, said that military aid was never linked to Ukraine investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. If Democrats were smart, which I’m confident they aren’t, they’d finish their public hearings at the end of next week, then close shop. Why wouldn’t Democrats want to follow this advice?

There’s an old cribbage saying about a hand with all even cards that aren’t consecutive. That saying is that “the only right way to throw that hand is away.” That’s my advice to Democrats. The hand that they’re playing is terrible.

Finally, Sean Hannity announced Thursday night that he’d contacted of the 53 Republican Senators since Wednesday night. Each senator was asked if they’d support rules for impeachment that gave President Trump’s legal team the opportunity to cross-examine whistle-blowers. The other question each senator was asked was whether they’d support an impeachment rules package that required the following of legal rules of evidence. Specifically, they were asked whether they’d support a rule that hearsay testimony would be excluded.

Mitch McConnell replied immediately, saying that he’d only support impeachment rules that excluded hearsay testimony and included the protections outlined in the Sixth Amendment. That’d essentially wipe out the Democrats’ testimony. Plus, it’d guarantee the whistleblower’s unmasking.

Is that truly the path Democrats want to take? The smart choice is folding. Let’s see just how smart Democrats are.

If there was a more mesmerizing moment Wednesday morning than Jim Jordan’s ridiculing of Ambassador Bill Taylor, it’s impossible to believe. After having time given to him to cross-examine Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Jordan referenced EU Ambassador Sondland’s amended testimony. In the amended testimony from Ambassador Sondland, Sondland affirms “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I convey this message to Mr. Yarmack on September 1, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence’s meeting to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.'”

According to Ambassador Taylor, this is the part of Ambassador Sondland’s testimony that gave Ambassador Taylor a clear understanding of what was going on with the connectivity of the investigation of Hunter Biden to the lethal foreign aid to Ukraine. After Taylor affirms that, Jordan replies that “I’ve seen church prayer chains that were less complicated.”
Here’s the video of Jordan’s questioning of Taylor:

That’s as clarifying as mud. It’s impossible to think that Taylor suddenly had a clearer understanding of US lethal military aid being tied to investigating Hunter Biden after Taylor read Sondland’s additional testimony. That’s after Taylor testified to Jordan that he’d met with President Zelenskiy 3 times in 55 days but that the connectivity between the investigation into the Bidens and military aid never came up during the discussions.

If Ukraine felt threatened by Russia militarily in July, 2019, why wouldn’t President Zelenskiy bring that subject up? We know that President Zelenskiy brought up the subject of purchasing additional Javelin anti-tank missiles from the US during his call with President Trump of July 25, 2019. What’s amazing is that that’s a day prior to Ambassador Taylor’s conversation with President Zelenskiy.

If Zelenskiy was worried about protecting Ukraine from Russia, wouldn’t he have asked forcefully about the missiles from both President Trump and Ambassador Taylor? The transcript shows he mentioned the Javelins but that’s it.

Democrats have lost the impeachment fight. Wednesday was their only chance to make a first impression. Instead, the phrase that people will remember is Jim Jordan’s. Finally, Never Trumper Steve Hayes is dining on foot tonight. On Monday night’s All-Star Panel, Hayes said that Jim Jordan had done a good job prior to getting his Intel Committee assignment but then suggested that he wasn’t a good fit on the Committee. Here’s to that fine dining, Steve.

This weekend, Mark Zaid, the lead attorney for the so-called whistleblower, offered to have his client answer written questions from Impeachment Committee Republicans. It didn’t take long for Republicans to reject that offer:

But, late Sunday, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemingly rejected the offer from whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, saying “written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross examine the so-called whistleblower. You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it,” Jordan said.

Zaid’s reply came through this tweet:


About those whistleblower protections, it’s apparent that Mr. Zaid is doing the deflecting:

In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:

Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.

In other words, this anonymous informant isn’t a heroic whistleblower saving the republic. He’s just another CIA snitch spying on President Trump.

That means that Democrats are protecting this snitch for purely partisan purposes. This isn’t done for patriotic purposes. It’s done because Democrats want to impeach President Trump so badly they’d say or do anything to make it happen. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, knows this law. If he doesn’t, then he isn’t qualified to be the House Impeachment Committee. That’s part of his responsibility.

According to Jason Chaffetz, the former chair of the House Oversight Committee, that committee routinely went through whistleblower submissions. Why wouldn’t Schiff’s committee do the same? This anonymous informant doesn’t qualify for whistleblower protections because he/she isn’t “assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA).” Also, the informant isn’t reporting on a covered person. It’s obvious that this person is a snitch.

This is just posturing anyway. The minute that the House impeaches President Trump, the trial is held in the Senate. At that point, the Senate will set the rules and issue the subpoenas. At that point, Adam Schiff will lose his ability to protect this whistleblower. That will leave Mr. Zaid with little negotiating leverage at that future point.

I’d consider this offer a let’s-see-if-they-blink offer. If Jordan, Nunes and others blink, fantastic for Zaid’s client. If they don’t, which appears to be the case, Zaid hasn’t lost anything by trying.

If Speaker Pelosi sincerely believed in the Constitution’s protections, she wouldn’t have published this set of impeachment rules. Every ‘right’ granted to President Trump and/or Republicans, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are allowed to take away. It isn’t that President Trump and Republicans weren’t ‘given’ some rights. It’s that the rights that they were given can also be taken away.

Unless the House makes the Republicans’ rights ironclad, Senate Republicans should publish a statement5 minutes after the House votes on Ms. Pelosi’s rules. The Senate’s statement should state without hesitation that the Senate won’t recognize the House’s articles of impeachment until a) all hearings from this point forward must be public, b) all GOP witness requests must be granted, c) all transcripts from previous witnesses must immediately be made available to the members of the Intel, Foreign Affairs, Oversight & Reform and Judiciary Committee members.

Without those rights guaranteed, the Senate should emphatically state that the House’s witch hunt won’t be taken as a legitimate investigation. Further, the Senate should emphatically make known that, because the House investigation wasn’t legitimate, the impeachment will be considered invalidated upon arrival to the Senate. That would send the signal to Ms. Pelosi and the freshmen Democrats that they’ll be taking a vote that’s meaningless. The message to the House would be that these vulnerable freshmen Democrats would cast a provocative, meaningless vote that immediately endangers Ms. Pelosi’s freshmen. Ms. Pelosi is lots of things but being an incompetent bean-counter isn’t one of those things. She’s very good at what she does, especially counting noses.

The minute the testimony transcripts are made public, including the cross-examinations of each witness, Republicans should examine the contents of those transcripts. The minute Republicans find testimony that doesn’t match Schiff’s spin, Republicans should highlight the discrepancy between Schiff spin and the transcript.

This hearing explains why Ms. Pelosi didn’t pick Jerry Nadler to be the public face of the Democrats’ impeachment investigation:

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler have repeatedly told us that the Mueller Report would provide the proof to impeach President Trump. It didn’t. Next, Schiff and Nadler insisted that having Mueller testify would breath life into their witch hunt. This cross-examination by John Ratcliffe ended that pipe dream:

That’s why Pelosi wouldn’t let Nadler or Schiff conduct their hearings in public. These aren’t talented people. They’re idiots that got embarrassed in public. That’s why President Trump’s rights were violated. The dominant denigrating description for Schiff’s proceedings was that of a kangaroo court. I’d argue that the better fit is that of the Three Stooges, although I’m open to the argument that the Three Stooges were way funnier than Schiff and Nadler.

It isn’t that Republicans are afraid of fighting this faux impeachment on the merits. It’s that the argument over constitutional principles was easier. If Democrats think that John Ratcliffe, Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows aren’t confident in their ability to utterly dismantle the Democrats’ case, they’re foolish.

It’s time for Republicans to fight for these foundational constitutional principles. The Democrats’ frequent violations of President Trump’s rights aren’t just a threat to President Trump. They’re a threat to future presidents, too.

This weekend, Adam Schiff went off the rails at the Aspen Institute’s Security Forum. Then again, his replies to questions didn’t sound that much different than his replies back in DC. Most importantly, Chairman Schiff, one of the Democrats charged with impeaching President Trump, insisted that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation into alleged FISA abuse is “tainted” because of political influence.

According to the Washington Examiner article, “At the Aspen Security Forum this weekend, Schiff accused top Justice Department officials of pandering to Trump by instigating a “fast track” report last year about former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. His comments came as part of a broader answer to a question about whether he has concerns about Attorney General William Barr’s review of the origins of the Russia investigation.”

That’s irrelevant. If IG Horowitz can gather testimony and forensic evidence showing that the upper echelons of the FBI didn’t tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the FISA Court, then those FBI people who signed off on the integrity of the Russian disinformation otherwise known as the Steele Dossier are in trouble. As a former federal prosecutor, Schiff knows that it’s what IG Horowitz can prove, not what Schiff can spin about in fanciful terms. What’s important is what’s verifiable. This is hilarious:

“I have no reason to question the inspector general’s conclusion, but that investigation was put on a fast track. It was separated from a broader inspector general investigation, which is still ongoing,” he said. “Why was that done? It was done so he could be fired to not get a pension. It was done to please the president when the initiation investigation is tainted. So are the results of that investigation.”

Immediately after Schiff said that he doesn’t have a reason to question the IG’s conclusion, Schiff questions the IG’s conclusion that hurts the Democrats’ drive for impeachment the most. Schiff is as easy to read as a children’s book. Jim Jordan chimed in with this pertinent question:

“Inspector General Horowitz is a professional. He’s conducting a crucial investigation into FBI and DOJ misconduct. But @RepAdamSchiff said his investigation is ‘tainted.’ What’s got Schiff worried?” Jordan tweeted.

Already, Democrats are deploying 2 different spin messages. The first is that the Mueller investigation was heavily restricted, which corrupted the investigation. The other is that DOJ rules for DOJ employees testifying limit Mueller’s answers, also corrupting Mueller’s testimony. Both lines of spin aren’t worth the bandwidth they’re printed on.

What’s most frightening is that this clown is in charge of the Intel Committee:

If you go to the dictionary to find the definition of the term dishonest broker, Adam Schiff’s face will appear.