Archive for the ‘Due Process’ Category

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.

For the past few days, Democrats have criticized Republicans for whining about the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff’s “process”, hinting that Republicans can’t win on the evidence. First, it’s important to admit that we don’t have any proof of wrongdoing. The leaked information suggests multiple things, all of which can be explained as either damning or thoroughly plausible.

Next, it’s essential to admit that Democrats, including the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff, have admitted that they’re acting as a grand jury. That’s a legitimate constitutional crisis for Democrats because the only federal personnel permitted to impanel grand juries are employed by the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch. Nobody in the legislative branch is constitutionally authorized to impanel a grand jury.

The question thus becomes whether Republicans are fighting for legitimate constitutional principles, for process or both. At this point, it’s apparent that Republicans are fighting for constitutional principles like separation of powers, due process and the right of the accused to confront their accuser. Further, Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has admitted that he’s violated the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. Schiff is guilty of violating President Trump’s due process rights because we’ve heard from people who participated in the hearings that each day brings a different set of rules. It’s impossible to uphold a person’s due process rights when you don’t have a process.

After hearing the Democrats’ spin that this process was damning, John Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, set things straight in this interview with Martha McCallum:

It isn’t indisputable that Democrats have put a strong case together. When Bill Taylor is called as a ‘witness’, he admitted in his opening statement that he didn’t have firsthand information. If that’s in his 15-page opening statement, how can Democrats say that his testimony was explosive? In a judicial setting, his wouldn’t be permitted to testify because it’s hearsay, which isn’t permitted.

Republicans aren’t fighting for process. They’re fighting for the most important constitutional principles. The judicial system couldn’t exist if the right to defend yourself didn’t exist. The judicial system couldn’t exist if defendants’ attorneys weren’t allowed to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. The judicial system couldn’t exist demolish a witness’s testimony.

Apparently, that’s what John Ratcliffe did to Ambassador Taylor’s testimony. Adam Schiff isn’t interested in constitutional principles. Schiff’s interested in achieving a specific outcome. That outcome is overturning the 2016 presidential election. It doesn’t bother him if that overturns the will of the people.

Overturning the will of the people is horrific. In fact, it’s intolerable. What’s worse is overturning the will of the people while violating President Trump’s most important constitutional protections.

It’s infuriating to think that it’s happening in the bottom of a building known as the People’s House. This is proof that, with Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, it’s amazing how low it can go.

Just 2 months ago, I didn’t know who Bill Taylor was. Now I know that he’s another career diplomat who doesn’t like it that President Trump is implementing the foreign policy that the American people elected him to implement. Tuesday, Taylor testified that “President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate both election interference and a company linked to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son — and was willing to hold up military aid and a White House meeting to get a public announcement from the country that the probes were underway.”

Even if that’s true, that’s still a nothingburger. Unfortunately for Taylor, there was a man of integrity in the room during Taylor’s testimony. That man’s name is John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe is a former US attorney who now represents TX-04. Tonight, Ratcliffe appeared on The Story to be interviewed by Martha McCallum. After Ratcliffe said that he couldn’t repeat what he said in the secret room, Ratcliffe figured out a legal way to say what happened during his cross-examination of Taylor. Here’s the video of that interview:

Predictably, Democrats described today’s testimony as “the most damning they’ve heard.” Ratcliffe had a different perspective. First, though, is part of what Taylor testified to:

“I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations.”

In this instance, Taylor’s testimony was third-hand information at best. Third-hand testimony heard behind closed doors and which doesn’t come with a transcript of Congressman Ratcliffe’s cross-examination is virtually worthless.

Congressman Ratcliffe noted that “At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld and on that most important issue, neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that any military aid was being withheld on July 25th. Unless and until they can bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone who speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a legal quid pro quo is impossible.”

Ratcliffe also noted that “[Schiff] keeps trotting in career ambassadors who are alarmed at Donald Trump’s unconventional approach to foreign policy. Who’s surprised at that? And again, today, I found Ambassador Taylor to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, but again, the MSM keeps reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him on that and, under Adam Schiff’s rules, I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And he nor any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You have a quid pro quo without the quo.”

Ratcliffe’s final major contribution of the interview came when he said this:

Martha, if this was a court case, the lawyers for the defense would be moving for a directed verdict. They’d be saying ‘this case isn’t allowed to go to a jury because the prosecution is missing an essential element of their case.’ There is no quid pro quo until someone from the Ukraine says ‘We knew that military aid was being withheld during that July 25th call and that testimony hasn’t come and it isn’t going to come.”

This impeachment case is collapsing, albeit behind closed doors. It isn’t just that the case is weak. It’s that the Senate is about to vote on Lindsey Graham’s resolution that essentially says that the House process has been a travesty:

Sen. Graham is right in pushing that the impeachment trial be dismissed without a trial if the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, aka Adam Schiff, isn’t willing to afford to President Trump the same rights that were granted to President Nixon and President Clinton. The House Democrats’ impeachment process is a travesty. It shouldn’t be treated like it was an honest investigation based on constitutional rights.

Democrats have spent the last 3 years morphing into the ‘Verdict first, investigation later’ political party. Rep. Scott Perry, (R-PA), made the case that Democrats have become that party in this op-ed:

The most solemn duty undertaken by members of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We swear an oath before the beginning of every Congress. My Oath is something I’ve taken seriously throughout a lifetime of public service – from solider, to state representative to congressman. Unfortunately, leftists in Congress are using their sacred oath to the Constitution as justification to flout the primacy of its principles. We see this no more clearly than in the most recent push to impeach the president.

These rushed, faux impeachment proceedings are shrouded in secrecy. No one knows what the rules are, and it gives liberal members, like Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an opportunity to blatantly fabricate facts of convenience and mislead the American people.

That’s Schiff’s M.O. He’s spent the last two years misleading the American people about the contents of the Mueller report. Once hopes fizzled with that (findings: “No collusion, No obstruction”), they’ve rolled out the next phony investigation with yet another forgone conclusion.

Republicans have argued that there wasn’t any obstruction of justice. The legal-dictionary.com explains what it takes to obstruct justice:

To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

I’d think that it’s difficult to prove corrupt intent without a wiretap recording or an email stating that intent. I don’t doubt that Schiff and other Democrats would speculate about that. It’s one thing to speculate. It’s another to prove.

Democrats first talked about impeaching President Trump before he became President Trump. The Constitution says that impeachment involves “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States.” Before he’s inaugurated, Trump didn’t fit the constitutional definition. That’s irrelevant to these hyper-partisan Democrats. They just know that Trump is evil and he must be removed.

With Democrats like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, President Trump has been guilty since before his inauguration. This trio of troublemakers don’t really care about the Constitution. They care about impeaching and removing President Trump. If that requires throwing the Bill of Rights out, then that’s what they’ll do.

With her actions, Nancy Pelosi admitted that she’s violated President Trump’s due process rights. While she’s right that there isn’t a checklist to follow for impeachment, she’s stupid if she thinks that there aren’t some constitutional principles that must be adhered to. She’s stupid if she thinks that past impeachment investigations haven’t set a path that subsequent impeachment investigations must meet.

When the House initiated their impeachment investigation of President Nixon, there was a defined set of rules that guaranteed the House’s ability to investigate and President Nixon’s right to cross-examine witnesses. The rules adopted by Peter Rodino’s Judiciary Committee permitted President Nixon’s attorneys the right to subpoena witnesses. When Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee adopted the Rodino-Nixon rules.

This sham investigation doesn’t have a clear set of rules and procedures. It doesn’t have any consistent rules or procedures other than to thwart President Trump’s legal team. That’s a violation of President Trump’s due process rights. Then there’s this:

Executive privilege was one of the protections mentioned by Counsel to the Vice President Matthew Morgan in a Tuesday letter to the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees, who are overseeing the ongoing inquiry. Morgan’s letter claimed that the committees’ request for documents was overbroad because it included some documents that were “clearly not vice-presidential records,” and that the request was not within the realm of “legitimate legislative oversight.”

Morgan continued, saying this:

“Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an ‘impeachment inquiry’ against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process,” Morgan wrote, noting that “House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.”

Ms. Pelosi can’t speak rules into existence. They have to be written, then approved of by a majority of the “Committee of the Whole”. Without that vote, no committee has authorization to start impeachment. As with other points in her career, Ms. Pelosi is acting like the autocrat she’s always wanted to be.

The goal of due process is to guarantee fairness, consistency and predictability. You can’t have due process if there isn’t a process. When this lawsuit gets filed, Pelosi’s Democrats will have problems:

“Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Wednesday morning blog post. “Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment.”

Doug Collins nails it with this tweet:


Pelosi’s fatal flaw is that she thinks she can run the House like a tyrant. Frequently, she gets away with that. This is a totally different situation. It’s like the difference between a sandlot football game and the Super Bowl. The scrutiny is through the roof and the stakes don’t get higher.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that Speaker Pelosi delegated a responsibility to Adam Schiff that will leave him in a difficult position. While Ms. Pelosi puts Schiff ‘in charge’ of the Democrats’ anti-transparent impeachment inquiry, what she’s actually done is dumped all the grief that’s heading his direction into Schiff’s lap. When Ms. Pelosi declared the start of impeachment, she thrust on Schiff the day-to-day details of the impeachment inquiry. Forever the attention-seeker, Schiff gobbled up the attention.

Ms. Pelosi left it up to Schiff how the investigation would be run. Would they hold public hearings? Would President Trump’s attorneys be permitted to cross-examine the Democrats’ witnesses? Would the Democrats allow Republicans to call witnesses? Those are just some of the day-to-day details that Ms. Pelosi dropped into Schiff’s lap. That way, when the shit hits the fan, Pelosi is a mile away while Schiff is holding a ticking time bomb.

This isn’t a matter of if it happens. It’s a matter of when. Anyone that thinks that this isn’t finishing with a lawsuit is kidding themselves. President Trump’s due process rights weren’t merely violated. President Trump’s rights have gotten trampled.

Republicans who haven’t gotten kicked out of the room by Schiff have noted that there aren’t any rules that govern these interviews and depositions. In fact, different rules govern interviews and depositions. Rep. Lee Zeldin notes that minority members of the committee are allowed to talk about the content of witness interviews, albeit in a limited fashion, whereas minority members of the committee aren’t allowed to speak publicly about depositions.

This is the definition of making the rules up as you go along. You can’t have due process where process doesn’t exist. Jim Trusty and Ken Starr explain what’s at stake in this video:

This isn’t complicated. If Adam Schiff wanted to run a fair process, he could. He doesn’t want that. That’s why this process isn’t happening in public. Trusty is right that there isn’t a set procedure codified into the Constitution on conducting impeachment investigations. That doesn’t mean there aren’t safeguards that are built into the process.

Schiff says that he doesn’t want witnesses to fabricate their testimony. What proof does Schiff have that anyone’s done that? Is that proof like the proof he had that was “more than circumstantial” that Schiff didn’t show, that Rep. Zeldin didn’t see and that Robert Mueller didn’t find?

At the end of the day, the American people will reject this process because it’s built upon deception, inconsistencies and the process keeps shifting. That isn’t the definition of fair. Further, Democrats haven’t identified anything approaching treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking a foreign country for help with an investigation into a corrupt US politician isn’t a high crime. It’s common sense.

President Nixon and President Clinton were allowed to defend themselves during the House impeachment investigations. Queen Pelosi ruled by fiat that wasn’t acceptable. Queen Pelosi understood that the case was flimsy. That’s why Queen Pelosi won’t permit a vote of the full House to authorize a legitimate impeachment investigation.

This afternoon, I wrote this post, which I titled “Is Schiff intentionally tipping the impeachment scales?” Hint: The answer is yes, Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment. That’s the good news for Schiff and Pelosi. The bad news for Schiff and Pelosi is that Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment.

This tactic is starting to cause an anti-Democrat backlash, thanks in large part to House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lee Zeldin, (R-NY). This past Sunday, Rep. Zeldin appeared on “The Cats Roundtable” on AM 970 New York” with John Catsimatidis. During the interview, Rep. Zeldin said this:

Something that I find outrageous is the cherry-picked leaks, the withholding of key facts and the lying about other claims that’s misleading the American public. Why are we sitting inside of Adam Schiff’s bunker turning in our cell phones before we come in and being told that nothing here can be told to the American public?

Tonight, Zeldin appeared on Martha McCallum’s show. Here’s that interview:

During tonight’s interview, Rep. Zeldin raised a great question after mentioning that Adam Schiff threw Matt Gaetz out of the hearing. Rep. Zeldin asked “what rule is governing any of this process? What rule of the House is governing this impeachment inquiry?” That’s a pair of rhetorical questions. A 4th-grader would understand that this is a Schiff-for-brains, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants Special rule. Whatever rule helps Democrats the most at the moment will be deployed. Whether it’s been used before or whether it’s precedent-setting isn’t relevant. Whatever the Democrats need in the situation is what the rules appear to be.

For now, the process doesn’t matter from a legal standpoint. That won’t last forever. Even Democrats are bright enough to know that these procedures will be challenged in the courts. While Ms. Pelosi is right that there isn’t a set way to impeach a president, she’s foolish if she thinks that several constitutional principles aren’t essential.

For instance, if Ms. Pelosi thinks that having agreed upon a set of rules isn’t important, then she doesn’t understand the importance of due process. Without due process, the Democrats’ witch hunt is a highly-publicized kangaroo court. That won’t fly in court. Further, ignoring the past precedent of letting the president’s counsel sit in on witness testimony can’t be ignored. The impeachment and conviction of a president is a somber event that shouldn’t be acted upon capriciously. It’s wonderfully ironic that Pelosi’s words would get thrown back in her face would be delightful to Republicans.

Watching the entire Zeldin interview is well worth it. Pay special attention to the crosstalk about the 4 Pinocchios part of the interview. I found it quite enjoyable.

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.

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.

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.