Archive for the ‘Due Process’ Category

It’s just one judge’s ruling but Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s executive order just sustained a major hit. This comes “after the Shiawassee County Sheriff said he wouldn’t enforce the order.” The article read “Karl Manke is ready for customers after a judge denied a temporary restraining order to close the barbershop.”

David Kallman, Manke’s attorney, said “We’re thrilled, yea. The court just denied the TRO request that the attorney general filed earlier today, which means Karl can stay open. And the judge did what we asked, which is if they want to have a hearing, present evidence and try to convince the court that Karl should be shut down, show how the proof. Show that people are actually being harmed.”

Later, Manke said this:

I had gone six weeks without a paycheck, with no money coming in. You know, I’ve been in this business 59 years. I’m entering my 60th now. I’m 77. I’ve always worked. I’ve never looked for handouts, I don’t even know what they are. I had somebody call me and say why don’t you get on food stamps. I don’t want food stamps. I want to work.

Manke said that he’s surprised by the amount of support he’s received:

“I came into this last Monday alone, thinking I’m going to swing in the wind alone,” he said, calling the governor’s order to keep non-essential businesses closed oppressive and he doesn’t need to be mothered by lawmakers. “I cannot believe the support that I’ve got. It’s overwhelming.”

Check this video out:

Just short of 2 minutes into the video, Manke said “I’ve never seen anything like this at all. I’ve never seen this type of oppression by a government, not even in the 60s.” It was difficult to hear Manke’s speech at times because of all the horns honking as they drove past Manke’s shop. That’s what a backlash forming sounds like. They’re mad as hell and they won’t take Gov. Whitmer’s oppression much longer. We The People should take up this battle cry:

“The government isn’t my mother, never has been. It’s time for us to take responsibility.”

David Kallman highlighted the fact that the Michigan legislature refused to extend “the declaration of emergency”, that declaration has lapsed. Since then, Empress Whitmer declared another state of emergency as a way of getting around the legislature’s decision. That new declaration is a legal dead man walking since it wasn’t authorized by the legislature. As Kallman said, that first declaration ended “according to state law.”

Kallman then stated that “If you can walk down the aisle at Walmart, you can walk down the aisle at your church and you can walk down the aisle to Karl’s barber shop.” Kallman then stated that Manke is following the same protocols (hand-washing, social distancing) that other businesses are practicing. What is Gov. Whitmer’s argument in light of those facts? That Walmart is better at hand-washing and social distancing? Her EOs are ridiculous and oppressive. The people know it, too.

It’s time for this selective oppression to end. The rule of law, due process and the right to pursue happiness (without endangering others) must mean something. They can’t just be words on a piece of paper.

John Solomon has worked overtime and then some to rip Adam Schiff’s mask off. So have Catherine Herridge, Sara Carter, Lee Smith, Gregg Jarrett, Kim Strassel, Mollie Hemmingway and Byron York. Solomon’s article highlights how utterly dishonest Adam Schiff is. Ditto with the upper echelon of the FBI. Strap yourself in. This isn’t a short ride.

The pursuit of the truth ended Thursday when the Justice Department formally asked a court to vacate Flynn’s conviction and end the criminal case, acknowledging the former general had indeed been cleared by FBI agents and that the bureau did not have a lawful purpose when it interviewed him in January 2017.

Attorney General William Barr put it more bluntly in an interview Thursday: “They kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch, to lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.”

According to Solomon’s reporting, the FBI didn’t have a reason to investigate Gen. Flynn:

3. Case closed memo. FBI agents wrote a memo to close the investigation of Flynn on Jan. 4, 2017, writing they found “no derogatory” evidence that Flynn committed a crime or posed a national security threat. FBI management then ordered the closure to be rescinded and pivoted toward trying lure Flynn into an interview. https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/fbi-found-no-derogatory-russia-evidence-flynn-planned

Corrupt FBI agent Peter Strzok allegedly ordered Crossfire Razor, the codename for the Flynn investigation, to stay open. Later, in a text to his lover, said this:

“Our utter incompetence actually helps us.”

It’s fair to ask how this relate to Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff knew that the FBI line office wanted to shut down Crossfire Razor. Most importantly, he knew that the officers had found “no derogatory” evidence against Flynn. They found that out before President Trump’s inauguration. That meant that there wasn’t a legitimate predicate for the Flynn investigation. Solomon laid out his case in this interview:

Schiff is a sociopath. Solomon cites 10 different statements Schiff made in public that were contradicted by what was known by the intelligence community. This is disgusting:

Unequal treatment. James Comey bragged in a videotaped interview that he authorized the FBI to try to conduct a Flynn interview without the proper notifications and protocol, hoping to catch Flynn and the new Trump White House off guard. In other words, they didn’t follow procedure or treat Flynn like others when it came to due process. Comey said the tactic was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-admits-decision-to-send-fbi-agents-to-interview-mike-flynn-was-not-standard

Comey and Schiff are the most reprehensible figures in this disgusting episode. They’re both narcissists and sociopaths.

When Sen. Chuck Schumer attempted to intimidate Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it wasn’t the first time Senate Democrats criticized members of the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court when they submitted this brief, which closed by saying “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

That’s a thinly veiled threat by Senate Democrats to pack the courts because they don’t like the Supreme Court’s rulings. What’s clearly meant here is that the Supreme Court could avoid the Democrats’ court-packing if the justices delivered the right ruling in that lawsuit. This highlights the fact that Democrats view the Supreme Court as a legislature.

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases by determining whether a statute lives within the Constitution’s limitations on government. The Constitution was designed to limit the reach of the federal government. The federal government was built by the states to take care of a limited, enumerated, list of things.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights sought to expand individuals’ rights by codifying the right to seek redress of grievances before one’s government, the right to defend one’s family. It also guaranteed the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront one’s accusers. Article III wasn’t written to give Democrats political victories it couldn’t earn through the legislative process.

Democrats should stop using the courts in this fashion. That isn’t what they were designed to do. The reason why there are protests in front of the Supreme Court is because Democrats politicized it 50-75 years ago. President Trump is depoliticizing the Supreme Court by picking judges that apply the Constitution to the lawsuits they hear. Democrat justices rule in favor of the outcome they prefer, regardless of whether it fits the Constitution’s mandates.

Expect Democrats to continue their intimidation tactics as President Trump straightens out the judiciary.

After Saturday’s impeachment hearing, Sen. Schumer said that President Trump’s team underscored the need for more witnesses. That’s totally predictable but it’s totally wrong. One of the highlights of yesterday’s presentation was the number of times when President Trump’s team would play a clip from the House Democrats’ presentation. They’d let the clip sink in, then they’d play the full clip in context.

To use one of the senators’ words, it was like an episode of Paul Harvey’s Rest of the Story. (John Barrasso referenced Paul Harvey.) The House Democrats’ presentation included a snippet of information that sounded convincing in terms of convicting President Trump. Saturday, the Trump team played the full clip, including the exculpatory information. That served multiple purposes.

First, it served the purpose of re-highlighting Chairman Schiff’s untrustworthiness. Since Schiff’s reputation for dishonesty is famous, it didn’t take much time to prove that. Next, it served an important service in highlighting how following due process would’ve spared us this disaster. Had President Trump’s team been able to cross-examine the House Democrats’ witnesses in public during the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, there never would’ve been an impeachment because the exculpatory evidence would’ve already been part of the official record.


Now that everyone can see the whole picture, the Democrats’ case has been demolished. No amount of new testimony will revive Schiff’s case. There’s too much proof that contradicts Schiff’s opinions. Now that we’ve seen the video of Schiff making up the transcript, it’s impossible to forget it. Now that we’ve seen Schiff’s interview with Chuck Todd about Russian collusion, people can’t forget this:

This isn’t just an indictment against the House Democrats’ impeachment managers. It’s an indictment of each House Democrat who voted for impeachment. Each Democrat voting for this impeachment voted against full due process. Each Democrat who voted for this impeachment voted for an impeachment inquiry that’s incomplete. The Democrats who voted for this impeachment didn’t take their responsibilities seriously enough. They voted as partisan hacks. Those Democrats didn’t vote as patriots.

House Democrats can’t now say that they did their job as investigators after President Trump’s team exposed the gaping holes in the Democrats’ evidence. This didn’t just poke holes in the Democrats’ case. It’s left honest people wondering what’s left of the Democrats’ proof. Michael Goodwin got it right in this article:

The aim wasn’t just to create reasonable doubt. The goal was to demolish the entire case against the president and expose lead prosecutor Rep. Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi as pure partisans trying to overturn the 2016 election and steal the next one.

Now that a counterargument is being presented, it’s difficult picturing this going much further. The cross-examination of witnesses is essential to justice. One-sided stories aren’t sufficient for justice. As we’ve seen here, a rogue prosecutor that’s willing to twist information can improperly injure defendants. That isn’t justice. That’s the starting spot of corruption.

Democrats chose to participate in Speaker Pelosi’s and Chairman Schiff’s impeachment rather than doing the right thing. That isn’t patriotism. That’s the definition of partisanship.

Apparently, Democrats aren’t interested in the American people’s needs. That’s obvious since they’re talking about another impeachment investigation. This isn’t speculation. Democrats filed briefs “Monday related to their quest for testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn and secret grand jury material from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation” that referenced another impeachment investigation.

Whether they’re serious about another impeachment investigation or not is almost immaterial. It’s clear that Democrats are serious about another round of investigations into President Trump. Keeping Democrats in the majority in the House means that Democrats won’t focus on the people’s business. It means that they’ll spend their time investigating President Trump in an attempt to hurt him internationally and electorally.

Democrats insist that President Trump’s phone call to President Zelenskiy hurt the US’s national security. Quite the opposite is true. The Democrats’ intentional timing decisions on their investigations has weakened President Trump’s position while he negotiated with China, North Korea and the EU. Democrats scheduled an investigative hearing for the day that President Trump started the Singapore Summit. They pulled the same stunt when President Trump met with Xi Jinping.

Democrats should continue acting like dictators. That’s what Pelosi is acting like. She has a lengthy history of that type of behavior, starting with shoving the ACA down our throat. The House Democrats’ leader’s latest dictatorial move was what might be called Pelosi’s hurry-up-and-wait impeachment drama. That’s where she rendered a verdict at the start, then finished with a vote that confirmed that pre-ordained verdict.

The Resist Movement, which Pelosi’s Democrats are part of, hate President Trump. They’re the ones approving of the Judiciary Committee’s Democrats changing the rules virtually on a daily basis. They’re the ones approving of the Intel Committee’s Democrats changing the rules virtually on a daily basis when they were taking depositions. These Democrats don’t represent the rule-of-law. These Democrats don’t value fairness or due process, either. Here’s how they value due process:

As long as the Resist Movement is giving House Democrats their orders, House Democrats will continue their impeachment attempts. That’s why it’s time to throw these tyrants into the dustbin of history. Lindsey Graham got it right with this tweet:

Yesterday, Sen. Schumer laid out the Democrats’ agenda for the foreseeable future. That agenda is endless investigations and unlimited accusations. During his press conference yesterday, Sen. Schumer said “How, on such a weighty matter, could we avoid hearing this, could we go forward without hearing it? I haven’t seen a single good argument about why these witnesses shouldn’t testify — unless the president has something to hide and his supporters want that information hidden.”

Byron York has this figured out:

If Schumer gets what he wants, it seems hard to believe that will be the end of it. The request for more witnesses appears designed to lead not to closure but to reopening the case against Trump. In this way, if Democrats can introduce new testimony in the trial, they can say the new testimony has raised new questions that will require new investigation. And new investigation will require more new witnesses, which will surely lead to more new questions, which …

That won’t be the end of it. The minute that Trump won the election, they immediately started calling for his impeachment. When they retook the majority in the House, they started talking about the Mueller Report being the basis for impeachment. When that report flopped, they tried reviving it by having Mueller testify about it. Democrats insisted that Mueller’s testimony would “breath new life” into the Report. That hearing failed miserably.

Now Senate Democrats want to extend the investigation rather than act as the impeachment jury, which is what the Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to do. These would be new witnesses. If they were central figures to the investigation, why didn’t Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and the Democrats call them to testify? When President Trump invoked privilege on them, the House Democrats could’ve taken him to court to compel testimony. They chose not to:

“Every member I’ve spoken to wants to see it wrapped up in 2019 in the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Given the potential for a long battle that ends in front of a conservative Supreme Court, “most of us don’t want to put our eggs in that basket.

Implicit in that quote is that Democrats thought that the risk was too high to file a lawsuit. Democrats thought that they wouldn’t get the outcome they wanted. Further, they thought that these witnesses weren’t important enough.

Sen. McConnell highlights Sen. Schumer’s duplicitousness in this part of his speech:

The Democratic Leader’s letter to me, by way of the press, literally misquoted the Constitution. ‘Senator Schumer wrote that we should exercise, quote, ‘the Senate’s ‘sole Power of Impeachment‘ under the Constitution with integrity and dignity.’ He attributed to the Senate, quote, the ‘sole Power of Impeachment.’ ‘Well, there’s his problem. That’s the role the Constitution gives to the House! Article I, Section 2 says “The House of Representatives… shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Susan Collins is upset with Sen. Schumer because he sent his letter to the press without first talking with Sen. McConnell:

“It seems to me unfortunate that Sen. Schumer wrote a letter which he released to the press prior to his sitting down and having the kind of discussion with Sen. McConnell,” Collins said.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Sen. Schumer intentionally pulled this stunt. Further, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Sen. Schumer is a partisan political hack. This proves it:

During a Monday interview on CNN’s New Day, Schumer was asked if he would strike a deal with Republicans to get testimony from those four witnesses in return for testimony from Biden, a witness many Republicans have requested. Schumer, however, said there was no justification to drag Biden in to testify.

In Sen. Schumer’s mind, not only does he want to do the House Democrats’ job but he also wants to continue the House Democrats’ practice of denying President Trump’s legal team the right to call witnesses.

Nobody is above the law. Minority leaders, though, don’t have the right to deprive presidents their due process rights. Defendants across the nation have the right to call witnesses to assist in their defense. Sen. Schumer, in addition to lying about the Senate’s role in impeachment, now wants to deprive a president he hates of his due process rights.

That’s the type of conduct you’d expect in a third world dictatorship or in the former Soviet Union. In the United States, we don’t just expect fair treatment of defendants. We demand that treatment.

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.