Archive for the ‘John Ratcliffe’ Category

Shelby Pierson, the woman who allegedly briefed members of the House Intel Committee, aka the House Committee for Leaking Classified Information, shouldn’t have briefed the Committee last week. That’s the gospel according to Bryan Dean Wright, a self-identified Democrat. Wright also was a former CIA officer. Pierson was allegedly the briefer who told Committee members that Russia was attempting to interfere with the 2020 presidential election and that Russia wanted President Trump to win.

This weekend, Fake News CNN reported “The US intelligence community’s top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN. The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.”

According to Laura Ingraham, Pierson “has a reputation of being injudicious with her words.” Wright said that “Well, when the Intelligence Community sends a briefer to Capitol Hill, they aren’t sending us their best.” Later, Wright said “She was a career satellite imagery specialist. Why, then, did DNI Coats select her for this role in the depths of political analysis, the nuance necessary for that?”

John Ratcliffe, one of the smartest members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, nailed it when he told Maria Bartiromo “Look, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic here, but I don’t know anyone in the last three years who has done more to help Vladimir Putin and Russia with their efforts to sow the seeds of discord in American elections and American election security than Adam Schiff has.”

Frankly, that’s being too nice to Schiff. It isn’t that Schiff hasn’t helped Putin a lot. It’s that, in addition to that, Schiff couldn’t identify exculpatory evidence that exonerates a Republican if Schiff’s life depended on it. When I wrote this post, I quoted Rep. Ratcliffe as saying “the narrative often from Democrats and the media is that Republicans don’t think the Russians have meddled in our election. They did. They meddled in 2016, they are going to meddle in 2020. That’s not the issue. The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it’s because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump.”

It’s time for Democrats to put the US first instead of putting themselves first. Democrats used to be patriots. Democrats aren’t patriots anymore. They’re really anarchists.

That reality, not the briefing, is the bombshell.

While that question seems a little far-fetched initially, let’s look at what’s known thus far. It’s known that:

  1. Democrats have wanted to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration since before President Trump’s inauguration.
  2. Adam Schiff has leaked more classified information than any other Democrat in Congress.
  3. As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff saw more classified information than any Democrat in Congress.
  4. Adam Schiff has ignored tons of exculpatory evidence that would’ve prevented President Trump’s impeachment.
  5. Adam Schiff looked at the same intelligence that Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe looked at about the FISA warrant application. He said the FBI did everything right. Ratcliffe and Gowdy raised red flags about the FBI. The Horowitz Report vindicated Ratcliffe and Gowdy. It didn’t vindicate Schiff and the Democrats.
  6. After a recent intel briefing on potential Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election, classified information was leaked to the NYTimes and the Washington Post.
  7. The information that was leaked isn’t accurate.

Thanks to John Ratcliffe’s interview this morning, we know with certainty that the information leaked isn’t accurate. It isn’t just thanks to Rep. Ratcliffe’s interview that we know that it isn’t accurate. It’s because another leak from the intel briefing that said that Russia was interfering with the election to help Bernie Sanders. The initial briefing leak said that Russia is interfering to help President Trump.

It’s impossible for both statements to be true. The Russians aren’t interfering to exclusively help President Trump. The Russians aren’t interfering to exclusively help Sen. Sanders. The only thing that’s certain is that the Russians are attempting to interfere in the election. Who they’re trying to help is unknown. Whether they’re trying to help either side is unknown and unknowable.

Adam Schiff insisted that Republicans have denied the fact that Russians interfered with the 2016 election. That’s BS. Ratcliffe addressed that BS during this interview:

He then went on to explain that “the narrative often from Democrats and the media is that Republicans don’t think the Russians have meddled in our election. They did. They meddled in 2016, they are going to meddle in 2020,” he continued. “That’s not the issue. The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it’s because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump.”

The House GOP majority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a comprehensive report detailing the ways that Russia interfered with the US Election. Devin Nunes criticized Adam Schiff on that during the impeachment hearings.

Here’s the transcript of the key part of Ratcliffe’s interview:

“The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it’s because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump.”

It isn’t a stretch to think that Adam Schiff has told some whoppers. In fact, that’s been proven. While I won’t say that Schiff is a Russian agent, I won’t hesitate in saying that Schiff has helped Russians spread confusion by spreading the Russians’ disinformation. It’s my opinion that the Russians’ primary goal is to spread disinformation. Further, I think it’s the Russians’ goal to help get Bernie elected. That’s my opinion because his policies best fit with their goals.

In this post, Jeff Dunetz laid out why Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reassigned to the Pentagon after President Trump was acquitted. John Kirby didn’t explain what happened to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Kirby’s CNN op-ed. This isn’t surprising. Jeff is a man of integrity. Kirby hangs around with Deep Staters.

Kirby wrote “[Lt. Col.] Vindman did his duty by not only testifying about the infamous July 25, 2019 White House phone call, in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Trump’s leading 2020 rival Joe Biden, Burisma (the Ukrainian energy company that had hired Hunter Biden), and the 2016 election–while $391 million in congressionally approved military aid was being withheld.”

President Trump didn’t press President Zelenskiy “to investigate” the Bidens. The transcript, not Lt. Col. Vindman, tells what actually happened:

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

That’s an awfully casual pressure. That’s at the top of pg. 4 so it’s hardly a priority for President Trump. Watch Rep. John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

That drives a stake through the heart of Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. At minimum, it casts doubt on Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. Let’s compare that with what’s quoted in Jeff’s article:

In November 2019 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to Reps Jordan (R-OH) and Nunes (R-CA) at Jordan’s request which among other things raised questions about Lt. Col. Vindman’s credibility, and accused him of being an insubordinate leaker and confirmed the President’s reasons for the 55-day delay in Ukraine aid were the same as the President’s public statements.

Johnson went to Ukraine as part of the U.S. delegation to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20. Vindman was part of the delegation also. In the letter, the Senator suggested that Lt. Col. Vindman may be among the government bureaucrats who aim to push back on Trump’s policies “by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office.”

Lt. Col. Vindman gives new meaning to the cliché “going above and beyond the call of duty”:

[In Sen. Johnson’s letter, he wrote that Lt. Col. Vindman] “stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, “How in the world is that even possible?”

Lt. Col. Vindman continued, saying this:

Vindman testified that an “alternative narrative” pushed by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was “inconsistent with the consensus views of the” relevant federal agencies and was “undermining the consensus policy.”

According to the Constitution, there’s only one consensus view that matters — the President’s. As I wrote in this post, “The first sentence in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution emphatically states that ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'”

In another diatribe, RAdm. Kirby wrote “No, it is not the Vindman brothers who have been disgraced by this pettiness. It is President Trump. It is not they who will be remembered for putting personal needs above national interests. The President will. And it is not they who will in years to come be forced to qualify or explain or argue the case surrounding their behavior. In a final and outrageous act of vengefulness, White House security officials escorted the Vindmans off the grounds.”

That’s BS. The Vindman twins will be celebrated by CNN as having stood up to Orange Man Bad but it’s Lt. Col. Vindman who a) went around the chain of command, b) leaked information to the press and c) tried undermining US foreign policy because the President didn’t do what Lt. Col. Vindman told him to do. That sounds more like a mutiny than doing the honorable thing. Perhaps CNN has a different definition for doing the honorable thing.

This morning, Sen. Schumer made a major mistake during his press conference. He said that “any Senate impeachment trial should be ‘focused on the facts that the House presented, not on conspiracy theories.'” Then he renewed his request for 4 new witnesses that didn’t testify.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to square those statements. At this point, they’re contradictory at best. How do you focus solely on the facts that House Democrats presented, then insist on calling 4 witnesses that House Democrats didn’t call?

It’s apparent that Sen. Schumer hasn’t figured it out that this is hurting Democrats. The longer Pelosi hangs onto the articles of impeachment, the more this looks like a partisan operation. The longer Sen. Schumer insists on calling witnesses that the House didn’t fight for, the weaker the prosecution’s case looks. And the Democrats’ case already looked weak.

The only thing that’ll hurt the Democrats’ efforts more is what’s inevitable. Picture Pelosi sitting in her office thinking of the nightmare of choosing between Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff to be the lead prosecutor. Then think of that nightmare happening on national TV. Then think of it happening for the next 2-3 weeks right before the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary.

On the other hand, think of how positive Republicans are, knowing that Doug Collins, Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe have been named impeachment managers for the trial. The thought of Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler making unsubstantiated accusations based on hearsay and presumptions, then watching Mssrs. Collins, Jordan and Ratcliffe present exculpatory evidence that’ll exonerate President Trump is something Republicans should look forward to. Anytime that the face of the Republican Party is Collins, Jordan and Ratcliffe, it’s a good day. Anytime that Nadler and Schiff are the faces of the Democrat Party, it’s a fantastic day for the GOP.

In the first half of this interview, Trey Gowdy dismantles Speaker Pelosi’s impeachment arguments and Sen. Schumer’s trial arguments:

Though President Trump just got impeached by a bunch of vitriol-filled House Democrats, there’s lots for Republicans to be thankful for. Because Republicans dealt with adversity after adversity after adversity, starting with President Trump, and because Republicans learned from him month-by-month, Republicans end the year stronger than they started the year.

First, this goes far beyond RNC fundraising and Trump rallies, though those are certainly signs of GOP vitality. Anyone who’s watched Nancy Pelosi’s post-impeachment press conference or any of Joe Biden’s debate performances couldn’t possibly mistake them for the vitality displayed at a Trump rally. How can you watch this video, then think that Speaker Pelosi is well?

Here’s the transcript:

We are, we have, I have… When we bring the bill, which is just so you know, there’s a bill made in order by the Rules Committee that we can call up at any time in order to send it to the Senate and to have the provisions in it to pay for the, for the impeachment. And then the next step, and the eh, que, uh… uhl … … whatever you want to call it, the qu uh, the trial.

But I digress from the topic at hand. The topic at hand is how strengthened Republicans are. Throughout the year and before, Republicans rose up and fought back. During the Kavanaugh fight, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins stepped forward. They became leaders. Thanks to their leadership, Judge Kavanaugh got confirmed and became Justice Kavanaugh.

A year prior to the release of the Mueller Report, Devin Nunes questioned the validity of the opening of the counterintelligence investigation. Shortly thereafter, Adam Schiff put out his own report that essentially said that everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. When the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019, the Nunes Memo was totally vindicated while the Schiff Memo was rendered total trash. The fight between then-Chairman Nunes and current Chairman Schiff is over. Schiff lost in a trouncing.

As for the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats outnumbered Republicans. This committee provides additional proof that quality is more important than quantity. Justice is chaired by Jerry Nadler, where his chief ‘assistants’ are Zoe Lofgren, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hakeem Jefferies and Eric Swalwell. Meanwhile, Doug Collins could call on talented people like John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, Ken Buck, Matt Gaetz and Tom McClintock.

Much needs to be said in praise of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. They both showed leadership at the most important times. Sen. McConnell helped confirm dozens of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. Most recently, Sen. McConnell totally obliterated Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff. To be fair, though, Devin Nunes pretty much softened Schiff prior to Sen. McConnell finishing Schiff off. Here’s how Sen. McConnell addressed Article 2 of impeachment:

“What it really does is impeach the president for asserting executive privilege, a two-century-old constitutional tradition.” Presidents beginning with Washington have invoked it and courts repeatedly have recognized it. The House requested extraordinarily sensitive information—exactly the type of requests against which presidents from both parties have asserted privilege.

“It’s not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up,” McConnell said. “That’s not a constitutional crisis! It’s a routine occurrence. Separation of powers is messy—by design. Here’s what should have happened — either the president and Congress negotiate a settlement or the third branch of government, the judiciary, addresses the dispute between the other two.”

During the Nixon impeachment inquiry, it was discovered that President Nixon told the FBI that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters. That’s a legitimate constitutional crisis. It isn’t an impeachable offense when a president asserts privilege. In fact, that’s how the Constitution is supposed to work. When there’s a dispute that can’t resolved through negotiations, the judicial branch should settle the dispute:

“Nobody made Chairman Schiff do this,” McConnell said of Schiff’s decision to forego court assistance to overcome the president’s lack of cooperation with the probe. “In Nixon, the courts were allowed to do their work. In Clinton, the courts were allowed to do their work.” But these House Democrats, he added, “decided that due process is too much work.”

McConnell further challenged House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s attempt to bully the executive branch out of asserting executive privilege. He quoted Schiff saying, “any action that forces us to litigate … will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”

Saying that a perfectly constitutional solution takes too much time is proof that Democrats were in too much of a hurry. That’s a political consideration. That isn’t a constitutional argument.

As Republicans approach a new year, there are lots of things to be thankful for. 2019 wasn’t a perfect year for the GOP but it was a strong year.

Despite what her Praetorian guard say, this hasn’t been a good week for the Swamp Mistress, aka Nancy Pelosi. It just got much worse. This morning, Ms. Pelosi decided that impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime without producing a single piece of proof that would be admitted in a court of law wasn’t enough. She’s decided that she’s taking the ‘full tyrant’ route by censoring House Republicans. Nothing says solemnity like a black dress and a week of censorship. Nothing says ‘I love the Constitution’ more than violating House Republicans’ First Amendment rights.

Under the current rules, members are allowed five minute speeches in the morning. The leadership on each side are allowed a full hour each at the end of the day and then each side is given two half hour slots. No floor speeches are allowed past 10 pm even if everyone has not had a chance to speak. In January, the House passed a rule that allows members only one Special Order speaking slot per week.

Pelosi not only shut down end-of-the-day special order speeches, on Thursday, she also cancelled the five minute speaking slots in the morning, effectively barring the Minority from speaking out against the biased and unfair impeachment process after the vote.

Saying that this has Louie Gohmert fired up is understatement:

According to the rules, the Minority is supposed to be allowed to have their own witness hearing before an impeachment vote, but Chairman Nadler (D-NY) denied them that right. Gohmert said that the majority could have voted to change the rules, but they didn’t even bother to do that much. They just straight-out violated the rules in their haste to impeach the president.

Gohmert also said he was going to point out the hypocrisy of Democrats who have been claiming that the rushed process was warranted because “time was of the essence.” If impeaching the president was such an urgent matter, why isn’t the Speaker sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Gohmert wanted to ask on the House floor.

Democrats don’t have an answer for Rep. Gohmert’s questions. That’s proof that the Democrats’ impeachment wasn’t fair, wasn’t thorough and didn’t meet the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment.

Rep. Gohmert was already fired up after this:

At times yesterday, Jerry Nadler tried needling Republicans. Mr. Nadler isn’t bright enough to win that fight. He got excoriated multiple times by Rep. Doug Collins, the Republicans’ floor manager yesterday, and by other Republicans, including Mr. Gohmert.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again. This wasn’t a fair fight despite the fact that the Democrats tilted the rules in their favor. Republicans proved themselves to be people of gravitas. Democrats proved themselves to be intellectual lightweights incapable of sustaining a coherent fight. Here’s one of the Republicans with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Democrats aren’t interested in bipartisanship when it comes to impeachment. Democrats don’t even care if their hearings take pot shots at teenage kids. Democrats don’t even care if they don’t have evidence that proves their charges. In the Democrats’ minds, they know that President Trump is evil and must be impeached and convicted. In the Democrats’ minds, they don’t need proof to impeach. They just need fanciful theories that support the Democrats’ bloodlust to impeach and convict President Trump. In this case, the fanciful theories that Democrats are relying on are found in the Findings of Facts section of the Schiff Report.

For instance, Finding of Fact #IV says “President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.”

Saying that “the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security or anti-corruption justification” isn’t proof. That’s opinion. The Constitution gives the President the authority to conduct foreign policy. Monies appropriated by Congress and signed by the President must be spent by the end of the fiscal year. In the case of the Ukraine appropriation, the money was sent to Ukraine with time to spare.

Saying that President Trump withheld aid from Ukraine without legitimate “anti-corruption justification” requires Democrats to look past the fact that, at the time, Ukraine was rated the third-most corrupt nation on the planet. Further, the NDAA required certification that Ukraine had met the anti-corruption standards.

Chairman Schiff didn’t mention that this happened with Pakistan, the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and from the nation of Lebanon. Why? Here’s Representative John Ratcliffe inquiring with State Department Undersecretary David Hale how often aid was withheld within the past year:

There goes that Schiff theory. Here’s another example of Democrat theory dressed up as proof:

In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump—directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Schiff’s Democrats don’t have proof of this accusation. In fact, the only proof in either direction comes from President Zelenskiy. He’s said twice that he was never pressured. This is third-hand testimony presented by Bill Taylor. It’s from one of the participants in the call. It isn’t surprising that Democrats have ignored President Zelenskiy’s statements that contradict their impeachment storyline. That’s what Democrats consistently do with exculpatory evidence. Either that or these Democrats insist that it’s just another discredited conspiracy theory.

It’s nothing of the sort. It’s an oft-repeated statement from Ukraine’s president. He was one of 2 people on the call. He knows what was said. He knows whether lethal military aid was tied to anything. That’s proof that would be admitted into any court in the United States. The Democrats’ hearsay testimony (like we heard from Bill Taylor) isn’t admissible anywhere in the United States.

The Democrats apparently want to become the first politicians to impeach a sitting president while using hearsay testimony. That isn’t just an abuse of political power. It’s corruption personified. If the same 232 Democrats vote to impeach President Trump who voted to open the inquiry, the American people will administer a punishment that will be studied for decades.

A while ago, Adam Schiff and other Democrats compared his secret impeachment hearings held in a SCIF in the basement of Capitol Hill to grand jury proceedings. That’s BS. They’re as similar as oil and water.

Most importantly, impeachment hearings involve the leader of the free world. The Democrats’ impeachment hearings have taken months, which have distracted President Trump from his important responsibilities. When a grand jury indicts a criminal, the only person getting penalized is the potential criminal. When the president gets impeached, the people get punished as much as the president does. (Does anyone think that China wouldn’t have caved by now on a trade deal if not for this impeachment fiasco?)

Next, when witnesses testify before a grand jury, they’ve actually witnessed something. Over half of the people that the Democrats deposed didn’t witness a thing about what the Democrats are impeaching President Trump about. Testifiers like Marie Yovanovitch, George Kent, William Taylor and others didn’t listen to the call. None of those testifiers has even met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call but hasn’t met President Trump. Lt. Col. Vindman raised a concern but that was determined to be insignificant. Later, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the rough transcript was accurate.

Democrats have a very weak case. They’re whining that White House staff won’t testify. When they had the chance to take them to court to compel testimony, though, they declined to compel testimony through the courts. Democrats have frequently said that the White House exerting various privileges might add more articles of impeachment.

That’s why the White House has declined to participate in Wednesday’s hearing of the Judiciary Committee:

“This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continuing the West Wing’s attack on the procedural form of the impeachment proceedings. Cipollone said Nadler provided only “vague” details about the hearing, and that unnamed academics, and not “fact witnesses”, would apparently be attending.

“As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings,” Cipollone said. “More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.”

Thus far, Democrats have vetoed each of the Republican witness requests. They’ve blocked the CIA snitch from testifying because he knows whether Schiff’s office sought him out. They won’t let Hunter Biden testify because connecting him with Burisma’s corruption hurts their case. They won’t Joe Biden testify because explaining this away would prove difficult:

Democrats are afraid that good prosecutors like Matt Gaetz and John Ratcliffe will expose Biden’s corruption. It’s a safe bet that they’d make Biden look like a fool. That’s why Democrats can’t play this fair. Playing fair wouldn’t get the result they’ve wanted:

To summarize: Many Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the get-go. Frustrated at their inability to get it done, they jumped on their last, best hope, taking shortcuts to ensure their preferred result and racing to beat the political deadline imposed by their party’s presidential contest. Through it all, they have insisted they are acting only with great reluctance and sorrow.

The question now is whether the public will believe it.

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.

This morning, Rep. Conaway yielded his time to Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R-TX), to cross-examine Jennifer Williams and Lt. Col. Vindman. Rep. Ratcliffe started by asking if either of them had noticed the Democrats’ change during the impeachment inquiry from insisting that President Trump was guilty of a quid pro quo to being guilty of committing extortion to finally settling on “bribery.” Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that bribery wasn’t used until Speaker Pelosi used it. After that, Ratcliffe noticed that Pelosi’s use of the word opened the floodgates within the MSM.

Ratcliffe then stated that the words bribe or bribery weren’t used in either witness’s deposition. In fact, Rep. Ratcliffe said that the word bribery was used only once in 3,500 pages of depositions released thus far. Then Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the term bribery wasn’t used in connection with President Trump. Ratcliffe stated that the only time the term bribery was used was in connection with Vice President Biden.

Ratcliffe’s presentation was, in my opinion, as powerful of a presentation as Rep. Chris Stewart’s cross-examination of Ambassador Yanokovitch:

The other standout cross-examination was Jim Jordan’s cross-examination of William Taylor:

I will update this post with the video of Rep. Ratcliffe when it’s posted. Thus far, the thing that’s most clear is that Republicans have made some significant points without jumping the shark with either Jennifer Williams or Lt. Col. Vindman. Another thing that’s clear is that Democrats haven’t gotten that bombshell testimony that they need to move public opinion.

UPDATE: Here is the video of John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

Of course, the MSM essentially ignored Ratcliffe’s cross-examination because it didn’t fit their storyline. Rep. Ratcliffe talked about how “last Thursday, in a press conference, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that President Trump had committed the impeachable offense of bribery, evidenced in the transcript of his July 25th phone call with President Zelenskiy. In concert with that, several Democrat members of this committee gave TV and radio interviews over this past week discussing how the President’s conduct supported his impeachment for the crime of bribery, all of which struck me as odd because for the longest time, this was all about quid pro quo, according to the whistleblower’s complaint.”