Archive for the ‘Lindsey Graham’ Category

Joe Biden insists that he’ll unite the country and heal our political divisions. I’ll believe that when he doesn’t use a teleprompter or notes and strings 3 straight coherent sentences together. It’s a myth to think that anyone can unite this nation from either political party. With Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other anarchists trying to end the US Constitution, why would anyone think that unity is possible?

I just spoke with a good friend of mine from the Twin Cities. He wanted my perspective from outstate Minnesota, which is fair because I wanted his perspective on Twin Cities things. I told him there wasn’t much of an appetite in central MN for paying for the destruction in Minneapolis because this wasn’t an act of God like a flood or tornado. This was preventable from a leadership standpoint. My friend said it isn’t clear whether the failure was Walz’s fault or Frey’s fault but that it was indisputable that there was a major failure.

Eventually, we started talking about how divided our nation is. We agreed that there’s some bumpy times ahead as the Baby Boomers get pushed aside and the next generation steps into leadership. The Boomers were known for their dealmakers. Alan Simpson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hubert Humphrey, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan were great dealmakers.

I told my friend that I’m certain that there are dealmakers today, though I said that the dealmakers were mostly on the GOP side. I said that that Pelosi and Schumer weren’t dealmakers. Neither is Omar or AOC. I said that it’s indisputable that Trump is a dealmaker. Specifically, I cited how Kim Kardashian reached out to the White House on criminal justice reform. Trump listened to her ideas. The next thing you know, Ivanka is part of the discussion. Before you know it, the First Step Act is getting signed into law.

Ms. Kardashian didn’t care whether Trump got a political victory. She just wanted to make life better for the Alice Johnsons of the world. That same mindset is present with Tim Scott, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Steve Scalise and Kevin McCarthy. This video shows why Tim Scott is respected amongst moderate center-left Democrats:

The last half of that interview is especially inspiring, though the entire interview is good stuff. Democrats will regret rejecting debating on Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act. According to Sen. Scott, they’ll debate the House bill while adding amendments to the House bill. That will force Democrats to vote for each of the provisions in Sen. Scott’s bill.

That eliminates the Democrats’ ability to say that they didn’t vote for Sen. Scott’s legislation because they didn’t like this or that provision. Each amendment will be a distinct provision. It’s a straight up-or-down vote on each provision. Forcing Democrats to defend each of their votes on the various amendments puts Democrats behind the proverbial 8-ball.

Until Democrats develop a group of good faith dealmakers, their calls for unity will be mostly mythical. As a society, we need voters who emphatically insist that politicians fix problems rather than saving issues for the campaign. Here’s what’s really encouraging. My Twin Cities friend is an old-fashioned, center-left Humphrey-style liberal.

Within the course of our conversation, we figured out a path forward for fixing Twin Cities policing, education and homelessness. The key with us is that we’re both low-key activists. It isn’t difficult to get things done when your highest priority is fixing things rather than worrying about getting re-elected.

It’s purely speculation on my part but I’m betting that Sen. Mitch McConnell will win the debate over whether the Senate will call additional witnesses to the impeachment trial. With senators like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul threatening to call a bunch of witnesses if Democrats insist on calling John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, Sen. McConnell is sitting in the power seat.

Further, Pat Toomey and Mitt Romney are talking about working out a swap with Chuck Schumer. Cruz, Graham and Paul want the trial to end quickly. That doesn’t mean they aren’t willing to play hardball with witnesses. If the Senate votes to call witnesses, expect Cruz, Graham and Paul to insist on calling Schiff, Chalupa, the Bidens and the whistleblower.

What Lindsey Graham is saying is that Democrats call witnesses at their own peril. This won’t be a John McCain-style deal where Republicans get screwed and McCain gets to act like a dealmaker. That ain’t happening this time. Check this out:

What I would say is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Biden’s connection to the Ukraine is inappropriate. There is a tsunami of evidence. So the House managers told the Senate that this is ‘baseless’ that it’s been ‘debunked,’ and I think the defense team, yesterday, made a damning indictment of what Hunter and Joe Biden allowed to happen and it’s not in America’s interest to see this happen again in the Ukraine where Hunter Biden turned it basically into an ATM machine. We’re going to go to that, and there’s media reports, people in your business, that suggested a DNC staffer [Alexandra Chalupa] met with Ukrainian officials about the 2016 election. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if we’re going to open this up to additional inquiry, we’re going to go down the road of whether it was legitimate for the President to believe there was corruption and conflicts of interest on the Biden’s part in the Ukraine. We’ll explore that, and whether or not there is any credibility to the idea that the DNC may have been working with the Ukraine.

Lindsey has figured out how to negotiate. The McCain-style negotiation is mostly groveling. The Trump-style negotiating means negotiating with a gun to the other guy’s head.. Make the other guy sweat. Make Democrats worry about whether it’s worth it.

Democrats are already worrying about voting:

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are all undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land.

If I had to bet, I wouldn’t bet against Sen. McConnell. He’s buried tons of people. Why would I think this time will be different? A month ago, he buried Nancy. Last week, he defeated Chuck Schumer 12 straight times.

Finally, I don’t think Mitch is tired of winning. Call your senator. Tell them to vote against witnesses.

Back during the House’s impeachment inquiry, the conventional wisdom was that President Trump had to beef up his communications team. Rather than hiring a bunch of consultants to help with that, President Trump beefed up his legal team, hiring people like Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray and Ken Starr. President Trump wasn’t finished, though. Later, he “announced eight House Republicans will join his legal defense team.”

Joining the team were Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, Doug Collins, Lee Zeldin, Mike Johnson, Debbie Lesko and Mark Meadows. These aren’t the only reinforcements, though. Since the trial started, senators like Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy and Tom Cotton have played a more prominent role in defending President Trump against the House Democrats’ impeachment accusations.

This morning, for instance, Sen. Cotton was interviewed by FNC’s Sandra Smith:

Sen. Cotton is right. If Democrats had compelling evidence, they’d present it and “let it speak for itself.” They don’t have compelling evidence, which is why they’ve repeated the same things over and over again.

Since beefing up their legal team, these attorneys have applied a full-court press. Dershowitz has appeared on ABC’s This Week, CNN’s State of the Union and on FNC’s Hannity and Ingraham Angle shows. Robert Ray has been on multiple shows, as has Elise Stefanik, Doug Collins, John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton. They’ve taken turns highlighting Adam Schiff’s dishonest statements. When Trump’s legal team makes their presentation, expect them to include many of Schiff’s dishonesties in that presentation.

If witnesses are called, expect Hunter Biden to be called. If he’s called, here’s why:


Talk about opening a door of opportunity for Republicans. BTW, this is what a confident, polished attorney looks like:

President Trump’s legal team and communications team are fitting together perfectly. They’re confident and well-prepared for each contingency. That’s what a team of professionals looks like.

It’s time for Republicans, starting with me, to admit that Susan Collins is a legitimate Senate moderate. This article verifies what I’d already suspected of Sen. Collins. While I disagree with her on a number of issues, I can’t help but respect the fact that she thinks things through.

The thing that first got me rethinking Sen. Collins was the Kavanaugh Hearings. As a result of those hearing, Republicans were forced to take a firm position. That’s what Sen. Collins did. The tide had already started to turn as a result of President Trump refusing to pull Kavanaugh’s appointment. He insisted on fighting for Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Republicans remember that that’s when Lindsey Graham went from being a total squish to being a fighter in a single speech. Every Republican remembers this speech:

Later in the confirmation process, Sen. Collins delivered this riveting speech from the Senate floor:

Disagree with Sen. Collins’ policy positions if you like. I certainly have. What I appreciate, though, is the research that she does. Look at the research that she did for this speech. There’s a ton of details and tons of information that you only get after doing due diligence.

Compare Sen. Collins’ positions with Amy Klobuchar’s positions. The differences between the 2 ‘moderates’ is stark. Sen. Collins voted for the tax cuts that have this economy humming. Sen. Klobuchar voted against them. Sen. Collins confirmed Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch. Sen. Klobuchar voted against these highly-qualified justices.

Kevin Cramer, the freshman senator from North Dakota summed things up perfectly:

Susan always does what’s best for her constituents, and then she explains it really well. I’m sure it didn’t hurt her any; I’m sure it helped her. She’s a very courageous Republican.

Thanks to her loyalty to her constituents and Mitch McConnell, Sen. McConnell will have her back this November. I expect her to win re-election in a tight race.

The ideal situation for a prosecutor is a crime that a) multiple people saw, b) has a significant amount of forensic evidence (think DNA or fingerprints), and that only one explanation makes sense. This impeachment doesn’t have any of those things. For all of the Democrats’ huffing and puffing, the evidence is deficient and multiple innocent explanations exist that would explain President Trump’s actions.

Thanks to the declassified transcript of the July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy, we know that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy for an official favor, not a personal favor. We know that because of the context and wording. “Can you do us a favor? Our country has been through a lot?”

That isn’t the wording of a personal favor. Those words are found at the top of page 3 of the transcript. The Bidens aren’t mentioned until the bottom of page 4 of the transcript. Even then, President Trump doesn’t connect the Bidens with any official reward. Had the Democrats found a White House document that explicitly said that President Trump wanted dirt on the Bidens, they’d have their smoking gun. Democrats don’t have that.

What the Democrats have is a pile of speculation, projection and presumption. That isn’t proof. That’s the legal equivalent of gossip and innuendo. It isn’t the type of thing that professional prosecutors build their case on. Listen to the weasel words in this interview:

This impeachment’s biggest flaw is that the evidence is virtually nonexistent. This impeachment’s next biggest flaw is that neither article of impeachment accuses President Trump of committing a crime, much less a high crime. This impeachment’s other fatal flaw is that it isn’t complete.

Republicans should stick together on this. Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul should tell Democrats that it’s the impeachment managers’ fault if they haven’t heard from enough witnesses. If they weren’t in hurry-up-and-wait-mode, Democrats could’ve heard from these additional witnesses. It’s their fault that they didn’t compel the testimony of Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair and Duffey.

Finally, Republicans need to consistently remind Democrats that it’s the House Democrats’ responsibility to finish the investigation before voting on articles of impeachment. If Democrats were sloppy, that’s their problem. It’s the Senate’s responsibility to try the House Democrats’ case, not finish the House Democrats’ incomplete investigation.

If there’s anything that’s predictable, it’s that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article, “current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News” that “pressure is building on the spy agency’s director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter.”

Fine. Here’s a stand that these Swamp critters won’t like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment, which says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn’t say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we’ve just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower’s attorney isn’t fond of the idea of his client’s name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client’s name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers said “identifying any suspected name … will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm.”

First, it isn’t known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn’t make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower’s identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn’t abide by the laws of integrity, they don’t deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower’s testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would’ve admitted this information into a court because it’s hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

“Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower,” Brennan told NBC News. “Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul’s appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate.”

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn’t the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.

It isn’t often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I’d better record this for history’s sake:

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.

If people needed additional proof that today’s Democrats are hate-filled and fact-deprived, they need only check out E.J. Dionne’s latest fact-deprived column. Included in Dionne’s scribbling is this BS, which says “The costs of this approach were underscored this weekend by a New York Times report that offers new corroboration for charges by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were undergraduates at Yale. In denying the charge, Kavanaugh told the Senate that had it been true, the incident would have been ‘the talk of the campus.’ Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — drawing on their new book, ‘The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation’, write tellingly: ‘Our reporting suggests that it was.'”

I’d love hearing Dionne’s explanation for this column after this information came to light:

In a major revision late Sunday, a Times editor’s note added a significant detail — that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim had refused to be interviewed and has made no comment about the episode.

“Significant detail”, my arse. That’s a bombshell that just dropped in the middle of the NYTimes’ building. That begs the question of where these ‘authors’ got this information from. Did they make it up? Did a third party spoon-feed them this allegation? Wherever it came from, it certainly isn’t truth-based.

Check this out:

Here is the institutionally devastating part of their story: Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of “at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence” of her story. The bureau, the authors report, “interviewed none of them.” Nor did the FBI look into Stier’s account.

It’s worth noting that “Stier” is a Clinton lawyer:

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Keep that in mind when reading this from E.J. Dionne’s column:

Stier is president of the thoroughly bipartisan and widely respected Partnership for Public Service. From my experience, he is the last person who would want to get into the middle of an ideological fight — unless his conscience required him to.

Let’s speculate a little. It’s possible that Mr. Dionne’s perspective on Stier is shaded by what I’d call Washingtonitis, sometimes known as DCitis. Remember how often the DC media told us that Robert Mueller was a straight shooter and how Jim Comey was a “boy scout”? How many people still think that?

Like the NYTimes, I’m betting that E.J. Dionne is wiping egg off his face. This is pretty much the only thing in Dionne’s article that I agree with:

But it was such a sharply constrained investigation that neither Kavanaugh nor Ford was questioned, and the other allegations against Kavanaugh were ignored. “The process was a sham,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is seeking her party’s presidential nomination, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” She was not being hyperbolic. In the wake of the new revelations, three other Democratic contenders quickly called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

There’s no question that the process was a sham. At the last minute, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats brought forth one unsubstantiated allegation after another. What’s most disgusting is that they’re still bringing forth unsubstantiated hate-filled allegations after Justice Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

Initially, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats wanted to disqualify then-Judge Kavanaugh the ‘normal way’. When it became apparent that wouldn’t work, Democrats chose the unsubstantiated allegations path. This is a slimy path only used by hate-filled ideologues. Thank God for Lindsey Graham’s speech:

Lindsey Graham laid out the crap that Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through. That’s the real sham. Democrats should be obliterated for their vicious conduct. May E.J. Dionne and Senate Judiciary Democrats rot in hell together.

While campaigning, then-Candidate Trump would say that Americans would get tired of all the winning if they elected him. As the 2020 election nears, Victor Davis Hanson has written this article that’s appropriately titled “Trumped Out?” I’m not. Give me 4 more years of this. I’m loving it.

Hanson is apparently loving it, too:

The August jobs report “unexpectedly” reminds us that never have so many Americans been at work. The 3.7 percent unemployment rate continues to be the lowest peacetime unemployment figure in 50 years. Black and Hispanic unemployment remain at record lows. Workers’ wages continue to rise. Talk of recession is belied by low interest, low inflation, low unemployment and a strong stock market. The result is that millions of Americans enjoy far better lives than they had in 2016.

If President Trump isn’t re-elected, what will happen? Here’s Hanson’s opinion into that:

When we look to alternatives, all we seem to hear is multi-trillion-dollar hare-brained schemes from radical progressives and socialists masquerading as Democrats at a time of record national debt. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free healthcare for illegal aliens, reparations, the abolition of $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and free tuition for all—are the stuff of fantasies and either would have to be repudiated by any of the Democratic nominees who actually was elected, or would destroy an already indebted nation.

That doesn’t sound attractive. That’s what would likely happen with a Democrat president. Democrats control the House. The woman who really runs the House is so radical that she thinks this isn’t radical enough. I’m not talking about Nancy Pelosi. I’m talking about AOC. This is what awaits us if AOC ever assumes total control:

But these are not normal times. There is (for now) no longer a Democratic Party. Instead, it is a revolutionary Jacobin movement that believes socialism is our salvation, that identity politics is our creed, that gun confiscation is our duty, that the abrupt end of fossil fuels is coming very soon, that open borders is our new demography, and that the archetypical unmarried, childless, urban hipster is our model woke citizen.

Over my dead body. President Trump has had quite the effect on otherwise timid Republicans. Check out the ‘Trump effect’ on Lindsey Graham:

It’s important that traditional-thinking people decimate today’s AOC Democrats. They’re despicable. They’re the antithesis of fair-minded. Today’s AOC Democrats don’t see the United States as the greatest protector of human rights or civil rights. Check out what Robert Francis O’Rourke thinks of your right to protect your family:

Prof. Hanson is a historian by trade. When he makes statements about history, I pay attention. That’s why I paid attention to this statement:

I cannot remember a moment in U.S. history when a presidential candidate conspired with the intelligence community of the lame-duck administration of the same party to destroy a presidential rival.

Robert Mueller forever discredited the idea of a special counsel, given his unprofessionalism, bias, and apparent incompetence that ate up 22 months of the Trump presidency. Even in the crude post-1960s, we have never seen anything like the current assassination rhetoric of Hollywood celebrities and the boasts of doing bodily harm to the president by his political opponents.

That’s what AOC’s Democratic Party is about. They’re mostly interested in trampling anyone, whether it’s a Republican, a Democrat who isn’t sufficiently woke or an apolitical person, who doesn’t march in lockstep with them. I don’t agree with each of President Trump’s tweets. I certainly disagreed with his idea of bringing the Taliban to Camp David. But I’ve literally thanked God that he’s our president. I thank God because he’s a fighter. As Prof. Hanson said, “After all that, the strange thing is not that Trump can be occasionally wearisome, but that he is even still breathing.”

Andy McCarthy’s op-ed unintentionally highlights the difference between Lindsey Graham and Jerry Nadler. They chair the Judiciary committees in the Senate and the House, respectively.

Here’s what Nadler is doing:

Elections have consequences. This was a point we tried to make many times in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. The Democrats won control of the House fair and square. That means they get to drive the agenda.

Their agenda, kinda sorta, is the impeachment of President Trump — which is to say, the quixotic quest to build political support for it. According to the Washington Post, that effort is about to sink deeper into farce: Hearings on Stormy Daniels and the hush-money payments to conceal trysts that Donald Trump had — allegedly, of course — a decade before he ran for president.

Here’s what the Constitution says about impeachment:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Simply put, campaign finance transactions from before a candidate is elected doesn’t rise to the level of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. In fact, it isn’t even close. Nadler knows this. Still, he insists on wasting the people’s time on this charade.

While Nadler wastes time and money on this charade, Lindsey Graham is working on something substantive that would make people safer and improve their lives:

Co-host Steve Doocy asked Graham, R-S.C., why the Flores agreement has been politicized. Graham repeated “they hate Trump” in response, arguing Washington needs people who don’t share such hatred of the president. “I have been working on immigration for 10 years. I’m willing to deal with a DACA population… I’m willing to spend money in Central America to make life better. I’ve done everything I know to do… I can’t get one Democrat to agree with me that you should apply for asylum in Central America, or Mexico, not the United States.”

Sen. Graham’s bill would address the Flores Agreement, which essentially is where the practice of catch and release starts. That’s the cornerstone of the Democrats’ open borders policies.

Graham’s bill would also change the US’s asylum laws. The biggest change would be to force asylum seekers to apply in their country of origin at a US embassy or consulate. It would also increase the burden for getting an asylum hearing. Most people seeking asylum (upwards of 90%) pass the initial test. Few pass the court test. (That’s in the 10-15% range.) Those that pass the first test get assigned a court date that’s often 2 years off.

The comparison couldn’t be clearer. Jerry Nadler hasn’t worked on a single substantive piece of legislation since becoming the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Instead, he’s pushed an impeachment charade to appease the Democrats’ looney tune base.

Sen. Graham has spent time confirming judges to district and appellate courts. He’s written legislation to reform out-of-date immigration laws intended to keep Americans safe. He’s worked hard on building bipartisan agreement to fix our broken immigration laws.

Sen. Graham’s legislation should gain bipartisan support because protecting our citizens shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Rep. Nadler’s investigation shouldn’t get bipartisan support because he’s conducting a purely partisan investigation into something that doesn’t rise to an impeachable offense.

In 2020, the American people need to decide whether they want to vote for Republicans who are trying to get things done or whether they want to vote for Democrats who have spent their time conducting sham investigations that do nothing except employ lots of lawyers. I’ll vote for Republicans who want to get important things done. I won’t vote for Do-Nothing Democrats. I won’t vote for Do-Nothing Democrats who’ve voted for extremist health care legislation that’s expensive and that would eliminate private health insurance. Pelosi keeps asking for a Senate vote on the bills her House has passed. Sen. McConnell is right in not giving these bills a vote because they aren’t bills that would fix anything.