Archive for the ‘Devin Nunes’ Category

It’s understatement to say that Devin Nunes has taken more ill-deserved grief than any other congressman in recent history. In her latest article, Kim Strassel highlights then-Chairman Nunes’ efforts to root out FISC corruption and Judge Rosemary Collyer’s inaction.

It all started with a letter from then-Chairman Nunes to Judge Collyer. In that letter, Nunes wrote “‘the Committee found that the FBI and DOJ failed to disclose the specific political actors paying for uncorroborated information’ that went to the court, “misled the FISC regarding dissemination of this information,” and ‘failed to correct these errors in the subsequent renewals.'” That letter was dated Feb. 7, 2018.

According to the article, “Mr. Nunes asked the court whether any transcripts of FISC hearings about this application existed, and if so, to provide them to the committee.” What he got for his troubles is “a dismissive letter [from Judge Collyer] that addressed only the last request. The judge observed that any such transcripts would be classified, that the court doesn’t maintain a ‘systematic record’ of proceedings and that, given ‘separation of power considerations,’ Mr. Nunes would be better off asking the Justice Department. The letter makes no reference to the Intelligence Committee findings.”

Being the persistent fact-finder that he is, Nunes “tried again in a June 13, 2018, follow-up letter.” In that letter, Nunes wrote that Congress “uncovered evidence that DOJ and FBI provided incomplete and potentially incorrect information to the Court” and that “significant relevant information was not disclosed to the Court.”

It’s worth remembering that then-Ranking Member Schiff published a competing ‘everything-is-fine’ memo. That memo has now been discredited. Here are some of the main claims from the Schiff Memo:

FBI and DOJ officials did not “abuse” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.

In fact, the DOJ and FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government. DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA’s probable cause requirements.

Thanks to the DOJ IG report, we now know that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered the initial email from the CIA that said Carter Page was one of their sources to say that Page wasn’t a CIA source. IG Horowitz made a criminal referral on Clinesmith. Back to Ms. Strassel’s article:

Mr. Nunes asked Judge Collyer to “initiate a thorough investigation.” To assist her, the same month he separately sent FISC “a classified summary of Congress’s findings and facts” to that point. The letter was signed by all 13 Republican members of the Intelligence Committee.

Judge Collyer blew him off. Her letter on June 15, 2018, is four lines long. She informs Mr. Nunes she’s received his letter. She says she’s also received his classified information. She says she’s instructing staff to provide his info to “the judges who ruled on the referenced matters.” She thanks him for his “interest” in the court.

With Judge Collyer throwing the FBI under the bus and with the FBI feeling like it’s getting the short end of the stick from rubberstamp FISC judges, the odds of a major fight between the FISC and the FBI seems likely.

Frankly, the FISC judges seem disinterested. In fact, they don’t seem terribly interested in the details of their cases. That type of attitude is frightening to anyone who appreciates civil liberties. These FISC judges seem indifferent at best.

Finally, it’s apparent that the reputation that the Agenda Media attempted to give Devin Nunes is undeserved. Nunes, unlike Jim Comey and Adam Schiff, was vindicated.

Politicians and pundits are pummeling Speaker Pelosi for yesterday’s impeachment vote. The New York Post’s cover nick-named Ms. Pelosi the “Swamp Mistress” before saying that it’s her funeral. That last shot referenced her wearing a black dress to highlight the solemnity of impeaching President Trump.

Swamp Mommie wasn’t happy when Democrats started applauding President Trump’s impeachment:

Speaker Pelosi would’ve joined in the Democrats’ applause if she were honest with the people. It’s just that the applause got in the way of her solemnity charade that nobody bought.

The contrivance factor was just too thick:

Wearing a funereal black dress, she stood next to a cardboard American flag and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. I would have counted her more honest if she had pledged her allegiance to a Democratic donkey.

Between the black dress and the constant repetition of how Democrats didn’t have a choice and how Democrats did this out of loyalty to the Constitution, it was painfully obvious that there wasn’t a sincere gesture until Democrats started applauding.

At any rate, by last Sept. 24, with the 2020 election fast approaching and her icy relationship with Trump now a bonfire, Pelosi suddenly flip-flopped on impeachment. Her ostensible reason centered on the unverified claims of an anonymous whistleblower regarding Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine. The call, she was assured by the media and Rep. Adam Schiff, would amount to a smoking gun.

“The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of betrayal of his oath of office and betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” she declared.

It felt like a fill-in-the-blank speech, one she had on the shelf ready to go as soon as she had an excuse to use it. Twenty-four hours later, Trump released the transcript of the Ukraine call and it was benign in comparison to her inflammatory accusation. If only Pelosi had waited another day.

Throughout this national ordeal, Pelosi has been portrayed as the adult in the room, the moderate who held back AOC + 3. Pelosi held back AOC + 3 as long as she could but, in the end, they were just too strong. As for Pelosi the moderate, that’s pure BS.

[Democrats] resembled Grade B actors performing for the cameras, their rehearsed references to oaths, prayers, the Founding Fathers, the rule of law, checks and balances and the Constitution itself all sounding contrived. Rather than reflecting actual gravitas, the words were trotted out to create the appearance of it.

There was a display of gravitas yesterday. Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, Republicans had strong replies for the Democrats’ frequent smart-alecky jabs. Often, those sharp replies came from battle-tested veterans like Doug Collins, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, John Ratcliffe, Louie Gohmert and Jim Sensenbrenner. It’s painfully obvious that Republicans, not Democrats, were the party of gravitas.

Michael Mukasey dropped a bombshell when he appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday Morning Futures show. During the interview, which lasts 6:00, Mukasey was asked “I want to ask you about what took place last week where Adam Schiff had phone records of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, John Solomon, a journalist, Devin Nunes, we’ll speak momentarily ranking member intel committee, not only get those phone records and let the public that he had not phone records. Everybody was speculating why did Rudy Giuliani call the White House. Why did John Solomon call Rudy Giuliani? Which, really, you’re allowed to make a phone call.”

Mukasey replied “There are statutes, part of the criminal code that restrict the ability of anybody to get those records and they list who can get them under what circumstances and that doesn’t include Congress. It is for law enforcement, for law enforcement purposes, or if the company wants to disclose them to save somebody’s life or prevent serious injury they can do that. Those are the only circumstances. A Congressional committee, as far as I know, has no authority to subpoena that information.

The conversation continued like this:

MARIA BARTIROMO: Are you saying that was a crime?
MICHAEL MUKASEY: The statute restricting that is in title 18. That is the criminal code. You tell me.
MARIA BARTIROMO: Wow. Devin Nunes says he will have a legal strategy come January. We’ll see what that looks like. Do you think he has strong standing?
MICHAEL MUKASEY: I think he has strong standing and there ought to be questions asked and answered how it is that Schiff purported to issue a congressional subpoena for telephone records to the provider, not to the people whose records they were, but to the provider.
MARIA BARTIROMO: Yeah.
MICHAEL MUKASEY: Does that mean for example, if somebody is nominated for a public office and being confirmed by a Senate committee that the Senate committee has the right to look at his telephone records? That is ridiculous. The statute was designed to stop that.

Call me crazy but that might mean trouble ahead for Mr. Schiff. That’s a potential legal bombshell for Chairman Schiff’s Committee Democrats. Committee Democrats voted to approve the impeachment report so they’re just as involved in those civil rights abuses as Schiff is.

If Schiff subpoenaed those phone records, which he’s already admitted, then Schiff might need a criminal defense attorney. After putting those phone records into the report that he wrote, there isn’t much of a defense that Schiff can mount. Here’s the Bartiromo-Mukasey interview:

Saying that Chairman Schiff’s imagination is vivid is understatement. This transcript highlights Schiff’s imagination:

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): No, it isn’t a failure. At least, it’s not a failure in the sense of our constitutional duty in the House. And I will tell you what changed my mind, George, because you’re right. I resisted going down this road towards impeachment. But it was two things. It was the discovery of the most egregious conduct to date. It was one thing with the president invited foreign interference as a candidate, when he couldn’t use the power of his office to make it so.

It was another when, as president of the United States, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from.

But it was one more fact, George, that I think made it inexorable. And that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back on the phone, this time with President Zelensky, trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election.

It’s frightening to think that the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, could look at the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call transcript, then think that President Trump was asking President Zelenskiy to “help him cheat in the next election.” Anyone who’s read that 5-page transcript knows that didn’t happen. Only a disturbed person would think that. What’s Chairman Schiff’s proof that President Trump tried cheating in the next election? His vivid imagination? In the U.S. judicial system, great men like Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison insisted that a man couldn’t be convicted without evidence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally Chairman Schiff, before we go, I do want to ask you a question about the Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI investigation into the Russia investigation. As you know, it found that there were significant errors, 17 significant errors and omission in that FISA surveillance application for Carter Page, and you’ve received some criticism because of your past claims that there were not any omissions. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, I want to show it right now:

Mr. Schiff claimed DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA court standards. But Mr. Horowitz makes clear that FBI officials didn’t even tell senior Justice officials about the concerns and irregularities of its Page application. Would the court have granted the warrants if it knew the whole story? We don’t know.

Do you accept that your original judgments were wrong, and what can you do about it?

SCHIFF: Well, I certainly accept that two years later, 170 interviews later, and 2 million documents later, the inspector general found things that we didn’t know two years ago. And I certainly concur with the inspector general’s conclusion that there need to be significant changes to the FISA process. We just didn’t have that evidence available two years ago.

That’s BS. The DOJ IG report verified that the Nunes Memo verified everything and that it got those things right. The other thing that’s interesting is that the DOJ IG report says that then-Chairman Nunes didn’t get a single thing wrong. Then-Chairman Nunes got each detail right.

Question: How could Schiff get each detail wrong and then-Chairman Nunes get each detail right? Not only that, Schiff’s memo contested each of the main points of the Nunes Memo.

If anything that Schiff said isn’t protected by the Constitution’s Speech & Debate Clause, then he’s in trouble. Additionally, there’s no doubt that the FBI is in legal hot water:

Watching the entire Ratcliffe interview is stunning.

It’s time for the NRCC to target and defeat Adam Schiff. It isn’t just that he’s a despicable liar, though there’s little doubt that he’s one of the Democrats’ most despicable liars. It isn’t just because he led a faux impeachment investigation, though he’s guilty of that, too. It’s because, in addition to those things, Schiff is accusing Republicans of doing the disgusting things he’s already done.

“We are hearing astounding things from Republican members who are saying it’s okay to solicit foreign interference in an election, things I never would have imagined I would ever hear either party say,” Schiff said, adding, “For some of our members who are defending the Constitution, it is their finest hour. But for others who are willfully blinding themselves to this president’s misconduct, it is the most shameful hour.”

It’s also time for Mr. Schiff to get sued. Saying that Republicans are advocating for soliciting foreign interference in our elections is a lie. Schiff isn’t a man of integrity. He’s a thoroughly dishonest politician. Consider what he said in the so-called Schiff Memo:


Thanks to the Horowitz Report, Devin Nunes’ reputation is at least partially restored:


Schiff is so loathsome that he doesn’t deserve to be the ranking member of the HPSCI. He doesn’t deserve to be a member of Congress, though he deserves to be stripped of his security clearance. Then there’s this:

We now know from the Horowitz report that the dossier played a “central and essential role” in obtaining warrants to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign. We also know that Schiff lied to the public about what had happened, as his media handmaidens protected him and trashed his fellow House Intelligence Committee member, U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, a California Republican, who tried to warn the country of the FISA abuse.

It’s time to throw this bum out. He isn’t welcome in the People’s House anymore.

Last week, the nation found out that Jonathan Turley a) voted for Hillary Clinton and b) is a man of integrity. This morning, it’s worth examining Prof. Turley’s op-ed about the Horowitz Report.

For instance, Prof. Turley wrote “Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama.”

Prof. Turley continued, saying “In the meantime, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.” How can that be? Jim Comey insists that the FBI did nothing wrong. Comey saying that the FBI did nothing wrong ranks right up there with Adam Schiff saying that he’d seen evidence that was “stronger than circumstantial.”

Then there’s this:

Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself.

This won’t turn out well for Adam Schiff, who put out a report in February, 2018. In that report, which was published after Devin Nunes published “a memo with these explosive revelations that the FBI had targeted [former Trump campaign adviser] Carter Page with surveillance warrants that the dossier from a rival campaign had been the basis for that, and that the FBI had not been straight up with the FISA court.”

While Jim Comey takes a victory lap of sorts, the truth isn’t on Mr. Comey’s side. In his op-ed, Comey said “For two years, the president of the United States and his followers have loudly declared that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. They repeatedly told the American people that the FBI had done all sorts of bad things, such as tapping Donald Trump’s wires during the campaign, opening an investigation without adequate cause, with the intent to damage Trump, and inserting secret informants into the Trump campaign.”

Kim Strassel, though, sticks with the facts in a series of tweets that are best titled “Horowitz findings of facts.” In the first tweet, she wrote “Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to note what a “low threshold” this is. Durham’s statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on reasonableness.”


Ms. Strassel’s third tweet is especially sweet:

4)In fact, IG report says dossier played “central and essential role” in getting FISA warrants. Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings.

In other words, Schiff lied while Devin Nunes got it right. That’s the inescapable truth.

Yes, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou (Mr. Comey, not Schiff), President Trump’s well-informed followers have said “that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.” Let’s talk about that a little. The Horowitz Report emphatically stated that “6)IG finds 17 separate problems with FISA court submissions, including FBI’s overstatement of Steele’s credentials. Also the failure to provide court with exculpatory evidence and issues with Steele’s sources and additional info it got about Steele’s credibility.”

Mr. Comey, if you think that vindicates the FBI, then you’re as delusional as Adam Schiff. In fact, it’s difficult determining who looks worse after reading the report’s findings. Let’s just call it a tie — for last place in the gutter.

10)Overall, IG was so concerned by these “extensive compliance failures” that is has now initiated additional “oversight” to assess how FBI in general complies with “policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons.”

Does Mr. Comey think that the inspector general adding additional oversight “to assess how FBI in general complies with ‘policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons'” is vindication for the FBI?

When the dust finally settles, the FISA warrant application process will be significantly changed to protect against the FBI’s abuses of the system. Those abuses started happening on Mr. Comey’s watch. Whether Mr. Comey or others in the upper echelons of the FBI committed crimes hasn’t been determined. That’s for Mr. Durham to determine. What’s been determined, though, is that Mr. Comey’s FBI made a series of mistakes (is it a mistake if it’s intentional?) that kept the surveillance on Carter Page intact.

What’s been determined is that the Horowitz Report vindicates Devin Nunes, the man that Democrats and Mr. Comey criticized from pillar to post. Unlike Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nunes didn’t just see what he wanted to see. Mr. Nunes saw what was actually there.

If Adam Schiff isn’t worried, he isn’t getting good legal advice. Kim Strassel’s article highlights a multitude of crimes that Mr. Schiff might be prosecuted for. That’s the subject for others, though, so let’s unpack Ms. Strassel’s article.

In her article, she wrote “Mr. Schiff divulged the phone logs this week in his Ukraine report, thereby revealing details about the communications of Trump attorneys Jay Sekulow and Mr. Giuliani, ranking Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes, reporter John Solomon and others.” A paragraph later, she continued, saying “If we’ve never had a scandal like this before, it’s in part because it is legally dubious. Federal law bars phone carriers from handing over records without an individual’s agreement. The statute makes some exceptions, including for federal and state law-enforcement agencies. But not for lawmakers. ‘There does not appear to be any basis to believe that a congressional committee is authorized to subpoena telephone records directly from a provider—as opposed to an individual,’ former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells me.”

Members of Congress can’t access these phone logs because they fall outside the purview of their legislative responsibilities. For those saying that Schiff had additional authority thanks to impeachment, the reality is that Schiff requested these records a month before the House voted to initiate the impeachment inquiry. It was after Nancy Pelosi declared that they were starting the inquiry but that’s insignificant in the court’s eyes.

That’s because the Constitution gives the authority to “the House of Representatives.” Literally for decades, courts have ruled that the House hasn’t acted until it votes. Though Ms. Pelosi has frequently acted like a queen, it isn’t likely that a court will grant her queen status. It isn’t likely that a court will rule that a legislator, even a Speaker of the House, can unilaterally declare the start of impeachment.

The question is whether Mr. Schiff, in his zeal to bring down Mr. Trump, has made himself legally vulnerable. In Kilbourn v. Thompson (1881), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose.” Mr. Schiff might argue he has wider powers in an impeachment inquiry. But the House didn’t approve the inquiry until Oct. 31, a month after he issued his main AT&T subpoena.

Rep. Jim Banks wrote “It doesn’t take a constitutional lawyer to recognize that subpoenaing these call records violates the spirit of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures.”

Schiff didn’t go to court to get these records. He submitted the request directly to AT&T. The reason why legitimate requests go through the courts is to have the courts supervise the process.

“The subpoenas aren’t related to legitimate congressional oversight,” says constitutional lawyer David Rivkin. Because there’s “no conceivable legislative purpose to obtaining these call logs and publicly disclosing this information, Mr. Schiff would not be able to benefit from the Speech and Debate Clause immunity that otherwise protects members of Congress from civil and criminal liability.” Mr. Rivkin adds that any of the targets could sue Mr. Schiff under state law for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and potentially even compel Mr. Schiff to turn over documents in discovery.

The other thing that should be considered is throwing Schiff out of the House for violating another congressman’s Fourth Amendment rights. Nobody is above the law, especially the chairmen of powerful committees.

Schiff’s actions are reprehensible. Ethics charges should be filed with the House Ethics Committee immediately against Chairman Schiff. If Democrats protect him against those charges, highlight which Democrats protected Schiff for his disgusting behavior in campaign ads. Let Democrats know that they’ll pay a steep price for protecting corrupt members of their party.

Adam Schiff hasn’t displayed the proper caution for his high-ranking position. He hasn’t been accurate with his statements or findings of facts. His accusations aren’t based on verified information. Simply put, he’s been reckless. That’s why he needs to be stopped permanently.

The Democrats’ smear campaign isn’t stopping. Instead, it’s hitting new lows. CNN published a story insisting that House Impeachment Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes had visited Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden family. The CNN article opens by saying “(CNN)A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden. The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.” It continues, saying “Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December,’ said Bondy.”

Talk about ironclad hearsay. I’m impressed. Not. This is worthless. It wouldn’t be admitted in a court of law. That isn’t the worst of it, though. This is:


CNN is running a major story that Devin Nunes met with a Ukrainian prosecutor on the word of a defense attorney whose client is facing serious charges? They’re publishing the article without seeing the texts? They’re just taking the defense attorney’s word without verification?

It’s difficult to picture a reporter being that gullible. Did she just throw out everything she learned in Journalism 101? That’s what it looks like.

“For all of the last three years, including the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax, this is the mother of all fake news stories. There is not one bigger than this,” Nunes said. “And so next week, we are going to take them to court. They will have an opportunity to come to court so that we can subpoena each other. We can get discovery. We can set people down for depositions. And I have a bet for you, Sean. CNN and The Daily Beast are going to run for cover. They’re going to fight this. They’re not going to show up in court. They’re not going to accept service.”

Devin Nunes has been maligned by the MSM for years. They’ve insisted that he’s blindly running interference for the Trump administration. What the MSM fails to admit is that, at least once a month, Nunes’ claims are proven right. It’s time CNN and the Daily Beast are held accountable.

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.