Archive for the ‘Investigative Reporters’ Category

Adam Schiff thought that he had another impeachment scandal within his grasp. Unfortunately for him, Nancy Pelosi won’t get rolled by AOC this time. Kim Strassel’s article highlights the silliness of the latest fiasco. Democrats of all persuasions criticized Bill Barr for politicizing the Roger Stone case. Virtually immediately, Pelosi and Schumer insisted that Barr resign and that an investigation be started. Richard Blumenthal demanded Barr’s resignation. From the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren said that Barr should be impeached if Barr doesn’t resign.

Well.

Let’s get to the bottom of the situation. Thanks to Ms. Strassel, we know that she acted like the adult in charge rather than the infants whining for attention. (The infants are Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren and Blumenthal.) Rather than whining, Ms. Strassel called one of her contacts within the DOJ and asked some basic questions. Here’s what Ms. Strassel found out:

Justice sources tell me that interim U.S. Attorney Tim Shea had told the department’s leadership he and other career officials in the office felt the proposed sentence was excessive. As the deadline for the filing neared, the prosecutors on the case nonetheless threatened to withdraw from the case unless they got their demands for these stiffest of penalties. Mr. Shea—new to the job—suffered a moment of cowardice and submitted to this ultimatum. The filing took Justice Department leaders by surprise, and the decision to reverse was made well before Mr. Trump tweeted, and with no communication with the White House. The revised filing, meanwhile, had the signature of the acting supervisor of the office’s criminal division, who is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.

My first reaction is this: that’s it? My next reaction is similar. Democrats must really hate President Trump if they’re going to make this molehill into a mountain. Either that or they’re too stupid to run anything beyond a kid’s lemonade stand.

Ms. Strassel didn’t act like an infant. Instead, she asked some questions before insisting that Barr resign or be impeached. That’s what rational people do. They find out the facts first. Democrats (like Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer) insist that Barr resign. That’s immaturity personified.

Next, let’s factor in Andy McCarthy’s opinions on the Stone sentence:

The fact is, it was well within the legitimate power of the attorney general to countermand the Stone prosecutors’ submission to the court — i.e., to substitute a recommendation that the court impose a stiff but reasonable prison sentence on Stone, in place of the prosecutors’ suggestion of an excessive term.

More to the point, what we are witnessing in the media-Democrat commentariat is a manufactured controversy, reminiscent of their mau-mauing the president’s Ukraine indiscretion into an impeachable offense. Hence, the unhinged calls for Barr’s impeachment. The judge, not the Department of Justice (DOJ), will determine Stone’s sentence. The shrieking over DOJ’s Stone sentencing memos, topped by the theatrical resignation of the four prosecutors (who now want to be seen as stalwarts against politicized law enforcement after they conducted a patently politicized prosecution), is much ado about nothing.

This might’ve been a bigger deal if President Trump had interfered with an investigation, instead of with a sentencing. It isn’t like President Trump has the authority to overrule the jury without pardoning Stone. That’s something that’s done for all the world to see. The people would get to consider that when voting. That’s the ultimate check and balance.

It’s time for Adam Schiff to put his impeachment gavel down, take a deep breath, then go back to doing intelligence oversight like he’s supposed to do.

After reading this statement, I’d argue that it’s time for Republicans to go on the offensive against the Democrats’ corruption. Specifically, it’s time Senate Republicans exposed just how corrupt the Obama administration was.

The key part of the statement said “According to Andrii Telizhenko, a political officer in the Ukraine Embassy in Washington, D.C. who participated in a January 2016 meeting, ‘U.S. officials volunteered … that they had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions,’ which refers to the investigation that involved Paul Manafort.” It doesn’t stop there. Here’s what it says when it continues:

“During that same meeting, U.S. officials also reportedly brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that had hired then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, to serve as a board member. According to Telizhenko, ‘U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.”

Doesn’t that sound like “U.S. officials” saying that they planned on making the Burisma-Biden scandal disappear? What better way to make it disappear than to give it to Jim Comey’s FBI? Why did “U.S. officials” want to restart the Manafort investigation, too? Schiff said that the Ukraine election interference story had been debunked. With official WH records showing these meetings happened, that takes this from being a conspiracy theory to being investigation-worthy.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats, starting with Schiff, have said that the Biden fiasco has been debunked. They’ve never said who debunked the story or who conducted the investigation that exonerated Hunter. This will give the Democrats some indigestion:

According to Telizhenko:

[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.

Democrats pretend to care about Russian interference in our elections. Democrats did this while they cultivated foreign contacts with the goal of getting President Trump kicked off the ballot. Apparently, Democrats don’t want the American people to decide who their president is. Apparently, Democrats are happy to spread propaganda on hide the truth about their corrupt intentions with Ukraine through Ms. Chalupa.

The Democrats have 2 major difficulties staring right at them. The first difficulty is their unwillingness to fight for the witnesses that they now insist are essential to a fair trial. Why didn’t Mssrs. Schiff and Nadler file a lawsuit to compel John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney to testify?

Please don’t tell us that it would’ve taken too much time. That excuse is forever discredited thanks to Emperor Pelosi withholding the Articles of Impeachment for a month. Most likely, they didn’t file that lawsuit because they knew that the court would rule against them. The court likely would’ve ruled that both people were covered by executive privilege.

The other difficulty Democrats have is explaining why they haven’t released all of the depositions from the Impeachment Committee hearings. The only deposition that hasn’t been released is Michael Atkinson’s testimony. Atkinson is the ICIG. He’s the guy that gave us the whistleblower. He’s also under investigation, according to Devin Nunes.

The Democrats’ other crisis is their unwillingness to let any Republican-called witnesses testify. What exculpatory evidence was hidden as a direct result of that decision? In the House Judiciary Committee mark-up hearing, Chairman Nadler refused to provide for a minority witness hearing, as required by House rules. When asked why he didn’t let Republicans call witnesses, Chairman Nadler said that they weren’t relevant.

One of the witnesses that Republicans wanted to call is the faux whistle-blower. Democrats insist he must remain anonymous. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says he can’t. The Constitution wins those fights.

What are Democrats hiding? Are Democrats trying to hide exculpatory evidence? They haven’t released the transcript of their behind-closed-doors deposition of ICIG Michael Atkinson. According to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Devin Nunes, Atkinson “is under active investigation.”

(Atkinson) is under active investigation. I’m not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don’t want that transcript out because it’s very damaging, Rep. Nunes said.

According to Sara Carter’s reporting, “Republican lawmakers asked Atkinson to explain who revised the complaint and for what reason.”

“And nobody in the media is calling for it,” [Ranking Member Nunes] told The Sara Carter Show. “You’d think they would be, but you know I’ve talked about it on television, John Ratcliffe’s talked about it on television. There’s very few of us that actually know what’s in the transcript, but, yeah, it’s a major problem.”

Atkinson is certainly relevant to this impeachment trial because he’s the person who helped the whistle-blower file his complaint. What are Democrats hiding in Atkinson’s deposition transcript? It must be something important. Inspectors general don’t get investigated over trivial things.

John Ratcliffe articulated the argument beautifully in this interview:

Now that Speaker Pelosi has caved, Democrats, aka Nancy’s support group, have started spinning things to make it sound like her impeachment delay succeeded. It’s understandable why they’d spin that. They know that she needs to save face to avoid utter humiliation. If she wants to save face, she needs another Botox treatment, not this spin.

Byron York’s article is aptly titled Pelosi caves. In the article, Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying “in the last two weeks, there’s been a cascade of evidence that bolsters the case, strongly bolsters the case, for witnesses and documents.” Consider this the Senate Democrats’ equivalent of House Democrats’ “bombshell testimony” coming from the Schiff Show. Spare me the spin.

During the Schiff Show portion of impeachment, we were told by the corrupt media that that day’s testifiers would provide “bombshell testimony” that would devastate Orange Man Bad. By mid-afternoon each day, that day’s star witness was the one decimated. By the time the Schiff Show transitioned into Nadler’s articles of impeachment hearings, Democrats were sinking fast. Impeachment had backfired to the point that the House Judiciary Committee didn’t bother calling fact witnesses. That’s because Democrats were still looking for a fact witness that wouldn’t hurt them.

There’s speculation that Democrats might try a second round of impeachment. Democrat activists were the only people who took the first round seriously. Why think that anyone would take another round seriously? Doug Collins appears to have this right:

“I believe she finally ran out of options and realized there was no political gain anymore,” Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday. “The case never changed, and the outcome has not been altered, but it appears to have allowed them to talk more about it and try to influence public opinion away from the show in the House and the inevitable result in the Senate.”

The American people aren’t paying attention. They’re too busy enjoying their bigger paychecks, their latest promotions, their rising wages. They’re too busy taking vacations. Washington pundits are paying attention but that’s about it.

Now, the holdout is apparently coming to an end. A trial will begin. Pelosi will undoubtedly keep trying to mess with the president. But the trial will be out of her hands.

Let’s hope for a quick trial. The Democrats’ House impeachment managers don’t have anything to present except hearsay testimony. The Trump legal team should present the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and the whistle-blower’s complaint to provide a contrast between what actually happened and the Democrats’ gossip. If Democrats succeed in calling witnesses, Republicans should call the whistle-blower as a witness. If he’s called, the Trump legal team should insist that he give up the names of the people who leaked information to him.

Further, we know that John Bolton won’t testify. He might get called but President Trump will exert executive privilege. If Democrats want to challenge that in court, that’s their option. It’s also their option to pound their head into a brick wall. No serious judge will side with the Democrats in forcing the national security adviser testify about classified communications between the president and another head of state. It’s time to put the Democrats’ fiasco in the rear-view mirror.

Salena Zito’s latest reporting from the “middle of somewhere” is the best understanding of what’s actually happening in battleground states. The subject of Ms. Zito’s article is West Virginia as it relates to other battleground states. If you aren’t getting Ms. Zito’s e-updates, it’s time you started. They’re as essential of reading as Kim Strassel’s articles. But I digress.

The key part of the article comes where Ms. Zito writes “No one would argue seriously that West Virginia, where Trump got more than two-thirds of the vote, would ever be in play for the Democrats in 2020. But the story of its sentiments and the evolution of these voters aren’t just limited to within the state’s boundaries. In many ways, especially in their connection to place and their distrust of large government, political, and entertainment institutions, these voters are very similar to voters in rural, suburban, and exurban voters in the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin.”

Then it goes into extended detail:

Tom Maraffa, geography professor emeritus at Youngstown State University, explained that the similarities of the voters in slow-growth metropolitan regions are striking and important to consider when trying to understand trends. He said West Virginians “share that sense of rootedness” with voters “in places like suburban Youngstown, Akron, or Ashtabula, Ohio, or suburban Erie, Pennsylvania, or Macomb County, Michigan, or Kenosha, Wisconsin.”

If Democrats don’t win back these blue collar cities and counties in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, they’ll lose this election. Period. In 2016, President Trump turned Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from Hillary’s “blue firewall” into red states. Based on what’s happening in West Virginia, that trend is strengthening.

The premise I’m operating from is that this isn’t as much about Democrats vs. Republicans as it is about ultra-liberal nutjobs vs. sane people. Imagine the reaction of people in the audience when Vice President Biden said that coal miners should learn how to program computers:

That video says it all. Those coal miners wouldn’t walk across the street on a sunny day to vote for Biden but they’d sprint across a busy highway in a snowstorm to vote for President Trump. If Vice President Biden thinks that his reputation as a blue collar guy is enough to defeat President Trump, he’s kidding himself. A man whose job is on the verge of disappearing and whose community is falling apart doesn’t care about a politician’s reputation. That miner wants to know, first and foremost, whether that politician will be with them in their foxhole. Those miners and manufacturers know that President Trump will be with them in their foxhole.

That’s the biggest reason why President Trump will win re-election. President Trump told the people of western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan that he’d be their president and that they wouldn’t be forgotten again. That’s powerful stuff to a man who’s worrying about his community, his church and his industry.

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.

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.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, doesn’t care who he demolishes on his path to impeaching President Trump. Schiff’s latest act of intimidation was his “decision to publish the phone records of the president’s personal attorneys, a journalist, a fellow lawmaker, a National Security Council aide, and others.”

Schiff’s behavior since 2016 has been hostile and corrupt. The definition of corruption is “perversion of integrity” or “corrupt or dishonest proceedings.” If anyone personifies a “perversion of integrity”, it’s Schiff. He’s been caught lying so often that he’s often called ‘the little boy who cried wolf too often.’

Now Schiff’s depravity has reached a new low by releasing this private information. If Schiff is willing to do that about journalists and political opponents, why shouldn’t we think that he’ll next extend that behavior to anyone that stands in his way of impeaching President Trump. Unfortunately, Schiff can’t be arrested for this corrupt behavior because of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. What can be done is to expel him from the House the minute Republicans retake control of the House in 2021.

In a text exchange, I asked one Republican lawmaker with knowledge of the situation whether Schiff’s move raised any attorney-client issues:

Not legally. They used their subpoena authority. The decision to publish certain records is out of bounds as clearly political retribution, but it’s not illegal as far as I can determine.

Whether Schiff broke any laws is irrelevant. His actions were the personification of corruption. It isn’t a stretch to think that Schiff’s actions were meant as retribution against people who tried stopping his impeachment obsession.

Democrats who protect Schiff should be defeated at the next election. Schiff’s actions are reprehensible. Schiff has specialized in extreme lies. This is the most well-known example of Schiff’s lies:

What a worthless collection of human cells.

The Democrats shouldn’t be surprised that President Trump didn’t accept their invitation to the Democrats’ rigged impeachment hearing on Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee. The White House received notice of the hearing just over a week ago. That’s beyond ridiculous:

In a Nov. 26 letter to Trump, Nadler said the president’s counsel can make a request to question a panel of as yet unnamed witnesses who will discuss the constitutional basis for impeachment.

What intelligent person would trust a Democrat who’s gotten caught with “plans for House Democrats to investigate and impeach Justice Brett Kavanaugh for alleged perjury and investigate and impeach President Donald Trump for alleged treasonous collusion with Russia”? Why would anyone think that Chairman Nadler was entering these hearings with an open mind? This tells me Chairman Nadler is hopelessly biased:

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., also ripped Trump for not fully cooperating with Congress. “If the President thinks the call was ‘perfect’ and there is nothing to hide then he would turn over the thousands of pages of documents requested by Congress, allow witnesses to testify instead of blocking testimony with baseless privilege claims, and provide any exculpatory information that refutes the overwhelming evidence of his abuse of power,” he said in a statement.

I didn’t hear Chairman Nadler insisting that President Obama turn over documents requested by the Oversight Committee on the subject of Operation Fast and Furious. That’s because Nadler is a partisan hack. He only cares about doing as much damage to President Trump as possible.

Another sign that Chairman Nadler and the Democrats aren’t operating in good faith is because Democrats set the date for this sham hearing on the same day as the NATO leaders summit in London. The date for that summit was set 9 months ago. Chairman Nadler couldn’t have picked a different day? There’s no question that he’s operating in bad faith. This letter outlines the bad faith in greater detail:

The Democrats’ invitation to President Trump’s attorneys look more like pitchforks than invitations. Arranging the hearing without telling the minority who the witnesses will be is a terrible precedent. Setting the hearing without telling the minority if they’ll be able to call a single witness is a historic precedent that Democrats won’t be able to live down when the history books are written.

The Democrats haven’t been ready for primetime. Chairmen Nadler and Schiff have presided over clown shows. These Democrats haven’t played fair or consistently told the truth. That’s why Nadler and Schiff will be historic. It just won’t be in a positive way.