Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

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:

It’s been quite awhile since I agreed with Speaker Pelosi on anything substantive. Today is that day. Sen. Mitch McConnell has frequently said that the impeachment trial rules for President Trump’s trial are similar to the rules in the Clinton impeachment trial. I totally agree with that. That being said, I also agree with Speaker Pelosi that the impeachment of President Clinton and President Trump’s impeachment are dramatically different.

Bill Clinton’s impeachment investigation was conducted by a team of skilled investigators who weren’t political hacks. The information that the investigators uncovered were brought before a grand jury, who made an initial determination of whether he’d violated any laws. They didn’t indict but they stated whether the things that they’d found were enough to get an indictment. When the investigation ended, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was required by statute to issue a report, which Judge Starr complied with. The Starr Report was then published and given to each member of Congress.

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation, which was essentially run by Andrew Weissman, a disgraced attorney who got slapped down 9-0 for the way he prosecuted Enron and who took down a Big Eight accounting firm. When Mueller completed his investigation, he turned his findings over to the Attorney General. That’s because the special counsel is considered an employee of the Department of Justice.

Here’s a summary of the Starr Report:

In the report’s introduction, Starr asserted that Clinton had lied under oath during a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, while he was a “defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit” and “to a grand jury.” He additionally alleged that Clinton had “attempted to influence the testimony of a grand jury witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony; attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness’ plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the president knew would be false … ; lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that then they would repeat those lies before the grand jury; and engaged in a pattern on conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.”

When the Mueller Report stated that “no Americans conspired with Russians” to rig the election for President Trump, Democrats didn’t accept that. In the Clinton investigation, the House of Representatives had a lengthy list of crimes to pick from to impeach President Clinton on. With the Trump investigation, there wasn’t a single crime that President Trump allegedly committed.

Rather than accept failure, Democrats turned to Adam Schiff to investigate President Trump. Working with a CIA snitch who allegedly worked with 2 of Schiff’s new staffers at the NSC, Schiff seized upon President Trump’s second phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy. After twisting the transcript’s words, which is what Democrats do, Adam Schiff insisted that this faux whistleblower had to be trusted and that he had to testify.

Faster than you can say Schiff Show, Schiff was calling one hearsay testifier after another in Schiff’s SCIF. When Democrats moved to public testimony, Schiff’s whistleblower was nowhere to be found. Mark Zaid, the whistleblower’s attorney, however, became a sideshow. It’s just a matter of time before Ms. Pelosi transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate. When that happens, Schiff will be exposed as a corrupt partisan hack. When the case goes to trial, Schiff’s legacy will be demolished.

When President Clinton was impeached, legitimate crimes were committed and a legitimate investigator did the investigating. When President Trump was impeached, no crimes were committed and Humpty Dumpty was the investigator. We all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. We can only hope that happens with Schiff, too.

For those who haven’t figured this out, Devin Nunes is tenacious. He’s the House Intel Committee’s pit bull. If he sinks his teeth into a subject, he’ll get to the bottom of that subject. Right now, Rep. Nunes has ripped a chunk off of Michael Atkinson’s flesh. FYI- Atkinson is the inspector general for the Intelligence Community.

Appearing on The Ingraham Angle last night, Rep. Nunes told her “From the time that the whistleblower first came forward, to the IG, where the forms didn’t match, it wasn’t urgent, didn’t have any firsthand knowledge, the form later changed, then it was backdated, … then we had to hear from the whistleblower and then we didn’t have to hear from the whistleblower.”

That sounds more than suspicious. First, how do you insist that it’s urgent to protect this CIA snitch because he’s got hearsay evidence? That’s what Atkinson said that the whistleblower’s complaint contained “allegations of ‘urgent concern,’ and should ‘be shared with lawmakers.'”

Since when has third-hand hearsay testimony been thought of as an “urgent concern”? That might be of urgent concern to a Page Six gossip writer but it’s trash to a watchdog for the intelligence community of the United States. Devin Nunes explains why he’s digging into this issue in this interview:

“You have to either believe he is in on it or he is incompetent,” he said, adding Atkinson’s October 2019 response letter could be characterized as him being indeed “incompetent.” “If he’s incompetent … we need to have evidence of your incompetence. … We are not going to take your word for it that, ‘Oh, we made a mistake’,” he added.

There’s no reason to think that IG Atkinson isn’t corrupted. Why would so many changes get made to the complaint? Why would they change forms, then backdate one set of forms?

It’s worth mentioning that Rep. Nunes has a sterling reputation within the intelligence community, especially after the Horowitz Report vindicated Rep Nunes. Amongst House Democrats and the Democrats’ MSM protectorate, he’s vilified. People that deal with facts and verifiable proof respect Mr. Nunes.

Now that Rep. Nunes has started investigating Mr. Atkinson, the Democrats have a new headache to deal with. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

The most unappreciated story of the year is the least reported story of the year. When the Mueller Report was published, the MSM didn’t report the fact that Special Counsel Mueller knew on Day 1 that the Clinton campaign had paid for the Steele Dossier and that the information in the dossier was unverified. Despite that, Robert Mueller’s team ignored this exculpatory information and kept ‘investigating’ for 2 additional years.

While they kept ‘investigating’, Mueller’s team divided the nation while crippling the president. This wasn’t just unnecessary. It was destructive to President Trump’s negotiations with dangerous foreign governments. It hung like a cloud over our economy, too.

As destructive as those things were, they aren’t the most disturbing aspect of the Mueller investigation. Despite spending 2 years and virtually $50,000,000 on the faux investigation, they didn’t investigate the FBI. Despite the fact that FBI hid exculpatory evidence from the FISC, despite the fact that an FBI lawyer doctored an email from the CIA from saying that Carter Page was a CIA source to saying that Carter Page wasn’t a CIA source, it’s inexcusable that Mueller didn’t investigate the FBI.

When Carter Page sues the FBI, he should also sue Mueller personally for protecting the agency he once directed. There’s no justification for not investigating the FBI when the special counsel was tasked with investigating Russian interference into the 2016 US presidential election. The Steele Dossier was nothing without Russian disinformation. That isn’t my opinion. That’s the finding of the Horowitz Report.

That’s the definition of cronyism. Compare the blind spot in the Mueller Report with the detailed work done by Michael Horowitz. IG Horowitz didn’t protect the FBI the way that Director Mueller protected the FBI. Horowitz told the truth about the FBI and the truth hurt.

Had people listened to Rep. Louie Gohmert, we might’ve gotten spared this lengthy national nightmare. This article lays out the case that Rep. Gohmert put together against Mueller:

Gohmert’s criticism of Mueller did not begin with Mueller’s FBI directorship, but rather, hearkened back to when Mueller was an assistant U.S. attorney in Boston in the 1980s, then Acting U.S. attorney, during the time that FBI agent John Connolly, who is now in prison on an unrelated conviction, protected Whitey Bulger, thereby allowing four innocent men to spend decades in prison, where two of them would later die before all were exonerated by a federal judge.

That’s the personification of corruption. Letting 4 innocent men languish in prison, with 2 of them dying while unjustly incarcerated, is the nastiest civil rights violations I’ve heard of in half a century. That shouldn’t ever have happened. As a Christian, it’s difficult to give Mueller the benefit of that doubt.

Lindsey Graham summarizes things nicely in his closing statement:

Once the Russian sub-source said “everything in the dossier, I disavow.” The minute that’s revealed, what’s the justification for continuing the Mueller Investigation? The minute Mueller learned that Carter Page wasn’t a Russian asset should’ve been the instant Mueller should’ve stopped the investigation.

If we’d had a press that cared about civil rights and doing the right thing, this would’ve been a highly publicized story. Because we’ve got corrupt media organizations dotting the landscape, it was mostly overlooked. Here at LFR, I’ll just say this: not on my watch. The fact that Democrats sat silent says everything. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately after House Democrats impeached President Trump on a party-line vote, Speaker Pelosi announced that they’d be calling the USMCA up for a vote. With much pomp and fanfare, she announced that it was a much different trade agreement than the one that President Trump and Robert Lighthizer had sent them. The truth is that labor got a couple minor concessions.

The purpose of the vote on USMCA was to prove that Democrats could walk and chew gum at the same time. To use Mitch McConnell’s immortal words, “it’s time to stop this charade.” It isn’t that Ms. Pelosi isn’t a skilled legislator. It’s that the Resist Movement isn’t interested in legislating. They’re only interested in investigating, then impeaching. Without having sent articles of impeachment over to the Senate, House Democrats have started toying with the idea of impeaching President Trump again:

The lawyer for House Judiciary Committee Democrats revealed in a Monday court filing that there is a possibility lawmakers could pursue even more articles of impeachment against President Trump, despite having already adopted two of them last week following a grueling, historic and bitterly partisan debate. The prospect of additional articles, while perhaps unlikely, was floated as part of a court battle over Democrats’ bid to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

House Democrats are quickly becoming a total farce. They spent their first year investigating President Trump while waiting for the Mueller Report to be published. When it finally was published, it was a monumental flop. Then they waited for Robert Mueller to “breath life” into the report. That hearing was a disaster, too.

Finally, a CIA snitch allegedly filed a whistleblower complaint even though they aren’t covered by the ICWPA. Impeachment 1.0 was off and running. Just 6 weeks later, the House had completed its ‘investigation.’ House Democrats had impeached President Trump on what Jonathan Turley said would be “the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”

Shortly before a 4 p.m. deadline imposed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the committee counsel filed a brief making their case for why they still want to hear from McGahn, despite having already voted for impeachment.

Here’s the rest of the story:

While the Mueller probe never factored into the impeachment articles that were adopted, House Democrats’ counsel Douglas Letter argued that McGahn’s testimony is still vital, and could even be relevant to “consideration of whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment” against Trump.

This is another Democrat fishing expedition. Jerry Nadler shouldn’t be taken seriously because he’s changed the rules more often than a chameleon changing colors against a paisley background.

Let’s simplify this. Democrats just wasted a year investigating President Trump. In that time, another Democrat told them that they’d compiled the thinnest pile of evidence during the shortest impeachment investigation ever. They took a one-morning pause to vote for USMCA before returning to a second round of impeachment investigations.

It isn’t a matter of whether Democrats can walk and chew gum. It’s a matter of whether they’re interested in doing the people’s business. At this point, the verdict on that is pretty clear.

Finally, this video highlights how Democrats weren’t interested in hearing firsthand testimony or admitting that they’d heard exculpatory evidence:

Then again, Democrats weren’t interested in governing, either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saying that this has Louie Gohmert fired up is understatement:

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

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

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

Rep. Gohmert was already fired up after this:

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

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

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

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.