Archive for the ‘Impeachment’ Category

This GAO opinion reeks of Deep State intervention into the Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump. Today, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s watchdog office, issued an opinion stating that the Trump administration had broken the law by temporarily withholding lethal military aid to Ukraine. The GAO specifically stated that the Trump administration had violated the “Impoundment Control Act.

Anyone who knows the Constitution knows that Article II gives the Executive Branch sole authority on foreign policy. Further, as James Freeman points out, the GAO’s boss is the Legislative Branch. Quoting from Freeman’s article, “For people who aren’t students of the Washington bureaucracy, it should be noted that few people consider GAO the authoritative word on legal issues. The Justice Department and ultimately of course the federal courts make the big calls.”

According to the gospel of Schoolhouse Rock, the Legislative Branch isn’t equipped to render verdicts. At best, the Legislative Branch might be authorized to offer an opinion on legal matters but that opinion is purely advisory. It isn’t the type of thing that has legal weight behind it. It shouldn’t be surprising to find out that the Deep State is attempting to tip the Senate’s trial of President Trump’s impeachment in the Democrats’ favor. This is how we know that’s what’s happening:

At the urging of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, (D-MD), GAO now says that Trump administration delays in sending aid to Ukraine were illegal. In a new letter GAO’s general counsel argues that even though the Trump administration made aid for Ukraine available last September 12—before the Sept. 30 deadline for obligating funds—it still should have happened earlier. It’s not entirely clear which date would have made GAO happy but in the agency’s view the White House did not have an unavoidable “programmatic delay” which prevented funds from going to Ukraine.

Again, the Executive Branch doesn’t obey the Legislative Branch. If that were reality, then we wouldn’t have a constitutional republic. We’d have a parliamentary system in which the president would serve the Parliament. That isn’t the system we have. Our system is one that insists upon co-equal branches of government.

The GAO counsel didn’t have the authority to say this:

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

That isn’t the GAO’s decision to make. The appropriation was spent with time to spare. The GAO admitted that. This was done to give Democrats a fresh talking point. Even if the GAO is right about this potential infraction, at best, this wouldn’t be a high crime, which the Constitution requires to impeach.

Despite this declaration, we haven’t seen proof that this isn’t a president exercising his authority in setting foreign policy. That constitutional question is something that a federal court would need to sort through. It isn’t something that the GAO can unilaterally decide.

Yesterday, like other days, Democrats insisted that a Senate impeachment trial without witnesses should be considered a sham trial. Those statements, whether they’re made by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Nadler, are part of the Democrats’ strategy to extend their investigation in the hopes of finding a nugget of incriminating evidence against President Trump.

Rather than passively accepting that, Republicans should highlight the sham investigation that Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler conducted for House Democrats. The point should be to highlight the Democrats’ intellectual inconsistency. This video highlights the fact that Chairman Nadler refused to allow a hearing where Republicans could call witnesses:

The Judiciary Committee, traditionally the ‘impeachment committee, didn’t call any fact witnesses. The first hearing consisted of 3 partisan Democrat activists and liberal law professor Jonathan Turley testifying. The other Judiciary Committee hearing consisted of the majority and minority counsels answering questions about the Schiff Report. Chairman Schiff wasn’t required by Chairman Nadler to testify about his own report.

A simple question screams out for attention. Where are the witnesses? We’re now told that a Senate trial must include witnesses. If we don’t have witnesses, we’re told, it’s a sham trial, a “cover-up”:

Why didn’t Adam Schiff testify about his own report? Why weren’t Republicans allowed to call a single witness in the House impeachment hearings? What are Democrats trying to hide? What exculpatory evidence are these Democrats trying to omit?

Democrats don’t want Chairman Schiff testifying because that might force him to explain whether the faux whistle-blower worked with 2 of Schiff’s new hires when they worked at the National Security Council. If Schiff testified, he might be forced how many times he or his staff met with the faux whistle-blower. If that happens, they might be forced to tell Congress if they worked with each other to conspire against President Trump.

Democrats didn’t permit Republican witnesses because actual fact witnesses would’ve interrupted the Democrats’ carefully-edited narrative. With the weakest articles of impeachment in our nation’s history, Democrats couldn’t afford a) to let Republicans offer exculpatory evidence or b) to let Republicans call witnesses who might have provided truly bombshell testimony.

It isn’t that I want the Senate to conduct an unfair trial. Republicans don’t need to shaft Democrats because these facts are on their side:

  1. Neither article rises to the level of Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanor
  2. The exculpatory evidence that Republicans tried presenting during the impeachment hearings will come in on the Senate side.
  3. This time, the ‘jury’ won’t be composed of outcome-based partisan Democrat hacks.

This time, Democrats won’t get a pass from the jury. This time, Democrats will need to actually to prove their case. This time, America will see the difference between the partisan political hacks that make up the House impeachment managers and the professional litigators on President Trump’s legal team.

This time, America will notice the difference between a hurried sham impeachment investigation and a fair, properly conducted impeachment trial.

When the history books get written about this impeachment, the record won’t be complete without mentioning the facts that a) the House Democrats didn’t meet their evidentiary burden, b) this was the most partisan impeachment in this nation’s history and that c) Democrats attempted to flip the burden of proving innocence to the accused rather than insisting that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

For all of Speaker Pelosi’s BS about Democrats doing their constitutional responsibilities, the truth is that Democrats failed at guaranteeing everyone’s civil rights. Let’s remember that the precedents set during the 2 House impeachment investigations in the Twentieth Century were totally ignored by House Democrats. This wasn’t fair in any sense of the word.

What’s worst is that the exculpatory evidence produced by Republicans was thrown out or ignored by Democrats. When Republicans on the House Intel Committee blew gaping holes in the Democrats’ star testifiers’ testimony, Adam Schiff ignored those inconsistencies like they didn’t exist. Had this taken place in a court of law, the case would’ve gotten thrown out the minute the Democrats finished calling witnesses.

That’s because Democrats only called one witness who actually spoke with President Trump. That’s Ambassador Sondland. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call and quibbled a little with the transcript. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he objected to parts of the call but his boss overruled him on that. In short, the Democrats’ case has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.

Democrats insist that witnesses need to be called for it to be a fair trial. Due process was written into the Bill of Rights to protect the accused. It wasn’t written to protect the government. I won’t be lectured by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Nadler or Chairman Jefferies on integrity. None of them have any of that virtue. They’re nothing more than a collection of partisan hacks who put partisanship ahead of patriotism.

Democrats read off the same script, whether they’re talking about Iran, the economy, impeachment or anything else. If the information changes, like it did this week with Iran, they just continue with the same script. At last night’s Democrat presidential debate, when the candidates were asked about Iran, the candidates each insisted that President Trump had isolated us from our allies.

These stiffs said that despite the fact that the British, French and Germans notified Iran that they’d better get back into compliance with the JCPOA or they’d snap tougher sanctions on. That doesn’t sound like the US is isolated. That sounds like a nation with stout-hearted allies.

That didn’t matter to Democrat activists. That’s because they don’t care about being right. Democrats just care about reciting their talking points correctly. Whether it’s evidence in an impeachment trial or the truth on a debate stage, Democrats are indifferent towards those things.

It’s been that way for almost 30 years. When Anita Hill testified against Justice Thomas, Democrats said it didn’t matter whether it was true or not. What mattered was the seriousness of the charges.

This morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized House Democrats of handing the Senate an incomplete piece of workmanship and calling it impeachment. During his speech on the Senate floor, Sen. McConnell called the House Democrats’ impeachment product a “half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable.

During his presentation, Sen. McConnell also said “There is a reason why the House inquiry that led to President Nixon’s resignation took 14 months of hearings, in addition to the separate special prosecutor. There is a reason why the Clinton impeachment inquiry drew on years of prior investigation and mountains of testimony from firsthand fact witnesses. That’s because both of those Houses of Representatives knew they had to prove their case before submitting it to the Senate for judgment. Both situations involved legal battles over executive privilege. Extensive litigation, both times, not after a trial had been handed to the Senate, but beforehand. When the case was actually being compiled. Mountains of evidence. Mountains of testimony. Long legal battles over privilege. And none of this discovery took place in the Senate.”

After putting those comments into the official record, Sen. McConnell got nasty:

The Constitution gives the sole power of Impeachment to the House. If a House majority wants to impeach a president, the ball is in their court. But they have to do the work. They have to prove their case. Nothing in our history or our Constitution says a House majority can pass what amounts to a half-baked censure resolution and then insist that the Senate fill in the blanks. There is no constitutional exception for a House majority with a short attention span.

Look, I think everyone knows this process has not been some earnest fact-finding mission with House Democrats following each thread wherever it leads. The Speaker of the House did not reluctantly decide to impeach after poring over the secondhand impressions of civil servants. This was a predetermined political conclusion. Members of her conference had been publicly promising it for years.

Let’s put Democrats through the grinder. They’ve been pretending that their case is strong. Let’s see how their testifiers do on cross-examination. Two ice ages ago, during the original Schiff Show, the Media Wing of the Democratic Party, aka the MSM, wrote breathlessly about that day’s “bombshell” testimony. At the end of each day’s testimony, Republicans had devastated the testifiers’ bombshell testimony. Anyone expecting a Perry Mason moment should tune into METV, not these hearings.

For goodness’s sake, the very morning after the House’s historic vote, Speaker Pelosi literally chastised reporters for asking too many questions about impeachment! She tried to change the subject to economic policy! She said: “Any other questions?… Anybody want to talk about the SALT tax… I’m not going to answer any more questions on this.”

Really? You impeach a president of the United States, and the very next morning, there’s nothing to see here? Does that sound like a Speaker of the House who really thinks the survival of the Republic is on the line? Does anyone really think that if Democrats truly believed the president of the United States was a criminal who is imperiling our country, they would have abandoned the search for evidence because they didn’t want to make time for due process?

Frankly, people living in the real world notice that Democrats aren’t serious. This is a partisan charade. This isn’t about saving the Republic or honoring the Constitution. This is the Democrats’ latest episode in trying to appease the Resist Movement.

For those who haven’t noticed, the Resist Movement is built on Democrats who hate America and want to cripple the Trump presidency. Fortunately, they’ve only slowed him down. The economic boomtime continues unstopped. That’s because, unlike House Democrats, President Trump and congressional Republicans addressed the economy properly.

Newt Gingrich is one of the best election analysts in modern history. When he starts talking about the potential for wave elections, I listen. That’s what he’s talking about in this article.

One of the first things he mentions is “The liberal media likes to focus on how many House Republicans are retiring. Somehow this is supposed to make Republicans feel defeated and hopeless. In this context, I was startled recently to hear Congresswoman Elise Stefanik say 2020 was going to be the year of the House Republican woman. She went on to assert that there was a historic record being set for Republican women filing to run for the House.”

Speaker Gingrich then gets into candidate recruitment, online fundraising and a host of other things that give Republicans a distinct advantage. Here’s what he said about candidate recruitment:

I checked in with Chairman Tom Emmer at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and found that, if anything, Stefanik had understated the momentum of new recruits. With House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and the leadership team going all out, the House Republicans are setting a remarkably encouraging series of records.

Consider these numbers: The total number of Republicans filed for House seats so far is 928, according to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) figures – or 188 more than the total at the same time in 2010 (740). The year 2010 matters because it was the last time Nancy Pelosi was kicked out of the majority and Speaker John Boehner led the House GOP to its biggest gain in modern times – with his “where are the jobs” slogan.

Right now, the only accomplishment that the House Democrats can point to is the ratification of President Trump’s USMCA trade agreement. Compared with the things that Republicans can point to during their 2 years in office, the Democrats don’t have much to highlight during the campaign. Then there’s the fundraising portion of this equation:

In the 2018 cycle, this system raised $1.8 billion over the two-year period. When this scale of small-donor involvement was combined with massive donors like Michael Bloomberg (who spent $5 million on ads in the last two weeks in some elections) the Democrats’ money advantage was enormous. This helps explain the Republican House defeats.

The threat posed by the ActBlue system was reinforced in 2019 when it raised more than $1 billion for the Democrats. Republican leaders realized they had to match or exceed the small-dollar system the Democrats had invented. They developed a competitive model called WinRed. The intensity of support for President Trump, combined with growing anger over the Democrats’ investigation and impeachment strategy, has made WinRed a success much faster than anyone expected.

In its first two quarters, WinRed raised $101 million. Its effectiveness is growing rapidly. It raised $31 million in its first quarter of existence and more than doubled that in the second quarter with $70 million (fourth quarter of 2019). In fact, WinRed raised more in its first 190 days than ActBlue raised in its first five years.

The other factor that people haven’t talked about is the fact that most of the competitive seats that Republicans need to flip to return to the majority are seats that President Trump has done well in. It isn’t like Republicans have to flip tons of seats where Democrats traditionally do well in. That, in turn, means that they won’t need to raise as much money as Democrats raise.

House Democrats have to defend why they didn’t get important things done during this Congress. They promised to lower prescription drug prices, fix health care, work on infrastructure and strengthen the economy. They didn’t get any of those things done. They don’t have a list of accomplishments. Democrats have an accomplishment — USMCA. The rest of their time was wasted on impeachment, sour grapes and other waste-of-time investigations. If I were running the NRCC’s messaging, I’d have a single message, which would be “What have you done for me lately?”

It’s time to call Pelosi’s Democrats out. They’re essentially worthless. Democrats spent more time telling us that Iranians really loved Soleimani than they spent in court to compel witnesses that House Democrats said weren’t needed but that Senate Democrats insist are essential. Now Pelosi insists that not calling witnesses that House Democrats didn’t call amounts to a cover-up:

I’d love hearing Pelosi sell that BS to the American people.

When you combine obviously biased ‘reporting’ with obviously biased polling, don’t be surprised if the polling is essentially worthless. That’s what happened with this ABC News/Ipsos Poll. Q1 of the poll is “Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Trump is handling the current situation with Iran? The result of the poll was that 43% approved and 56% didn’t approve. Q2 of the poll asked “Do you think the U.S. airstrike in Iraq that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani has made the United States: Less safe – 52%, More safe – 25%, didn’t make a difference – 22%.”

Polling that asks slanted questions like that is angling for a specific set of responses. In this instance, that’s precisely what ABC got. Further, the polling was done on Friday and Saturday. Finally 525 adults were surveyed. That means that this poll was junk. The MOE was 4.8%, which is terrible.

Q3 and Q4 deserve a category unto themselves. Q3 asks “How concerned are you about the possibility of the United States getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran? A: 32% replied that they’re “very concerned” and 41% are “somewhat concerned.” Q4 is about Speaker Pelosi’s handling of impeach. It asked respondents “On another subject, three weeks ago the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not immediately deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate that would trigger a trial. Which of the following statements comes closest to your point of view even if neither is exactly right?”

“The fact that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not immediately transmit the articles of impeachment shows that the allegations against President Trump are not serious and that the Democrats are just playing partisan politics” A: 37%
“By not immediately transmitting the articles of impeachment, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are doing their constitutional duty to ensure that there is a full and deliberate trial in the Senate and that the jury in the Senate is impartial.” A:39%

The frightening thought is that votes cast by these uninformed idiots count just as much as the votes of informed citizens. Still, how can serious people think that we’re on the brink of full-scale war with Iran? Then again, how can anyone think that Speaker Pelosi is an honest person? After watching this video, it’s impossible for me to think that she’s honest:

Early in the interview, Pelosi said that Sen. McConnell will be involved in a cover-up if he doesn’t allow witnesses. If that’s true, then Adam Schiff is a co-conspirator. Chairman Schiff didn’t call Bolton, Blair, Mulvaney and Duffey and he didn’t subpoena them, either. Further, Democrats should’ve called for a special counsel to investigate the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. Congressional partisans like Chairman Schiff aren’t qualified to investigate corruption. There’s a reason why people don’t take partisan congressional investigations seriously.

We were told that this was a national emergency that couldn’t wait. Pelosi insists that GOP senators will pay a price if witnesses aren’t called. Coming from the woman who turned impeachment into a political weapon because Democrats can’t win this election if their lives depended on it, that’s rich. Pelosi and Schiff are nasty partisans who don’t have a bit of integrity between them.

There’s a new Democrat coalition. It consists of corrupt Democrat politicians like Pelosi and Schiff, partisan Democrat journalists like George Stephanopoulos and intentional push-polling aimed at providing a dishonest picture. Republicans have to defeat that coalition just to stand a fighting chance. That’s why President Trump hasn’t listened to people instructing him to stop tweeting. Without Twitter and other social media platforms, he would’ve gotten buried by now.

Finally, thank God he’s a fighter.

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.

Saying that Dan Crenshaw had had enough with the Democrats’ talking points is understatement. Crenshaw’s speech utterly demolished the Democrats’ chanting points. Pete Buttigieg blamed the US for the loss of life onboard Ukraine Flight 752:


What a total loser. Then there’s Elizabeth Warren:

“When President Trump first announced that he had Soleimani killed, I thought, Why now? We’ve know about Soleimani for years. What’s the reason it’s not last month? What’s the reason it’s not next month? And does this have to do with the fact that we’re right here on the eve of impeachment,” Warren said.

Rep. Crenshaw had a reply:

“Ok, Elizabeth Warren, I’ve got an answer for you. The reason why now is because Soleimani just orchestrated an attack on our embassy, killed an American citizen and we have very good intel from the CIA, the DNI, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They said was some of the best intel they’d ever seen, that there was an imminent attack coming within days. So, Elizabeth Warren, that is why.”

In other words, President Trump ordered the killing of Gen. Soleimani to prevent a war. Further, President Trump ordered that killing based on strong intelligence. He didn’t approve the killing because he’s facing impeachment. He’s already been impeached. He isn’t getting convicted. What’s there to worry about impeachment? Meanwhile, here’s Rep. Crenshaw unloading both barrels, first on Buttigieg, then Warren:

Notice what Crenshaw did that permitted him to effectively decimate Democrats. Rep. Crenshaw’s command of the facts was superb. Then he explained why President Trump did what he did. Further, he was under control while he made his case against the Democrats. That’s how you blow the Democrats’ talking points out of the water.

The important thing to understand is that few Democrats are able to sound coherent if they aren’t regurgitating Democrat talking points. Elizabeth Warren doesn’t sound the least bit coherent when she’s confronted about foreign policy. Her stump speech about Iran essentially is ‘President Trump killed Gen. Soleimani to distract from the impeachment trial that he isn’t worried about.’ There’s nothing substantive about Sen. Warren’s foreign policy.

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.

This past Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi sent this Dear Colleague letter to House Democrats. In the letter, Speaker Pelosi wrote “Sadly, Leader McConnell has made clear that his loyalty is to the President and not the Constitution. Leader McConnell has insisted that the approach under consideration is identical to those of the Clinton trial and that ‘fair is fair.’ This is simply not true. This process is not only unfair but designed to deprive Senators and the American people of crucial documents and testimony. Under the Clinton trial, witnesses were deposed.”

I’m being charitable when I say that Pelosi’s paragraph is dishonest. First, Sen. McConnell hasn’t said that the rules would be rigged against Democrats. In fact, he hasn’t ruled out calling witnesses. Sen. McConnell, like the vast majority of senators in the chamber, has formed an opinion on President Trump’s guilt or innocence. (Does anyone think that Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennet are impartial? They’re running for president.)

Further, there’s nothing fair about Adam Schiff’s hiding of deposition transcripts from House committees. In that case, Schiff hid deposition transcripts of “Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs and White House deputy assistant; Jennifer Williams, Vice President Mike Pence’s special adviser on Europe and Russia; David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs; and Philip Reeker, a top State Department diplomat in charge of U.S. policy for Europe” from the Intel Committee Republicans. As a result, congressmen couldn’t question anyone about that testimony.

Ms. Pelosi, what part of that sounds fair?

The House called multiple witnesses to testify. They even subpoenaed them to testify. When these people refused to testify, the House didn’t file a lawsuit to compel the witnesses to testify. Apparently, Democrats didn’t think these people’s testimony was that important. Further, it isn’t the Senate’s job to investigate. If the Democrats wanted to do a thorough job with their part of this, they should have forced these people to testify. It isn’t the Senate’s responsibility to fix the House’s sloppy work. The Senate’s responsibility is to try impeachment cases.

Sen. Schumer is trying to get testimony from 4 witnesses:

The Trump situation could not be more different. The witnesses in question, Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair, Duffey, refused to testify in the House even though they were deeply involved in the events in question. Unlike the Clinton trial witnesses, who cooperated and gave testimony during the Starr investigation, these Trump officials refused, on the President’s orders, to testify or provide documents. They are in possession of information that’s directly relevant to the allegations in the articles of impeachment, yet the Senate is being denied that information because of Senator McConnell’s opposition to hearing it.

If these witnesses were that important, why didn’t House Democrats file the lawsuit to compel these witnesses’ testimony? If House Democrats didn’t get a court to compel these men’s testimony, their testimony isn’t that important.

If Sen. Schumer wants to whine about witnesses not testifying, he should complain about Chairman Schiff for his mishandling of his part of the impeachment.

I encourage you to review the attached document from Leader Schumer, which exposes Leader McConnell’s misleading claims about the Clinton trial process that are being used to justify the GOP’s decision to cover up witnesses and documentation that would fully expose the President’s wrongdoing.

If Speaker Pelosi is going to accuse Sen. McConnell of a coverup, she’d better accuse Chairman Schiff of covering things up, too. Further, Sen. McConnell hasn’t ruled out depositions or testimony at this point. This is just an assumption on Pelosi’s part.

Impeachment is only half of a two-step process. Accusing a president of committing high crimes and misdemeanors isn’t something that should be done in a rush. The Declaration of Independence says that people shouldn’t change governments “for light and transient causes.” I’d argue that elections shouldn’t be overturned “for light and transient causes”, either.

President Trump deserves his day in court to clear his name. To play games with the impeachment process is the opposite of justice.