Archive for the ‘Impeachment’ Category

Speaker Pelosi’s Dear Colleague letter is filled with more s–t than a Thanksgiving turkey. The first pile of BS in Ms. Pelosi’s letter is “Last week, the country was impressed by the valor and patriotism of the dedicated public servants and career diplomats, appointed by the President, in speaking truth to power.”

That’s utter BS. Wednesday’s snooze fest attracted 13,800,000 viewers. By comparison, Jim Comey’s testimony attracted 19,500,000 viewers. Further, Friday’s made-for-TV episode attracted 12,700,000 viewers. If “the country was impressed”, wouldn’t interest be building, not shrinking?

Then there’s this BS:

The facts are uncontested: that the President abused his power for his own personal, political benefit, at the expense of our national security interests.

Actually, those facts were contested yesterday afternoon by Tim Morrison and Special Envoy Volker. Each of the testifiers from last week and this, by the way, have agreed that President Trump has done more to help Ukraine militarily than President Obama did. President Trump is 7-for-7 amongst the testifiers. Further, one of the testifiers said that it was appropriate for President Trump to hold the aid until they were certain Ukraine had dealt with their corruption issues. In fact, there’s a provision in the NDAA that requires that determination before the aid is released.

The most telling part of Ms. Pelosi’s letter is this part:

The weak response to these hearings has been, “Let the election decide.” That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.

The next bit of proof that President Trump committed an impeachable offense will be the first bit of proof that he’s committed an impeachable offense. Last week’s testifiers weren’t even witnesses because they didn’t witness anything. They testified about their thoughts, feelings and impressions of what they’d heard the President had done. Yesterday was the first time we had legitimate witnesses who had a firsthand understanding of what President Trump had done with Ukraine policy.

Why should We The People trust a bunch of corrupt Democrats who’ve wanted to impeach President Trump since the day after his election? That’s foolishness. That’s like trusting an arsonist with some unstable chemicals and some detonators. What could possibly go wrong? This cross-examination pretty much sums things up:

So many words, such a BS blizzard from House Democrats.

Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, Democrat Impeachment Committee Chairman Schiff insisted that the Sixth Amendment’s protections shouldn’t protect President Trump. It’s time to out the CIA snitch, then demand that he testify. Lt. Col. Vindman essentially admitted that he spoke to the CIA snitch during questioning from Republican Ranking Member Devin Nunes:

Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman admitted to the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday to leaking information to the anti-Trump whistleblower at the center of the Democrats’ partisan impeachment proceedings. “Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did you discuss the July 25 phone call with anyone outside the White House on July 25 or the 26 and if so, with whom?” Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California inquired.

“Yes. I did,” Vindman answered in the affirmative. When pressed on who Vindman spoke with about the call, Vindman said he spoke with two individuals not in the White House, including Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent and another individual in the intelligence community that Vindman refused to name before being cut off by Democratic Chairman Adam Schiff.

“We need to protect the whistle-blower. Please stop. I want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistle-blower through these proceedings,” Schiff interjected. “If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, that is not the purpose that we’re here for. I want to advise the witness accordingly.”

At this point, it’s time to end this theatre. It’s disgusting that Adam Schiff is working with Trump-hating lawyer Mark Zaid to protect Zaid’s client. If House Democrats impeach President Trump, the CIA snitch will be forced to testify or be put in jail. (If the CIA snitch refuses to appear after getting slapped with a Senate subpoena, Mitch McConnell will march into court and demand that the court uphold the Sixth Amendment’s protections. At that point, the judge will quickly rule in the Senate’s favor. At that point, Eric Ciaramella will be forced to testify or go to jail.)

Republicans should confront Schiff on this constitutional issue. Forget about the ICWPA statute. The Sixth Amendment guarantees President Trump’s attorneys the right to confront his accuser.

Democrats, especially Schiff and Pelosi, have played hardball with impeachment. It’s time to confront them. These Democrats have shown that they aren’t interested in ending this stalemate. These Democrats are interested in extending this stalemate. Force vulnerable Democrats to s–t or get off the pot. This is truly a ‘you’re with us or you’re against us’ moment. This isn’t nuanced. This isn’t complicated. It’s just one of those situations where diplomacy should get replaced with brass knuckles and RPGs.

This morning, Rep. Conaway yielded his time to Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R-TX), to cross-examine Jennifer Williams and Lt. Col. Vindman. Rep. Ratcliffe started by asking if either of them had noticed the Democrats’ change during the impeachment inquiry from insisting that President Trump was guilty of a quid pro quo to being guilty of committing extortion to finally settling on “bribery.” Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that bribery wasn’t used until Speaker Pelosi used it. After that, Ratcliffe noticed that Pelosi’s use of the word opened the floodgates within the MSM.

Ratcliffe then stated that the words bribe or bribery weren’t used in either witness’s deposition. In fact, Rep. Ratcliffe said that the word bribery was used only once in 3,500 pages of depositions released thus far. Then Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the term bribery wasn’t used in connection with President Trump. Ratcliffe stated that the only time the term bribery was used was in connection with Vice President Biden.

Ratcliffe’s presentation was, in my opinion, as powerful of a presentation as Rep. Chris Stewart’s cross-examination of Ambassador Yanokovitch:

The other standout cross-examination was Jim Jordan’s cross-examination of William Taylor:

I will update this post with the video of Rep. Ratcliffe when it’s posted. Thus far, the thing that’s most clear is that Republicans have made some significant points without jumping the shark with either Jennifer Williams or Lt. Col. Vindman. Another thing that’s clear is that Democrats haven’t gotten that bombshell testimony that they need to move public opinion.

UPDATE: Here is the video of John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

Of course, the MSM essentially ignored Ratcliffe’s cross-examination because it didn’t fit their storyline. Rep. Ratcliffe talked about how “last Thursday, in a press conference, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that President Trump had committed the impeachable offense of bribery, evidenced in the transcript of his July 25th phone call with President Zelenskiy. In concert with that, several Democrat members of this committee gave TV and radio interviews over this past week discussing how the President’s conduct supported his impeachment for the crime of bribery, all of which struck me as odd because for the longest time, this was all about quid pro quo, according to the whistleblower’s complaint.”

Based on David Hale’s deposition, it’s impossible to not think of him as a potential star witness for the GOP. Starting with pg. 96 of Hale’s deposition, Hale was asked “But during the pendency of the security assistance hold, from July 18 through the date you got the cable from Ambassador Taylor, did you hear the names Biden, Burisma?”

Hale replied “No. No, not in government channels. If it appeared in the media, it was in the New York Times — I won’t say I don’t read the New York Times or whatever. But, yeah, it was not something that was apparent to me.”

Next, GOP Counsel Castor asked “So at no point during that time did the official chain of command, from the field, articulate these concerns to you?” Hale replied “No. No.”
Castor: And, in fact, you didn’t even hear the name Biden, Burisma?
Hale: No. No. When the whistleblower reports and all that came out of that, that’s when I first saw this.

In other words, the man with first-hand knowledge of the holding of lethal military aid and the Biden investigation said that he hadn’t heard about conditioning lethal aid with the Biden investigation until the faux whistleblower’s report was published.

This can’t be emphasized enough. David Hale said that he didn’t hear about tying the lethal military aid to investigating the Bidens. Couple that with the fact that Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, said “Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Couple Hale’s statement with Minister Prystaiko’s statement and President Zelenskiy’s statement that President Trump never tied the aid to investigating the Bidens. After tying those statements together, it’s impossible to take the Impeachment Democrats’ theory of the event seriously. People of integrity would admit that the Democrats’ case is the weakest impeachment case ever. First, lots of people wouldn’t admit that anything speculated on or proven rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Next, there isn’t much in the way of evidence that hurts President Trump. Whether you hate President Trump or think that he’s Superman, it isn’t shameful to admit that last week’s testimony didn’t produce evidence of any sort.

Third, people of integrity wouldn’t hesitate in admitting that Zelenskiy’s, Prystaiko’s and Hale’s statements affirm that President Trump applied little or no pressure on President Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. Without that, the Impeachment Democrats’ case collapses faster than a house of cards. It’s time to end these seemingly endless investigations.

Saying that public support for House Impeachment Committee Democrats’ process has dropped precipitously is understatement. According to this Monmouth Poll, “24% say they have a lot of trust in how the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted so far, 29% have a little trust, and 44% have no trust at all.

That’s almost 3 out of 4 people who have little or no trust “in how the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted” thus far. If that’s the case, that’ll require the Democrats to bribe tons of people to reach a positive job approval rating on their coup d’état, otherwise known as their impeachment inquiry.

That’s just the tip of the Democrats’ iceberg. A Politico/Morning Consult poll “found that 81 percent of voters said ‘there is no or little chance they will change their minds.'” At this point, with 2 polls showing that the American people don’t trust the Democrats’ all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda by overwhelming majorities, it’s difficult to picture how Democrats won’t get crushed next November.

That’s just part of the Democrats’ difficulties. Here’s more:

Last Thursday, Nancy Pelosi joined the chorus:

The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry and that the president abused power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation into his political rival.… The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into elections. That’s bribery.

Democrats aren’t backtracking upon seeing how the polls are tanking on them. Pelosi’s tripling down on impeachment. Pelosi apparently hasn’t learned the first rule of holes. She’s having a difficult morning so let’s help her with that:

The Democrats’ problem is that the hole keeps getting deeper. Andy McCarthy writes this:

[T]o establish a bribe, corrupt intent must be proved. While it would obviously have been preferable if Trump hadn’t singled out the Bidens, it is nevertheless permissible for presidents to encourage countries receiving American aid to investigate and root out corruption. Indeed, the legislation authorizing aid for Ukraine actually directs the executive branch to certify that Ukraine is making such efforts.

Einstein’s definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” The LFR definition of political insanity is to “double down on blind partisanship, then expecting not to suffer political consequences.”

When three-fourths of the American people don’t trust the Democrats’ impeachment process, that’s a losing fight on steroids. Democrats would be wise to listen to the lyrics to Kenny Rogers’ song ‘The Gambler’, especially this part:

You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run

and this part:

Every gambler knows
That the secret to survivin’
Is knowin’ what to throw away
And knowin’ what to keep
‘Cause every hand’s a winner
And every hand’s a loser
And the best that you can hope for is to die
in your sleep

Right now, the Democrats’ hand is a loser. It won’t turn into a winner. Period. The part about knowing when to walk away and when to run applies. It’s time to run. It isn’t time to go all-in.

In her interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, Speaker Pelosi said that President Trump “could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants. He has every opportunity to present his case.”

Technically, she’s right that he could do that. She’s being more than a little deceitful in that House Impeachment Committee Democrats wouldn’t believe anything he said. Let’s remember how this phase of the coup started. A CIA snitch, allegedly named Eric Ciaramella, met with Adam Schiff’s staff. One of the things that was initially reported about the CIA snitch’s complaint was that President Trump pressured Ukraine President Zelenskiy up to 8 times to investigate the Bidens. That turned not to be true.

Since then, President Zelenskiy has repeatedly denied, in multiple settings, these accusations. He even took the extraordinary step of holding a day-long press conference attended by 300+ legitimate, truth-seeking journalists and told the same thing. Further, Ukraine Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko, who has first-hand knowledge of the US military aid negotiations, said “Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

Despite all of this first-hand information from Ukraine’s President and Foreign Minister, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi still trust the CIA snitch more than they trust Ukraine’s highest-ranking leaders. Considering the fact that House Impeachment Democrats trust snitches who don’t have first-hand information on the negotiations and considering the fact that House Impeachment Democrats, why would President Trump think that he’d get a fair hearing? Considering the fact that Adam Schiff has insisted since March, 2017 that he’s seen proof that’s “more than circumstantial” that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election, proof that’s never surfaced, why would President Trump think that he’d get a fair hearing?

Ms. Pelosi knows that the final decision has been made. House Impeachment Committee Democrats will send a report to Jerry Nadler’s Judiciary Committee, where they will write articles of impeachment. From there, House Democrats will vote on a straight party line vote to impeach President Trump.

If House Impeachment Committee Democrats were interested in the truth, Chairman Schiff wouldn’t have stopped one Republican after another from introducing points of order or points of parliamentary procedure. Schiff isn’t interested in the truth. He’s hell-bent on impeachment whether the proof is there or not.

Pelosi isn’t interested in the Constitution, prayer or patriotism, as she frequently insists. She’s a partisan hack. Trusting her is like trusting foxes guarding hen houses. Trusting Democrats is like trusting a cobra not to strike when you make a sudden motion towards it.

President Trump won’t trust Pelosi’s ‘invitation’, though he’ll mess with her mind a little:

I don’t take this seriously, though it’s fun watching President Trump mess with Pelosi’s little mind.

What’s becoming perfectly clear is that Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is an autocrat. Remember how he reacted when Elise Stefanik challenged him? Let’s refresh everyone’s memory:

After Friday’s hearing, House Impeachment Committee Republicans noted that Chairman Schiff’s Democrats established rules that prevent committee members from using testimony if the transcripts haven’t been made public:

Ratcliffe: Several Democrat members of this House Intel committee have already voted to impeach this president. They’ve already made up their minds without regard to evidence. Yes, this is dead on arrival at the Senate without looking at the most important witnesses. They don’t want the whistleblower to testify because we now know that that person coordinated with Schiff’s committee in order for that person to become the whistleblower. Schiff hasn’t even released the first transcript of the first witness (the IC IG) because it will tell you what the IG knew and didn’t know about the relationship between Schiff and the whistleblower based on what the whistleblower and Schiff did or didn’t reveal to the IG.

This isn’t a hearing as much as it’s a made-for-TV docudrama. The first 3 testifiers aren’t witnesses because they didn’t witness anything pertaining to this sham. Of Ms. Yovanovitch, Rep. Nunes rightly stated that he didn’t know why she was there considering the fact that she didn’t have first- or second-hand knowledge of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call because she’d been fired from her position in Ukraine. William Taylor and George Kent didn’t provide any evidence of anything, much less proof of high crimes, though Taylor provided the insight that President Trump was corrupting “official US foreign policy.” That’s despite the fact that presidents, not diplomats, according to the Constitution, establish official US foreign policy.

Former CIA Operations Officer Bryan Dean Wright wrote this article in February, 2017:

Over the past few months, America has lurched from partisan warfare to the cliffs of an existential crisis. Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government.

Said an intelligence officer: “I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security… And I’m going to act on that.” Some of us might applaud this man, including a few of my fellow Democrats. In their minds, this is a case of Mr. Smith Goes to Langley to do battle against a corrupt President Trump. One small problem. The intelligence officer quoted above was actually Aldrich Ames, a CIA traitor whose crime of treason in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the compromise of more than 100 assets. Many were tortured and executed as a result.

Ames’ flawed logic is eerily similar to that of his present-day colleagues who are engaged in a shadow war with their commander in chief. They, too, have decided that their superior judgment is more important than following the law.

Adam Schiff isn’t a CIA officer but he’s part of the cabal that’s decided that they, not the American people, should decide who’s fit or unfit for serving as commander-in-chief.

That makes Schiff both an autocrat and a fascist. The fact that Schiff considers himself a Democrat is virtually irrelevant. He has little in common with Hubert Humphrey or Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

However, some of America’s spies are deciding that that’s not enough. For reasons of misguided righteousness or partisan hatred, they’ve taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. They have prosecuted their case in the court of public opinion, with likeminded media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post serving as court stenographers.

Elected by no one, responsible only to each other, these spies have determined that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president “will die in jail.”

Schiff isn’t a spy but he determined years ago that President Trump should “die in jail.” He’s orchestrated the rigged hearings that’ve produced nothing. Finally, Wright wrote:

During my time as a CIA officer, I quickly learned why all these rules were in place. I read people’s emails. I listened to phone calls. I recruited assets that told the dirtiest and most embarrassing of secrets. I came to realize that my power was both an awesome responsibility and, at times, wickedly seductive.

Schiff’s lack of character caused him to play judge, jury and executioner. That’s unacceptable.

In her interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful Democrat in Washington, DC, simply lost it. One of the unhinged things she said was “I will make sure he does not intimidate the whistleblower. I told the president you’re in my wheelhouse when you come after the whistleblower.”

What a nutjob. The man in question, Eric Ciaramella, aka the faux whistleblower, aka CIA snitch, isn’t guaranteed anonymity. That’s because the ICWPA, aka the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, is exceptionally clear:

In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:

Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.

Further, for all the talk Ms. Pelosi has made about the Constitution, she apparently doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant’s attorneys the right to confront the defendant’s accuser. If Ms. Pelosi throws a snitfit against President Trump’s attorneys for conducting a thorough, intense and aggressive cross-examination of the CIA snitch, she’ll prove that her talk about the Constitution is a sham.

When they taped the interview on Friday, CBS leaked this snippet of the interview:

This is what Ms. Pelosi said:

I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he’s in that office way over his head. And so he has to diminish everyone else.

What the hell is Pelosi babbling about? Has she totally lost it for good? The economy is going gangbusters. The unemployment rate for minorities is at a historic low. The wall is getting built. Poland and Ukraine, with help from the Trump administration, is letting the Putin administration know that they stand against Russian expansionism. If President Trump is in over his head, as Pelosi insists, things are going pretty well for the US. They’re certainly going better than they did with the previous administration.

Perhaps, Pelosi lost it because AOC + 3 drove her crazy. Then, too, perhaps it wasn’t a long drive. Perhaps, it was just a short trip. Whatever the case, San Fran Nan isn’t in control of her faculties.

Ever since President Trump tweeted about Ambassador Yovanovitch during Friday’s hearing, the MSM have been obsessed with the tweet as their latest shiny object. It’s time that the MSM that still are interested in things like credibility to stop obsessing over that shiny object. In the grand scheme of things, the tweet, which was ill-advised, is a major ‘so what’.

It doesn’t change the fundamentals of the Democrats case. That’s because the Democrats still haven’t presented anything resembling a piece of evidence of an impeachable offense. That’s because last week’s testifiers (they weren’t witnesses because they didn’t witness anything) took turns either admitting that they couldn’t identify an impeachable offense (John Ratcliffe asking Kent and Taylor) or Yovanovitch telling Chris Stewart that she wasn’t in Ukraine for President Trump’s phone call with President Zelenskiy in late July.

Why isn’t the MSM talking about Devin Nunes’ questioning of Ms. Yovanovitch at the start of the hearing? Right at the start, Ms. Yovanovitch admitted that she isn’t a fact witness:

The most memorable line in the hearings was Jim Jordan’s exchange with Ambassador Taylor:

What information does Ambassador Taylor have that’s important? It’s apparent that he isn’t a central figure in Kiev. Shouldn’t we insist that the MSM report things that are important to the impeachment case?

There’s a novel approach to evaluating whether Impeachment Democrats have made a legal case for impeachment. What information have George Kent, William Taylor or Marie Yovanovitch supplied that’s proof of an impeachable offense? There’s another test to this. The Impeachment Democrats’ theory on why President Trump should be impeached is because he withheld lethal military aid from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigated the Bidens. What proof have they offered that President Trump did that? Remember that second- and third-hand stories aren’t proof. They’re uncorroborated stories, even if other diplomats with other second- and third-hand stories agree with the original story.

This isn’t a shiny object but it’s important to the Democrats’ carefully-crafted impeachment story. Why isn’t there any reporting on why the Democrats set up the rules the way they did? Were they written that way because Impeachment Democrats didn’t want to give skilled people like John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik and Jim Jordan the opportunity to make Swiss Cheese out of the Democrats’ case?

Thus far, Democrats haven’t gotten questioned whether they’ve established a single important fact. That’s intentional. The MSM was the driving force behind impeachment. The MSM wanted impeachment far more than Ms. Pelosi wanted it.

When impeachment backfires on Democrats, Ms. Pelosi will wash her hands of the mess and say I-told-you-so. That’s true but she’s the one that caved. She’s the Democrat that didn’t fight for her position until the bitter end. In the end, Pelosi is just as guilty of dragging the nation through this divisive fight for no legitimate reason.

Democrats, Ms. Pelosi included, are the political definition of losers. All the shiny objects in the world won’t change that.

Nancy Pelosi’s 3 faces are showing. It isn’t a flattering look. When Ms. Pelosi declared this impeachment inquiry in the House, Ms. Pelosi worked hard to leave the impression that Democrats saw this as a somber undertaking. Ms. Pelosi talked about the importance of prayer in a time like that. When she declared the impeachment inquiry into existence, Ms. Pelosi said “If we have to honor our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, that’s what we’ll have to do. But we have to have the facts. That’s why I’ve said, soon as we have the facts, we’re ready.”

That sounds so dramatic. Then Pelosi made an additional demand. According to the article, “Pelosi said Trump making the transcript of his call with the president of Ukraine public is not enough. She said the whistleblower complaint is what is important and is what the Trump administration has been withholding.” The last thing Pelosi and the Democrats expected was for President Trump to make those documents available. When the documents were made public, the gossip that Democrats in the media had peddled was pretty much discredited.

Let’s call that Pelosi ‘Discredited Nancy’ because that’s who she is.

Yesterday, another of Ms. Pelosi’s faces was displayed. In an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, Ms. Pelosi’s bitter partisan face came out:

This is what Ms. Pelosi said:

I think part of it is his own insecurity as an imposter. I think he knows full well that he’s in that office way over his head. And so he has to diminish everyone else.

Let’s be clear about this. Nancy Pelosi knows that Adam Schiff’s gaveling down of Elise Stefanik was a terrible look for Impeachment Committee Democrats:

Further, Ms. Pelosi knows that it wasn’t a good week for Impeachment Committee Democrats from the standpoint of the information that came out. Just 4 minutes into John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Bill Taylor and George Kent, they sat silent when Mr. Ratcliffe asked if either had seen an impeachable offense:

Ms. Pelosi’s hyperpartisan statement about President Trump being in over his head was intentional. Ms. Pelosi was forced into that statement to change what people were talking about. Ms. Pelosi doesn’t think for a split-second that President Trump is in over his head. Ms. Pelosi hasn’t thought for a split-second that President Trump thinks of himself as an imposter. Ms. Pelosi thinks that Impeachment Committee Democrats didn’t have a good week so she stepped in to change the subject.

Let’s call this Pelosi ‘Calculating Nancy.’

Actually, Ms. Pelosi’s third face isn’t a public face. It’s the face she must wear when she thinks of how she didn’t want to start impeachment. It’s the face of disgust. It’s the face of I-told-you-so.’ It’s the face of her vitriol. That’s her worst face. That’s why it isn’t seen in public. Twice, Ms. Pelosi has been Speaker. The first time, she was speaker for 2 terms. In those 2 terms, she shoved Obamacare down America’s throats. This time, her final time, she’ll be Speaker for just one term. During this term, her ‘noteworthy’ accomplishment will be hyperpartisan impeachment. Adam Schiff’s and Jerry Nadler’s handling of impeachment is historic only in the sense that they compare unfavorably to Peter Rodino and Henry Hyde.

Let’s call this final face of Ms. Pelosi ‘Vitriolic Nancy.’ Think of Vitriolic Nancy as the real Nancy.

Despite Ms. Pelosi’s calculated hateful statement, the facts haven’t changed:

  1. Impeachment Committee Democrats still haven’t come close to identifying an impeachable offense.
  2. Impeachment Committee Democrats still haven’t called a witness who has witnessed anything firsthand.
  3. Impeachment Committee Democrats, especially Adam Schiff, have looked mean-spirited and hyperpartisan.
  4. Adam Schiff has behaved terribly towards Elise Stefanik. Ms. Stefanik is a big girl and can take it. The point is that she shouldn’t have to deal with the Democrats’ vitriol and chauvinism.

Finally, it’s apparent that, to the Democrats, the #MeToo Movement is just a political weapon. Adam Schiff’s facial expressions when dealing with Ms. Stefanik said everything.