Archive for the ‘Jerry Nadler’ Category

The Democrats’ impeachment managers have a BS problem. Democrats filled their 111-page filing with tons of accusations. What it lacks in evidence, it makes up for in BS.

For instance, the Democrats’ impeachment managers say “that the president ‘abused the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in our elections for his own personal political gain, thereby jeopardizing our national security, the integrity of our elections, and our democracy.'” The problem with that statement is that it’s an accusation without any proof. Democrats conflate separate sentences from separate paragraphs on separate pages in their attempt to prove this accusation. (That’s a polite way of saying that these Democrats lied.)

In the Democrats’ first filing, they wrote “During a July 25, 2019 phone call, after President Zelensky expressed gratitude to President Trump for American military assistance, President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to ‘do us a favor though.’ The ‘favor’ he sought was for Ukraine to publicly announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political prospects.”

What was actually said is strikingly different:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your weal thy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation … I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Nowhere in that paragraph does President Trump ask for a personal favor. The Democrats’ impeachment managers know that. Anyone with a fourth-grade reading comprehension level understands that. Democrats don’t care about the truth, though, because Orange Man Bad. They’ve hated President Trump since he was Citizen Trump.

This is another unsubstantiated allegation included in the Democrats’ filing:;

“President Trump’s misconduct presents a danger to our democratic processes, our national security, and our commitment to the rule of law. He must be removed from office,” the managers said in the brief.

How does President Trump present “a danger to … our national security?” What’s the Democrats’ proof that President Trump has violated any of “our democratic processes?” When hasn’t President Trump showed a steadfast commitment to the rule of law?

The Democrats’ filing is filled with important-sounding words. It’s just devoid of evidence proving the Democrats’ accusations. Jerry Nadler’s appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation is a 7-minute-long exhibition of BS:

The Democrats’ highest hurdle might be that they didn’t accuse President Trump of committing a crime, much less of committing a high crime. It shouldn’t be possible to impeach a president who hasn’t committed a crime.

When this impeachment trial is finished, here’s hoping that the nation a) punishes the people who put us through this nightmare and b) resolves never to let such a fiasco happen again.

If you didn’t watch tonight’s Almanac Roundtable discussion, you’re in luck. I watched it so you didn’t have to. Predictably, impeachment was the main topic discussed by former DFL State Senator Ember Reichgott-Junge and former GOP Lt. Gov. Candidate Annette Meeks. My first impression of the discussion is that it’s painful to watch Ember Reichgott-Junge mix the Democrats’ political talking points with the Constitution.

At one point in the discussion, Junge trotted out the latest Democrat talking point. Junge said that “It isn’t just President Trump that is on trial. The US Senate is on trial, too.” She then posed a hypothetical question, saying “What happens if new information comes out 6 months from now?” Here’s what I’d say had I been debating her Friday night:

Ember, you’ve got it backwards. It isn’t the US Senate that’s on trial. It’s the US House that’s on trial. Specifically, it’s Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler that are on trial. They’re the people who were tasked with the responsibility of conducting a thorough impeachment investigation. If this was truly about patriotism, Speaker Pelosi would have stopped the investigation once she learned that Chairman Schiff’s committee didn’t unearth proof that President Trump committed high crimes or misdemeanors.

She didn’t stop the investigation because she wanted to use impeachment as a partisan weapon. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the morning after he won the election. This wasn’t an investigation. It was a search-and-destroy mission. That isn’t about finding the truth. That’s about crippling the President of the United States for purely partisan purposes.

Democrats who voted for impeachment aren’t as guilty as Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff but they’re guilty, too. They’re guilty of impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime. House Democrats voted to impeach a president without investigators identifying a single piece of direct proof that verifies the crime President Trump committed.

Prof. Jonathan Turley’s ‘indictment’ of the House Democrats still stings. In his testimony, Prof. Turley said “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”

Honestly, it’s exceptionally dishonest to blame the US Senate for US House Democrats not finishing their investigation. The Constitution states that the House of Representatives has the sole responsibility for impeachment. If House Democrats don’t properly finish their investigation, then that’s their fault. Honest historians won’t criticize the US Senate for conducting a sloppy impeachment investigation.

Senate Democrats better think this through thoroughly. If Senate Democrats want to call witnesses, they’d best be prepared to get buried with fact witnesses by the defense attorneys. That means the trial lasts until well after Super Tuesday. By then, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar will have been forced to suspend their campaigns.

By the time an extended trial ends, President Trump will be well on his way to winning re-election, Republicans will be well on their way to regaining their House majority and well on their way to solidifying their majority in the Senate. That’s the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

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.

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.

Reading through Nina Totenberg’s article on how Tom Daschle and Trent Lott put together the rules that dictated how the Senate’s impeachment trial would be held showed how partisan Democrats have gotten. It opens by saying “Twenty-one years ago Thursday, as the House approved articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was sitting in his study in Pascagoula, Miss., ‘looking out on a beautiful live oak tree.’ With a sigh, the Republican leader picked up the phone to call Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, his Democratic counterpart. ‘Whether we like it or not, this is sitting in our lap,’ he told Daschle, ‘and we’ve got to figure out how to deal with it.'”

That’s lightyears different than what’s happening today. Chuck Schumer is the first Democrat to openly state that Supreme Court justices should be confirmed or rejected based on partisan considerations. Now he’s insisting on calling witnesses that House Democrats insisted weren’t needed.

When House Republicans impeached President Clinton, they picked their impeachment managers, then immediately sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Newt Gingrich didn’t attempt to leverage them for partisan advantage. When Republicans impeached Clinton, Clinton had been credibly accused of committing felonies. Gingrich didn’t have to play games.

There was still a cordial between Gingrich and Dick Gephardt, then the House Minority Leader. Starting in 2017, Democrats publicly announced that they wanted to impeach President Trump. In March, 2017, Adam Schiff said on NBC’s Meet the Press that he’d seen evidence that “was stronger than circumstantial” that President Trump had colluded with Russia to win the election. Seemingly on a monthly basis, Schiff lied to the press that President Trump had committed treason or colluded with the Russians or made other incendiary and inaccurate accusations.

Nancy Pelosi didn’t give orders to Schiff and Nadler to rig the investigations. It isn’t that she’s a woman of integrity. She isn’t. She didn’t give that order because she didn’t need to. She knew that they’d rig the impeachment investigations on their own.

Democrats now scream about process. Isn’t that rich after all that Democrats like Schiff and Nadler did to rig the impeachment process? Senate Democrats now want to call the witnesses that House Democrats thought weren’t needed. Sen. Schumer then pushed the envelope by insisting that the Senate conduct the investigation that House Democrats didn’t conduct.

In this video, Schumer essentially admits that the House Democrats’ case is built on hearsay testimony:

That’s a stunning, idiotic, admission on his part. Why didn’t House Democrats compel the testimony with a lawsuit. Why didn’t House Democrats put together the strongest case possible. Why did House Democrats think that the White House didn’t have the right exert privilege? What is the House Democrats’ precedent for impeaching a president for exerting privilege?

McConnell should do whatever his caucus wants him to do in setting up rules that guarantee the prosecutors and the defense a fair opportunity to present their cases. If he does that, nobody except Democrat partisans will care what happened by the time we get to the conventions.

It’s easy to name the Democrats’ corrupt impeachment of President Trump as 2019’s Story of the Year. There were other stories that deserve recognition but this story has all the elements of a heartbreaking story of corruption, media bias, partisanship at its worst and civil rights abuses. First, this story exemplifies partisanship at its worst. Democrats have literally tried impeaching President Trump since the morning after his election. Mark Zaid, the faux whistle-blower’s attorney, posted this tweet 10 days after President Trump’s inauguration:


This wasn’t a solemn event, as Ms. Pelosi insisted. This was the culmination of 3 years of deceit and corruption:

We had Chairman Schiff acting as the faux whistle-blower’s defense attorney, protecting the faux whistle-blower’s anonymity during public committee hearings. When Schiff wasn’t protecting the faux whistle-blower’s anonymity, he was violating President Trump’s civil rights by preventing President Trump’s legal team from representing him during the deposition phase. Schiff also violated President Trump’s civil rights when he refused to let Republicans call witnesses in defense of President Trump.

The impeachment hearings were filled with partisanship, too. This is what partisanship looks like:

Chairman Nadler was required by House rules to schedule a minority hearing day. That didn’t happen. One day of hearings was dedicated to listen to 3 Democrat activists masquerading as law school professors argue with Prof. Jonathan Turley about whether the evidence submitted by Democrats was sufficient for impeachment. Another hearing was dedicated to congressmen and women essentially making closing statements.

The hearings throughout ‘featured’ (I use that term exceptionally loosely) the worst in media bias. Day after day, the media breathlessly insisted that that day’s witness provided “bombshell” testimony. Night-after-night, the bombshell didn’t detonate. In instance-after-instance, the provocative statements in the witnesses’ opening statements turned into dud during cross-examination. Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland was the nastiest cross-examination I’ve ever seen:

That’s the personification of media bias and Adam Schiff’s corruption. Each day, networks like CNN and MSNBC and programs like the Maddow Report and Meet the Press Weekdays omitted the part about the exculpatory evidence. That’s why President Trump’s accusations of the Fake News Media resonates. People of integrity admit that CNN and shows like Rachel Maddow’s are corrupt.

They’ve carved out a niche, albeit a limited niche, that serves a political purpose in the Democrats’ quest for power. There was a time when Democrats cared about people’s civil rights. That Democrat Party, apart from Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz is history. That Democrat Party doesn’t exist.

Impeachment is 2019’s Story of the Year but for all the wrong reasons. Impeaching President Trump with hearsay testimony while violating President Trump’s civil rights is awful. Impeaching him while Democrats displayed the nastiest partisanship of this century is worst. Impeaching President Trump with the enthusiastic assistance of the most corrupt media of our lifetimes is a trifecta Democrats should be ashamed of.

Democrats keep fighting a dishonest fight in their attempt to force Senate Republicans into letting John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney testify at President Trump’s impeachment trial. Republicans should stick together and tell Democrats that the rules that were used during Bill Clinton’s trial are the rules for this sham trial/impeachment. What’s omitted by Democrats is important.

The writer said “McConnell criticized the House process as rushed and harked back to the good ol’ days of 1999 and the trial of then-President Clinton as the correct model to follow. No witnesses testified in-person then, either, though McConnell advocated for it and three witnesses were deposed at the Senate’s request. As Schumer has pointed out, the witnesses Republicans wanted to appear had already given grand jury testimony. In contrast, this time around none of Schumer’s requested witnesses have been heard from in any form or forum. What’s clear is that Republicans fear what White House officials might say about Trump and Ukraine; Democrats fear that Trump will not only walk away from the impeachment but also win reelection.”

What’s omitted is that House Democrats called these witnesses. They refused to testify. The omitted part is that House Democrats didn’t think that their testimony was that important so they didn’t ask a court to compel these witnesses to testify. It isn’t the Senate’s job to strengthen the Democrats’ weak case. If House Democrats thought Bolton’s and Mulvaney’s testimony was important, they shouldn’t have rushed the impeachment vote. Democrats should’ve filed a lawsuit to compel their testimony.

What isn’t said is that there’s a pretty good possibility that the judge would’ve ruled against the Democrats. Another thing that isn’t said is that the Democrats’ case is based almost entirely on hearsay testimony. The only testimony from a legitimate witness came from Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU. During his testimony, Sondland said “that there was [a quid pro quo]. He even testified that Trump told him there was no quid pro quo but that he understood Trump to mean that the aid and White House visit were conditioned on announcing investigations—in other words, a quid pro quo.”

That’s totally meaningless. Sondland testified that President Trump told him directly that there was no quid pro quo and that he wanted President Zelenskiy to “do what he’d campaigned on.” Saying that it was his understanding that there really was a quid pro quo is worthless because it isn’t based on verifiable fact. Here’s that important exchange:

If truth be told, at minimum, Sondland’s testimonies cancel each other out. It’s unreliable. The hearsay testimony is worthless, too. That’s why Democrats are pushing so hard for Bolton and Mulvaney.

The Democrats’ problem is that this is a trial, not an investigation. If House Democrats wanted these presidential advisers’ testimony admitted at trial, they should’ve filed the lawsuit and compelled their testimony. Democrats made the decision that they didn’t need this testimony. Now that their case has been exposed as weak, it’s the Democrats’ fault it’s weak.

That’s what happens when you’re making decisions based on timing instead of taking the time to build a strong case. That’s what happens when you put impeachment in the hands of Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff.

This article highlights the stupidity of Washington, DC’s political class. It offers 13 theories from DC insiders on why Speaker Pelosi hasn’t sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Let’s look at the ones that are best characterized in polite society as foolish. Let’s start here:

Impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Pelosi was forced into impeaching the president by liberals in her caucus. She’s wanted to apply a hand brake and halt the process now in order to protect vulnerable freshmen Democrats who supported impeachment.

The votes have been cast. The time to protect those freshmen was before they voted. If Ms. Pelosi wanted to apologize to these freshmen (and others in Trump-won districts), the thing to do is to buy each of them a nice Christmas present.

That being said, impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Imagine Ms. Pelosi’s fear in picking impeachment managers, where your top 3 choices are Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff or Steve Cohen. That’s like picking between a heart attack, a stroke and major blood clots. I haven’t had a stroke. I’ve had the others. There aren’t any good choices in that bunch.

Pelosi feared a Senate trial. The president and many Republicans have said they wanted to summon her, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Bidens and the whistleblower as witnesses in a Senate trial. Nothing good would come from a wide-open Senate trial for Democrats.

Holding onto the articles of impeachment wouldn’t prevent the Senate from calling these witnesses. They’d be called during regular committee hearings. In the case of Adam Schiff, they wouldn’t need to call him. President Trump could beat him up on the campaign trail.

Pelosi wanted to hold the articles of impeachment through the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. This would delay a Senate trial until the field of 2020 Democrats settled – and would protect senators running for president.

This is totally stupid. Let President Trump embarrass these candidates during his State of the Union Address on national TV. Anyone that thinks that President Trump’s speechwriters wouldn’t figure out a way to highlight the corrupt process while hurting House vulnerable freshmen is kidding themselves.

By holding the articles, Pelosi was daring McConnell to advance some sort of resolution (which wouldn’t have direct parliamentary bearing on the articles of impeachment approved by the House) to condemn the House’s action. Support for such a resolution could be a challenge, and politically dangerous, for vulnerable Republican senators facing re-election in 2020: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Martha McSally of Arizona and Cory Gardner of Colorado.

Either that or Sen. McConnell could just set a date for the trial to start. After that, Sen. McConnell could tell Ms. Pelosi that the Sixth Amendment guarantees President Trump a right to a speedy trial. He then tells her to comply or else.

By holding the articles, Pelosi could dictate when a Senate trial could begin. After all, the Senate is pretty much bound to go through the motions of a trial at least. Perhaps Pelosi could send the articles in the early fall – right before the presidential election.

What idiot camp up with this idea? Whoever it was is constitutionally illiterate and a terrible political strategist. President Trump’s lawyers would’ve filed a lawsuit long before the Democrats had picked their nominee. They would’ve won that lawsuit for a speedy trial. President Trump’s legal team would’ve won his acquittal by then, too.

From a strategic standpoint, it’s stupid. President Trump would be attending. The senators would be though, one of whom might be the Democrats’ nominee. Further, we’re back to highlighting the fact that President Trump was impeached solely on hearsay testimony. We’re back to highlighting the fact that Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler would be the Democrats’ lead prosecutor. Any day or week that Adam Schiff is the face of the Democratic Party during the campaign’s stretch drive is a win for the GOP.

By keeping the articles in the House, Pelosi would maintain control, instead of Trump. McConnell wouldn’t have control either. With the articles of impeachment in limbo, everyone else would be off balance – except Pelosi.

Anyone that’s studied Trump and thinks that he’d sit idly by without upsetting that applecart is kidding themselves. It’s foolish to think that Pelosi is this magical creature that controls DC with her magical powers. Finally, anyone that thinks that President Trump wouldn’t greenlight his attorneys to file a lawsuit forcing a trial is foolish.

This article highlights the thinking of DC insiders. If that’s the case, then it’s easy to see why Washington, DC is nicknamed the Swamp. The facts speak for themselves.

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: