Archive for the ‘Jerry Nadler’ Category

When Devin Nunes talks about the Democrats’ next hoax, I listen. This morning, Nunes appeared on Fox & Friends to talk about the Democrats’ next impeachment hoax. Nunes has gotten vilified virtually daily on US intelligence-gathering. Time after time, Nunes has gotten things right. Most recently, the Horowitz Report vindicated Nunes, showing the Nunes Memo to be virtually flawless.

It’s noteworthy that the same Horowitz Report literally verified the Schiff Memo to be 100% wrong. In other words, Adam Schiff’s report was totally worthless while Devin Nunes’ Memo was almost 100% right. During his interview, Nunes talked about Pelosi’s press conference where she said “We will continue to do our oversight to protect and defend the Constitution … but those cases still exist, if there are others that we see as an opportunity we’ll make a judgment at that time.”

Nunes replied, saying “I’d say that old habits die hard. They’ve done nothing else for their entire time that they’ve controlled Congress and don’t forget the Democrats on the intelligence committee started this right after Trump was elected so that’s going over three years.”

The only way to end these investigations is by firing the Democrat majority in the House this November. Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler have proven that their interest is investigating President Trump. These Democrats have shown that they aren’t interested in fixing immigration, lowering prescription drug prices, establishing opportunity scholarships for students trapped in failing schools or cutting middle class taxes.

House Democrats want to raise taxes, raise the minimum wage and kill the fossil fuel industry. What’s frustrating is that these Democrats sat while America cheered for Iain Lanphier and his 100-year-old great-grandfather Charles McGee. McGee is one of the last living Tuskegee Airmen. Democrats sat when President Trump announced that Janiyah Davis was receiving an opportunity scholarship so she could escape her failing school.

What type of people sit on their hands when great news like that is announced? How cold-hearted do you have to be to react like that? America, remember these things when you enter the voting booth:

Nunes continued criticizing Pelosi’s Democrats, saying “They may concoct a new hoax, I’m not sure that the American people will believe it, but you can be sure of one thing, the mainstream media will support whatever the narrative is that they want to build.” It’s time to stop this hate-filled, years-long diatribe. It’s time to send an emphatic message to Democrats that We The People come first, not the nutjob conspiracy theorist Democrats.

Democrats haven’t done a thing. They didn’t make people more prosperous. They criticized President Trump when he killed the 2 biggest terrorists in the world. Democrats even tried telling us that President Trump’s killing of Gen. Soleimani would trigger a further destabilization of the Middle East. It’s time to get these idiots out of office. It’s time to put competent people in charge. That starts with giving Rep. Nunes the gavel back to the HPSCI. That starts with handing the Speaker’s gavel to Kevin McCarthy.

It’s difficult to take this article seriously. The article starts by saying “On February 6, 2020, the Senate acquitted Donald Trump on two articles of impeachment, bringing an end to a process the president has been hurtling toward since the moment of his inauguration.” After that, the writer turns into an emotional mess, writing “He and the Constitution are irrevocably at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here. But ‘here’ doesn’t just mean a world in which Trump has been impeached, of course; it’s also a world in which a majority of the Senate voted to bless his conduct.

Next, the trainwreck:

The two other presidents who faced impeachment in living memory both delivered natural ends to the drama. Richard Nixon’s helicopter lifted off the White House lawn after he resigned the presidency. Bill Clinton, the day of his acquittal in the Senate, stood in the Rose Garden and apologized for his conduct.

Richard Nixon resigned because he’d committed multiple felonies, including suborning perjury, obstructing justice and telling the FBI that they didn’t need a warrant to wiretap antiwar protesters’ phone calls. When Nixon resigned, few people thought he wasn’t guilty as hell. I had just graduated from high school and I knew he was guilty as hell.

When Bill Clinton apologized, he had a lot to apologize for. The Independent Counsel’s office issued this statement:

In the independent counsel’s judgment, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute President Clinton for violating federal criminal laws within this office’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the independent counsel concluded, consistent with the Principles of Federal Prosecution, that further proceedings against President Clinton for his conduct should not be initiated.

In other words, Clinton committed multiple felonies. The difference between Nixon and Clinton is that Clinton’s felonies were considered low crimes.

The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat impeachment articles didn’t charge President Trump with committing a crime. That, by itself, differentiates President Trump from Nixon and Clinton. Further, the investigators in Nixon and Clinton accumulated tons of proof that supported the investigators’ charges. The Mueller Report was the precursor to the Schiff Report. It didn’t find proof that President Trump committed any crimes.

So much for verifying the statement “at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here.” We shouldn’t have wound up here. That isn’t what the evidence said. Period.

That’s before looking at the process. The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat process was scandalous. In Nixon and Clinton, their legal teams were allowed to bring in witnesses, submit evidence and cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. President Trump wasn’t afforded any of those rights. For the first 71 days of the official 78-day investigation, President Trump’s legal team weren’t allowed in the room.

Comparing President Trump’s impeachment with Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachments is like comparing Stalin with the Pope. It’s a travesty. The MSM (and Pelosi) insist that President Trump is impeached forever. If that’s true, then there’s a stench and a stain forever on the Democrats’ investigation. It’s the most partisan investigation in presidential history. The Democrats ignored multiple pieces of exculpatory evidence, starting with the transcript of the July 25 phone call.

Simply put, President Trump deserved a victory lap like this:

This November, it isn’t just important to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation. It’s essential to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation.

In this unserious op-ed, David Axelrod complained that “For all the righteous indignation about the outcome of Wednesday’s vote, I understand the reluctance of any senator to convict an elected president and forever ban them from the ballot. And if Donald Trump truly were “chastened” by impeachment, as several of the Republican senators who voted against removing him argued, it might have made their “let the people decide” argument more compelling.”

Democrats and some swampy Republicans aren’t the brightest people. President Trump wasn’t convicted because he shouldn’t have ever gotten impeached. The process in the House will forever be part of Nancy Pelosi’s, Adam Schiff’s and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry Nadler’s tarnished legacies. Let’s remember what happened in the House. Let’s start with the most disgusting part first.

Impeachment Article 2 is the product of an infantile temper tantrum. On Sept. 24, Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was starting an official impeachment inquiry. That’s a bald-faced lie. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It gives impeachment authority to “the House of Representatives” alone, not to the speaker, not to a committee. Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton didn’t want that authority resting in the hands of a Representative or a committee of representatives. They wanted everyone to share in the accountability.

When Democrats sent out the first set of what Democrats called “compulsory subpoenas”, the House hadn’t voted to authorize any committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry. In fact, the White House Counsel’s letter to House Democrats was sent 3 weeks before the vote authorizing impeachment. Ignoring long-settled precedent, which apparently is his specialty, Adam Schiff said that any delay in complying with the subpoenas would be considered an impeachable offense. The judiciary is there to settle privilege disputes between the legislative and executive branches.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he’s the exception to that ruling. He’s wrong about that. He isn’t the exception. Patrick Philbin laid out this reasoning in response to a question.

As for Impeachment Article 1, Abuse of Power, no high crime was alleged. In fact, no crime was alleged. What’s worse, most of the testimony provided to Mr. Schiff’s committee wasn’t provided by witnesses. Most of the testimony provided was provided by people who didn’t witness anything. That’s why I consistently called them testifiers, not witnesses.

The transcript of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy is the best evidence of what was said during the call. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call. He testified, reluctantly, that the transcript was “essentially correct.” The only fact witness called during the public HPSCI hearings was US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland. Here’s his testimony:

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler totally ignored this exculpatory evidence. They ignored this and other exculpatory evidence multiple times each. In a real court with rules of evidence, this wouldn’t have gotten to trial because the Democrats’ case had more holes than Swiss cheese. It would’ve gotten no-billed at the grand jury.

This isn’t surprising. Adam Schiff couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. Here’s the first of Schiff’s ‘golden oldies’:

When the Mueller Report came out, the evidence that Schiff allegedly saw wasn’t found. Here’s another of his biggest lies:

Axelrod also wrote this:

Even without the witnesses and documents Trump denied them, the House managers delivered a devastating circumstantial case that the President used the levers of his office to pressure Ukraine.

Hearsay testimony isn’t admissible in a real court, with a few exceptions, and Axelrod knows it. Then Axelrod said this:

He was, as Sen. Mitt Romney said in his courageous dissent from partisan orthodoxy, “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

This is the Mitt Romney that Axelrod accused of being a sexist who hated women. This is the Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign accused of tying the family pet to the roof of their vehicle. Forgive me if I don’t get a sense of sincerity with his statements about Romney.

President Trump isn’t chastened. “He’s triumphant.” He’s triumphant because a team of liars accused him of abusing his power. He’s triumphant because Democrats didn’t present evidence proving that allegation. Democrats lost because 30 allegations still doesn’t equal 1 piece of proof. Democrats lost because 5 allegations repeated 20 times each isn’t proof either.

Axelrod is still the same corrupt weasel that worked for President Obama. Good riddance.

We’ve all heard the cliché “too clever by half.” That applies to people who overthink things. What happens when people are too stupid to realize that they’re destroying themselves? There aren’t any clichés to fall back on so I created one. Democrats are too stupid by three-fourths.

Fresh off their thumping at the hands of President Trump’s legal team, Democrats Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are thinking about the self-immolation option by subpoenaing John Bolton to testify. What smart person thinks that’s a good idea? Apparently, there aren’t any smart Democrats in the House.

Let’s be blunt about something obvious. It’s been a terrible week for Democrats. Democrats failed at basic math when they couldn’t count after wrapping up the Iowa Caucuses. (They still haven’t gotten it right and it’s Friday.) During President Trump’s SOTU Address, Democrats couldn’t cheer for unprecedented prosperity for women and minority communities. What’s worst is that Ms. Pelosi thought it’d play well to rip up her copy of President Trump’s SOTU speech in front of the cameras:

I introduce you to the personification of too stupid by three-fourths. Her name is Nancy Pelosi. It could’ve just as easily have been Adam Schiff. Why think that Pelosi’s Democrats or Sen. Schumer’s shills are capable of anything beyond 2+2 = 4?

Senate Democrats aren’t any better. There wasn’t a Senate Democrat who voted against Article 2. Here’s what Article 2 says:

“In the history of the republic,” it reads, “no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.'”

The first set of compulsory subpoenas were sent out without House authorization. That’s why they were contested in court. President Trump doesn’t lose his right to contest subpoenas just because the House is intent on impeaching him. In other words, Senate Democrats, including many who are lawyers, think that following the Constitution’s path is unconstitutional. How stupid is that? These Democrats aren’t too bright. That’s why we need to throw them out en masse this November.

Apparently, Mitt Romney’s hatred of President Trump runs deep and cold. Today, Romney adopted the Democrats’ talking points, saying “What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values.”

Only an idiot or a liar could reach that conclusion. Mitt isn’t an idiot. Another thing he isn’t is a Republican. He’s a sanctimonious jackass. When Romney votes to convict President Trump, he’ll become the only Republican to vote with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, AOC and Ilhan Omar. That isn’t my definition of a Republican.

In a speech from the Senate floor, Romney invoked his religion, saying “As a senator juror, I swore a oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am,” Romney said, before getting choked up and taking a pause. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party would be the most difficult decision I have ever made. What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values, corrupting an election to keep oneself in office – is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”

I’m tired of hearing that President Trump “pressured” President Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens. On 3 separate occasions, President Zelenskiy has stated that he wasn’t pressured. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko agreed with President Zelenskiy. If Romney wanted to “exercise impartial justice”, the first step in that exercise is to consider the evidence. The evidence is clear. The only people accusing President Trump of pressuring Ukraine are the impeachment managers and the fake whistleblower. Since the whistleblower never testified and was never mentioned by the impeachment managers, his statements are irrelevant.

President Zelenskiy was quoted by President Trump’s defense team. His statements weren’t questioned. That turns President Zelenskiy’s statements into evidence.

Sen. Romney’s hatred of President Trump hasn’t been hidden. Now he’s exposed himself as hating President Trump so much that he’s willing to stab President Trump in the back without a shred of evidence. When he’s up for re-election, count me in for contributing to his primary opponent.

NBC News just made a stunning admission about impeachment when it said “American soap operas are not popular these days. And yet, the Senate trial to remove President Donald Trump from office is currently garnering fewer viewers than the soaps.” This isn’t surprising to most Americans. The Democrats’ partisan impeachment was seen as a travesty by fair-minded people.

Another contributing factor to the terrible ratings is the lack of star power on the House Democrats’ team of impeachment managers. When Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are the ‘star’ prosecutors, people will tune out. Couple that with 3 days of the Democrats repeating the same allegations over and over and over again and you have the makings of something exceptionally boring.

The good news is that this nightmare will finish on Wednesday:

The bad news is that the next round of impeachment is right around the corner:

The only thing that will prevent Democrats from attempting another impeachment is massive amounts of public pressure in the form of telling Pelosi that another round of impeachment will cost her the Speaker’s Gavel. It will require the American people telling Angie Craig and Dean Phillips that they’ll be one-term wonders if they support another round of impeachment. The NRSC and other campaign committees and PACs should spend boatloads of campaign cash into the 30 Trump districts where Democrats currently serve. It’s time to let them know there’s a steep price to pay for ignoring the people’s business while pursuing impeachment.

Let’s highlight the fact that Adam Schiff is a total liar. In March, 2017, he told Chuck Todd that he’d seen evidence “stronger than circumstantial” that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. This fall, he read into the congressional record a mythical conversation between President Trump and President Zelenskiy.

Do Democrats really want to hitch their wagon to Schiff’s star? Or to Jerry Nadler’s star? The Democrats’ other problem is that anyone with firsthand knowledge of anything is likely to be covered by executive privilege. Does Schiff think that he can get away with another impeachment investigation without giving the White House Counsel’s Office access to cross-examining Schiff’s witnesses? Does Schiff think that these vulnerable freshman Democrats will want to vote for starting another impeachment inquiry?

Last time, Speaker Pelosi coerced vulnerable freshmen into voting for initiating the impeachment investigation by holding USMCA over their head. USMCA is now the law of the land. Does anyone seriously think that those freshmen Democrats will willingly vote to end their political careers?

The only way to stop this impeachment charade is by vanquishing 50+ Democrats from the House this November. If Democrats still have gavels, we’ll keep getting one round of impeachment after another. It’s that simple.

Saying that Alan Dershowitz unloaded both barrels of the Constitution on the Democrats’ impeachment managers is understatement. They deserved it. The highlight of Professor Dershowitz’s speech came when he said “I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents.”

Perhaps the most controversial part of Professor Dershowitz’s presentation was when he said that “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like ‘quid pro quo’ and ‘personal benefit.'”


Then there’s this:


My question is this: since I watched every minute of Professor Dershowitz’s presentation, does that count towards certifying me as a credentialed legal bloviator? I know that doesn’t make me a lawyer but I’d appreciate getting a certificate from Professor Dershowitz saying that I’m now qualified to talk about the Constitution and impeachment.

Seriously, the Trump legal team did a great job in putting out the ‘Bolton Bombshell.’ Attorney after attorney dismantled the key components of the Democrats’ case for impeachment. Michael Purpura addressed, for the second time, the justification for not complying with the initial set of compulsory subpoenas, highlighting that the House hadn’t voted to authorize a committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The House didn’t vote on an impeachment resolution until Halloween. The compulsory subpoenas were sent out in early October. Speaker Pelosi held a press conference on Sept. 24, announcing that the House had started an impeachment inquiry. Nixon Judiciary Committee Chairman on impeachment, Peter Rodino, stated that his House Judiciary Committee didn’t have the authority to start the impeachment inquiry until there was a vote of the whole House authorizing that inquiry.

This situation requires a Peter Rodino or a Henry Hyde. Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are partisan Democrat hacks. Rodino and Hyde were gentlemen, statesmen and patriots who felt comfortable working in a bipartisan situations.

Last night, someone leaked “an unpublished manuscript of [John Bolton’s] upcoming book”, sending official DC into a tizzy. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake wrote “We finally got a taste Sunday night of what former national security adviser John Bolton might tell President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.” Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham appeared on Fox & Friends.

During that appearance, Grisham said “It’s very clear the president did nothing wrong. Then suddenly, this manuscript has magically appeared in the hands of The New York Times, making very, very big claims. This is … the same publisher that [James] Comey used, also. The fact that magically, again, the book ordering preorder link popped up a couple hours after all of this hit.”

While I’ve never agreed that President Trump “did nothing wrong”, I’m more than a little skeptical of this leak, especially with this timing. First, it’s worth noting that Bolton was fired as President Trump’s NSA. That couldn’t have sit well with a man of Bolton’s credentials. Next, it’s worth being suspicious of a publisher associated with Jim Comey.

Nonetheless, this still comes down to John Bolton’s uncorroborated testimony vs. the corroborated transcript of the July 25 call and Ambassador Sondland’s testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI. This video is the full video of Rep. Mike Turner cross-examining Ambassador Sondland:

In the first minute of the video, Rep. Turner said “Yesterday, Ambassador Volker, whom I consider to be very talented and a man of integrity and I think you think is a man of integrity, correct?” After Ambassador Sondland nods his approval with that characterization, Turner continues, saying “He testified that the President of the United States did not tie either a meeting with the president or a phone call or any aid to investigations of Burisma, 2016 or the Bidens.”

At the end of his cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland, Sondland admitted that President Trump hadn’t tied investigating the Bidens with lethal military supplies. Let’s think about this. The transcript didn’t link lethal military supplies with investigating the Bidens. Ambassador Volker didn’t link lethal military supplies with investigating the Bidens. Finally, Ambassador Sondland testified that President Trump didn’t link lethal military supplies with investigating the Bidens.

What are the odds that John Bolton will testify that he knows better than 2 ambassadors (Volker and Sondland) and a transcript that’s been called “essentially accurate”? That’s before factoring in the statements of Ukraine’s foreign minister and Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy that the aid wasn’t tied to investigating the Bidens.

Washington’s all aflutter because they want this to be the bombshell that sinks President Trump so badly they can taste it. To Washington, I’d make this statement. Imagine John Bolton’s deposition. First, imagine Chairman Schiff deposing Bolton. Then picture Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow and John Ratcliffe interrogating Mr. Bolton. Picture each of them asking Bolton if he’s familiar with Ambassador Sondland’s testimony. Then picture them reminding him of Ambassador Volker’s testimony. Then picture them refreshing his memory of what President Zelenskiy, President Trump and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said about investigating the Bidens.

It’s difficult to picture Bolton saying anything that might hurt President Trump at that point. There’s just too much verified information that clears President Trump. If Ambassador Bolton disagrees with that galaxy of testimony, imagine the legal exposure he might find himself in. Bolton is too smart to volunteer for that type of scrutiny.

It isn’t surprising that Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s op-ed follows the typical Democrat script. Sen. Blumenthal is a typical liberal politician. In his op-ed, Blumenthal writes “Just hours after my Republican colleagues voted nine times against seeking documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial, President Trump bragged about the ongoing cover-up while rubbing elbows with billionaires in Davos. He proudly proclaimed that, ‘honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.’ Boasting about documents he has withheld sounds a lot like an outright confession to obstruction of Congress.”

Omitted from Sen. Blumenthal’s op-ed is the fact that the people and documents weren’t subpoenaed correctly. Patrick Philbin explains the defense’s logic behind the refusals:

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion:

The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s power of impeachment. The House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with impeachment-related subpoenas issued by House committees before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect.

Like other aspects of this impeachment investigation, the House did a sloppy job. That’s what happens when you pick partisan hacks to do a professional’s job. A different cliché is perhaps fitting — You get what you pay for. Speaker Pelosi often thinks that she’s a queen. I wrote this post to highlight Pat Cipollone’s letter to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler. In that letter, Mr. Cipollone wrote “Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an “official impeachment inquiry.”

I wrote this post, which I titled “This isn’t a monarchy & Pelosi isn’t the queen”, to highlight the fact that “Ms. Pelosi stepped up to the microphone and announced that she was starting the inquiry. That means this inquiry isn’t a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the eyes of the courts. When Chairman Schiff requests documents, the White House won’t hesitate in rejecting Chairman Schiff’s request. Had the whole House voted to start an impeachment inquiry, the House’s authority would’ve expanded substantially. Ms. Pelosi didn’t want Republicans to have the same rights that other minority parties had in past impeachment inquiries so she didn’t hold a vote.”

Speaker Pelosi thought she was an autocrat. Ditto with Chairmen Nadler and Schiff. Now that they’re up against a professional in Mr. Cipollone, they’re getting taught a lesson. As for Sen. Blumenthal, who cares? He’s a nobody, a cookie-cutter liberal politician.

If the Democrats’ chief goal during their portion of the impeachment trial was to insult Republican senators, they picked the right people for the job. During Friday night’s closing arguments, Chairman Schiff said “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’ I don’t know if that’s true.”

The Reuters article continued, saying “After that remark, the generally respectful mood in the Senate immediately changed. Republicans across their side of the chamber groaned, gasped and said, ‘That’s not true.'” That’s pretty dramatic. After Schiff’s statement, Susan Collins replied “Not only have I never heard the ‘head on the pike’ line, ‘but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration.”

As disgusting as Chairman’s Schiff’s quote is, it isn’t that much more disgusting than Chairman Nadler’s statement:

He is a dictator. This must not stand. And that is why — another reason — he must be removed from office.

The Democrats’ highest-profile impeachment managers think that President Trump is a dictator who thinks that people who don’t follow his instructions should be impaled. Here’s the video of Schiff’s quote:

Schiff threw in the line that “I don’t know if that’s true. I hope it’s not true. I hope it’s not true.” Anyone who’s chronicled Chairman Schiff’s dishonesty won’t give him the benefit of the doubt.

“That’s when he lost me,” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican moderate, said about Schiff’s remark, according to her spokeswoman.

It’s time to talk about another subject that people haven’t talked about yet. When Speaker Pelosi picked the impeachment managers, she said that “all seven managers have personalities that “fit a pattern that Speaker Pelosi kind of likes: to keep it reserved and somber.” That’s reserved and somber?

If this impeachment trial is finished by this time next week, it’ll be because the Democrats’ impeachment managers alienated moderate GOP senators. Despite the fawning media coverage he’s received, Schiff has done a terrible job. Rather than persuading people, he’s alienated senators. History won’t be kind to Chairman Schiff when this impeachment is written.