Archive for the ‘Impeachment Democrats’ Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone who’s watched the Democrats’ months-long stampede into history books knows that they’re entering the history books for all the wrong reasons. Chairman Nadler is one of the Democrats’ impeachment leaders. During the debate, he said “there can be no serious debate about the evidence at hand. [President Trump] has demonstrated a clear pattern of wrongdoing. We cannot rely on the next election as a remedy for presidential misconduct when the President threatens the very integrity of that election. He has shown us he will continue to put his selfish interests above the good of the country. We must act without delay.”

That statement has more indefensible statements in it than Jim Comey’s FISA warrant applications. First, the only firsthand proof in the record, which is the only type of proof admitted in court (with some exceptions), is exculpatory evidence. Let’s not forget that Nadler tried spinning away President Zelenskiy’s statement that he didn’t feel any pressure from President Trump was because President Trump pressured him into saying that. Let’s remember, too, that he said this with a straight face and without a bit of evidence to support that allegation.

Next, Nadler’s statement that President Trump has “demonstrated a clear pattern of wrongdoing” is spin for ‘I don’t like how he’s doing things.’ Differences of opinion aren’t impeachable offenses.

Then there’s Speaker Pelosi’s schtick:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is opening the debate on the floor of the House and says she does so “solemnly and sadly. If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duties,” she says, adding that Trump “gave us no choice.” She says it is a matter of fact that Trump is an “ongoing threat to our national security and the integrity of our elections.”

Pelosi’s schtick might’ve been believable if not for this:

Pelosi is given a round of applause from her benches as she finishes her remarks. She is wearing black, reportedly to communicate the solemnity of the day.

Nothing communicates solemnity like a lengthy round of applause like this:

After the vote is taken, the pundits will assess the damage done by this impeachment. During the process, Adam Schiff fabricated President Trump’s statements to President Zelenskiy. Jerry Nadler shut down the impeachment hearings without allowing a single GOP-called witness. Adam Schiff called Marie Yovanovitch to testify even though she’d been fired 3 months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call that triggered impeachment.

Increasingly, independents are siding with fair-minded Republicans more than they’re siding with Democrats. Voters won’t forget this impeachment, nor will they forget the fact that these Do-Nothing Democrats don’t have a single signature accomplishment to brag about. Doug Collins has it right in this article:

“They trashed rules in the House, they’ve trashed decorum, they’ve trashed everything. Because they had one purpose and one purpose only: to undo the election of 2016 when their own candidate failed miserably and their own policies have never been accepted by the American people,” he explained.

Democrats only have themselves to blame for this disgrace.

The hot topic du jour is why House Democrats didn’t include bribery as an article of impeachment. For the entire second week of the impeachment hearings, we were told that President Trump had committed bribery. When the official articles were announce, though, bribery was nowhere to be found. Instead, abuse of power was included.

The reason for this is pretty simple, actually. Bribery is an actual crime. Therefore, to convict a person of committing bribery, the prosecution must prove multiple elements of the crime. Those elements are laid out nicely in this website:

Intent is one of the elements that must be established to prove the crime of bribery.[iii] Corrupt intent is the intent to receive a specific benefit in return for the payment.[iv] The intent to use the opportunity to perform a public duty for acquiring an unlawful personal benefit or advantage by the person who receives the bribe amounts to a corrupt intent.[v]

Another element required to constitute the crime of bribery is that a bribe must involve something of value that is used to influence the action or nonaction of the recipient. However, the bribe must not be necessarily in the form of money. It is sufficient if the receiver gets anything of value to himself/herself from the bribe.

How is investigating Joe and Hunter Biden “something of value”? It isn’t like Joe Biden is competitive with President Trump in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Iowa.

Biden is for the Green New Deal. He’s said during the Democrats’ presidential debates that he wanted to eliminate fossil fuels. He said that early while pandering to the Democrats’ far-left environmental activists. It’s difficult to think of someone as a legitimate threat to President Trump when that candidate has difficulty remembering which state he’s in:

Joe Biden isn’t someone I take seriously. He’s run for president 3 times. The first time, he dropped out before the first voting began because he plagiarized a speech. The next time he ran, he dropped out after the Iowa Caucuses because he got less than 1% of the vote in Iowa. This time, he’s the weakest frontrunner in modern history. He’s still leading but it’s because the other candidates are worse than he is.

The point that hasn’t been made yet is that getting Biden out of the race isn’t a benefit to President Trump. It isn’t a detriment to his re-election bid, either. There goes the Democrats’ argument that getting Biden out of the race is a benefit to President Trump.

There aren’t any elements to prove with abuse of office because it isn’t a crime. Democrats only have to insist that President Trump did something wrong and win over enough a bunch of Republican senators. Thus far, Democrats haven’t accomplished that. It isn’t likely that they’ll accomplish that, either. Voters are displaying signs of frustration with the Democrats’ faux impeachment, too:

The uppity peasants that Rep. Slotkin, (D-MI), isn’t listening to will show up to fire her next November. She should start writing her concession speech because she won’t win re-election.

It’s difficult to think of Democrats as leaders when we get proof each day that they’re nothing but joiners. Rep. Elissa Slotkin is the latest Democrat joiner to Adam Schiff’s impeachment trainwreck. In this op-ed in the Detroit Free Press.

In the op-ed, Rep. Slotkin wrote “In September, I called for an inquiry because of the simple fact that it seemed that the President had used the power of his office to pressure a foreign leader to provide him information for personal political gain.” This is the Democrats’ standard reply. It’s exceptionally dishonest. Here’s what the actual transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call says:

There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

While Hunter Biden apparently thinks influence peddling is fine, most Americans don’t agree. That’s the commodity Hunter was selling. It’s the thing Democrats, especially Joe Biden, don’t want to talk about.

What’s obvious in this phone call is that President Trump wants Ukraine to get rid of their corruption. It’s obvious that Hunter Biden was corrupt. It’s obvious that Joe Biden wasn’t interested in stopping that corruption. The subject of that paragraph on Pg. 4 is corruption, not future elections. Nonetheless, Rep. Slotkin, like other Democrats, insists otherwise:

But here’s the fundamental difference: President Trump used the power of the presidency for his own benefit, to give himself some advantage in the very election that would determine whether he remained in office.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to say that President Trump was thinking re-election when he’s talking about eliminating corruption in Ukraine. When he returned from his trip to Ukraine, Sen. Johnson told President Trump to release the aid because he thought President Zelenskiy was “the real deal” in fighting corruption.

Democrats reflexively insist that things be put into context. Despite that, they’ve insisted in this instance to take that paragraph out of context. Rep. Slotkin is just the latest follower following Schiff off his impeachment cliff. Don’t expect more than 2-3 Democrats voting against impeachment. Expect this to be Rep. Slotkin’s final term in office. Here’s why:

This article has me wondering about something. The article starts by saying “House Democratic leaders are bracing for some defections among a group of moderate Democrats in swing districts who are concerned a vote to impeach President Trump could cost them their seats in November. Lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will lose more than the two Democrats who opposed the impeachment inquiry rules package in late September, according to multiple officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. Two senior Democratic aides said the total could be as many as a half-dozen, while a third said the number could be higher.”

This isn’t surprising. In fact, it’s quite predictable. Pelosi wants it both ways. She wants her Democrats to maintain their majority in 2020 and she wants to impeach President Trump in the hopes of defeating him in 11 months. President Trump will get impeached but he won’t get defeated. The worst news for Pelosi, aka the Red Queen, is that she’ll lose her Speaker’s Gavel next November. Good riddance.

Many of these freshman Democrats have virtually nothing in terms of accomplishments. They voted for the impeachment inquiry. Anyone that votes against the articles of impeachment after voting for the impeachment rules package will look like this:

These so-called moderates aren’t principled politicians. They’re just swampy-smelling politicians.

God bless Louie Gohmert for exposing the Democrats’ total corruption. Last night, Rep. Gohmert highlighted the Democrats’ utter corruption in this rant:

“A vague abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, the very things the majority has done in preventing us from having the witnesses that could shed light on this, not opinion, but fact witnesses. We needed to hear from those witnesses,” Gohmert said. “People like Sean Misko [a former National Security Council aide who joined Adam Schiff’s staff], Abigail Grace [who also worked at the NSC], Eric Ciaramella, Devon Archer [an American businessman who worked at Burisma], Joe Biden, Nellie Ohr [a contractor for Fusion GPS in 2015 and 2016], and Alexander Chalupa, and so many others. They don’t want fact witnesses. Let’s hear from professors who hate Donald Trump, who are willing to sell their education just to make a point against somebody they don’t like. This is a dangerous, dangerous time in America.”

Instead of hearing from people with firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s nonexistent crimes, Democrats brought in testifiers who didn’t like President Trump. Nadler brought in 3 Democrat activists that insisted that they were constitutional law experts. Within 15 minutes, it was obvious that they weren’t unbiased legal historians. These professors were Democrat activists brought in to do a hit job against President Trump. Their legal theories were debunked by a legitimate constitutional scholar named Jonathan Turley.

Chairman Schiff brought in Democrat-friendly witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch, a woman who’d been fired by President Trump months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. What she added to the hearings is still a mystery. Schiff brought in Lt. Col. Vindman, who told the committee that he’d a) listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and b) told superiors that he had concerns about the call. That definitely got Schiff’s attention. Upon cross-examination, though, we learned that his superior, who also listened in on the call, found nothing wrong with the call.

It isn’t coincidence that virtually every piece of evidence found that either contradicted the Democrat witnesses’ testimony or that showed President Trump not guilty of the Democrats’ accusations was ignored by Chairman Schiff. It isn’t coincidence that Chairman Nadler rejected a request from Republicans to hold a hearing where Republican-requested witnesses. (Why let facts contradict the Democrats’ carefully-crafted storyline?)

That’s how you get 2 articles of impeachment that are so vague that every president in history would’ve been impeached by these Democrats. Think about this: the first article of impeachment, abuse of office, isn’t a crime. Democrats included it because it would’ve been an article of impeachment had Nixon gotten impeached. The difference is explained here:

ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.

Nixon told the FBI that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap the phones of antiwar protesters. It isn’t difficult to argue that’s exponentially more egregious than what President Trump did.

The Democrats’ impeachment process shouldn’t be taken seriously. However, the division and hatred that the Democrats have created through this dishonest process should be studied by historians. The Democrats’ abuse of power shouldn’t be allowed again.

Here’s Louie Gohmert’s rant:

This is Prof. Turley’s admonition to Congressional Democrats on abuse of power:

Obviously, Democrats ignored Prof. Turley. That’s proof of the Democrats’ total corruption.

In a display of the worst partisanship in Washington, DC in decades, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are set to lead the Democrats over the impeachment cliff. Nadler gave away the reason why Democrats are impeaching President Trump:

“We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems when the president threatens the very integrity of that election,” Nadler claimed during Wednesday’s session.

Saying that President Trump is a threat to the 2020 election is BS. That’s a statement that Nadler doesn’t have proof for, though it’s a provocative accusation he’s thrown around before. The American people have seen through Nadler’s and Schiff’s nonsense and have started turning on Democrats:

Democrats from districts that supported Trump in 2016, however, have been less enthusiastic. Recent polls have shown declining support for impeachment in key swing states, with two polls released Wednesday indicating that most Americans did not want Trump removed.

Politico reported earlier this week that the numbers were making a “small group” of moderate Democrats, who have held seats in districts where Trump won in 2016, nervous about how to vote. They instead have suggested Trump be censured, which would prevent the GOP from holding a potentially damaging Senate trial and give them political cover in the upcoming election.

To complicate matters for these so-called moderates, if they vote for censuring President Trump, it’s virtually guaranteed that they’ll get primaried by the Justice Democrats, the organization that propelled AOC. Follow this link to read the Justice Democrats’ platform. But I digress.

Over the cliff they go

Republicans, meanwhile, have vociferously opposed the impeachment effort. The committee’s ranking member, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, stated that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump since he took office. He echoed the White House’s argument that the impeachment was politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.

He and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., each argued that unlike previous presidents who have faced impeachment, Trump was not accused of an offense actually defined by law: neither “abuse of power” nor “obstruction of Congress” is a recognized federal or state crime. Those are the two offenses outlined in the articles of impeachment before the committee. (The separate charge of contempt of Congress, according to the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, exempts the president for separation-of-powers reasons.)

In the Nixon articles of impeachment, one of the articles would have been abuse of power. In that instance, though, there were multiple crimes attached to the article of impeachment. It wasn’t some fuzzy accusation like this article will be. Further, the obstruction of Congress article is utterly laughable.

After President Trump asserted various privileges, Nadler and Schiff insisted that this was obstruction of Congress because President Trump insisted that Congress go through the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is how the system is supposed to work. That’s the remedy envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution. Alan Dershowitz, who I think of as a consistent constitutionalist, highlights the fatal flaw of the Democrats’ articles of impeachment in this op-ed:

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

Nadler and Schiff won’t listen to Prof. Dershowitz so over the cliff they’ll go. Good riddance to these self-destructive Democrats.

Something that’s gotten lost in the impeachment fight is how Speaker Pelosi was intimidated into impeachment by AOC + 3 versus how she’s essentially ignored ratifying the USMCA treaty that the Problem Solvers Caucus. Speaker Pelosi knows that she can intimidate the so-called moderates. That’s what she’s done the last 15 years. When they were debating Cap & Trade, she needed Collin Peterson to vote for it. At the time, I wrote that Collin was a Blue Dog Democrat … until Nancy needed his vote.

Pelosi can’t intimidate AOC + 3. In fact, they’ve intimidated Pelosi into supporting impeachment. Pelosi’s majority isn’t possible without moderates. Still, there’s no enthusiasm without AOC + 3. It’s a Catch 22 situation.

What isn’t a difficult thing to figure out is what will happen to Democrats running for re-election. Appearing on Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo, Kevin McCarthy said “Well, Nancy Pelosi, if you’re one of those 31 Democrats running for re-election — well, you’re a little afraid with hearing what Nancy Pelosi just did putting out this timeline for articles of impeachment. She just gave up your job. If you look at some new polling from American Action Network in these Democrat districts, 54% of their district is more likely to vote against you if you vote for impeachment — and they already have.”

That’s the news from the 31 districts that we’ve heard about since seemingly forever ago. If 54% of voters are voting against you if you vote for impeachment, that isn’t good news for those Democrats who Nancy Pelosi is forcing into voting for impeachment. Couple that information with the increasingly prevalent opinion that Democrats should be called the Do-Nothing Democrats and you’ve got the starting foundation for a wave election that will sweep Ms. Pelosi out of office.

This won’t end well for Democrats because people across the nation have turned on them. Democrats have peddled one impeachment story after another for the past 3 years. First, they peddled the Russia collusion story. When that went bust, they shifted to obstruction of justice. When that wasn’t taken seriously, they pounced on the whistleblower’s report. When that wasn’t taken seriously, Democrats impaneled some focus groups to come up with words that provided greater impact. That’s when they settled for bribery.

Of course, the story hasn’t changed. The transcript is still the transcript. The witnesses against President Trump are limited. It isn’t surprising that people have tuned out. The boy cried wolf a dozen times too often. The boy’s credibility doesn’t exist anymore. (In this story, the boy is played by Adam Schiff. Go figure, right?)