Archive for the ‘Impeachment Democrats’ Category

It’s pretty apparent that Democrats enjoy investigating President Trump. Similarly, it’s apparent that they haven’t done anything to make people’s lives better. Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are calling on Michael Horowitz to investigate why the sentencing recommendation was reduced for Roger Stone. They’ve implied that President Trump improperly interfered in the matter.

The problem they’ve got is that the DOJ got involved in reducing the recommendation before President Trump criticized Judge Amy Berman-Jackson. It’d be quite the trick for William Barr to reduce the sentence recommendation at President Trump’s behest before President Trump made the request. That doesn’t matter to Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They just want to convince people that President Trump is a scoundrel who should be impeached again.

Not to be left out is Adam Schiff. He just got humiliated (if that’s possible with pathological dirtbags) through President Trump’s impeachment acquittal but he’s spoiling for another fight:

“I’m struck by the fact that it’s all out in the open. I mean, we will certainly learn about what’s taking place behind the scenes, the sort of clandestine effort to weigh in and help the President’s friends and hurt the President’s enemies,” the California Democrat told CNN’s David Axelrod on “The Axe Files” podcast. “But the fact that this is being done in the open in a way makes it more insidious, because it is normalizing this attack on the independence of our justice system.”

The fact that the prosecutors told DOJ one thing, then did another in front of the judge apparently doesn’t mean anything because Orange Man Bad. Now there’s accusations that one of the jurors was biased. There’s nothing insidious about this. Period. Full stop.

It’s time to get Mr. Schiff a new dictionary. The definition of insidious is “stealthily treacherous or deceitful or operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect.” How can President Trump, who has a bajillion Twitter followers, use Twitter and still be inconspicuous or stealthy? That’s right up there with Schiff saying during the impeachment trial that the cover-up is hiding there right in plain sight.

Schumer didn’t have a problem with Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Pat Leahy of Vermont writing a letter to the Ukraine prosecutor to help the Mueller investigation that was improperly predicated. Before the special counsel was appointed, it was known that Russian collusion didn’t happen. There was Russian interference in the election but the FBI knew that there wasn’t collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Democrats can’t help themselves. If there’s anything in the news about President Trump, Democrats insist that he needs to be investigated. The Democrats’ first instinct is to investigate, not to legislate. What a bunch of sick puppies. That’s why firing Pelosi as Speaker-in-Name-Only is essential. That’s why keeping Sen. Schumer as the minority leader is essential, too. Pelosi, Schumer and Schiff aren’t patriots. They’re money-grubbing conspiracy theorists who don’t have the spine to stand up to the Resist activists.

That’s the new definition of today’s Democrats.

I expect President Trump’s State of the Union Address, aka SOTU, to focus mostly on his accomplishments. That part should take up an hour of his speech. Further, I expect him to highlight the results of his criminal justice reform. Last year, he highlighted Alice Johnson from the First Lady’s box:

This year, Alice was featured in this Super Bowl ad:

It’s inevitable that President Trump’s SOTU Address will include a lengthy conversation about how his economic policies are leading a blue collar boom. That will let him talk about blue collar workers’ rising wages. It’ll start with him touting the lowest unemployment rates amongst minorities and women. Consider that portion of the speech to be the meat-and-potatoes section of the speech. Consider the Alice Johnson-criminal justice reform part of the speech the heart-and-soul section of the speech.

An election year SOTU isn’t complete without the President laying out his vision for his second term. That portion of the speech will talk about infrastructure, finishing the wall, cleaning up the antiquated immigration laws and additional middle class tax cuts, including making these tax cuts permanent.

I hope President Trump spends some time criticizing House Democrats for their hyperpartisan impeachment inquiry. I hope he scolds House Democrats for impeaching him for exercising his constitutional right to executive privilege. I hope he scolds them for not giving him the right to call witnesses during the House impeachment hearings. I hope he finishes that section by lecturing House Democrats for spending 3+ years on impeaching him rather than working with him on the people’s business.

Finally, I hope he finishes the SOTU by talking directly to the American people, essentially saying ‘You sent me here to drain the swamp, fix the economy, build the wall and make America great again. We’ve accomplished a lot but we’ve still got work to do. To finish that task, I need a congress that will work with me, not a congress that will fight me and investigate me.’

That won’t sit well with the nattering nabobs of negativism found throughout the Swamp. That’s ok. The Swamp isn’t his constituency. The American people are his constituents. That’s who this SOTU Address should address.

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.

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.

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: