Archive for the ‘Impeachment Democrats’ Category

This morning, Speaker Pelosi announced that she’s instructed the House Judiciary Committee to start drafting articles of impeachment. In making the announcement, Speaker Pelosi said “His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution. Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit.”

It’s frightening to think that someone as constitutionally illiterate as Ms. Pelosi is just 2 heartbeats away from the Oval Office. We don’t have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic. It’s frightening that a person that’s 2 heartbeats away from the Oval Office is so corrupt that she’s willing to say that President Trump is trying to rig the elections. What’s worse is that she’s saying this without offering a bit of proof.

“Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders, and our heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with the articles of impeachment,” she said.

That’s insulting in the extreme. Ms. Pelosi just instructed the Judiciary Committee to start writing articles of impeachment with what Prof. Jonathan Turley described as a “paucity of evidence and abundance of anger.”

Democrats seem willing to forge ahead despite the fact that the only firsthand evidence is exculpatory evidence. The people who listened to the call verified that the transcript was accurate. Ukraine’s president has repeatedly stated that he wasn’t pressured into investigating the Bidens. Despite that verified and verifiable proof, Ms. Pelosi said this:

“The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security by withholding military aid and crucial oval office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival.”

When Democrats insist that ‘the facts are uncontested’, what Democrats really mean is that they’re contested but Democrats aren’t willing to listen to exculpatory evidence. Further, Democrats haven’t hesitated in trusting hearsay evidence.

It’s incredible that Ms. Pelosi didn’t hesitate in saying that an Oval Office visit was crucial to our national security. After saying something that stupid, we shouldn’t take Ms. Pelosi seriously. It’s noteworthy that each time Ms. Pelosi speaks about impeachment, she talks about the Constitution, national security, the survival of our democracy and that President Trump didn’t leave Democrats a choice.

Since opening the impeachment inquiry, not a single bit of convicting evidence has been introduced. GWU Law Prof. Jonathan Turley was right in saying that there’s a “paucity of evidence.” When Ms. Pelosi says that President Trump left them no choice, what she meant is that her socialist activist base insists on impeaching President Trump.

If she holds to form, the House will vote for impeachment within 48 hours of Christmas. That’s what she did with the ACA. If that’s what happens, expect House Democrats to experience a similar electoral bloodbath. Expect it to be Ms. Pelosi’s second Christmas Massacre.

The biggest stars of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee’s hearing were George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley and the Constitution itself. Here’s why they starred today. First, Prof. Turley was a voice of unwavering principles. He consistently passed Professor Emeritus Dershowitz shoe-on-the-other-foot test.

Among the things that Prof. Turley highlighted was the speed with which Democrats are jamming this impeachment investigation down the people’s throats. This is Prof. Turley’s powerful opening statement:

Here’s part of the transcript of Prof. Turley’s opening statement:

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

Prof. Turley is right that there isn’t a good time to impeach a US president. Prof. Turley also mentioned that impeachment shouldn’t be attempted when there’s “a paucity of evidence.” This is something that Democrats have ignored. In the Schiff Report’s Finding of Facts, most of the ‘facts’ were opinions or theories. This is an example:

Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

Chairman Schiff’s theory is that President Trump suggested the investigation of the Biden family was to keep Joe Biden out of the presidential race. While that’s certainly a possibility, that isn’t a certainty. Without a communication between President Trump and President Zelenskiy that includes a quote from President Trump stating that Zelenskiy wouldn’t get the military aid unless he investigated Burisma and Hunter Biden, Schiff’s statement of ‘fact’ is just a plausible theory.

The other star from today’s hearing was the Constitution itself. With so many people talking about the Constitution from opposing perspectives, people who watched today’s hearings will be forced to read the Constitution for themselves, just like people read the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call.

Finally, let’s thank Prof. Turley and Prof. Emeritus Dershowitz for consistently passing the shoe-on-the-other-foot test on the Constitution. These are principled men who deserve our gratitude.

Democrats finally proved that they have a sense of humor when they released the Schiff Report. The report contains enough malarkey to qualify for a Biden bus tour through Iowa. One funny line from the Schiff Report said “President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign,’ the Democrats’ report said.”

Do Democrats seriously think that Joe Biden has a snowball’s prayer in H-E-Double Toothpicks of defeating a president with a fantastic economy? It’s difficult picturing Democrats getting enthusiastic about Joe Biden at the top of next fall’s ticket. If Democrats publicly take Biden’s candidacy seriously, President Trump doesn’t. President Trump doesn’t picture any Democrat presidential candidates seriously. This was written later in the report:

The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his own presidential reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political rival, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In doing so, the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.

Just how did President Trump endanger “U.S. national security”? Second, if placing their “own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States” was an impeachable offense, half of U.S. presidents would’ve gotten impeached. The more you read from the Schiff Report, the more people should question its seriousness.

Then the Schiff Report sunk to this low:


A paragraph very early in the Schiff Report contains this information:

During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.

Here’s what the transcript says about investigating the Bidens:

I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First off, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to µs, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Yovanovitch.

First, it’s important to notice that the “I have a favor” paragraph is entirely different than the “Investigate the Biden” paragraph. In fact, they’re on separate pages. Where in the “I have a favor” paragraph does it mention military assistance? Further, the “I have a favor” paragraph doesn’t mention military assistance. Neither does the “Investigate the Bidens” paragraph.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he can just make things up and people will just take his word on it. Mr. Schiff hasn’t figured out that the American people stopped giving Mr. Schiff the benefit of the doubt years ago. Further, since House Impeachment Committee Democrats voted on a 13-9 straight party line vote to approve the Schiff Report, they’re complicit in Mr. Schiff’s lies.

In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry. Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.

Actually, President Trump didn’t claim executive privilege as often as Bill Clinton claimed it in 1998-99. It’s worth noting that Congress isn’t the final arbiter on claims of privilege. The Constitution gives the Judicial Branch the responsibility of settling disputes between the political branches, aka the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. Since Congress didn’t ask the judiciary to settle these disputes over privilege, it’s impossible to take the Schiff Report (or the Democrats who voted to approve it) seriously.

The Schiff Report isn’t a serious report. Its “Findings of Facts” section is especially farcical. That’ll require a separate post, which I’ll write Wednesday.

One thing that isn’t in question is whether House Democrats, starting with Chairman Schiff, (D-Calif.), rigged the rules to ensure an unfair impeachment process. Something that Chairman Schiff repeatedly made clear was that the CIA snitch’s identity would remain cloaked in anonymity. That’s foolishness. Eric Ciaramella’s identity will become known at some point.

Much bandwidth has been used to talk about the Sixth Amendment and whether its protections extend to impeachment hearings and trials. The simple answer is this: they do if the House and Senate write those protections into their impeachment rules. Ditto with federal rules of evidence. There’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits these considerations from getting written into the House or Senate rules.

There are, however, partisan reasons why Democrats wouldn’t write the federal rules of evidence into their rules. Ditto with omitting Sixth Amendment protections from their rules. The simple explanation is that Democrats didn’t insist on applying the federal rules of evidence into their hearings because those rules would utterly gut their case. Without hearsay testimony, the Democrats’ storyline collapses immediately. Remember this hearsay:

If that doesn’t qualify as hearsay, nothing does. WOW! Then there’s Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland:

Rep. Mike Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?
Ambassador Sondland: Yes.
Rep. Mike Turner: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?
Ambassador Sondland: Other than my own presumption.
Rep. Mike Turner: Which is nothing.

By not excluding hearsay testimony, each testifier was able to provide a juicy-sounding soundbite to the Agenda Media, which then dutifully splashed that “bombshell” across their website all day. The Agenda Media didn’t care that the soundbite got ripped to shreds on cross-examination. They had their juicy-sounding headline, their click-bait.

Democrats understood that, in these impeachment hearings, hearsay was their friend. Democrats understood that because their case was exceptionally weak. Had Democrats been interested in fairness, they wouldn’t have put the nation through this. That wasn’t their mission. The Democrats’ mission was to utterly demolish the president they’ve hated since he was elected.

That’s why Democrats approved the rules they approved.

Democrats understood that the CIA snitch would get ripped to pieces the minute his identity was confirmed, too. Without hearsay testimony, which got started with the CIA snitch, the Democrats don’t have anything. They have nice-sounding testimony from people with impressive resumes but they don’t have the evidence they’d need to win a high-profile case like this.

Democrats wanted this impeachment so badly that they’d do anything for it. In the final summation, that sums things up best. Democrats wanted this so bad that they ignored the needs of the country.

How sick is that?

Democrats won’t let impeachment go. They’re too invested in it to let go until the Democrats’ House majority is pried from their fingers next November by voters. That will happen next November.

The Democrats are delusional. Here’s what the looniest Democrats think:

Right now, Democratic leaders seem intent on a quick process: impeachment in the House before Christmas and a trial in the Senate sometime in the next few months. House leaders believe they have enough evidence to impeach the president. Finding enough Republicans to convict him in the Senate by a two-thirds vote looks impossible.

That’s foolish. Democrats still haven’t found a scintilla of evidence of anything. They’ve found corroboration for the MSM’s storyline but that isn’t proof. The Democrats’ big moment was supposed to happen when Bill Taylor testified. Things didn’t go as expected:

Ambassador Taylor didn’t talk with President Trump so Taylor’s understanding of the situation was based on hearsay. With a few exceptions, hearsay can’t be used as evidence. The other man that was supposed to put the final nail in President Trump’s coffin was Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the EU. That didn’t end pretty either:

Though Democrats won’t admit it, they don’t have evidence that President Trump committed an impeachment offense. In Watergate, there was proof that Nixon told people to perjure themselves. That’s what real obstruction of justice looks like. In Watergate, there was evidence that President Nixon told FBI agents that they didn’t need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters’ phone calls. That’s what a legitimate constitutional crisis looks like. It’s disgusting to compare the Democrats’ attempt to impeach President Trump with hearsay ‘evidence’ with a unified House and a unified Senate telling President Nixon that he’d be impeached, then convicted if he dragged it out.

Democrats will lose their majority in the House if they keep this up. Here’s why:

When asked to rank 11 issues as top priorities, impeachment placed last among independents, with just 27 percent ranking it as the top priority. For comparison, 74 percent selected the deficit, 72 percent selected healthcare, and 70 percent selected infrastructure spending as the top priority.

Voters simply don’t care about impeachment. You can beat a dead horse until your arms are sore but that critter still won’t eat, drink or swim. If Democrats keep beating that dead horse, their only ‘reward’ will be electoral defeats.

If I got $100 each time a CNN, NBC or MSNBC said “bombshell testimony”, I’d have nice-sized nest egg to live off of. If I got another $100 each time Adam Schiff or one of the pundits insisted that proof was overwhelming, I’d be a multi-millionaire. The thing is that we didn’t witness any bombshell testimony. I’m still waiting for the first bit of verified proof of an impeachable offense that wasn’t demolished on cross-examination.

Last week, the nation heard lots of testimony that corroborated the MSM’s storyline. We didn’t hear verified proof that President Trump committed an impeachable offense. Initially, Gordon Sondland used his opening statement to say “as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

Later in his opening statement, Sondland said this:

In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.

Notice that Sondland said “In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe…” Mike Turner noticed them. When it was his time to question Sondland, he utterly demolished Sondland’s testimony:

When Jim Jordan cross-examined Bill Taylor, this was the memorable moment from that exchange:

These were moments when the storyline was exploded. The thing they had in common is that they happened during cross-examination. Whether Sondland or Taylor are Deep State guys or not, they were billed as star witnesses by Chairman Schiff, Schiff’s Democrats and/or the MSM. When Taylor and Sondland were finished, their credibility was gone. That’s the truth.

The storyline didn’t withstand scrutiny. What proof did Marie Yovanovitch provide? What proof did Fiona Hill provide? David Holmes? David Hale? George Kent? Lt. Col. Vindman? They didn’t provide verifiable testimony that President Trump had committed an impeachable offense. In fact, the thing that Ms. Yovanovitch will be remembered for is admitting that she wasn’t the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine at the time of the Trump-Zelenskiy call because she’d gotten fired from that position in April.

The MSM hasn’t refuted the Republicans’ cross-examinations. That’s interesting because Republicans have refuted the MSM’s storyline and the testifiers’ opening statements. Call me crazy but that’s proof that Democrats have a weak case. If this was presented in a criminal court, Democrats wouldn’t have had a lengthy trial because most of their ‘witnesses’ didn’t witness anything. That’s why I’ve consistently called them testifiers.

The American people saw that. That’s why independents don’t support impeachment anymore. The ‘horserace’ polls show support for impeachment but diving into those polls show shrinking support amongst independents. For all intents and purposes, impeachment is dead.

Good riddance.

Based on this information, it’s apparent that impeachment isn’t inevitable anymore. As polling for impeachment craters, more Democrats are jumping ship. One of the latest Democrats that’s jumped ship is “Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry.”

Just like polls aren’t the most reliable predictors of election outcomes, polling doesn’t always paint an accurate picture of what’s happening with issues. Watching partisan politicians actions are often a better indicator. In this instance, Lawrence’s actions tell us everything we need to know. If the Democrats’ impeachment hearing had produced the quantity of “bombshell” testimony that the MSM reported, the Democrats that run the Impeachment Committee would’ve stayed in DC to write their report. That isn’t happening. This is:

When Adam Schiff responded to Jake Tapper’s question about impeachment, nobody in the civilized world would’ve anticipated his answer that he wanted to talk to his constituents and his colleagues. The Adam Schiff of a month ago would’ve quickly responded with a ‘yes, we’re moving forward with impeachment. The evidence is overwhelming and it speaks for itself.’ This Adam Schiff is more contemplative, cautious, less confident.

Lawrence occupies a safely Democratic district that includes eastern Detroit, and her reluctance to move forward with impeachment suggested that moderate Democrats in swing districts may also be getting cold feet now that all scheduled hearings in the probe wrapped up last week.

If Lawrence isn’t on board with impeachment, then it isn’t going anywhere. It’s one thing to favor censure if you’re a Democrat representing a purple district. It’s another thing when you’re advocating for censure from a safe district.

Expect more defections from the Democrats’ “impeachment bandwagon.” Whether enough defect to sink impeachment is still too early to tell. Still, this is proof that the Democrats’ impeachment hearings were a dud.

If Tip O’Neill is right that all politics is local, then this isn’t good news for Adam Schiff. Jennifer Barbosa, Schiff’s opponent, is attacking him because Schiff has paid too much attention to impeachment while ignoring the homeless crisis in his district.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Barbosa said “Adam Schiff has been my congressman since 2012. He became my congressman through the redistricting process. Since he became my congressman he has not presented any legislation that’s become law. In terms of homelessness, what he’s done is he’s basically rubber-stamped Maxine Waters’ bill to deal with homelessness, and her bill essentially replicated the same failed policies that [L.A.] Mayor Garcetti has implemented in our city over the past few years. We know they’re not working. So, what we need to do in terms of homelessness… we need to stop allocating federal funds for affordable housing which costs $500,000-700,000 per unit and really focus on mental health services for the people who are living on the street.”

At this point, Schiff appears to have a difficult path to re-election. Impeachment has flopped. Schiff has been ineffective in fighting the crisis in his neighborhood. Barbosa is hitting Schiff hard on the home front, too:

“Seeing the impeachment inquiry, when he’s wasting all these resources — we know that Ken Starr’s impeachment cost about $70 million,” she said. “That’s $70 million that really could be spent on much better things in our district.”

If Schiff doesn’t start paying attention to things at home, he might soon be unemployed. If Schiff’s actions in committee are an indicator, he’s too invested in impeachment to pay attention to the crisis in his district.

Stay tuned to LFR for updates on this and other races that affect the balance of power in the House of Representatives.

Anyone with an IQ north of 75 and a willingness to view last week’s testimony honestly isn’t surprised that the Democrats’ impeachment hearings went terribly. Still, it isn’t surprising that Democrats are surprised that the polls are tanking for them.

New public opinion polls are moving against Democrats on impeachment, as independents sour on the House inquiry and increasingly express opposition to the hearings that have consumed Washington in recent weeks. The new data comes as a surprise to Democrats, many of whom believe the roster of witnesses have offered damning testimony about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump so badly for so long that they’d do anything to make it happen. The past 2 weeks, the Democrats’ testifiers would say something provocative in their opening statement, which was immediately leaked to CNN with the heading of “bombshell” testimony.

It didn’t matter that, in each of these instances, the testifiers’ provocative accusations was utterly shredded during the Republicans’ cross-examinations. For instance, Mike Turner got Gordon Sondland to admit that “I was presuming” the meeting was being conditioned on the investigation. Turner said that Sondland didn’t have anything on this theory, to which Sondland replied “Other than my presumption.” Turner immediately replied “Which is nothing.”

Democrats have based this impeachment on a series of nothingburgers. Seriously, each of the Democrats’ testifiers have gotten crushed. The apolitical people haven’t had any problems identifying the Democrats’ testifiers’ flawed testimony. That’s why the polling shows Democrats in trouble:

In October, independents supported impeachment 48 percent to 35 percent in Emerson’s polling. In the new poll released this week, independents opposed it by a 49 percent to 34 percent margin. In that time, overall support for impeaching Trump swung from 48 percent in favor and 44 percent against, to 45 percent in opposition to impeachment and 43 percent in favor.

Going from a +13 to a -15 is a 28-point swing in a month. That’s like falling off a cliff. This isn’t just a modest drop. It’s a warning sign to Democrats that the people want them to actually do things rather than insisting on impeaching a gruff but productive president. Voters have factored in President Trump’s personality traits and said ‘we can live with that as long as the economy keeps humming.’

Democrats bet everything on impeachment. They lied to the American people for 3+ years. When the Mueller Report went bust, Schiff’s Democrats found a CIA snitch, dressed him up as a whistleblower, then insisted that President Trump had tried strong-arming the Ukrainian president into investigating the Biden family. The problem was that President Trump released the transcript of the phone call. The minute that happened, the Democrats were screwed.

People could read the 5-page transcript and judge for themselves. They didn’t need to watch the Democrats’ testifiers to know what happened. Try as the media might, they couldn’t move the Democrats’ impeachment needle. As I’ve said consistently, these weren’t witnesses because they didn’t witness anything substantive. They were testifiers. Democrats voted to investigate a rabbit hole that was empty.

Only Democrats are surprised that they found nothing.

When it rains, it pours. When Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats declared war on President Trump, they woke a sleeping giant. That’s if you thought that Republicans were sleeping, which I didn’t. The floodgates have opened and it’s raining advertising cash into the districts of vulnerable Impeachment Democrats.

GOP-aligned outside groups have spent roughly $8 million on TV spots this cycle in battleground districts, such as Rep. Anthony Brindisi’s central New York seat. The vast majority of those ads specifically hammer Democrats over impeachment.

Meanwhile, swing-district Democrats are receiving little reinforcement from their own party or even other liberal coalitions. Democratic and pro-impeachment groups have spent about $2.7 million in TV ads, according to an analysis of spending by the ad tracking firm Advertising Analytics. And more than $600,000 of that total went to ads targeting Republican incumbents, not helping vulnerable Democratic members.

“Many of us have been expressing our concerns to leadership,” said a Democratic lawmaker said, who declined to be named in order to speak candidly about strategy. “You don’t want to have to play catch up.”

“Everyone knows you don’t just take a shot and sit there,” the lawmaker said. “It’s like someone taped our arms to our side and punched us in the face.”

That’s what happens when 232 Democrats voted for impeachment. These supposedly moderate Democrats showed their true colors. Meanwhile, the numbers of Never Trumpers continues shrinking. If you want to start a wave election, this is the way to do it.

Democratic-aligned groups, however, have begun spending on ads. Last week, the liberal coalition Protect Our Care launched a $2 million digital ad campaign to promote a Democratic drug-pricing bill. But GOP groups are devoting far more cash, including a roughly $5 million buy on anti-impeachment TV ads across 18 Democratic districts by American Action Network, a nonprofit tied to House GOP leadership.

The last I checked, $5,000,000 is quite a bit more than $2,000,000. Also, the unfair impeachment hearings didn’t play well in battleground districts. In fact, the impeachment hearings have pulled House Republicans closer together than at anytime since 2010. For those too young to remember 2010, Republicans and independents registered their disgust with the ACA that year. Republicans gained a net 63 seats in the House. Republicans flipped majorities in 20+ legislative bodies nationwide. Republicans flipped governorships, too.

Check this out:

“That’s probably something for the pundits to decide. I’m just focused on doing the right thing and voting for the district,” Cunningham said in an interview. “People in the First District are smart and they can sift through the fiction and get to the facts and when they do they realize that I’m the most bipartisan freshman Democrat.”

That sounds awfully defensive. It sounds like something a worried Democrat would say. He has a right to say that. He’s got a bullseye painted on his back in a ruby red state. Speaking of ruby red states:

McAdams, another swing-district Democrat who’s being targeted by ads, said he’s working to counter the GOP ads with his own direct pitches to voters in events like town halls.

“They’re negative but you know, I’m out there in person telling my district the work that I’m doing and they know me,” McAdams said. “They’re going to judge me based on who I am and my track record and I think I have a track record that resonates.”

McAdams voted to start the impeachment inquiry. That’s the biggest thing voters in UT-4 need to know. This is telling:

House Majority Forward, a nonprofit with ties to Pelosi, has so far made the largest investment to help vulnerable Democrats, running $2 million worth of ads in a dozen districts. Those spots touted legislative achievement of freshman lawmakers but did not explicitly mention impeachment.

Isn’t that interesting? If impeachment isn’t hurting Democrats, why aren’t they touting it? This, more than anything, indicates that impeachment is hurting Democrats. All of the Democrats’ spin isn’t changing reality. Not even with the MSM’s help can they turn this polling around.

The Democrats have a decision looming. They can either start working with President Trump or they can anticipate a wave election. Democrats promised to work with President Trump. They haven’t. The people won’t vote to re-elect politicians who didn’t keep their promises..