Archive for the ‘Impeachment Democrats’ Category

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?)

If these were normal times, Democrats would’ve already been laughed off the planet for attempting to impeach President Trump. Initially, they pinned their hopes on the Mueller investigation. The Mueller investigation was a historic failure. Mueller’s team of partisan lawyers didn’t find a crime during their investigation. They cited 10 instances that might’ve been categorized as obstruction of justice but they didn’t make a determination.

Next, Democrats pinned their hopes on Mueller testifying before Chairman Nadler’s committee. That was such a failure that it caused Speaker Pelosi to shift impeachment hearings to Adam Schiff’s committee. Had Democrats been smart, they simply would’ve dropped the investigation then. Democrats aren’t smart. Instead of dropping their investigation, they plowed ahead.

Ignore the media’s reporting. Schiff’s hearings were a disaster for Democrats. The testifiers couldn’t identify a single crime, much less an impeachable crime. That isn’t the Democrats’ biggest problem, though. The Democrats’ biggest problem, which will be highlighted during the Senate trial, is that they don’t have any evidence of a crime. The night before each hearing, the testifiers’ opening statements were leaked to the MSM. Immediately, the MSM declared the next day’s witnesses would deliver “bombshell” testimony.

What we quickly learned is that anyone could make provocative accusations in their opening statements. Sustaining those provocative statements through disciplined, hard-hitting cross-examination is a quite different thing. It didn’t help that the majority of testifiers didn’t witness anything. George Kent didn’t have first-hand knowledge of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. Bill Taylor didn’t either. Jim Jordan jumped all over Bill Taylor’s understanding of things:

Marie Yovanovitch, another of the Democrats’ “star witnesses”, was fired from her ambassador’s job in April, 2019, 3 months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. At the time of the call, she was teaching in the United States. At one point, Devin Nunes commented that he didn’t know why Yovanovitch was testifying. Considering the fact that she didn’t have any first-hand information of anything, that’s a fair point.

Last Wednesday, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley stated “this is certainly the thinnest of the modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which is almost wafer thin in comparison. There’s a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. It might be out there, I don’t know. But it’s not in this record.

None of this matters to the Democrats, though. When third-hand hearsay is considered “bombshell testimony”, the fix is in. When people who had nothing to do with the phone call are called witnesses, the fix is definitely in. When a crime can’t be identified and evidence is nowhere to be found, it’s best to just skip the illegitimate hearings in House and skip to the Senate’s legitimate hearings where you can call witnesses and offer exculpatory evidence.

I wrote awhile back that anyone that thought that Democrats would stop investigating President Trump after he’s acquitted by the Senate were kidding themselves. This article is proof that I was right. The only way to stop the Do-Nothing Democrats is to defeat 40-50 of them next November. The only way to get important legislative and judicial things done is to increase the GOP majority in the Senate. But I digress.

“If the Senate doesn’t vote to convict Trump, or tries to monkey w his trial, he could of course be retried in the new Senate should he win re-election,” tweeted Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general under former President Obama. “Double jeopardy protections do not apply,” he added, referring to the principle that suspects can’t be tried twice for the same crime. “And Senators voting on impeachment in the next months know this.”

That’s a blueprint for nonstop Democrat-led investigations. It’s also a threat against the GOP majority in the Senate. Katyal implies that Republicans voting not to convict will be targeted.

The important part that Katyal isn’t talking about is that Democrats haven’t found a crime, an impeachable offense or any evidence of wrong-doing after 3 years of investigations. These rabies-infested Democrats hate President Trump. They’ve literally wanted to impeach him since before President Trump’s inauguration. That isn’t hyperbole. That’s historical fact.

The 2020 House election comes down to something simple. Do the American people want a Congress that puts America’s priorities first or do the American people want a Congress that’s all-investigations-all-the-time? Unlike the Democrats’ impeachment investigations, there’s proof of what the Democrats’ intentions are. The Democrats’ priorities are investigate, investigate and investigate.

Speaker Pelosi has yipped a little about the bills sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk. What Ms. Pelosi won’t talk about is the list of high priority items sitting on her desk. Pelosi won’t talk about ratifying USMCA except to momentarily say that they’re “working their way to yes.” She hasn’t said that they’ve been on that road since last year or that they expected it to be easy.

This week, Ms. Pelosi told a CNN audience that “civilization as we know it today is at stake”:

Watch Ms. Pelosi’s gyrations as she’s speaking. She doesn’t look like a healthy person. I don’t say this to mock her. I say it because it looks like she’s out of control.

Republicans, it’s imperative to retake the House majority. This investigative abuse can’t continue. The president needs to have time to do his job. Democrats have done their utmost to deprive him of that ability. Thank God we’ve had a president powerful enough to power his way through the Democrats’ BS.

Democrats will keep pushing for investigations even if the Republicans have the majority. The good news is that, this time, Bill Barr won’t wimp out and appoint a special counsel. The better news is that Congress would start doing its job. The best news is that the economy will take off the minute USMCA is ratified and the US-China Phase One deal is reached.

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?