Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

If there was a more mesmerizing moment Wednesday morning than Jim Jordan’s ridiculing of Ambassador Bill Taylor, it’s impossible to believe. After having time given to him to cross-examine Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Jordan referenced EU Ambassador Sondland’s amended testimony. In the amended testimony from Ambassador Sondland, Sondland affirms “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I convey this message to Mr. Yarmack on September 1, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence’s meeting to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.'”

According to Ambassador Taylor, this is the part of Ambassador Sondland’s testimony that gave Ambassador Taylor a clear understanding of what was going on with the connectivity of the investigation of Hunter Biden to the lethal foreign aid to Ukraine. After Taylor affirms that, Jordan replies that “I’ve seen church prayer chains that were less complicated.”
Here’s the video of Jordan’s questioning of Taylor:

That’s as clarifying as mud. It’s impossible to think that Taylor suddenly had a clearer understanding of US lethal military aid being tied to investigating Hunter Biden after Taylor read Sondland’s additional testimony. That’s after Taylor testified to Jordan that he’d met with President Zelenskiy 3 times in 55 days but that the connectivity between the investigation into the Bidens and military aid never came up during the discussions.

If Ukraine felt threatened by Russia militarily in July, 2019, why wouldn’t President Zelenskiy bring that subject up? We know that President Zelenskiy brought up the subject of purchasing additional Javelin anti-tank missiles from the US during his call with President Trump of July 25, 2019. What’s amazing is that that’s a day prior to Ambassador Taylor’s conversation with President Zelenskiy.

If Zelenskiy was worried about protecting Ukraine from Russia, wouldn’t he have asked forcefully about the missiles from both President Trump and Ambassador Taylor? The transcript shows he mentioned the Javelins but that’s it.

Democrats have lost the impeachment fight. Wednesday was their only chance to make a first impression. Instead, the phrase that people will remember is Jim Jordan’s. Finally, Never Trumper Steve Hayes is dining on foot tonight. On Monday night’s All-Star Panel, Hayes said that Jim Jordan had done a good job prior to getting his Intel Committee assignment but then suggested that he wasn’t a good fit on the Committee. Here’s to that fine dining, Steve.

Byron York’s article about the “Democrats’ Colonel Vindman problem” highlights the things that Col. Vindman said that might hurt Democrats by the time Democrats wrap up Col. Vindman’s public testimony. Of particular interest to Republicans will be Col. Vindman’s verification of the July 25th Trump-Zelenskiy phone call.

Democrats have suggested that the rough transcript was doctored by the White House. Though that hasn’t gotten much traction, it’s still out there. Col. Vindman put that to rest.

Another problem that Democrats have comes from John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Col. Vindman:

“I’m trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to the law,” Ratcliffe said to Vindman. “And what I understand you to say is that you weren’t certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?”

“So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views,” Vindman answered. “And I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations, U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for — ” “I understand that,” Ratcliffe said, “but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason.”

Saying that you’re worried about the conversation sounds ominous. Without pinning the source of the concern down, it might mean that Col. Vindman was worried for legal reasons. That’s certainly how Democrats tried portraying it. Rep. Ratcliffe’s cross-examination pinned that down as policy concern. That matters because you don’t impeach sitting presidents over policy disagreements. That’s a dispute best settled with elections, not impeachment.

This back-and-forth highlights another problem for Democrats:

At another point, Castor asked Vindman whether he was interpreting Trump’s words in an overly alarmist way, especially when Vindman contended that Trump issued a “demand” to Zelensky. “The president in the transcript uses some, you know, words of hedging from time to time,” Castor said. “You know, on page 3, he says ‘whatever you can do.’ He ends the first paragraph on page 3, ‘if that’s possible.’ At the top of page 4, ‘if you could speak to him, that would be great.’ ‘So whatever you can do.’ Again, at the top of page 4, ‘if you can look into it.’ Is it reasonable to conclude that those words hedging for some might, you know, lead people to conclude that the president wasn’t trying to be demanding here?”

“I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions,” Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. “I’d also point your attention to ‘whatever you can do, it’s very important to do it if that’s possible.'” “‘If that’s possible,'” Castor stressed. “Yeah,” said Vindman. “So I guess you can interpret it in different ways.”

That isn’t a demand as much as it’s a petition or request. There’s lots of literary distance between demand and request. In fact, they’re close to being opposites. Saying that President Trump demanded an investigation is provocative. Saying that President Trump requested help with something doesn’t sound provocative.

That’s why Democrats intentionally chose the word demand. It isn’t surprising that Democrats used the provocative-sounding word considering the fact that they’re trying a weak case. You might even say that Democrats are trumping up the accusations because they know that the evidence doesn’t get them there. Then there’s this:

Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on the National Security Council when it came to issues involving Ukraine. “I’m the director for Ukraine,” he testified. “I’m responsible for Ukraine. I’m the most knowledgeable. … Yet at times there were striking gaps in Vindman’s knowledge of the subject matter. He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.

“What do you know about Zlochevsky, the oligarch that controls Burisma?” asked Castor. “I frankly don’t know a huge amount,” Vindman said. “Are you aware that he’s a former Minister of Ecology”? Castor asked, referring to a position Zlochevsky allegedly used to steer valuable government licenses to Burisma. “I’m not,” said Vindman.

“Are you aware of any of the investigations the company has been involved with over the last several years?” “I am aware that Burisma does have questionable business dealings,” Vindman said. “That’s part of the track record, yes.”

If that’s the NSC’s definition of an expert, we should be worried. I’d make an exception if Col. Vindman was holding his cards close to his vest. I suspect that’s what Lt. Col. Vindman was doing.

Schiff steps in it

“Both those parts of the call, the request for investigation of Crowd Strike and those issues, and the request for investigation of the Bidens, both of those discussions followed the Ukraine president saying they were ready to buy more Javelins. Is that right?” asked Schiff.

Mr. Schiff just stepped in it mightily. An action can’t be both a request and a demand. Those words are close to being opposites definition-wise.

For the record, it’s obvious from President Trump’s softened language that request is the accurate word. Demand is a stretch.

Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee, has let it be known that the Bidens, especially Hunter Biden, is beyond congressional scrutiny. That’s Schiff’s justification for not allowing Hunter Biden to testify at the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee’s hearing. Chairman Schiff and other Democrats have already settled on a verdict. That verdict was arrived at 3 years ago when President Trump was just President-Elect Trump.

We all know the story. Just 19 minutes after President Trump’s swearing in, the Washington Post ran an article saying that impeachment begins now. Further, we know that there were impeachment rallies in Chicago, Washington DC and NYC the day after Election Day, 2016. Obviously, Democrats didn’t have anything that rose to the level of an impeachable offense. To Resistance Democrats, Trump defeating Hillary was the impeachable offense.

Over the years, Adam Schiff lead the Democrats’ impeachment charge. Schiff was the lying Democrat who told Chuck Todd that he’d seen evidence that was “more than circumstantial” verifying that then-Candidate Trump had colluded with Russia to win the election. Adam Schiff is the lying dirtbag Democrat who wrote a lie-filled speech, then pretended that it was what President Trump said during his phone call with Ukraine President Zelenskiy:

Schiff has ruled that potential Biden wrongdoing is offlimits for these hearings even though it’s entirely relevant to the charges being brought against President Trump. They’re relevant because, if Hunter Biden engaged in influence-peddling, then that’s no different than what Paul Manafort did.

Stop and think this through because it’s important. If Hunter Biden engaged in influence-peddling, then President Trump is justified in having Ukraine investigate the Bidens because he’d be trying to investigate corruption. At that point, President Trump wouldn’t be trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

Democrats won’t admit that since that’d be like admitting that they’re impeaching President Trump because they hate him. Republicans should make this case daily and tirelessly. Republicans should highlight the Democrats’ hatred of Trump. Once Democrats admit that they hate Trump, the Democrats’ claims of patriotism disappear. It isn’t possible to hate the president if you’re a patriot.

It’s painfully obvious that Democrats don’t care about this nation. If Democrats loved the United States, they’d rejoice that minorities are doing exceptionally well economically under President Trump. If Democrats loved the United States, they’d fight with President Trump in eliminating corruption.

If Schiff won’t let Republicans call the 2 witnesses most central to their defense of President Trump, then Republicans should take some of their time during the televised hearing to simply explain their theory of the case. If Schiff tries preventing that, then Republicans should remind voters that Schiff is a lying partisan who’s been trying to impeach President Trump for 3 years. Why not have a ‘Schiff’s Greatest Hits’ video ready for that moment?

It’s time for Republicans to put Democrats on defense. If Democrats insist on playing by crooked rules, Republicans should ignore the rules whenever it’s needed to prove their point.

The Democrats’ defense strategy isn’t a mystery. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is rigging the process so only Democrat-approved witnesses can testify or be cross-examined. Schiff is preventing the Republicans from presenting an alternative explanation for what happened in Ukraine.

By preventing Hunter Biden from testifying, Schiff will prevent Republicans from asking legitimate questions about corruption. That’s important because the Democrats’ spin is that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy to interfere with the 2020 election. If Republicans can prove that Ukraine had corruption problems (it does) and that Hunter Biden had corruption issues or even had a whiff of corruption, then that justifies President Trump’s asking President Zelenskiy to look into the Bidens.

Democrats can’t afford the introduction of an alternative theory of what happened in Ukraine. Also, Democrats can’t let the whistleblower testify because he’d certainly be asked if he’d been coached by Schiff’s staff. If the faux whistleblower admits that he’s talked with Schiff’s staff, that will open the floodgates for the Republicans’ questions.

Democrats can’t let Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, become part of the story, either. That’s because Zaid is a card-carrying member of the #Resist movement. He’s proudly tweeted that a “coup” had started:

Zaid also said that CNN would play a major role in President Trump not serving his full term. The more that Republicans can highlight the Democrats’ hyperpartisanship, the weaker the Democrats’ case becomes.

The Democrats’ credibility would get shattered if President Trump was justified in calling for Hunter Biden’s investigation. This article highlights the fact that Hunter Biden will play a major role in the hearings whether he’s there or not:

Kent also told congressional investigators that he had repeatedly raised concerns with the Obama administration about Burisma, and also discussed the administration’s efforts to remove Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin from his post. At the time, Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the former minister of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine— also the founder of Burisma.

Shokin was fired in April 2016, and his case was closed by the prosecutor who replaced him, Yuriy Lutsenko (though Ukraine is now reviewing such cases). Biden once famously boasted on camera that when he was vice president and leading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin.

Schiff is trying his best to keep Hunter Biden off the stand:

Schiff said the inquiry “is a solemn undertaking, enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution” and that the hearings “will not serve as vehicles for any Member to carry out the same sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit.”

That isn’t the sound of impartiality. That’s what partisanship sounds like. This week, expect Democrats to sound like partisans. Expect Democrats to be on the defensive.

At the heart of the Democrats’ impeachment drive is the Democrats’ contention that President Trump asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden. That’s a theory that the media, myself included, hasn’t examined, at least not seriously. The thought that President Trump is worried about Joe Biden, especially at a time when Biden’s fundraising is struggling and his cash on hand balance is low, is misguided thinking.

President Trump understands that he’s a force of nature, politically speaking, and that there isn’t a candidate at the Democrats’ debates that’s clicking with the voters. Sleepy Joe Biden doesn’t excite anyone. Elizabeth Warren just blew up her candidacy with her Medicare-for-All tax increase. Bernie Sanders’ campaign just died at the hands of Crazy Bernie. Check out Crazy Bernie’s immigration proposal:

Key Points

  1. Institute a moratorium on deportations until a thorough audit of past practices and policies is complete.
  2. Reinstate and expand DACA and develop a humane policy for those seeking asylum.
  3. Completely reshape and reform our immigration enforcement system, including breaking up ICE and CBP and redistributing their functions to their proper authorities.
  4. Dismantle cruel and inhumane deportation programs and detention centers and reunite families who have been separated.
  5. Live up to our ideals as a nation and welcome refugees and those seeking asylum, including those displaced by climate change.

To use an old carpenter’s saying, Crazy Bernie’s plan is a full bubble off center. But I digress. The subject was Biden.

Supposedly, Joe is the champion of blue collar workers everywhere. There’s a flaw with that logic, though, which I’ve written about frequently. Sleepy Joe wants to ban fossil fuels. This video is from the Greenpeace USA Youtube channel:

The Obama-Biden administration also prevented the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. It didn’t take long for President Trump to reverse that.

These are the policies and candidacies that Democrats think are winners in 2020? There’s nothing to think these policies will connect with blue collar voters in Rust Belt states that Democrats need to flip. If Biden doesn’t flip ‘Blue Firewall’ states like Pennsylvania and Michigan back into the Democrats’ column, Democrats can kiss this election goodbye. Check this article out:

The battle is a microcosm of what is happening nationally: Big-city Democratic mayors are aligning themselves with leftist local officials and environmental activists to renounce disfavored industries. It also exposes the Democrats’ deep challenges with blue-collar voters. In both Western Pennsylvania and the Scranton area, the shale industry is opening up prosperity not seen for two generations—and inflaming climate zealots. “A Democrat can’t win Pennsylvania without voter support from those two regions,” said Mike Mikus, a strategist who consulted for Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s re-election campaign last year. “And you can’t win the presidency as a Democrat if you lose Pennsylvania.”

The point of this is that Biden is a fatally flawed presidential candidate. President Trump didn’t need Ukraine’s help to defeat Biden. Further, President Trump ran on draining the Swamp. If anyone personifies the Swamp better than Joe and Hunter Biden, it’d be the Podesta brothers.

Unlike other presidents, President Trump has made a habit of keeping his promise. He doesn’t have a perfect record but it’s better than any recent president.

  1. He’s building the wall, despite the Democrats obstructionism.
  2. President Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  3. President Trump signed the biggest tax cuts in US history.
  4. He promised small-town workers that they wouldn’t be forgotten. Thanks to the booming energy industry, he’s more than kept that promise.

Democrats whine about President Trump going after Joe and Hunter Biden because they aren’t used to a president actually getting serious about corruption. Joe and Hunter Biden are government corruption personified. They aren’t at John Murtha’s level but they’re still in the Swamp Hall of Fame.

Each day, Democrats insist that today’s testimony damaged the White House to the point that the damage is virtually irreparable. Now that we’re finally getting the transcripts, we’re finding out that Democrats have built the sturdiest house of cards ever built. This article highlights the flimsiness of the Democrats’ case:

William Taylor, the charge d’affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.
“[Y]ou’ve never spoken to Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani?” Taylor was asked.
“No, no,” he replied.
“Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?”
“No,” Taylor said.
“And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?” Taylor was asked.
“I have not,” he said.
“You had no communications with the president of the United States?”
“Correct,” Taylor said.

That’s what’s known as hearsay. It isn’t admissible in criminal courts in most instances. Certainly, it wouldn’t be accepted if it’s from someone who heard it third- or fourth-hand. Despite that fact, House Democrats keep insisting that their impeachment case is sturdy. That’s why the public hearings will be crucial in one respect. When John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows or Devin Nunes get 45 minutes to cross-examine next week’s witnesses, they’ll expose the Democrats’ witnesses’ vulnerabilities. At this point, I’d consider Taylor to be damaged goods.

Despite Taylor’s statements, though, Schiff and other Democrats will insist that Taylor has damaged President Trump. Don’t be surprised if a gap opens between Democrats and the public. Here’s why Taylor is damaged goods:

“And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. “But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?” “That’s correct,” Taylor admitted.

“So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?” Zeldin asked. “I have not talked to the president,” Taylor said. “I have no other information from what the president was thinking.”

As damaging as that is, it isn’t the only vulnerability. Here’s another vulnerability:

“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”

“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.” “And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked. “That is correct,” Taylor responded.

This is the Democrats’ defense of Taylor’s testimony:

I won’t belittle Taylor’s service to the nation through the military. What he did was commendable. With that said, I don’t have any difficulty saying that I’m capable of saying that Taylor’s testimony is filled with holes simply because he didn’t participate in the phone call. What Taylor did, though, was verify that Ukraine didn’t know that the military aid was being withheld. If Zelensky didn’t know the aid was being withheld, that means that a quid pro quo couldn’t have been proposed.

Mark Zaid, the CIA snitch’s attorney, got caught with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar. Now he’s trying to weasel his way out of hot water. After saying that “a ‘coup has started’ and that ‘impeachment will follow ultimately’, Zaid issued a flimsy statement that said “the tweets ‘were reflective and repeated the sentiments of millions of people. I was referring to a completely lawful process of what President Trump would likely face as a result of stepping over the line, and that particularly whatever would happen would come about as a result of lawyers.'”

Later, Zaid added “The coup comment referred to those working inside the Administration who were already, just a week into office, standing up to him to enforce recognized rules of law.”

Impeachment is a completely lawful process in that it’s provided for by the Constitution. The way that Zaid and Ciaramella and others in the Resistance went about it isn’t legitimate because they couldn’t have found an impeachable offense to convict President Trump of within President Trump’s first 10 days in office. This is BS from Zaid because he’s hated President Trump since before he was President Trump.

In that respect, he’s no different than Democrats like Schiff, Maxine Waters, Al Green and other Fever Swampers. Zaid, like Schiff and Waters, started with a verdict, then worked to find evidence of the thing they were certain he’d done wrong. In the first 10 days of his administration, President Trump signed a bunch of executive orders. He also got started killing (through the Congressional Review Act) a ton of anti-fossil fuel regulations implemented by the previous administration.

It’s impossible to find anything that’s impeachable. That’s the hallmark of the Resistance. The Democrats’ Resistance doesn’t care about the Framers’ Constitution. These Democrats prefer the flexible, nimble Constitution that they constantly talk about. Zaid essentially admitted that he isn’t unbiased in this video:

That’s where Zaid tweets “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.” Notice the disdain Zaid has for President Trump’s supporters. That’s what elitists think. There’s your proof that Zaid is a card-carrying member of the Swamp. Zaid got into a fight with Bryan Dean Wright over the CIA snitch:

The more Zaid opens his mouth, the more he indicts himself, which hurts the CIA snitch’s credibility. Why should I trust a person who hides himself and who doesn’t have any first- or second-hand information and associates himself with a lawyer that’s steeply biased against the nation’s sitting president?

FYI- Bryan Dean Wright is a loyal Democrat. He isn’t a partisan hack like the whistleblower is.

If you visit CNN’s Politics webpage, you’ll find headlines like “House to explore Pence’s role in Ukraine controversy with new testimony”, “John Bolton trying to ‘walk that tightrope’ over role in Trump’s impeachment inquiry” or “Voters’ views of impeachment still forming in a key 2020 battleground.” Another column of headlines reads “Republicans again shift their defense of Trump over impeachment inquiry barrage”, “Senate Republicans have mixed views of Election Day losses”, “New poll finds tight four-way race in Iowa” or “Jeff Sessions to announce run for Senate.”

Nowhere on its politics webpage does CNN talk about Mark Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets. Here’s Zaid’s first Trump-hating tweet:

That isn’t the last Trump-hating tweet. Here’s another of Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets:

That wasn’t the last Trump-hating tweet either. Here’s another Trump-hating tweet from Mr. Zaid:

Why doesn’t CNN think that any of Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets are newsworthy? Apparently, NBC and CBS don’t think Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets are newsworthy either. What are the odds that the editors at CNN, CBS and NBC didn’t know about Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets? Isn’t it likely that they knew about these damaging tweets, then omitted them?

Make no mistake about whether Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets hurt Democrats. Mr. Zaid’s Trump-hating tweets hurt Democrats because they call into question what anti-Trump biases the CIA snitch shares with Mr. Zaid and the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee chairman. They open debate on whether the CIA snitch is just the tip of the iceberg. Is the CIA snitch collaborating with Schiff and Mr. Zaid in an effort to eliminate President Trump? Given Schiff’s and Zaid’s public animosity towards President Trump, it isn’t a stretch to think that’s possible. In fact, that seems like the most likely explanation for this impeachment inquiry.

Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, apparently has a bone to pick with President Trump. He’s apparently a prolific Twitter user, too. Zaid’s tweets might hurt his client.

According to Zaid’s tweets, he wants Trump out of office ASAP:

What’s laughable is what’s written on Mr. Zaid’s profile page:

Attorney handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing. Non-partisan

That should read “Hyper-partisan” instead of “Non-partisan.”

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

Only in Washington, DC, would a man who tweeted out such tweets be considered non-partisan.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, told Fox News that “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game. It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”

As dense as Mr. Zaid is, apparently, Justin Amash is just as clueless:

“Actually, the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser,” Hemingway tweeted. “Whistleblower protection has never — could never — mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly.”

Amash made this feeble argument against Hemingway:

“Yeah, at *trial* in a *criminal* prosecution,” Amash responded. “To say otherwise is silly. The best argument one could make is that it also should apply at trial in the Senate, despite not being a criminal prosecution, following impeachment in the House.”

Seriously? So a person can get impeached without the accuser having to testify? When did the USA’s judicial system become predicated on the notion that a person could get indicted by anonymous accusations?

It’s one thing to say that a person can get indicted without having their accuser cross-examined. While a criminal indictment isn’t fun, it’s a breeze compared with getting impeached. Getting impeached means that the president isn’t permitted to run the nation for the betterment of a nation. Does Mr. Amash think that the impeachment process not affect the entire nation?

If Mr. Amash thinks that, then he and Mr. Zaid deserve each other. They’re both losers if that’s the case.

Adding to a lengthy list of disruptions, Senate Democrats refused to fund the heroes in the US military. Do-Nothing Democrats, this time in the House of Representatives, refused to ratify the USMCA trade agreement. The trade agreement’s ratification would lift the economy significantly. That’s why Democrats don’t want to ratify it.

As for Democrats’ repeated attempts to paralyze the US military, they’re doing their best to cripple long-term planning by the Pentagon:

Last week, Senate Republicans had hoped to proceed to the urgent priority of funding our national defense. But for the second time in two months, Senate Democrats filibustered defense funding. They blocked the Senate from funding our armed forces.

Over the summer, the Speaker of the House and my colleague the Democratic Leader both signed on to a bipartisan, bicameral budget deal that Democrats hammered out with President Trump’s team. In order to avoid exactly the kind of partisan stalemate that we are now experiencing, and avoid a 12-bill omnibus, that agreement laid out specific topline numbers and ruled out poison pills.

With respect to presidential transfer authorities, the agreement specifically stated, quote, “current transfer funding levels and authorities shall be maintained. The President’s transfer authorities, as they relate to border funding or anything else, were to remain exactly as they existed in current law. The deal just preserved the status quo that was established by bipartisan legislation last fiscal year.

This just verifies as fact that Democrats can’t be trusted. Democrats agreed to specific provisions, especially in the DoD funding bill this past summer. Now, Democrats have reneged on their promises. This isn’t surprising. Anyone that’s watched Shifty Schiff knows that Democrats aren’t trustworthy.

These Democrats are owned by the Resistance, which is equal parts media and equal parts impeachment activists. Shame on the Democrats for putting partisanship ahead of the nation. These ‘party-first’ partisans don’t care about doing the right thing. Those partisan Democrats ahead of everything else. What a disgusting bunch.