Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

Sunday on At Issue, Ember Reichgott-Junge had a meltdown moment when discussing President Trump’s impeachment acquittal. In a mini-rant, Reichgott-Junge said “My biggest concern about what is happening now after the State of the Union is that we have Trump unleashed and now, he is emboldened to do whatever he wants to do for the next 9 months — start investigations that have no basis, hold aid back in the districts of the legislators that worked to impeach him. I mean this man has no mores and no sense of justice at all. So my concern is what we’re going to see in the future.”

Wow. That’s as paranoid of a rant as I’ve seen in years. Let’s put what she said under the microscope, starting with “start investigations that have no basis.” That’s what the Obama administration, through Jim Comey’s FBI and the FISC, did against Carter Page. That’s what Lois Lerner did against TEA Party organizations when the IRS delayed tax-exempt status applications.

Next, where did Reichgott-Junge come up with the thought of withholding aid to districts represented by impeachment managers? Is this another paranoid fantasy of Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s?

Finally, Ms. Reichgott-Junge admits that these are her concerns. She didn’t say where her concerns came from. Were they the product of an over-active imagination? I can’t eliminate that as a possibility? Perhaps, it’s something that Democrats have done in the past? That’s definitely possible.

What’s worst about Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s rant was that Tom Hauser didn’t interrupt her. He sat there like a potted plant. He didn’t say a thing. Mr. Truth Test sat there like he didn’t disagree with her. That’s a worse performance than Ms. Reichgott-Junge’s paranoid rantings.

I expect delusional rantings from DFL politicians. Prior to this winter, I’d expected more from Hauser. This winter, though, Hauser’s bias-proofing has slipped.

In this post, Jeff Dunetz laid out why Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reassigned to the Pentagon after President Trump was acquitted. John Kirby didn’t explain what happened to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Kirby’s CNN op-ed. This isn’t surprising. Jeff is a man of integrity. Kirby hangs around with Deep Staters.

Kirby wrote “[Lt. Col.] Vindman did his duty by not only testifying about the infamous July 25, 2019 White House phone call, in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Trump’s leading 2020 rival Joe Biden, Burisma (the Ukrainian energy company that had hired Hunter Biden), and the 2016 election–while $391 million in congressionally approved military aid was being withheld.”

President Trump didn’t press President Zelenskiy “to investigate” the Bidens. The transcript, not Lt. Col. Vindman, tells what actually happened:

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

That’s an awfully casual pressure. That’s at the top of pg. 4 so it’s hardly a priority for President Trump. Watch Rep. John Ratcliffe’s cross-examination of Lt. Col. Vindman:

That drives a stake through the heart of Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. At minimum, it casts doubt on Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony. Let’s compare that with what’s quoted in Jeff’s article:

In November 2019 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to Reps Jordan (R-OH) and Nunes (R-CA) at Jordan’s request which among other things raised questions about Lt. Col. Vindman’s credibility, and accused him of being an insubordinate leaker and confirmed the President’s reasons for the 55-day delay in Ukraine aid were the same as the President’s public statements.

Johnson went to Ukraine as part of the U.S. delegation to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20. Vindman was part of the delegation also. In the letter, the Senator suggested that Lt. Col. Vindman may be among the government bureaucrats who aim to push back on Trump’s policies “by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office.”

Lt. Col. Vindman gives new meaning to the cliché “going above and beyond the call of duty”:

[In Sen. Johnson’s letter, he wrote that Lt. Col. Vindman] “stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, “How in the world is that even possible?”

Lt. Col. Vindman continued, saying this:

Vindman testified that an “alternative narrative” pushed by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was “inconsistent with the consensus views of the” relevant federal agencies and was “undermining the consensus policy.”

According to the Constitution, there’s only one consensus view that matters — the President’s. As I wrote in this post, “The first sentence in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution emphatically states that ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'”

In another diatribe, RAdm. Kirby wrote “No, it is not the Vindman brothers who have been disgraced by this pettiness. It is President Trump. It is not they who will be remembered for putting personal needs above national interests. The President will. And it is not they who will in years to come be forced to qualify or explain or argue the case surrounding their behavior. In a final and outrageous act of vengefulness, White House security officials escorted the Vindmans off the grounds.”

That’s BS. The Vindman twins will be celebrated by CNN as having stood up to Orange Man Bad but it’s Lt. Col. Vindman who a) went around the chain of command, b) leaked information to the press and c) tried undermining US foreign policy because the President didn’t do what Lt. Col. Vindman told him to do. That sounds more like a mutiny than doing the honorable thing. Perhaps CNN has a different definition for doing the honorable thing.

In this unserious op-ed, David Axelrod complained that “For all the righteous indignation about the outcome of Wednesday’s vote, I understand the reluctance of any senator to convict an elected president and forever ban them from the ballot. And if Donald Trump truly were “chastened” by impeachment, as several of the Republican senators who voted against removing him argued, it might have made their “let the people decide” argument more compelling.”

Democrats and some swampy Republicans aren’t the brightest people. President Trump wasn’t convicted because he shouldn’t have ever gotten impeached. The process in the House will forever be part of Nancy Pelosi’s, Adam Schiff’s and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Jerry Nadler’s tarnished legacies. Let’s remember what happened in the House. Let’s start with the most disgusting part first.

Impeachment Article 2 is the product of an infantile temper tantrum. On Sept. 24, Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was starting an official impeachment inquiry. That’s a bald-faced lie. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It gives impeachment authority to “the House of Representatives” alone, not to the speaker, not to a committee. Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton didn’t want that authority resting in the hands of a Representative or a committee of representatives. They wanted everyone to share in the accountability.

When Democrats sent out the first set of what Democrats called “compulsory subpoenas”, the House hadn’t voted to authorize any committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry. In fact, the White House Counsel’s letter to House Democrats was sent 3 weeks before the vote authorizing impeachment. Ignoring long-settled precedent, which apparently is his specialty, Adam Schiff said that any delay in complying with the subpoenas would be considered an impeachable offense. The judiciary is there to settle privilege disputes between the legislative and executive branches.

Apparently, Mr. Schiff thinks that he’s the exception to that ruling. He’s wrong about that. He isn’t the exception. Patrick Philbin laid out this reasoning in response to a question.

As for Impeachment Article 1, Abuse of Power, no high crime was alleged. In fact, no crime was alleged. What’s worse, most of the testimony provided to Mr. Schiff’s committee wasn’t provided by witnesses. Most of the testimony provided was provided by people who didn’t witness anything. That’s why I consistently called them testifiers, not witnesses.

The transcript of President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy is the best evidence of what was said during the call. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call. He testified, reluctantly, that the transcript was “essentially correct.” The only fact witness called during the public HPSCI hearings was US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland. Here’s his testimony:

Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler totally ignored this exculpatory evidence. They ignored this and other exculpatory evidence multiple times each. In a real court with rules of evidence, this wouldn’t have gotten to trial because the Democrats’ case had more holes than Swiss cheese. It would’ve gotten no-billed at the grand jury.

This isn’t surprising. Adam Schiff couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it. Here’s the first of Schiff’s ‘golden oldies’:

When the Mueller Report came out, the evidence that Schiff allegedly saw wasn’t found. Here’s another of his biggest lies:

Axelrod also wrote this:

Even without the witnesses and documents Trump denied them, the House managers delivered a devastating circumstantial case that the President used the levers of his office to pressure Ukraine.

Hearsay testimony isn’t admissible in a real court, with a few exceptions, and Axelrod knows it. Then Axelrod said this:

He was, as Sen. Mitt Romney said in his courageous dissent from partisan orthodoxy, “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

This is the Mitt Romney that Axelrod accused of being a sexist who hated women. This is the Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign accused of tying the family pet to the roof of their vehicle. Forgive me if I don’t get a sense of sincerity with his statements about Romney.

President Trump isn’t chastened. “He’s triumphant.” He’s triumphant because a team of liars accused him of abusing his power. He’s triumphant because Democrats didn’t present evidence proving that allegation. Democrats lost because 30 allegations still doesn’t equal 1 piece of proof. Democrats lost because 5 allegations repeated 20 times each isn’t proof either.

Axelrod is still the same corrupt weasel that worked for President Obama. Good riddance.

Saturday night, CNN’s elitist attitude was on full display. It was a disgusting thing. Unfortunately, it isn’t a surprising thing. What Don Lemon’s guests said is comparable to Hillary’s basket of deplorables statement. Let’s remember that oldie-but-goodie:

Notice how loud the laughter got when she said that. That isn’t the sound of approval. That’s the sound of derision. While I refuse to think that that’s typical of all Democrats, I’m totally confident that significant portions of Democrats think that way about Republicans. Here’s what many CNN viewers think of Trump’s supporters:


If Republicans and thoughtful independents need motivation to vote, play that video to those would-be voters. Ask yourself this question; would you want these people in charge of anything? I don’t.

It’s been less than 12 hours since Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Chief Impeachment Manager, closed by saying “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’ I don’t know if that’s true.” Since then, Schiff has rightfully been the subject of GOP vitriol.

First, Schiff earned that vitriol. After using that line, Schiff then continued, saying “But I was struck by the irony of the idea — when we’re talking about a president who would make himself a monarch that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was imposed by a monarch.” Schiff used that line because it fit the image he’s trying to paint of President Trump.

Next, just because he was wrong in using that line doesn’t mean he’s the only person worthy of criticism. Nancy Cordes, the CBS reporter who broke the story, should be criticized, too. This segment should never have gotten published:


Cordes’ reporting was discredited virtually immediately:

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, considered another key Republican vote, agreed with Murkowski. “Not only have I never heard the ‘head on the pike’ line but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration,” she told reporters.

In other words, this ‘reporting’ is BS. This follows a pattern. Who is the Trump confidant? Nobody knows because that’s just included in the reporting.

Schiff’s legacy is forever tarnished. Prior to last night, the biggest part of his legacy was telling Chuck Todd that he had seen “evidence that was stronger than circumstantial” that President Trump had colluded with Russia. From this point forward, “head on a pike” will be Schiff’s legacy.

Jim Geraghty’s article on Sen. Klobuchar doesn’t hide the things that the Twin Cities press has ignored for years. In his article, Geraghty writes that “If you squint, you can make the “Klobuchar’s getting hot at the right time” argument, as the latest Monmouth poll has her at 8 percentage points, her second-highest number yet. Except … getting any delegates out of Iowa requires getting 15 percent of the vote. Klobuchar needs to more or less double her current support to walk out of the state with any delegates.”

Then Geraghty cuts to the heart of Sen. Klobuchar’s problem, saying “Klobuchar wasn’t that well-known when the race began; it was a crowded field; her debate performances ranged from okay to easily forgotten; she’s not the choice of the party establishment or the progressive grassroots, she doesn’t have the resources to blanket the airwaves the way Bloomberg and Steyer can … she’s a perfectly fine, almost generic Democratic candidate in a field that was bursting with more exciting options.”

Don’t mistake Sen. Klobuchar’s lack of presence as proof that she’s a moderate Democrat. That’s BS. She thought that Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were extremists. In fact, she thought that Kavanaugh didn’t deserve the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, she thought that Sonia Sotomayor was a centrist. Klobuchar voted for the ACA, which destroyed Minnesota’s health care system but voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which has produced the strongest economy in the last 20 years. That doesn’t sound too bright, does it?

While she’s been protected by the Twin Cities media, she’s been portrayed as a moderate/centrist. Clearly, that isn’t accurate. While she isn’t as far left as Ilhan Omar or Keith Ellison, her policies are more than a little leftist. On her campaign website, Klobuchar has a page titled a safer world. On the subject of foreign policy, she says:

Amy believes that we need to stand strong, and consistently, with our allies and that we must respect our frontline troops, diplomats and intelligence officers, who are out there every day risking their lives for our country, and deserve better than foreign policy by tweet. She would invest in diplomacy and rebuild the State Department and modernize our military to stay one step ahead of China and Russia, including with serious investments in cybersecurity.

This past week, President Trump has convinced the British, French and Germans to force Iran’s mullahs back into compliance with the JCPOA. Next, President Trump has rebuilt the military the past 3 years, too. Third, President Trump has seen to it that the troops have gotten pay raises the past 2 years. Fourth, rebuilding the State Department, aka the Deep State, is downright stupid. The last thing we need are ‘diplomats’ who think it’s their job to undermine a president they think isn’t qualified. Finally, President Trump, working with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have significantly upgraded our cybersecurity.

In other words, the things Sen. Klobuchar says she’d do are things that President Trump has already done. This is a perfect example of how the Twin Cities media protect St. Amy of Hennepin County:

Sen. Klobuchar is kinda right in that tensions are rising in Iran. It’s just that the pressure on Iran is increasing. Tuesday was a major breakthrough for US-British diplomacy. Thanks in large part to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s behind-the-scenes work, we’re on the verge of getting Iran back to the negotiating table where a proper treaty will get negotiated. When the JCPOA was negotiated, Iran didn’t have a worry in the world. Now, 5 years later, Iran’s mullahs are worried about students protesting, Iran’s economy is in virtual freefall and the international community is exerting maximum pressure on the regime.

During his antiwar diatribe, Tucker Carlson highlighted his one-track mind with regard to the Middle East. At one point, Carlson asked “Why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit?” Then he asked “If we’re still in Afghanistan 19 sad years later, what makes us think there’s a quick way out of Iran?”

Of course, we aren’t in Iran. That doesn’t matter to Carlson. The great military strategist figured that out earlier in his monologue, saying “It is no exaggeration to say that by the next time this show airs, we could be engaged in a conflict, a real conflict with Iran.”

Wow. Saying that it isn’t an exaggeration that the US might be at war with Iran by Monday morning is foolish. It’s nothing except an exaggeration. How does Carlson get away saying stupid things like this? Talk to Fox management about that. I haven’t figured that one out. At times, he can be a thoughtful commentator. Far too often, though, he’s sounded like a CODEPINK antiwar lunatic. This is one of those times.

Let’s deconstruct Carlson’s arguments. It won’t take long since they’re such flimsy arguments. We aren’t ignoring the decline of our own country. Democrats are. They haven’t provided a serious solution to our nation’s problems since retaking the majority in the House. President Trump and Senate Republicans have put forth lots of proposals that would fix things like the opioid epidemic and illegal immigration.

When Carlson gets into his rants, he ignores the Trump administration’s already lengthy list of accomplishments, too. When he rants, he’s talking about what happened during the Obama and Bush administrations. Apparently, he hasn’t noticed that things have changed since President Trump got to Washington.

Next, insinuating that we’re on the verge of war is either dishonesty or stupidity. I don’t think Carlson is stupid so that leaves us with the likelihood that he’s utterly dishonest. Later, Carlson ripped into Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, who put out a statement saying that “This is very simple: Gen. Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who killed Americans.” Carlson then admitted that Sen. Sasse’s “statement is essentially true.” Rather than fleshing that out, Carlson pivoted to strawman arguments that Mexican drug cartels and the Chinese have killed lots of Americans with drugs, then flippantly saying “not that anybody in power cares” about those deaths.

Then Carlson mentioned that Sen. Sasse is a former consultant, whatever that means. Carlson is a former CNN personality. Does that mean he’s ill-suited for Fox? I think he’s far better suited to be one of CNN’s clowns than to be one of FNC’s hosts.

I wasn’t a big fan of Bill O’Reilly. Still, I’d welcome him back to FNC over this one-trick (antiwar) pony any day of the week. It’s time for FNC to cut its losses and put in someone who actually thinks things through before ranting.

Finally, Carlson said that there are lots of bad guys out there, then asking if we should kill all of them while we’re at it. That’s oversimplification on steroids. Gen. Soleimani wasn’t just a bad guy. He’s the mastermind behind destabilizing an entire region of the world while spreading terrorism and launching Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He supplied Shi’ite militias in Iraq with IEDs and other weapons that were used to kill Americans.

Whatever you think of the Iraq War, it’s disgusting to think, as Carlson apparently does, that these soldiers were expendable because they followed a president’s orders. Personally, it’s one thing to question the wisdom of going to war. It’s quite another to say that it’s ok to kill US soldiers in the line of duty.

Listening to CNN isn’t wise in any situation. Listening to CNN talk about impeachment is the ultimate in foolishness. CNN is foolish because it’s citing former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake as a source.

According to Sen. Flake, “at least 35 would do so if they were allowed to cast their ballots in secret.” Considering the fact that Sen. Flake hates President Trump and has said outrageous things about President Trump, Sen. Flake is the least reliable source other than an anonymous source.

Let’s challenge that line of thinking. Imagine a situation where nobody knew who voted to convict President Trump. Then picture Trump supporters realizing that over half of GOP senators had just voted to convict him without taking accountability. How many Republicans would get primaried and defeated this year?

The ‘wimp factor’ for removing a president without admitting which senator voted for or against conviction would be high. Trump supporters would be irate if the Senate voted to convict President Trump by secret ballot. It’s difficult to picture something more typical of the Swamp. That means those political careers would be over whether they voted to convict or not.

Hamilton went further and argued that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” For this reason, he believed the Senate would be the appropriate venue to hold a trial for impeachment, with the belief that senators would act as an impartial jury not swayed by public opinion or one’s allegiance to a candidate or party.

It isn’t that Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson trusted senators to be impartial. They put their trust in requiring a two-third’s majority in the Senate. The supermajority was the key because a politician is still a politician.

Trusting Jeff Flake’s opinion on President Trump is foolish. It isn’t as foolish as trusting Adam Schiff but it isn’t wise, either.

It’s easy to name the Democrats’ corrupt impeachment of President Trump as 2019’s Story of the Year. There were other stories that deserve recognition but this story has all the elements of a heartbreaking story of corruption, media bias, partisanship at its worst and civil rights abuses. First, this story exemplifies partisanship at its worst. Democrats have literally tried impeaching President Trump since the morning after his election. Mark Zaid, the faux whistle-blower’s attorney, posted this tweet 10 days after President Trump’s inauguration:


This wasn’t a solemn event, as Ms. Pelosi insisted. This was the culmination of 3 years of deceit and corruption:

We had Chairman Schiff acting as the faux whistle-blower’s defense attorney, protecting the faux whistle-blower’s anonymity during public committee hearings. When Schiff wasn’t protecting the faux whistle-blower’s anonymity, he was violating President Trump’s civil rights by preventing President Trump’s legal team from representing him during the deposition phase. Schiff also violated President Trump’s civil rights when he refused to let Republicans call witnesses in defense of President Trump.

The impeachment hearings were filled with partisanship, too. This is what partisanship looks like:

Chairman Nadler was required by House rules to schedule a minority hearing day. That didn’t happen. One day of hearings was dedicated to listen to 3 Democrat activists masquerading as law school professors argue with Prof. Jonathan Turley about whether the evidence submitted by Democrats was sufficient for impeachment. Another hearing was dedicated to congressmen and women essentially making closing statements.

The hearings throughout ‘featured’ (I use that term exceptionally loosely) the worst in media bias. Day after day, the media breathlessly insisted that that day’s witness provided “bombshell” testimony. Night-after-night, the bombshell didn’t detonate. In instance-after-instance, the provocative statements in the witnesses’ opening statements turned into dud during cross-examination. Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland was the nastiest cross-examination I’ve ever seen:

That’s the personification of media bias and Adam Schiff’s corruption. Each day, networks like CNN and MSNBC and programs like the Maddow Report and Meet the Press Weekdays omitted the part about the exculpatory evidence. That’s why President Trump’s accusations of the Fake News Media resonates. People of integrity admit that CNN and shows like Rachel Maddow’s are corrupt.

They’ve carved out a niche, albeit a limited niche, that serves a political purpose in the Democrats’ quest for power. There was a time when Democrats cared about people’s civil rights. That Democrat Party, apart from Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz is history. That Democrat Party doesn’t exist.

Impeachment is 2019’s Story of the Year but for all the wrong reasons. Impeaching President Trump with hearsay testimony while violating President Trump’s civil rights is awful. Impeaching him while Democrats displayed the nastiest partisanship of this century is worst. Impeaching President Trump with the enthusiastic assistance of the most corrupt media of our lifetimes is a trifecta Democrats should be ashamed of.

David Gergen’s op-ed also serves as an incomplete history lesson. Gergen starts off, saying “As the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday, he addressed a rally in Michigan and said, “By the way, it doesn’t really feel like we’re being impeached.” In that moment, the difference between Trump and former Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton became starkly clear. It’s clear that Nixon and Clinton behaved very differently from Trump when faced with impeachment proceedings that clouded their presidencies. During their respective impeachment inquiries, both Nixon and Clinton ultimately cooperated with authorities. While Nixon resisted turning over information, he did yield to public pressure and let key witnesses testify. And he eventually turned over the infamous Watergate tapes when ordered by the Supreme Court. Clinton, on the other hand, agreed to testify after establishing predetermined conditions.”

After that, things get incomplete. Gergen stated “[Trump’s] supporters have argued that the evidence supporting Trump’s impeachment is thin, never acknowledging it might well be bolstered if the President cooperated.” Left unsaid is that Pelosi’s Democrats thought that the documents and testimony weren’t important enough to fight for in court. I won’t take seriously testimony and documents that Democrats didn’t fight for.

To top it off, Trump’s comments characterizing impeachment as a “hoax” in the scorching letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with his defiant performance at the rally in Michigan make clear he is anything but contrite.

Considering the fact that the investigation took less than 6 weeks from the start of the first report of a whistleblower report to the House voting on 2 articles of impeachment, I can’t see how that’s anything except shoddy workmanship. The fact that Sen. Schumer wants additional witnesses to strengthen a weak case identifies this impeachment inquiry as not being serious.

Compare that with the Watergate investigation timeline. It starts with a Washington Post article on August 1, 1972. It essentially culminated on July 27-30, 1974 when the “House Judiciary Committee passes three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, misuse of power and contempt of Congress. By approving the charges, the committee sent the impeachment to the floor for a full House vote, but it never occurred.”

When Bill Clinton was impeached, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr said that Clinton was guilty of committing multiple crimes. Nixon committed multiple crimes, too. What’s left unsaid in Gergen’s op-ed is that President Trump is the first president impeached who wasn’t charged with committing a crime. Further, what isn’t said in Gergen’s op-ed is that the only evidence presented to the Impeachment Committee was either exculpatory or hearsay.

No, this is a President who is likely to lash out, seek revenge, and continue abusing the powers of his office. And if he is acquitted, and if his behavior thus far is any indication, Trump is bound to feel vindicated and strengthened by the support of his followers.

A person that’s impeached with hearsay testimony has the right to feel vindicated. There isn’t a court in this nation that should stand for people getting convicted on hearsay testimony. Next time, Mr. Gergen, don’t leave out important details like the ones you omitted this time. This interview says it all:

“The things that the Democrats couldn’t get because of the stonewall, the documents they couldn’t get, the witnesses they couldn’t get, you know, I think it strengthens their case.”

That’s rather provocative language. The so-called stonewall is nothing more than President Trump exercising his executive privilege rights. If Democrats wanted that testimony and those documents, there was a legal path to get them. That’s to file a lawsuit to compel the testimony. Democrats didn’t do that because, in their words, that’d take too much time. That’s a political judgment. That isn’t a legal judgment.