Archive for the ‘Impeachment’ Category

The Democrats’ impeachment fever has turned into the Democrats’ impeachment disease. Rep. Karen Bass, a California Democrat, told TMZ’s Harvey Levin that she’s willing to impeach President Trump again if he’s re-elected:

Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said Tuesday she’s willing to impeach President Trump again if he wins reelection in 2020. TMZ founder Harvey Levin presented Bass with a scenario in which Trump wins a second term but Democrats take over the Senate from the Republicans.

“There’s no such thing, really, as double jeopardy in an impeachment trial because it’s political,” Levin said. “Suppose he gets reelected… and you win back the Senate in a big way. If you did that, would you be inclined to take a second bite at the apple and reintroduce the exact same impeachment articles and then send it through again a second if you have a Democratic Senate on your side?”

“So, you know, yes, but I don’t think it would be exactly the same and here’s why,” Bass responded, “because even though we are impeaching him now, there’s still a number of court cases, there’s a ton of information that could come forward. For example, we could get his bank records and find out that he’s owned 100 percent by the Russians.”

She continued, “You are absolutely right in your scenario, but the only thing I would say slightly different is, it might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we would have a ton more information, and then the odds of that, sadly enough, is that, you know, he probably has other examples of criminal behavior.”

It’s frightening to think that there’s someone in the House who’s crazier than Al Green, Maxine Waters or Adam Schiff. If that’s possible, though, Ms. Bass is a contender.


Check this out:

For example, we could get his bank records and find out that he’s owned 100 percent by the Russians.”

That’s frightening. What other fantasies has she concocted in her head?

Earlier in the day, Bass spoke with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and expressed her “rock-solid” confidence that House Democrats had enough votes to pass articles of impeachment. The Democrats unveiled two impeachment articles earlier in the day: one for abuse of power and one for obstruction of Congress.

Bass isn’t the only warped Democrat. Check this out from Leslie Marshall:

President Trump and his defenders claim the decision by House Democratic leaders Tuesday to propose two articles of impeachment against him is all about politics. They say the misconduct he is accused of is a hoax and that he is the victim of a witch hunt. Don’t believe them. Democrats are acting in spite of politics. They know impeachment could hurt them politically and perhaps even give Republicans a House majority in elections next year.

And Democrats are acting even though they know the Republican-controlled Senate will acquit Trump in a trial and not throw him out of office. That’s because removing the president in a Senate trial takes 67 votes, and there are only 47 Democrats and allied independents in the Senate.

Sadly, Republicans are putting party loyalty over patriotism and circling the wagons around Trump to support him no matter what, closing their eyes to the overwhelming evidence of his impeachable conduct. There is no way 20 Republican senators will vote to remove Trump from office.

Republicans aren’t putting party loyalty ahead of patriotism. The Constitution requires that impeachment only be done if the “President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The 2 articles of impeachment don’t even identify a crime, much less a high crime.

Contrary to Ms. Pelosi’s statements, Democrats don’t respect the Constitution. They talk about their love of the Constitution, then display their ignorance of it. The thought of impeaching a president for abuse of office is frightening. That’s the type of subjectivity that James Madison didn’t want. Using that type of criteria, every president would’ve been subject to impeachment.

Democrats need to regain their faculties. Their thinking is beyond the pale.

Apparently, Chairman Nadler thinks he’s Nostradamus now. In his own words, Chairman Nadler said “The integrity of our next election is at stake. Nothing could be more urgent.” Then he continued, saying “The president, based on his past performance, will do everything he can to make it not a fair election, and that is part of what gives us the urgency to proceed with this impeachment.”

What’s amazing is that Chairman Nadler never cites proof for these aspersions. What’s even more disgusting is that Chairman Nadler isn’t the only Democrat spouting this nonsense. It isn’t surprising that Speaker Pelosi said “The president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit.”

That’s an amazing statement considering the fact that Democrats still haven’t introduced evidence that President Trump corrupted the 2016 election. We have allegations that Hillary Clinton hired people to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. We know that the Obama FBI did its best to corrupt the 2016 election. We know that because the Obama administration didn’t do anything when Ukraine’s Ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed criticizing then-Candidate Trump, saying he was unfit for office.

Honest people would declare that interfering in a US presidential election. Of course, Democrats don’t think that’s interference, thereby failing Prof. Dershowitz’s shoe-on-the-other-foot test. Thus far, Prof. Turley is the only law school professor, other than Prof. Dershowitz, who’s passed that test.

The Democrats’ dishonesty shines through in this Washington Post article:

At the heart of the Democrats’ case is the allegation that Trump tried to leverage a White House meeting and military aid, sought by Ukraine to combat Russian military aggression, to pressure President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a probe of an unfounded theory that Kyiv conspired with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Democrats keep insisting that Ukraine and Russia couldn’t both interfere in the 2016 US presidential election. My question to Democrats is simple. Why can’t both interfere in our elections? Why can’t they have different motivations for their interference? Is there a law that prohibits Russia and Ukraine from both interfering in US elections?

Chairman Nadler isn’t basing his statements on verified information. It’s based on Democrats’ daily talking points. What’s most disappointing is that Democrats aren’t just suffering from TDS, aka Trump Derangement Syndrome. They’re suffering from UDS, aka Ukrainian Derangement Syndrome, too.

Finally, Chairman Nadler looked rather confused in this fight with Louie Gohmert:

It’s easy to see why Speaker Pelosi didn’t want to deal with impeachment. Chairman Schiff is disgustingly dishonest. Chairman Nadler is dumber than Chairman Schiff is dishonest.

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.

The opening paragraph from Speaker Pelosi’s statement on the November jobs report indicts the Speaker. Here’s what she said:

Despite some encouraging numbers, the November jobs report offers little solace to the farmers and hard-working families who are struggling to stay above water with the costs of living rising and uncertainty surging.

If she’s so worried about “farmers and hard-working families”, why hasn’t she brought USMCA up for a vote yet. For over a year, Ms. Pelosi has said that a) USMCA would be easy to pass and b) she was working her way to yes on ratifying it. Simply put, she’s failed farmers. Ms. Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats have been more interested in impeaching a president who has created 7,000,000 jobs since taking office less than 3 years ago.

Ms. Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats unanimously voted against the Trump-GOP tax cuts that have lit a fire under this economy. These Do-Nothing Democrats voted against eliminating the Obama administration’s regulations that would’ve killed the fossil fuel industry. In short, Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats have stood in the way of pretty much every Trump administration plan that’s produced this prolific economy.

Thus far, the Trump administration’s record includes the lowest unemployment rate in half a century, the lowest black unemployment rate and the lowest Hispanic unemployment rate ever, the lowest unemployment rate for women since WWII, rising wages, improving workforce participation rate and soaring consumer confidence. That’s what Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats voted against.

Getting lectured by Ms. Pelosi about “struggling” farmers and manufacturers is insulting. Ms. Pelosi’s focus on impeachment has prevented her from reaching yes on USMCA. She can complain all she wants about the 275 bills waiting for Senate action but that’s bad-faith whining. Why should we trust a caucus of Do-Nothing Democrat Socialists who voted against the policies that built this fantastic economy? This sums things up perfectly:

“What a contrast? A great economy, terrible politics.”

Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t helped with anything. They’ve focused on impeachment, not the economy. They haven’t lifted a finger to close the asylum loopholes or the immigration system. The 275 bills are meaningless. It’s time for Democrats to focus on what’s important instead of focusing on appeasing their special interest base.

When Speaker Pelosi announced on Thursday morning that she was instructing Chairman Nadler’s committee to start drafting articles of impeachment, what she was really doing was admitting that Democrats would lose their House majority Next November. What I’ve been convinced of is that Republicans would retake the House barring a massive voter fraud effort by Democrats. Forget the 31 Democrats representing districts that Trump won in 2016. The majority of those districts will be flipped by Republicans next November. Depending on turnout and enthusiasm, it’s possible that the vast majority of those districts will get flipped by Republicans.

The next set of targets for flipping are seats where President Trump came close to winning but fell just a little short. MN-2 and MN-3 fit into that category perfectly, where Angie Craig and Dean Phillips currently hold the seats. Both are seats that Republicans have held literally for decades. It’ll take a bit of a fight but those seats should return to the GOP fold.

Thanks to the RNC’s fundraising haul, the GOP is hosting massive voter registration drives at Trump rallies across the nation. A significant number of those rallies aren’t hosted in districts that are GOP-friendly — yet. Depending on the national mood next fall, these districts might constitute the third set of districts targeted.

There’s no question that Pelosi wants to maintain her majority. She knows, though, that they’ve focused too much attention on impeachment and not nearly enough attention on fulfilling policy promises. There’s no getting rid of the Do-Nothing Democrats label. Resist Movement Democrats dug a hole with their my-way-or-the-highway attitude. That isn’t where the nation is.

If Democrats don’t get rid of that group of Democrats, which they really can’t, they’ll be the minority party for awhile. Pelosi fought the AOC wing. In the end, she had to cave to their pressure. Now, it’ll cost them their gavels.

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.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, doesn’t care who he demolishes on his path to impeaching President Trump. Schiff’s latest act of intimidation was his “decision to publish the phone records of the president’s personal attorneys, a journalist, a fellow lawmaker, a National Security Council aide, and others.”

Schiff’s behavior since 2016 has been hostile and corrupt. The definition of corruption is “perversion of integrity” or “corrupt or dishonest proceedings.” If anyone personifies a “perversion of integrity”, it’s Schiff. He’s been caught lying so often that he’s often called ‘the little boy who cried wolf too often.’

Now Schiff’s depravity has reached a new low by releasing this private information. If Schiff is willing to do that about journalists and political opponents, why shouldn’t we think that he’ll next extend that behavior to anyone that stands in his way of impeaching President Trump. Unfortunately, Schiff can’t be arrested for this corrupt behavior because of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. What can be done is to expel him from the House the minute Republicans retake control of the House in 2021.

In a text exchange, I asked one Republican lawmaker with knowledge of the situation whether Schiff’s move raised any attorney-client issues:

Not legally. They used their subpoena authority. The decision to publish certain records is out of bounds as clearly political retribution, but it’s not illegal as far as I can determine.

Whether Schiff broke any laws is irrelevant. His actions were the personification of corruption. It isn’t a stretch to think that Schiff’s actions were meant as retribution against people who tried stopping his impeachment obsession.

Democrats who protect Schiff should be defeated at the next election. Schiff’s actions are reprehensible. Schiff has specialized in extreme lies. This is the most well-known example of Schiff’s lies:

What a worthless collection of human cells.

Democrats aren’t interested in bipartisanship when it comes to impeachment. Democrats don’t even care if their hearings take pot shots at teenage kids. Democrats don’t even care if they don’t have evidence that proves their charges. In the Democrats’ minds, they know that President Trump is evil and must be impeached and convicted. In the Democrats’ minds, they don’t need proof to impeach. They just need fanciful theories that support the Democrats’ bloodlust to impeach and convict President Trump. In this case, the fanciful theories that Democrats are relying on are found in the Findings of Facts section of the Schiff Report.

For instance, Finding of Fact #IV says “President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.”

Saying that “the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security or anti-corruption justification” isn’t proof. That’s opinion. The Constitution gives the President the authority to conduct foreign policy. Monies appropriated by Congress and signed by the President must be spent by the end of the fiscal year. In the case of the Ukraine appropriation, the money was sent to Ukraine with time to spare.

Saying that President Trump withheld aid from Ukraine without legitimate “anti-corruption justification” requires Democrats to look past the fact that, at the time, Ukraine was rated the third-most corrupt nation on the planet. Further, the NDAA required certification that Ukraine had met the anti-corruption standards.

Chairman Schiff didn’t mention that this happened with Pakistan, the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and from the nation of Lebanon. Why? Here’s Representative John Ratcliffe inquiring with State Department Undersecretary David Hale how often aid was withheld within the past year:

There goes that Schiff theory. Here’s another example of Democrat theory dressed up as proof:

In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump—directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Schiff’s Democrats don’t have proof of this accusation. In fact, the only proof in either direction comes from President Zelenskiy. He’s said twice that he was never pressured. This is third-hand testimony presented by Bill Taylor. It’s from one of the participants in the call. It isn’t surprising that Democrats have ignored President Zelenskiy’s statements that contradict their impeachment storyline. That’s what Democrats consistently do with exculpatory evidence. Either that or these Democrats insist that it’s just another discredited conspiracy theory.

It’s nothing of the sort. It’s an oft-repeated statement from Ukraine’s president. He was one of 2 people on the call. He knows what was said. He knows whether lethal military aid was tied to anything. That’s proof that would be admitted into any court in the United States. The Democrats’ hearsay testimony (like we heard from Bill Taylor) isn’t admissible anywhere in the United States.

The Democrats apparently want to become the first politicians to impeach a sitting president while using hearsay testimony. That isn’t just an abuse of political power. It’s corruption personified. If the same 232 Democrats vote to impeach President Trump who voted to open the inquiry, the American people will administer a punishment that will be studied for decades.