The clamor for President Trump's impeachment (or worse)
beginning on Day One

Introduction by The Editor:
Donald Trump is a political outsider, starting his political career at the top.  His election has upset the political establishment on the left and the right.  Mostly the left.  The party that lost the 2016 election immediately began a campaign to impeach and remove Donald Trump by any means.  Apparently it doesn't matter if there are any legitimate grounds for his impeachment.

Related pages:

The numerous traps and stink bombs Obama left for Trum
The Deep State "Whistleblower" Scandal
Televised Impeachment Hearings Trump's impeachment is political poison
Leftists' departures from the truth
Leftists think you're stupid
The Democrats are out of step with the American mainstream
Media bias against President Trump

Background, overview and recap articles:

(Scroll down for timely news, or click here.)

Can Trump Clean The Augean Stables on the Potomac?  There is a reason that, since before the time of the emperor Tiberius, treason trials have been a favorite tool of totalitarians.  Such proceedings allow them to get rid of nearly anyone they dislike.  Successfully brand someone a "traitor," an "enemy of the state," and, bang, into the oubliette they go.  I think the treason trial is the appropriate heuristic for what is happening, and what has been happening to Donald Trump ever since 2015 when he descended the escalator.  The charge that Trump was "Putin's poodle," a "Russian asset," etc., during the Russia collusion hoax was a sort of treason trial.  And remember how elaborate it all was, a veritable glass onion, thanks in large part to Hillary Clinton, whose campaign concocted, paid for, and disseminated the infamous fantasy "dossier" fabricated by former MI6 spook Christopher Steele.  And it was Hillary, remember, who first broadcast the charge that servers in Trump Tower were secretly communicating with Russia's Alfa Bank.  The Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services — all were in on that game.

Why did the FBI redact the Mar-a-Lago raid affidavit?  This narrative began the day President Trump won the 2016 elections by defeating Hillary Clinton.  First, it was baselessly claimed that Trump had won by colluding with the Russians.  There were once again no details provided.  The accusers couldn't say if any votes were altered.  They couldn't reveal the specifics of how Trump colluded with the Russians.  It was merely a sinister disinformation campaign based on innuendo and insinuations.  The media that functions as mouthpieces for the Democrats led the charge on this abominable hoax that the Russians had 'meddled in the 2016' elections, the implication being Trump was an illegitimate president.  The cacophonous campaign caused the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.  For the next 22 months, at a cost of $40 million, Mueller, whose team comprised of Trump haters carried out an investigation.  The goal is this probe wasn't to investigate the truth, it was to persecute a political adversary, criminalize political opposition, and push a narrative.  Throughout the 'investigation,' the FBI and Justice Department leaked "bombshells" to the media.  The media then claimed that the "walls are closing in" and Trump would be removed.  In the end, no evidence of collusion was discovered.  Mueller's team purposefully worded their report to keep the inferences ambiguous.  It enabled the Democrats to continue to make bogus claims about collusion, extending the ordeal through much of Trump's presidency.

End Trump raid secrecy.  Excessive secrecy gave rise to wild, absolutely crazy speculation during the years of the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation.  Little bits of information would leak, upon which journalists and other talking heads would build elaborate structures of speculation.  In no time, supposedly reasonable people were fantasizing about the president of the United States being a Russian asset.  It was nuts, but that's how secrecy and speculation work together.  In the end, of course, a lengthy special counsel investigation could not establish that any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign ever occurred, much less who might have been involved in it.  But the damage done by all that speculation remained.

Pelosi's Court:  How the Jan. 6 committee undermined its own legitimacy.  Congress has a long history of bipartisan investigatory and select committees. [...] Pelosi's decision to gut that process was something of a signature muscle play.  As a witness in the first Trump impeachment, I was highly critical of her insistence that the House would impeach before Christmas rather than conduct the traditional impeachment investigation with witnesses.  Instead of building a more convincing case, Pelosi preferred to impeach with virtually no record, for a certain defeat in the Senate.  In the second impeachment, she went one better:  She held no hearing at all and pushed through the first "snap impeachment."  The Jan. 6 committee was similarly stripped of any pretense.  It was as subtle a political move as Pelosi's ripping up President Trump's State of the Union speech.  Asked what she hoped to achieve from the committee on the first day of hearings, Pelosi tellingly referred to it as a "narrative."  It is the difference between seeing and simulating justice.

Why the Russiagate Scandal Outranks the Rest.  Russiagate is the biggest scandal in American history.  Nothing comes close in size, scope or harm to the republic than the years-long effort to cripple Donald Trump's presidency by claiming he conspired with an enemy state to steal the 2016 election and then do its bidding as commander-in-chief.  Its notorious predecessors — L'Affaire Lewinsky, Iran-Contra, Watergate, Teapot Dome, [...] — involved relatively small numbers of malefactors engaged in specific acts of illegality and corruption (we still don't know who, if anyone, planned the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol)[.]  Russiagate, by contrast, is a vast conspiracy involving innumerable powerful forces, including the Democratic Party, NeverTrump Republicans, the Obama administration, the FBI, Department of Justice and the nation's most prestigious news outlets.

Biden and the Left-wing Standard of Attacking Presidents.  Take impeachment, which heretofore had been rare and has still never led to a Senate conviction.  Prior to Trump, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only presidents to have been impeached (Richard Nixon resigned to avoid it), and both were acquitted in the Senate.  Yet leftist congressional representatives introduced articles of impeachment the very first week Trump was in office, on the absurd allegation of profiting from his office (the presidency cost the Trump corporations hundreds of millions).  The House later went on to impeach him twice, without writs of "treason" and "bribery" or even "high crimes and misdemeanors" as set out by the Constitution.  Instead, Trump was, first, successfully impeached for supposedly abusing his power and obstructing Congress.  I don't think the average American has ever been pulled over by the police for the high crime "of obstructing Congress" (historically a presidential pastime) or has been charged with "abuse of power" (said of every president from Thomas Jefferson to Barack Obama).  Trump's second impeachment was even flimsier.

Republicans failed to stand for anything.  Senate Republicans' refusal to unanimously stand up for the free speech of a sitting president is inexcusable — especially during a time when Big Tech is engaging in an unprecedented campaign of censorship against ordinary Americans and Democrats are openly advocating for the criminalization of viewpoints with which they disagree.  Republicans had a chance to take a united stand for the First Amendment while it remains under sustained attack by those who wish it to be weakened; instead, out of hatred for President Trump or foolish naïvité as to the real threats against free speech in the United States, they failed miserably.  In a kangaroo court so overtly political that even Chief Justice "Obamacare is just a tax" Roberts refused to participate, Patrick Leahy, the Senate's longest serving Democrat, presided over the "trial" as "judge."  That was the least of its problems.  Evidence against the president was doctored willy-nilly in an attempt to secure his conviction.  Neither body of Congress examined witnesses publicly under oath.  And nobody seemed to comprehend what elements of "criminal insurrection" or "incitement" actually needed to be proved to establish a case.  The lack of any due process for the president was comical, and the absence of any impartiality from the preening cast of prima donnas pretending to conduct a serious trial made the chaos look like a scene straight out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.  If the Senate couldn't pull off a conviction with such legal buffoonery slamming the scales of justice down in its favor, then no prosecutor before a real court of law could, either.

Biden's Transition Has Been a Flaming Disaster.  All the accusations of corruption and international conspiracy lodged against Mr. Trump turned out to be pure fantasy.  Beleaguered American taxpayers shelled out tens of millions of dollars investigating the president's supposed ties to Russia only to discover they were just overheated fever dreams of swamp dwellers suffering acute strains of Trump Derangement Syndrome. [...] Claims of corruption against Mr. Trump proved so unfounded, Democrats dropped those charges in their madcap impeachment proceedings, instead of impeaching him over a perfectly legitimate phone call to the president of Ukraine — allegedly some kind of "quid pro quo" that was in some way somehow evil or corrupt.

We have been manipulated and will not admit it.  Before Donald Trump was inaugurated, the left, the deep state and the media plotted to overthrow his presidency.  They demanded that he be impeached before he took office.  They accused him of being an agent of the Russian government and that the Russian government assisted him in winning the election over Hillary Clinton.  The triumvirate brought about a special prosecutor who failed to prove the outrageous claims made over three years.  Millions of Americans in this country still believe the rhetoric of the deep state, the press, and the far left that Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian government and that he is an illegitimate president.

Challenging The Left's Post-Truth Narratives.  Leftists had names for those who refused to accept that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections:  Loony conspirator theorists, post truthers, and agents of Mother Russia.  And still they pushed it further, calling Trump a Russian agent whom Russia recruited in the 80s and who now reports directly to Putin.  The Russian Collusion hoax reached its pinnacle upon the appointment of a Special Counsel.  The simulation's impact was so powerful that even Republicans who controlled the House and Senate, members of Trump's cabinet, and pro-Trump voices in the media pussyfooted around the allegation instead of subjecting it to derision and tossing it away with contempt.  The "investigation" took two years, cost $32 million, and exonerated Trump.  The left never had the quest for facts as its goal; hence, the left rejected the verdict and continued pushing the story to a pliant media.  In the end, leftists couldn't accept an outsider such as Trump winning, so they invented their own realities.  They convinced themselves that Americans didn't repudiate them in 2016; instead, Russian poll rigging caused the Trump victory.  Maybe some of them even began to believe their lies.  This is perhaps the first instance of the mainstreaming of a most preposterous conspiracy theory.

'Banana Republic of America'.  [Scroll down]  When the Russia hoax came up empty, Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat team in Congress quickly came up with another idea.  They would impeach the president.  The reason?  He had a conversation with the president of Ukraine.  According to a "whistleblower" who wasn't even on the call, but allegedly heard about it from some NSA friends who were, there was a hidden meaning to the president's conversation.  Neither of the two presidents on the call agreed with the assessment, but Mrs. Pelosi saw it as a chance to take down a political rival.  Impeachment was intended to be used when a president breaks the law.  Last time I checked being rude or brash, while not desirable, were not illegal.

The Biden Emails Prove Impeachment Was A Sham.  Remember January?  I know it feels like several lifetimes ago, the before times of life as we used to know it.  But think back to the biggest story of those chilly days.  It wasn't the Chinese virus slowly spreading to our shores or the Democratic presidential primary.  No, it was the impeachment of the president of the United States.  This week's bombshell New York Post story on Hunter Biden now shows what many of us suspected:  The impeachment was a ridiculous sham.  The basis for the impeachment, for those whose recollections are understandably shaky, was that President Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch investigations into the energy company Burisma for the purely political purpose of hurting Joe Biden.  Central to that allegation was the argument that Trump and the United States had no legitimate interest in seeing Burisma investigated.  If the trove of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop are accurate, and they have not been disputed, then this argument falls to pieces.

The Worst Impeachment in History.  [Scroll down]  Thus, after having previously set a "compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" standard for impeachment, Pelosi ultimately opted (despite fearing she might lose her House majority in 2020) for an impeachment that was, in [Fred] Lucas's words, "uncompelling and underwhelming and extremely partisan."  The principal action identified as an impeachable offense was a phone call between President Trump and the new Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky.  In that exchange, which covered several items, the President encouraged Zelensky to check on possible corruption involving a company (Burisma) that was being investigated when then Vice-President Joe Biden demanded the Ukrainian prosecutor be fired as a precondition for receiving American aid.

Democrat Mail Fraud Will Take Us to the Brink.  The Democrats preferred to drag the United States through four years of nonsensical conspiracy theories, needless investigations, and cries of high treason rather than to acknowledge that President Trump had legitimately defeated Hillary Clinton.  The Democrats chose an unprecedented campaign of sabotage against an American president, and in doing so, they accomplished what Putin's Russia could never have dreamed: they succeeded in convincing half of America that the 2016 election was stolen from them.  The Democrats and the Deep State that has aided and abetted their cause have sold bitter acrimony for four years and birthed our precarious pre-civil war tinderbox today.

Help for Those Struggling to Understand the Immensity of the Russia Hoax.  The Deep State's machinations in trying, first, to prevent Trump's election and, second, to undo it are confusing.  It's easy to get lost in a sea of names, many of them Russian or Ukrainian; dates that stretch out over several years; almost unlimited lies; and the complicated truths behind those lies.  The Russia hoax isn't an easy-to-learn bumper sticker; it's a full Russian novel.  If you're trying to explain to your leftist friends that Trump did not collude with the Russians and, instead, that the Deep State, working with the mainstream media, intentionally and deliberately engaged in a long-running coup against Trump, good luck.  Within about 20 sentences, their eyes will glaze over, and they'll tell you that you sound like a raving conspiracy theorist. It's irrelevant to them that you can back up every statement with documentary proof and under-oath admissions from within the FBI.  Complicated facts don't work for a New York Times audience with a short attention span [...]

Beam Me Up, Please.  Media coverage of the developments debunking the preposterous claim that the President colluded with Russia is both spotty and sparse.  There's a reason for it.  Major media almost entirely swallowed the claim, conspired with its promoters, endlessly and prominently mongered it and has never apologized for so doing.  This week Professor Charles Lipson wrote the very best chronicle of the most serious domestic political crime I can think of.  I urge you not only to read it but also clip and save it as textbook level recounting of the events.

Bill Barr Scorcher:  Effort to Push Trump From Office Closest Thing to Coup Since Lincoln Assassination.  Attorney General William Barr took his verbal scalpel and shredded the complete "bovine silence" of the media following the "complete collapse" of the attempted coup of President Trump — an attempt that he agreed hasn't been seen since the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.  Other than that, the interview [6/21/2020] on "Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo" was a complete snore-fest.

Obama Hatched the Coup in an Oval Office Meeting on January 5, 2017.  [Scroll down]  CNN has had a meltdown over this.  CNN's meltdown yesterday and last night was total.  And they're not even covering it today.  The entire foundation, the entire reason that the American media has been getting up and going to work for the past three years just blew up in their faces yesterday.  There has never been anything they assured us there was.  There was no collusion.  There was no Trump as a Russian agent.  There was no Russian interference in the election or the outcome.  The Russians had nothing to do with who won and who lost the election.  There was never any evidence suggesting that they did play any role.  Folks, this is the biggest political scandal certainly in my lifetime.  It was the complete array of the Washington establishment against one man, Donald Trump.  And it was purposed to destroy him, his family, his career, his businesses and to get him out of office and to reverse the election results of 2016. And they never had a shred of evidence for any of it.  It did not happen.  The Russians had nothing to do with our election, they had nothing to do with the outcome, above and beyond what they normally tried to do, like the Chinese are always trying to sabotage.  We've got enemies.  But the election was legitimate.  It was fair.  And there was no collusion between Trump or anybody else in his campaign and the Russians.

This is from a left-wing web site, presented here for what it's worth:
Removing a U.S. President Without an Election.  [Scroll down]  Accordingly, the Democrats staged a Watergate-style morality play, with Donald Trump playing the role of Richard Nixon. [...] It did not work.  One problem was the series of bombshell news stories coming from unnamed intelligence sources.  These included the DNC hack, local election board tampering, the Christopher Steele Dossier, St. Petersburg click-bait factory, sabotaging the Vermont utility grid, and so on.  One after another the stories collapsed, usually for lack of evidence.  In addition, the president's favorability ratings did not plummet as they had during Watergate. [...] The underlying problem was the Democrats did not understand Watergate.  They thought Nixon was foiled by tenacious crusading reporters and their savvy editor.  In fact, Nixon ran afoul of the military industrial complex, which guided the press to the outcome it wanted.

The Left's Premature Revolution.  The nation has been subjected to over three years of government abuse and illegalities in the Establishment's unceasing efforts to destroy, impeach and/or derail Donald Trump.  Almost every day another revelation exposing the corruption of the so-called deep state is exposed in what is without a doubt the most egregious political scandal in the nation's history.  Consequently, an ever-growing percentage of the population is becoming more aware of the pitfalls of the all-powerful central government which the left demands.

The FBI Did a Hatchet Job in Their 302 Report on Michael Flynn, and Some Familiar Names Were Involved.  The Trump-Russia collusion story was a myth.  It was a manufactured lie peddled by the liberal media that engulfed the nation for over two years.  In many ways, we're not over it.  There are still hordes of liberals so deranged, so mind-broken over the 2016 election, that they think the Russian colluded with Trump to tilt the race.  Not true.  There is no evidence this ever occurred.  None.  That's why every single bombshell was a nothingburger.  The report from the Mueller probe, which needs a review of its own in the wake of the Flynn fallout, said there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.  It also tore the heart out of the document that started this whole circus:  the Trump dossier.  An unverified piece of political opposition research compiled by ex-British spook Christopher Steele and funded by the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.  The Department of Justice Inspector General's Office also delivered a kill shot to this document in their report about FISA abuses during the Obama administration.

Vindman Is Not Enough.  From Operation Crossfire Hurricane to the Billy Bush tapes.  From Stormy Daniels to Donald Trump's tax returns.  From Michael Cohen and federal election law violations to Paul Manafort and his mortgage filings.  From framing General Mike Flynn to deploying SWAT teams to arrest Roger Stone for a process crime.  From Russian collusion and the Mueller probe to the ludicrous Ukrainian "quid quo pro," the Democrats have tried for four years now first to derail candidate Trump's nomination and then to remove him from the White House after 63 million American chose to put him there.  These may not have been palace coups or violent revolutions, but when esteemed presidential historians such as Conrad Black deem this litany to be a string of "bloodless assassination attempts" then we must pause and ask ourselves how we stop those who, by their words and deeds, have demonstrated time and again that they do not care one iota for our Constitution or for the will of the American people.

This whole pathetic impeachment effort was worse than a waste of time.  After months of hype and pseudo-drama ginned up by the left, public and secret testimony and breathless "smoking-gun" headlines, it's taking the Senate just two weeks to bring an end, finally, to the impeachment circus.  And it is ending with the always-inevitable acquittal of President Trump.  What a tragic, monumental waste of time it has been.  After all, anyone capable of rudimentary arithmetic could have seen this foreordained outcome coming from Day One.  Indeed, it's not entirely clear why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the rest of the leading luminaries of the Democratic Party even decided to embark upon this national exercise in political self-flagellation.  Math is a stubborn thing, and Democrats constitute a Senate minority — a far cry from the two-thirds supermajority required for conviction under Article I of the Constitution.

Why the Senate Passed on Witnesses.  [Reason #1] The United States Senate is a more deliberative, elegant body than is the House, and it is comprised primarily of more even-keeled politicians.  There is a simple reason for this.  In the House of Representatives it is possible to get elected in an outlier district and to remain there for years without bothering to manifest prudence or common sense.  Maxine Waters is a lock because her district is perfect for her, and she for them.  Same with Nancy Pelosi.  Same with Ocasio-Cortez and Jerrold Nadler on the other coast.  Likewise Ilhan Omar.  The only way that any of them ever would lose their seats is if they would die, be primaried-out, or both.  As long as their names appear on a November ballot under the Democrat column, they are in for two more years and then two more.  Therefore, Maxine Waters could yell "Impeach 45!" the day that Donald Trump became president, and her district loved her for it.

Compare the Vindman, Ciaramella, Misko, McCord and Atkinson Network To Pelosi's Rule Changes.  It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the 'whistle-blower' complaint aka a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative Eric Ciaramella to file as a formal IC complaint.  This process is almost identical to the Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the 2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.  NSC resistance member Alexander Vindman constructs a false story about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call; he shares the false story with CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (a John Brennan resistance associate and former NSC member).  Ciaramella then makes contact with resistance allies Sean Misko & Mary McCord working within the HPSCI.  Mary McCord (former DOJ-NSD and current Lawfare) then helps Eric Ciaramella create a fraudulent intelligence community whistle-blower complaint to submit to her former DOJ-NSD lawyer, now Intel Inspector General, ICIG Michael Atkinson.  And that's how this entire Impeachment operation gets started.

Trump impeachment illustrates serious danger of criminalization of politics.  Most Democrats believe, egged on by their supportive media, that President Bill Clinton's impeachment was really motivated by policy differences.  Then-Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry was subjected to the criminalization of politics in 2014 when he was indicted for abuse of power at the hands of his political opponents.  However, nothing in our history compares to what has occurred in response to the rise of Donald Trump.  The resistance to Trump is the greatest resistance to a president since the South greeted President Abraham Lincoln's inauguration with secession.  In Trump's case, the Washington Democrats and their sympathizers in the Justice Department and the FBI have used every legal and extra-legal avenue at their disposal against President Trump — from lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to leaking their way to and through the investigation by then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to a partisan impeachment vote.

The Senate Should Censure the House over Impeachment.  [Scroll down]  The legal depravity initiated by the Mueller investigation, carried well forth into Schiff's operation, forcing administration members to hire attorneys at their own expense in order to avoid going to jail for some trumped up process crime.  We saw the effects of this same thing during the Mueller witch hunt, where government lawyers on taxpayer funded salary, "papered" innocent folks like the distinguished Lieutenant General Flynn into penury.  Flynn after all, had to pay his attorneys out of his own pocket and by the billable hour.  Schiff and company continued this charade by ignoring due process and interviewing witnesses without the President's attorneys present.  Moreover, they had the gall to tell the President's team that they could have representation, if and only if, they waived the President's Executive Privilege.  [W]hat a crock.  The management of this debacle was a mess from start to finish.  The Democrats did a poor investigation, hid information and finally, failed to do the procedural work necessary to subpoena and ultimately hear from witnesses they deemed critical.  They declared they were ready for trial by transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  These losers then had the temerity to begin mewling for additional witnesses:  witnesses they failed to properly request to begin with.

No, the Senate is not a jury, and other misconceptions about impeachment.  On the question of impartiality, the senators will in fact take an oath to do "impartial justice."  Here is perhaps the ultimate impeachment spoiler alert:  They won't really mean it.  Or, perhaps they will mean it according to their own political views and their own definition of "impartial."  Does anyone think Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono, for example, will render "impartial justice"?  Hirono has already said that, unless Trump produces some miraculous exoneration, "the facts are that he committed an impeachable act, and I will vote to convict him."  On the other side, several Republicans have dismissed the articles of impeachment as BS.  Does that sound impartial?  Look again at the Clinton case.  In 1999, Senate Democrats were so impartial that they voted unanimously — 100% — to acquit the Democratic president.  Were all of them rendering "impartial justice"?  The fact is, individual elected officials, some of whom passionately support the president and some of whom passionately oppose him, will not render "impartial justice."

Four Tests for Impeachment.  Advocates of a president's removal from office by Congress should have to climb over four walls to reach their objective.  First, they should have to show that the facts they allege are true.  Second, they should show that the fact pattern amounts to an abuse of power or dereliction of duty by the president.  Third, they should show that this abuse or dereliction is impeachable.  And fourth, they should show that it is prudent for Congress to remove the president for this impeachable offense: that it would produce more good than evil.

The Shakespearean Grandeur of Trump Derangement Syndrome.  [Scroll down]  To put it into even simpler language, the impeachment of the president, for the Framers, was not conceived of as a tool for easy removal of that official whenever Congress may have political or policy differences with him.  It was to be reserved for occasions when there was a clear, convincing, and undeniable mistake made by those who selected the president when the president turned out to be something other than represented.  Impeachment, in other words, is not a game of "Gotcha!"  It is not about finding one or two things that can be spun to be self-serving acts, it is not about whether this president may have sought to use another country in ferreting out corruption in that country or at home, and may have used the powers of the presidency to seek to do just that.

Why the Democrats are so crazy to impeach.  [Scroll down]  To answer that, we need to consider what it was about Hillary Clinton winning in 2016 that was so crucial to Democrats that the Obama administration's CIA and FBI would conduct an illegal, clandestine operation to ensure that it happened.  The obvious answer is that under a Hillary administration, there would be no investigations into the many questionable dealings of the Obama administration or of Hillary, herself, and the massive growth in her Clinton Foundation "charity" and her personal wealth while serving as secretary of state.  But there is a better reason, one that benefits not just Obama, Hillary and those who assisted in their illicit activities, but the Democrat party as a whole and the socialist movement in America — with truly historical consequences.  There have been numerous disclosures revealing that the Democrats were planning Trump's impeachment even before he was inaugurated.  Peter Strzok, central to the FBI's effort to defeat Trump, referred to an "insurance policy" should he be elected.  All evidence points to the reality that the Democrats and the Deep State were committed to destroying Trump before he could take any presidential actions.

The Cataclysmic Disaster the Impeachment Democrats Have Overlooked.  The Democrats tried so many times to find their impeachment moment.  Would it be Stormy Daniels, with Michael Cohen running cash to her?  And what else might be on the secret tapes by which the now-disbarred and incarcerated Cohen clandestinely recorded his own clients?  Would it be catching the Trumps leveraging the presidency to make private profits for their hotels, resorts, and golf courses?  Perhaps Russian collusion.  Ah, sweet Russian collusion!  Perhaps treason, stemming from a joint news conference that the president held with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.  Perhaps the president had finagled with his taxes a decade or two before he ever ran for office?  Perhaps Rod Rosenstein was seriously considering wearing a concealed wire to record the president secretly, so as to invoke the 25th Amendment?  Perhaps a usurping of constitutional powers if the president would run roughshod over a Supreme Court ruling?  Or perhaps his cholesterol is too high, and his statin prescription is too low?  Could he be impeached for firing Jim Mattis or Rex Tillerson?  Or for tweeting too much?  How about for barring Jim Acosta from press briefings?  For firing Marie Yovanovitch?  For causing a nuclear holocaust with North Korea?  For a trade war with China?  For using discretionary funds to build a wall?  For firing Comey?

The Hatred that Fuels Impeachment.  None of the haters cares that unemployment is at near record lows, the stock market at record highs, economic growth steady, inflation and interest rates low, minority employment at all-time levels — or that there is a looming shared need to address entitlements and deficit sooner than later.  None care that for three years, there has been a nonstop effort from within and outside government to end the Trump presidency, or at least to sabotage it along the lines outlined by the anonymous New York Times op-ed writer, the whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid, or departing Department of Defense official Evelyn Farkas, or as bragged about by #TheResistance."  We are in new territory now.  Hating a president is equivalent to finding him guilty of supposed high crimes.  Impeachment is a casual affair.  Hearsay is as valid as direct testimony.  We are now living is a brave new American world never envisioned by the Founders.

The Inevitable Impeachment.  [Scroll down]  To the surprise of the politicians and bureaucrats resting in cushy positions for life, Donald Trump triumphed over a large number of other candidates to become the Republican candidate for President. [...] Then, in November of 2016, came the shock.  Trump won the Presidency.  They could not believe that such an upset was possible.  Hillary's coronation was already assumed.  The victory party was planned and prepared.  Those in the know were sure, but the people decided otherwise.  The pundits were stunned.  Tears flowed.  They could not contain their grief.  How could the voters have committed this terrible deed, one that was so opposed to their wishes?  Alarm bells began to sound.  The call for resistance rang out across the swamp, through all the bureaucrat offices, and among the lifetime politicians.  President Trump must be removed from office.

Live Look at Democrats Examining the Constitution.  New York Democrat Rep. Max Rose displayed his Constitutional illiteracy by suggesting:  "The president says he is innocent, so all we are saying is 'prove it.'"  Rose's reasoning for this impeachment push is an appalling affront to the rule of law and the presumption of innocence.  It is an absolute disgrace that a sitting member of Congress would display such wanton disregard for the founding principles of America's justice system.  But Rose is not alone.  Adam Schiff is continuing the witch hunt behind closed doors violating President Trump's right to due process that all Americans are entitled to.  He also had a career State Department official testify today without the proper legal counsel.

Four Theories of Impeachment.  Why impeachment, and why now?  Herewith four theories that are neither mutually exclusive nor the sole or dominant reason — all four can be true to some extent, along with other reasons already floating around.  [#1] The Democratic 2020 president field is unbelievably weak. [...] [#2] If the economy holds up, Trump is the strong favorite to be re-elected.  Hence the drive of the Democrats and the media to talk us into a recession. [...] [#3] This is really about tying up the Senate to prevent Trump from confirming a successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, should she leave the court in the next few months. [...] [#4] This is payback for the Clinton impeachment.

9 Reasons Why Impeachment Is a Fraud.  Last week's announcement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi authorizing an impeachment inquiry — the latest in a series of Democratic attempts to reverse the results of the 2016 presidential election — is replete with dishonesty and outright fraud.  The attacks on President Trump began even before his Inauguration, when electors were asked to reject the will of the people of their states and to instead cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.  Vanity Fair reported as far back as December 2016:  "Democrats are paving the way to impeach Donald Trump."  NewsBusters released a video montage depicting media figures discussing the possibility impeaching Trump as early as November 2016.  But when the accusations of collusion and obstruction imploded, Trump's mortal enemies needed something else.  Finally, they settled on Ukraine-gate.

Pelosi is trying to do impeachment on the cheap.  If House Democrats really want to impeach President Trump, they should do it right.  They should own it, as previous Congresses have done when impeaching previous presidents.  They should vote on the House floor to open a formal impeachment inquiry.  As long as they avoid this step, they evince a lack of faith that Trump deserves to be impeached.  Without a vote, they are just going through the motions of impeachment but without taking responsibility for their actions.  When Congress began the impeachment process for Richard Nixon, it did so with a vote.  When Congress began the impeachment process of Bill Clinton, it also did so with a vote.  The impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868 likewise began with a vote of the whole House on Feb. 24, just three days after Johnson's alleged transgression of firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.  That affair was much more abrupt than any subsequent impeachment.

Federalist Co-Founder Notes The Real Reason Behind The Media's Trump-Ukraine Obsession.  Since the 2016 election, the media has just been engulfed with Trump Derangement Syndrome.  They hate Trump.  They hate Republicans.  And this has blinded them to being hit with buckshot on a near-daily basis.  For two years, they peddled the Trump-Russia collusion myth that was a manufactured lie based on the infamous Steele Dossier, aka Trump dossier, that was compiled by ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele.  It was never fully verified, most of the allegations in it were trash, and even members of British intelligence were skeptical.  The FBI was not, as evidenced by their lack of due diligence in verifying this biased piece of political propaganda.  A Google search could have pointed out the glaring errors within the dossier.  This was a political opposition research project funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democrats.  It was based on second-hand sources, some of which were still active in the Kremlin.  If anything, this proves Clinton-Russia collusion and interference in the 2016 election.  The report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller debunked this entire project.  So, the Democrats had to suffer humiliation, as did their media allies — but impeachment was still the end goal.  It was why they retook the House in 2018.

Resistance, Inc..  Democrats have called for impeachment since Trump's inaugural.  What they have lacked is the means.  Maxine Waters raised the idea in February 2017, months before Trump fired James Comey and set in motion the train of events culminating in Mueller's appointment as special counsel.  Tom Steyer launched Need to Impeach in October 2017, a year and a half before Mueller filed his report.

Trump is the Democrats' white whale, and Pelosi is Ahab.  From the moment Trump won the 2016 election, they vowed to see him impeached!  The Democrats, all of them in Congress, seem to have forgotten everything they ever knew, if they ever bothered to know, about the Constitution, due process, innocent until proven guilty, and all that.  They don't know, don't care.  And they are always confident in the ignorance of such things among those who call themselves Democrats.  They are comfortable in their knowledge that their disciples will swallow whole whatever nonsense they spew.  Wednesday [6/5/2019], it was Nancy Pelosi claiming she "does not want to impeach President Trump, she wants to see him in jail."  There are no words that adequately describe the malevolence of this horrid woman.  To call her Machiavellian is too kind.  That American leftists behave like spoiled toddlers is an understatement.  They did not get what they wanted and expected on election day 2016, so they have been acting out every day since like incorrigible brats.  They have used and abused every conceivable trick in the book of crooks and liars:  frame the man as a traitor to his nation, accuse him of all manner of criminal activity, the whole nine yards.  Doesn't matter if the accusations are all lies.  One of them is sure to stick.  Take out his family; accuse and set up his friends.  They've left no stone unturned.  And still he stands, tall and proud and remarkably successful.

Our Exhausted American Mediocracy.  A country that once banned for life a clown from a state fair for wearing in puerile fashion a Barack Obama mask now ritually talks of impeaching, committing to an institution, overthrowing, or beating, burning, decapitating, blowing up, and shooting the elected president.  Certainly, we have never seen anything like the constant anti-Trump media hatred, the efforts since the election to remove Trump, in slow-motion coup style, by seeking to warp the Electoral College, to invoke the 25th Amendment and the Emoluments Clause, to unleash special counsel Robert Mueller with an unlimited budget, a toadyish media, a team of partisan lawyers and investigators, and prior help from the top echelons at the Obama Department of Justice, the FBI, the National Security Council, and the CIA.

If Trump Is 'Racist,' He Needs to Go Back to Racism School.  Remember when serious pundits urged electors to refuse to certify Trump's election?  Several congressional Democrats refused to attend Trump's inauguration, where the new President gave an address that Democrats and many in the media described as "combative" and "divisive" and "partisan."  Some critics even predicted that, because of Trump's alleged "mental instability," a cabinet official or another "adult in the administration" would invoke the 25th Amendment.  This drumbeat grew so loud that Trump's White House doctor discussed the results of Trump's physical at a press conference, where reporters asked about Trump's mental fitness to serve.  Pundits and cable hosts practically ran out of adjectives while calling Trump "racist," "sexist," "anti-Semitic," "homophobic" and "xenophobic."  When the deputy attorney general appointed Robert Mueller to investigate the allegation of a Trump-Russia "collusion," Trump-haters began the countdown on when they expected Trump to resign, one step before Mueller outed him as an election cheat.  Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., called for Trump's impeachment almost from the moment he took office.

The resistance is futile.  The Billy Bush tape was supposed to do him in. [...] The emoluments clause was supposed to do him in. [...] The Russian Dossier was supposed to do him in. [...] Firing Comey was supposed to do him in. [...] Stormy Daniels was supposed to do him in. [...] The Internet is doing to the press what Amazon did to Sears.

Divisive Democrats, United by Hate.  Nothing unites Democrats more than their loathing of one man and their disdain for the American voters who elected him.  Donald Trump has succeeded in undoing much of the legacy left us by his leftist predecessor.  And he's not done undoing.  So it's easy to understand how the Democrats' boundless love for Barack Obama would translate into mindless hatred for Donald Trump.  They call it "political opposition," but the nonstop venom spewing from liberal politicians and the media, Hollywood, and academia represents something much more dangerous to our republic than healthy political opposition.  One of the more recent examples came from Barry Bluestone, a Northeastern University professor, who said of Trump during a public lecture, "Sometimes, I want to just see him impeached.  Other times, quite honestly ... I wouldn't mind seeing him dead."

Limitless Investigation of Trump Was Always the Plan.  A man can run the gauntlet against more than 20 professional politicians and come out victorious.  He can win more than 40 Republican primary contests and beat every professional political campaigner out there, earning the votes of more than 14 million Republicans. [...] We can pick our president.  But then the powerful established bureaucracy must conduct a massive, sprawling, limitless investigation into any and all aspects of the president we pick.  The basis of this "investigation" is an increasingly debunked frame-up designed and drafted by the Kremlin and paid for by President Trump's political opponent in the presidential election.  And then spread to all four corners of the globe by the oldest creatures of the powerful establishment in Washington.

Collapsing News Network:  CNN, MSM Hope Raunchy Sex Scandal Ends Trump.  First they tried to beat him at the polls.  They lost miserably.  Then they unleashed America's most powerful and penetrating espionage apparatus against him at the height of the presidential campaign.  And got caught red-handed.  Once he assumed the White House, they tried beating him with a sprawling federal investigation into "Russia collusion" — only to discover that they themselves were the only ones colluding with the Kremlin to tilt the 2016 election.  Frustrated, exhausted and completely out of ideas, the Grand Cyclops of the Washington Swamp has finally resorted to the only thing that has resulted in a presidential impeachment since Reconstruction:  a raunchy sex scandal.

The Deep State "Whistleblower" and President Trump's phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky:
This subsection has moved to a page of its own, located here.

The impeachment trial in the Senate is discussed on a page of its own, located here.

Timely news and commentary:

Trump impeachment manager gets sued for $20 million.  One of the far-left Democrats who orchestrated a failed impeachment campaign against President Trump, and now has been adamant in defense of Joe Biden on impeachment investigation claims of influence peddling and corruption, has been sued for defaming a congressional witness.  The complaint by onetime Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski was filed against Jamie Raskin, in his individual capacity, in U.S. District Court in Maryland.  The lawsuit seeks $20 million in "compensatory, special and punitive" damages, plus costs, plus any other "relief as the court deems justice."  Bobulinski, in fact, has testified to Congress investigating Joe Biden for possible impeachment about Biden's personal involvement in the Biden family's international business schemes, which critics have called influence peddling, and Congress has confirmed has generated paychecks of tens of millions of dollars.

Biden Administration Openly Promising to Do the Exact Thing Trump Was Accused of Doing During Impeachment Effort.  President Donald J. Trump was accused of withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine in order to force compliance with his requests.  This was the exact claim of those who attempted to impeach President Trump in 2019; this was their originating justification.  Today, NBC is reporting that Joe Biden is looking at what military aid can be withheld from Israel in order to force compliance with their requests.  I doubt the insufferable dolts in the media can see the ridiculous hypocrisy in this story.

The New Rules Dictate That Biden Be Struck From the Ballot With the 25th Amendment.  You've got to say one thing about the left's New Rules, which kicked into high gear under President Obama and have metastasized throughout our rotten establishment ever since:  they certainly are expedient.  Leftists want Trump gone.  They didn't want him to win the white house in 2016, so they set up their infamous "insurance policy" to cut his administration off at the knees.  Under the old rules — the American social contract of fair play and integrity — there was a major problem with this strategy:  Trump had done nothing wrong.  But those who play by the New Rule never take "No" for an answer.  One simply makes up whatever one needs to execute one's desires.  In this case, they wanted Trump out of office, so they created the Russia Collusion fallacy out of thin air and wasted untold sums of public money on it — and years of Trump's rightful term as President of the United States of America.  After Trump was deposed in 2020, the left never let up their attacks on him.  They understood that he remained a threat.

We Are Well Beyond Hypocrisy.  The Left is saturating the airwaves with outrage over the current House Republicans' impeachment inquiry.  They allege that formally investigating Joe Biden's role in the family grifting operation is somehow a poor constitutional precedent, if not out-of-bounds entirely.  So we hear further arguments that it will be unwise to impeach a first-term president when he loses his House majority, that there is no reason to "waste" congressional time and effort when Biden will be automatically acquitted in the Democratically controlled Senate, and that the impeachment is cynically timed to synchronize with president's reelection efforts.  All of these are the precise arguments many of us cited when Donald Trump was impeached in December 2019 (as his reelection campaign began, and immediately after being cleared of the 22-month, $40-million-special-counsel Russian-collusion hoax).  The Democrats tried to remove an elected president over a phone call without a special counsel's report.

5 lies our government wants us to believe.  [#3] "Trump-Putin Collusion."  This is the so-called Russiagate fake story, which was actually collusion among lying politicians, intelligence officials, and media who tried to get Hillary Clinton into the White House.  This lie succeeded in destroying Trump's presidency along with its declared goal of improving U.S.-Russia relations.

Romney is not stupid.  He's either lying or incompetent.
Mitt Romney confesses he didn't know anything about Burisma when he voted to impeach President Trump.  Mitt Romney voted to impeach President Trump for a phone call in which the president encouraged Ukraine to investigate allegations of serious corruption — coincidentally involving the Biden crime family — but according to a new book, the failed politician admits he had no idea what Burisma was when he voted to impeach a duly-elected president for calling on foreign governments to investigate alleged criminality.  That is extreme ignorance (not to mention dangerous) when a senator is willing to impeach a president just because he doesn't like him, all without knowing the facts.

217 Pages Reveal Obama Admin's Building of Trump-Russia Narrative.  Heavily redacted documents from the National Security Agency tell at least part of the story of a final-month rush by the outgoing Obama administration to torpedo the incoming presidency of Donald Trump.  The Daily Signal obtained 217 pages of documents from the NSA through a Freedom of Information Act request.  The documents reveal that Obama administration officials, from Vice President Joe Biden down to several ambassadors and many officials in the Treasury and Energy departments, gained access to secret information about President-elect Trump's incoming national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

House GOP seeking to expunge 'sham' Trump impeachments.  House Republicans are seeking to formally expunge the impeachments of former President Donald Trump, Fox News Digital has learned.  House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced resolutions Thursday to expunge Trump's first impeachment from December 2019 and his second from January 2021.  Those resolutions would expunge what the lawmakers are calling "unconstitutional" impeachments and make it legally as if the articles "had never passed the full House of Representatives."  "The American people know Democrats weaponized the power of impeachment against President Donald Trump to advance their own extreme political agenda," Stefanik told Fox News Digital.

Hillary's 2016 Campaign CFO and Current SEC Chairman Gary Gensler Claims He Wasn't Aware of Payment for Steele Dossier (Yet He Was Hillary's CFO?).  Gary Gensler was the CFO for Hillary Clinton's failed 2016 Election campaign yet he claimed under oath today that he "wasn't aware" of the payment from her campaign to pay for the Steele Dossier.  This is highly unlikely. [...] When Hillary Clinton was putting together her 2016 Presidential campaign, she brought in Gary Gensler as her Chief Financial Officer. [...] By early January of 2016, things had worn off and Hillary had some competition.  Those supporting her only competitor, socialist Bernie Sanders, were not happy with Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs guy. [...] It was also clear at this time that Gensler was running Hillary's campaign finances.  Gensler also worked with Hillary's attorney Marc Elias in creating the Hillary Victory Fund, according to Bloomberg in a piece in June 2016: [...] Elias was Hillary's general counsel at the time Gensler was CFO.  It was during this time when Gensler oversaw the Hillary campaign's finances that Hillary's campaign paid millions to law firm Perkins Coie.  This was also the time that the Steele dossier was paid for.

19 Times Democrats And DOJ Deliberately Politicized Law Enforcement.  [#3] The campaign to impeach former President Donald Trump began well before his 2017 inauguration.  Deep-state officials within the FBI concocted plans known as Crossfire Hurricane to frame Trump as a Russian agent after the Republican businessman secured the GOP presidential nomination.  Within four months of Trump's first term, a special counsel was appointed to investigate allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.  After the more than two-year special counsel investigation run entirely by Democrats with unlimited resources, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team found not one person, let alone Trump himself, colluded with the Kremlin.

J6 lies are part of a much bigger pattern.  The "Russia collusion" story was a lie from the get-go, and Democrats knew it because Democrats colluded to create it.  The Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who concocted the "Russian dossier" out of whole cloth.  The "investigation" — which produced nothing — cost taxpayers $32 million, and the Clinton campaign paid a small fine.  Who was undermining confidence in the electoral process then?

FBI Official Who Investigated Trump for Russian Collusion Gets Arrested for Russian Collusion.  In a hilarious and astonishing turn of events, one of the FBI officials who investigated Donald Trump for supposed Russian collusion has now been arrested for Russian collusion.  Former agent Charles McGonigal, who headed up counterintelligence for the FBI's New York field office during the Trump-Russia saga, was placed under arrest for allegedly taking payments from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.  What was he being paid to do?  According to CBS News, McGonigal and an interpreter named Sergey Shestakov agreed to investigate another Russian oligarch that Deripaska was targeting.

Former top FBI official Charles McGonigal arrested over ties to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.  A former top FBI official in New York has been arrested over his ties to a Russian oligarch, law enforcement sources told ABC News Monday.  Charles McGonigal, who was the special agent in charge of counterintelligence in the FBI's New York Field Office, is under arrest over his ties to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire who has been sanctioned by the United States and criminally charged last year with violating those sanctions.  McGonigal retired from the FBI in 2018.  He was arrested Saturday afternoon after he arrived at JFK Airport following travel in Sri Lanka, the sources said.

Destroying American Democracy — An Inside Job.  Today we know that the "Russia hoax" was a lie.  After a 22-month investigation, no evidence of collusion between any element of the Trump campaign and Russia was uncovered.  The supposedly compromising evidence had never existed; the information in the "Steele dossier" was false — and the FBI had known it was from the start.  The entire fabrication had been an attempt to attack and politically weaken Trump.

McCarthy Says House Might 'Expunge' Impeachments of Trump.  It's clear now that both impeachments of Donald Trump were shabby partisan affairs that will be remembered as shameful episodes in American history.  But they happened, and that's that — or is it?  Now House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has suggested that the impeachments could be "expunged."  Mediaite reported Friday [1/13/2023] that McCarthy "said at his first official presser in the job that he and the House GOP majority might 'look at' the idea of expunging ex-president Donald Trump's impeachments."

Nadler feuded with Schiff, Pelosi over 'unconstitutional' impeachment of Donald Trump.  A new book reveals that House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., was at odds with how House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handled impeachment proceedings against former President Trump, insisting that the methods used by the prominent Democrats were "unconstitutional" and could be used to attack the party.  The revelation comes in a book set to be released on Oct. 18 titled, "Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress's Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump," written by Politico Playbook co-author Rachael Bade and Washington Post reporter Karoun Demirjian.  The book chronicles the methods Democrats used to target Trump.

Exclusive Doc Indicates Special Counsel [is] Failing To Bring Collusion Hoaxers To Justice.  A whitepaper obtained first by The Federalist suggests Special Counsel John Durham botched the investigation of a second Russia collusion hoax, the one concerning Yota cellphones.  In a scandal linked to the Spygate operation, Hillary Clinton cronies peddled to the CIA fake evidence they claimed established Donald Trump and his associates were using the Russian-made Yota cellphones in the vicinity of the White House and other key locations.  The news of this operation broke during the special counsel's prosecution of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann.  However, the just-obtained Yota whitepaper that was supposed to undergird Sussmann's claims differs substantially from the memoranda documenting what Sussmann supposedly said to the CIA.  Durham's team has known of these discrepancies for years but has failed to hold responsible those who used the CIA to target a political opponent and the then-president of the United States with false smears of corruption with a foreign power.

The Short Life (And Amazingly Fast Death) Of The FBI's Mar-A-Lago Play.  [Scroll down] In the end, it came down to a vote, where Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House impeached the president on partisan lines and the Republican Senate acquitted him, with only Republican Mitt Romney joining the Democrats in their guilty votes.  Ever-loyal Mitt was still a "good Republican."  Along the way, lie after lie and hoax after hoax was thrown Republicans' way.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a gang rapist; Trump was ignoring Russian murder bounties on American soldiers; and on and on.  Each time, fewer and fewer Republicans and center-right pundits went along.  Each time, the "good Republicans" made more of a mockery of themselves and their much-cited "principles."

Not Just The FBI: Institutions Across The Board Have Forfeited America's Trust.  As if spying on U.S. senators and turning a blind eye to Clinton's malfeasance wasn't bad enough, in 2016, the FBI began its infamous Crossfire Hurricane operation where FBI agents would use a dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign to investigate and surveil the Trump campaign, and later, the Trump presidency.  They knew the dossier had little basis in fact but presented it to the FISA court anyway.  FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith doctored another piece of evidence and presented it to the FISA court.  Throughout the investigation, FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page would routinely send each other text messages expressing their disdain for Trump and his supporters.  The investigation didn't end when President Trump won the election.  In 2017, FBI Director James Comey leaked sensitive information to the press in order to force then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel.  Over the next few years, the country would be torn apart, and in the end, the special counsel never found any evidence of Russian collusion.

Pelosi Readies New Articles of Impeachment Against Trump.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Frisco, is readying new articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Issues & Insights has learned.  "Sixteen months is too long to go between Trump impeachments," she told her Democratic caucus in a secret meeting secretly recorded by I&I investigators.  She said that despite her previous claim that Trump had been "impeached forever," she now believes that the effectiveness of a Trump impeachment is only about as long-lasting as a COVID vaccine.  She noted that the House had waited until 13 months between the first and second impeachment efforts, only to have both fail.  "We should have started on this impeachment business before Trump was even sworn in," she said.  The meeting came as the televised hearings about the Jan. 6 incursion into the Capitol building are put on pause.  Viewership of the televised hearings has plunged to the point that reruns of "F Troop" are now beating them in the ratings.

The Editor says...
Don't say anything bad about "F Troop."  Who doesn't like Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch?

Twenty-Nine Republicans Back Resolution To Expunge Trump's Second Impeachment.  Twenty-nine Republicans, one of whom is Rep. Elise Stefanik the House GOP Conference Chairwoman, support a resolution to "expunge" the second impeachment of President Donald Trump.  The effort is being led by Rep. Markwayne Mullin who also introduced a resolution to expunge Trump's first impeachment.

Hillary Factor:  Evidence now shows false Russia collusion story began and ended with Clinton.  In an era where the hunt for disinformation has become a political obsession, Hillary Clinton has mostly escaped having to answer what role she played in spreading the false Russia collusion narrative that gripped America for nearly three years.  On Friday, that dodge ended with a most unlikely witness: her former campaign manager Robby Mook, who was supposed to be a witness helping the defense of her former campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann on a charge of lying to the FBI.  Instead, under cross-examination by Special Counsel John Durham's team, Mook was forced to concede two extraordinary facts.  First, the Clinton campaign wasn't "totally confident" about the accuracy of computer data suggesting Donald Trump had a secret communications channel to the Kremlin via Russia's Alfa Bank.

After Bombshell Testimony in the Sussmann Trial, Trump Asks 'Where Do I Get My Reputation Back?'.  In an exclusive published Saturday morning, Fox News Digital reports that former President Donald Trump is asking, "Where do I get my reputation back?" in the wake of Friday's startling revelation in the Michael Sussmann trial.  In that testimony, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was directly implicated in pushing the fake Alfa Bank Russia Collusion story.

Rep. Markwayne Mullin introduces resolution to expunge Trump's first impeachment.  Oklahoma Rep. Markwayne Mullin introduced a resolution to expunge former President Donald Trump's first impeachment on Tuesday [4/26/2022], arguing it was "an unimaginable abuse of our Constitution."  The resolution, if passed by the House, would expunge Trump's 2019 impeachment for allegedly leveraging U.S. military aid to Ukraine for political favors, specifically investigations of the Biden family.  "President Trump was impeached over a sabotaged, perfect phone call," Mullin said in the press release.  "The hearsay of witnesses completely contradicted the plain text of the transcript.  Facts did not matter, and Democrats in the House impeached President Donald J. Trump, nevertheless.  Now, we have Joe Biden stoking international crises with public comments surrounding the same nation.  And Democrats in Congress remain predictably speechless."

Durham Filing Reveals CIA Knew in Early 2017 That Data Tying Trump to Russia Was Fake.  As the trial of Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann approaches, special counsel John Durham and Sussmann's lawyers are arguing over what evidence can be admitted.  As part of those arguments, Durham filed a "routine" response late on April 15, detailing why the evidence he's seeking to admit is both relevant and admissible.  These back-and-forth filings are common in the weeks leading up to federal trials, but the disclosures made by Durham are anything but routine.  The most striking of these disclosures concerns data trails that Sussmann and his cohorts, including "Tech Executive-1" Rodney Joffe, had supposedly uncovered between Trump and the Russian Alfa Bank.  It was widely claimed that these data trails established a direct communications channel between Trump and the Russian government.  Sussmann took the data to the FBI in September 2016 hoping to trigger an investigation into Trump and his campaign.  The existence of an FBI investigation would then be used by the Clinton campaign as a media kill shot against Trump in the final weeks of the 2016 election.

Is Rep. Kevin McCarthy's pledge to not impeach Biden for political purposes an act of surrender before the battle begins?  It has to be remembered that the Democrats impeached President Donald Trump on two occasions without evidence or reason.  The first impeachment in 2019 was over baseless claims that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for political gain.  Here the votes were strictly on party lines.  The second impeachment was in 2021 on claims he provoked an 'insurrection.'  On this occasion 10 House Republicans sided with Democrats and voted to impeach President Trump.  The Democrats amped up their vicious anti-Trump campaign the day he won the Presidential elections in November 2016. They weaponized various government agencies in order to force Trump out of office.  What was disappointing was that this occurred at a time when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House i.e., the GOP controlled Washington.  Yet the GOP was relegated to helpless spectators as Democrats concocted the Russian collusion conspiracy, hysterically beating the drums to amplify it such that it caused the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  A conspiracy theory that should have been restricted to the dark web, was mainstreamed and weaponized.

SpyGate 101: A Primer On The Russia Collusion Hoax's Years-long Plot To Take Down Trump.  As Special Counsel John Durham continues to expose more details of the "SpyGate" or "Russia collusion" scandal, it can be difficult for any apolitical, non-news-junkie member of the public to grasp the ongoing developments.  After all, for more than five years, the corrupt legacy media has refused to report on scandal or done so with a slanted portrayal of the facts.  So most Americans remain unaware of the Democrats' years-long duplicity that sought to destroy first candidate and then President Donald Trump.  Add to that reality the overlapping conspiracies and sprawling cast of characters involved, and it can be difficult to follow the story.  That the scandal is dense, however, does not mean it should be ignored.  To the contrary, the duplicity must not be disregarded because what Trump's political enemies tried to accomplish over the course of five years represents the biggest threat our constitutional republic has seen in the last century.

The Editor says...
SpyGate is a complicated story.  So is the story of the Clinton Foundation's operations in Haiti, the Clintons' Uranium One deal, the Rose Law Firm / Whitewater / Madison Guaranty scandal, the highly suspicious death of VInce Foster, or the operation of Hillary Clinton's private email server. The villains in a story like this want it to be complicated, so that it will be difficult for a prosecutor to unravel and diagram it all.  Hard to detect, hard to understand, hard to believe, hard to prove.  And in Washington, DC, it would be hard to get a conviction from an all-Democrat jury.

'Those Who Make Peaceful Revolution Impossible Will Make Violent Revolution Inevitable'.  Every single American with a functioning brain knows that Donald Trump won the election in 2020 and that everyone from Mark Zuckerberg to the mainstream media to the Democrat party to Never Trumper "conservatives" conspired to steal it.  And they did.  Of course, the theft of the election comes after four years of continuous attacks.  The genesis of most of those attacks was the activity John Durham laid out in his court filing:  Hillary Clinton's funding the fabricated data suggesting Trump was colluding with the Russians in order to steal the election.  The Democrats produced, proffered, and peddled this pure propaganda, and the media parroted and promoted it.  Millions of Americans bought it, hook, line, and sinker, leading to a Special Counsel to investigate ties between the Russians and the Trump campaign.  That Special Counsel and the media's constant promotion of the "Russian collusion" hoax kneecapped Trump's administration.

Ratcliffe says 'all kinds of intelligence' showed 'fake Russia collusion'.  The U.S. government possessed a wealth of intelligence showing bogus allegations of collusion between former President Donald Trump and Russia, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said, referring to his time overseeing the nation's spy apparatus.  Now special counsel John Durham is "revealing some of the details" of what Ratcliffe claims was a plan by Hillary Clinton's 2016 team and their associates to sell "a false narrative" to the FBI and CIA, possibly leading to conspiracy charges in the politically charged inquiry.

Key State Department Email Detailing $7 Million Bribe Was Never Provided to Trump's Impeachment Defense.  A newly released email confirms that Burisma, the firm that gave Joe Biden's son Hunter a lucrative position on its board, paid a $7 million bribe to the Ukrainian prosecutor's office.  The email also confirms that Obama's State Department knew about the bribe.  Another email found on Hunter Biden's laptop in October 2020 suggested that he was later tasked by a top Burisma executive to shut down an investigation into Burisma.  At the time the bribe was paid, Hunter was not only a Burisma board member, he was the head of Burisma's legal unit.  The author of the newly released email, State Department official George Kent, testified at President Donald Trump's 2020 impeachment.  Kent never mentioned the explosive information from his email — information that would have cleared Trump.

"Blue Anon" Says Russia Is Responsible For Every Problem And If You Doubt It You're A Russian Asset.  Aaron Mate of The Gray Zone joined FNC's Tucker Carlson on Friday to discuss the U.S. government's assertion that Russia plans to fake a justification for war in Ukraine, and how that fits into the larger Trump-Russia collusion/Blue Anon situation.  "I think the reason why this Russiagate/Russian disinformation campaign has been so pervasive is that it serves such a wide spectrum of powerful interests," he said.  "They have an animus towards Russia because Russia is a deterrent to U.S. hegemony."  "We know about QAnon.  There's a cult called Blue Anon, in which Russia is responsible for every single U.S. problem and if you disagree with that, you're a Russian asset."  [Video clip]

And the Band Played On.  In 2016, surrogates for the Obama administration, operating as a fifth column behind a curtain of national intelligence and federal law enforcement loyalists, plotted for a de facto third term by initiating a corrupt campaign against the candidacy of a populist Republican candidate.  Crazed after the consequent loss to Donald Trump, they commenced a broadside of straw allegations and conspiracies against the new president and his supporters.  More than a dozen Democrat-run subcommittees over two terms of Congress opened fifty probes of the Trump administration, harassed political opponents with subpoenas, alternately withheld and leaked secret testimony without fear of reckoning, and staged two theatrical impeachment proceedings replete with cutaway footage of silly walks between the chambers.  Throughout, the Trump presidency stayed off the ropes, fending off serial indignities while effectively tackling the business of the people, securing the border, reducing unemployment, achieving energy independence, and sending more than 200 judges to the federal bench, including three Supreme Court justices.

Bombshell documents reveal the Big Lie behind the Trump Ukraine impeachment.  When President Trump called Ukraine's president in the summer of 2020, he asked — without conditions — that Ukraine investigate whether then-Veep Biden used taxpayer money to force the discharge of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was coming close to Burisma Holdings, which had Hunter Biden on the payroll.  Democrats called this an illegal quid pro quo and impeached Trump.  It now turns out that Biden was lying big time when he claimed he needed to fire a "corrupt" prosecutor.  In fact, the Obama State Department strongly supported the prosecutor.  Biden was just giving Burisma its money's worth.  In 2016, Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin, was investigating Burisma Holdings.  Not coincidentally, Hunter Biden, whose father was then Obama's vice president, was on the company's board and getting $83,000 a month.  Hunter did not speak a word of Ukrainian and knew nothing about Ukraine or the oil and gas business.  His only benefit to Burisma was his father.  Most people might not have known or cared about these facts were it not for Biden's inability to resist puffing about himself.

Key Evidence Undermining Ukraine Impeachment Narrative [was] Withheld From Trump Defense.  In 2016, Burisma Holdings was being investigated by Ukraine's then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin while then-Vice President Joe Biden's Hunter sat on the company's board making $83,000.  So Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine unless they fired Shokin.  Biden argued that his actions were above board because he was carrying out the "official policy" of the Obama administration to root out corruption in Ukraine.  "It was a fully transparent policy carried out in front of the whole world and fully, fully embraced by the international community of democracies," he claimed.  But according to official memos seen by Just The News, this is not the case.

Six Political Predictions For 2022.  [Scroll down]  Unbeknownst to most readers of the New York Times or viewers of corporate media outlets is the fact that the Russian Collusion scandal was entirely fabricated.  In an honest world, this story alone would be the biggest news item of the 21st century.  Think about it for just a second:  A sitting president (Obama) and the heir apparent (Clinton) both knew about and helped orchestrate a gigantic lie that would paint their adversary (Trump) as an operative of Russia's Vladimir Putin.  For four years, they claimed that the 2016 election was stolen, aided in part by Russian interference and participation with the Trump campaign.  This country endured two years of incessant blather on newsprint and television about the scandal, and corrupt politicians like Adam Schiff kept promising a nail-in-the-coffin moment, despite clearly knowing better.  Robert Mueller was finally dragged in front of Congress to report on the fact that no collusion existed.  Then, two years later, and once Trump was no longer president, we learn that the Clinton campaign funded false research and allowed the FBI to lie itself and use falsified statements from other folks to even move the story forward in the first place.  What's more, it was Clinton that colluded with Russian assets, not Trump.

Pelosi's Jan. 6 witch hunt.  The third impeachment witch hunt of former President Donald Trump led by unchecked grand inquisitors Reps.  Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney of the so-called Jan. 6 select committee is the phoniest one yet.  In 2019, Mr. Trump became a victim of the first impeachment hoax based on a routine phone call with the president of Ukraine.  On the heels of his failed three-year Russia collusion embarrassment, conspiracy theorist Rep. Adam Schiff ran a desperate sham trial complete with a fake whistleblower to impeach Mr. Trump for absolutely no reason.  Later, when President Biden was found engaging in a similar phone call with the president of Afghanistan, no one batted an eye.  But unlike Mr. Trump, the opaque Biden White House still hasn't released a transcript of the call.  This horrible double standard was pure vindication for Mr. Trump.

Perception Is Not Reality, No Matter What the Liberal Media Say.  [Scroll down]  Another example of what-isn't-real-reported-as-real was the Russia Collusion hoax.  For nearly three years, the complicit media bombarded the public with an alternate reality that the FBI knew was false.  There never was any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, despite Rep. Adam Schiff's repeated promises to show his "ample evidence in plain sight."

A Coup Against The Constitution?  The modern era of direct attacks by bureaucrats based on ideology came into full effect when the IRS targeted Tea Party groups over their tax-exempt status.  This happened during Obama's reign, but really went into overdrive when Trump was elected. [...] The control of the permanent bureaucracy in government by the political left has already been achieved.  Around 90 percent of political donations by government union employees go to Democrats.  The partisanship became evident during the Trump administration as the intelligence community and Justice Department were shown to be increasingly biased.  They spent nearly four years pushing a theory that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians in the 2016 election that was embarrassingly false.  Special Counsel William Mueller spent more than two years and untold millions of dollars yet found zero evidence of any collusion.  But that was never the point, and they knew it before he even began.

The Genesis of Our American Collective Meltdown.  [Scroll down]  The derangement was then capped off, first, by a buffoonish riot at the Capitol followed by a Reichstag-fire style militarization of Washington, D.C., in a "never let a crisis go to waste" psychodrama.  Then came a novel second and unprecedented presidential impeachment, without a special prosecutor, witnesses, or cross examinations.  It was based on the myth of a deadly "armed insurrection" fueled by President Trump, which purportedly led to the murder of a police officer.  Later most of the writs of the House impeachment were proven fantasies, from the idea of "armed" and "well-organized" to "murderous" revolutionaries.  The only mysteries were the identity of the unnamed officer who fatally shot an unarmed female protester and military veteran, and why the government has still not released thousands of hours of video detailing the riot.  That impeachment charade was followed by a trial in the Senate — without the chief justice presiding — of a president, who was no longer in office.

Dems Announce Yet *Another* Partisan Trump Witch Hunt — 120 Days Into Biden's Presidency.  The Democratic Party, having apparently solved all of America's problems, are going back to the well at least one more time:  It is announcing yet another partisan Trump "witch hunt."  On Monday [6/14/2021], House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) announced that the House Democrats are going to open a formal investigation into the Department of Justice's surveillance of Congress, journalists, and others:  "Recent reports suggest that, during the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice used criminal investigations as a pretext to spy on President Trump's perceived political enemies," Nadler's letter read.

Eighteen months later, Democrats' first Trump impeachment tale [is] in tatters.  In the first of their two drives to impeach Donald Trump, Democrats had a simple storyline:  The then-president abused his power by requesting an investigation of Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine when Joe Biden's son had done nothing wrong.  That mantra carried through the 2020 election, repeated by Democrats and sympathetic news anchors.  "President Trump has falsely accused your son of doing something wrong while serving on a company board in Ukraine," CNN anchor Anderson Cooper claimed as he set up a question during an interview with Joe Biden last year.  "I want to point out there is no evidence of wrongdoing by either one of you."  Joe Biden offered similar claims during the 2020 presidential debates.  "My son did nothing wrong," Biden said at one point when pressed by Trump.  Another time, he added:  "Nothing was unethical."  In a separate interview, the now-president emphatically stated:  "There's nothing on its face that was wrong."  Now 18 months since the rushed Ukraine impeachment vote in the House and subsequent Senate trial acquittal, that Democratic narrative is in tatters following a series of explosive revelations that have come both from open records requests about the Biden family dealings with Burisma Holdings in Ukraine and emails from an abandoned Hunter Biden laptop now in the FBI's possession.

DOJ appeals order to release Russia memo in full which cleared Trump of obstruction but does agree to make a portion of it public.  The Biden administration said Monday [5/24/2021] that it would appeal a judge's order directing it to release legal memo explaining why Attorney General Bill Barr didn't choose to prosecute President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice by allegedly thwarting Robert Muller's Russia investigation.  But it also agreed to make a brief portion of the document public, which shows that two senior Justice Department leaders advised Barr that, in their view, Mueller's evidence could not support an obstruction conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.  U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson earlier this month ordered Biden's DOJ to release the entire March 2019 memo as part of a public records lawsuit from a Washington-based advocacy organization.

This is impeachment #3.  What do you do when the border is a mess and gasoline prices are out of control?  You try to impeach Trump again by starting another investigation. [...] I smell a party looking for a distraction here:
  [#1]   The border is a mess and people are being released without court dates.  I'm confused.  I thought that these people were seeking asylum.  It sounds to me like they are just walking into the country.
  [#2]   Inflation is showing its ugly face.  Just ask the moms shopping at the local stores after filling the gas tank.
  [#3]   Support for Israel is dividing Democrats.  President Biden has an Israel problem and it's not from the GOP side.
Last, but not least, the 50-50 Senate is making it very difficult for the "majority" to do anything and the left is growing unhappy.  They want to pack the courts and force Justice Stephen Breyer out, but it's not likely to happen.

Once the story of the century, the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory has all but vanished.  It had all the makings of a once-in-a-generation scandal: allegations of political sabotage from a hostile foreign power, the willing cooperation of an upstart political candidate, a stolen election, a compromised U.S. national security system, and a genuine threat to the stability and integrity of the United States itself.  Yet after several years of claims from politicians, activists and commentators that President Donald Trump and/or his campaign actively colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton, the scandal itself has essentially died, with no evidence ever having arisen to substantiate those explosive allegations.  The death knell of the conspiracy theory was likely the March 2019 release of the special counsel's report on the conspiracy theory; the open-ended, years-long investigation, headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller, was ultimately unable to find any strong evidence that the Trump campaign had collaborated with the Russian government to win the 2016 race.

Biden's Chamber of Confected Hatreds.  There is nothing to investigate about Donald Trump; the extended persecution of him by politicized intelligence and justice officials, and the two unfounded impeachment trials inflicted on him completely failed to produce one scintilla of evidence of his wrongdoing.

The Legends of Our Fall.  Many politicians at one point or another live by lies — if they can get away with them.  Our supposed sentinels, the media — self-defined as independent, cynical, and skeptical journalists — are supposed to separate political fictions from truth. [...] Take the "Russian collusion" lie.  For three years, everyone from Hillary Clinton and the New York Times to John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and the newsrooms of CNN and MSNBC, assured the nation that Donald Trump stole the 2016 election through "collusion."  Indeed, Trump was declared an active Russian "asset."  That was pure legend from its beginning with no proof, and none of its purveyors have yet apologized.  Carter Page was a fall guy, not an agent.  The FBI lied about him, and eventually forged an email to entrap him.

A Storm Over the American Republic.  The legitimacy of Trump as a president was being thwarted and denied, for example by "Crossfire Hurricane" and serial FISA abuse [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] even before he was elected.  Nineteen minutes after his inauguration, the Washington Post released the headline, "The campaign to Impeach President Trump has begun".  For more than three years Trump was accused, without any evidence apart from a fake "dossier", of being a Russian agent.  The accusations eventually proved baseless, but not before $32 million of taxpayers' money were spent in what the prosecutors knew from the start was a fraud.  They also tried to frame, incriminate and send innocent people to prison.  The exercise was, at bottom, nothing more than an attempted coup d'état.

A Swamp Tale:  The Bizarre Final Hours of 'Impeachment Fail 2.0'.  I have to admit I didn't watch most of Donald Trump's second impeachment trial. [...] When the closing arguments started, the news alerts began popping up that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had informed his caucus he intended to vote to acquit President Trump since he felt the Senate had no jurisdiction over a private citizen.  Ironically, it was McConnell himself who decided that the trial would not start until after the "inauguration," but whatever.  Now, anybody who knows Mitch McConnell knows that when he announces how he intends to vote on a big issue, he's essentially telling his GOP colleagues how he expects them to vote.  He knew that there would be a few defectors, and maybe even a surprise, last-minute turncoat, but he was basically instructing the conservative wing of his caucus to remain on the reservation.  Nevertheless, this announcement set off a chain of events that threw the entire Senate into chaos for a solid hour.

Angry at Trump, Liberals Propose Unconstitutional Bill to Punish Him.  Democrats have twice impeached Donald Trump in the House and twice failed to convict him in the Senate.  They're angry about failing, and double angry about failing twice.  That's understandable.  Nobody likes to fail.  But they've now fallen into the trap of letting their anger get the better of their reason and their oaths to uphold the Constitution.  The result is a legislative temper tantrum in a bill dubbed the No Glory for Hate Act.  The act is petty and petulant, and it inspires a strong temptation to laugh and mock.  It is, however, an unconstitutional abuse of power, and that transforms an amusing little fit into a worrisome precedent.  The bill targets "any former President that has been twice impeached" — excuse me while I take a moment to figure out all the presidents that it applies to — and says that no federal funds may be used to commemorate all those presidents.

Mother Of Officer Sicknick Says Media Got Her Son's Death Wrong, Rejects NYT Fire Extinguisher Story.  The mother of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who died one day after the Capitol riots in January, rejected media assertions weaponized by Democrats in their impeachment trial that her son was killed from head trauma by a fire extinguisher.  "He wasn't hit on the head, no.  We think he had a stroke, but we don't know anything for sure," Gladys Sicknick told the Daily Mail in an interview published Tuesday [2/23/2021].  "We'd love to know what happened."  The false narrative first came from the New York Times, which headlined an article, "Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage," published on Jan. 8, two days after the riot. [...] Democrats repeatedly cited the story and even introduced it into evidence at the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.

Boycott the Gaslight Media and Save America.  [Scroll down]  A recent example of this tactic is the reporting in the immediate days following the breach of the Capitol on January 6th of this year.  The incident was almost instantaneously characterized as an "armed insurrection."  Five people were said to have been murdered in the mayhem.  Supposedly, a policeman was savagely beaten to death with a fire extinguisher by a Trump supporter, and this was widely reported in the New York Times and throughout the media.  All the so-called insurgents were branded as Trump supporters (i.e., domestic terrorists) who were incited by President Trump's speech to go on a murderous rampage and threaten the lives of Senators and Representatives.  President Trump had blood on his hands, therefore, impeachment and a permanent sanction against his seeking the presidency in the future was an absolute necessity. [...] Since the initial reporting, the truth has slowly leaked out, primarily through the alternative media.  We now know:
  [#1]   That the FBI and other agencies as well as Congressional leaders were aware prior to the riot that militant and extremist groups were planning to cause chaos and breach the Capitol.  Thus, President Trump could not have incited the mayhem.
  [#2]   That no one was murdered by demonstrators, and Officer Sicknick was not killed by a Trump supporter with a fire extinguisher but died of natural causes or exposure to tear gas.
  [#3]   That three of the people supposedly murdered died of natural causes outside the Capitol building.
  [#4]   That there was no "armed insurrection" as no one has been charged with using a firearm inside the Capitol, further, no demonstrator has been identified as even carrying a gun inside the building.
  [#5]   That Congressional leaders, primarily Nancy Pelosi, deliberately tied the hands of the Capital Hill police and refused to call in additional police support or the National Guard.

2020 made it really hard to take Washington seriously.  One is hard pressed to imagine how a former president can be impeached.  The term doesn't even make sense, as the whole idea of impeachment is to remove a president from office.  If said president isn't even in office, there's no squaring the circle.  The notion seems to be to close any avenue Donald Trump may use to re-establish himself in national politics.  Not a thing constitutional about it.  That Pelosi & Company fear Trump even out of office is beyond dispute.  He is a threat to their crooked lives because America is no longer blind to the extraordinary criminality that has Washington by the throat.  The hope that was America for centuries was predicated on sincere efforts to hamstring the corruption that otherwise ran rampant across the world.  Now the whole world has seen that not even America can stand honestly in the sunshine.

Trump Impeachment Attorney Canceled by Law School, Civil Rights Law Group.  An attorney who represented President Donald Trump during the recent impeachment trial says a law school canceled a civil rights law course he was going to teach and he was suspended from a civil rights lawyer email discussion list.  "I was hoping to teach a civil rights course at a law school in the fall.  We've been in talks about it, kind of planning it out.  I wrote to them and I said, 'I want you to know, I'm gonna be representing Donald Trump in the impeachment case.  I don't know if that impacts on your decision at all,'" David Schoen, one of the three attorneys who argued before the Senate, told The Epoch Times.  "And they said, you know, they appreciated my writing and, frankly, it would make some students and faculty uncomfortable, so I couldn't do it.  "That was sad for me because I really want to go more and more into teaching.  I like doing that," Schoen said.  Schoen, an Alabama-based lawyer recognized for his civil rights litigation, declined to name the school that canceled his course.

Impeachmenticide.  Small wonder the Orange Man laughs in their faces.  Democrats have diminished themselves.  The impeachment turned a hollow victory in November into a humiliation.  Because once in power, what did they do?  Did they order the nation's economy to re-open?  Did they pass a corona virus relief package?  Did they work with Republicans on a new immigration law or anything else?  No, no, no.  Democrats did not do anything like that.  The first thing Democrats did once the election was certified was to impeach Donald John Trump, even though his term expired on January 20.

Trump Acquittal Shows Congress Is Not Exempt From The Constitution.  House impeachment managers argued Saturday, as throughout former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, that Congress is exempt from the Constitution.  Lead manager Rep. Raskin (D-MD) said that because this was not a criminal trial, the legal requirements for "incitement" did not apply, the right to due process did not apply, and even the cherished First Amendment did not apply.  In effect, Raskin argued, Congress was exempt from following constitutional principles. [...] Raskin, Schiff, and the Democrats told the Senate that they should ignore the principles of the Bill of Rights.  As Trump's lawyers noted in their rebuttal Friday, the House managers were effectively asking the Senators to violate their own oaths of office.  That may or may not have been the reason the Senate ultimately acquitted Trump, both times.

'Dramatic Success': Jamie Raskin Calls Trump's Second Impeachment 'Historic' Despite Acquittal.  Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin said Sunday that he believed President Donald Trump's second impeachment was a "dramatic success" despite ending in acquittal.  Raskin, who served as the lead House Impeachment Manager, told NBC's Chuck Todd that he felt the trial had been a success because it was the most bipartisan impeachment in history.  Todd began the interview by asking Raskin whether he viewed the trial as a success or a failure.  "You got seven Republicans to convict," he said.  "Well, I think it was a dramatic success in historical terms," Raskin replied, arguing that it was the largest conviction in an impeachment trial.  "It was by far the most bipartisan majority that's ever assembled in the Senate to convict a president, which has traditionally been a kind of partisan thing in American history."

Trump Attorney van der Veen reads the riot act to a CBS interviewer.  One of the things that endeared Trump to his legion of supporters is the fact that he would not let leftists in the media set the narrative.  He refused to accept the biased premises underlying their questions and assertions, thereby breaking with decades of conservative behavior.  That same fire burned through Michael van der Veen, one of the attorneys who helped achieve Trump's acquittal when CBS's Lana Zak implied that it was just a little thing when House impeachment managers falsified evidence. [...] That van der Veen was operating on a hair-trigger is unsurprising.  The "tolerant" left has sent him almost 100 death threats and backed it up by physically attacking his office and, even more frighteningly, his home.  Everything van der Veen said about the media is correct.  Will this change any leftist minds?  No.  But ordinary Americans, those who have started to realize that the media is not reporting facts but is pushing an agenda, may see in van der Veen's words a legitimate statement about the media's responsibility for tearing America apart.

Trump Attorney Unleashes On CBS Reporter During Epic Interview, Walks Off Camera.  During an intense interview with CBS News reporter Lana Zak, Trump attorney Michael Van Der Veen went off as he blasted the media for their disgusting coverage of President Donald Trump during the impeachment hearing.  Van Der Veen specifically targeted Zak for defending Democratic lawmakers who presented doctored and fake evidence during the hearing.  "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!  That's not enough for you?  That's not enough for you?" Van Der Veen said after Zak tried downplaying how Democrats doctored evidence.  "I'm not a juror..." Zak replied.  "Sir, respectfully, not everyone is following... I have not said it was OK.  I want to be clear for our viewers..."  "Listen, what has to happen... (interrupted) The media has to start telling the right story in this country.," the Trump lawyer shot back.  "The media is trying to divide this country.  You are bloodthirsty for ratings! ... I can't believe that you would ask me question indicating that it's alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. [...]"  [Video clip]

After His Second Acquittal The Democrats Push Plan To Ban Trump From Running For Office Again - This Can Be Done With A Simple Majority Vote.  McConnell and the GOP elites (GOPe) worked against President Trump for years preventing him from passing his wildly popular agenda to protect America, its workers, and its citizens.  McConnell did not hold back as he ripped Trump apart for a "disgraceful dereliction of duty" and attempting to "overturn the election."  He claimed that the protesters stormed the Capitol because they had been "fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth," and that Trump was "practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."

The Editor says...
[#1] Mr. Trump was not trying to overturn the election.  The election had already been overturned by massive voter fraud.  Mr. Trump was attempting to retain that which was rightfully his.  [#2] Nobody was "fed wild falsehoods" by Mr. Trump.

Impeachment: McConnell's Verdict.  Mr. McConnell had just finished voting to acquit a former president he has clearly come to detest.  He evidently felt that he had to say something to justify, or explain, that decision. [...] So how did Mr. McConnell justify his decision to vote not guilty?  He did so by citing the Senate's lack of jurisdiction to use what Justice Story called the "narrow tool" of impeachment on a president who was gone from office.  This reportedly infuriated the House prosecutors; Congressman Raskin reckoned that Mr. McConnell had "opted to acquit Trump" on what the Washington Post paraphrased as "a constitutional technicality."  The profundity that Mr. McConnell understands is the oxymoronic nature of a "constitutional technicality."  If something is constitutional it can't be a technicality.  Were it but a technicality, it wouldn't be in the Constitution.

Trump Impeachment Lawyer: 'Bloodthirsty' Media Is 'Trying to Divide This Country'.  One of former President Donald Trump's impeachment lawyers accused media companies of trying to push a narrative instead of sticking to the facts, saying news outlets are "trying to divide this country."  "What this country wants and this country needs is this country to come together," Michael T. van der Veen said, adding that the reason why there is so much divisiveness is "because of the media."  "The media wants to tell their narrative rather than just telling it like it is," he said, adding that corporate media outlets have "to start telling the right story in this country" and that the "media is trying to divide this country" to make a profit.  "You are bloodthirsty for ratings.  You're asking questions that are already set up with a fact-pattern," van der Veen said.

A second justified impeachment outcome.  The acquittal of former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial is a fitting outcome to a case that should not have happened.  Never before has a former president been impeached and put on trial, and it should never happen again.  This was a show trial, an attempt by Democrats to humiliate Trump after his election defeat and force Republicans to side with him or against him.  While the president's speech before the Capitol riot was at times too angry and bitter, there was nothing in it that could reasonably be seen as intending to incite an insurrection, as the single House article charged.  In fact, the case was in many ways the mirror image of the partisan putsch that Dem leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer engineered over the Ukraine piffle almost exactly a year ago.

Trump Attorney Van Der Veen Chokes Up Talking about Vicious Assaults by Democrats.  Trump impeachment attorney Michael van der Veen joined FOX News following the successful acquittal of his client President Donald Trump in the sham Senate Impeachment Trial.  During the discussion FOX News host Griff Jenkins asked him about the reports that his home was attacked.  [Video clip]

Dem retreat on witnesses brings messy end to Trump trial.  The Democrats who prosecuted Donald Trump's impeachment trial faced puzzlement and criticism from senators on Saturday as they surprised most everyone — Trump's lawyers and Senate Democrats included — with an attempt to call witnesses, only to abandon it as lawmakers balked at the possibility of an extended trial.

Trump Attorney "Michael van der Veen, Citizen" Destroys Media.  Saturday night, President Trump's attorney, Michael van der Veen, appeared on CBS News and was asked about Sen. Mitch McConnell's comments after Trump's acquittal.  As Bonchie covered earlier, McConnell said that "President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," and that Trump is "still liable for everything he did during his period in office."  When he was specifically asked whether he was surprised to hear such a serious rebuke from the leader of the Republican party in the Senate, van der Veen's expression, tone, and words said it all.  [Video clip]

Trump Lawyer Van Der Veen: 'We Demolished Their Case — They Were Like a Dying Animal That We Had Trapped in the Corner'.  During an appearance on FNC's "America's News HQ" following former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial acquittal Trump's defense attorney Michael Van Der Veen reacted to the U.S. Senate's verdict, describing the events of the day before as being pivotal in his client's victory.  "Nothing really surprised me," he said.  "What had happened was the day before, we demolished their case, and they were like a dying animal that we had trapped in the corner.  And so, this morning, their last gaps were swinging out at us trying to save their case, and it didn't work.  So we were kind of expecting them to pull on something."  [Video clip]

Democrats Have a New Plan for How to 'Get' Trump.  It's never going to stop, is it?  Today [2/13/2021], Donald Trump was acquitted for a second time by the Senate after being impeached.  This time, he was found not guilty of inciting the riot at the Capitol Building on January 6th.  Though much hyperventilating has commenced, I believe the facts supported that decision.  Trump simply didn't meet the standard for incitement, even some low-bar political standard set forth by Congress. [...] Regardless, with Democrats and the anti-Trump right feeling embarrassed once again, they are proving they just can't quit Trump.  Now, they are fantasizing about taking him down via a criminal investigation.

The Facts that Dems Didn't Want to Come Out and Why They Caved on Witnesses in Impeachment Trial.  It's just atrocious that Democrats have done what they've done in this impeachment process.  They've postured this case as though it were Trump inciting people and then not wanting to do anything in response.  But they did a snap impeachment, failed to do a hearing and establish any evidence to support that.  There's a good reason why they did that — because there's more evidence out there that supports Trump and why there never should have been an impeachment to begin with and who it was that turned down the help of the National Guard.  Here's former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows saying that Trump did in fact talk about National Guard before Jan. 6 for that day.  [Video clip]

Trump Attorney Van Der Veen:  What Happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6 "Absolutely Horrific" — What Happened During This Trial "Was Not Too Far Away from That".  Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen spoke with Lana Zak fom CBS News following the Senate's acquittal vote of President Donald Trump.  Attorney Van der Veen told CBS, "What happened at the Capitol on January 6th is absolutely horrific.  But what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that."  [Video clip]  No doubt, Democrats will not like Mr. Van der Veen's comparison so much.  [Video clip]

7 Reasons Fake News Media Had a Very Bad Friday.  [#2] Impeachment Implosion:  The fake media were forced to broadcast Team Trump's brilliant and brutal impeachment rebuttal, the closing arguments, which included utterly [condemnatory] video of every major Democrat and all kinds of fake media anchors doing exactly what they accused Trump of doing — disputing election results, calling on supporters to "fight," etc.  Best of all, after years of the media's outright lying to the public, the networks were all forced to broadcast the truth:  the full unedited video that debunks their "very fine people" hoax.

Decision in Impeachment Trial In, Liberals Losing Their Minds On Social Media.  I wrote earlier about how all the Senate Democrats voted to have witnesses at the impeachment trial, joined by five Republicans.  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) then both said they would call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) to grill her about what she knew and when she knew it.  That of course didn't thrill Democrats.  But then after realizing that they were digging themselves a hole from which they might not be able to get out, they flipped back again, making a deal to just accept a statement but not having any witnesses.  According to CNN, Senate Democrats pressured the House Managers to back off.

Donald Trump acquitted in impeachment trial.  Donald Trump has been acquitted by the Senate in his second impeachment trial for his role in the 6 January attack on the US Capitol — a verdict that underscores the sway America's 45th president still holds over the Republican party even after leaving office.  After just five days of debate in the chamber that was the scene of last month's invasion, a divided Senate fell 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to convict high crimes and misdemeanors.  A conviction would have allowed the Senate to vote to disqualify him from holding future office.  Seven Republicans joined every Democrat to declare Trump guilty on the charge of "incitement of insurrection" after his months-long quest to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden and its deadly conclusion on 6 January, when Congress met to formalize the election results.

House Impeachment Managers Fold:  Back Off On Witnesses After Trump Legal Team Announces Pelosi Will Be Called In.  Democrats flipped the script this morning after their case collapsed on Friday against President Trump.  Democrats now want to change the rules and call in witnesses.  This comes after Senator McConnell announced he will vote to acquit.  This comes after Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington leaked news on a January 6, 2021 phone call between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and former President Donald Trump.  Kevin McCarthy denies the leaked report by Herrera Beutler.

Mitch McConnell launches all-out attack on Trump AFTER voting to clear him.  Mitch McConnell tore into Donald Trump Saturday [2/13/2021] after voting with 42 other Republicans to acquit him of 'incitement of insurrection' — but then immediately argued the former president is solely to blame for Capitol storming.  'President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office,' McConnell said in Senate floor remarks.  On the fifth and final day of the impeachment trial, the Republican Senate leader argued in a speech following the 57-43 vote that Congress does not hold the jurisdiction to criminally or civilly prosecute the former president.

Senator Cruz tweets out hilarious list of rejected impeachment questions.  Senator Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted out a hysterical thread that revealed a number of actual questions that were submitted to be asked at former President Trump's impeachment trial.  They were, of course, rejected by the Democrats. [...] Here is the list of tweeted questions in order:
  Question 1:  "Where's the short, fat guy?"
  Question 2:  "Can we build the Keystone Pipeline if we add Hunter Biden to the board?"
  Question 3:  "To Manager Swalwell:  Tell us about Fang Fang."
  Question 4:  "(generic) Have any of the House Managers had sexual relations with a Chinese communist spy?  Please explain."
  Question 5:  "If we put him in a burlap sack & throw him in the river, and he does not float, must we convict?"
It is no wonder that presiding judge Sen. Pat Leahy decided these questions were inappropriate.  They are far too revealing.

7 Highlights From Trump Team's Defense in Impeachment Trial.  During his presentation, Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen played video of several news reports showing that rioters had planned the attack — in some cases for weeks.  Thus, he argued, the mob wasn't inspired by Trump's speech at a rally just south of the White House during a joint session of Congress to count the Electoral College votes that made Joe Biden president.  "The criminals who infiltrated the Capitol must be punished to the fullest extent of the law," van der Veen said, adding:  ["]They should be in prison for as long as the law allows.  The fact that the attacks were apparently premeditated — as alleged by the House managers — demonstrates the ludicrousness of the incitement allegation against the president.  You can't incite what was already going to happen.["]

Team Trump Exposes Democrat 'Incitement' in Hard-Hitting Video.  On Friday [2/12/2021], lawyers for former President Donald Trump presented a few hard-hitting videos contrasting Trump's calls for peace and law and order with Democrats encouraging harassment and coddling Black Lives Matter and antifa rioters over the last summer.  "To claim that the president in any way wished, desired, or encouraged lawless or violent behavior is a preposterous and monstrous lie," Michael Van Der Veen, one of Trump's lawyers, argued.  Van Der Veen presented a video contrasting Trump's law-and-order remarks and remarks from Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).  Pelosi had said, "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country.  Maybe there will be."  Waters had notoriously encouraged supporters to harass Trump administration staff in public places.  Biden had said that if he was in high school, he would "beat the hell out of" Trump.

Plan B: Schumer comments on next steps to punish Trump if impeachment fails.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has publicly confirmed that he's aware of and possibly willing to consider a backup plan that would prevent former President Donald Trump from running for office again even if he isn't convicted in his ongoing impeachment trial.  During a Democrat press conference ahead of Thursday's impeachment proceedings, he was asked specifically about the plan, which calls for using an obscure provision in the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump's potential reelection.

House Impeachment Managers Manipulated Evidence and Created Fake Tweets.  During the defense segment of the impeachment testimony today President Trump's attorney David Schoen exposed the House Managers creating false evidence and manufacturing false witness.  Obviously they were able to do this because there was no due process in the House impeachment assembly.  It was/is pure Alinsky politics.  [Video clip]

After a slow start, Trump's attorneys had a barn-burning impeachment closing.  Trump hired his legal team for the impeachment just a few days before the proceedings started, which may have accounted for their singularly lackluster opening argument.  However, by Friday [2/12/2021], they'd gotten their ducks in a row and David Schoen, especially, had a great closing argument.  He opened by pointing out that Democrats improperly sat on footage of events in the Capitol to blindside Trump's defense team and deny him due process.  From there, he moved to the fact that the Democrat House impeachment managers outright lied about their alleged evidence, whether it was faked tweets or manipulated video. [...] Schoen demonstrated that Democrats have lusted after impeachment since Trump's inauguration.  The next thing he showed is that Democrats actively promoted violence in the street and have frequently and openly expressed their desire to commit actual violence against Trump, his supporters, and America itself.  Moreover, to the extent Trump used the word "fight," he did so in a purely political sense, which is something that Democrats have done repeatedly over the years:  [Video clip]

Impeaching the Voters.  At the heart of the case against President Trump levied this week by House prosecutors lies the violence itself — what it looked like up close, inside the Capitol.  Video conveyed the intensity, danger, coarseness of language, and scent of blood that seethed through the vast premises.  The House used shocking footage never before seen by the public, making clear that things were far worse than Americans had so far appreciated.  Powerful.  Then again, too, if this footage was able to shock the nation four weeks after January 6, why must one assume that President Trump himself grasped what was happening at the time of the events?  He was more than a mile away.  He had expressed confidence that everyone at his rally would be marching to the Capitol building to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."  Then he'd returned to the White House.

Trump impeachment defense says 'reportedly' is not evidence of anything.  Former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial defense lawyers on Friday argued that the Democratic case against him rests on "reported" allegations — and that in a courtroom, he could not be convicted.  Attorney David Schoen played for senators a montage of video clips of impeachment managers using the words "reportedly," "reported" and "reports" over and over to describe Trump's conduct relating to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which they have accused him of inciting.  "The House managers facing a significant lack of evidence turned often to press reports and rumors during these proceedings.  Claims that would never meet the evidentiary standards of any court," Schoen said.  "As any trial lawyer will tell you, 'reportedly' is a euphemism for, 'I have no real evidence.'"

Sham Impeachment Day 5: Senate to Convene at 10 AM ET, Closing Arguments and Then a Vote — Will Democrats Rig This Vote Too?  The US Senate will reconvene at 10 AM ET on Saturday morning [2/13/2021].  This is after devastating testimony on Friday, including 13 minutes of video clips showing Democrats doing the exact same thing they accuse President Trump of doing.  Friday was a devastating day for Democrats.  Whenever the American public gets to see them for who they are it is never a good day for them.  Democrats depend on the liberal media to be their shield.  Saturday's session could feature the vote on whether to convict or acquit Trump.  Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy is presiding over the sham impeachment and will also vote to convict.  A guilty vote by Republicans will effectively end the Republican Party so Democrats aare keeping their fingers crossed[.]

Trump Lawyers Call Out Democrat 'Hypocrisy' In Video Montage.  Trump's lawyers had up to sixteen hours to present to the Senate on Friday, but after less than three hours, they officially "rested their case."  Their final arguments included video footage and claims that Trump "did not receive due process because he did not see the House impeachment managers' video montage, although the Democrats said [sic] had provided it," according to CBS News.  They used the allotted time to defend the former president's rhetoric on January 6 and reportedly "distance him from the violence."  Specifically, they called the senators' attention to Trump's phrasing at the rally prior to the attack on the Capitol building — "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore" — since his speech was mentioned by democrats in various arguments throughout the week.

Trump Defense Team Just Destroyed One of the Most Persistent of Democrat Lies.  As we reported earlier, the Trump defense team did a fabulous job today [2/12/2021] just decimating the case presented by the Democratic House Managers.  Among the things they did was show Democrats if they're trying to criminalize or impeach based on speech, that Democrats had far more questionable comments 'inciting' in the past than President Donald Trump did in his Jan. 6 speech, who said to supporters to act "peacefully and patriotically."  The defense showed the utter hypocrisy of the Democrats using their own words in a terrific video compilation.  If one should impeach for such words, then all of them should be impeached.  They also showed that if Democrats were trying to demonize or impeach for objecting to or raising questions about the electoral count, that Democrats themselves had done it many times in the past, including Democratic lead impeachment manager, Rep Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had not only done it but had praised the process of doing it, saying it was important to democracy.

AP source:  GOP leader McConnell will vote to acquit Trump.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told colleagues Saturday that he will vote to acquit Donald Trump in his impeachment trial, ending suspense over what the chamber's most influential Republican would decide and all but slamming the door on chances that the former president would be found guilty.

Report: 'At Least a Dozen' Republican Senators Walked Out of Impeachment Trial.  At least a dozen Republican Senators reportedly walked out of the Senate impeachment trial on Thursday, after lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) tried to argue that years of Trump rallies were incitement to violence.  National Review reporter John McCormack reported several Republican Senators left the chamber during part of Raskin's presentation, and missed the subsequent argument of Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), who argued that Trump was a future danger.  [Tweets]  Raskin tried to claim that Trump's speech on January 6 incited the Capitol riot because he had spent years encouraging supporters to commit acts of violence, or condoning past acts of violence, often using specific coded language to do so.

Trump defense team bounces back.  The defense of Donald Trump at his impeachment trial got off to a rocky start earlier this week.  There's no denying that.  Today [2/12/2021], however, the defense team came back strong in its closing argument.  Trump's lawyers used only about two and half hours of their allotted 16 to respond to the House managers' case.  That was enough to demolish it and to show the dishonesty of the managers' presentation. [...] As I've said before, I think there is a decent, although ultimately unpersuasive, case for impeachment.  But the House was in too big a rush to have made that case.  The Article of Impeachment is an embarrassment, so it's not surprising that the managers relied on emotion and distortion, rather than reason, in presenting it.

Impeachment trial barrels toward Saturday acquittal of Trump.  Former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial was poised to conclude Saturday following his defense team's presentation meant to highlight the hypocrisy and holes in the case against him. [...] "This impeachment is completely divorced from the facts, the evidence, and the interests of the American people," Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen told senators Friday.  "The Senate should promptly and decisively vote to reject it.  No thinking person could seriously believe that the president's Jan. 6 speech on the Ellipse was in any way an incitement to violence or insurrection.  The suggestion is patently absurd on its face."

Trump's Defense Team Absolutely Ruins Democrats With 13 Minute Montage of "Fight" Word Like Trump Did!  The Democrats demonized President Trump for using the word 'fight'.  Trump's attorneys responded today with a collage of clips from each of the Democrats in the room using the word 'fight'.  This portion of today's events on Capitol Hill was excellent.  The Democrats claim that because President Trump used the word 'fight' in his speech on January 6th in Washington D.C. However, what every Democrat in that room forgot was that they too had used the word previously in political speech.  The montage went on for 13 minutes.  [Video clip]

Impeachment Betrays Democrat Distrust of Voters.  The attorneys representing Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, have received a lot of criticism concerning their presentation to the Senate.  Indeed, some of it has come from their client.  Yet, in some ways, the time constraints that contributed to their apparent lack of polish worked in their favor.  They couldn't call in professional filmmakers to produce a slick and deceptive video montage.  They had no time to throw together an 80-page word salad in lieu of legitimate legal arguments.  But they did have the facts, the Constitution, and one crucial question they wanted to ask the Democrats.  Attorney Castor posed that question 40 minutes into his opening remarks on Tuesday:  "Why is the majority of the House of Representatives afraid of the American people?" Castor went on to explain why that question had to be asked and how the answer lays bare the cynical motivation behind the precipitous House impeachment:  "Let's understand why we are really here.  We are really here because the majority in the House of Representatives does not want to face Donald Trump as a political rival in the future."  He's right, of course.

Trump Impeachment Trial [is] Just a Stage for Political Posturing.  Constitutional attorney John Whitehead is correct when he writes:  "Impeaching Trump will accomplish very little, and it will not in any way improve the plight of the average American.  It will only reinforce the spectacle and farce that have come to be synonymous with politics today."  Trump's lawyers used the phrase "unconstitutional political theater" in their filing requests that the Senate dismiss the one charge that the former president incited rioters who invaded the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6.  Democrats fired back that Trump committed "the most grievous constitutional crime" ever committed by a U.S. president.

Impeaching Trump — House threatens to trash this core principle to ensure conviction.  Over the last four years, we have seen an alarming trend of law professors and legal experts discarding constitutional and due process commitments to support theories for the prosecution or impeachment of Donald Trump or his family.  Legal experts who long defended criminal defense rights have suddenly become advocates of the most sweeping interpretations of criminal or constitutional provisions while discarding basic due process and fairness concerns.  Even theories that have been clearly rejected by the Supreme Court have been claimed to be valid in columns.  No principle seems inviolate when it stands in the way of a Trump prosecution.  Yet, the statement of House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., last week was breathtaking.  A former law professor, Raskin declared that the decision of Trump not to testify in the Senate could be cited or used by House managers as an inference of his guilt — a statement that contradicts not just our constitutional principles but centuries of legal writing.

Impeachment blunder:  Author of tweet introduced at trial says it was falsified, misinterpreted.  The author of a tweet introduced by Democrats at the Senate impeachment trial said Thursday [2/11/2021] her statement "we are bringing the Calvary" was a clear reference to a prayer vigil organized by churchgoers supporting Trump and not a call for military-like violence at the Capitol riot as portrayed by Rep. Eric Swalwell.  Jennifer Lynn Lawrence also said she believes the California Democrat and House impeachment manager falsified her tweet, adding a blue check mark to the version he introduced at the trial suggesting she was a verified Twitter user with more clout when in fact her Twitter account never had a blue check and has never been verified.  "I noticed when they put my tweet on the screen that all of a sudden my tweet had a blue checkmark next to it," she said during an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast.  "... This way, if he entered that into congressional testimony, it's a verified account, and it has, it could be applicable in law.  Secondly, he wanted to show that my Twitter account had more gravitas than it actually did.  He wanted to show that the president was trying to use me to bring in the cavalry."

On Being Judged by the Guilty.  Day one of the Trump Impeachment trial before the US Senate has wrapped up.  The House Democrats, led by Representative Jamie Raskin, laid out their case, charging President Trump with inciting a "violent insurrection" and seeking to disqualify him from future US office.  The accusations made by Democrats during the openings are consistent with the Articles of Impeachment:  that Trump "gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government."  That Trump has demonstrated he is "a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution." [...] For all those concerns about our institutions and our Democracy, what is Trump actually charged with?

Trump impeachment — Lee-Raskin exchange reveals this glaring hole in the case.  At the end of its first day of argument, the Senate impeachment trial was thrown into chaos when a "juror" stood up like a scene out of Perry Mason to contest the veracity statements made by "prosecutors."  That moment came as the Senate was preparing to end for the day.  Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, jumped to his feet to object that a quote by House manager Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., was false.  Lee should know.  They were purportedly his words.  After a frenzy on the floor and a delay of proceedings, lead House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., announced that they would withdraw Cicilline's statements and that "this is much ado about nothing, because it's not critical in anyway to our case."  In reality, it had much to do about the manager's case and highlights a glaring problem in it.

Trump Impeachment 'Political Theater,' Ignores US History:  Constitutional Lawyer.  The impeachment effort against former President Donald Trump is "political theater" that goes against the history of the United States and the American Constitution itself, according to constitutional attorney Rick Green.  "When we have political actors involved, we get political theater.  And that's a lot of what we're getting here.  Is this the judiciary now?  Is the Senate now the judiciary that will try any citizen?  Because an impeachment is specifically for someone that is in office, according to the American Constitution," Green, a former Texas state representative and co-founder of the Patriot Academy, told "American Thought Leaders."  Trump's attorneys have stated that it goes against the Constitution to impeach or try a former office-holder.  "Virtually everyone agrees that impeachment in our Constitution is designed for those three categories listed in Article 2, Section 4.  And that's the president, the vice president, and civil officers — so people that are still serving in office," Green said.

Levin: Impeachment 'One of the Stupidest Events' in U.S. History.  Wednesday [2/10/2021] on FNC's "Hannity," conservative talker Mark Levin slammed the impeachment trial underway in the U.S. Senate by calling it "one of the stupidest events" in American history.  Levin highlighted some of the abnormal circumstances surrounding the January 6 Capitol Hill riot and argued the proceedings were unconstitutional act by a "rogue" Congress.

Cruz: Actually, It Is Constitutional to Impeach and Convict a Former President.  On Tuesday [2/9/2021], the U.S. Senate voted on the constitutional question of whether an impeachment trial may be held for Donald Trump now that he is out of office. [...] Texas senator Ted Cruz was one of the 44 Republicans who voted that former president Donald Trump is not "subject to a court of impeachment for acts committed while president," but in an article on Fox News, Cruz argues that, in fact, the Constitution does give Congress the authority to impeach and convict a former president. [...] In other words, Cruz seems to have skipped to the conclusion of the impeachment trial.  "On the merits, President Trump's conduct does not come close to meeting the legal standard for incitement — the only charge brought against him," Cruz writes.  Having reached that conclusion before the impeachment trial began, Cruz works backward to argue that the trial is unconstitutional.  I'm unaware of any other Senate Republican who shares Cruz's view of Tuesday's vote on the constitutionality of the trial.

House Democrats Forced To Admit They're Peddling Fake News During Impeachment Hearing.  On Wednesday, the Democratic House impeachment managers were forced to withdraw evidence in their case against former President Donald Trump after they were called out for peddling fake news.  The impeachment managers claimed that President Trump had mistakenly called Senator Mike Lee on the evening of January 6th and thought he was talking to Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville.  "He dialed Senator Lee by accident, and Senator Lee describes it that he had just ended a prayer in the Senate chamber," claimed impeachment manager David Cicilline (D-RI).  Cicilline then said that the President told Tuberville to "make further objections" to Biden's electors as Senator Lee "stood by."

5 Times Joe Biden Openly Urged Violence Against Political Opponents.  The Senate moved forward with day three of its second pointless impeachment trial Thursday [2/11/2021], pursuing the conviction of a president already out of office over alleged "incitement of insurrection" regarding the attacks on the U.S. Capitol building in early January.  House Democrats passed the snap impeachment within a week of the riot, without one hearing or one witness, charging then-President Donald Trump with provoking the mob of his supporters to storm the Capitol building with a speech that encouraged them to protest peacefully.  Despite the horde of his supporters beginning their assault before the president had even finished his speech, Democrats declared Trump was solely responsible anyway and have now kept the Senate's top priority on punishing an ousted president as the nation faces crises on several fronts.

Republican senators largely unmoved by Democrats' Trump trial prosecution.  Several Republican senators said Thursday that House impeachment managers failed to persuade them to convict former President Donald Trump for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.  The prosecution finished presenting its case Thursday — and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said afterward he believes Democrats are as guilty as Trump of using fiery language in front of large crowds.  Paul, who opposed Trump's effort to toss out swing-state electors on Jan. 6, said Democrats have been "lucky" that their remarks didn't translate into worse outcomes.  He pointed to a controversial 2020 speech by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at the Supreme Court.

This Impeachment Of Donald John Trump Is Trial By Feelings.  The case against Donald John Trump in this, his second impeachment trial, is a curious thing.  The single charge is that he allegedly incited a riot at the Capitol by contesting the results of the 2020 election.  But his actions do not meet the legal definition of incitement.  As we are constantly reminded, a Senate impeachment trial is not a criminal trial, so the senators can choose to define incitement however they want, but so far they haven't.  The opening statement from the House managers was almost solely focused on feelings and emotion.  At one point, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., literally broke down in tears while describing the riot.  But what he did not offer was a standard by which Trump's guilt or innocence on the charge of incitement could be based.  This is very important because a precedent is being set here.  Likewise, on day two, the Democrats once again made a mainly emotional appeal, focused on video and images from the riots.

Democrat Impeachment Managers Withdraw Statements Falsely Attributed to Sen. Mike Lee After Schumer Intervention.  Chaos erupted at the end of the second day of the second impeachment trial of now former President Donald Trump as House Democrats were forced to withdraw from the record a statement a GOP senator said was falsely attributed to him after Senate Democrats lost control of the proceedings while they sought to wrap up for the day. [...] It draws attention to the fact that Leahy, not Roberts, is presiding over the trial while also serving as a juror — and a witness, since he is a senator and was there on Jan. 6 — meaning that a Democrat senator and political opponent of the accused, Trump, is serving as judge, jury, and witness in a trial.

Impeachment Trial Redux.  Facts are apparently now a thing of the past, at least when they have anything to do with Donald Trump.  Democrats and the Left couldn't care less about the facts surrounding the events of January 6, and the corporate leftist propaganda and media machine shamelessly promotes their message.  It should come as no surprise, then, that Democrats and the Left have once again determined to target Donald Trump, even though he's been out of office for weeks.  They have been engaged in a nonstop smear campaign against Trump, begun even before he stepped foot in office and culminating in this second impeachment, which is devoid of evidence, facts, or reason.  In other words, it is exactly like the first impeachment.

Six of the Democrats' Arguments for Disqualifying Trump From Seeking Office Again.  House prosecutors argued Wednesday [2/10/2021] that former President Donald Trump not only is responsible for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol but was involved in a "premeditated" effort after he "ran out of nonviolent measures" to keep power. [...] Trump intentionally pushed the violence in Washington to hold onto power, argued Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., an impeachment manager with a reputation as a "Twitter troll" critical of Trump.  "How did our exceptional country get to the point where a violent mob attacked our Capitol, murdering a police officer, assaulting over 140 other officers?" Lieu asked.  "How did we get to the point where rioters desecrated, defiled, and dishonored your Senate chamber, where the very place in which you sit became a crime scene and where National Guard troops still patrol outside wearing body armor?" he asked.  Lieu then answered his questions, saying it happened because Trump was unwilling to let go of power after losing an election.

The Editor says...
[#1] The only time the Democrats claim that America is an "exceptional country" is when they're attacking Trump.  [#2] Nobody murdered a police officer in the January 6 riot.  A police officer died after he left the riot and had a stroke.  [#3] The people who "assault[ed] over 140 other officers" were probably all Antifa and BLM infiltrators and agitators.  [#4] The "National Guard troops still patrol outside wearing body armor" entirely because Democrats are using them as props.  [#5] Trump was unwilling to let go of power after NOT losing an election.  The election was stolen.  Trump was trying to retain that which was his.

Cuomo Decries GOP as Not Impartial Jurors, I 'Want to Traumatize' Them.  As anyone who has passed a high school civics class knows, the impeachment process is not a legal proceeding but a political one.  Luckily, CNN host Chris "Fredo" Cuomo knew at least that much.  But he spent a lot of Wednesday's [2/10/2021] Prime Time decrying Senate Republicans for not being impartial jurors in President Trump's second impeachment trial.  Yet, he never admitted that Democrats weren't impartial either, and even boasted about one of his guests already calling for Trump's conviction.  On top of that, Cuomo admitted to wanting to "traumatize" the Republican side of the Senate.  "We know this is a political trial.  Okay.  We know that.  We know the jurors are not impartial.  We know that.  Mitch McConnell said it," he said to former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, as if he broke some kind of major case.  But Bharara went on to explain that every member of the Senate, Democrats include, wouldn't be allowed to jurors in "a real trial" because they're biased against Trump[.]

Lindsey Graham:  House Impeachment Managers' Argument Was 'Offensive', 'Absurd'.  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News' Hannity on Wednesday [2/10/2021] that House impeachment managers had grown the "not guilty" vote in the Senate that day with an "absurd" presentation that floated a conspiracy theory that President Donald Trump planned the Capitol riot.  Graham told Hannity that Democrats had rushed to impeach Trump before investigating.  Now that their "incitement" claim was falling apart, he said, they had to invent a "cockamamie" theory: [...]

Here's Why The Sham Impeachment Trial Is Clearly Unconstitutional.  The second sham impeachment of now-former President Donald Trump has begun and it's already shaping up to be as big of a clown show as the first one was.  Not only does it come at a time when Congress should instead be focusing on the lingering pandemic, a sputtering economy, tens of millions of Americans still unemployed or underemployed, new migrant caravans heading to our southern border, a China-Mexican cartel alliance pumping fentanyl into Middle America and killing thousands, but it's also clearly unconstitutional.  Julie Strauss Levin, writing in the Virginia Star, makes this clear:  ["]President Trump's attorneys have clearly responded to the absurd Article of Impeachment.  Their answer on Trump's behalf is clear and straightforward.  Put simply, and a plain reading of the Constitution by any grade school student will corroborate, you can't remove someone from office who is not in office.  And, the word "and" means just that:  in order to be disqualified from holding office, a person needs to first be in office, then removed and then disqualified from holding office in the future.  In other words, you can't be disqualified if you weren't in office at the time of the impeachment.  What part of "and" does the Democrat party not understand?["]

Democrats' Back-Up Plan:  Let's Do Something Unconstitutional Too.  Despite the obvious unconstitutionality of the plan, McClatchy reports that Democrats still want to keep the so-called 14th Amendment Option in reserve in the all-too-certain case that the impeachment trial results in an acquittal for Donald Trump. [...] Congress has an important role in keeping presidents in check, but Congress is bound by the same document as presidents.  Democrats who want to get revenge on Trump this badly should consider whether they're becoming their own nightmare.

The Strange House Democrat Impeachment Claim of an "Armed" Crowd.  The House Democrat impeachment arguments are terrible.  But there's one odd thing that stands out in their word salads of innuendo and conjecture.  "Against this backdrop, President Trump addressed a crowd that he knew was armed and primed for violence," the House Democrat impeachment managers wrote in their rebuttal.  "When he stood at the podium before thousands of his supporters, President Trump knew that they were armed and that they were angry."  These two references to an "armed crowd" are strange because no one has been accused of opening fire at the Capitol Riot.  Even the worst actors seem to have resorted to using the usual rioter tools, sprays, poles, shields, and assorted objects that were weaponized, but were not weapons.  The tactical group that set out to breach the Capitol was well prepared but used no firearms to achieve its goals.  And it planned its attack days before the event and started it while President Trump was speaking.  What are House Democrats talking about?  As usual, no one seems to know or care.  Not even them.

Sen. Tim Scott:  Trump is 'simply not guilty' on impeachment.  Former President Donald Trump is "simply not guilty" of inciting an insurrection against the United States government, Sen. Tim Scott R-S.C., told "America Reports" on Monday [2/8/2021].  Scott said while he appreciated and understood the severity of the situation, given that he was in the chamber when rioters stormed the Capitol, he felt culpability should be placed on those who broke inside the building, not Trump.  "The Democrats should put the blame where it stands, where it should be," Scott said.  "And it does not have to do with the president who said go 'peacefully' to protest."

Dems' Sham Trump Impeachment:  An Unconstitutional Abuse Of Power.  With the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump looming, it can't be said enough:  This entire farce is an unconstitutional act, which has the sole purpose of silencing a political opponent and the more than 74 million who actively supported him in the last election.  Most people won't recognize the dangerous precedent this sets.  Nothing could stop a future Congress in the hands of a permanent Democratic majority from setting up political kangaroo courts for their political enemies.  Nothing.  The goal of course is to come to a pre-ordained judicial conclusion, similar to the Soviet show trials of the 1930s.

Democrats Threaten to Punish Trump for Not Testifying at Impeachment Trial.  Democrats reiterated Monday [2/8/2021] a threat to punish former President Donald Trump for not testifying at the impeachment trial in the Senate, which begins Tuesday. [...] The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The impeachment trial is not a criminal case; however, many constitutional scholars argue that the same principles ought to apply — there, above all.

Democrats have a back-up plan in case the Senate doesn't convict Trump on impeachment.  House and Senate Democrats may push ahead this week with a censure resolution to bar former President Donald Trump from holding future office over his role in the U.S. Capitol riot, anticipating acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial, several sources familiar with the matter told McClatchy.  The effort to draft the resolution that would invoke a provision of the 14th Amendment began quietly in January and gained momentum over the weekend, as Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine gauge whether the measure could attract bipartisan support.  The reception has been lukewarm so far from Democrats, who would prefer to see the former president convicted in the impeachment trial, and from Republicans, who fear political consequences in barring Trump from office.

Here's another reason the impeachment trial is unconstitutional.  Impeachment managers sent from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate have threatened to, and really already did, violate the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  They are asserting violations of the Constitution by Trump while themselves violating it.  On Feb. 2, 2021, new attorneys representing Trump filed an "Answer" to the articles of impeachment, but not (yet) an actual trial brief.  Trump's attorneys and others challenge the trial as unconstitutional because Trump has left office.  Yet on Feb. 4, 2021, the impeachment managers asked Trump to testify in the upcoming trial.  In other words, if Trump took the bait, he would be legitimizing an unconstitutional proceeding.

Trump Lawyer Goes Off On Democrats Over Sham Impeachment.  On Tuesday afternoon [2/9/2021], Trump defense lawyer David Schoen went scorched earth on Democrats for using impeachment as a tool for revenge and treating it like "bloodsport".  After the underwhelming performance of Trump's first lawyer Bruce Castor, Schoen shined light on the sham impeachment that is underway in Washington D.C.  Among many things, Schoen argued that impeachment is not valid without removal.  And since President Trump is no longer in office, he cannot actually be "removed".  He also blasted the Democrats for their theatrics after they played doctored video clips of the events that occurred on January 6th.

Donald Trump's defense lawyer Bruce Castor is slammed by Alan Dershowitz for 47-minute rambling opening speech that does NOT explain why impeachment trial is unconstitutional.  President Donald Trump's former impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz absolutely panned Trump's current impeachment lawyer Bruce Castor's opening swing at an argument during Tuesday's Senate trial.  'There is no argument.  I have no idea what he's doing.  I have no idea why he's saying what he's saying,' Dershowitz said Tuesday [2/9/2021] on Newsmax as Castor's 47-minute rambling opening statement was ongoing. 'I just don't understand it, maybe he'll bring it home, but right now it does not appear to me to be effective advocacy.'  Castor's trial debut featured the lawyer flattering senators [...] complimenting the House managers' argument, condemning the violence at the Capitol, admitting President Joe Biden won the election and arguing political speech shouldn't be punished.

Sen. Kennedy on impeachment trial:  Dems want to equate Trump voters with 'nutjobs' who stormed Capitol.  Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on Tuesday that he does not believe former President Donald Trump will be convicted in the Senate and that his trial is a "poorly-camouflaged" attempt by the Washington establishment to equate Trump voters with the "nutjobs" that broke into the Capitol.  Kennedy explained during an interview on "The Faulkner Focus" that while the Capitol rioters did not represent the Republican Party or a majority of their constituents, extremism exists on both sides of the political landscape.  "My Democratic friends are bringing a sword to these proceedings when what we need is a candle," said Kennedy in regards to the impeachment trial.  He added that Republicans and Democrats need "tents with doors" to kick out people that perpetuate conspiracy theories and divisive rhetoric.

The Editor says...
The American Revolution started with a great amount of "divisive rhetoric."  Sometimes rhetoric is divisive.  That doesn't mean it's necessarily destructive.

Why are Democrats Pushing Impeachment?  Nancy Pelosi is one of the snidest and most petty representatives in Congress.  I have personally heard from several Democratic representatives their beliefs that Pelosi held up critical immigration and COVID legislation that they privately supported, for no other reason than that it might help Trump look good.  They supported the holdups because they feared retribution from Pelosi.  If you want to hear Pelosi's partisanship, listen for yourself to her opening comments during the beginning of the House debate on Arizona's electoral votes.  Pelosi is sufficiently petty to demand impeachment as a final boot out the door.  This is my personally favored reason and stands as a testament to the characters of Chuck Schumer, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney and others who have joined them.  While several junior Democrats may have done so out of fear, Democratic leaders and Republicans had no good excuses.  But there could be another reason; one that fits well with Democrats' recent militarization of D.C. and gross violations of our 1st Amendment rights to speech and to assemble and the redress of grievances. [...]

Trump Lawyers Tear Apart Impeachment Sham With "Chilling Fact" That Dems Are Ignoring.  Just one day before another sham impeachment trial, President Trump's legal team has methodically laid out their case in a blistering new memorandum. [...] On page 7 of the memorandum, the Trump legal team confirms that law enforcement received reports of a potential attack on the Capitol well before Trump's January 6th speech... throwing out the possibility of a sudden "incitement" by the 45th President's speech.  "Despite going to great lengths to include irrelevant information regarding Mr. Trump's comments dating back to August 2020 and various postings on social media, the House Managers are silent on one very chilling fact.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed that the breach at the Capitol was planned several days in advance of the rally, and therefore had nothing to do with the President's speech on January 6th at the Ellipse," they said.

A Made-For-TV Impeachment Trial.  The conduct of the Democrats during the first Trump impeachment trial was truly cringe-worthy.  Knowing that he would never be removed from office, they produced a piece of embarrassingly bad theater for the benefit of their far-left base.  The second Trump impeachment trial, due to begin Tuesday [2/9/2021], promises to be even more schmaltzy.  Because their claim that Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection is so thoroughly refuted by the video and transcript of his January 6 speech, the Democratic House managers will be forced to rely heavily on a montage of misleading videos edited for the convenience of the broadcast and cable networks.  It will be a made-for-television impeachment trial written to manipulate the emotions of the public.

Debasing the Constitution:  Why Chief Justice Roberts is Not Presiding over Trump's Impeachment.  As Donald Trump's second impeachment trial begins today, not enough attention has been paid to the fact that Chief Justice Roberts will not be presiding.  Senate Democrat Richard Blumenthal, a lawyer, former federal prosecutor and member of the Judiciary Committee, believes the Chief Justice should preside.  Elizabeth Warren adopts the far more aggressive position that the Chief Justice must preside as part of "his constitutional duty." [...] Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer [...] claims that the Constitution commits the decision as a matter of choice to the Chief Justice: [...] All of these assertions are manifestly incorrect and for reasons of considerable bearing on the proceeding.  Working in order, Blumenthal does not pretend to a legal argument.  He wants the Chief Justice to preside for its beneficial public relations impact. [...] Warren presents a claim shared by exactly no one. [...] Schumer is a different story.  His statement is the reasons people despise the oiliness of politicians, saying just enough to sound reasonable, for unwarranted ends.  Schumer intimates that he directly contacted Roberts and was told by Roberts that he would not preside.  Schumer's office conveniently won't confirm or deny.

Democratic impeachment managers are set to have their bid to call witnesses refused by Senate on eve of Trump's trial.  Democrats are struggling with impeachment managers' desire to call witnesses in the Senate trial this week to help prove their case against Donald Trump and Democratic leadership wanting a speedy process.  Speculation stirred over the weekend that Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will announce a deal on how the trial, which kicks off on Tuesday, will move forward — with few expecting any witness testimony, according to Politico.  Congressional leadership feels witnesses are not necessary since the actions and fallout Democrats are accusing the former president of inciting happened in plain sight and the prosecution could rely mostly on video.

Sen. Rand Paul:  Here's the Proof the Impeachment Trial Against Trump Is Unconstitutional.  Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) laid out a number of reasons why he believes the second impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump is unconstitutional.  "Constitutional scholars have said you impeach and disqualify.  If the person isn't there to impeach, you can't do either one of them," he said.  The senator said there are other forms of punishment outside of impeachment, something he believes Trump has already endured.  "I think he has suffered under public opinion.  His numbers are greatly reduced and so I think there's all kinds of punishment," the senator explained.  "We've had a country for 250 years and every other Congress thought it was unwise to keep going after an ex-president."

Trump Impeachment Is Unconstitutional and Reeks of Political Revenge.  It's no secret that from the day after the 2016 election, Democrats had their sights set on impeaching President Trump, even objecting on January 6, 2017 to the electoral votes starting with the State of Alabama, which President Trump won by 28 points, alleging "Russia Collusion."  When the Russian collusion conspiracy was proven to be make believe, they moved on to impeaching him over allegations made by an "anonymous whistleblower" who we later found out worked with Joe Biden when he was vice president.  We may never know all the facts about those allegations because House Democrats denied President Trump his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine the witness against him.  Just like the Russian collusion narrative, it was all political theater, engineered before an election, and designed to railroad President Trump and energize the Democratic Party's base of support at a time when the economy was thriving and our country was at peace.  In the Senate there was little appetite for the show trial and the articles of impeachment were rightly dismissed.  Trump Impeachment 2.0 is unconstitutional and should also be dismissed by the U.S. Senate.

"By What Lawful Authority?"  Donald Trump is not President of the United States, he has already left office, he is a private citizen.  There is no law that empowers Congress to prosecute a private citizen under the impeachment clause; though it may dearly wish that it existed, it may wish what it wishes — but it does not exist.  They might possess evidence, they may even have a case, but they do not have the legal basis for the procedure.

Trump's attorneys have the perfect troll tactic for the impeachment.  Count me as one who believes that the impeachment trial against former President Trump is an unconstitutional bill of attainder against a private citizen.  Still, the proceeding is going to play out and it appears that Trump's attorneys are going to fight hard.  One of their plans in a case charging President Trump with inciting violence is to play for the Senate all the footage of Democrats inciting violence in 2020.  The problem for the Democrats going into the trial is one of evidence.  The evidence against Trump isn't just slim, it's non-existent.  The FBI has admitted that what happened at the Capitol was planned long before January 6.  The planning did not involve Trump.  There's also evidence that the FBI knew about the plan against the Capitol in advance, but that the FBI, the Capitol Police, and the Democrats in charge of Congress did nothing with that information.

New York Times Sneers at Religion of President Trump's Impeachment Lawyer.  When lefty elites aren't sneering at Evangelical Christians, they're sneering at Catholics, and when they're not doing that, they're sneering at Orthodox Jews.  And thus the New York Times somehow decided that this was a story, "Trump Lawyer Asks to Pause Impeachment Trial if It Runs Into Sabbath".  Why exactly turn this into a news story except as hatebait?  This is not a major story.  It's a minor detail.  Yet somehow the New York Times decided to put two reporters, including the absolutely execrable Maggie Haberman on the job of turning this into an entire story.

'Inconsistent, Conflicting' And Ignored Threat Assessments Ahead of Jan 6 Capitol Attack.  A New York Times report has let the cat out of the bag:  that law enforcement either knew and did nothing about the potential for violence on January 6th, or issued conflicting and inconsistent threat assessments ahead of the events at the U.S. Capitol.  The news will raise questions as to why authorities allowed a predominantly peaceful Trump speech and rally in Washington, D.C. to be infiltrated and overtaken by forces who had planned for violence in advance.  Questions will also be asked about why authorities immediately claimed President Donald Trump had "incited" the riot with his speech at the Ellipse outside the White House when we now know much of the violent behavior was pre-meditated.

What to Expect from Trump's Upcoming Impeachment Trial.  A case of this magnitude and complexity (more complex than you might think, with lifetime disqualification from public office and even criminal prosecution possibly down the line) would normally afford six months to eighteen months before going to trial. [...] Trump's new lawyers hit hard on a "bill of attainder."  The U.S. Constitution absolutely forbids two things:  an ex post facto law and a bill of attainder.  An ex post facto law means that Congress criminalizes something only after you did it already.  In fact, the Democrats are changing interpretations so severely that they are violating the ex post facto prohibition.  A "bill of attainder" is a legislature singling out a person for punishment rather than enacting a law of general application.  Because the prohibition in the Constitution is absolute, Trump's lawyers raise it as a total bar.  In other words, they have put tyrannosaurus rex teeth into the argument that you cannot impeach a former president.  They belabor the circumstances that the articles of impeachment have created:  "a class of one" with only Donald Trump in the class.  That supports both an equal protection violation and a bill of attainder violation.

Hiding Biden.  [Scroll down]  Some Democrats were bent on impeaching Trump from the moment he took office, on January 20, 2017.  Just 19 minutes after Trump was sworn in, the Washington Post published a piece headlined, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun."  Those early efforts were spearheaded by U.S. Representative Al Green (D-Texas), who drew up articles of impeachment for alleged misdeeds ranging from Trump's insulting kneeling professional football players to his firing of former FBI Director James Comey.  Green's effort led to three different unsuccessful impeachment votes — one in 2017 and two more in 2019 after Democrats gained a House majority in the 2018 election.  Publicly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders said they did not approve of Green's efforts.  "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," Pelosi told the Washington Post in March 2019.

Impeachment Trial Designed to DESTROY Constitution.  Chief Justice John Roberts has declined to be involved with this trial and will not oversee the proceedings.  This raises the issue of whether or not the trial is even legal, as the Constitution specifies that when the President of the United States is tried, "the Chief Justice shall preside." [...] Trump's attorneys correctly argue that, as a private citizen, the Senate lacks jurisdiction to hold this trial, and should they act on the politically motivated proceeding initiated in the House, then they will have passed a Bill of Attainder.  A Bill of Attainder is a specific violation of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 9. Cl.3.  A bill of attainder allowed for a person to be judged guilty of a crime and punished without a trial, a tactic used in old England against the king's enemies.  Prohibition of such laws means that the U.S. Congress cannot simply punish people who are unpopular or seem to be guilty of crimes.  Whereas Habeus Corpus guarantees a fair trial by jury, a bill of attainder would bypass this.  If the Senate should proceed and pass this Bill of Attainder against a private citizen, this would desecrate the US Constitution, and open all citizens to having their Due Process and Civil Liberties stripped from them.

Starr: Chief Justice Roberts Should Make [it] Clear [that the] Trump Impeachment Trial [is] Unconstitutional.  Several Republicans along with lawyers for former President Donald Trump have called his second impeachment many things:  Bogus, ridiculous, insane, petty, improper, and illegal.  Democrats need to hear one more term, however, and they need to hear it from someone specific.  The term is "unconstitutional" and it needs to come from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, according to former independent counsel Ken Starr, who knows a think or two about impeachment proceedings since his probes of President Bill Clinton lead him to be impeached in 1998.

Trump Team Rejects Offer To Testify At Impeachment Trial: 'Public Relations Stunt'.  Former President Donald Trump turned down an offer from Democrats to testify at his upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate, blasting the offer as a "public relations stunt."  Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the lead impeachment manager for the House, sent Trump the offer via letter on Thursday.  Trump attorneys Bruce Castor and David Schoen rejected the request hours later.  "We are in receipt of your latest public relations stunt.  As you certainly know, there is no such thing as a negative inference in this unconstitutional proceeding," the attorneys wrote.  "Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone:  you cannot prove your allegations against the 45th President of the United States, who is now a private citizen."

House Impeachment Brief Against Trump Threatens Freedom of Speech of All Americans:  Dershowitz.  Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Thursday that the House impeachment brief against former President Donald Trump, which seeks to undermine Trump's First Amendment-based argument in his defense, amounts to a dangerous broadside against the freedom of speech of all Americans.  Writing in an op-ed for The Hill, Dershowitz made a case against a key argument contained in the brief (pdf), namely that "the First Amendment does not apply at all to impeachment proceedings," signals Congressional willingness to take aim at freedom of speech more broadly.  "The brief filed by the House managers advocating the conviction and disqualification of citizen Donald Trump contains a frontal attack on freedom of speech for all Americans," Dershowitz wrote.  "It states categorically that 'the First Amendment does not apply at all to impeachment proceedings,' despite the express language of that amendment prohibiting Congress from making any law, or presumably taking any other action, that abridges 'the freedom of speech.'"

Gaetz offers to represent Trump in second impeachment trial, resign House seat 'if the law requires it'.  Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz on Wednesday offered to represent former President Trump in his second impeachment trial, telling Fox News he would be willing to resign from his seat in the House of Representatives if asked to join the Trump legal team.  Gaetz, R-Fla., told Fox News on Wednesday [2/3/2021] that he has not been asked to join the former president's defense, but offered to do so.  "I only regret that I have but one political career to give to my president," Gaetz told Fox News.  Gaetz told Fox News that he offered to represent Trump through Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows "weeks ago."

Trump Will Play the Senate's Game Using the Democrats' Chips.  The impeachment managers from the Democrat House, along with co-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, seem convinced that a Senate "trial" will dispatch Donald Trump from the American scene.  Not so fast. [...] There are enough facts established by independent observers, and investigators including the FBI, that the claims that Trump's Jan 6 speech to an energized but peaceful crowd at the Ellipse incited a riot are implausible, farfetched, and without evidentiary foundation.  Athletic rhetoric perhaps, yet all within the bounds of commonplace discourse today — largely institutionalized by Democrats' own incendiary language, by the way. [...] Because the Senate "trial" is an extra-constitutional exhibition, it has no authority or binding power. [...] Even the malleable SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts knows the Senate trial is illegitimate, a farce, and will not participate as presiding judge.

'If You Open That Can of Worms': Graham Threatens to Call FBI to Testify if Democrats 'Call One Impeachment Witness'.  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has had enough of Impeachment Charade 2.0.  I mean, Graham has really had enough of the sham impeachment, just as he and half of America had enough of the first sham impeachment — in both cases before the charades began.  During a Monday night appearance on "Hannity," Graham told Hannity "the second impeachment trial is not wearing well over time," adding:  "Democrats are in a box."  That "box," Graham said, is Democrats should think twice before calling "one witness."  If they "open that can of worms," Graham added, Republicans will call in the FBI to testify.

Trump Team Denies Pre-Riot Speech 'Had Anything to Do' with Capitol Violence in Impeachment Filing.  Attorneys for former President Donald Trump on Tuesday filed a response to the "incitement of insurrection" impeachment charge he faces, arguing that their client's January 6 speech did not incite the violence that followed at the Capitol impeachment.  "It is denied that the phrase 'if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore' had anything to do with the action at the Capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election security in general," Trump's lawyers wrote.  The attorneys further argued that impeachment "requires that a person actually hold office."  The response comes one week before Trump's second Senate impeachment trial is set to begin.  The House passed a single article of impeachment against the former president, accusing him of inciting rioting at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 while Congress met to certify President Joe Biden's election victory.

Trump Aimed 'Loaded Cannon' of Supporters at Capitol, Dems Claim in Impeachment Brief.  Former President Trump "threatened the constitutional system" by inciting the riot at the Capitol on January 6 that left five people dead, Democrats claimed in a legal brief released on Tuesday [2/2/2021].  House impeachment managers submitted the brief as part of their case to impeach the former president for "incitement of insurrection."  The House voted to impeach Trump after he incited a mob of his supporters to amass at the Capitol, after which the mob breached the building and forced lawmakers to evacuate.  One Capitol police officer died after being injured by rioters.

Trump's Entire Impeachment Trial Defense Team Leaves Him High and Dry.  A little more than a week before Donald Trump's second impeachment trial is set to begin on February 8, all five attorneys who had been serving on his impeachment defense team have parted ways with the former president.  The decision was said to have been mutually agreed upon.  Legal briefs are due this week before the trial begins a week from Monday.  It's hard to see how Trump could possibly mount an adequate defense before the trial, he just needs more time.  Otherwise, Democrats risk the charge of not giving Trump a chance at any notion of a fair trial.

Ken Starr:  Senate 'Utterly Without Jurisdiction' to Try Ex-President Trump.  Former special prosecutor Ken Starr added to a chorus of conservative voices arguing that the Senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to hold an impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump.  Starr, in comments to Fox News on Monday, stated that the upper chamber cannot try a president after leaving office.  "The answer is emphatically not," Starr said, adding that "the text of the Constitution to me is absolutely clear that judgment in cases of impeachment" refers to the "removal and possible disqualification."  He argued that a "former officer, by definition, cannot be removed."  Earlier this month, 45 GOP senators voted to reject going ahead with the impeachment trial, scheduled for Feb. 8, in the strongest hint yet that Democrats' impeachment efforts are doomed to fail.  Conviction in the Senate requires 67 votes instead of a simple majority, and it would require 17 Republicans to join the Democrats.

Let's Examine the Claim That Trump Incited 'Insurrection' at the Capitol.  GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah appears to be all in on the impeachment of Donald Trump, saying the former president incited an insurrection and must be held accountable.  "I believe that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense.  If not, what is?" Romney told CNN's Dana Bash on Sunday [1/31/2021].  Earlier this month, the Democrat-controlled House voted to impeach Trump for a second time, saying his Jan. 6 speech near the White House incited the rioters who entered the Capitol while a joint session of Congress was meeting to certify the Electoral College vote.  Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Romney made similar allegations that Trump incited the Capitol incursion.  "Well, we're certainly going to have a trial.  I wish that weren't necessary, but the president's conduct with regards to the call to Secretary of State Raffensperger in Georgia as well as the incitation towards the insurrection that led to the attack on the Capitol call for a trial," the senator said.

The Enemy Is Us.  [Scroll down]  Now, the facade is completely gone.  The Democrat Party leadership has openly said they are coming after real Americans.  They impeached President Trump a second time, with the help of 10, count them 10, Republican congressmen.  They have now begun a senate trial of the former president.  They don't care whether or not he is a private citizen, thus beyond their reach in this matter.  They are gonna do it anyhow, if for nothing more than to prove a point.

'New Constitutional Terrain': Experts Mixed on Constitutionality of Trump Second Impeachment Trial.  The upcoming Senate impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump is a first-of-its-kind proceeding and legal scholars have expressed mixed opinions about its constitutionality.  Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised a point of order on the Senate floor earlier this week, forcing the chamber to take a stance on the constitutionality of the proceedings.  Although it returned a 55-45 vote, meaning the trial will go ahead, it also revealed nearly half of the chamber is of the view the proceedings are unconstitutional.  Many scholars who are arguing that the trial is unconstitutional are relying on an interpretation of Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution which states, "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."  According to their reading of the text, these scholars say impeachment is for current officeholders, and since Trump had already left office, the Senate's jurisdiction — or authority — to hold an impeachment trial expired on Jan. 20, when his term came to a close.

Report: Trump's Lawyers Quit Impeachment Defense over Election Fraud Claims.  Lawyers who had been preparing President Donald Trump's defense for his Senate impeachment trial have reportedly quit over his insistence that they present a defense that involves claims of election fraud in several states in the 2020 election. [...] The first legal filing in the trial is due on Tuesday [2/2/2021], and the trial is expected to begin in earnest the week of February 8.

Why Hasn't The House Held Hearings To Establish "Incitement To Insurrection"?  We recently discussed how the Senate will have to decide whether to call witnesses in the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.  The use of a snap impeachment raises a basis for some senators to oppose such witnesses on institutional or prudential grounds.  Democrats opposed any witnesses in the Clinton impeachment and there were no witnesses in the first Trump impeachment trial.  Not surprisingly, the House is demanding witnesses.  The initial vote in the trial shows that it is substantially short of the number of senators needed to convict and Trump could be acquitted on a virtual 50-50 vote.  So here is my question:  why has the House not used the last few weeks to call these witnesses and build the needed case to show intent to incite an insurrection?  Weeks have gone by with key witnesses speaking to the press but not to the House.  Why?

Sen. Rand Paul:  If You Impeach Trump, You Should Impeach Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters and Cory Booker.  Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday [1/27/2021] called out what he says is a double standard among those calling for President Donald Trump to be impeached for inciting the Capitol Hill riot. [...] Paul said "impeachment is dead on arrival."  "It'll just now be all theater, but it really is a double standard when you think about it.  Kamala Harris has offered to pay people's bail who tried to burn down the courthouse and were rioting in the cities.  She offered to pay the bail.  Is that inciting people to violence when you're willing to pay people to get out of jail after they committed violence?  Should Kamala Harris be impeached?  No, the answer is no," he said.  "We would never do that because we're reasonable people.  The Democrats are wanting to impeach the president, because they're deranged with hatred and bitterness, but the president never said anything close to what Kamala Harris did.  The president never said anything close to what Bernie Sanders did in saying, well the Republican plan is you get sick and die," Paul said.

Unite and Heal With Show Trials and Fascist Purges.  "I think it has to happen," Biden said, mandating the show impeachment trial of his predecessor.  Once upon a time, impeachments were rare things.  These days, Democrats aren't considered truly progressive if they don't impeach a Republican president twice in one term.  President Trump is back in Florida, but that won't stop the Democrats from impeaching him anyway before they move on to impeaching the presidents like Washington and Lincoln whose statues their insurrectionist mobs were toppling all summer and fall back when insurrection was still cool.

Trump Campaign Pollster:  Effort to Cancel Trump Is 'Backfiring'.  [Scroll down]  The effort to convict Trump in an impeachment trial suffered a grave setback after 45 Republican senators voted against holding the trial, meaning that it's unlikely there will be enough votes to convict the former president.  Convicting a president requires at least 67 votes, meaning 17 Republicans would have to join Democrats.  A number of Republican senators said it's unconstitutional and pointless to convict a former president.  "It's having no impact on his base, in fact, it's just solidifying them and making them angrier or more upset," McLaughlin said of the impeachment efforts.  "Because the people outside the Beltway agree" that it is essentially unconstitutional, he said.

Growing evidence Capitol assault was planned weakens incitement case against Trump, experts say.  Growing evidence of advance planning and coordination of the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol undermines claims that the rioters were responding spontaneously to former President Trump's speech to supporters about a mile and a half away, according to legal and intelligence experts.  As Senate Democrats mull their options for convicting or censuring Trump and banning him from future public office for allegedly inciting insurrection, experts said their incitement case against him was dealt a severe blow this week when federal prosecutors charged three men in the Capitol attack, alleging their communication and coordination dated back to November.  For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI.

Democratic Senators Recognizing Impeachment Is a Fairy Tale Seek Other Options.  It appears that some Democrats have come to terms with the inevitability that another impeachment circus won't work out in their favor.  Several left-leaning lawmakers are trying to convince their colleagues to vote for censuring former President Donald Trump instead of attempting to convict him during impeachment proceedings.  It appears they are willing to settle for Diet Impeachment™ rather than the real thing. [...] Unlike impeachment, a censure resolution would require only 60 votes to pass in the Senate, which has only censured one president:  Andrew Jackson.  However, it reversed its decision three years later.  Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who is working with Sen. Collins on the resolution, indicated that a censure resolution would be easier to pass than an impeachment conviction.

The Senate Cannot Impeach Donald Trump.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has delivered Articles of Impeachment of Donald J. Trump and the appointment of Impeachment Managers to the U.S. Senate on January 25.  The Senate cannot legally hold a trial on impeachment of a President or other official who has already left office.  As we will watch, the Senate has extensive, long-established procedures — but only as its own rules.  The Senate must convene the next day at 1:00 P.M.  But the Senate typically schedules the actual trial for later.  Chuck Schumer says the trial will start February 8.  Senate rules require a trial, whereas the Constitution only allows the Senate to hold a trial should they choose.  No trial is required.  But in any trial, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be taken up first.  Remember:  Democrats in the House were conducting impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon for some serious crimes.  It appeared that the votes were there in the Senate to remove Nixon from office.  But when Nixon resigned, the entire effort stopped.  Democrats then believed that they did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with impeachment.

Impeachment collapses.  In Trump derangement syndrome, Democrats just can't help themselves.  Their bid to take President Trump down in his post-presidency through an illegal impeachment is going down like the Hindenburg.  Start with the latest — the vote in the Senate on Tuesday [1/26/2021]. [...] Sen. Rand Paul's motion to dismiss the impeachment was a spectacular defeat for the Democrats.  It snuffed out, right then and there for them, that there is not going to be any impeachment with conviction.  All their bloviating and disinformation regarding what went down on Jan. 6 has been seen through by their opponents, who've now stood up and been counted.  Verdict:  Defeat.  Yet at least two more weeks of walking through this.  Why do Democrats now even bother?  They can't turn around yet most would probably be glad to do so if they only could.

Yet Another Trump Impeachment?  Sorry, But This One Too Is A Sham.  The Democrats are racing ahead with their third effort to impeach former President Donald Trump.  Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent the impeachment articles to the Senate on Tuesday [1/26/2021], and the now evenly split Senate will take it up on Feb. 8.  It's a waste of time and taxpayer money for one simple reason:  It's not even legal.  No, that's not a mere assertion or our opinion.  It's based on the only document we know that guides how impeachments should take place.  It's called the Constitution.  We still live in a constitutional republic, which means we are bound by its laws.  So is Congress. [...] [T]he impeachment now being moved to the Senate is not legal, based on the clear wording and intent of the Constitution.  For one thing, President Trump is no longer president of the United States.  The Constitution clearly says "When the President of the United States is tried ..."  It doesn't say "former" or "ex-President."  It says "President."  Since Trump is no longer president, he can't legally be impeached.  Impeachment is moot, since the main idea behind impeachment is to remove the accused from office.

Ten Reasons a Post-Presidency Impeachment of Barack Obama Should Happen.  With the Senate looking to be on the verge of starting an impeachment trial for President Trump over bogus allegations that he incited the assault on the Capitol on January 6, Democrats have established the precedent that even after a president is out of office that they must held accountable for alleged crimes committed during their presidency. [...] The most obvious former Democrat president who could be and should be impeached despite already having left office is Barack Obama.  While Democrats are most likely motivated by their desire to prevent President Trump from running for president again, there are other benefits given to former presidents that would be taken away upon conviction, and given his many impeachable acts while in office, the post-presidency impeachment of Barack Obama would hopefully set an example for future presidents.  So, below, I've compiled ten things Barack Obama could be impeached for once Republicans retake the majority in the House. [...]

Bipartisan Senate pitch:  Let's censure Trump instead of an impeachment trial.  In order to invoke a 14th Amendment bar on office, seditionists would have to be found guilty of that crime — but in court, not in Congress, which has no authority to try anything other than impeachments.  Attempting to use this mechanism against a private citizen would explicitly be a constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder.  The only authority granted to Congress in the 14th Amendment is the power to waive that restriction.

CJ Roberts and the Courage of Roger Scruton.  [Scroll down]  But now our Democratic friends want to have a trial of Citizen Trump in the Senate.  So I looked up the text of the Constitution online.  It says ["]The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:  And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.["]  Ahem.  Do you see the problem here, you strict constructionists, you living constitutionalists, and you, Sen. Chuck E. Schumer (D-NY)?  When the proposed trial begins on February 8, Roberts, CJ, can say — should say — to the assembled duly sworn multitude:  "Sorry chaps.  The President of the United States is not on trial.  Citizen Trump is on trial.  So it would be against the Constitution as written for the Chief Justice to preside.  And it would be a grievous blow to the dignity of the Supreme Court and the plain meaning of the Constitution if the Chief Justice were to preside in flagrant violation of the plain words of the Constitution."

Trump conviction unlikely after most GOP senators vote to dismiss impeachment trial.  Senate Republicans revealed Tuesday they are unlikely to convict former President Donald Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection on the Capitol, as a majority of the conference supported a procedural gambit to dismiss the trial.  After senators were sworn in Tuesday for the impeachment trial that will start in two weeks, Sen. Rand Paul raised a constitutional point of order against the proceedings.  The Constitution does not provide Congress the power to impeach and try a former president, the Kentucky Republican argued.  "Private citizens don't get impeached.  Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office," Paul said in floor remarks before the vote.  "Hyperpartisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol, the likes of which has never been seen in our nation's history."

Biden: Trump Impeachment Trial Must Happen, Former President Likely Won't Be Convicted.  President Joe Biden on Monday said he feels an impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump "has to happen."  But, acknowledging the high threshold required for conviction, he added that he doesn't believe Trump will be convicted.  "The Senate has changed since I was there, but it hasn't changed that much," Biden said, adding that a trial will have a negative impact on his agenda and nominees but that there would be "a worse effect if it didn't happen."  The president was speaking to CNN.  On MSNBC, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats have spoken with Biden about the trial.  "He feels there has to be a trial like we do," Schumer said.  Democrats hold 50 seats in the Senate.  Even if all 50 were to vote to convict Trump, they'd need 17 Republicans to cross the aisle.

Democrat Prospects of Convicting Trump in [the] Senate Fade Away.  As the House prepares to bring the impeachment charge against Donald Trump to the Senate for trial, a growing number of Republican senators say they are opposed to the proceeding, dimming the chances that former president will be convicted on the charge that he incited a siege of the U.S. Capitol.

If You Thought the First Impeachment Was a Circus, Just Wait for Impeachment 2.0.  In a spectacle that is almost certainly not going to be the ratings grabber that Democrats might hope for, President Trump's second impeachment trial is shaping up to be a dumpster fire.  Without the daily outrage cycle fueled by whatever the former president was tweeting, America seems prepared to move past the rancor.  Democrats seem determined to cling to it.  However, even their impeachment manager can't figure out what constitutional authority they are using to proceed.  In an interview with CNN, the host asked Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) how she would respond to critics saying it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former president.

McConnell Votes to Declare Trump Impeachment Trial 'Unconstitutional'.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and forty-five members of his caucus backed an effort to declare the impeachment trial of former President Trump "unconstitutional" on Tuesday [1/26/2021].  McConnell's colleague from Kentucky, Senator Rand Paul, introduced a point of order on Tuesday to declare Trump's impeachment trial unconstitutional on the grounds that a president can't be impeached once he has left office.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer then moved to table Paul's point of order, blocking the effort to preemptively invalidate the impeachment trial.

Democrats Explore Using 14th Amendment 'Insurrection' Clause to Bar Trump From Future Office.  Democrats are contemplating whether they can use the 14th Amendment to bar former President Donald Trump from ever taking office in the future, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said on Jan. 22.  Section three of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, states that anyone guilty of "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States shall not be eligible to hold elective office in the United States.  It allows for Congress to "remove such disability" with a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.  Democrats in Congress have accused Trump of inciting the acts of violence that transpired on Jan. 6 as some rioters and protesters decided to unlawfully enter the U.S. Capitol building — despite Trump saying that the protesters should protest "peacefully and patriotically."  He repeatedly condemned the violence after the incident.  It is unclear who instigated the breach of the Capitol building.

Swalwell: We Can't Give Trump a Chance to Do This Again, He Must Be Disqualified from Office.  Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) Monday [1/25/2021] on MSNBC's "Live" said that Democrats were impeaching former President Donald Trump, so he is convicted in the Senate, which includes a penalty of disqualification from office.  Jackson asked, "Do you plan to address the constitutional authority as has been raised by some of these Republicans for the House to bring an impeachment against somebody and for the Senate to convict somebody who is no longer serving?"

The Editor says...
I'm no lawyer, but sounds like a Bill of Attainder.

Sen. Leahy to Preside Over Trump's Impeachment Trial.  Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), president pro tempore of the Senate, will preside over next month's impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, Leahy said on Jan. 25.  Leahy is 80.  Both parties traditionally choose their eldest member to serve in the pro tempore role, which is essentially a backup for the president of the Senate, whenever they gain a majority in the body.  "The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents," Leahy said in a statement.  "When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws.  It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously.  "I consider holding the office of the president pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it to be one of the highest honors and most serious responsibilities of my career," he said.

Republican Senators Have Bad News For Democrats Excited About Trump's Impeachment.  Democrats getting all hot and bothered at the thought of impeaching Trump even though he is out of office might be in for a rude awakening.  Several Republican senators have indicated that they will not support another impeachment drama.  In other news, conservatives are stocking up on popcorn in anticipation of being entertained by the incessant whining from the left that is sure to follow a failed effort to convict the former president.  "Well, first of all, I think the trial is stupid," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday [1/24/2021]."  He added, "I think it's counterproductive.  We already have a flaming fire in this country, and [impeachment is] taking a bunch of gasoline and pouring it on top of the fire."

Prospects of convicting Trump erode as GOP grows vocal against Senate impeachment proceedings.  The path in the Senate to convict Donald Trump is extremely slim, with a growing number of Republicans expressing confidence that the party will acquit the former President on a charge that he incited the deadly insurrection aimed at stopping President Joe Biden's electoral win.  After Democratic leaders announced they would kick off the process to begin the impeachment trial on Monday, Republicans grew sharply critical about the proceedings — and made clear that they saw virtually no chance that at least 17 Republicans would join with 50 Democrats to convict Trump and also bar him from ever running from office again.

Growing Number of GOP Senators Oppose Impeachment Trial.  A growing number of Republican senators say they oppose holding an impeachment trial, a sign of the dimming chances that former President Donald Trump will be convicted on the charge that he incited a siege of the U.S. Capitol.  House Democrats, who will walk the impeachment charge of "incitement of insurrection" to the Senate on Monday evening, are hoping that strong Republican denunciations of Trump after the Jan. 6 riot will translate into a conviction and a separate vote to bar Trump from holding office again.

Impeachment, The Sequel, Is As Bad As The Original And An Assault On The Constitution.  Here we go again.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slowly and somberly walking an article of impeachment through the Capitol flanked by House managers giving their best impression of a funeral procession.  Except this time, they're wearing Covid masks.  Let's call it "Impeachment:  The Sequel."  It is destined to be as pitiable as the original.  Like a cheap movie franchise that Hollywood keeps exploiting, this sham version will be the equivalent of a box office dud.

Sen. Rand Paul says Chief Justice Roberts won't take Trump impeach trial.  As Democrats plunge ahead with a post-term impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, a key question remains:  Will Chief Justice Roberts take the case?  Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says he won't — making the exercise "a fake, partisan impeachment," the lawmaker told Fox News' Sean Hannity Friday [1/22/2021].  Paul claimed Roberts has "privately said he's not supposed to come unless it's an impeachment of the president."  According to the US Constitution, "when the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" — a requirement not made for any other impeachment case.

Roberts rules.  Today comes word via Senator Rand Paul that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump: the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of "the President."  Trump is no longer "the President."  Roberts's presence is therefore not called for.  Trump is of course a private citizen at this point.  The constitutional text does not appear to contemplate the impeachment or trial of a private citizen, although such impeachments took place once in the eighteenth century and once in the nineteenth.  Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig argues in this Washington Post column that a Senate trial of Trump would be unconstitutional.

Trump Will Return.  After the assault on Congress, I was convinced that President Trump's legacy and post-presidential political future were seriously in doubt.  The images of red MAGA-hatted Trump supporters breaching congressional security and roaming the halls of the House and Senate would be used against the president and his legacy for years to come.  This despite the fact that we now know Black Lives Matter and Antifa provocateurs like John Sullivan were in the crowd, inciting violence, and that the police were at times seemingly acquiescent to the illegal actions of the handful of actual rioters.  That didn't matter.  The events of January 6 would be falsely and breathlessly labeled an "insurrection" and laid at Trump's feet.  But then on January 13, they tried to impeach him — again — and everything changed.

Top Republicans, Ex-White House Officials Pressing McConnell to Convict Trump.  On January 6, there was a riot on Capitol Hill.  Five people died.  The Capitol Building was stormed.  New impeachment articles were filed against President Trump as well.  Trump addressed the Save America rally on the same day as the riot.  He's being accused of inciting a riot and insurrection on this day; the day Congress certifies the 2020 election results.  This appears to be the straw the broke the camel's back.  McConnell blames Trump for losing the GOP majority in the Senate.  There's no love lost between the two men.  He is even supportive of the Democrats' impeachment push, seeing it as not being grounded in politics as with the first attempt regarding Ukraine.  He also reportedly sees this as an avenue to purge Trumpism from the GOP.  The Daily Caller reported that key Republicans and former White House officials are conducting a whisper campaign to urge the Kentucky Republican to convict Trump.

Trump Impeachment [will be] DOA in [the] Senate.  On Monday [1/25/2021], House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will send her slapdash article of impeachment to the Senate, where the Democrats are already preparing a performance they plan to debut during the second week of February.  But the show will be a flop.  As professor emeritus at Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz writes at the Wall Street Journal, "Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction....  Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn't seek recriminations against its predecessor."  In other words, the Senate lacks the authority to try a former official, and it would be dumb politics.  Trump's populist movement is by no means dead, and few of his 74 million voters believe he incited insurrection.  Consequently, Senate Republicans are getting cold feet.

Since when does the Executive Branch set the timetable for a presidential impeachment?
Biden signals he's willing to delay Trump trial.  President Biden on Friday suggested he would be open to waiting until next month to begin the Senate impeachment trial of former President Trump, reasoning it would allow more time to get his own administration "up and running."  Biden said he had not seen the specifics of a proposal from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to begin the trial in February, but "the more time we have to get up and running and meet these crises, the better."  "I do think that having some time to get our administration up and running — I want to thank the Senate for passing out our secretary of Defense, it looks like our secretary of Treasury, our secretary of State is in place," he said, though only the head of the Pentagon has officially been confirmed.  The House is expected to deliver its article of impeachment against Trump to the Senate on Monday [1/25/2021], meaning the trial could begin as soon as next week.

The Funhouse Mirror of Democrat Impeachment Theater.  [Scroll down]  The Democrat's second impeachment could not have removed President Trump from office before the scheduled inauguration and will thus be moot.  Nor do the facts support any legal definition of the crime of incitement to violence.  Yet the Democrats, joined by a handful of Republicans this time, voted to impeach Donald Trump, again.  Because there was no hope of removal in either impeachment it begs the question if the dual impeachment of Trump was wholly politically motivated virtue signaling.  Democrats should worry about the precedent of this second impeachment.  Namely, Georgia's Democratic governor Stacey Abrams may be up for impeachment after challenging her state's rigged gubernatorial election and encouraging marginalized groups to fight in politics as the "most effective method of revolt."

Joe Biden backs delaying Donald Trump's impeachment trial saying 'the more time we have to get up and running the better'.  Senate Republican and Democratic leaders have reached agreement on the the calendar outlines for the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump — with the substance of the trial set to begin February 9th.  The agreement, which Majority Leader Charles Schumer called 'good progress,' came after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for a delay in the trial, in a posture that got a boost from President Joe Biden, who is anxious to get his cabinet confirmed.  Under the outlines of the plan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will transmit an impeachment article Monday, leading senators to be sworn in Tuesday night.

With Impeachment, Congress [is] Trying to Overturn Future Elections.  Truly, these are the most fundamentally dishonest and unserious people ever to hold elected office.  They are a mockery of self-governance and precisely why Mr. Trump got elected in the first place.  You might say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi presides over a circus of untrained animals and diabolical clowns, but that would be an unkind insult to clowns and penned animals, frantically pacing back and forth, back and forth inside their confined cages.  Speaking to her social media mob, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York laid out Mr. Trump's impeachable offenses.  "A lot of people have drank the poison of white supremacy and that's what Donald Trump represents," she said.  "Just is."  That's right.  There is the evidence.  There lies the proof.  Forget hearings.  Forget a trial.  "Just is."

The House will transmit the article of impeachment charging Trump with incitement to the US Senate on Monday.  The House will transmit the article of impeachment charging former President Donald Trump with incitement of an insurrection on the US Capitol to the US Senate on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Friday [1/22/2021].  Importantly, as Axios pointed out, the Senate is constitutionally mandated to begin a trial for an impeached federal official by 1 p.m. on the day after the article is sent to them, meaning that Trump's trial will begin next week.  The Senate, divided evenly between 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, will be tasked with juggling both confirmation hearings and votes for Biden's cabinet nominees and conducting an impeachment trial.

Report: Senate Republicans Negotiating Terms of Unconstitutional Post-Departure Trump Impeachment Trial.  The Democrats plan to put Donald Trump on trial even though he no longer is in office.  It's plainly unconstitutional, for reasons explained in prior posts: [1] [2] The arguments in favor of a post-departure Senate trial are convoluted, whereas the argument against simply looks at the text of the Constitution.  There are arguments that in a small number of non-presidential cases the Senate attempted a post-departure impeachment trial, but those instances are not really on point, and in any event, because the Senate on a small number of prior occasions may have unconstitutionally grabbed power does not justify doing again here.

Senator Questions Constitutionality of Post-Presidential Impeachment Trial.  Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said it is likely unconstitutional to carry out a Senate impeachment trial of a president after they leave office.  President Donald Trump was impeached by the House earlier this month over his remarks that he made before the Capitol was breached on Jan. 6, despite the president calling on his supporters to "stay peaceful."  "My overall question is:  Why are we doing this when the president is out of office tomorrow?" Ernst told reporters on Tuesday [1/19/2021].  When asked about whether it would be constitutional to try Trump when he leaves office, Ernst said, "I don't think it is."

Chief Justice John Roberts does NOT want to preside over Donald Trump's second impeachment trial.  Chief Justice John Roberts is eager to avoid presiding over Donald Trump's second impeachment trial — after he became a lightning rod during the first one.  Just as the Senate is seeking to ascertain how it might proceed with an impeachment trial without blowing up the start of Joe Biden's term, the Supreme Court could face its own business being rearranged.  The Constitution states that 'When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside.'

The Trial Of Citizen Trump Would Raise Serious Constitutional Questions.  With the second impeachment of President Donald Trump, the Congress is set for one of the most bizarre moments in constitutional history: the removal of someone who has already left office.  The retroactive removal would be a testament to the timeliness of rage.  While it is not without precedent, it is without logic. [...] Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have stated that their primary interest is in the possible disqualification of Trump from holding future federal office.  Disqualification however is an optional penalty that follows a conviction and removal.  It may be added to the primary purpose of removal referenced in the Constitution.  The Trump trial would convert this supplemental punishment into the primary purpose of the trial.

House Committed Six Violations of the Constitution During Impeachment:  Alan Dershowitz.  Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said that the House violated six independent points of the Constitution when impeaching President Donald Trump.  In an interview with Newsmax, Dershowitz said:  "They violated the free speech provision.  They violated the impeachment criteria.  They violated the bill of attainder.  They violated due process, on and on and on."  "How can you impeach a president for a speech that is constitutionally protected?" he said.

Investigators Release Huge Bombshell That Could Change The Entire Narrative About January 6th.  In what should be front page news, federal law enforcement officials have told CNN that they believe the January 6th storming of the Capitol was planned ahead of time by bad actors instead of a random riot inspired by President Trump's speech.  Those of us on the right have known all along that Trump had nothing to do with the riot, but it appears law enforcement is beginning to come around as well.  If they prove that this was a pre-planned event by radicals who just wanted to see destruction, it will be the biggest news story of the year after the media viciously slandered Trump for "inciting" the scattered violence that occurred.  The entire impeachment witch hunt and de-platforming of the President is based on the lie that Trump "incited an angry mob".  As the investigators are beginning to learn, that was not the case at all.

Pelosi's Third Impeachment Folly.  Does the President have a right to free speech?  Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor writing on The Volokh Conspiracy, suggests he certainly does and that his speech on January 6 is a weak reed (as was Nancy Pelosi's past impeachment folly) on which to gain a conviction in the Senate.  (Remember an impeachment vote in the House is basically an indictment with no effect unless the Senate finds guilt after a trial.)  Looking at the most analogous case, the impeachment of President Andrew Jackson, he finds plenty of reason for senators to vote against it. [...] Aside from the constitutional issue of impeaching a President who, like every one of us, is entitled to free speech, there's the political fallout to consider.  And no one better analyzes this than Victor Davis Hanson.  Among other things he highlights the fact that the first two impeachment efforts failed, that the President has been under unremitting attack from day one, that Pelosi and Democrats like Schumer and Biden, have themselves engaged in incendiary speech and conduct.

What's in the Heads of the Pro-Impeachment Republicans?  A president who actually did incite a mob to violence would be a prime candidate for impeachment.  So what kept a larger GOP contingent from siding with the Democrats?  Why would there be zero chance of sufficient Republican support in the Senate if there were the slightest chance of a trial?  It's simple.  There was no incitement.  It is an illusion born in the minds of people who wish to take a final stab at Trump as he exits.  The riots provided them the opportunity to hit rewind, parse the words Trump spoke that morning, and retroactively assign the most sinister possible spin.  So what sent us down the impeachment road again?  The motive for Democrats is the same as it was a year ago:  they despise him.

Mark Levin
Mark Levin Shreds Rushed Impeachment Report Like Nancy Pelosi Ripping up a Trump SOTU Speech.  Fox News host, author, and constitutional expert Mark Levin ripped apart House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's rushed [...] impeachment charade 2.0 during a fired-up appearance on "Hannity" on Wednesday night with the precision of a surgeon.

Impeachment, Blame-Casting and Projection.  If you are wondering "why", consider this:  A "Big Steal" requires an even BIGGER justification.

The Lynch Mob Comes for Citizen Trump.  "The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled this mob and lit the flame of this attack."  So alleged Liz Cheney, third-ranking Republican in the House, as she led nine GOP colleagues to vote for a second impeachment of Donald Trump. [...] But is what Cheney said true?  Undeniably, the huge crowd that assembled on the mall Wednesday did so at Trump's behest.  But that peaceful crowd was not the violent mob that invaded the Capitol.  The mob was a mile away as Trump spoke.  It was up at the Capitol while Trump was on the Monument grounds.  It could not hear him.  And the break-in of the Capitol began even before Trump concluded his remarks.  It was done as he spoke.  Nor is there anything in the text of those remarks to indicate that Trump was signaling for an invasion of the Capitol.  How then did he light "the flame of this attack"?

Tom Cotton:  Senate 'Lacks Constitutional Authority' to Proceed with Impeachment After Trump Leaves Office.  Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) announced Wednesday after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump that he is against moving forward with the impeachment process in the Senate because the Senate "lacks the constitutional authority" to remove a former president.  Cotton expressed his opposition to impeachment proceedings in a statement Wednesday evening after the House voted that afternoon to impeach Trump a second time, passing one article of impeachment, 232 [to] 197, charging Trump with "incitement of insurrection" over last week's riot in the U.S. Capitol.  "The Senate under its rules and precedents cannot start and conclude a fair trial before the president leaves office next week," Cotton explained.  "Under these circumstances, the Senate lacks constitutional authority to conduct impeachment proceedings against a former president[.]"

House impeaches Trump a second time a week after Capitol riots.  President Trump was impeached a second time by the US House of Representatives on Wednesday in a largely party-line vote that saw a handful of Republicans join Democrats to blame the outgoing commander-in-chief for sparking last week's Capitol siege.  The measure reached 217 "yea" votes shortly after 4:20 p.m. to make Trump the only president to be impeached twice.  The final vote was 232-197, with 10 Republicans crossing party lines and four Republicans not voting when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) announced around 4:35 p.m.  No members of the GOP voted in 2019 to impeach Trump the first time.

A Crazy Impeachment.  Democrats started trying to remove President Donald Trump from office before he entered office.  Now they are proposing to remove him from office after he leaves office.  How do you remove an ex-president?  He's already gone.  That is the bizarre question posed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's obsessive quest to re-impeach Trump with just a few days left in his term.  Why impeach the president now, as the House seeks to do, when there is not enough time for the Senate to hold a trial and pass judgment on the case before Trump's term expires on Wednesday, Jan. 20?  Some argue that the Constitution permits the impeachment of a former president.  It has never happened in U.S. history, and the question has never been adjudicated.  So there is no way to say with 100 percent confidence what the answer is.

The Editor says...
Slippery Slope alert:  If former President Trump can be impeached, so can former President Barack H. Obama.

McConnell won't agree to reconvene Senate early for impeachment trial.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) office told Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer's (D-N.Y.) staff on Wednesday that the GOP will not agree to reconvene the Senate before Jan. 19 to allow an impeachment trial while President Trump is still in office.  A senior Senate Republican aide confirmed that McConnell's office reached out to Schumer's office to relay the message that Republicans will not agree to a Friday session to enable House Democrats to present an article of impeachment to the Senate while Trump is in office.  McConnell said in a memo circulated to colleagues last week that the Senate will not be able to handle business on the floor until senators are scheduled to return to Washington on Jan. 19 unless all 100 senators agree to reconvene sooner.

Nancy Pelosi names Trump impeachment managers, including Eric Swalwell.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday [1/12/2021] named nine managers who will lead President Trump's second impeachment — including Rep. Eric Swalwell, who faced recent controversy for his relationship with a Chinese spy.  The House on Wednesday will begin impeachment proceedings against Trump for allegedly inciting last week's Capitol riot.  The impeachment is expected to pass with overwhelming Democratic support and at least three Republican votes.  Impeachment managers are in charge of presenting the charges, giving them significant public attention and associating their own credibility with the case.  They are particularly prominent during Senate trials.

Biden Concerned Drawn-Out Impeachment Could Derail Agenda.  Democrat President-elect Joe Biden is worried that Congressional Democrats' focus on impeaching and convicting President Donald Trump may have an impact on their ability to pass key elements of his agenda during the crucial first 100 days of his administration.  Speaking to reporters late Monday, Biden said that he'd already spoken to Democrat leaders in the House and Senate, asking them to consider how important it is for a new president to "hit the ground running" when discussing their impeachment plans.

Trump's An 'Imminent Threat'? Dems Have Been Saying That For 4 Years.  "Donald Trump poses an imminent threat, not just to another person but to all of humanity."  That was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week justifying an immediate impeachment trial of Trump, right?  Nope.  That was from an article published in 2017 about a book by a group of psychiatrists who, having never met or talked to Trump, decreed that for the sake of the human race he had to be removed from office.

House Dems Introduce Article of Impeachment, Charge Trump with 'Incitement of Insurrection'.  The House will meet Wednesday [1/13/2021] to consider impeaching President Trump for "incitement of insurrection" after his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol last week, leaving five people dead.  House Democrats introduced a single article of impeachment against President Trump on Monday with the "incitement of insurrection" charge, saying he had "gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government."

Dems will call on Pence to use the 25th Amendment on Monday, or else Pelosi will begin impeachment of Trump.  Democrats will proceed with the impeachment of 'deranged, unhinged and dangerous' Donald Trump this week unless Mike Pence uses the 25th Amendment to force him from office, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday night [1/10/2021].  Pelosi made the announcement in a letter to colleagues, framing it as an ultimatum to Pence to invoke the powers of the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.  If not, she said, the House would proceed with impeachment.  Trump could become the only president to be impeached twice.

Democrats Cannot Impeach Trump, and You Can't Impeach Him After Leaving Office:  Dershowitz.  Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Democrats have virtually no chance of successfully impeaching and removing President Donald Trump before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.  "The case cannot come to trial in the Senate.  Because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 p.m. on January 20th, an hour after President Trump leaves office," Dershowitz said in a Fox Business interview on Sunday.  Dershowitz, who defended Trump during the Senate impeachment trial about a year ago, suggested that the Constitution does not allow for impeaching a former president.  "And the Constitution specifically says, 'The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.'  It doesn't say the former president.  Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else," he said.

Pelosi Invokes Nixon, Calls on GOP to Impeach Trump.  During an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) invoked Watergate and former President Richard Nixon as she discussed her push to impeach President Donald Trump. [...] Pelosi announced Sunday [1/10/2021] in a letter that the House of Representatives would move to impeach Trump just 10 days before his presidential term is over because he "represents an imminent threat" to "our Constitution and our Democracy."

Did Trump Incite Insurrection?  The Articles of Impeachment say Trump shall be removed for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors under the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the president (as well as the vice president, Congress and state legislators) from engaging in insurrection against the Constitution.  They use a lot of vague, lofty language but are short on specifics.  They say he "gravely endangered the security of the United States government."  They claim he "threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transfer of power, and imperiled a coordinate branch of government."  What do they cite as his dangerous words?  Saying he won the election by a landslide.  He encouraged "imminent lawless action" which "interfered with the peaceful transition of power."  They assert that he will "remain a threat to national security, democracy and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office."  Does this meet the definition of incitement under the criminal code?

Exactly Where and How Did Trump Incite the Mob?  [A]ll Americans should these days be insisting: where and how, exactly, did President Trump incite the mob?  Where did he say that the crowd should storm the Capitol and disrupt the electoral vote certification?  If he didn't say this, then he is not guilty of incitement, and to claim that he is threatens the very foundations of America as a free society. [...] Now Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are planning to impeach and remove Trump in the waning days of his presidency, and thereby, they hope, stigmatize and marginalize both him and his movement forever, but it is useful again to ask:  when and how exactly did he do what they accuse him of doing?

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Pelosi, McConnell's Sergeants-At-Arms Refused Security Measures While New Timeline Proves 'Trump Incitement' Claims Bogus.  In addition to the fact that Trump openly called for the "cheering on" of Congressman, and "peaceful" protests, the timeline as established from numerous, establishment media reports simply doesn't stack up.  The admission that House and Senate security leaders failed to provide Capitol Police with resources on the day will raise questions over their role in the day's events. [...] And while the Washington Post clumsily attempts to blame President Trump for the violence — despite the President calling for "peaceful" protests and the "cheering on" of Congressmen — their own article admits the "first wave of protesters arrived at the Capitol about 12:40 pm."  President Trump's speech didn't conclude until 1:11 pm, and with at least a 45-minute walk between the two locations with crowd-related delays, that would put the first people from Trump's speech at Capitol Hill no earlier than 1:56 pm — a full hour and sixteen minutes after troublemakers arrived.

I Support the Democrats' Effort to Impeach President Trump and so Should You.  [Scroll down]  I am merely observing a maxim coined by Napoleon Bonaparte:  "Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake." Democrats are already considering how they might file articles of impeachment against Trump, meaning that they fully intend to go forward with one of the most idiotic self-owns that we might see in 2021. If they have completely resolved to beclown themselves in one of the most spectacular displays of political tomfoolery imaginable, why should we oppose it?  House Majority Whip James Clyburn told CNN media activist Jake Tapper that House Democrats will wait until after former Vice President Joe Biden's first 100 days in office to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.  You read that right.  These rocket scientists want to impeach President Trump after he is already out of office.

They plan to impeach Trump after his term ends.  The fascists are changing the rules again.  House Democrats plan to send articles of impeachment against President Donald John Trump to the Senate next week to be taken up after the inauguration of Biden.  Impeachment is a removal from public office, which means Mitch, Schumer, and Nancy are conspiring to make an unconstitutional, illegal, and unAmerican move.

House Republicans Ask Biden:  Get Pelosi to Back Off Impeachment.  A group of House Republicans who voted to accept President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory asked him to persuade Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back off impeaching Donald Trump for instigating Wednesday's riot at the U.S. Capitol.  The lawmakers, led by Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, warned in a letter to Biden on Saturday [1/9/2021] that Trump's impeachment would inflame his supporters anew, and damage Biden's efforts to unify the country.

Key lawmaker:  House GOP [is] preparing as though [a] second Trump impeachment [is] coming.  A lawmaker who has been a key defender of Donald Trump said Friday that House Republicans are preparing as though Speaker Nancy Pelosi's team will launch a second impeachment of the president next week.  "I am not thinking months ahead.  I am thinking days ahead," Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said in in an interview with Just the News shortly after emerging from an impeachment preparation call with other GOP colleagues.  "And I believe that in the coming days, Democrats are going to bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the Congress, and that I will, again, be defending against them."

A fast-track impeachment would not be justice.  It would be pointless revenge.  Proponents of a rushed impeachment during the 12 days Trump has left in office are not interested in the fact that there would be no time for the president to present evidence of his contrary intent or any mitigating factors.  He isn't owed any due process, they say, because it's a "political" process.  The Red Queen's "sentence first — verdict afterwards" is on their exercised minds.  Opponents cite the precedent that a rushed impeachment would constitute for every future president.  It is no small thing to attempt the bum's rush on an elected president who survived one impeachment easily but who is weakened now as a lame duck.  No time to find and introduce exculpatory evidence that might show Trump intended only for demonstrators to circle the Capitol and chant, a perfect constitutional exercise.  No time to learn what Trump did when he returned to the White House after his speech.

Top Republican says Trump committed 'impeachable offenses'.  Democrats' momentum for a fresh drive to quickly impeach outgoing President Donald Trump gained support Saturday [1/9/2021], and a top Republican said the president's role in the deadly riot at the Capitol by a violent mob of Trump supporters was worthy of rebuke.  Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said he believed Trump had committed "impeachable offenses."

Democrats Ready Impeachment Charge Against Trump for Inciting Capitol Mob.  Democrats laid the groundwork on Friday for impeaching President Trump a second time, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California threatened to bring him up on formal charges if he did not resign "immediately" over his role in inciting a violent mob attack on the Capitol this week.  The threat was part of an all-out effort by furious Democrats, backed by a handful of Republicans, to pressure Mr. Trump to leave office in disgrace after the hourslong siege by his supporters on Wednesday on Capitol Hill.  Although he has only 12 days left in the White House, they argued he was a direct danger to the nation.

WaPo: McConnell Tells Senate GOP That The Earliest Impeachment Trial Date Would Be Inauguration Day.  No one will be busy in Washington DC on January 20, right?  No social events on the calendar?  According to a new memo from Mitch McConnell and given to the Washington Post, any impeachment trial of Donald Trump would begin at the earliest on that day, no sooner than 1 pm ET — an hour after Trump won't need to be removed from office anyway.  The Senate can't do any substantive business until January 19th by rule, the memo explains, and it would take unanimous consent to change that rule.

Articles of impeachment sparked by Capitol siege drafted by House Democrats.  Articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of "inciting an insurrection" have been drafted by House Democrats in the wake of the deadly Capitol siege and will be formally introduced on Monday, according to reports.  The document, which has over 150 sponsors, accuses Trump of violating his Constitutional duty by encouraging a crowd of his supporters to fight the vote to certify Joe Biden's Electoral College victory and denounces him as a "threat to national security."  "In all of this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States government.  He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transfer of power, and imperiled a coordinate branch of government," the document reads.

Democrats Eye Vote On Impeachment As Early As Next Week.  With the 25th Amendment out the window, Congressional Democrats are moving on to door #2 -- impeachment.  According to CNN, Democrats may vote on impeachment as soon as the middle of next week.  According to the report, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team are working out a "lightning-quick impeachment process," according to "multiple Democratic sources."
[Emphasis added.]

Also posted under What's the rush?

Democrats Want Impeachment, but They've Already Screwed That Up.  Right now, Nancy Pelosi is under pressure from her freshly-seated House to push ahead on a second impeachment of President Donald Trump, alleging that he directly incited the violent riot that overtook the Capitol building on Wednesday [1/6/2021]. [...] Set aside for a moment whether or not Trump is actually guilty of inciting the violent protest that took place on Wednesday.  Set aside whether or not you agree with the idea that he should be removed from office over it.  Set all your feelings aside and answer this question:  Do the Democrats really have any political capital for impeachment left after the first attempt?

Fmr DNI Grenell:  Russia Collusion a 'Hoax' — 'Somebody Needs to Go to Jail'.  In an interview on Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures," former acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Richard Grenell reacted to DNI John Ratcliffe recently declassifying documents that show former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Barack Obama on 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's "plan" to distract the American public from her email scandal by alleging Russian collusion ahead of the 2016 presidential election.  Grenell said it is clear now the alleged Russian collusion is a "hoax" that "career intelligence officials" knew about it and kept quiet.  He also proclaimed that "somebody needs to go to jail" for their involvement.

Vindman, Not Whistleblower, Was Driving Force Behind Impeachment.  The most interesting thing about Byron York's exhaustively reported and richly detailed new impeachment book, "Obsession:  Inside the Washington Establishment's Never-Ending War on Trump," is that the whistleblower who filed the official complaint that got impeachment rolling isn't ever identified.  It turns out that the heated discussion over the whistleblower, who was previously identified by Real Clear Investigations as the CIA's Eric Ciaramella, was a diversion from allowing the American people to understand who was the actual instigator of the failed effort to oust President Donald Trump from office.

One Word Was Mysteriously Absent From The Democrats' Convention.  Eight months ago, all but two House Democrats voted to impeach President Donald Trump, and in February every Democratic senator found him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.  As the articles of impeachment were heading over to the Senate to face certain defeat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intoned that "This president is impeached for life regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell.  There is nothing the Senate can do to ever erase that." [...] Yet when Pelosi spoke at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, she never mentioned Trump's impeachment.  She didn't mention Ukraine, or Russia or any of the other reasons Democrats spent three years arguing were grounds for his removal from office.

Tick, Tick, Boom, Boom, Time's Up, Obama Goons?  There's something happening here.  People with titles are beginning to say out loud what people without titles have been saying for four years — that Barack Obama's FBI and CIA conspired to frame Donald Trump as an agent of Russia in order to spy on his campaign and then remove him from office.  Attorney General Barr used the opportunity of being called in to testify before Jerry Nadler's House Judiciary Committee to state plainly that there were "grave abuses involved in the bogus 'Russiagate' scandal," and DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec has stated, "What happened to candidate Trump was one of the greatest political injustices in history."

Shifty Schiff Cannot Re-Impeach for Anything Prior to Jan. 15, 2020.  We are approaching four years now since the powerful criminal and intelligence agencies of the federal government began earnestly (and illegally) searching for Trump/Russia collusion.  With their unlimited resources and Robert Mueller's 19 prosecutors and $35 million, one might reasonably conclude that if illegality on Trump's part existed, they would have found it by now.  Nevertheless, the undynamic duo of Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler believe that the evidence for Impeachment 2 is right there.  It's been there all along, but somehow everyone has missed it.  If Mueller can be subpoenaed to testify, surely, he will remember what his team of Democrat Party donors forgot to put in the report.  If Schiff and Nadler can just get the legally protected grand jury transcripts from the Mueller investigation, the Trump collusion will be right there in writing for them to construe.

The Perpetual Impeachment:  House Democrats Tell The Supreme Court That They Are Preparing For A New Impeachment.  On Monday [5/18/2020], the House Democrats filed a brief that with the Supreme Court that the House was actively pursuing new articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump including "the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the special counsel."  The argument is meant to justify the continued demand for redacted grand-jury material from the now closed Special Counsel investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.  I have long supported the congressional demands for documents withheld by the Trump Administration as well as witnesses, including in my testimony during the House impeachment.  The ability to acquire grand jury material turns on whether an impeachment is a "judicial proceeding" under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e).  The district court and the court of appeals ruled that it does and that the House is entitled to the material.  However, the House is arguing that this request is not moot after the acquittal of President Trump at the Senate impeachment trial.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Has Introduced Impeachment 2.0.  After spending the months preceding the global pandemic in a futile impeachment attempt, House Democrats are now again trying to impeach President Donald Trump.  The lower chamber majority told the Supreme Court on Monday that they are in the middle of an "ongoing presidential impeachment investigation" that requires redacted information from the grand-jury proceedings that were part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's two-and-a-half-year probe.  Since Trump was finally acquitted of two articles of impeachment in February, Democrats have expressed a desire to try again, requesting that the nation's highest court grant them classified material that they have pledged not to leak under "special protocols."

Democrats tell Supreme Court they need Mueller grand jury material to consider new articles of impeachment.  The Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee told the Supreme Court it needs the grand jury materials redacted in special counsel Robert Mueller's report to decide whether to impeach Trump over his alleged obstruction of the Russia investigation.  Douglas Letter, the Democratic committee's top lawyer, filed a 33-page motion on Monday [5/18/2020] opposing a Justice Department effort that seeks to have the nation's highest court block the release of the documents.  Democrats insist they need the information quickly because the House Judiciary Committee's "impeachment investigation related to obstruction of justice pertaining to the Russia investigation is ongoing."

The Peculiar World of Dr. Fauci.  The previous president deployed the upper reaches of the FBI and DOJ against candidate and President Trump.  As the president says, these were "dirty cops," and despite Robert Mueller and his squad of partisan Democrats, their efforts came to nothing.  The dust had barely settled when some mysterious "whistleblower" outed a Trump phone call.  That brought in State Department troops such as George Kent, William Taylor, Gordon Sondland and Marie Yovanovitch.  They produced no evidence that Trump had done anything wrong but did showcase their own bias, incompetence and arrogance.The same was true of National Security Council drones Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman.  This show-trial led to impeachment proceedings that also failed to remove Trump from office.  The economy was booming and Trump holding forth at rallies, but then came the coronavirus.

'Obamagate' Isn't A Conspiracy Theory, It's The Biggest Political Scandal Of Our Time.  A string of recently released documents have confirmed that the entire Russia-Trump investigation, which eventually entrapped Flynn and forced then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself, was an unprecedented abuse of power that amounted to organized effort by the Obama administration to nullify the results of the 2016 presidential election.  It was in effect an attempted coup.  If you haven't picked that up from the news media, it's not your fault.  Instead of grappling with the implications of newly released details about what Obama officials were doing to undermine the incoming Trump administration during the transition, the mainstream media have fixated on Trump's use of the term "Obamagate," dismissing it as a conspiracy theory.

Taking the Coup Clan to the Cleaners.  If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, Texas Republican John Ratcliffe said this week, he would not let any "outside influence," impact or alter intelligence.  His loyalty would be "to the Constitution and rule of law" and Ratcliffe would "speak the truth to power."  As Ratcliffe knows, the intelligence community has been protecting the powerful from the truth, but change is in the wind.  On May 4, acting DNI Richard Grenell informed Congress that some 53 transcripts of interviews were declassified, redacted and ready for release.  These include interviews with former DNI James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Samantha Power, Andrew McCabe, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and John Podesta.  As Fox News reports, none of the 53 witnesses could provide evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

Russiagate hoax blown wide open as Schiff's lies [are] compared with transcripts.  This news this piece carries is so important that we include two videos with it.  The Russiagate hoax was blown to bits on Friday, May 8th.  V-E Day in the West might well be also called V-T day for the United States.  Honestly, it ought to be V-T day for the world, and for Russia in particular, because now, more than ever, the folly of sanctions is obvious.  The release of the FBI transcripts reveals a plot by the very real Deep State to prevent President Trump from being elected, and further, to impair or destroy his presidency, once elected by picking off anyone close to him, in an effort to eventually drive him out of office by innuendo over fabricated Russian "connections."  The basic truth of the transcripts is that the very people that Adam Schiff, especially, insinuated as key witnesses TO the FACT of collusion actually stated very clearly — to a person! — that they had NO such evidence as the result of any interviews or interrogations conducted against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Impeachment #2:
Get ready for the corona coup.  House Democrats, flummoxed by their failed attempt to remove President Trump earlier this year, are gearing up for another round of quasi-impeachment with their coronavirus oversight committee.  It's been just a few months, believe it or not, since the House impeached the President for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, but the moment was quickly overshadowed by the global pandemic.  The coronavirus committee thus could be the Democrats' last ditch effort to dig up dirt on the President before the election in November.  Democrats claim the new committee is necessary to investigate the trillions of dollars in government stimulus money being distributed for coronavirus relief, but the overlapping nature of the committee with other existing oversight mechanisms and the stacking of the committee with anti-Trump zealots calls into question that motivation.

Trump Administration Presses Supreme Court to Stop Release of Secret Mueller Files.  The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to delay transmission of secret grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to House Democrats.  The request follows a March decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which said Congress can access the materials under a rule allowing disclosure "in connection with a judicial proceeding," meaning an impeachment trial in this instance.  Democrats have left open the possibility of a second impeachment push depending on the contents of the Mueller files.  President Donald Trump outright refused to cooperate with congressional requests for information.  Speaking to reporters in April 2019, a defiant Trump promised his administration would be "fighting all subpoenas."

New Russia Transcripts Appear To Show Schiff, Obama Officials Knew Trump Was Not Colluding With Russia.  Newly released transcripts from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA) closed door Russia investigation hearings show that former Obama officials and Schiff appeared to know that there was little to no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 election.  Here is what former Obama officials testified to when asked during Schiff's hearings if they had or had seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia: [...]

Adam Schiff's Dirty Impeachment Tactics Coming to Light.  Rep. Adam Schiff spent months launching secret impeachment hearings, never thinking his conduct would be called into question.  He is now caught in the crosshairs of a formidable government agent, Mr. Brendan Carr, Federal Communication Commissioner.  The impeachment may be over, but Mr. Carr is formally investigating Rep. Schiff for violating privacy laws — more like obliterating ethical boundaries — by setting up his own surveillance state to target the president's allies.  Carr is currently uncovering the diabolical nature of the congressman's "surveillance state."  At the time, Schiff resorted to such desperate measures because he didn't have much of an impeachment case:  Therefore, he issued secret subpoenas to phone carriers hoping to mine the private data of his political opponents, or in effect ransacking their private lives.  The objective was to obtain and publish the calls of Trump's allies.

The Terrifying Zealotry of Adam Schiff and His Impeachment Fairies.  Yes, this would be the same Adam Schiff who for more than three years now has lied to gullible reporters about his spectacular fantasies of Mr. Trump in a Moscow hotel room with hookers.  This is the same ridiculous nutjob who for years now has been lying to American voters about how he has secret evidence that he cannot share proving that Mr. Trump "colluded" with Russian President Vladimir Putin to "steal" the 2016 election.  Secret "evidence," it turned out, that all came from the Kremlin.  This is the same desperate, dishonest charlatan who — after his Russian fantasy went up in smoke — turned his imagination to Ukraine and began spinning new fantasies about Mr. Trump conspiring with the president of Ukraine to make Joe Biden look bad — as if Joe Biden needs any help looking bad.

'Here we go again': Pelosi, Schiff plot new probe of Trump.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent the last three-plus years investigating President Trump, and each time, she's come up empty.  But she's going to give it another go, this time as Americans are locked down while the coronavirus sweeps across the nation.  Mrs. Pelosi announced last week that she is setting up a select House committee to "assure that the taxpayer dollars are being wisely and efficiently spent" — but the California Democrat also said she wants to "examine all aspects of the federal response to the coronavirus."

Fuel for impeachment #2:
Adam Schiff's Dereliction of Duty Regarding Communist China.  If ever there were a textbook case in Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), it is Rep. Adam Schiff of California.  Since the start of Trump's presidency he has been at the forefront of investigating the administration and the president with an avidity that approaches, even surpasses, if that is possible, monomania.  In doing so he has been a font of disinformation that might make the KGB blush.  First was the bogus Russia probe and the lies surrounding the FISA court, then the endless impeachment over an ambiguous phone call and, as of last week, his proposal for a "9-11" style commission to study the U.S. response to the virus, no doubt with the president in the crosshairs.

More fuel for impeachment #2:
HHS inspector general reportedly planning multiple probes into Trump admin COVID-19 response.  The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reportedly plans to launch multiple investigations into the Trump administration's coronavirus response, in part because of another whistleblower complaint.  "A spokesperson for the HHS inspector general [said] that investigators will carry out at least five reviews 'related to HHS's planning and response of the COVID-19 outbreak,'" the Washington Examiner reported Wednesday [3/25/2020].

Autopsy of an Impeachment.  [Scroll down]  As a historical note, it's worth adding that at the time of the Constitution's ratification, getting a simple majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in a Senate in a country with only 13 states was easier than it is now.  As the Republic has grown, the political bar for impeaching and removing the president has risen, since it requires more votes among a diverse set of states and peoples.  Also adding term limits to the presidency makes the argument for immediate removal even more difficult.  When Hamilton writes about what impeachment is trying to fix, he points to an "abuse or violation of some public trust."  That provides us with a pretty clear idea of what impeachment should provide in the end.  It's a political tool meant to restore public trust in the executive branch.  Impeachment and removal should restore public confidence, and if it doesn't, or public trust worsens, then the case for impeachment is weakened.

Nadler quietly conducting one-man impeachment inquiry against Trump.  Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is effectively conducting a one-man impeachment inquiry despite House Democrats having thoroughly failed in their partisan effort to take out President Donald Trump.  The House Judiciary Committee chairman is still pursuing the Ukraine controversy, even though the U.S. Senate acquitted Trump of the charges leveled against him.

Impeachment 2.0? Democrats line up possible new charges against Trump.  Democrats already have lined up possible charges if they choose to pursue impeachment 2.0.  Still pending is a wide-open probe launched by Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat.  Mr. Schiff has been investigating President Trump, his family and businesses, the Trump Organization, over the congressman's suspicions of blackmail, money laundering and bribery.  Republican staffers say the inquiry was put on hold last fall pending the Ukraine impeachment proceedings led by Mr. Schiff.  But there is no sign Mr. Schiff has given up trying to prove Mr. Trump is corrupt, and if the president is impeached again, the charges would likely come from this probe, informed sources said.

How Democrats' Get-Trump Crusade Has Irreparably Damaged The Nation.  For more than three years, Democrats, Never Trump Republicans, and the left-leaning media proved themselves willing to destroy the country to destroy one man:  Donald J. Trump.  From foreign affairs to counterintelligence to law enforcement, from domestic governance to congressional oversight to separation of powers, Trump's enemies manipulated and misused our government powers because Americans dared to elect the wrong leader.  The Senate's acquittal yesterday [2/5/2020] of the president on the two spurious articles of impeachment concluded (for now) the years-long coordinated efforts at a coup.  But while Trump escaped the onslaught, the damage inflicted on our country will not be easily abated.

Donald Trump Thanks 'Incredible Warriors' Who Stood with Him Through 'Crooked' Impeachment.  President Donald Trump delivered a speech to the nation Thursday celebrating his impeachment trial acquittal the day before, blasting the process as "crooked" and thanking the "incredible warriors" who sided with him during the ordeal.  Trump described the event as a celebration of another victory over the "evil" forces allied against him.  "Today is the day to celebrate these great warriors, right?" Trump said.  "These are great warriors.  They really fought hard for us."  The president's address was populated with Cabinet members and staffers, as well as activists and allies.

President Trump unleashes fury at impeachment enemies at National Prayer Breakfast.  President Donald Trump unleashed his fury against those who tried to impeach him at a prayer breakfast Thursday, a day after his acquittal by the Senate.  "As everybody knows, my family, our great country and your president have been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people," Trump said at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.  He spoke from a stage where he was joined by congressional leaders, including Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who led the impeachment charge against him.

The 5 Biggest News Media Lies During Impeachment.  [#1] Republicans Aren't Arguing the Facts:  Over and over during the House impeachment process we heard from the left that Republicans were not arguing the facts but instead just harping on what they called an unfair process.  Did the GOP say the process was unfair?  Yes.  Was the process unfair?  Yes.  But the Republicans in the House were also arguing the facts, and arguing them pretty well.  This is a consistent theme in all of this.  Confronted with several arguments from the president's supporters, the mainstream media always selected only the ones they thought helped Democrats.  The House Republicans made a simple argument based on four facts that never change.  1. There is no quid pro quo in the transcript.  2. Both Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky said there was no pressure.  3. Zelensky did not know U.S. aid was held up.  4. The aid was released with no announcement of investigations.  Those are not process arguments.

Republicans [are] planning to expunge Trump impeachment if they win back the House.  As the Senate is set to vote Wednesday on the removal from office of President Trump — with acquittal all but assured — Republicans are already plotting to expunge his impeachment if they retake the House.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have taunted that "impeachment will last forever," but GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, in line to be speaker if Republicans regain the majority in the November election, doesn't agree.  "This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment in history," McCarthy told The [New York] Post on Wednesday [2/5/2020].  "I don't think it should stay on the books."

Three takeaways from the failed impeachment.  [#1] Try a simple thought experiment:  if the House Dems were aware of any illegal activity by Trump, don't you think they would have used that as a basis for their impeachment?  The fact that they that chose a phone call to Ukraine, with no direct witnesses, in a situation that even they agree did not violate any laws, clearly shows that they have absolutely nothing illegal to pin on Trump.  It was not for lack of trying.  Keep in mind that the entire Democrat political apparatus has spent the last three years desperately trying to find something — anything — to destroy Trump.  Impeachment was their big chance, possibly their only opportunity to Get Trump while they still controlled the House.  The fact that they focused on such an inconsequential action by President Trump shows how desperate they are.  And if the best they can come up with is an innocuous Ukraine phone call, we know they don't have anything else they can point to that could conceivably be called illegal.

Impeachment fizzles despite media's best efforts.  NBC impeachment coverageThe left-wing media worked hard during President Donald Trump's historic impeachment trial:  Praising the Democrats and criticizing Trump's attorneys.  According to analysis by the Media Research Center, during the first three days of the Senate trial, the Big Three evening newscasts carried water for the House managers night after night.  MRC counted 34 times the networks evaluated either the managers or Trump's attorneys:  20 of 21 times the public heard positive spin about the Democrats, and all 13 observations about the Trump attorneys were negative.  MRC spokesman Curtis Houck tells OneNewsNow he is not surprised by the bias but says few Americans are paying attention.

Ted Cruz Rips Impeachment Case to Shreds:  Obama Actually Did What Trump Was Impeached For.  On Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) ripped up the House Democrats' impeachment case against President Donald Trump, showing how former President Barack Obama's administration committed both of the acts Democrats impeached Trump for — and did far worse.  Cruz argued that acquitting Trump "comports with both the facts and the law."  "These impeachment proceedings began in the House of Representatives in a thoroughly partisan affair, driven by House Democrats without allowing the president to participate in cross-examining witnesses and calling defense witnesses," the senator recalled.  "The Senate has done much better.  We had an obligation under the constitution to conduct a fair trial and that is what the Senate has done."

Pulling the Plug on Democrats' Life Support.  On Wednesday the Democratic Party is scheduled to be removed from the life support system that has sustained it these past four years: the fraudulently and almost certainly illegally confected condition of Donald Trump being under a legal and ethical cloud.  The wild aspersions about financial chicanery, misogyny, racism, rank ignorance, and incompetence, and the monstrous canard about "treason" with Russia, the Mueller investigation, and the spurious impeachment were all that the Trump-hating media needed to persuade the credulous, within the United States and throughout the world, that this was an aberrant president who was about to be led out of the Oval Office in handcuffs.

Do you feel violated?  If the Democrats controlled the Senate, President Trump would have been removed from office without the Democrats having proved a "high crime or misdemeanor."  Simply put, it was a witch hunt, and it did emanate from the same type folks that actually burned witches at the stake in New England.  The Democrats called 17 witnesses and not one could point to a crime they witnessed.  They have been calling for impeachment since two days after Trump's election in November 2016.  President Trump has been endlessly investigated and they found absolutely nothing.

Despicable impeachment of Trump — decent people must decry this attack on our system.  Although it is nearly over, the impeachment and trial of President Trump have taken on a despicable quality unworthy of a free people.  A concern for the political health of the nation compels decent people to state openly what has gone on here: political deception on a massive scale meant to overthrow the election of 2016 and corrupt the 2020 election.  Led by Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, the Democrat Party has been promoting and is likely to continue to promote a subterfuge meant to confuse the American electorate and radicalize politics.  In the articles of impeachment, there was no serious case made against President Trump for wrongdoing.  Indeed, one wonders whether the House managers were really interested in removing the president in the first place.

Adam Schiff Closes Impeachment Trial with Rant Against Trump: 'Decency Matters'.  Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) closed his side's argument for the removal of President Donald Trump with a rambling rhetorical assault on the president. [...] Schiff defended the investigative process in the House of Representatives, and declared:  "America also believes there is a difference between right and wrong, and right matters here.  But there is more.  Truth matter [sic].  Right matters — but so does decency.  Decency matters."

The Editor says...
The truth is important to Adam Schiff?  Since when?

The Winning Arguments Against Impeachment.  After all the great emotion of the impeachment struggle, it's worth setting out clearly the main issues at stake in their simplest form.  What were the core arguments that seem ready to triumph when the Senate makes its vote to give the final and decisive word, as mandated by the Constitution?

Why Impeachment Failed.  [Scroll down]  And perhaps if institutional media hadn't spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion — a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial — the public wouldn't be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency.  You simply can't expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.  Beyond the public's mood, the Democrats' strategy was a mess.  House Dems and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations, declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any president in history.  (I'm not exaggerating.)  When it comes to Trump criticism, everything is always the worst thing ever.  Even if Trump's actions had risen to the level of removal, Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler were quite possibly the worst possible messengers to make the case.  These are not the politicians you tap to persuade jurors; they're the politicians you pick to rile up your base.

Failed Coup of a Failing Establishment.  [Scroll down]  What was the heart of the Democrats' case to remove Trump?  Trump failed to invite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House, and held up military aid to Kyiv for several months, to get Zelensky to hold a press conference to announce that Kyiv was looking into how Hunter Biden got on the board of a corrupt energy company at a retainer of $83,000 a month while his father was the chief international monitor of corruption in Ukraine.  The specific indictment:  Trump's suspension of military aid imperiled "our national security" by denying arms to an "ally" who was fighting the Russians over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.  And what was the outcome of it all?  Zelensky got his meeting with the president.  He got the military aid in September.  He did not hold the press conference requested.  He did not announce an investigation of the Bidens.

Lindsey Graham Warns of a 'Day of Reckoning,' Vows to Call the Whistleblower.  The boomerang effect on Democrats has started.  During an interview with Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo over the weekend, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham vowed to compel testimony from the whistleblower in order to get to the bottom of what led to impeachment against President Trump.  He also reiterated his plans to investigate the Bidens for their involvement with Burisma, the most corrupt company in Ukraine.

The Editor says...
I remain highly skeptical.  Wake me up when the malefactors are sentenced to serious prison time.

Impeachment trial of Trump:  Remember when Pelosi and Nadler insisted on bipartisanship?  As recently as last March, Pelosi argued that, without significant buy-in from Republicans, she considered a Trump impeachment a non-starter.  Pelosi said:  "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.  And he's just not worth it."  [...] Trump defenders call his impeachment the "most partisan in history."  It is.  The House vote to start an impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon was 410-4. [...] Not one House Republican joined the House Democrats in voting for an impeachment inquiry of Trump, and none voted for either of the two articles of impeachment.  Not one.

Lisa Murkowski, swing-vote Republican, says she 'cannot vote to convict' Trump.  Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, considered one of the possible swing votes in the Trump impeachment trial, announced on the Senate floor Monday night that she "cannot vote to convict" President Trump.  Murkowski, whose comments closed out a day of debate on the floor over the articles of impeachment, said the "Constitution provides for impeachment but does not demand it in all instances."  While most Republican senators are expected to vote to acquit Trump, Murkowski had been considered a possible vote against the president.

Impeachment has proved the Democrats are no longer democrats.  The Senate is not going to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, and to all appearances the whole thing is nearly over.  Acquittal is imminent, and supposedly serious commentators are on Twitter wailing in unison with Democratic activists.  But what they are saying does not make any sense — it's contradictory.  On the one hand, they say that the case against Donald Trump is open-and-shut:  so utterly persuasive in objective terms that only the Senate Republicans' bad faith has prevented them from admitting it.  On the other hand, Democrats and the pundits don't trust voters to be persuaded by this purportedly airtight case — hence all the lamentations about an outcome that will leave Trump's fate to be decided in November at the ballot box rather than having him removed early by vote of the Senate.  But if the case against Trump is really so strong, why isn't it a safe bet that voters will dump Trump?  Should they be persuaded?  It's not as if there hasn't been plenty of publicity for the allegations behind the impeachment effort.  No doubt the Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, and the rest will have much more to say about them over the next nine months, too.  Nobody can claim the voters haven't been told.  So again, why not trust them to do the right thing, if the right thing is really so objective and obvious?

The Winter of NeverTrump Discontent.  Impeachment is all but over, a wasted exercise in partisan derangement.  It was a shiny object for media dogs and cats to chase around the room, never quite catching it. [...] Despite "mountains of evidence" and a "slam dunk case" that was "overwhelming," House legal eagles Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler failed to make the case for removing a president from office for the unpardonable sin attempting to do his Constitutional duty investigating government corruption.

It Is All Fake News.  Realizing that their case was extremely weak, Democrats demanded that the Senate rules be changed.  They demanded that Senate Republicans allow them to call more witnesses and demand more documents in the Senate's portion of the case.  That is not how this works.  Democrats had their incredibly unfair opportunity to present their case in the House portion.  Thank God enough Republicans had the courage to vote no to Democrats using the Senate to further their evil, disgusting scheme to reverse the 2016 presidential election.  Because Trump has done nothing wrong, the Senate will vote for acquittal.  Another Democrat and fake news media scam to remove Trump from office has failed.

Why Do Democrats Not Trust (Even Their Own) Voters?  When Democrats pursued "Russia collusion" they did so with a foundation of "evidence" that was debunked nearly as quickly as it was assembled.  Yet someone believed it would be great to spend the better part of three years attempting to con the American people.  Not satisfied with that embarrassment someone else began running with the impeachment meme.  But doing so on an even flimsier foundation.  Thankfully that partisan sham of a process is exiting stage left.  For some reason, some people somewhere believed that instead of running against the administration with a set of ideas it would be better to merely repudiate the votes of the last election and through trickery attempt surgical removal of a president who was legally and overwhelmingly elected.  The vote of the people — in essence — means nothing to them.

Preventing Another 'Crossfire Hurricane'.  Friday's Senate vote rejecting Democrats' demands to call witnesses in the Trump impeachment trial makes the president's acquittal inevitable.  But for the Senate bloviators' desire to make more pointless speeches, the acquittal — which is scheduled for Wednesday — would have already happened.  The vote will occur the day after Trump delivers his annual State of the Union speech on Tuesday evening.  That speech will be pure Trump: boasting about past successes, bragging about successes to come in 2020, and making the Dems squirm.  (Those who were given Speaker Nancy Pelosi's infamous impeachment signing pens may want to return them.)  There will be no post-impeachment period of reflection and wound-licking for the Democrats.  They will continue in their belief that Wile E. Pelosi is a political super-genius.

Who's to Blame for Pelosi-Schiff Impeachment Insanity?  Throughout the two-year Rosenstein-Weissmann investigation, Adam Schiff repeatedly claimed that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin were in cahoots.  He could not discuss the details with any specificity, but he assured everyone that he had seen the proof with his own eyes, and the president's treachery would be exposed when the special counsel issued his report.  Yet, when that long awaited day arrived, the proof Mr. Schiff promised was nowhere to be found.  Instead, "The Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" contradicted his oft-repeated assertion of Russian collusion, and concluded that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."  Much to Mr. Schiff's dismay, the Russian collusion narrative had crumbled, but he simply would not let it go.

Andrew McCarthy:  House Democrats Could Continue Impeachment Investigation.  Appearing Saturday [2/1/2020] on the Fox News Channel, former Assistant U.S. Attorney and network contributor Andrew McCarthy said the House Democrats could continue their impeachment investigation even if the Senate acquits President Donald Trump.  [Video clip]

With Trump's acquittal inevitable, Democrats unanimously denigrate acquittal.  After 51 Senators voted not to hear any further witnesses in the impeachment, President Trump's imminent acquittal became inevitable.  (With a two-thirds majority required for impeachment, Trump's acquittal was always inevitable; it just would have dogged Trump longer and created more possibilities for mischief.)  Because Trump was acquitted without live testimony in the Senate, Democrats are insisting that he has not been cleared of the charges against him.  Nancy Pelosi and the other non-lawyers making this claim can be excused for being stupid.  Those Democrats who are lawyers, however, have no excuse for saying something so inconsistent with American jurisprudence.  As always when attacking Trump, Democrats are moving in lockstep.  This time, the lockstep is that, absent witnesses, Trump hasn't really been "acquitted"; he has, instead, escaped justice.

Final impeachment vote postponed to Wednesday amid internal GOP spat.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has postponed a final vote on articles of impeachment against President Trump until Wednesday [2/5/2020] in the face of opposition from Senate GOP moderates to his plan to wrap up the trial Friday or Saturday without deliberations.  Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), emerging from a Senate GOP conference meeting, said senators now will return to the impeachment trial at 11 a.m.  Monday to deliberate with a final vote on convicting or acquitting Trump set for Wednesday.  "There was some feverish discussion," Braun said.  Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of GOP leadership, confirmed that the trial will wrap by Wednesday.

Democrats [are] Becoming More Desperate, and More Dangerous.  It appears that the long-running farce of an impeachment process may finally be coming to a well deserved end.  On Wednesday, February 5, the impeachment without a crime will see the Senate voting yea or nay on the two articles.  That vote will bring to a conclusion a three-year ordeal of continual lies, shredding of the Constitution, and malicious and unsubstantiated attacks.  It will expose a long list of people who should be charged and prosecuted for various felony crimes including perjury, lying to federal investigators, fraud, and presenting false evidence to a federal court.

Who's to Blame for Pelosi-Schiff Impeachment Insanity?  Prior to delaying aid to Ukraine, President Trump threatened to, or actually did, withhold aid from Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.  He also threatened Mexico with tariffs unless the Mexicans halted the caravans marching through their country.  All these demands were transmitted in the clear, and each contained the dreaded quid pro quo, but not a single Democrat eyebrow was raised.  What made the Ukrainian case different?  Why did it rise to the level of impeachment where the others did not?  To Chairman Schiff, the answer was simple:  the president had something to hide.  This time he was right:  the president was hiding information from Russia.

I Extend My Finger To The Impeaching House Democrats.  One of the most popular quotes coming from the lying mouths of the newly defeated Democrats was the illogic that there can be no acquittal if there was no trial.  But the Democrats' arrogance misses the point that if there are only poorly thought-out and incomplete charges brought with the impeachment, the trial can't even begin.  And that was the mortal failure of the Democrat impeachment charges.  It was as though children playing games were the managers of the House impeachment team.  The charges were complete [nonsense] from beginning to end and didn't deserve the few days that Mitch McConnell allowed them to proceed, once the dithering Democrats finally got around to presenting the articles to the Senate.

From the rubble of impeachment fail, Democrats turn on each other.  The collapse of the Democrats' impeachment bid to Get Trump hasn't exactly been good for Democratic unity.  There were signals and indicators of the fights breaking out all over Twitter, even as Sen. Chuck Schumer made his final teary bawl to the television cameras about the whole thing being a "a grand tragedy" and a "sham trial."  Fox News host Laura Ingraham compiled a good segment of the tensions and misery — how Adam Schiff tried for one last time to shut his fellow impeachment manager, Rep. Jerry Nadler, up at the finale, and how Schumer himself shushed Sen. Kamala Harris from trying to grab his mic and do the talking instead of him, as well as a fine coda at the end of the miserified faces of the network broadcasters once they learned the Senate voted down witnesses and the impeachment trial would soon be over.

Senate impeachment punt sets up jam-packed, unprecedented week in Washington.  The GOP-led Senate may have blocked new witnesses from testifying, but a deal struck with Democrats to delay the ultimate impeachment acquittal vote of President Trump until Wednesday sets up a wild week ahead in politics.  On Monday [2/3/2020], the 2020 presidential election kicks off with the first votes cast being cast in the Iowa caucuses.  Meanwhile, the House Democratic impeachment managers and Trump's defense team will return to the Senate chamber at 11 a.m. to make their closing arguments in the impeachment trial.  The following day, senators will give floor speeches on whether or not Trump should be impeached — just hours before the commander in chief arrives at the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union address.

Why Wasn't Spygate Impeachable?  The Democrats have impeached Trump for merely contemplating something that Obama actually did.  And in Obama's case, the abuse of power was altogether real: it resulted in a massive violation of civil liberties.  Obama's FBI falsely claimed that four members of Trump's campaign were probable Russian agents.  None of them were.  Oops.  Oh well, the Democrats said.  Obama had an obligation to check out the hunches of John Brennan and James Comey.  By contrast, Hunter Biden's corruption wasn't conjectural.  As even Obama's State Department acknowledged, his "work" in Ukraine reeked of improprieties and influence-peddling.  It is hilarious to watch Democrats speak of the Bidens as above reproach.  In truth, Joe Biden stands at the center of a family of crooks who have spent decades trading on his last name.

Media Frankensteins hate their creation.  The media wanted President Donald John Trump impeached.  The House impeached him.  Now as his acquittal nears — painstakingly slow-walked at a turtle's pace by Mitch McConnell — the media valedictorians ask themselves what have we done?  You only get one bullet.  Democrats wasted theirs on the Mueller Report.  This impeachment was a joke. [...] Now the media realizes that what does not end his presidency makes him stronger.  The experts on TV are apoplectic.  They had convinced themselves that calling a foreign president to congratulate him on his election is on the level of treason and bribery.  How dare the rest of the nation roll its eyes!

Alan Dershowitz:  When Trump Is Acquitted He Will No Longer Be Impeached — The Impeachment Disappears.  Former Harvard Law Professor and noted author Alan Dershowitz had more bad news for Democrats on Friday night [1/31/2020].  When President Trump is acquitted next week he will no longer be impeached.  It will be over.  It will be removed from his record.  Sorry, Nancy.  The charade is over.

An Inconvenient Truth For The Democrat Party.  Today's Democratic politicians, with few exceptions, are the problem instead of being part of the solution in resolving the serious problems that face our country.  Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and their fellow House of Representative Democratic minions have become so obsessed with impeaching our duly elected president, Donald J. Trump, that they have brought nothing but turmoil, disenchantment and embarrassment to the American people with their absurd actions.  Their accusations against our President are so ridiculous and false that it doesn't take much to realize the "why" of their actions.  First of all, 62,984,825 Americans voted for Donald Trump.  That number does not mean anything to the Democrats.  President Trump is a businessman, not a politician and the Democrats cannot control him to do their bidding.

Jig Is Up on Democrats' Bloodless Coup of Trump.  [T]here is no probative evidence that the president did what he is accused of doing, and what he is accused of is not illegal, not impeachable, and the entire episode is an outrage and a disgrace.  As anti-Trump law professor Jonathan Turley testified at the House Judiciary Committee in December, the abuse of power that has occurred has been the impeachment of the president, not any act by the president that has come to light. [...] The accusations against President Trump have not got off the ground despite all the venomous and repetitive loquacity of the prosecution managers, Schiff (who chairs the House Intelligence Committee) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.  The jig is up.  The Democrats have used the nuclear option, played the big Trump card, had their silly impeachment trial and now they are desperately looking for an exit strategy that leaves a political shirt on their backs.

Top 8 Reasons Trump Already Won Impeachment.  [Scroll down]  [#6] House Democrats picked impeachment managers who seemed perfectly calibrated to annoy and grate on those handful of senators whose votes were up for grabs.  Reps.  Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler were the leaders of a group that repeated their highly partisan talking points and used hyperbolic and loaded language.  The media loved it, but it went over like a lead balloon with the non-Resistance senators.  The House Democrats accused senators of being cowards who were complicit in a cover-up.  They suggested that the senators were unable to vote properly because President Trump would put their heads on pikes if they didn't vote to acquit.  They refused to answer specific and direct questions about whether the whistleblower worked for Biden, was involved in any decisions regarding Burisma, or about his interaction with Schiff's staff. [...] At some point, the difference between the competent and highly skilled attorneys on the White House team and the bumbling and somewhat mediocre team of House managers was so pronounced it was almost embarrassing.

The Right to a Fair Trial.  After he has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached, doesn't President Trump also have the right to a fair trial?  He certainly didn't get one.  In a civilized society, disagreements are supposed to be fairly and equitably resolved through debate, either in the public arena or a court of law. [...] Donald Trump's impeachment by the House of Representatives was a sick joke — secret hearings in basements, exculpatory information withheld, it quickly degenerated into a sick partisan kangaroo court with the outcome of impeachment determined before the start.  Lies were uttered and repeated until they became mantras, as if to prove the old adage about a lie told often enough becoming the truth, which is a dumb adage because lies never become true... but they can be believed by a gullible-enough audience.

Chief Justice John Roberts strikes out.  Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't seem to have the judicial acumen of a traffic court judge.  During the course of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, Americans have now seen the chief justice have three historical strikes.  Consequently, the Senate should immediately vote to have case dismissed, against President Trump.  Our fairly elected president should be immediately acquitted of these most politically driven bogus charges in American constitutional history.  Strike one by John Roberts is simple, based on the conduct of his presiding over the trial.  It is obvious that he has been over-the-top prejudiced against President Trump by not holding House Democrat managers accountable for their gross breach of decorum. [...] Strike two for Chief Justice Roberts is that he has shown so far that there is no judicial admonishment or accountability for committing perjury.

Trump's conviction in impeachment trial not justified even if Bolton claims are true.  Democrats claim that when Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into what Trump called troubling actions by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Trump was seeking a political advantage against a prospective opponent in the November presidential election. [...] Trump's legal team has countered that the president had every right to ask Ukraine to examine and produce any evidence of a potentially corrupt act by a U.S. public official.  The act to be examined was Joe Biden's demand that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was allegedly investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company that employed his son.  By any reasonable and objective standard, Hunter Biden's employment was highly suspicious and unusual.  At a time when his father was serving as vice president and in charge of Ukraine policy for the Obama-Biden administration, Hunter Biden was being paid $83,000 a month to sit on the natural gas company's board — despite having absolutely no experience in the energy sector and no experience in Ukrainian affairs.

Impeachment Questions That Need Answering.  The case against the president is very thin, in the sense that a finite set of events that took place over a relatively short time to an inconclusive end has been lavished with months of investigative attention, with the result that the Democratic-controlled House, on a strictly party-line vote, voted two articles of impeachment.  The charges are so vague that Democrats repeatedly shifted their theory about what to call the president's alleged misconduct — campaign-finance violation, attempted extortion, quid pro quo, bribery, and more recently, a budget-law transgression — before ultimately settling on a nebulous "abuse of power" claim, coupled with obstruction of the House's inquiry.  We all have a good idea where things stand, and thus most of us are probably skeptical that this phase of questions by the Senate could change any minds.  Still, I think it's possible.

It's Time to Pull the Plug on the Impeachment Farce.  [Scroll down]  The vote on whether to proceed with witnesses apparently will take place on Friday.  I assume that McConnell thought it would be easy to get 51 votes in favor of terminating the Senate proceeding, but John Bolton's ill-timed and ill-advised tell-all book has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan. [...] Nothing Bolton says about President Trump's desire to have Ukraine conduct investigations into 1) Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and 2) corruption in the Obama/Biden administration, could possibly make out an impeachable offense.  The whole thing is a bad joke, and the sooner it is put out of its misery, the better.

Last-Second Impeachment Game-Playing Is Kavanaugh 2.0.  President Donald Trump's opponents are using the same failed tactics to derail the president's agenda for the crime of winning the 2016 election.  On Sunday [1/26/2020], The New York Times published leaked details of former National Security Advisor John Bolton's upcoming book accusing Trump of tying nearly $400 million in military aid to extracting politically motivated investigations into the Biden family.  Never mind that the book leak arrived on the same day that it became available for online pre-ordering, came unsubstantiated, and surfaced from a former White House aide with an axe to grind over his removal.  The late leak is reminiscent of previous attempts to sabotage the Trump presidency with unfair operations pushing shady allegations via anonymous sources with no actual evidence paraded as "bombshells" in a compliant media.

Ruling Class Held Hostage by Trump's Impeachment.  [I]n league with their propaganda arm, the mainstream media, the ruling elites have pulled out all the stops and abandoned any ethical, moral or legal restraints to get rid of Donald Trump and recapture their previous hierarchical influence in the Republican Party.  The abominably fabricated and unconstitutional impeachment farce is the culmination of three years of frustration and determination to rid the nation of the "threat" that is Donald Trump's takeover of a major political party and transformation of it into a vehicle of populism.  Which would allow the citizenry and not the elites to determine the course of the nation's future.  In reality, impeachment, endless investigations, fabrications and the constant vilification of Donald Trump are aimed at intimidating the nameless and unwashed masses who had the temerity and insolence to vote against the wishes of the ruling class.

Dianne Feinstein backtracks after saying 'the people should judge' Trump.  Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein walked back a statement on Tuesday after appearing to say she would oppose convicting President Trump in his impeachment trial.  Feinstein, 86, told the Los Angeles Times that she is leaning toward voting to keep Trump in office after hearing the defense from the president's legal team.  The senator said that she believes Trump has many flaws, especially relating to the findings in the House's impeachment, but she said that the voters should decide Trump's fate in November.  "Nine months left to go.  The people should judge.  We are a republic.  We are based on the will of the people.  The people should judge," Feinstein said.  "That was my view and it still is my view."  She added, "Impeachment isn't about one offense.  It's really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves."

The Editor says...
If "mental fitness of the individual to serve the people" is really an issue, why didn't Senator Feinstein have something to say about Barack H. Obama?

With several Republicans apparently succumbing on impeachment witnesses, Mitch McConnell may need to go 'nuclear'.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Mitch McConnell has told Republican Senators that he does not have the votes to block witnesses: [...] As detailed many times, the entire Democrat strategy has been to Kavanaugh the hearings, to call witnesses the House never called in order to turn the trial into a circus in which the process becomes the punishment.  The House impeachment was in bad faith, and the Kavanaughing of the hearings also is bad faith.  That four Republican Senators may succumb to these tactics speaks volumes about the weakness of Republicans.

Dan Crenshaw to Adam Schiff:  If Your Impeachment Case Is so Solid Why the Demand for More Witnesses?  If you'd bought into what the mainstream media and Democrats told you over the last two weeks about the Senate impeachment trial, you'd believe House Intel Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) was the greatest lawyer/congressman/orator America has ever known after he did his part in presenting the House's impeachment/removal case against President Trump.  Unsurprisingly, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) isn't one of those people buying into what Democrats and their allies in the national press are selling.  Case in point, Schiff took to Twitter on Saturday and attempted to discredit the opening arguments being made by Trump's attorneys.

Target Trump Forever.  The Left has shown that the collusion exoneration last year by the heralded Robert Mueller investigation — all 22-months, the "dream team," and $34 million of it — meant absolutely nothing.  Nor did it matter that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz found no justification of "collusion" in the Steele dossier to justify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants it issued to spy on Carter Page.  Both the Mueller and Horowitz investigations confirmed that even the partisan and warped FBI "Crossfire Hurricane" intrigues could find no Russian-Trump collusion.  And yet the House impeachment managers cannot finish a sentence without exclaiming "Russian collusion," as if it has now transmogrified into some exotic foundational myth.

Joltin' Bolton and Reckless Romney.  [Scroll down]  We should take the media reports just now with a large lump of salt.  It is entirely possible that Bolton, if he testifies in the Senate, will say that Trump legitimately believed that Ukraine was a center of election interference in 2016, and that Biden was involved in it, which would turn the tables on the Democrats, as it would make the conditions of the aid wholly legitimate.

A Great Triggering Occurs After Pam Bondi Lays Out Biden Corruption During the Impeachment Trial.  There went forth the sound of a great triggering this afternoon [1/27/2020] after Pam Bondi took to the Senate floor to deliver a devastating fact case against Hunter Biden, who resides at the center of the question of what Trump was wanting investigated back in the summer.  The common refrain you hear from Democrats and the media is that Hunter Biden is irrelevant.  Yet, they then want to deny Republicans the right to show that investigating him was a legitimate pursuit.  It's an attempt to have it both ways and Bondi was having none of it. [...] Bondi even went so far as to play the tape of Joe Biden threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine while he was Vice President.  That's a clip which has been black-balled by the legacy media, as it's just an awful look.

Senate Republicans push back on calls for more impeachment witnesses.  Senate Republicans on Sunday [1/26/2020] defended President Donald Trump and panned calls for witnesses to testify in the Senate impeachment trial, ahead of the start of the second week.  In interviews on major networks, Republicans appeared unmoved by House Democrats' opening arguments for Trump's removal and reiterated that the Senate should not seek new evidence.

Why Are Republicans Settling for Acquittal Instead of Total Victory?  It's a shame that so many Republicans are calling for a quick impeachment trial and the inevitable acquittal of Donald Trump.  It seems more than a bit shortsighted.  Why should Republicans settle for an acquittal when we can accomplish so much more?  The Democrats have laid a trap for themselves with this absurd impeachment farce and their demand for witnesses in the Senate trial.  Let's oblige them in their efforts to destroy themselves.  The goal shouldn't be simply to acquit Trump.  That's a fairly low bar and virtually a given.  The goal should be to crush the Democrats and make this entire process as painful and devastating as possible.

Dems' impeachment strategy isn't to win over the Senate, but defeat the Senate.  A common belief among conservatives is that Democrats have blundered in their impeachment trial argumentation, that they've shot themselves in the foot.  Perhaps so.  But we should remember that their goal cannot, logically, be to win over the Senate so President Trump can be ousted from office before November.  It would have to be that they want to win the Senate for Democrats in November.  It's easy believing that the world's Adam Schiffs and Jerrold Nadlers are ill intended Inspector Clouseaus (without his luck), and no great genius should be ascribed to them.  But they're surely smart enough to realize that they'll never get the votes of two thirds of the Senate — 67 members — which are necessary to convict and remove Trump.

The Democrats' Burisma Bait and Switch.  [Scroll down]  It sounds like something out of Kafka.  It would never be tolerated in the U.S. judicial system: no competent judge would bar an accused from attempting to prove his defense; and if one did, any conviction would be reversed on appeal.  It would not matter whether the prosecutor's proof was convincing; having one's day in court means having an opportunity to present any exculpatory evidence.  Yet what I've just described is essentially what House Democrats have done to President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial on the matter of the Bidens and Burisma.

The Democrats' Last Ditch Effort To Upend the Trump Trial.  Has the Trump impeachment drama reached its Brett Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas moment?  That would be the moment when, after the hearings are more or less done and it looks like the target will survive, the Democrats confect a last ditch scandal to block, in the case of the two justices, Senate confirmation or, in the case of President Trump, acquittal.  We confess we've been expecting something to be brought up at the last minute.  It is, after all, the Democratic Party's modus operandi.  In the case of Clarence Thomas, it looked like the hearings were done and the nominee on the way to confirmation, when there was suddenly leaked an FBI report touching on Anita Hill's allegation of sexual harassment.  Something similar happened in respect of Justice Kavanaugh.

The impeachment case against Trump already lies in smoking ruins.  We all know that from the moment he was elected the Left has intended to see President Trump impeached.  The Washington Post called for impeachment nineteen minutes after the forty-fifth president was inaugurated. [...] Those who had the time and inclination to watch the first words of defense of the President spoken on Saturday are sure to be revolted by what went on, not just over the previous three days but the for the past three years.  This entire debacle should be over by Wednesday.  Schiff's two silly articles should be dismissed out of hand.  We can all now see clearly who and what Schiff and his impeachment cultists are: pompous, angry traitors to our Constitution.  They will be outsmarted by the Founders and the scholars who actually do know and revere our founding document and the law.  Their petty vindictiveness will condemn them to failure and a legacy of bumbling malfeasance.

Joni Ernst Asks Why Is Donald Trump Being Impeached Over Ukraine Aid That Most of the House Impeachment Managers Voted Against?  One of the scurrilous charges being thrown at President Trump by the imbeciles who make up the House of Representatives 'impeachment managers' in the ongoing travesty of the Senate trial is that somehow he damaged Ukraine's ability to defend itself.  Facially, this is rather stupid.  The first lethal aid provided to Ukraine ever by the United States arrived in April 2018. Prior to then, the Obama administration had focused on the really big ticket items like MREs and blankets.  This fact, alone, should be enough to torpedo the whole nonsense about the short delay in delivering aid earlier this year being critical.  In fact, none of the Javelin anti-tank missiles have yet been used in combat.

Democrats are trying to impeach President Trump, wayward voters, and democracy.  [Scroll down]  Every devious action (whether premeditated or spontaneous), every ruse, sleight-of-hand, slur, slander, lie, unwarranted attack, baseless charge, rending of the Constitution, and instance of rude behavior in which Democrats have already engaged... they have, pre-emptively, accused Senate Republicans of planning to employ.  They are trying to impeach the president, without charging him with a crime, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, though they themselves have blatantly abused their power and are engaged in obstruction themselves:  of the Senate; of the Executive Branch, whose sole responsibility it is to set foreign policy...  and of the American people, by trying to oust a duly elected president via a media-aided and abetted coup d'état just months prior to another presidential election.  They accuse the president and Republican senators of a cover-up, though they themselves are engaged in the greatest cover-up in American history.

Democrats' insult-the-jury strategy for winning their impeachment case.  The entire Senate impeachment trial is about changing the opinions of a few Republicans.  The buried lede is that they just trashed their own case for impeachment by satisfying their urge to insult and offend Republicans, who happen to be the jurors.  What's it they say about emotional intelligence being the capacity to delay gratification a little longer for the big prize?  The don't have it.

Jonathan Turley:  Dems Have to Scrap Half of Impeachment to Have a Prayer at Getting Witnesses.  On Thursday, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) had made a "huge blunder" by insulting the senators who would decide whether or not to convict President Donald Trump.  In a follow-up op-ed on Friday [1/24/2020], he advised the House Democratic impeachment managers to accept that their case was essentially dead on arrival and to slice their articles of impeachment in half.  Only by dropping the "obstruction of Congress" impeachment article can they hope to get the Senate to agree to have witnesses in the trial for the "abuse of power" article.  The House impeachment managers "lost this case before it began — not because of the Republican majority but because of the House managers' own historic blunder in rushing the impeachment forward on an incomplete record," he wrote in The Washington Post.

Adam Schiff's history of inaccuracies, conspiracy theories follows him to Senate floor.  Rep. Adam B. Schiff arrived in the Senate this week as an impeachment trial manager, leaving the House with a trail of inaccuracies, conspiracy theories and attempts at obstruction, the record shows.  Liberal media have bathed the California Democrat in praise.  A CNN analyst called him "dazzling."  A Washington Post reporter tweeted that his trial argument to convict President Trump was one for the ages.  Conservatives take a decidedly different view.  They wonder on social media why a congressman who floated unproven conspiracies and a false dossier is leading the case against Mr. Trump, and they ask why the liberal media are so uncritical.

A knife at a gunfight?  Disarm the House Democrats.  The strategy the House impeachment managers are employing as they "make their case," has become apparent, and if not countered, Republicans may win the battle but lose the war. [...] We hear them breathlessly describe all manner of malfeasance, all attributable to the horrible Orange Man who stole Hillary's birthright in 2016 with a crushing electoral win, but what have we not heard?  We have heard next to nothing about the actual articles of impeachment, the supposed abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  The Democrats impeached on a fallacious basis.  To accept their premise, one must be willing to believe that House Democrats have supernatural knowledge of the unspoken thoughts of the president and all others involved.  The foundation of their case is the president being guilty of something Orwell usefully coined as "thoughtcrime."  The American people have soundly rejected that concept.

The Unconstitutional Impeachment of President Trump.  There are three critical reasons for the principle that impeachable offenses be indictable offenses[:]  First, the plain text of the Constitution requires it; second, the protection of the people's right to select the president cannot make the president serve at the pleasure of Congress; and third, the due process rights of the president prevent nebulous, vague undefined "offenses" being the basis of punitive impeachment.  Indeed, this argument is far from new: the only Supreme Court Justices ever to argue on the Senate floor on impeachment agreed; the only active Judges to ever argue on the Senate floor on impeachment agreed; and Founding Fathers who debated impeachment on the Senate floor back to 1805 agreed.  The Constitution only authorizes impeachment for three reasons: treason, bribery, and "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" akin to treason or bribery.  As the current impeachment charges do not even allege treason, bribery or comparable "other high crimes," this impeachment of President Trump offends the Constitution.

Trump's Trial by Charlatans.  The attacks of the Democrats on Trump never made any sense.  First, they tried to portray him as an unpatriotic shill for Putin.  Never mind that Trump ran on an explicitly America First agenda.  Never mind that he won the presidency with the votes of the most patriotic Americans.  Never mind that once in office he conducted a Russia policy far tougher than Obama's.   It is the Democrats who routinely put the interests of foreigners before America.  They open our borders to them, promise to pay for their health care, give them driver's licenses, and demand amnesty for them.  While lecturing Trump on "letting foreigners interfere in our elections," they clamor for the voting rights of illegal immigrants.  The word "sovereignty" never passed Democratic lips until Trump became president.

Lamar Alexander Seems to Be the Key to President Trump Winning the Vote for a Quick Acquittal.  Today we will bid a fond farewell to Adam Schiff, Fat Jerry and the rest of the brain trust that comprises the House 'impeachment managers.'  While they may not have done much to make a case for impeachment, they have gone a long way towards alienating even wavering NeverTrump Republicans.  Fat Jerry accusing Republican Senators who were considering voting for acquittal of "treachery" managed to alienate even weaklings like Lisa Murkowski.  Right now the headcount says that there are three Senators in favor of calling witnesses:  Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney.  This gives McConnell a sure 50 votes for a motion to acquit.  To put that count in perspective, before Adam Schiff gave Jen Rubin a case of thigh sweats with his 'master class' in presenting a case to a jury, there were 45 Senators in favor of acquittal without hearing witnesses.  He has lost five votes.  He needs one more.  That vote belongs to retiring Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander.

Trump attorney promises to invoke Bidens in impeachment defense.  Jay Sekulow, a member of President Trump's legal team, told reporters the team plans to invoke the Bidens during the impeachment trial in the Senate.  "For the life of me, they've done it.  Why, they opened up the door as wide as a double door on the Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Burisma issue.  I guess that was their way of getting ahead of it.  We will address it," Sekulow told reporters.  Earlier, he also spoke on what he believes are "issues" surrounding the Ukraine controversy.  Sekulow questioned the Democratic Party's involvement in the funding of the dossier by British ex-spy Christopher Steele.

Law prof Jonathan Turley predicts Dems' impeachment 'will go down as one of the greatest historic blunders'.  Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley delivered a stinging assessment of the Democrats' rushed impeachment process against President Donald Trump.  The George Washington University Law School professor blasted Democrats during an appearance on CBS News for their second article of impeachment charging Trump with obstruction of Congress.

Elise Stefanik — Improperly Constructed House Articles are No Excuse for New Senate Witnesses.  Representative Elise Stefanik is a member of President Trump's defense team.  In this interview the issue of the deficient articles is raised surrounding witnesses.  House witnesses who gave testimony when the articles were framed could be considered appropriate, if needed, when debating those articles in the Senate.  However, witnesses not called by the House; and therefore not used in the assembly of the articles being debated in the Senate; are not valid for consideration.

The Tenuous Future of the Democratic Party.  [Scroll down]  Jumping on the impeachment bandwagon not only makes the candidates look opportunistic and, ironically, undemocratic but also fuels the narrative that Democrats are running primarily on an anti-Trump platform, which, as evidenced by Hillary's campaign, is an optic that isn't likely to get out the vote.  As such, handing out 30 engraved souvenir pens with Pelosi's name on them at a joyous impeachment ceremony served only to strengthen the narrative that Trump's impeachment is merely a Democratic ploy to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

The impeachment show's third act will focus on Schiff's lies and evil plans.  On the basis of no evidence at all, [Adam] Schiff is seeking to turn American from a nation proud of its unbroken record of a peaceful handover of power to political rivals into a banana republic in which legitimate elections are disputed by the loser.  A rising tide of political violence against Trump supporters, starting with the attempted assassination of a large number of House Republicans, and ongoing Antifa attacks, lends urgency to the specter.

Trump Acts Like a Politician.  That's Not an Impeachable Offense.  The way things look, President Trump will almost certainly not be removed from office.  The precedents set by the articles of impeachment, however, will endure far longer.  And regrettably, the House of Representatives has transformed presidential impeachment from a constitutional parachute — an emergency measure to save the Republic in free-fall — into a parliamentary vote of "no confidence."  The House seeks to expel Mr. Trump because he acted "for his personal political benefit rather than for a legitimate policy purpose."  Mr. Trump's lawyers responded, "elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election."  The president's lawyers are right.  And that behavior does not amount to an abuse of power.

End impeachment's government shutdown.  Like them or not, presidents uniquely represent the elected will of the people.  As such, their removal is not just about the removal of a person but the overturning of that elected will.  For that reason, there are few offenses that will be so grievous as to cause the party in power to give up their party's leader and convict a president; most charges, even if true, won't reach that high bar for removal. [...] The second article of impeachment — obstruction of the House by the assertion of executive privilege — is, in my view, wholly without merit.  Despite endless allegations of lawlessness, this administration has implemented every court ruling it has lost without exception.  Asserting executive privilege is not the same as paying hush money or suborning perjury, as was alleged in the Clinton and Nixon impeachment efforts.  President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, frequently asserted privilege in response to investigations and Holder was even held in contempt of Congress, a resolution he promptly ignored.

Impeachment Week:  It's OK to Be Bored; Not OK to Be White.  With the impeachment nonsense dragging into its 56th month, I have some random observations, only a few of which have anything to do with impeachment. [...] The person I really feel sorry for is Nancy Pelosi.  I assume she's weeping uncontrollably as she watches her chances of holding the speakership dwindle every time Jerry Nadler waddles to the mic.  True, you "go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want," as Donald Rumsfeld said, but surely there are more telegenic Democrats than Nadler and Adam Schiff.

Sekulow: President Trump's legal team to challenge impeachment aggressively.  President Trump's personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, said Democrats are failing to present a coherent impeachment case.  While speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Sekulow said Democrats have tried to deny the president his constitutional rights by dismissing executive privilege.  The attorney stressed executive privilege is protected by Supreme Court decisions and added any attack against it amounts to an attack on the U.S. Constitution.

Debunking Trump's Impeachment with One Simple Thought Experiment.  Democrats can't come right out and say they're impeaching Trump just for being Trump, even though that's exactly what they're doing.  So they held this big investigation, and found that yes indeed, President Trump had committed foreign policy.  They can't actually impeach him for that, either, so instead they impeached him for defending himself against the charge of having committed foreign policy.

Report: Anti-Trump 'Whistleblower' Heard Discussing Need to 'Take Out' Trump 2 Weeks into His Presidency.  Just two weeks into Donald J. Trump's presidency, Eric Ciaramella — the CIA operative widely believed to be the anti-Trump "whistleblower" — was overheard discussing with another White House staffer the need to remove the president from office, Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations reported on Wednesday [1/22/2020].  Ciaramella was at the time on loan to the White House as a top Ukrainian analyst in the National Security Council (NSC).  He had previously served as an adviser on Ukraine to then-Vice President Biden.  "Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him," a White House colleague who overheard their conversation told RCI.  "They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda," the former official added.  "They were plotting to actually have him removed from office."

White House Lawyer Patrick Philbin Explains House Circumvention of Constitution During.  As 21 different state attorneys general noted earlier today [1/22/2020], there are several reasons why the impeachment effort is unconstitutional.  These are not process arguments; they are factual arguments central to the constitutional framework of our government.  The failure of a full House vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to pursue evidence — via enforceable subpoenas — was a defect by design of Nancy Pelosi's decision to initiate an impeachment inquiry by her decree, not an authorizing vote.  White House lawyer Patrick Philbin explains the legal issue; this could be the lead argument in the defense case when it starts.  [Video clip]

State AGs urge Senate to reject impeachment in stinging letter: 'A dangerous historical precedent'.  The attorneys general of 21 states have come forward with a blistering rebuke of the impeachment of President Trump, asserting that it "establishes a dangerous historical precedent."  The Republican attorneys general, in a letter submitted to the Senate Wednesday morning and obtained by Fox News, urged the chamber conducting Trump's trial to "reject" the impeachment articles.  "If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers' design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution:  the separation of powers," they wrote.

Highlights (or lowlights) of the impeachment so far.  On Tuesday afternoon, CBS pulled the plug on covering the impeachment hearing taking place in the Senate.  It was getting more revenue running the daytime soaps.  This reflects a general feeling that most Americans don't want to sit there and be insulted.  And by "insulted," we mean things like Adam Schiff saying something that translates to "You, the People, are too dumb to be trusted with the vote, lest you vote again for Trump[.]"

Trump Haters Should Prepare for Disappointment.  It is not too soon to consider how to assist the millions of Trump-haters in the country in adjusting to the imminent collapse of their hopes and dreams.  Their entire political world now rests on a series of absurd suppositions; it is a levitation that defies all laws of nature and politics.  They have propelled themselves into an insane impeachment trial over non-offenses the president did not commit — a trial over matters which are not legally actionable and for which there is no evidence.  For this, the Senate and the chief justice of the United States will be tied up for weeks.  When it fizzles ignominiously, the anti-Trump media will squawk like hungry parrots that there was a real case, but that the Republican senators refused to recognize it.  That hackneyed line is wearing very thin.

New Documents Show Democrat Adam Schiff Mischaracterized Evidence In Impeachment, Report Suggest.  A new report on Tuesday night [1/21/2020] alleges that House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) appears to have "mischaracterized" evidence that was used in House Democrats' impeachment investigation.  The problem stems from a letter that Schiff sent to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) last week that summarizes "a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani," Politico reported.  "In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas 'continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky,' citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: 'trying to get us mr Z.'  The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff's letter — was redacted."  Politico added, "But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, followed by a text message to Giuliani that states: 'mr Z answers my brother.'  That suggests Parnas was referring to Zlochevsky not Zelensky."

New report suggests Schiff LIED about Parnas evidence.  There's a report out tonight [1/21/2020] that suggests that Nancy Pelosi's favorite Intel Chief Adam Schiff lied about a text from Lev Parnas, suggesting he was trying to get a meeting with Zelensky for Giuliani.

Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show.  House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff appears to have mischaracterized a text message exchange between two players in the Ukraine saga, according to documents obtained by POLITICO — a possible error the GOP will likely criticize as another example of the Democrats' rushed effort to impeach President Donald Trump.  The issue arose when Schiff (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.  In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas "continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky," citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani:  "trying to get us mr Z."  The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff's letter — was redacted.

Even if Trump's Senate impeachment trial ends quickly, Democrats may never stop.  If you watched Tuesday, you know that parts of the impeachment proceedings have been stultifyingly boring, but they have generated some fairly amusing and revealing video clips.  For example, Sen. Chuck Schumer explained how even with no chance of removing President Trump at the end of the process, impeachment is still absolutely necessary for this country, and every other problem we face must go on hold to pursue it. [...] It was a little over two decades ago that Schumer waded on another impeachment — Bill Clinton's — with a very different take.

Adam Schiff Would Be The Last Person To Get A GOP Senator To 'Cross Over'.  The Democrats' fervent hope in the impeachment process is no longer to remove President Donald Trump but rather to attain the moral victory of convincing just one Senate Republican to "cross over" and vote in favor of removal following the impeachment trial.  For the adoring left within the media and on Capitol Hill, a crossover vote would give Democrats the bipartisan label they have so craved but have been unable to secure throughout the entirety of this process, largely due to their gross unprofessionalism and the obviousness of the Ukraine phone call being a pretext for ambitions they have held since 2016.  If the Democrats want to garner crossover votes in the impeachment trial, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is the last person who should be managing the impeachment circus, largely because he has become the insufferable face of House partisanship and the blatant crookedness of the impeachment process.  Yet he was one of seven Democrats chosen by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi last week to do so.  But his performance today, combined with his salacious history, is a reminder of why he should be nowhere near the impeachment process.

Why not a single Republican is poised to vote to convict Trump.  Republican voters' overwhelming opposition to impeachment and aggressive maneuvering by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are conspiring to deliver President Trump a unanimous GOP vote of acquittal at his trial in the Senate.  That Senate Republicans are on track to acquit Trump and shield him from expulsion was not in doubt as the trial adjudicating two articles of impeachment opened on Tuesday.  But, as House Democratic prosecutors and the White House defense team began litigating charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, McConnell's push for unity and grassroots loyalty to Trump were moving Senate Republicans behind the scenes toward unanimous acquittal.

Warren Proposes New DOJ Task Force Dedicated to Retroactively Investigating Trump Admin 'Violations'.  Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) unveiled a new campaign plan Tuesday that calls for the creation of a Justice Department task force to investigate and prosecute corruption and immigration "violations" committed by the Trump administration.  In her "Restoring Integrity and Competence to Government after Trump" plan, Warren states that "Donald Trump has run the most corrupt administration in history," and that she will attempt to lessen his influence by "wiping the slate clean" of his appointments.

Trump's only crime is being Trump.  Forget the two "counts" against President Trump in the Senate trial that begins today, the reality is he is charged with only one crime.  He is accused of being Donald J. Trump.  For that high crime, the Democrats say, he must be removed from office.  The Democrat "House managers" are going to get 24 hours over the next two days to lay out their opening arguments, but how are they going to fill that time, considering that they're not even accusing him of committing any crimes?  Certainly no actual felonies — you know, Bill Clinton stuff like obstruction of justice, perjury and subornlng perjury.  They just accuse him of being ... Donald J. Trump.

Powerful NRSC Ad Exposes 'Impeachment Sham,' Urges Republicans to 'Hold the Line'.  On Tuesday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) released a powerful new ad exposing the Democrats' fever-dream of impeaching President Donald Trump and urging the "adults in the room" to stand up against a partisan witch hunt that abuses the Founders' intent for impeachment.

Rush Limbaugh says Democrats are 'looking for four Jeff Flakes' in Trump Senate impeachment trial.  Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday that part of the Democrats' strategy during President Trump's Senate impeachment trial is to find "four Jeff Flakes" within the Republican caucus to challenge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's proposed rules for the trial.  "Their primary focus [Tuesday]... They are targeting four Republican senators to vote with them to go against McConnell's rules to open it up to new evidence and new witnesses," Limbaugh said on his nationally syndicated radio show.

Only Trial Witnesses Can Expose the Evil Anti-Trump Coup.  Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and their jackal pack are already howling that a Senate trial dismissal vote or a trial without witnesses amounts to a "cover-up."  We don't care what they think.  But we must care very seriously about what Americans think, and Americans have not heard the president's defense against the bogus charges because the House Democrats forbade this basic fairness.  The Senate trial is his perfect chance to destroy the Democrats' sham impeachment.  If most Americans knew about the vicious covert war waged by anti-Trump officials at the highest levels of our revered security agencies to usurp the presidency, they would be outraged.  Poll numbers would reflect their overwhelming disgust with the powerful weasels at the DOJ, CIA, FBI, maybe even the FISA court, working hard undercover to undo an election that Trump won overwhelmingly.  But most Americans have busy lives, and when they do tune in, they mostly hear the leftstream media's Trump-hating desk-pounders who deliberately ignore the Deep State conspiracy to annihilate the president.

Hillary Clinton Injects Herself Into Trump Impeachment Trial, Accuses McConnell of Covering Up Crimes.  Hillary Clinton injected herself into Trump's impeachment trial on Tuesday morning [1/21/2020] and accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of covering up a crime.  McConnell unveiled his impeachment trial rules Monday and the Democrats immediately attacked him and accused him of rigging the trial.  Hillary Clinton joined Democrats Schumer and Schiff and accused McConnell of setting a "rigged process" and "truncated schedule" and saying he does not want the American people to hear from witnesses or see evidence.  "The rules Sen. McConnell has proposed for the president's impeachment trial are the equivalent of a head juror colluding with the defendant to cover up a crime," Hillary said.

Investigating Biden influence peddling didn't become illegitimate just because Joe ran for president.  Adam Schiff is up to his usual games, claiming the NSA and CIA have been withholding potentially important documents relevant to impeachment.  Of course, Schiff is raising this concern only on the eve of the trial.  It was not raised during the House investigation.  He wants to drag out the trial while the supposed NSA and CIA conduct is investigated.  Sound familiar?  Just like in Kavanaugh as one ridiculous accuser after another came forward (remember the supposed Rhode Island boat sexual assault?), all Democrats supposedly wanted was an "investigation."  Democrats also are talking about calling more witnesses in the House if they don't get their way in the Senate trial as to witnesses.  Democrats are acting in complete bad faith.

Charles Schumer's 1999 letter about impeachment comes back to bite him.  On Feb. 11, 1999 — one day before President Bill Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial before the Senate — Sen. Charles Schumer penned a passionate letter, outlining why the process had taken an unfair toll on the nation.  He noted that the president believed he had not crossed a line, and praised the large threshold needed to get a conviction in the Senate.  He also cheered the American people for opposing impeachment.  A Gallup poll in December 1998 found that 35 percent of Americans were pro-impeachment, with 73 percent of Republicans and only 12 percent of Democrats in favor.  Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac poll this month found that 51 percent of Americans approve of President Donald Trump's impeachment, with 46 percent disapproving, but the partisan divide is even starker with just 7 percent of Republicans and a whopping 91 percent of Democrats in favor.

Bill Clinton Charged of 11 Felonies and Impeachable Offenses — Trump Accused of ZERO Felonies and 2 Non-Crimes.  The Trump impeachment sham is unique in a number of different ways compared to previous impeachments and most notably because no crime was committed or defined.  President Trump is accused of two offenses, neither is a crime.  Article One:  Abuse of Power — broad and undefined non-criminal action.  Article Two:  Obstruction of Congress — Not a crime and completely made up charge[.]  Now compare that to the Clinton Impeachment trial in 1998.  Bill Clinton was accused of 11 separate felonies and impeachable offenses. [...] The Starr report cited 11 specific possible grounds for impeachment in four categories:  Five counts of lying under oath[,] Four counts of obstruction of justice[,] One count of witness tampering[,] One count of abuse of constitutional authority[.]

No escape:  Senators to be quiet, unplugged for Trump trial.  No cellphones.  No talking.  No escape.  That's the reality during the Senate's impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, which will begin each day with a proclamation:  "All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment."  After that, 100 senators will sit at their desks for hours on end to hear from House prosecutors, Trump's defense team and possibly a series of witnesses.

The Media will Hold Their Own Impeachment Trial.  The dilatory tactics of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to keep the Senate impeachment trial going with constant demands for new witnesses and new evidence is intended to tarnish the president with the stain of impeachment "forever."  It will also give media the opportunity to prosecute Trump's impeachment on CNN and MSNBC, and in the New York Times and Washington Post, for the purpose of turning the public against Trump and his reelection, no matter what happens in the Senate.  They know they cannot get a guilty verdict in the upper chamber, so they will strive mightily for a guilty verdict from the public with a new Christine Blasey Ford emerging daily; Lev Parnas is merely the first.  Like synchronized swimmers, Media heads will ask that day's Julie Swetnick leading questions to get the answers they want — something that wouldn't be allowed in a court.  The goal is to get the public to convict Trump despite the House prosecutors' inevitable loss in the Senate.

New Trump Lawyer Trolls Pelosi, Makes Case For Why Impeachment Is 'Illegitimate'.  On Sunday [1/19/2020], new Trump defense attorney Robert Ray, a former federal prosecutor, told Fox News that House Democrats' efforts to remove President Donald Trump from office through impeachment is illegitimate because it was a partisan event that saw no support from the opposition.  "I think the president's principal defense — and you saw it in the answer that was interposed over the weekend — is very simple.  This is an entirely partisan and, therefore, illegitimate effort by House Democrats to remove a president from office," Ray said.

Two deceptions at the heart of Democrats' impeachment brief.  In a newly released impeachment brief, Democratic House managers argue that President Trump must be removed "immediately" to protect the integrity of the current presidential race. [...] Democrats insist on Trump's immediate removal because, they argue, he was the knowing beneficiary of Russian help in the 2016 election, and if he is not thrown out of office right now, he will do it again.  But in making their argument, Democrats make two critical mischaracterizations about Trump, Republicans, and 2016.  One is flat-out wrong, while the other is misleading.

Trump impeachment will bring Pelosi and House Democrats condemnation by history.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., seemed giddy Wednesday as she announced the impeachment managers who would go to the Senate and attempt to prosecute a case against President Trump.  "He's been impeached forever," Pelosi said.  "They can never erase that."  However, Pelosi has it exactly backward.  The Senate is going to refuse to convict President Trump.  He will be exonerated, and she and the Democrats will be condemned by history.

House Continues Inquiry After Pelosi Transmits Articles to Senate.  House Democrat leaders pursuing the removal of President Donald Trump from office appear reluctant to let go of their investigation after voting to impeach him last month, even after Speaker Nancy Pelosi transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate this week.  "Plainly, there are loose ends here that the House should have tied up and that, importantly, the House is continuing to investigate," former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy wrote in an editorial Wednesday, the day House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) finally handed over the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Rand Paul Will Expose Every Republican Who Joins with Democrats.  Senator Rand Paul sees the impeachment of Donald J. Trump as a mockery of the rule of law and is not pleased that some of his GOP colleagues want to call witnesses.  That should have taken place in the House.  He is taking a hardline on behalf of the President.

Conservatives Will Not Forgive Senate for Buckling on Impeachment.  The spectacle Thursday of the Senate swearing in Chief Justice John Roberts, and the Senators fraudulently swearing that they would deliver impartial justice, brought home the fact that the impeachment of President Donald Trump is very real.  The House of Representatives disgraced itself with a process that broke with precedent and basic principles of fairness.  It impeached the president for legal conduct, on grounds that sow the seeds of future political chaos, if granted legitimacy.

The Democrats are trying to 'Kavanaugh' the impeachment trial.  The impeachment case was rushed through the House without Democrats seeking subpoenas of key witnesses or seeking judicial compulsion of witnesses who objected to testifying.  There was a supposed emergency so dire that impeachment could not await a full House record.  Then Nancy Pelosi sat on the Articles of Impeachment trying to coerce the Senate into trial procedures that would find new evidence through witnesses and documents subpoenaed for trial that would fill in the weak House record.  And true to form, a new witness is rolled out who supposedly is so important that the trial must turn into an investigative tool not a trial tool.

Can Democrats produce a daily impeachment show?  For several months, House Democrats have sought to translate their desire to impeach President Trump into compelling television. [...] For all their work, Democrats were not able to raise public support for impeachment beyond the level it had been before the hearings. [...] Now, with the Senate impeachment trial, Democrats have their last chance to excite public passions and win converts.  And to Republicans, the outline of their strategy is becoming clear:  Democratic impeachers realize they can't just tell the same story all over again in front of the Senate and expect the result to be different this time.

Democrats show their hand as Senate impeachment proceedings begin.  The House impeachment proceedings had a farcical element from start to finish.  They began with Adam "Pencil Neck" Schiff making up facts; continued with secret hearings, something a prosecuting party would never do if the facts favored it; moved to a partisan vote on two made-up Articles of Impeachment; and finally, contradicting the Democrats' earlier insistence that impeachment was an urgent necessity to preserve the nation, the House sat on the Articles of Impeachment for a full month.  Yesterday [1/16/2020], with great fanfare, bizarrely slurred speech, strange poetic references, ceremonial pens, and giggles and grins belying Nancy Pelosi's words about solemnity, the House finally transferred the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  Then, the serious politicking began.

Fake vs. real history.  Wednesday's [1/15/2020] impeachment display was truly one for the fake history books.  Defying the narrative of a somber undertaking, cheery pink suit and all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi barely suppressed, along with her colleagues, a demeanor of self-satisfaction and sheer delight worthy of the Academy Award.  Of course, instead of the Oscar, there was the "Nancy," a gold pen emblazoned with her name, given to the greatest political performers who act as if they have the best interests of the United States at heart.  Her remarks compared the false, underhanded impeachment proceedings to notable and historic events of our nation's past.  Her zany ramblings belied the fact that this impeachment is not a result of an actual crime, but is in truth a nasty bipartisan assault on a political rival and our constitution.  Pelosi and the left push their fake history and equate their dirty dealings with heavy weighted historical occurrences of days gone by.

This Tawdry Impeachment Spectacle Must Run Its Course.  It is clear from the utterances of the authors of the malicious idiocy that has got impeachment to the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.J.), that the Democratic line will be they caught the president in wrongful acts but the trained Republican seals in the Senate voted with their partisan prejudices rather than their judicious and independent judgment.  Under the circumstances, then, it is better to go ahead with a trial.  If the Senate majority's wish is for witnesses, the president can invoke executive privilege in some cases, but the confection of the false whistleblowing and its apparent guidance by Schiff and his staff should also be exposed.  Since the legal case is nonsense and the outcome foreordained, it is only a public relations battle now.

Dems' impeachment trial strategy: [an] endless circus worse than Kavanaugh hearings.  Democrats' strategy for the Senate impeachment trial is apparently to turn it into a never-ending Senate investigation — even though that was supposed to be the House's job. [...] Then there's the claim that assertions by Rudy Giuliani crony — well, ex-crony — Lev Parnas just plain compel the Senate to consider "new evidence" and call witnesses to get to the bottom of the Ukraine affair.  Rudy looks pretty foolish, and sleazy, for ever associating with this guy.  But Parnas is facing federal indictments and plainly figures his best bet to skip prison is to win an immunity deal by confirming every conceivable anti-Trump suspicion.  His "evidence" is mainly his own handwritten notes — written when?  Can he prove that?  All this is starting to seem like a farcical replay of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, which had wrapped up until Democrats decided to play the Christine Blasey Ford card.

Pelosi hands out souvenir pens, Dems slammed for gloating as House delivers Trump impeachment articles.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi drew criticism Wednesday for handing out commemorative pens — with her name on them — after signing a resolution to transmit two articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate for trial.  To critics, the tone of the event seemed celebratory — a far cry from December, when Pelosi wore black and insisted on the House floor it was a "solemn" day before the Democrat-controlled body voted to impeach the president on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress allegations.  Later, she even cut short two rounds of cheers from Democrats when the articles were adopted.

After yesterday's sorry spectacle, can we stop pretending Pelosi and pals are 'prayerful'?  Considering how somber and prayerful she has been over the solemn duty of having to impeach the president, Speaker Nancy Pelosi put on a brave face yesterday during the televised signing of the articles of impeachment.  In fact, she looked downright jubilant, grinning broadly as she handed out party favors in the form an official gold signing pen to each of her Democratic co-conspirators.  Rep. Maxine Waters, clearly choking back the tears, beamed with delight as she held her pen up for all to see.

A normal court would reject a dishonest prosecutor like Adam Schiff.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi named the seven House impeachment managers who will prosecute the case in the Senate.  But one of the two lead prosecutors would be kicked out of any normal court for repeated lies.  Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff has been lying to the world for years in his nonstop campaign to smear President Trump.  Back in March 2017, he insisted that he'd seen "more than circumstantial evidence" that Trump had colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election — a claim exposed as false by the Mueller report.

10 Things to Know about the Democrats' Obsession with Lev Parnas.  Democrats are suddenly obsessed with Lev Parnas, the Rudy Giuliani associate who was indicted on federal campaign charges last fall.  The Ukrainian-born Parnas was a gopher for Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, who wanted to investigate possible leads in preparing a defense against charges of Russia collusion.  Parnas agreed to testify during the House impeachment inquiry, and a federal judge let him hand over documents and text messages last week.  But it is not clear Parnas has anything to offer.

Rand Paul threatens fellow Republicans with explosive witness votes.  Sen. Rand Paul is waging a fierce campaign to prevent the Senate from hearing witnesses in Donald Trump's impeachment trial, vowing to force tough votes on his fellow Republicans if they break with the president or back Democrats' demands for new evidence.  The Kentucky Republican is occasionally at odds with Trump, from his killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani to his national emergency to build his southern border wall.  But when it comes to impeachment, Paul is taking the hardest line possible in Trump's favor.

Nancy Pelosi Uses More than a Dozen Commemorative Pens to Sign 'Sad' Articles of Impeachment.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared herself "sad" as she used more than a dozen commemorative pens to sign the two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday evening [1/15/2020].  The occasion was "so sad, so tragic for our country," Pelosi told reporters, noting the "difficult time in our country's history."  She then approached a table that had been prepared with the documents, and two dishes full of pens for her to use — about half a dozen pens in each.

Pelosi's Blunder:  How The House Destroyed Its Own Case For Impeachment.  [Scroll down]  The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles.  Waiting for the House to submit a list of managers was always a courtesy extended by Senate rules and not a requirement of the Constitution.  By inappropriately withholding the articles of impeachment and breaking with tradition, Pelosi simply gave McConnell ample reason to exercise the "nuclear option" and change the rules on both majority voting as well as the rule for the start of trials.  That is a high price to pay for vanity.

Report: White House doesn't expect impeachment trial to take longer than 2 weeks.  The next phase of impeachment officially began after the articles were handed off to the Senate on Wednesday.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the articles before the seven impeachment managers walked them through the capitol building to the Senate.  This came after Pelosi waited weeks to transfer the articles and move onto the next phase of the process.

Senate Drafts Rules for Impeachment Trial:  No Mobile Phones, No Talking.  The Senate released a draft of rules senators must follow during the impeachment trial.  It includes no mobile phones and limits the press. [...] McConnell and Schumer instructed their colleagues not to stand on the floor.  They requested the Senators "to remain in their seats at all times they are on the Senate floor during the impeachment proceedings."

She might as well demand the recusal of every Republican, just to make it "fair."
Pelosi impeachment manager is calling for McConnell's recusal from Trump Senate trial.  A Florida congresswoman who on Wednesday became an impeachment manager in President Donald Trump's upcoming Senate trial wants to remove the lead juror:  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Rep Val Demings' position, shared publicly by a just a few other Democrats, could undercut House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's efforts to frame impeachment as an exercise of constitutional duty.  Republicans have argued for months that Democrats are on a partisan mission to remove Trump from office.

Rand Paul puts fellow Republicans on notice; stand with Trump on impeachment or 'you will lose your election'.  Sen. Rand Paul warned his Republican colleagues to stand strong behind President Trump in the upcoming impeachment trial or risk political suicide as voters will be "very, very unhappy with them."  The Kentucky lawmaker believes there will be a "political price to pay" for Republicans who vote to allow Democrats to call the witnesses of their choice in the process, telling The Gateway Pundit in an interview that he also would like for the impeachment trial to be over with quickly.

Greg Gutfeld Loses It Over the Pomp and Circumstance of Impeachment.  [Scroll down]  ["]We know this was an emotional tantrum directed at daddy who won the election, and they're mad at daddy.  So we have to go through this phony procession.  Ooh, let's show pictures of the cloak room!  Ooh, let's watch them walk down the halls!  Ooh, this is breaking news!["]

Cruz's 'witness reciprocity' for Senate impeachment trial takes off:  Don Jr. cheers, Dems bewail.  Unlike House Democrats, who used unfair rules to prevent their Republican colleagues from having any say in the chamber's impeachment proceedings last year, Senate Republicans appear intent on ensuring their colleagues are granted a say.  And so on Tuesday [1/14/2020], Texas Sen. Ted Cruz reportedly pitched the idea of "witness reciprocity," an innovative solution that calls for each side being allowed to call an equal number of witnesses to testify in President Donald Trump's upcoming trial.  If Senate Democrats were to choose to call former Trump administration National Security Adviser John Bolton, for instance, Republicans would, in turn, be allowed to call, say, former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter.  Fair is fair, after all.

Nancy Pelosi Announces Schiff, Nadler and Others as Impeachment Trial Managers.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced Wednesday [1/15/2020] who will serve as the House Democrats' impeachment managers in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

Impeachment Is Not the Issue, It's the 2020 Election.  To think House Democrats actually believe Trump committed impeachable offenses grossly underestimates their political acumen.  The Democrats regularly run circles around the Republicans.  While the latter jumps pieces on a checkerboard, the Democrats are thinking three steps ahead, looking to checkmate the king.  The Republicans mistakenly believe the issue is always about the stated issue.  They ignore political strategist Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who stated, "The issue is never the issue."  For Democrats, impeaching the president has never been the issue.  The issue is the 2020 election.

Democrat Pallbearers Deliver Impeachment Articles for Senate Funeral.  The House Democrats carried the sham impeachment articles over to the Senate in a prayerful and somber jamboree on Wednesday.  Pelosi signed the documents, smiling and cheerily but also somberly and prayerfully as she handed out the pens she used to the 7 House manager dwarfs, presumably so they can auction them off for campaign cash money.  Even the dummies at CNN thought the spectacle was a bit strange.

Nancy Pelosi tells Democrats the House will vote on articles of impeachment on Wednesday but she does Not name the 'managers'.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday [1/14/2020] that he expects the U.S. Senate to begin President Donald Trump's impeachment trial next week.  The Senate will observe Martin Luther King Jr.  Day and start the impeachment trial on Tuesday, McConnell announced.  The Kentucky Republican added that the Senate will take some preliminary steps this week.

Sen. Ted Cruz Anticipates Trump Acquittal:  No Allegations of Law-Breaking.  "I think at the end of this process, these articles of impeachment are going to be thrown out," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told Fox News on Tuesday morning.  "And I think it's going to end, not with a dismissal but with a verdict of not guilty," he continued:  [Video clip]  ["]And the way it works in the Senate, when you come to vote on verdict, you vote on each article.  And each senator will vote either guilty or not guilty.  And the reason why this ends with an acquittal is very simple.  The House hasn't met the constitutional threshold.["]

White House Confirms Impeachment Defense Team.  Earlier today the White House confirmed the impeachment defense team led by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.  Joining Cipollone is President Trump's personal attorney Jay Sekulow and White House Deputy Attorneys Michael Purpura and Patrick Philbin.  Additionally, constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz may also work in an advisory capacity with the four member legal team.

Critics Discount Too Much of Trump's Job Performance.  The impeachment canard has gone from the outrages of egregious Democratic congressional committee chairmen — Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — to Speaker Pelosi's three-hanky tear-jerker about the "sad and solemn" impeachment of the very president she informed us she prays for regularly, to her nonsensical effort to dictate terms to the Senate on how it must try the case, to her finally sending the articles — neither of them an illegality or an impeachable offense, and both of them utter piffle on the facts.

The Pelosi Stillborn Impeachment.  As Nancy Pelosi lost her standoff with Mitch McConnell, bowing to the collapse of support even within her own Democrat caucus, she finally bit the bullet and conceded that she would have to submit her impeachment articles without having won a single face-saving concession from her Senate opponents after a fortnight of dangling the articles in her hallucination that she was dangling candy before a child or water before a soul desperately thirsting for it in the desert.  No one really gave a hoot.  Yes, we commentators commented.  Cable television consumed hours daily debating it.  But it did not matter a whit. [...] It had no life.  The Constitution explicitly states that the only grounds for impeachment are bribery, treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors in the way the term was understood in 18th-century England.  Even if the president had abused power, well — all presidents abuse power.  That is what executives do.

Rand Paul's warning shot to GOP Senators:  If you side with Dems on witnesses, I'm forcing vote on Hunter Biden.  Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) is playing hardball with the Democrats — and with his fellow Republicans — over the sham impeachment.  Paul warned Republican senators that if they cave to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's shrill, baseless demands to call more impeachment witnesses like John Bolton, then he'll have no choice but to demand that Hunter Biden be called to testify about his shady Ukraine dealings.  Basically, Paul said House Democrats should not be allowed to dictate how the Senate impeachment trial runs.  Democrats had their turn with their House impeachment proceedings last month.  Now, it's the Senate's turn to handle the matter.

John Bolton's Testimony Would Not Be The Smoking Gun Democrats Need.  You have to give credit to congressional Democrats for one thing:  They are an extremely hopeful bunch.  After years of Russia investigations aimed at toppling Donald Trump, they came away with what Grandmother would have called "bupkis."  But, not daunted, they quickly latched onto a whistleblower report about a phone call with Ukraine, and launched an up tempo effort, one last-ditch attempt to take the president down.  The result of this exertion did include a vote to impeach Trump, but did not attract a single GOP vote.  This is also almost certain to the result in the senate trial as well.  But wait!  Now former National Security Adviser John Bolton has agreed to testify if called, and the Democrats are racing toward Lucy again, confident this time she won't move the football.

Courting Disaster?  The Democrats Are Demanding Witnesses With One Notable Exception.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has so far delayed the submission of the impeachment of President Trump to the Senate to force a trial with witnesses.  Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has declared any trial of Trump without witnesses to be nothing less than the "most unfair impeachment trial in modern history."  Leaders of both parties know that impeachment often boils down to one unpredictable element:  witnesses.  For those who have the votes, witnesses are an unnecessary risk.  For those who don't, they are an absolute necessity.  On Friday, Schumer insisted that "there is only one precedent that matters here: that never, never in the history of our country, has there been an impeachment trial of the president where the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses."

GOP leadership:  There aren't 51 votes to dismiss Trump articles of impeachment.  Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told reporters on Monday [1/13/2020] that the Senate Republican caucus doesn't have the votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Trump, who endorsed an "outright dismissal" over the weekend.  "I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss. ... Certainly there aren't 51 votes for a motion to dismiss," Blunt, the No. 4 Senate Republican, told reporters after a closed-door leadership meeting.  Republicans have warned for months that they will not dismiss the two articles of impeachment against Trump, predicting a trial will end with votes on either acquitting or convicting him.

Impeachment Articles Must Be Challenged in Court.  The latest reporting I've seen is that the Senate will take up President Trump's impeachment trial next week.  What's wrong with that, you ask?  I've already said what's wrong:  the Schiff-Nadler Star Chamber violated President Trump's Fifth Amendment rights to procedural due process, rendering the resulting impeachment articles null and void as "poisoned fruit."  The GOP leadership should do what the Founders would have done:  challenge the legal legitimacy of the impeachment articles.

What Was It For?  It is easy to underestimate speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, because she speaks an obscure dialect of High Gibberish and frequently seems to be confused in public — not that any of that is stopping Joe Biden from leading the Democratic primary field.  Pelosi is clever enough, but lacks the courage that in politics comes from genuine conviction, which she also lacks, and that makes her easy to bully.  The zany-left caucus in the House — the left-of-San Francisco caucus — pushed Pelosi to ignore her own better judgment in order to give the Democrats one of those "moral victories" they keep proclaiming as Republicans claim electoral ones.  Which is to say, impeachment will be this year's Beto O'Rourke vs.  Ted Cruz.

Don't do it!  Bannon sounds alarm to Trump on Pelosi's SOTU ploy:  Wait until you are acquitted!.  Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said after "slow-walking" the process of sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Trump to deliver the State of the Union so she can drive the media narrative.  He also had some advice for the president on how to respond.  "Tell Nancy Pelosi when you deliver [the articles] and we have a trial, and after I'm acquitted, I will come to have the State of the Union.  Not until then," Bannon said in an appearance on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures."  Host Maria Bartiromo referenced a comment made by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., that we just witnessed the worst attempted coup to take down the president since Abraham Lincoln.  This prompted Bannon to insist that Trump must fight back hard.

How McConnell Outplayed Pelosi.  [President] Clinton's trial was divided into pieces.  The Senate agreed unanimously to begin with a briefing, opening arguments, questions from senators, and a vote to dismiss.  Whether to hear witnesses or introduce additional evidence were questions decided later.  "That was the unanimous bipartisan precedent from 1999," McConnell said.  "Put first things first, lay the bipartisan groundwork, and leave mid-trial questions to the middle of the trial."  The arrangement satisfied Chuck Schumer back when he was a recently elected junior senator from New York.  Funny how times change.  Now Senate minority leader, and looking to damage Republicans in a presidential election year, Schumer demanded that McConnell call witnesses and ask for additional documents at the outset of the proceedings.  Pelosi followed his cues.  After the House impeached Trump on December 18, she said she wouldn't transmit the articles of impeachment until McConnell gave in to Schumer's demands.  McConnell refused.

Pelosi Caves, Will Pass Articles Of Impeachment Onto The Senate Next Week.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced to lawmakers Friday that she would be proceeding with sending the passed articles of impeachment over to the Senate until next week.  "I have asked Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate," Pelosi wrote in a dear colleague letter.

McConnell Joins Hawley in Resolution to Throw Out Impeachment.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell became the 13th cosponsor of Senator Josh Hawley's resolution to update Senate rules and dismiss the "bogus impeachment" against President Trump if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not send over impeachment articles in 25 days.  Hawley, an outspoken critic of Democratic efforts over impeachment, was initially joined by ten other Republican senators in proposing the legislation on Monday, including Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Rick Scott of Florida.  On Tuesday, Rand Paul added his support and Kelly Loeffler signed on in her first act as a senator.

The Supreme Court Should Step In To Rule This Impeachment Unconstitutional.  Democrats' obsession from day one to impeach President Donald J. Trump, without regard to substance or process, led them to change the grounds for impeachment every couple of months.  In doing so they have gone from Russian collusion to obstruction of justice, to quid pro quo, to bribery.  House Democrats have put our constitutional government in grave danger by attempting to rewrite the carefully calibrated separation of powers under our Constitution and usurping powers not granted to the House.  They have brought Alexander Hamilton's nightmare of an entirely partisan impeachment to fruition and are making a mockery of fair proceedings.

Pelosi defiant as Democrats grow restless over impeachment delay.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defiantly held on to the articles of impeachment Thursday despite cracks in support from congressional Democrats and ramped up efforts by Senate Republicans to take matters into their own hands.  The California Democrat suggested she won't block the Senate trial indefinitely, saying the two articles of impeachment against President Trump would be transmitted "soon."  But she insisted the Senate first make public the rules for the trial.  Precedent dictates that the trial cannot start until the House speaker sends the articles to the upper chamber.

McConnell set to bypass Pelosi; informs Senate to prepare for trial, with or without articles of impeachment.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Republicans that the impeachment trial will start next week — with or without the articles of impeachment that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has hijacked for the past 23 days.  McConnell (R-Ky) echoed the warnings of Senator Lindsey Graham, who earlier this week said Pelosi needs to put up or shut up.  Mitch made the announcement during a closed-door lunch Thursday as more Democrats pressure Pelosi to turn over the articles, calling her gambit a waste of time.

Pelosi Spurns McConnell:  No Articles Until McConnell Publishes Senate Impeachment Trial Details.  Monday night [1/6/2020], after two "moderate" Republican members of the Senate, Rep. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Rep. Susan Collins (R-ME) declared that they were fine abiding by the Senate impeachment rules set in 1998 — at the dawn of then-President Bill Clinton's Senate trial — reports indicated that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had enough votes to go forward with the second half of President Donald Trump's impeachment proceedings without having to negotiate with Democrats on the subject.  As soon as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) submits the articles of impeachment to the Senate, a trial can go forward — only Pelosi now says she won't turn over the House articles until McConnell publishes details of how the Senate trial will be conducted, bring the process to an impasse.

Washington Tries, And Fails, To Defend Nancy Pelosi's Failed Impeachment Strategy.  In the immediate aftermath of Nancy Pelosi's decision to hold the Articles of Impeachment rather than send them to the Senate, not even the most pro-Pelosi hacks in existence could make the case for the strategy.  The same question ping-ponged through DC greenrooms:  "Is she really doing this?"  It was a telling moment.  For more than a decade, all of Washington's media corps has advanced the idea that Pelosi is a leader who can do no wrong, a consummate tactician who guided her conference through thick and thin.  Perhaps that was true in the past, but since taking back the gavel after the midterms, Pelosi has been trapped by the vibrant progressive wing paired with a rabid donor base that actually guides the priorities of the Democratic House today.  Before, she had control — now, just the illusion of it.

Pelosi's impeachment delay opens cracks in Democratic caucus.  Cracks began to appear Wednesday [1/8/2020] in congressional Democrats' support for Nancy Pelosi's prolonged delay in sending articles of impeachment to the Senate, with several lawmakers saying it's time for the House speaker to get on with it.  Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., said she voted last month to impeach President Trump over urgent concerns about his conduct and argued that handing the case over to the Senate is the right thing to do.

Impeach Trump or get off the pot.  Imagine if a district attorney charged you with wrongdoing, then let the charges hang over you indefinitely?  That's the stunt House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been pulling, sitting on the articles of impeachment against President Trump since Dec. 18 with zero regard for the Constitution.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham accuses House Democrats of "trying to hold these articles over the head of the president," denying him a chance to be acquitted.  Graham says that "if we don't get the articles this week," senators should "deem" the impeachment articles "delivered to the Senate" so the trial can begin.

Cocaine Mitch pounds Nancy Pelosi into a powder.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is feeling the heat.  Just as she thought she had President Trump backed into a corner with impeachment, she smashed herself against a brick wall in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who refused to go by her rules, laying waste to all her precious plans.  In the Senate, Cocaine Mitch makes his own rules.  But actually, it's not that, Mitch is just using Clinton-era impeachment rules.  Those rules were to invite the Democrats to present their case and answer questions, and then have the Senate decide whether to call witnesses.  Pelosi had already gone all out and claimed she wanted the Senate to call witnesses.  Mitch was obliged to follow no such diktats.  And as a result of staying steadfast on Trump, he now has a quorum to move ahead with those rules.

The Dems' Impeachment Losing Streak Continues.  Has any political ploy failed as spectacularly as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to delay sending the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump over to the Senate.  Even Democrats are now telling her the jig is up.  Pelosi had hoped to use the delay as leverage to get the Senate to agree to the Democrats' demand for witnesses at the trial.  It was a foolhardy plan that, had the leadership not been in the grip of Trump Derangement Syndrome, it never would have attempted.

Trump Unbound.  One major point is being overlooked concerning the "impeachment":  now that the impeachment weapon has been unsheathed, and swung, and shattered into myriad pieces without so much as scratching its target, the Dems have absolutely nothing to use against Trump.  In fact, it can be doubted that they will ever again have anything to use against Trump.  Impeachment is over — Pelosi admitted as much when she issued her pro forma State of the Nation invitation to the President only days after the impeachment vote.  She has still failed to present the articles to the Senate, but it's all anticlimax at this point.  Only a few hysterics on either side of the spectrum have any doubt as to how this is going to work out.

McConnell:  GOP will start impeachment trial, delay witnesses.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday he has the votes to start President Donald Trump's impeachment trial as soon as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi releases the documents, winning support from GOP senators to postpone a decision on calling witnesses.

Your bluff has been called, Speaker Pelosi.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it official Tuesday:  He's calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bluff, and refusing to guarantee impeachment trial procedures of her choosing.  Pelosi's been "threatening" not to send the House-passed articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate, triggering the trial, unless McConnell promised to meet her preconditions for a "fair trial."  Specifically, she wants the Senate to hear from four witnesses the House didn't bother questioning, because it would take too long to get court rulings compelling their testimony.

Chuck Schumer wants witnesses.  Hunter Biden could be a disaster.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has so far delayed the submission of the impeachment of President Trump to the Senate to force a trial with witnesses.  Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has declared any trial of Trump without witnesses to be nothing less than the "most unfair impeachment trial in modern history." Leaders of both parties know that impeachment often boils down to one unpredictable element:  witnesses.  For those who have the votes, witnesses are an unnecessary risk.  For those who don't, they are an absolute necessity.  On Friday, Schumer insisted that "there is only one precedent that matters here: that never, never in the history of our country, has there been an impeachment trial of the president where the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses."

Senator Josh Hawley and Senate Republicans Give Pelosi Until Sunday Jan. 12 to Turn Over Impeachment Documents or Face Dismissal.  Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) announced on Friday if Democrats DO NOT deliver their articles of impeachment to the US Senate as is required by the US Constitution he will introduce a measure to dismiss Pelosi's slapdash articles of impeachment on Monday January 6th. [...] Senator Hawley, the former Attorney General in Missouri, tweeted this warning out on Thursday. [...]

Forgetting something?  Dem leader makes no mention of impeachment in House agenda memo.  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer welcomed fellow lawmakers back to Washington after their holiday recess with a memo setting the stage for a "busy 2020" agenda but seems to have forgotten something:  impeachment.  "I hope you are ready for a busy 2020," Hoyer, D-Md., wrote in a memo to colleagues on Jan. 3.  Hoyer went on to describe legislation the House will consider as they return Tuesday [1/7/2020] including a chemical regulation measure, four bills focused on the expansion of 5G telecommunications systems, and a congressional review resolution to disapprove the Department of Education's Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule.

The Democrats' Nakedly Craven And Unserious Impeachment.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said she won't send the Senate the articles or name managers until she's confident about the nature of the process that will take place in the Senate, which is itself still subject to negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Democrat Charles Schumer of New York.  This has created the truly comical situation in which Pelosi is trying to gain leverage over McConnell by withholding something he doesn't want — namely to act on the articles of impeachment and conduct a trial.

Rep. John Ratcliffe Discusses Fraudulent Impeachment and Spygate.  Congressman John Ratcliffe appears on Sunday Morning Futures to discuss several issues in DC.  On the impeachment front Ratcliffe may, if called-upon, represent the interests of President Trump during a Senate trial on the fraudulent impeachment articles.  On the 'Spygate' issues, Ratcliffe again draws attention to the conflicting testimony between former CIA Director John Brennand and former FBI Director James Comey.  One of them lied.  [Video clip]

House impeachers can hide from a trial, but they can't run.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is upset.  She let her caucus impeach President Trump on dubious charges with a narrow partisan majority and without taking the time to gather evidence that she now believes must be heard in a Senate trial as it might convince a skeptical public.  And now, huge surprise, the Republican Senate appears poised to send the resulting impeachment articles straight to the circular file.  As of Friday [1/3/2020], Pelosi was still withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate.  She is making demands that the Senate trial be run in a particular way, even though the California Democrat is not a senator and has no constitutional role in shaping the trial.  "Their turn is over," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky.  "They've done enough damage.  It's the Senate's turn now to render sober judgment."

There Is No Clever Democratic Impeachment Strategy.  [Scroll down]  At long last, their three-and-a-half-year quest to impeach Trump, which started in April 2016, was close to fruition.  Victory over Trump never seemed closer or more certain.  And then Nancy Pelosi rained on their parade.  Looking like an Alzheimer's patient who escaped from a nursing home, Nancy (who will turn 80 in just two months) went before the cameras, and stuttering and stammering, and informed bewildered journalists (and a half-interested public) that things weren't as desperately urgent as she, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and 200 other Democrats told us they were.  Trump is probably an existential threat to the Republic, but maybe not this month.  And maybe not in January either.  And, just maybe, not even in February.

Speaker Pelosi Threatens Possibility of Armed Conflict Against U.S. Department of Justice.  Think about all of the media panel discussions on gun ownership you have watched; segments where second amendment advocates were ridiculed by media pundits for daring to bring up the possibility of the U.S. government using arms against U.S. citizens who hold opposing political views. There are hundreds of recent reference points.  Now consider, earlier today U.S. House of Representatives Legal Counsel, Douglas Letter, argued in court it would be a possible remedy — for a conflict between branches of government — for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to order an armed "gun battle" between the House and the United States Department of Justice.  Yes, this actually happened.  At the same time as national Democrat political candidates are arguing to remove the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, the highest ranking Democrat in the United States; a person only two succession-steps away from the presidency; is arguing in DC federal court the House could begin an armed conflict against the Dept. of Justice.

House counsel warns of 'gun battle' in fight for Trump info.  A federal appeals court in Washington heard warnings Friday that how they rule in the House Judiciary Committee's legal fights for information from the Trump administration could spark an avalanche of congressional lawsuits, or even a potential gunfight between the House sergeant at arms and the FBI security detail for Attorney General William Barr.  Two separate panels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard nearly three hours of oral argument on two committee cases related to former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.  Both were filed months before the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on his dealings with Ukraine.

The Editor says...
Now it REALLY sounds like a coup.  Since when does a paperwork transfer require such a show of force?

Graham gives Pelosi ultimatum, proposes Senate rule change to remove her from impeachment process.  Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., insists that if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not deliver articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate by the end of the week, the Senate should "take matters in our own hands."  Graham accused Pelosi of playing political games and trying to exert control over the Senate trial by keeping it from starting.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., recognized Friday on the Senate floor the chamber's rules prevented him from doing anything until Pelosi does her part, but Graham proposed a solution that could remove what McConnell has called an "impasse" in the process.

Impeachment impasse deepens as McConnell rejects Pelosi's bid to shape trial: 'Their turn is over'.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking from the chamber's floor Friday, rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's efforts to shape a pending impeachment trial as "fantasy" — leaving the process at a standstill as lawmakers return from the holiday recess.  "Their turn is over.  They've done enough damage.  It's the Senate's turn now to render sober judgment," McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor.

Impeachment trial in limbo as Senate leaders trade blows.  Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer have made zero headway on designing a bipartisan set of rules for President Donald Trump's impeachment trial more than two weeks after their first face-to-face meeting on the matter.  The two leaders gave dueling floor speeches on Friday [1/3/2020] but held no substantive meeting.

Democratic impeachment case collapses under weight of time.  In its mad rush to impeachment, the House could not have made it easier for the White House.  Securing an impeachment in the shortest time does not earn you a historic prize; it earns you a historic failure.  By not seeking to compel key witnesses, the House relies on the Senate to complete its case.  Since the House has maintained that the record is overwhelming on Trump's guilt, the Senate could simply try the case on the record supplied by the House.  Indeed, in the 1999 impeachment of President Clinton, Democratic senators, including now Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, fought against any witnesses and sought a summary vote without a trial.

Liberal Law Professor Noted Something Odd About Schumer's Trump Impeachment Speech.  [Scroll down]  The House passed the articles of impeachment which were grounded in abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, two charges that reek of partisanship.  It's a witch hunt.  It's a joke.  And the Senate awaits the transmission of those articles, which are being held hostage by Speaker Nancy Pelosi because they know it faces certain death with the Republican majority in the upper chamber.  That's not her call and her withholding of the articles creates a possible constitutional crisis of its own.  Senate Democrats say they want witnesses and new documents included.  They know Senate Republicans won't budge, so this Mexican standoff continues all while Democrats and the liberal media can keep the Trump impeachment echo chamber loaded with sound.  They still think they can put a dent in Trump's approval numbers.  They've only gone up and swing-state voters have never found this push popular.  Still, the goal, as Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel noted, is "rolling impeachment."  Just keep this story around in the news cycle.  A trial would further embarrass the shoddy case the Left has against Trump.  It's about keeping the appearance alive.

Senator Josh Hawley Introducing Measure To Dismiss Democrats' Articles Of Impeachment.  Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley announced on Thursday that he is introducing legislation that will dismiss House Democrats' articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump because of Democrats' abuse of the Constitution.  Hawley's announcement comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued to refuse to send the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate because she is concerned that the political trial will be biased.  "Dems said impeachment was URGENT. Now they don't want to have a trial, because they have no evidence.  In real world, if prosecution doesn't proceed with case, it gets dismissed.  So on Monday, I will introduce measure to dismiss this bogus impeachment for lack of prosecution," Hawley wrote on Twitter.

Roy Blunt: Senate Will Be Done With Impeachment By Early February.  Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt said Tuesday the Senate will be done with its impeachment trial by the time President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union speech on February 4.  Blunt went on Missouri radio station KSSZ to discuss the Senate impeachment trial, saying he believes the Senate will "be done with this by the time the president comes" to address Congress for his State of the Union speech.  The Missouri Senator also said he believes the trial will happen "quickly."

Pelosi's Game Of Chicken Will Leave Her Party Fried.  After holding a vote to impeach President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to wait on sending the impeachment articles to the Senate.  According to many in the media, this brilliant bit of strategy gives her leverage to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to provide a fair trial in the Senate.  There's so many reasons this is wrong, but let's start with the most obvious:  according to the Democrats' own impeachment witness, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, Trump isn't actually impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate, and "an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem."

GOP senator will introduce measure to dismiss impeachment articles.  A Republican senator announced he'll introduce a measure to dismiss "this bogus impeachment" of President Trump.  Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri criticized House Democrats for voting to impeach Trump last month but then failing to send the two impeachment articles to the Senate.  "Now they don't want to have a trial, because they have no evidence," Hawley tweeted.  "In real world, if prosecution doesn't proceed with case, it gets dismissed.  So on Monday, I will introduce measure to dismiss this bogus impeachment for lack of prosecution."

Dem Rep. Doggett:  I'd 'Support' Pelosi Never Sending Articles if Senate Won't Allow Witnesses.  On Thursday's "CNN Newsroom," Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) stated that he would "support" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) if she refuses to send over the articles of impeachment unless the Senate will allow witnesses at the trial.  Host Jim Sciutto asked, "I wonder, without witnesses... should Speaker Pelosi refuse to send over the articles of impeachment at all?"  Doggett said, "I would certainly support her in doing that.  The House has the sole responsibility under the Constitution for impeachment. [...]"

The Editor says...
No, the House does not have "the sole responsibility under the Constitution."  The House has its role, and the Senate has its role.  The process is not yet complete.

Nasty Nancy, Shifty Schiff, and Schumer subvert the Constitution to damage Trump.  Nancy Pelosi, AKA Nasty Nancy, allowed Adam Schiff, AKA Shifty Schiff, to run the impeachment "inquiry" through Shifty's Intelligence Committee, where Shifty had total control.  He set the rules to allow only the witnesses he wanted.  He lied in his opening statement to commence the inquiry by making up President Trump's phone conversation with Ukraine's President Zelensky.  The resulting vote to impeach was a foregone conclusion regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof. [...] Article one charges abuse of power, which is a grab bag of Trump policies the Democrats don't like and a rehash of the Ukraine hoax.  The articles don't charge a constitutionally mandated reason, or even a crime, for impeachment.  Article two is even worse.  It charges obstruction of Congress on the theory that President Trump did not obey Shifty's subpoenas.  This is ridiculous because President Trump has a constitutional right, under the separation of powers, to assert executive privilege to object to congressional subpoenas.

Democrat Admits Impeachment 'Genesis' Was Before Trump's Election.  Appearing Monday [12/30/2019] on MSNBC's All In, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) admitted the "genesis" of impeachment was birthed during then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 campaign for the presidency.  [Video clip]

Can the Senate Dismiss the Impeachment Without a Trial?  [Scroll down]  In other words, courts have the power to dismiss an indictment.  Among federal courts, this extends to cases of "selective or vindictive prosecution," "a defect in the indictment," and "failure to state an offense."  Courts also may rule on a case before it goes to a jury and after the prosecution rests, determining that "as a matter of law" no reasonable jury could convict.  All of these decisions by courts either limit or dispense with trials altogether.  Trials are expensive to conduct and burdensome to the accused.  In the case of impeachment, they also impose a real burden on the country as a whole, leaving the office of the president in limbo while the matter remains in question.  As in ordinary criminal cases, the prosecution has no right to insist on a trial when the underlying actions set forth in the indictment are not a crime.

Impeachment of Trump Is Backfiring Already.  After more than two months of Reps.  Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Pelosi stressing how vitally important it was to rush impeachment to a vote in the House — since it was claimed there were very real national security issues at stake — suddenly, the Democratic leadership has slammed on the brakes and it appears they now have all the time in the world.  Anyone who thought this impeachment sham was really all about the election next year is starting to have that view confirmed by this sudden inaction. [...] The Clinton impeachment happened midway through his second term, but had it happened in the first term, would anyone have broached the idea that it would be illegal for him to run for reelection as an impeached president?  Would the Democrats have assented to this proposition if Republicans had asserted it?  This impeachment sham strategy was created with one single purpose in mind: to try to sabotage Trump's chances to win his reelection bid next November.

Democrats' strategy:  Impeach 'til the cows come home.  [Scroll down]  Democrats, digging as they are for more articles of impeachment, even as they hold tight to the existing articles of impeachment, even as they send dictates over to the Senate to command-control on how to deal with these existing articles of impeachment — Democrats, certainly, are presenting a bit guilty on the old "overplaying one's hand" accusation.  Democratic members on the House Judiciary Committee, sad because Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets to hold the articles and they don't have any left, have gone back to court to petition for information from former White House Counsel Don McGahn and on grand jury testimony tied to Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation — the one that pretty much cleared Trump of any impeachable offense.  If the court grants their request for information, "new articles of impeachment" could soon be on the horizon against Trump, according to the Democrats' Judiciary attorneys.

The Tide Has Turned on Impeachment.  The 2019 impeachment saga remains extremely fluid.  This piece could be rendered obsolete before it is ever published.  But it seems we have a temporary status quo.  Democrat impeachers have left the building, gone home to face the damage they've done to themselves.  GOP point men like Rep. Matt Gaetz (for future president?) have done irreparable damage to the flimsy impeachment cause, relentlessly characterizing the debacle for the partisan and pseudo-constitutional circus it is.  Now it's the Senate's turn, and Majority Leader McConnell is waiting.  But something happened on the way to the upper chamber.  Pelosi is hanging fast to the last shred of her party's denuded credibility.  There's no two ways about it — she has blinked.  Another Fox host, Shannon Bream, asserted in late December that "both sides are dug in."  Really?  No.  The tide has turned.  The Democrats are in retreat, and Donald Trump may be preparing to mount a major counteroffensive.

The Standing Committee on Impeachment.  You might think that what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the "sad" and "solemn" pre-Christmas impeachment special was a one-off.  The Democrats owed it to the country, you see — they had (are you sitting down?) a "duty to the Constitution" to impeach Donald Trump, otherwise (as Representative Al Green of Texas put it) he might well be re-elected.  We certainly can't have that!  Hence the show of those "sad, very sad" faces Pelosi described and the memo from headquarters with the instructions, "Don't cheer.  Keep it solemn."  The Washington Post didn't get that bulletin right away, so some of their staff posted an image with the words, "Merry Impeachmas from the WaPo team!" amidst smiling faces at an impending feast.  Someone must have thought that impugned the paper's sterling reputation for impartiality.  The image was deleted, but not before some enterprising souls saved and posted it for posterity.

Trump impeachment:  Senate GOP reportedly unites behind a no-witness trial.  After weeks of behind-the-scenes debate, Senate Republicans have hit on their strategy for handling President Trump's impeachment: a brief trial — with no witness testimony — and a fast acquittal.  "I'm ready to vote now," Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) told The Hill.  "I think the articles are a joke."  But they don't want to dismiss the House Democrats' charges out of hand, as some Trump allies have proposed.  "It's time for him to have his day in court," Hawley said.  "The president deserves to have due process."

Flashback: Democrats Coordinated With Clinton White House During Impeachment.  Mitch McConnell has received a lot of criticism for a statement earlier this month that he'd be "coordinating" with the Trump White House on the forthcoming impeachment trial in the Senate.  "Everything I do during this, I will be coordinating with White House counsel," he said.  The media was aghast, and Democrats were horrified.  "Saying you're going to do just what the president wants is totally out of line," said Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.  Even pseudo-Republican Lisa Murkowski jumped on the outrage bandwagon.  "When I heard that, I was disturbed," she said.  "To me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process."  However, all the outrage is grossly misplaced, as McConnell's statement simply follows the precedent set during Bill Clinton's 1999 impeachment.

Impeachment is Demonstrably Redundant.  [Scroll down]  The Framers might well be shaking their heads in disbelief at the current situation.  The Democrat majority in the House of Representatives passed articles of impeachment against President Trump having nothing whatever to do with "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  Obstruction of Congress?  Separation of Powers says presidents can legally refuse to do Congress's bidding, which they do when, for example, they veto legislation or assert executive privilege.  Abuse of Power?  House Democrats need a refresher course in the Constitution, which lists fairly extensive executive powers in Article II, upheld over decades by court rulings.  In any case, whatever President Trump is alleged to have done that might qualify as "abuse of power," his pen-and-phone predecessor did a lot more of it.  Democrats are overlooking it now as they did then.

Gregg Jarrett says McConnell should hold impeachment trial — without Pelosi's OK.  Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett blasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Friday for not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial and saying that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., should proceed with an impeachment trial without the Democratic leader's involvement.  "The framers never envisioned a stunt pulled by a speaker of the House like Nancy Pelosi holding onto articles of impeachment.  Two decades ago it was sent over immediately, within minutes.  There was a vote to convey and transmit it," Jarrett said on "Hannity."  "The Constitution is actually silent about that.  It doesn't say that the Senate has to wait until it's transmitted.  It's simply a Senate rule."

Guy Lewis says impeachment stalemate is a strategy to gain more time to build their impeachment case.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to withhold articles of impeachment against President Trump is merely a strategy to gain more time to build a stronger case, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis argued Friday [12/27/2019].  "I think that the Democrats are looking for additional evidence," Lewis told "America's Newsroom," highlighting that they are aware that the impeachment charges are "dead on arrival" in the Republican-majority Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing to the president what no one else has in the 3 years since he took office.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing to President Donald Trump what no one else has in the nearly three years since he took office:  She's making him squirm. [...] Pelosi's refusal to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate has robbed the president of what he wants most:  "total and complete exoneration" following a trial.

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats Cannot Have Their Cake and Eat It Too.  There are Democrats, including a Harvard law professor, who claim that the president is not impeached — despite a House vote to do so — if the Speaker does not deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate.  In other words, Pelosi and the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too.  They wish to impeach President Trump on the record, yet put on indefinite hold the trial by which the president might clear his name.  But nowhere does the Constitution empower the Speaker to act in such a way that the president might remain unimpeached, after an impeachment vote by the House.  According to the words of Democrats like Noah Feldman, the president has not yet been impeached, since Pelosi has withheld the articles of impeachment from the Senate.  "The Constitution doesn't say how fast the articles must go to the Senate," writes Feldman.  However, the reason the Constitution does not specify any such speed requirement is that the delivery of paperwork is never mentioned.  The sole Constitutional requirement for impeachment is a vote.

Kimberley Strassel nails it when she expertly dissects Pelosi's 'rolling impeachment' ploy.  Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel hit the nail on the head in a piece on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's gamesmanship of not sending two articles of impeachment against President Trump to the U.S. Senate.  Given House Democrats' weak case and the inevitable acquittal from the upper chamber, perhaps the San Francisco Democrat is doing all she can to avoid a trial.  "Who says Pelosi even wants a Senate trial?  Strassel said in a tweet plugging her piece about the party's "rolling" impeachment.  "Far better for Democrats to keep impeachment rolling?"

Pelosi's Ploy.  For Nancy [Pelosi], impeachment has always been personal.  Trump disrespected her (repeatedly) and refused to bow to her importance as Speaker of the House and third in line for the presidency.  For Nadler, it's also personal — and it's mutual as well.  Trump and Nadler have long hated each other going back to Nadler's City Council days when he almost singlehandedly prevented Trump from developing the Westside Rail Yards, obligating him to pay real estate taxes of tens of millions of dollars a year for more than a decade — and then, forced a project so circumscribed it's doubtful he made any substantial money.  Schiff?  He's the worst, because for him it's not history or hatred.  It's about him.  Politics is Hollywood for ugly people, and Schiff is ugly, people. [...] Publicity is addictive.  He had stumbled into a world where he was heralded for telling the left what they wanted to hear, and it didn't matter whether any of it was the truth.

Law prof:  The Senate isn't required to hold an impeachment trial at all.  Forget for the moment the question of when Nancy Pelosi will send over the articles of impeachment.  Does the Constitution require Mitch McConnell to do anything with them except perhaps give the House a receipt?  Georgetown law professor Bradley Blakeman argued yesterday evening in The Hill (via Twitchy) that an impeachment trial is neither required or needed, especially in this instance.  To be fair, Blakeman does write that the Senate will be required to take some action, but that it doesn't have to be a trial.  All McConnell needs to do, Blakeman writes, is to call a vote to dismiss before a trial even starts — and that would require only a simple majority, as it is just a procedural motion.  McConnell has publicly stated that he has no choice but to start a trial, but has also mentioned instant dismissal as an option for three months, so this is nothing new.

The Democrats Have Stuck Their Heads in a Meat Grinder.  The Democrats allege that Trump must be impeached because he abused the power of his office by threatening to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless that country helped investigate possible corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential political rival.  The House Republicans have exposed the factual weakness of this charge by amply demonstrating that there was no such quid pro quo.  Now it is recognized that neither this claim nor the equally fatuous charge that Trump has obstructed Congress by asserting executive privilege will result in the necessary two-thirds removal vote by the Senate.  Trump will win. [...] President Trump's request for assistance was absolutely legal, ethical, proper, and mandated by what is known so far.  That should be the primary line of attack against impeachment.

Against Impeachment for Thought Crimes.  It is legal for a president, who is under a constitutional duty to enforce the law, to ask a foreign government to cooperate with the Attorney General to investigate an American citizen about allegations that involve possible misuse of office for private gain.  It is also legal for the President to delay the delivery of foreign aid to make sure he gets the foreign government's attention; that's not "extortion," which is also a specific intent crime that requires a "wrongful" or corrupt purpose.  On the contrary, one of the recognized purposes of foreign aid is "to reward a government for behavior desired by the donor."  Under the theory adopted by the Democrats in the House, the President's otherwise legal acts supposedly become "high crimes and misdemeanors" warranting impeachment if they were done with the allegedly improper intent of "digging up dirt on a political rival," rather than for a legitimate purpose.  But why isn't "digging up dirt" on a political opponent in an election year a legitimate purpose?  It is called "opposition research" and the Democrats do it all the time.

Pelosi's Impeachment Farce Is an Attempt to Distract From the Deep State Conspiracy.  [Scroll down]  No, the real explanation for Pelosi's sudden flip is that those in the know — in the intelligence community, on congressional committees, and even in the Democratic mouthpiece media with their Deep State sources — warned her in early September of the potential political catastrophe that would ensue as a result of the devastating revelations in both the Inspector General's report on the FBI's abuse of the FISA process and U.S. Attorney John Durham's more comprehensive investigation into the origins and perpetuation of the bogus "Russian collusion" narrative.  That transparently preposterous conspiracy theory, cooked up by the Clinton campaign as an explanation for their disastrous loss, was then propagated with help from the exiting Obama administration, the intelligence community, anti-Trump operatives in the federal bureaucracy, and of course Democratic members of Congress and their lapdog allies in the mainstream media.

Exactly what part of Nancy Pelosi's partisan impeachment plan is actually working?  Let's examine the impact so far of what was widely touted as a historic impeachment of President Donald Trump:  His job approval rating is back at its highest level since taking office 1,068 long days ago.  That's up six points since the House began impeachment.

Professor: No Need for a Trial in the Senate, Articles of Impeachment 'On Their Face Are Defective'.  Democrats claim Trump is guilty of violating the Constitution or traditional norms.  That's nonsense when you look at how unprecedented this whole impeachment effort has been, especially the playing games with the articles.  Even the Democrats' own expert who they called during the proceedings, Harvard professor Noah Feldman has said if they sit on it beyond a short reasonable time, they are the ones not acting in accordance with the Constitution and denying the president a fair trial.

Democrats raise possibility of new articles of impeachment against Trump.  The prospect of additional articles — while perhaps unlikely — was floated as part of a court battle over Democrats' bid to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn.  The committee's counsel filed a brief Monday, making the case for why the panel still wants to hear from McGahn despite having already voted for impeachment.  Democrats originally sought McGahn's testimony in connection with his claims to then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team that Trump wanted him to have Mueller fired.  Trump's critics claimed this request constituted obstruction of justice.

The Rushed Impeachment - Now We Know Why.  Basically, the House lawyers have filed a brief in the case in which they're attempting to compel the testimony of former WH Counsel Dan McGahn.  The rationale that the Dem House presents is that, now that the House has impeached President Trump, they need McGahn's testimony to use as evidence in the impeachment trial!  But wait, you say.  How could there have been an impeachment without evidence?  Well, that's a point.  House Dems are claiming, in effect, that they can impeach and then investigate to find the evidence to justify the impeachment.  Remember when Maxine Waters said impeachment is whatever the House says it is?  The Dems really meant that.  Fox News quotes the Dem brief to point out that the Dems are actually suggesting that they could add new articles to their impeachment — implying that, in spite of their vote — impeachment remains a work in progress.

Why Democrats Will Never End The Impeachment Show Until Trump Is Gone For Good.  The Democrats have floated the idea of impeachment over demonstrably fake Russian collusion conspiracy theories, tabloid drivel about porn stars, and even the president's criticism of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.  With time running out before the 2020 presidential race gets into full swing, they seized on the only thing they had left:  exaggerated "concerns" with a phone call to the newly elected Ukrainian president, padded with testimony from a slew of disgruntled national security officials upset that the president wanted to make his own foreign policy decisions, and a harebrained theory about how it was all illegal.  By any measure, the charade was a monumental failure.

Gowdy: Pelosi Has No Constitutional Authority to Dictate the Rules of a Senate Impeachment Trial.  Former prosecutor and Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy is weighing in on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's continued refusal to turn over two articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate for a trial.  "If he [President Trump] really is an existential threat the Republic, if he really has committed conduct that should result in his removal from office, then why would you not send it onto the Senate?  The Constitution gives the House no role in deciding how this trial takes place.  It is exclusively within the province of the Senate," Gowdy said during an interview with Fox News.  "I think most of my fellow citizens will see through this 'lets hurry up and impeach him' and then sit on the indictment."

Starr: Impeachment of Trump 'absolutely' an attempt to overthrow him.  The independent counsel who investigated criminal activities related to President Bill Clinton said Sunday that the Democrat-led impeachment of President Donald Trump was an attempt to depose him.

GOP Sen. Kennedy on 'Rigged' Impeachment:  Trump 'Not Afforded Due Process in the House'.  Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) on Monday accused the House of not affording President Donald Trump "due process" in his impeachment as he reacted to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) withholding the impeachment articles.  Kennedy said on Fox Business Network's "Varney & Co."  the process was a "rigged game," likening it to "carnival ring toss" because of how "fixed" it was.

The 'Deep State' and the Impeachment Conspiracy.  Ever since the impeachment bandwagon got rolling in September, anything said in defense of President Trump is automatically dismissed by Democrats and their media allies as either (a) "Republican talking points," (b) "Russian propaganda" or (c) a "conspiracy theory."  The self-evident purpose of this rhetoric is to delegitimize the president's defenders as either dishonest partisans, agents of a foreign enemy, or purveyors of paranoid delusions.  It is impermissible, by the rules of the game as played on CNN and in other "mainstream" media outlets, to ask whether such accusations are more properly directed at Democrats.  Are they never guilty of partisanship?  Didn't Democrats spend three years promoting a "collusion" conspiracy theory?  And why is it that Russia is the only foreign power whose influence deserves our vigilance?

Democrats Debate Whether Trump Has Been Impeached.  Speaker Pelosi's unconstitutional decision to delay transmission of the articles of impeachment to the Senate in order to gain partisan advantage raises the following question:  has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization or intention to impeach — which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are transmitted?  This highly technical constitutional issue is being debated by two of my former Harvard Law School colleagues — Professors Laurence Tribe and Noah Feldman — both liberal Democrats who support President Trump's impeachment.

Pelosi's Democrats unite and catalyze the GOP.  Yes, everything is urgent to them when it comes to Trump.  He is so bad — such a threat to the republic — that it is imperative they remove him yesterday, so critical that they have virtually ignored their proper legislative duties for two years.  And yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now saying she won't submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate?  These Democrats always assume that our memories expire in 24 hours.  Once again, their lies are too obvious to pass the laugh test.  At the very time Pelosi and her merry band of pseudo-guardians of the Constitution were yelling about urgency, they were planning their disgraceful stunt to withhold the articles from the Senate, which confirms there was never any urgency with the impeachment.  The urgency was to further smear Trump and taint his legacy.

Trump Is Seriously Thinking About Claiming He Isn't Really Impeached & He's Got a Point.  We always knew the impeachment case against Trump had the weightiness of belly button lint, but now Americans are cottoning on to how the thing looks to be wholly unserious.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vote-and-run strategy has made the foundation for impeachment look like it was cobbled out of crazy glue and straw.  And the White House noticed.  As we've previously reported, the Democrat constitutional law expert, Noah Feldman, says that by not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, President Trump's not really impeached.

McCarthy suggests Jordan, Collins and Ratcliffe represent Trump during Senate impeachment trial.  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., suggested on Sunday that he would choose Republican Reps.  Jim Jordan of Ohio, Doug Collins of Georgia and John Ratcliffe of Texas to represent President Trump in his looming Senate impeachment trial.  "These are individuals I would actually pull in at the White House," McCarthy said during an interview on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures."  "You want people that have been through this, understand it, been in the hearings even when they were in the basement."  "The basement" is a reference to the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, where House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., held the initial closed-door testimonies in the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

America Must Confront The Enemy From Within.  We've all watched as the rule of law is flaunted and the Constitution is trampled on by Democrats.  They become more and more brazen by the day.  Evil is really seeing the light of day now that Americans see how the left will conduct a soft coup to oust a duly elected president who has committed no crime.  The Democrats have shown how they despise over 63 million voters who voted for President Trump and how they hold us in contempt.  Trump has seen no due process and has been relentlessly smeared by these Marxists.  Trump's family has been dragged through the mud as well.  But we let it happen and it's still going on.

Cruz Slams Dems' Impeachment Sham, Obama Admin's Legacy Of DOJ & FBI Abusing Its Power.  Sen. Ted Cruz says Nancy Pelosi holding impeachment articles from Senate is 'sign of weakness.'  "This is the first time in the history of our country that a president has been impeached without a single article alleging any criminal conduct.  They [Democrats] don't allege any crime, they don't even allege any federal law that was violated.  This was at the end of the day a political response because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats hate the president."  [Video clip]

Nancy Pelosi's Impeachment Blunder Will Play Out In 2020.  The decision by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic House leadership to depart from Washington without resolving whether the Senate trial of the president will even happen is a blunder of potentially serious proportions.  It totally undermines everything the Democrats have done narratively for the past several months, embracing their role as defenders of the Constitution against a clear and present danger to its tenets.  Instead, impeachment now looks more like an example of that ancient term:  a partisan traveshamockery.  Pelosi's supporters who are hard core Democratic donors and partisans may like this move, since it denies the president the surety of what is almost assuredly going to be a bipartisan vote to acquit him on both charges in the Senate.  These are the same people who wanted to extend the process by forcing Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton to testify via the courts, who hold out hope to this day that the Southern District of New York will turn up something on Rudy Giuliani that will make for even more articles of impeachment.  They want impeachment now, impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever — asterisks all the way down.

Why Senate Democrats are the real challenge to full impeachment trial.  By sending a thin and incomplete record to the Senate, the House could not have made things easier for the president.  Since the House did not want to take time to subpoena critical witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, or to compel testimony of other witnesses, the Senate could declare that it will try the case on the record supplied by the House, a record that Democrats insist is already conclusive and overwhelming.  Moreover, in reviewing the trials of Johnson and Clinton, Democrats may have to struggle with precedents of their own making.  Indeed, Republicans could argue that a trial without witnesses is impeachment in Democratic style.

Democrats rushed to impeach and stopped.  Democrats rushed to impeach President Donald John Trump on Wednesday night, voted to, and then decided to sit on actually impeaching him by refusing to transmit the impeachment to the Senate.  Stilton Jahrlsberg lampooned the rush to remove a "clear and present danger" but then holding up the impeachment until next year at the earliest.  Democrats adopted the strange strategy of Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who believes that by not transmitting the impeachment to the Senate, Nancy Pelosi can set the terms for trial.  But in playing this impeachment version of a government shutdown, Democrats undercut their argument that it is urgent to impeach and remove President Donald John Trump.  If that were true, Democrats would have immediately transmitted the impeachment vote, which would set up the trial.

Seven Democrats Shared How They're Going to Destroy America.  This last debate of the 2019 calendar year offered Americans little insight overall as to what these seven Democrats would and could do to help improve the country.  However, it is clear these Democrats are willing to go to great lengths to kick Trump out of office — no matter what that would do to our nation.

Swindlers List.  Much like the 9/11 attacks, the impeachment of Trump was an attack on all of us by a radicalized group that hates America, hates freedom, hates capitalism, hates respect for human life, hates individual responsibility, and has a fevered desire to bring it all crashing down. [...] During the impeachment vote, almost every Democrat said words to the effect that Trump was an immediate danger to national security and all we hold dear.  That being the case, why is Nancy Pelosi unwilling to let Trump's case go to trial in the Senate?  Is he an imminent danger, or isn't he?  By her actions, Pelosi is quite clearly saying that he is not.

Well, Is Trump Impeached Yet, or Not? — Here Are The Facts.  First of all, yes, he is impeached in as much as the vote was recorded.  But according to some sources, the official filing of that vote has not yet been completed, so, Trump still isn't quite impeached "all the way," if you will.  That is according to leftist law professor Noah Feldman, a man who testified FOR impeachment for the Democrats.

Schrödinger's impeachment limps on.  [Scroll down]  So while Democrats voted to impeach, they haven't impeached.  Instead, they went home for 2 weeks.  The PJ Media account ended, "This is a very bad look for the Democrats who warned that they must rush to impeach Trump before the election.  It seems the rush ended as soon as they got their vote.  Now, they want to avoid the possibility that Trump might be acquitted in a Senate trial.  By doing so, they are denying him due process and violating both historical precedent and the Constitution."  That is true but they really didn't impeach him.  Delaying the impeachment for this stunt could lead to more permanent delay.

As Pelosi plays games with impeachment, what next for GOP?  [Scroll down]  Just to be clear:  Pelosi has no leverage at all over a Senate proceeding.  The Constitution gives the House the "sole power" to impeach, a power Pelosi and her majority used to its fullest.  But the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power" to try all impeachments.  The speaker of the House has no role.  Given that, Republicans have been wondering what Pelosi is up to.  Crazy theories (at least, they seem to be crazy theories) have emerged.  Democrats would impeach the president repeatedly.  (That was actually a serious suggestion from a New York Times columnist in October.)  Or Democrats would never send the articles to the Senate, to keep impeachment hanging over Trump's head.  Or whatever.  The key Democrats involved aren't saying.

The 'Impeachment' of Donald Trump.  The speaker of the House, unhappy at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's obvious contempt for the House proceedings, has suggested that she might not file the charges with the Senate.  In which case, the Senate could not hold a trial.  In which case, Donald Trump could neither be exonerated nor convicted. [...] What a let-down.  The "greatest deliberative body in the world," etc. etc., and what do we get?  Theater, and bad theater at that.

Senator Schumer's Vicious Lie.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during his rebuttal to Majority Leader McConnell yesterday, that the President thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants and sees himself as a king.  He accused the President of tyranny, and of declaring that he has absolute immunity, a reference to a comment the President once made about Article II of the Constitution.  Schumer said he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and if not stopped, he will do it again and again.  Everything he said is a lie.  President Trump has never said Congress has no right to oversight.  What he has said is he wants the Judicial Branch to mediate over those documents and witnesses they are demanding which the President's counsel believes violate Executive Privilege.

Pelosi's Latest Stunt.  Although a House impeachment is not exactly the same as a grand jury indictment, it is close enough to emphasize that an impeachment, like an indictment, proves absolutely nothing.  It simply means that, by symbolically altering courtroom rules and preliminarily allowing the prosecution every possible advantage over the defense, the prosecution has established that maybe it has something worth bringing to trial and maybe not.  In that way, we avoid trials where there is not even a scintilla of anything.  But without an actual trial and a conviction, there is nothing.  If a prosecutor convenes a grand jury and gets an indictment but then chooses not to bring the case to trial, then there is nothing.  Mitch McConnell [...] does not owe [Nancy Pelosi] the time of day, much less input or even a polite listening, when it comes to how the Senate will conduct its trial or whether or not it even will bother moving forward without first bringing a motion to dismiss on grounds of failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. [...] If she does not forward the impeachment, historians will record that it simply never happened, and they will indict her, not Mr. Trump.

Impeachment: Tactics vs.  Strategy.  [Scroll down]  Here is my modest proposal for Senators McConnell and Graham.  Since the House thought they had a compelling case with the handful of witnesses they called, no further witnesses will be allowed.  The managers will be allowed to "prove their case" with those same witnesses, plus the "whistleblower."  Thus, there will be a real trial.  The managers won't be able to hold up a 600-page report and declare their case proved.  They'll get to do it in open court.  With a twist.  The Senate should require that the rules for testimony under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure be followed to the letter.  Since the presiding judge will be Chief Justice John Roberts, he'll know those procedures cold.  Co

21st Century Regicide: The House Votes.  he December 18 House votes (230-197 on abuse of power and 229-198 on obstruction of Congress) to impeach President Trump, one day shy of 21 years since Bill Clinton was impeached, followed one of American history's most delicious ironies: the very date, December 10, that the House Judiciary Committee began formal debate, there was a reminder of the Ghost of Impeachments Past, none other than one Jerrold Nadler, who exactly 21 years earlier, in his opening statement in the Clinton vote, said, ["]The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. [...] ["]

You can't win the game if you don't play your cards.
Nancy Pelosi can hold onto her articles of impeachment forever for all anyone cares.  Senate Republicans would be thrilled if Pelosi just shoved the articles into the back of a closet in the speaker's office next to a disregarded carton of Camels left by John Boehner.  The GOP-held Senate has become a well-oiled conservative-judge machine, churning out jurists like a factory assembly line.  It has no desire for an impeachment coffee break to vote on a matter everyone has already made up their minds on.  But the president, progressives argue, is desperate for a trial.  He wants his victory lap when the inevitable acquittal drops.  This is supposedly Pelosi's vaunted leverage.  Unfortunately, that's based on a naïve reading of a trolly Trump tweet.

House Democrats Might Hold Articles of Impeachment Hostage.  The strangest thing about the process is watching the Democrats pretend to be somber, as if they haven't been trying to impeach Trump since election night.  We all saw the pictures of the pink hat lunatics screaming for impeachment at the Women's March the day after Trump was inaugurated.  They also kept referencing the constitution during their floor speeches and in the media but the Democrats have have been working to negate parts of the constitution that don't sport their woke agenda for as long as I can remember.  Now they want to "defend" it?  Many of them referenced American's founders, and spoke about how they had a mandate to impeach based on their commitment to the founding fathers' vision.  What?  These clowns usually call the founders a bunch of misogynist, patriarchal, slave-owning white supremacists.

Impeachment or Attainder?  The present articles of impeachment are not over matters known to law.  Settled precedent in American law is that conflicts between the executive and legislative branches are settled in court.  No more does the law empower Congress to hold the president in contempt than it empowers the president to arrest senators or representatives for their refusal to reveal their consultations to DOJ subpoenas.  In fact, SCOTUS had taken up the very question the House is claiming to be impeachable.  Clearly, by the Supremes granting certiorari, it is officially a question at law.  Clearly, there are legitimate differences over the law.  It might well be impeachable to ignore a SCOTUS ruling in the case, but how could it be impeachable to hold a position on something that is not yet settled?  That is an absurd standard, and history will judge it so.

Impeachment without a crime.  [Scroll down]  For purposes of housekeeping, let's take a look at the vote.  On the first article of impeachment — for "abuse of power" — it was 230 to 197.  Two Democrats — Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey — voted against impeachment.  No Republican voted for impeachment, but ex-Republican Justin Amash of Michigan, now an independent, did.  Tulsi Gabbard took a page from the Barack Obama playbook and voted "present."  The second article called for Trump to be impeached for exercising his right to have a dispute with Congress resolved by the courts.  The vote on this absurdity was 229 to 198.  Jared Golden of Maine was the Democrat who voted for the first article but not the second.  The Washington Post celebrates the impeachment by claiming that the House's purely partisan move "creat[es] an indelible stain on [Trump's] presidency."  I doubt it.

Dershowitz: Pelosi Delaying A Senate Trial Is 'Unconstitutional'.  Calling out the Democratic Party for its far-left extremism, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz denounced House Speaker Pelosi's plan to withhold sending the impeachment vote to the Senate for a trial as "unconstitutional."  As noted by Fox News, the Harvard Law professor's recent op-ed for Newsmax came in response to his colleague Laurence Tribe, who backed Pelosi in not allowing a Senate trial on impeachment.  "[Tribe] would withhold the trial until the Senate agreed to change its rules, or presumably until a new election put many more Democrats in the Senate.  Under his proposal, there might never be a Senate trial, but the impeachment would stand as a final and permanent condemnation of President Trump," Dershowitz wrote.

Schumer's Corrupt Democratic Jurors.  [Chuck] Schumer whines that McConnell has said he will take his cues on a Senate trial from President Trump, whom the House denied due process and the right to confront his accuser.  Too bad, cryin' Chuck, for just as in the House, elections have consequences.  Republicans won the Senate so you play by their rules[.]  Schumer pretends that a Senate impeachment trial is like a trial in criminal or civil court and that McConnell can't act as both a juror and a defense attorney.  Of course he can — an impeachment trial is more of a political process than a judicial one.  Schumer is trying to depose a sitting President of the United States and overturn the results of an election, disenfranchising 63 million voters, without a crime or evidence of a crime, and he wants to talk about fairness?  McConnell is no more "tainted" as a juror for working with President Trump than the Senate Democrats, also jurors, who ran and are still running against Trump in 2020 — Kobuchar, Harris, Warren, Booker, Sanders.

Nancy Pelosi's 'Animal House' impeachment.  First and foremost, President Trump did not get impeached Wednesday night.  And he still hasn't at the moment of this writing, more than 12 hours after House Democrats approved two articles of impeachment in the most nakedly partisan impeachment vote in over a century and a half.  The giant, block-lettered, wartime headlines in the New York Times giddily declaring "TRUMP IMPEACHED" is completely false.  Fake News, you might say.  Sure, Democrats rammed through a couple of articles of impeachment, but until House Speaker Nancy Pelosi submits them to the Senate for the trial of the president of the United States, Mr. Trump stands un-impeached.  A prosecutor can draw up all the indictments against all the ham sandwiches he wants.  But until he hands that indictment to the judge — files the indictment with the court — no ham sandwiches are indicted.

This Time It Is Personal — for Us.  Those pathological haters and congenital liars impeached not only President Trump on Wednesday night.  They impeached us.  This time it is personal.  That is my vote they are trying to take away.

If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen?  For these last weeks, the Democrat-dominated chamber has been in a mad rush to impeach the president.  Democrats even tacked on article two — "obstruction of Congress" — because, they told us, time could not be wasted engaging in the usual negotiation and litigation over legislative demands for executive branch information.  Trump is a clear and present threat to "continue" undermining our elections, we were admonished.  That's why he needs to be impeached right now. [...] But now that the deed is done, it's ... hey, not so fast. [...] What we've just seen is the most partisan impeachment in American history, every step of it politically calculated.  Obviously, if Democrats perceived advantage in stretching the process out, it would still be going on.

Was Trump Actually Impeached?  Legal Expert Called By Dems In Hearing Says No.  If nothing else, Democrats' manipulations are giving everyone a review of the Constitution.  As we observed yesterday [12/19/2019], many liberals didn't seem to understand that impeachment didn't mean removal.  Most people of course knew that.  But there's a finer point here, that Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor is claiming and others are also questioning this morning.  Feldman, who ironically was a witness for the Democrats during the impeachment hearings and who argued for Trump's impeachment, is saying he hasn't actually been impeached yet.

Some Liberals Thought Impeachment Meant Trump Would Be Gone, Get Rude Awakening.  It's hard to imagine how liberals can keep buying into these conspiracy stories and manipulations of the Democrats, when the facts are so clearly other than what they say, such as on impeachment.  But perhaps it's not hard when you see how uninformed many are as to even the basic concepts of civics and the impeachment process.  When you're getting all your news from places that are continually pushing the Democratic narrative like CNN and MSNBC, it's likely that you're only going to see what they tell you.  It might be difficult to believe after weeks of talk about impeachment that there are people who still don't understand the process, but on Twitter last night, "#ByeTrump" was trending because many believed that the House vote on impeachment meant that President Donald Trump was now removed.

House Dems Close Up Shop Without Sending Articles of Impeachment to Senate.  On Thursday [12/19/2019], the House of Representatives adjourned before voting to send the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate for a trial.  This made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's stall-tactic official — Democrats are refusing to forward the impeachment to the Senate until they receive assurances the trial will be fair in their eyes.  Yet this arguably violates the Constitution.  "Hoyer announces no more votes until January 7.  Big cheer goes up in House chamber.  This means the House won't approve a resolution on impeachment [managers] & to send impeachment [package] to Senate until at least January, 2020," Fox News reporter Chad Pergram tweeted.

The Way This Can End Even If Pelosi Withholds the Articles.  The way this can end even with no articles of impeachment sent over to the Senate is very simple.  Mitch McConnell runs the Senate.  The Senate has sole power to conduct a trial.  Pelosi has nothing to say about it.  She can whine and moan and complain about a fair trial, and Schumer can run around and say, "All we want is a fair trial."  It's the accused who gets a fair trial.  Not the prosecutors.  It's the accused.  In American jurisprudence, the whole concept of a fair trial is the concept applied to the accused.  And once again, it's the Democrats' bastardizing the American constitutional process and the rule of law and trying to make everything all about them.  But the way that McConnell can dispense with this without the articles of impeachment ever being sent over, is the chief justice is the judge.  So McConnell calls him in, gavels the Senate (i.e., the jury) into order.  Look at him as the foreman of the jury, if you will.  He swears in the chief justice, and then dismisses the case.

Pelosi's risky strategy to withhold impeachment from Senate roils Washington.  Democrats want to put pressure on individual Republican senators over the issue of calling witnesses in a Senate impeachment trial, and they are looking to create friction between President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi struggled Thursday to explain what, exactly, her plan is in delaying sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.  She refused to answer questions from reporters who wanted more clarity.

Trump Isn't Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate.  Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment?  Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?  The Constitution doesn't say how fast the articles must go to the Senate.  Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.  But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem.  Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial.

'Keep Those Articles Here': Top Dem Demands Quid Pro Quo Before Sending Impeachment To Senate.  Democratic House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn told CNN, if it were up to him, he would withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate indefinitely.  Clyburn said he would only send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for if Democrat's were promised a "fair" trial.  By "fair trial," Clyburn means allowing new witnesses and deliberation to take place in the Senate.  But, deliberations and witness testimony is a job meant for the House of Representatives.  Clearly, Rep. Adam Schiff and House Democrats bungled their hearings and concluded with extremely weak articles of impeachment they know will get zero bipartisan support.  Now, they want more witnesses called because they didn't do their job well their first time.

Jim Jordan to House Democrats:  Why Are You Withholding Articles of Impeachment After Rushing to Impeach?  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is playing a peculiar game of chess with Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) when it comes to the articles of impeachment.  Instead of preparing to transmit them, which you'd think she'd do ASAP considering how critical it was for Democratic House leaders to get the articles voted on in the House before Christmas, she's withholding them in an effort, at least on the surface anyway, to get McConnell to play by her rules.

Total Warfare Politics.  [Scroll down]  At this time, the impeachment can be cast as a purely partisan move.  Should the Senate dismiss the charges on a party-line vote, the Democrats would have a stick with which to counter-flail the GOP for partisanry.  Of course, at this time there's still a possibility that one or more Senate Democrats would join the Republican caucus in dismissing the charges or a summary acquittal after a brief trial, but no one can be certain about that yet.  Even should the Senate not approve changes to the trial rules, further media involvement could arise through interviews and publicity granted to "witnesses" not permitted to "testify" in the trial.  As the media are wholly enlisted in the anti-Trump movement, this is more likely than not — and would permit the fomenting of public suspicion about a "cover-up" of presidential wrongdoing.  The existing situation, as farcical as it is, has commentators such as Mark Levin saying that it makes the impeachment of the next Democrat president absolutely imperative.

Impeachment in Two Words:  So What?  House Democrats' articles of impeachment detailed zero impeachable offenses.  Speaker Pelosi, et. al., promised "bribery" and "obstruction of justice" — real, actual crimes.  The ultimate charges:  "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress."  Friends, if "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are authentic "high crimes and misdemeanors," roughly 90% of that body's members are headed up the river.

Don't Bother, They're Here.  In a comic postscript to yesterday's farce, Nancy Pelosi is threatening to withhold delivery of the House Democrats' two impeachment articles to the Senate. [...] By withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate, Pelosi hopes to extract the terms of a trial procedure that she deems favorable to the Democrats.  Politico quotes Pelosi speaking at a news conference moments after passage of the impeachment articles:  "So far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us."

President Trump praises GOP unity, while Blasting Pelosi for withholding articles from Senate.  Holding onto the articles of impeachment could reportedly be a strategy Pelosi is using to avoid a dismissal of charges.  This comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to hold a final vote in hopes to acquit the president.

The Devil-Delivered Impeachment Sleight Of Hand.  This impeachment circus is nothing more than a distraction to keep lightheaded people's eyes off of the cancer which is currently enveloping what is left of our limping America.  The left has no case based upon any factual evidence.  And they know that.  They simply want their warped story out there to try to keep the pipes clogged, as they have kept them clogged up to this point, for the balance of President Trump's administration.  The fix was presumed to have been in when Hillary boarded her jet to New York as she prematurely celebrated what turned out to be a completely disastrous election eve for her, in 2016.

6 Reasons Pelosi's Senate Obstruction Gambit On Impeachment Articles Is A Disaster.  Immediately after impeaching President Donald Trump for allegedly obstructing the House and abusing his power as president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi obstructed the Senate's constitutional obligation to hold an impeachment trial and abused her power by trying to steal power that belongs solely to the Senate under the Constitution.  Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that she is in no rush to formally transmit to the Senate the articles of impeachment her party in the House had just approved.  Here are six reasons Pelosi's impeachment obstruction stunt undermines the entire basis of the Democrats' effort to eject Trump from office.  [#1] After impeaching Trump for supposed obstruction of House, Pelosi moves to obstruct the Senate[.]  Pelosi said she'll wait to send over the articles until she finds out how the Senate will conduct the trial, which looks a lot like obstructing the Senate, given that the Constitution clearly states that the Senate has "the sole power to try all [i]mpeachments."

Trump Lawyers Ask If Pelosi Delay Means He Isn't Impeached Yet.  Lawyers close to President Donald Trump are exploring whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to temporarily withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate could mean that the president hasn't actually been impeached. [...] Backers of the theory would argue that the clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments" indicates that the impeachment isn't formalized until the House reported the charges to the upper chamber.

Overshadowed by impeachment, debating Democrats mostly pull punches.  Twenty-four hours after President Trump was impeached, the Democratic candidates held a debate that almost didn't happen and that even some insiders were hoping would not happen.  To say that the debate, having overcome a labor dispute at Loyola Marymount University, was overshadowed by the impeachment furor would be the understatement of the year.

Trump is not actually impeached yet, lawyer who testified for Democrats says.  One of the Democrats' witnesses who testified in favor of President Trump's impeachment cautioned Thursday that in order to officially impeach the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must send the articles of impeachment to the Republican-led Senate.  In a Bloomberg op-ed, Harvard legal scholar Noah Feldman said Pelosi, D-Calif., can delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but not for an "indefinite" period of time.

Donald Trump demands 'immediate' impeachment trial as Mitch McConnell declares 'impasse' with Chuck Schumer.  Donald Trump is demanding an 'immediate trial' after talks over the looming Senate showdown reached an 'impasse' last night and one Harvard law expert claimed the president has not yet been impeached.  The House voted on Wednesday night to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, but speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Article I: Remove This Beast From My Sight!  In the history of politics, there is no precedent for the media's entire focus to be on undoing the last presidential election.  True, the left has wanted to impeach every Republican president, but at least they used to wait a decent interval between the inauguration and concocting some preposterous "impeachable offense."  With Trump, it's never been about anything he's done.  It's him they can't stand. [...] To be extra clear that they don't care about the Constitution — much less the Founding Fathers, whom they keep solemnly invoking — the Democrats' second article of impeachment against Trump is for "obstruction of Congress."  That is pretty much his job.  How about impeaching a president for ordering a surprise military attack or appointing members of his Cabinet?

Extortion: Nancy Pelosi Threatens to Withhold Impeachment Articles from Senate Republicans.  Knowing that the Republican Senate will dispense of their so-called evidence for impeachment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened to withhold transmitting the articles to the upper chamber.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already rejected Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) parameters for the trial.  McConnell slapped them down, along with cutting through the nonsense about his role in this Democrat-manufactured fantasy.  He's not going to be impartial.  "I'm not an impartial juror.  This is a political process.  There's not anything judicial about it," he said on Tuesday [12/17/2019].  Knowing these articles face certain death with Senate Republicans, Pelosi and House Democrats now appear to be engaging in political extortion.  Just watch.  This is all about Senate Republicans rejecting Democratic calls for witnesses.  That's not how this works, lady.  You folks, the House Democrats, decided what's impeachable.  The Senate holds a trial based on your work.  And your work is total and complete nonsense.

David Webb:  Democrats promised to govern, voters got impeachment instead.  Fox Nation host David Webb called on American voters to ask themselves one question as Democrats argued in favor of impeaching President Trump during debates on the House floor on Wednesday [12/18/2019].  "Are they working for you as they promised?" he said on his Fox Nation show "Reality Check," adding:  "What are they actually doing in Washington, D.C., and with the remaining workdays in December?"  Webb observed that the Democratic campaign platform in the 2018 midterms did not include calls for impeachment.

A warning to conservatives:  Don't get complacent on impeachment.  The forces unleased by this shredding of the Constitution are unknown to all, and for one to assume that this will easily lead to a Trump landslide and a Democrat massive defeat is delusional and clueless as to the motives and nature of the Left.  The damage being done is incalculable, and what this all could portend is beyond our worst nightmares.  The Democrats have shunned our forefathers, the bequeathing of liberty, all lost for their lust for power.  What lies beyond that power is nothing but darkness and death — the death of our Republic and so much more, all built on their Utopian fantasies.  The world's last best hope of freedom's light extinguished.  They are this close to achieving their ultimate goal.

Watch: Democrat Rep. Tlaib Posts Video Celebrating Impeachment Vote; Trump Responds.  On her way to vote "yes" on two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, far-left Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) posted a video of herself on social media celebrating her affirmative vote and the impending impeachment.  "Hi, everyone!  I'm on my way to the United States House floor to impeach President Trump," Tlaib says in the video, smiling ear-to-ear, "on behalf of my incredible district, #13DistrictStrong."

Supercut: Democrats Are Devastated To Be Impeaching Trump.  [Video clip]

Adam Schiff and Dems seen drinking and cheering about impeachment the night before the vote.  If you believe the Democrats sob story about how they have "heavy hearts" and the impeachment vote was a sad and somber day in history, we have some bottled air to sell you.  Washington-based CEO Alex Bruesewitz posted a video on Twitter of Adam Schiff and other House Democrats celebrating at the posh DC restaurant the night before the impeachment vote.

Judge Napolitano:  Pelosi withholding articles of impeachment from Senate would be 'grave injustice'.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has a constitutional obligation to send articles of impeachment to the Senate, Judge Andrew Napolitano said Thursday [12/19/2019].  Appearing on "Fox & Friends" with hosts Pete Hegseth, Steve Doocy, and Ainsley Earhardt, Napolitano said that while he has said there was a legal basis for impeachment in the House, lawmakers now have a "moral and constitutional obligation" to send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate.  In a news conference on Wednesday, following the House impeachment vote, Pelosi said that Democrats may wait to send their articles of impeachment against President Trump to the GOP-controlled Senate, for fear that they are incapable of holding a fair trial.  "Well, guess what?" asked Napolitano.  "Under the Constitution, the Senate writes its own rules not subject to the approval of the speaker of the House or even the majority of the House."

Pelosi throws impeachment into confusion.  Minutes after the House impeached President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw the process into confusion by refusing to say when or whether she would send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial.  At a news conference held immediately after the vote, Pelosi said "we'll see what happens" when asked if she would send the articles to the Senate.

Nancy Pelosi's stomach-turning impeachment charade damages America.  The arcane rules, phony cordiality and debates over the second sentence in paragraph G of Point Six were bad enough, but the nausea meter hit the roof when Nancy Pelosi took the microphone.  Wearing a funereal black dress, she stood next to a cardboard American flag and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.  I would have counted her more honest if she had pledged her allegiance to a Democratic donkey.  As the leader of a party that has marinated its mind in unadulterated hatred of President Trump, Pelosi bears unique responsibility for this calamity.  She could have stopped it.  Indeed, for months she did.

Schumer Admits Trump [was] Impeached 'Without the Facts Coming Out'.  Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made a startling admission Tuesday when he said President Trump is about to be impeached "without the facts coming out."  The Senate Minority Leader accidentally told the truth while crybabying in the hopes of violating 200 years of impeachment precedent during Trump's upcoming senate trial.

Spineless indecision, or avoiding a conflict of interest?
2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard votes 'present' on impeachment.  Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Wednesday night [12/18/2019] voted "present" on both articles of impeachment against President Trump.  On Monday, Gabbard said she was still undecided as to how to vote, and was "taking this time for myself to be able to review everything that's happened, all the information that's been put forward."  Gabbard is the only member of the Democratic presidential field able to vote on impeachment.

House Democrats Pass Partisan Articles of Impeachment Against President Trump.  House Democrats voted to impeach President Donald Trump Wednesday [12/18/2019], making Trump the third president in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives. [...] House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) said during a speech Wednesday that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants more witnesses because he does not have all of the facts.

Some House Democrats push Pelosi to withhold impeachment articles, delay Senate trial.  A group of House Democrats is pushing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders to withhold the articles of impeachment against President Trump that are expected to emerge on Wednesday, potentially delaying a Senate trial for months.  The notion of impeaching Trump but holding the articles in the House has gained traction among some on the political left as a way of potentially forcing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to conduct a trial on more favorable terms for Democrats.  And if no agreement is reached, some have argued, the trial could be delayed indefinitely, denying Trump an expected acquittal.

The 5 worst impeachment tweets.  House Democrats took bold action by moving closer and closer toward impeaching President Trump on Wednesday, if one could describe kicking and screaming for three years as "bold."  While the impeachment process continues on its predictable outcome of the Senate acquitting Trump of any wrongdoing, individuals on both sides of the aisle decided to remove all mental filters and make it clear to their audience that they need their phone taken away.

The Democrats' one-night stand with the founders.  The Left has interrupted its regularly scheduled programming of trying to tear down the Founders' reputations and life's work — the Electoral College, the First and Second Amendments, and the Constitution generally — to claim that those Enlightenment men are on their side.  Nancy Pelosi (D-Fruits and Nuts) has proclaimed that Trump's actions "are in defiance of the vision of our Founders."  Democrat Jerrold Nadler, from the state (N.Y.) that allows prenatal infanticide up to birth and is giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, asked a shill college professor of an impeachment "witness," "[I]f Washington were here today, if he were joined by Madison, Hamilton and other Framers, what do you believe they would say if presented with the evidence before us about President Trump's conduct?"  My, my, as Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson put it Tuesday evening, "Democrats care deeply and passionately about the Founding Fathers."

Mitch McConnell says Nancy Pelosi is Scared to send him 'shoddy' articles of impeachment.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted Democrats on Thursday for creating what he called an 'unfair, unfinished product,' articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump that stemmed from 'partisan rage.'  Calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's work 'constitutionally incoherent,' he said impeaching a president on the basis of political disagreements would 'invite an endless parade of impeachable trials' in the future, making House leaders 'free to toss up a jump-ball every time they feel angry.'  'She's failed the country,' McConnell said on the House floor.  'It was like the speaker called up Chairman [Jerrold] Nadler and ordered up "One impeachment, rushed delivery, please".'

Democrat Lawmaker Tells Kids Why He's Voting to Impeach Trump.  Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) took to the House floor on Wednesday [12/18/2019] to explain to his three-year-old and one-year-old kids why he's voting to impeach President Donald Trump.  The congressman said he doesn't "feel good" about impeaching the president, but he feels he has to because he "broke our laws ... threatened our security," and "abused the highest, most sacred office in our land."

The Editor says...
If the President had broken any law at all, the Democrats would have made that abundantly clear in their impeachment resolutions, but they did not.

Impeachment as a Means to An End, and Not The End Itself.  It does not seem accidental the hastily defined two articles of impeachment mirror the arguments needed in two lower court cases brought by the House Judiciary Committee.  It is likely both articles of impeachment, "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction", are designed to support pending HJC court cases seeking:  (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation.  Because the full House did not originally vote to authorize articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee never gained 'judicial enforcement authority'.  The absence of judicial enforcement authority was evident in the lack of enforcement authority in House subpoenas.  The House could not hold anyone in contempt of congress for not appearing because they did not carry recognized judicial enforcement authority.

Cunning Lawfare Maneuver — House Will Withhold Submission of Articles from Senate.  Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the 'rules of impeachment' they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.  Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.  A cunning Lawfare ploy.

McConnell fires back:  Let's adopt the 1999 rules — with the option for dismissal.  Remember when the Senate could come to a unanimous, bipartisan approach to rules governing an impeachment trial?  Good times, good times.  In fact, those were such good times that Mitch McConnell wants to bring them back.  Rather than keep having his counterpart Chuck Schumer negotiate via MSNBC, the Senate Majority Leader announced that he'll simply reinstate the rules package that governed Bill Clinton's impeachment twenty years ago.  By the way, that also includes a dismissal option[.]

Pelosi turns impeachment circus into even more of a comedy.  Ed suggested this maneuver was on the way yesterday [12/18/2019] and now it appears that Speaker Pelosi has decided on the lame explanation the Democrats will hang their hats on.  In order to attempt to give Chuck Schumer some "leverage" in the impeachment trial, the Speaker may refuse to send the articles of impeachment to the upper chamber, dragging all of this nonsense out even further. [...] When I turned on CNN this morning, the anchors were desperately trying to explain why the Constitution doesn't demand the Speaker send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.  That's technically true, but the Constitution doesn't really "demand" much of anything, other than requiring the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside when the President is on trial.

Democrats Betray America With Impeachment Vote.  Does it count as "news" if Democrats and the media have been saying it was going to happen for more than three years?  Not quite.  Nothing about the House impeachment vote should come as a surprise.  It's the culmination of Democrats' obsession with taking down President Trump since he was elected.  When the Russia hoax didn't work out in their favor, they clung to the next best thing they could get a hold of:  Trump's completely straightforward phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky containing no evidence of quid pro quo and not a shred of wrongdoing.

Here's how McConnell & Senate Republicans should respond to Pelosi's brazenly unconstitutional act.  The Senate has the sole power under the Constitution to adjudicate an impeachment.  Therefore, Pelosi is attempting to obstruct the Senate's power to act on its constitutional authority.  McConnell should immediately put an end to this and declare the impeachment null and void, as the speaker has failed to complete the impeachment process by timely sending it to the Senate for adjudication.  McConnell has no less authority to unilaterally make such a decision than Pelosi does to withhold the administrative notification of an impeachment to the Senate either indefinitely or with conditions.  Her effort to cripple the presidency and blackmail the Senate must be defeated.

Pelosi claims bipartisan 'spring in their step' after impeachment, then shuts down questions in presser.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi undermined her own assertion that impeachment was a "somber" affair by claiming that people — regardless of political affiliation — have a "spring in their step" following Wednesday's vote.  This, of course, is predicated on the thoroughly false idea that impeachment was a bipartisan effort and was supported by people on both sides of the aisle.  Yesterday's vote was strictly along party lines, with no Republicans siding with Democrats, and President Donald Trump is facing an outpouring of both financial and emotional support as the result of impeachment.

Lindsey Graham on impeachment: 'The mob took over the House'.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the impeachment of President Trump is proof that a left-wing "mob" has taken over the House of Representatives.  Graham told "Hannity" that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed earlier this year that impeachment should be thoughtful and "bipartisan."  "What happened between March and now?" he asked.  "What happened [is] the mob took over the House.  The mob is running the Democratic Party.  If she did not move to impeach this president, she would not be Speaker."

See It:  Trump Issues Perfect Response Following Impeachment Vote.  Without even a clear crime convincingly laid out in the articles of impeachment, without a single Republican voting in favor of either article, and with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) potentiality withholding the articles from the U.S. Senate, the impeachment process appears to be a route to overturning the 2016 election, not upholding the Constitution.  Mere hours before Trump's post, Democrats voted along party lines in support of two articles of impeachment:  "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress."  While not a single Republican voted in support of either article, some Democrats defected from the party-line vote.

Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to commit Wednesday [12/18/2019] to delivering articles of impeachment to the Senate, citing concerns about an unfair trial on removing President Donald Trump from office.  Senior Democratic aides said the House was "very unlikely" to take the steps necessary to send the articles to the Senate until at least early January, a delay of at least two weeks and perhaps longer.

House Dems Approve Articles of Impeachment Against Trump.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened Wednesday's [12/18/2019] debate on the floor of the House by declaring that lawmakers are "custodians of the Constitution."  She and several of her female Democrat colleagues wore black attire in the House chamber to signify what they described as a "somber day."  That was all for show, of course.  But the black color Speaker Pelosi and her cohorts wore for Wednesday's proceedings was appropriate for an entirely different reason — to mourn the damage the House Democrats themselves have inflicted on the Constitution by their irresponsible votes.  They have earned a black mark for taking a wrecking ball to the Constitution's impeachment provisions.

Is a January Surprise Coming for Impeachment?  [Scroll down]  We've seen this playbook before and it's going to get run again.  Back when I did diaries here at RedState, I wrote a piece speculating that Democrats were going to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault based on some vague, leaked materials that came out at the time.  Like clockwork, just as it looked like Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed with ease, they pulled the trigger.  Democrats will try that tactic again.  In fact, we've already seen Adam Schiff make such an attempt in recent days, claiming to have a classified letter that implicates VP Mike Pence.  That won't be the last thing Democrats fling at the wall in hopes that something will stick.

Rudy Giuliani:  Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted.  "Trump was simply asking new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — in a July phone call — to investigate crimes at the "highest levels" of both Kiev and Washington," Rudy Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump, told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle."  "So, he is being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States," he said.  Giuliani told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" that he helped forced out Yovanovitch because she was corrupt and obstructing the investigation into Ukraine and the Bidens.

In impeachment vote, how Republicans got to zero.  After rushed and intense proceedings into the Ukraine affair, the House has voted to impeach President Trump.  The vote was 230 to 197 for the first article of impeachment charging the president with abuse of power and 229 to 198 for the second article charging him with obstruction of Congress.  For Republicans, the important numbers were zero and zero.  Not a single Republican lawmaker voted for either article of impeachment.  For the GOP, it was important to show that impeachment is an entirely partisan, Democrats-only affair, and that is precisely what happened.

How Long Island's GOP Congressman Became Impeachment's Biggest Star.  [P]erhaps no bigger star has emerged in the fight than Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), a hard-charging GOP congressman from Long Island whose district includes the Hamptons. [...] "Nancy Pelosi is throwing away her majority," Zeldin told Breitbart News in an interview for this piece.  "She's sacrificing her majority-makers from these districts that Donald Trump won.  Those Democrats who are in those districts got elected with promises to work all in on issues to move our country forward and instead of delivering on those issues they just voted to move forward with this impeachment circus. [...]"

Democrats are making a farce of impeachment.  If you've followed the impeachment process, you know that the evidence does not support the Democrats' charge.  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has issued subpoenas.  The Trump administration has argued that it is not legally bound to comply, citing the doctrine of executive privilege.  This is a debatable question that should be decided in the courts, but Schiff made a decision not to wait for the courts to adjudicate these claims of executive privilege.  Democrats have instead deemed Trump's unwillingness to comply with mere requests an impeachable offense.  They are choosing to see "high crimes" in the typical executive branch muscle-flexing that is as much a tradition in Washington as the National Christmas Tree.

The Schumer Principle:  Lying Under Oath Is Not Impeachable.  Twenty-one years ago, then-Rep. Charles Schumer worked to establish the precedent that a president could lie under oath. [...] "In my judgment," he said, "we will be substantially lowering the bar for removing a sitting precedent so that we will be in danger of all too frequently investigating presidents and seeking to remove them from office."  Schumer's argument applies to the baseless impeachment his party is pursuing today, not the well-founded impeachment he resisted in 1998.

Dems' Real Impeachment Goal:  Sabotage Trump's Second Term.  Democratic Party leaders can't possibly be unaware of the fact that their impeachment case has no merit.  Despite the endless talk of bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations and other supposed crimes Trump has committed, not one of the articles of impeachment accuses Trump of breaking any of those laws, or any federal law for that matter.  Instead, they accuse Trump of an "abuse of power" and of "obstruction of Congress."  As Sen. Ted Cruz explained this week at a Heritage Foundation event, as weak as the first article is, "the second article is orders of magnitude weaker."  "They've simply said that the mere fact that you assert a privilege is itself impeachable, without their bothering to issue a subpoena or litigating anything.

Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.  She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening [12/18/2019] after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.

Ted Cruz:  President Trump should be able to call Hunter Biden as Senate impeachment witness.  As the House prepares to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, much is being discussed about how the GOP should handle it.  Senator Ted Cruz says both sides should get a fair shake.  That includes President Trump, who the Senator from Texas believes should be able to call whatever witnesses he wants.  Two names he mentioned in this interview with ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos were controversial figures at the center of this whole mess:  Hunter Biden and the whistleblower.

A weaponized investigation being used for political purposes.  I do not think that you would need to be an admirer of President Trump or a partisan Republican (I am neither) to understand, as all mentally normal people do, that the impeachment itself is the trophy example of a weaponized investigation being used for political purposes.  You can even believe that the president should be impeached and removed from office and understand that.  Because that is the obvious truth.

Pelosi On Dropping The "Devastating" Bribery Article:  "I Am Not A Lawyer".  I was pleased to see that the Judiciary Committee dropped previous claims of bribery, extortion, campaign finance and obstruction of justice as the basis for impeachment.  I testified that the repeated assurances on these allegations from members, legal analysts, and my fellow witnesses were well outside the definitions for these crimes.  The Committee ultimately went forward with the only two articles that I viewed as legitimate while rejecting my arguments to wait to build a sufficient record for submission to the Senate.  I have received considerable criticism for my long opposition to the bribery theory as unsustainable as an impeachable offense.  Thus, I was interested in hearing from the two members who were most adamant in their past declarations that bribery was established:  Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff.  Speaker Pelosi has now responded and her answer is far from satisfying.

House Democrats Violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in Impeachment Inquiry.  House Democrats violated the Bill of Rights in pursuing their impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.  Republicans have pointed out that Democrats' articles of impeachment, especially the second article charging "obstruction of Congress," punish the president for obeying the Constitution's checks-and-balances.

Seven indisputable facts about this 'historic' impeachment that historians will use to condemn it as 'folly'.  Even though the leftist-dominated psychology and psychiatric professions refuse to acknowledge it, Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, a genuine mass psychosis, and it is at the root of the impeachment vote today.  It is often speculated that the real goal of Democrats is to "place an asterisk" next to President Trump's name.  But as the passion of the moment subsides and historians take a longer look, here are seven facts that will place an asterisk next to this impeachment, as a monumentally foolish act of political malpractice: [...]

McConnell wants quick impeachment dismissal vote: 'We've heard enough'.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday he believes the Senate should vote quickly to dismiss two impeachment charges against President Trump and avoid "an embarrassing scene" in the chamber.  McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, told Fox News Radio he did not support "a show trial" and believes the Senate "ought to vote and move on" after Democrats present their case and the president's lawyers respond.  The Senate will have to make a decision after hearing the opening arguments from both sides, he said.

McConnell rips Schumer impeachment demands, vows not to pursue 'fishing expedition'.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell struck back Tuesday at his Democratic counterpart's calls for an in-depth impeachment trial featuring multiple new witnesses, dismissing the push as a "fishing expedition" that would set a "nightmarish precedent."  "The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury, to hear a trial, not to re-run the entire fact-finding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it," he said on the Senate floor.

Eric Swalwell's Trump comment on CNN sparks Twitter furor: 'We can only conclude that you're guilty'.  Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said Tuesday that if President Trump refuses to send the documents and witnesses that House Democrats requested in the impeachment inquiry, "We can only conclude that you're guilty," sparking critics on Twitter to accuse him of suggesting the president is guilty until proven innocent.  "In America, innocent men do not hide and conceal evidence," Swalwell added, in his conversation with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.  "They are forthcoming and they want to cooperate and the president is acting like a very guilty person right now."

On impeachment, an invitation to a motion to dismiss.  Chuck Schumer's moan that "the facts" need to "com[e] out" before a full impeachment trial can occur is an invitation to a motion to dismiss the House's articles of impeachment, once they arrive.  The House had its opportunity to develop the facts.  If it didn't develop facts sufficient to support removing the president, the Senate shouldn't waste its time on the matter.  Mitch McConnell reportedly is considering a motion to dismiss.  According to this report, he hinted that the Senate will move to dismiss the articles of impeachment after opening argument.  McConnell noted that in the 1999 trial of Bill Clinton, Schumer supported a motion to dismiss the case.  He also recalled that Schumer opposed calling live witnesses.  This time around, Schumer wants to call at least four witnesses who did not appear before the House.

Democrats are talking to each other on impeachment.  Today's the big impeachment day, and the Democrats are still yelling and piously intoning about its importance. [...] There's just one problem:  the public is not paying attention. [...] Yet Democrats can't stop intoning gravely about it and promoting it.  They are, in effect, talking to each other because the public isn't interested.  There are plenty of reasons for that — starting with the fact that already know how the story will end — as another trip to the well of dull thuds, same as the left's dreams of impeachment on day one, the claims to electoral fraud, the Mueller investigation of Russia collusion, and now this can't-win maneuver in the House heading to the Senate, which has no intention of accommodating what's derisively now known as the Schiff show after impeachment spearheader Rep. Adam Schiff.

The Impeachment Hoax Is Exposed.  This week, just days before Christmas, Democrats are going to take the radical step of impeaching President Trump despite the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing — a crooked process run by Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler amid opposition from a majority of the American people.  It's clear that this entire process isn't about following the law, but rather about partisan politics and undoing the 2016 election.

Trump asks nation to pray over his impeachment, says he's done nothing wrong.  With nearly all Democrats planning to vote in favor, Mr. Trump will become only the third president in history to be impeached.  Republicans say he will be acquitted in a Senate trial sometime next month, sparing Mr. Trump from being removed from office.  Soon after the expected House vote, Mr. Trump will hold a campaign "Merry Christmas rally" Wednesday night with Vice President Mike Pence in Battle Creek, Michigan.  The campaign also plans to use impeachment in an aggressive online push for campaign donations.

Democrats lay out case for Wednesday Trump impeachment vote.  House Democrats laid out their impeachment case against President Donald Trump on Monday, a sweeping report accusing him of betraying the nation and deserving to be ousted, as key lawmakers began to signal where they stand ahead of this week's landmark votes.  What Democrats once hoped would be a bipartisan act — only the third time in U.S. history the House will be voting to impeach a president — is now on track to be a starkly partisan roll call Wednesday.  No Republicans are breaking with the president, and almost all Democrats are expected to approve the charges against him.

House Judiciary Committee Report Misquotes Trump — Again — on Article II.  The House Judiciary Committee's final report accompanying its articles of impeachment misquotes President Donald Trump — again — talking about his powers under Article II of the Constitution.  As Breitbart News reported during the Judiciary Committee's hearings earlier this month, Democrats repeatedly misquoted Trump as claiming that Article II of the Constitution entitles him to do "whatever I want" as president.

Liberal Media Scream:  New York Times' columnist demands impeachment 'to preserve America'.  This week's Liberal Media Scream features celebrated New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman declaring that only impeaching President Trump will preserve the nation.  In a "Point-CounterPoint" segment on CBS's Sunday Morning [12/15/2019], Friedman declared:  "President Trump not only should be impeached, he must be impeached, if we're to preserve America as we've known it."

White House responds to Schumer's 'laughable' request after Dems' 'midnight' impeachment move.  With the Democrat-led House all but certain to vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump, the focus shifts to the U.S. Senate, where a trial will be held and, continuing in the Democratic Party's rich tradition of double standards, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is already questioning the fairness of such a trial.  In what Schumer equates to fairness, he wants to call his choice of witnesses, even as he denies the opposition the same right, dismissing their choices as "extraneous" witnesses.

Donald Trump Blasts Impeachment as 'Illegal, Partisan Attempted Coup'.  President Donald Trump slammed the House Democrats' ongoing impeachment process as an "illegal, partisan attempted coup" in a scathing letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday afternoon.  "By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy," President Trump wrote in the six-page letter.  "You are the ones interfering in America's elections.  You are the ones subverting America's Democracy.  You are the ones Obstructing Justice," the president added.

Democrats want an impeachment, but no trial.  Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who has been giving Democrats bad advice freely for decades, had a new brainstorm: impeach President Donald John Trump but never let him have a trial in the Senate to clear his good name. [...] Others are joining in.  Chuck Schumer is now whining about not getting a fair trial.  How Orwellian because the Sixth Amendment makes it clear that that the president — not the impeachment horde — has the right to a fair trial.

Schiff Wants His Own Witnesses at Senate Trial After Denying GOP Witnesses in House Impeachment Inquiry.  Democrats have a long history of playing by their own rules when it suits them politically, only to be shocked and outraged when Republicans turn the tables on them. [...] Once again, their blatant politicization of rules and processes is coming back to bite them, as impeachment appears to be headed for the Senate soon, where Republicans get to run the show.  After denying House Republicans the opportunity to call their own witnesses and present exculpatory evidence, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff isn't so happy about the rules being used against him and wants some witnesses and documents of his choosing to be introduced during the Senate impeachment trial.

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment.  The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.  That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order.  In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of subpoenas, and the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both authorities that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch.  The House of Representatives will do likewise, when it votes to approve the articles, as the chamber is expected to do so Wednesday.

Democrats are going to try to "Kavanaugh" the Impeachment Trial with new accusations.  Not surprisingly, while Mitch McConnell usually gets his way, Schumer gets the headlines and TV coverage.  Schumer did that again today with his demand for a "fair" trial, meaning to Schumer that Democrats get to reopen the investigation of Trump during the trial, including calling witnesses who did not testify, and doing the job the House Democrats failed to do.  A do-over.  That's not usually the way trials work — the pleading of claims and discovery takes place before the trial.  House Democrats chose not to do that for key witnesses they wanted — including John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney — because forcing them to testify in the House would have meant court litigation.  Democrats were on a timetable driven by the 2020 election that did not allow for a court to decide the clash of branches, so they went with what they had.

Discovery would make impeachment hurt.  [Scroll down]  After 60 days of depositions and discovery, the trial could begin on March 3, with President Trump's lawyers filing a motion to dismiss the impeachment because there is no crime cited, as is required by the Constitution.  Chief Justice Roberts is no fool.  He would turn the question over to the Senate, which would vote to dismiss because the impeachment would be a national joke by that time.  Democrats would not like to see their nominee, Quid Pro Joe, on the stand, so they would welcome the impeachment's end.  There are many ways to play impeachment, especially when you are innocent.

Impeachment moves to Senate.  Get ready for a scramble — and a January surprise.  With a House impeachment vote a foregone conclusion, the battle to remove President Trump from office has moved to the Senate.  Minority Leader Chuck Schumer grabbed control of the debate Monday with demands for what he called "fairness" in the president's trial.  Schumer wants the Senate to allow testimony from four witnesses the House did not interview: former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, key Mulvaney aide Robert Blair, and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.  House Democratic impeachers wanted the men to testify, but after the White House, claiming privilege, refused, House leaders chose not to try to force them to appear.  Going to court to compel their testimony, Democrats said, would take too much time.  Now, Schumer wants the witnesses simply to forget about privilege questions and testify in the Senate trial.

Schumer's Hail Mary bid to save Dems' disastrous impeachment drive.  Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer knows his House colleagues bungled their "impeachment inquiry" so badly that they managed to shift public opinion markedly against removing the president.  So he's hoping for a do-over.  That's the essence of Schumer's butter-wouldn't-melt-in-his-mouth proposals for the Senate trial:  He's asking the GOP Senate majority to do what the House Democratic majority opted not to do, namely try to get some more White House documents and compel testimony from witnesses, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.  In other words:  Do more fishing in hopes of getting something that might damage President Trump.

The Impeachment Show Trial.  Long gone is the Democratic Party of President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Senators Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn.  It is now a party of hardcore leftists, more aligned with Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson.  They are now completely driven by extreme leftist ideology.  Lacking evidence that President Trump committed any crime or even did anything morally wrong, they recklessly passed articles of impeachment, with no regard to the great damage they are doing to our Republic.  The Democratic Party once had statesmen, but it is now the refuge of demagogues.  Their Stalinist impeachment show trial demonstrated gross disrespect for our elections and the peaceful transition of power.  This has been nothing less than an attempted coup d'etat, but these de facto communist revolutionaries will face the wrath of the American voter.

Adam Schiff is Shameless.  According to the Democrats running this circus, this is a very serious moment in the history of our country warranting serious measures that have only been taken two other times in the nation's history.  So, what does Schiff do?  He travels to New York to appear on a comedy show.

Chief Justice Roberts May Decide the Next Election.  The latest news is that the Republican leadership is thinking about trying to vote to acquit President Trump without a trial or hearing any witnesses.  That has never been done, but it would be a smart move politically.  Despite the president's statements that he wants a full trial in the Senate, an impeachment trial is unlikely to help President Trump win reelection.  How a Senate trial will come across to the public will depend on which evidence Chief Justice John Roberts allows and which he excludes.  Most of the evidence that the Democrats want to admit could probably be presented, but a lot of the most important evidence that the Republicans want to present probably would not be allowed.  Those who think that the Republicans can turn the tables on the Democrats and put Hunter Biden and FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign on trial in the Senate are probably sadly mistaken.

Ratcliffe: I Wouldn't Want to Bank My Political Future on Adam Schiff's Credibility But Democrats Have Made That Mistake.  During an appearance on Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures," Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) previewed next week's vote on articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives.  Ratcliffe explained how he saw congressional Democrats betting on the findings of House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), which he suggested was not a good bet.  "The vote will be on Wednesday, despite what a Democratic scholar called the fastest, thinnest, weakest impeachment in U.S. history," he said.

Dems' Trump impeachment case 'weak' and dangerous, House Judiciary Republicans argue as report is released.  Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote that President Trump is a threat to the Constitution and should be removed from office, according to the committee's 658-page report on the articles of impeachment resolution against Trump that was submitted early Monday [12/16/2019].  The majority wrote that President Trump abused his office by soliciting the interference of Ukraine in the 2020 election and then obstructed the impeachment inquiry into his conduct.  The report was released at 12:30 a.m. ET., and included a dissent from the committee's minority that called the case for impeachment "not only weak but dangerously lowers the bar for future impeachments."

Schiff Doesn't Want Schiff Treatment In the Senate.  Democrats had every opportunity to conduct impeachment proceedings in whatever manner they deemed appropriate.  But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is now upset that Senate Republicans will be afforded the same opportunity in the Senate.  "I think there are any number of witnesses that should be called in the Senate trial, and many witnesses the American people would like to hear from that the administration has refused to make available," Schiff complained to ABC's "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos.  Rep. Jerrold Nadler also spoke to Stephanopolous and echoed Chairman Schiff's concerns about the Senate trial.  Of course, Republicans also had a long list of witnesses they wanted to hear from during the Democrat-led impeachment hearings in the House.

Democrats Busted for Napping and Watching Golf on Laptop During Anti-Trump Hearings.  These lawmakers are trying to interfere in the 2020 election by silencing American voters — and they're so flippant about it that they're sitting around watching the President Cup Golf Tournament during the hearing.

Dershowitz: Supreme Court Just Destroyed 2nd Article of Impeachment.  Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz pointed out on Friday that the Supreme Court had undercut the Democrats' second article of impeachment by agreeing to hear three White House appeals against subpoenas.  The second article of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee earlier Friday on a party-line vote accuses President Donald Trump of "obstruction of Congress" because he appealed to the courts rather than immediately obeying congressional subpoenas.

Is a trap being set for Trump in the Senate trial?  Can 20 U.S. senators withstand the potentially irresistible temptation to reverse the results of the 2016 election and remove a president a number of them openly or privately dislike?  Since Donald Trump announced his intention to run for the White House on June 16, 2015, many of the entrenched elites across the various power centers of Washington and beyond have spent many of their waking hours trying to stop or unseat him.  The political charade of an impeachment "investigation" is but the latest example.  But that impeachment charade could harbor the greatest threat to Trump's presidency.

The Democrats are engaged in a coup.  What do we do about it?  The Democrats have been telling a story.  The Republicans have noted (quite properly in my view) that this particular story has quickly morphed from mere political maneuvering into grave legal proceeding, and as such can no longer be permitted to hide beneath cloaks of insinuation, emotion, and supposition.  They have rightfully demanded that the "story" be stripped, so all can see clearly whether there is indeed a skeleton of facts, or merely a rush of hot air keeping the story upright, like some grotesque inflatable yard decoration.  The rules of order have been twisted and warped by the House Democrats to prevent the examination of the story.  Legal prohibitions on conduct have been disregarded, longstanding rules of evidence dismissed, all to protect the story from revealing its framework.  Make no mistake:  there is hard evidence to be presented, examined, and adjudicated.  It just isn't to be found among the slanderous ephemera the Democrats are calling a case for impeachment.  The hard evidence is on the side of the president.

Unconstitutional Impeachment:  The Real Abuse of Power.  The House has filed articles of impeachment against President Trump.  The charges are vague, not criminal, not in line with constitutional requirements, but Democrats don't care.  The American people are opposed to this illegal impeachment, but again, Democrats don't care.  They have a mission, and nothing will stand in their way.  But then we've been here before, haven't we?  In 2009, our government rolled over us like a tank in Tiananmen Square to pass Obamacare.  Like impeachment, Obamacare was unpopular, opposed by most Americans.  Like impeachment, Congress and their media pushed the lies, the empty promises: to tamp down opposition.  And here we go again.  Nancy's marshaling her forces to once again steamroll the people.  And she's just as committed to overthrowing our government as she was to enacting a socialist takeover of our health care.  Our government operates outside the will of voters because it can.  Once we send these people to Washington, we relinquish control, have no way to stop them until the next election, usually years away.

How can these five senators possibly be 'impartial' jurors?  Let's get this straight now: a Senate impeachment trial is not a court of law.  It's a court of politics.  Courts of law require evidence to go to trial — not opinions from bureaucrats.  In a court of law, a defendant has a right to a jury of his peers — in a court of politics, he gets 100 politicians.  If the Senate impeachment trial were a real court, all 100 senators would be removed as jurors for bias for or against the president.  But here's my question:  Why is the media only asking Republicans if they can be "impartial jurors" when five of the Democrats in the Senate are actively running for the defendant's job?

The costs of trivializing impeachment.  Resorting to a vague "abuse of power" theory, the House Judiciary Committee Friday morning referred two articles of impeachment to the full House on the inevitable party-line vote.  The full House will impeach the president this week, perhaps Wednesday, also on the inevitable party-line vote.  The scarlet "I" will be affixed to Donald Trump in the history books.  He will not be removed from power by the Senate, however, and he has a fairly good chance of being reelected by the voters.

Jerry Nadler:  House Rules Don't Apply Until After Impeachment.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) offered a bizarre justification Thursday for ignoring House rules requiring him to allow Republicans to call witnesses:  it did not say he had to do so on a particular day.  The existing resolution authorizing the impeachment inquiry, H. Res. 660, allows the Ranking Member of the committee to call witnesses — subject to the approval of the chair and a majority vote by the whole committee.

Nadler's Frightening Abuse of Power.  When the Dear Leader of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, said that this was too important a matter to trust to the voters in the next election, he and his ilk gave us a frightening preview of the Gulag into which they would put We the People, should they gain full control of the government. [...] They call the President a dictator, yet can't wait for the next election.  That election would be tainted and corrupt, don't ya know.  Any election Trump might win would be "tainted" by definition.

Democrats' Impeachment and the Boy Who Cried Wolf.  Democrats have not simply overplayed their hand; they have played it over and over and over again.  They had worn out their case before they had begun to even pursue it.  They had made it old news before they made it actual news.  Cheapening impeachment may prove costly indeed, and Democrats have only just begun to pay it.  The boy who cried wolf desired to get a reaction.  Ultimately, the reaction was the opposite of the one desired.  The boy had no one to blame but himself.  The same circumstances apply now to the Democrats.  They desired above everything to delegitimize Trump and drive America from him.  Instead, they have delegitimized their effort.

Blumenthal: Mitch McConnell Is 'Undermining the Credibility' of Impeachment Trial.  On Friday's [12/13/2019] broadcast of CNN's "The Situation Room," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) coordinating with the White House about the upcoming Senate impeachment trial was "improper."  Blumenthal said, "It is improper.  He said not only is he coordinating but taking his cues from the White House.  He seems to be abandoning all pretense or semblance of objectivity and independence.  It's also unprecedented.  In every one of the past proceedings, Republicans and Democrats have worked together. [...]"

The Editor says...
Oh, now he's worried about the Republicans and Democrats working together, after the one-sided process we've seen over the last few months.

Bass: 'McConnell Should Recuse Himself'.  On Friday's [12/13/2019] broadcast of MSNBC's "The Last Word," Representative Karen Bass (D-CA) called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to recuse himself from the Senate's impeachment trial.  Bass said, "The leader of the Senate has basically said he is in lockstep, and he is going to coordinate with the defendant.  And so, if you can imagine going into a courtroom in a trial and the foreman of the jury says, well, I'm working with the person that's being accused of the crime.  And so, it's completely inappropriate. [...]"

The Editor says...
Sometimes the Democrats say that the President can be impeached multiple times, because double jeopardy doesn't apply, because it's not a criminal procedure.  At other times, they insist that all the rules of a criminal courtroom apply.  This is known as "playing on both sides of the fence."

Kangaroo Court — Chairman Nadler Stuns House Judiciary, Adjourns Hearing Without Notice.  The fiasco within the House Judiciary Committee assembling articles for impeachment went from partisan bias to unilaterally ridiculous when Chairman Nadler used banana republic tactics to adjourn the committee and simultaneously schedule a vote on the two articles of impeachment for 10:00 am tomorrow [12/14/2019].  Obviously the House democrats are beginning to panic as each day American voter support is dropping fast.  Combine that political reality with an international earthquake in the U.K. elections, and the reverberations travel into the impeachment debate.  It is clear from their behavior that Pelosi and Nadler need to finish this mess; and fast.

The Inspector General's Report.  Trump asked the Ukrainian president to find out whether Biden and his son were influence-peddling in Ukraine.  Trump didn't try to write the verdict of his inquiry; he asked a reasonable question.  The Democrats, if any of them retain their sanity despite the simulation of a lunatic asylum their party is conducting, would be at least as curious as the Republicans to hear the answer.  Last week Nadler had four constitutional experts before the committee, including three rabid Trump haters, one so overwrought that she couldn't walk on the sidewalk in front of Washington's Trump Hotel.

Boy, Have the Democrats Ever Overplayed Their Hand!  The Democrats have given new meaning to the term "overplaying your hand," and their witch hunt will continue to backfire.  They will fail to remove Trump from office and, through their egregious overreach, will have probably ensured his re-election.  Given the timely release of the inspector general's report on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses, their bogus impeachment crusade has been further exposed as an appalling partisan travesty.  It cannot be repeated too often that the thrust of the Democrats' complaint against Trump is that he is a walking high crime and misdemeanor.  They consider him so heinous that they needn't produce evidence of actual treason, bribery or other "high crimes."  They've been trying to unseat him from the moment he was sworn in, and they're still trying, despite the failure of their previous efforts.  Democrats talked of impeachment before he took office, and Democratic Reps.  Al Green, Brad Sherman and Steve Cohen initiated a formal impeachment effort the first year of Trump's presidency.

Jim Jordan Moves To Strike Article I From Impeachment Resolution, Tears Apart Democrats' Entire Case Against Trump.  Rep. Jim Jordan on Thursday proposed an amendment to strike the first article of impeachment against President Trump, asserting that evidence supporting the article does not prove the allegations of abuse of power.  "This amendment strikes article one because article one ignores the truth," said the Ohio Republican.  Jordan, who's been a star on the GOP side throughout the impeachment sham, cited a White House memorandum documenting Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, noting that contains no evidence whatsoever that Trump demanded a quid pro quo related by calling for Ukraine to investigate his political opponents before he would release hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to the nation.

The Democrats' Bad Poker Faces.  [Scroll down]  Lastly, there is the question of whether the Senate ought to have a trial in which they call Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, the "anonymous" whistleblower, and others as witnesses.  Trump is said to favor this, while Mitch McConnell is said to be against it in favor of getting the whole thing over with quickly.  He may be right about this, but it is certainly worth deploying his own very good poker face to suggest that just maybe the Senate will call on the Bidens for an accounting of things.  The final wild card, suggested by John Yoo, is that Trump himself could demand to appear in the Senate to defend himself.  You could easily see Trump doing this, to the largest TV ratings in this history of the known universe.

Where Are the 'High Crimes'?  [Scroll down]  Such clashes are usually decided by the third branch, the Supreme Court.  But Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff are unwilling to wait for the court to decide.  They are declaring the issue decided and settled in the House's favor, and treating Trump's recourse to the courts as a new impeachable offense:  "Obstruction of Congress."  Can Pelosi seriously expect a Republican Senate to convict and remove a Republican president for defending what that president is claiming in open court are the constitutional rights of the Executive Branch that he, as its present occupant and leader, is obligated to defend?  Trump would be derelict in his duty if he allowed a rogue House to run roughshod over the White House.

The GOP's Four-Point Defense Of Trump Is Devastating.  Essentially the Democrats are accusing Trump of shaking down Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky by withholding aid and demanding announcement of investigations, including one involving Joe Biden's son, Hunter.  To this, the central charge in the articles of impeachment, Rep. Jim Jordan and others presented four specific facts.  First, both Trump and Zelensky say there was no pressure applied.  Second, the transcript does not indicate Trump making any demands or setting any conditions.  Third, Ukraine was not aware that the aid was delayed.  And fourth, aid flowed without any announcement of investigations.  Taken together, these four defenses have more than enough weight to crush the Democrats' case, but lets look at them one by one. [...]

Republicans erupt as Nadler suddenly postpones impeachment vote near midnight.  Gobsmacked Republicans made known their fury and frustration late Thursday as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., abruptly wrapped up an all-day marathon hearing on the adoption of two articles of impeachment against President Trump by delaying planned votes on the matter until Friday morning [12/13/2019].  "It is now very late at night," Nadler said shortly before midnight in D.C.  "I want the members on both sides of the aisle to think about what has happened over these last two days, and to search their consciences before we cast their final votes.  Therefore, the committee will now stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., at which point I will move to divide the question so that each of us may have the opportunity to cast up-or-down votes on each of the articles of impeachment, and let history be our judge."

McConnell: Senate Has 2 Choices on Impeachment; Hold a Trial or Proceed to a Quick Vote.  As the House Judiciary Committee moves closer to voting on two articles of impeachment against President Trump, Senate Republicans are mulling "two choices," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday [12/11/2019].

Mike Pence blows smoke rings at Adam Schiff.  [Scroll down]  It's a sign that the impeachment effort is in trouble.  From Schiff's point of view, impeachment that fails is impeachment that will have to go on forever, an endless impeachment unless Democrats get thrown out of power.  Pence's calm refusal to play along with Schiff's never-ending impeachment bid is a splendid means of signaling that Team Trump is pretty confident the impeachment effort is garbage and on its way to failure in the Senate and maybe even the House.  Confident leaders don't jump to Schiff's frenzied moves.  What a boob Schiff has made of himself with this, then.  Pence's refusal to cooperate with his non-stop demands is a sure sign that impeachment is losing.

Graham says he won't call any impeachment witnesses in Senate committee: 'It's a crock'.  Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Thursday that he wants the Democratic-led impeachment "sham" process to end quickly.  Appearing on "America's Newsroom" with hosts Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith, Graham said he'd like to end the impeachment process "as soon as possible."  "I don't want to give it any legitimacy because it's a crock," he said, noting that "every impeachment except this one has been conducted by outside counsel."

Republicans consider skipping witnesses in Trump impeachment trial.  Senate Republicans are weighing a speedy impeachment trial that could include no witnesses for President Trump's legal team or for House Democrats.  The discussions come as the House is moving forward with articles of impeachment against Trump, teeing up a trial in the Senate that would start in January.  The White House has indicated publicly that it has a wish list of potential witnesses, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry.

How Should the Senate Deal with an Unconstitutional Impeachment by the House?  If the House of Representatives were to impeach President Trump on the two grounds now before it, the senate would be presented with a constitutional dilemma.  These two grounds — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — are not among the criteria specified for impeachment.  Neither one is a high crime and misdemeanor.  Neither is mentioned in the constitution.  Both are the sort of vague, open-ended criteria rejected by the framers.  They were rejected precisely to avoid the situation in which our nation currently finds itself.  Abuse of power can be charged against virtually every controversial president by the opposing party. [...] Were Congress to vote to impeach President Trump on the two proposed grounds, its action would be unconstitutional.  According to Hamilton in Federalist 78, any act of Congress that does not comport with the Constitution is "void."  This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison and is now the law of the land.

Trump impeachment driven by Democrats' evidence-free hysteria and wild allegations.  From the moment Donald Trump was inaugurated, Washington Democrats have been myopically focused on politically targeting his administration and impeaching him. [...] After a bungled process, a weak fact pattern, and a crumbling narrative, it's now beyond any doubt:  there is no policy priority too important and no lack of evidence too glaring that will prevent Washington Democrats from going after this president.  It has been the Democrats' single-minded goal this entire Congress.  They are an angry mob seeking validation.  An impeachment machine in search of a cause.

Is Trump the Only Adult in the Room?  [N]o president in modern memory has been on the receiving end of such overwhelmingly negative media coverage and a three-year effort to abort his presidency, beginning the day after his election.  Do we remember the effort to subvert the Electoral College to prevent Trump from assuming office?  The first impeachment try during his initial week in office?  Attempts to remove Trump using the ossified Logan Act or the emoluments clause of the Constitution?  The idea of declaring Trump unhinged, subject to removal by invoking the 25th Amendment?  Special counsel Robert Mueller's 22-month, $35 million investigation, which failed to find Trump guilty of collusion with Russia in the 2016 election and failed to find actionable obstruction of justice pertaining to the non-crime of collusion?  The constant endeavors to subpoena Trump's tax returns and to investigate his family, lawyers and friends?  Now, frustrated Democrats plan to impeach Trump, even as they are scrambling to find the exact reasons why and how.

Overturning an election is exactly what a coup is.
Impeachment markup heats up as Dems invoke MLK, Nadler says 'we cannot rely on an election' to oust Trump.  The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday night began the first phase of a fiery "markup" process for the two articles of impeachment against President Trump that they have settled on, barreling toward a final floor vote even as moderate Democrats in GOP-leaning districts have floated the idea of backing down in favor of a censure resolution.  Almost immediately, the evening proceedings broke out into heated disagreement, as the panel's top Democrat declared that it would be unsafe to wait until the 2020 election to remove Trump, and another claimed Trump's actions were an "affront to the memory of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."

The Editor says...
Huh?  I guess I must have dozed off for a moment.  An affront to the memory of MLK is an impeachable offense now?

The Democrats' impeachment announcement was sad, pathetic and weird.  House Democrats made it official — they will vote on two impeachment articles.  But as history-making events go, the announcement was extra weird.  The decision was expected, yet the way it unfolded was strange.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi obviously put out an order requiring her team to adopt a sackcloth-and-ashes pose for the cameras, as if they were attending a funeral.  No high-fives, back-slapping and smiles today!  Gotta pretend we're not enjoying this!  The act surely didn't fool anyone.  The rabid Dem base is certainly cheering the moment, and President Trump supporters won't be tricked by phony long faces.

No Impeachment, Let the American People Decide.  he Democrats have filed Articles of Impeachment.  No one is surprised, because impeachment has been the goal for the radical Left and others who dislike the president since before his election.  Impeachment of a president is a solemn undertaking.  It will inevitably, as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 65, veer toward political factions.  Yet it is important that our Founders intentionally did not embrace "recalls" or "votes of no confidence."  Rather, our system demands from Congress evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and contemplates a level of behavior commensurate with the chaos inflicted on the republic by potential removal of a president.  By its very structure, it suggests a judicious exercise of that constitutional safeguard when the people have a clear opportunity to render their own judgment in less than a year.

Democrat Karen Bass says she's open to impeach Trump again if he gets reelected in 2020.  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."

The Editor says...
Harvey Levin presented his own erroneous opinion as fact when he said there is "no such thing, really, as double jeopardy in an impeachment trial because it's political."  His assumption that the Senate will be taken over by the Democrats is completely baseless.  Mr. Levin can run his TV show any way he wants, but in my opinion he should stick to Hollywood tabloid-quality gossip and leave politics to someone else.

The Burden of Impeachment.  Constitutionally backward is how we would describe the assertion by the Democrats that President Trump is being contemptuous of Congress by failing to mount in the House a defense against impeachment. [...] It's a bedrock principle in American law, after all, that in criminal matters — and that's what bribery, treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors are — the burden is always, and entirely, on the prosecution.  No man is ever required to defend himself from a crime in America.  Failing to do so is not demeaning.  Nor, for that matter, is it all that unusual for a person accused of a crime to fail to mount a defense.  Particularly, in an American courtroom, when the defense reckons the prosecution hasn't presented a compelling case.  In criminal courts, of course, the burden of proof is enormously high; the prosecution must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Republicans Prepare to Call No Witnesses During Senate Impeachment Trial.  [Scroll down]  Senator Lindsey Graham agreed, saying he wants to avoid the Senate trial "going on longer than it needs to."  "I want to end this," the South Carolina Republican said.  Graham said Sunday he does not plan to call as a witness House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, whom House Republicans attempted to call before the House Judiciary Committee during last week's impeachment hearings.  "I'm not going to participate in things that I think will destroy the country," Graham explained.  "We're not going to turn the Senate into a circus."

The Editor says...
The circus is already well underway.  Clowns are everywhere, but Trump is the only elephant.  The circus is merely moving to the Senate, right on schedule.  Calling Adam Schiff as a witness would show the country what a reckless buffoon he is, and how little factual basis he had to get the kangaroo court as far as it got.  Senator Graham's rush to dismissal sounds like the action of a man who's not sure what would come to light during an extended discussion of the facts.  An impeachment is not a circus, if it is conducted properly, which it has not been, thus far.  If one assumes the very best about Senator Graham and his motives, it is possible that he is trying to keep Adam Schiff from being able to claim double jeopardy protection when Mr. Schiff eventually faces the music for falsifying the Congressional Record, slandering the President, or some other charge.  But that optimism assumes a lot of facts that are not evident.

Democrats Are The Inspector Javert Of U.S. Politics.  Unless the Senate removes President Donald Trump from the White House after articles of impeachment have been filed against him this week, it appears we're going to go through the entire affair again and again, until the 45th president is either kicked out, loses reelection, or serves out a second term.  The Democrats have developed an unhealthy obsession that is clearly based on their hatred of the man.  House Democrats announced Tuesday that they will charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, who seems to have a maniacal fixation on the president, claims the evidence of wrongdoing is "overwhelming and uncontested."  Of course the media are saying the Democrats have bagged their man.  But more than a few, and not all of them Republicans, say the case against Trump is weak.

'Abuse of Power' [is] a Shaky Ground for Impeachment.  Democrats' articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump allege "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" — the two weakest possible charges among the many the House had been considering.  The term "abuse of power" does not appear in the Constitution's Impeachment Clause, which specifies that Congress's power of impeachment covers "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."  That is not simply a conservative, originalist position: many liberal scholars agree.  Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, author of the recent Case Against Impeaching Trump, argues in his that "abuse of power" is never impeachable — at least not without an underlying crime.  In this case, there is none.

Impeachment is a vicious crime against voters who elected Trump president — He broke no laws.  House Democrats are redefining "impeachable offense" to mean whatever President Trump does.  Democratic leaders announced two articles of impeachment against the president Tuesday that marked a radical departure from all of American history.  For the first time, the House is rushing to impeach a president without even claiming he broke the law.  Days before the announcement, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee heralded their unprecedented move by unveiling what they called constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment.  The Democrats argued that President Trump should be impeached despite acting legally.  They said a president can be impeached "for exercising power with a corrupt purpose, even if his action would otherwise be permissible."

Jerry Nadler's absolutely underwhelming articles of impeachment.  Just 11 weeks after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her "official impeachment inquiry," Judiciary Committee chief Jerry Nadler released his draft articles of impeachment — remarkably weak ones.  The same day, Pelosi announced a deal with President Trump to pass his US-Mexico-Canada trade deal, replacing NAFTA.  It's a win for him and for her moderate members — yet the speaker is simultaneously treating the president as a threat to the republic and as a man she can do business with.  The reason may be as simple as the polls:  The latest Quinnipiac survey shows sentiment against impeachment at its strongest since Pelosi got the ball rolling on Sept. 24, with more than half of voters now saying Trump shouldn't be removed from office.

Adam Schiff:  Congress Must Impeach Trump to Stop Him in 2020.  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Tuesday indicated that Democrats must impeach President Trump quickly in order to stop him from prevailing in the 2020 presidential election.  Democrats on Tuesday [12/10/2019] unveiled two articles of impeachment against the president:  abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  Notably, neither allege a high crime or misdemeanor.  Noticeably absent was the Democrats' longheld appeal to bribery, extortion, or treason.

House Democrats Unveil Two Articles of Impeachment Against Trump.  House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump over his contacts with Ukraine:  Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  "Today, in the service to our duty to the Constitution and to our country, the House Judiciary Committee is introducing two articles of impeachment, charging the President of the United States of committing high crimes and misdemeanors," Nadler said, flanked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and other House committee chairs

OANN Goes to Ukraine to Investigate Yovanovitch, Biden — and Graham.  [Scroll down]  Has it struck any of you that not one network, not one paper has sent a reporter to Ukraine to ferret this story out?  The media seems to be reporting verbatim what government officials are telling them, like Lieutenant Colonel Vindman — O say can you see — and Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill and Bill Taylor and George Kent and whoever the hell else.  Whatever they say is what gets printed.  Whatever Clapper says gets printed.  Whatever Brennan says gets printed.  There hasn't been one investigative story about this.  Everything that's been reported has been what deep state, administrative state officials are saying about Donald Trump.  That's it.  So in this instance, it is the deep state running the media.  You know, my theory is that the media has been running the Democrat Party, and I still think that's the case.  But we don't have even the slightest bit of curiosity.  The Drive-By Media has no desire to ferret out the real truth of this story.

Impeachment and the Confrontation Clause.  The clamoring likes of Rep. Andrew Schiff, Conservative Review's Andrew C. McCarthy, the Washington Post's Deanna Paul, Professor Steve Vladeck, and others similarly ill-advised — the "Constitutional Deniers" — are intellectually and historically errant to suggest that the Constitution has no place in congressional proceedings and processes — especially impeachment proceedings.  These Constitutional Deniers use the hollow argument that impeachment is not a criminal process, therefore the Sixth Amendment does not apply. [...] The very fact that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are the entry point to begin the impeachment process seems to have evaded the Constitutional Deniers and the witless epigones of the Democratic Party.  Federalist 65 recognizes that the impeachment process is a matter of "innocence or guilt" — alien terms in a civil proceeding.

Dems Finally Scrape Together Four Things They Want to Impeach Trump Over.  After three years of trying to oust President Donald Trump from the White House — using everything from Russia!  Russia!  Russia! to the Emoluments Clause to the 25th Amendment to Ukraine phone calls — Democrats appear to have settled on four items on which to impeach the president.  The House Judiciary Committee is hearing "presentations of evidence" from attorneys representing the Democrat majority and Republican minority in order to formalize articles of impeachment against Trump.

OAN Stunning Lutsenko Interview — Outlines:  Marie Yovanovitch Perjury, George Kent Impeachment Motive, Lindsey Graham Motive to Bury Investigation.  In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series.  The evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.  Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress.  [Video clip]

Democrats' Impeachment Position:  Although President Trump Didn't Break the Law, He Surely Intended to and Therefore He's Guilty.  The Democrat position in their impeachment of President Trump is that although the President did nothing wrong, he meant to, and therefore they must impeach!  Breitbart reported that the Democrat position on impeachment is absurd and have become the Salem Witch Trials.

Democrats Blind and Babbling to Oblivion.  What is so comical about the impeachment process is that it has brought together such a diverse cast of naysayers and mediocrities that the only thing that bonds them together is their hatred of Trump.  There are neo-Marxists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and neocons like Bill Kristol, corporate plutocrats like Tom Steyer, and has-been celebutantes like Alyssa Milano.  A common refrain from among critics of the process on the Left like Jimmy Dore and Aaron Maté is that Democrats are only pursuing it as a means to avoid actually presenting a coherent alternative to the GOP.

Adam Schiff Has Jumped the Shark.  Many Americans remain nonplussed over revelations in the House Intelligence Committee's Impeachment Inquiry Report that its chairman, Adam Schiff, not only secretly subpoenaed telephone records from President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, but also obtained responses that detailed dates and lengths of phone calls to Trump attorney Jay Sekulow, ranking committee member Devin Nunes, and Hill reporter John Solomon.  That Schiff self-disclosed this action as a rightful part of his committee's information gathering is equally stunning.  Every bit as bad, it appears that national telephone carriers AT&T and Verizon, who so tout their corporate concerns about subscriber privacy, responded to such obviously politicized demands without a whimper.  Schiff's actions, and indeed those of everyone involved in secretly demanding and producing these phone records, while perhaps not outright illegal, are simply beyond the pale and reminiscent of Big Brother, from George Orwell's 1984.

Hold the Phone, Call Records Released by Adam Schiff.  It was bad enough for House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) to subpoena the phone records of businessman Lev Parnas and President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani and other political opponents, but when he released them in his impeachment report it was a stunning abuse of power.  In the view of columnist Kimberly Strassel, Schiff's move "trampled law and responsibility... it was a disgraceful breach of ethical and legal propriety."  Not surprisingly, Trump hating members of the news media trumpeted the release of the call records as a major step toward the President's impeachment.  Their desire to destroy the President is so all-consuming that they missed the bigger picture.  Instead, journalists should have been outraged by this invasion of privacy and misuse of power.  These records should have never been released to Schiff or any politician and should have never been included in his impeachment report.

Impeach Trump Because of Slavery?  Congressman Al Green has become one of the Democratic Party's top spokesmen.  Which is a good thing, because Green is generally unfiltered, and therefore gives us a glimpse into his party's id. [...] I don't have a high opinion of Al Green's intelligence, but even he cannot be dumb enough to believe his smears against President Trump.  More to the point, however, is that none of this constitutes proper grounds for impeachment.  It is ridiculous to assert that political differences over, for example, "LGBTQ" issues, constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution.  Green's rant is valuable, not because it makes any sense, but because it gives us a window into the Democrats' real motive for wanting to impeach the president — sheer hatred over political differences.

Party of Permanent Impeachment:  Democrats do their part to re-elect Trump.  You've heard of the Marxist "permanent revolution" strategy for permanent leftist power grabs?  Democrats have their own take on it, cooking up "permanent impeachment."  That's all they have to offer in exchange for America's votes.  After spending their past two years in the House majority doing absolutely nothing but fighting among themselves until they united on the matter of negating the results of the 2016 election, impeachment now and forever is all they have on offer for voters.  If they can't get Trump this time, they'll get him the next.  No USMCA, no border wall, no health care, no infrastructure, not even free stuff, a Democrat specialty.  Just two more years of same-old, same-old, impeachment now, impeachment forever, impeachment über alles, along with a side order of infighting between the hard and harder left.

Sister Nancy Incarnacion and the H8ters.  People tend to repeat what has worked for them.  Pelosi's last great achievement was pushing the fundamentally lawless Affordable Care Act over the line, despite a lack of popular support.  She did it by ruthlessly enforcing party lockstep, pushing many in her caucus to walk the plank. [...] She is running the same play with impeachment.  She doesn't care that impeachment for all appearances, will fail in Senate.  Opinion might change.  We have to impeach the president to find out what crimes are in him.  Pelosi thinks the president campaigning under a cloud will help candidates who run for open Senate seats, and if it doesn't, so what?  The likelihood of beating Trump without a decent candidate is low anyhow.

Trump Blasts Impeachment Inquiry: 'When You Can't Win The Game, Change The Rules!'  The House Judiciary Committee report released on Saturday [12/7/2019] outlines the constitutional grounds on which Democrats will move forward with impeaching Trump.  The committee is set to hear evidence in a hearing on Monday.  The Judiciary report updates existing impeachment guidelines, which set out the procedure by which a president can be impeached and removed from office.  Trump may have been referencing amended rules that address Trump's effort to keep administration officials and others from complying with congressional subpoenas.

Why Is Our Society Degrading So Badly, So Fast?  In Washington, the Democrats are attempting to subvert the will of the majority of the American people, as expressed by the election results in 2016, by executing and plotting orchestrated campaigns to remove President Trump from office before the next election.  These efforts range from the recently unsuccessfully perpetrated Russia collusion hoax, which is now being followed up by an illegitimate impeachment drive by the House.  These operations also revealed the mostly clandestine activities of a permanent and extensive Deep State, also labeled "the swamp," actively working with the Democrats to subvert President Trump.  A broken environment exists in Washington that contributes to the perception that too many of our elected officials feel free to participate in and to tolerate corruption without being held accountable for their actions.  It is highly discouraging for many Americans that up to this point, there have been no legal consequences or viable restraints in place to curb these types of actions that are so fundamentally dangerous to the very foundations of our country.

The Impeachment Hearings Threaten the First Amendment.  The only good thing about the Democrat shift from Russia to Ukraine is that the issue has shifted from the limits of free speech to the limits of executive authority.  Unlike the First Amendment, the separation of powers is at least a legitimate topic for a power struggle between the branches of government.  But the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment report continued the ongoing Dem war on attorney-client confidentiality by illegally demanding phone records for Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer, from AT&T (the parent company of CNN), which they then also used to track phone calls by Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, also Trump's lawyers.  (The harassment campaign against Alan Dershowitz, who has vigorously defended Trump in public, also appears to be part of the pattern.)

Nancy Pelosi's 'Article II' Impeachment Rationale Exposed as Hoax.  Nancy Pelosi is going to impeach Donald Trump, the duly-elected president of the United States, based on what we now know is a hoax. [...] Nancy is inventing crimes now.  She's making stuff up.  She is all over TV framing the accused, planting evidence, which is what a dirty cop does when they can't make a case.  Nancy is deliberately and maliciously taking Trump out of context.  And not just a little out of context.  No, she is taking the president so far out of context I feel a little silly having to explain it.

Impeachment Is Destroying CNN.  If Democrats and their media allies thought that the impeachment of President Trump would be his undoing, I've got bad news for them:  it's actually undoing them.  The Democrats' favorite (fake) news channel CNN is suffering from a three-year low in ratings.

Also posted under beneficial side effects.

White House tells Jerry Nadler it Will snub Monday's impeachment hearing and calls process 'completely baseless'.  [Scroll down]  Trump's team drove the point home with a letter to Nadler and the commmittee's ranking Republican, Doug Colline.  'Your impeachment inquiry is completely baseless and has violated basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness,' White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote.  Cipollone blasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for telling her caucus on Thursday to proceed with articles of impeachment before Judiciary Committee members 'heard a single shred of evidence.'

Rats Flee Pelosi's Sinking Ship: 3 Democrats Already Signal No Vote on Sham Impeachment.  Two House Democrats who represent Trump districts voted against formalizing the House impeachment probe back in October.  Jeff Van Drew, 66, a freshman who represents New Jersey's 2nd Congressional District, and Collin Peterson of Minnesota, 75, a conservative Democrat who represents Minnesota's 7th District, were the only two lawmakers from either party to cross the aisle.

Impeachment farce butchers due process, rule of law, democracy, decency.  In the rush to destroy any shred of credibility Democrats have chosen to undermine the rule of law and the concept of due process.  They choose to plunge our democracy into turmoil just one year before a Presidential election.  In their quest to reverse the results of the 2016 election Democrats couldn't be doing more to harm the United States than if they relied on the Kremlin itself.  From the spying on the Trump campaign.  To the Mueller Weismann Inquisition.  Now, sadly, the Impeachment farce.  Democrats have been overtly doing Russia's bidding to paralyze and divide the body politic.  Hillary Clinton worked with Russian sources to produce the Steele Dossier.  Barack Obama and John Brennan launched the spying on a major presidential candidate.  Then they initiated a three year and an ongoing coup attempt against the sitting President.

Ken Starr says Pelosi engaging in 'abuse of power' and Senate may have to dismiss impeachment case.  Congressional Democrats have pushed too hard on President Trump's impeachment hearings and may force Republican senators to dismiss the case altogether, said former special prosecutor Ken Starr on Thursday.  Starr appeared on "The Brian Kilmeade Show" on Fox News Radio to discuss the impeachment inquiry and said he was shocked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's, D-Calif., "abuse of power."  "It's an outrage to seize control of the deliberate process of a committee — [it] simply compounds a series of very, very terrible abuses," he said.  "The House Judiciary committee with its incredibly rich history needs to go into... an open session and debate this."

5 Assumptions That Lead To Garbage Conclusions In Schiff's Impeachment Report.  House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff has released a 300-page Trump-Ukraine impeachment inquiry report.  It's what you would expect of a rushed report after two weeks of hearsay and opinion testimony:  full of unsupported conclusions based upon faulty assumptions.  Garbage assumptions lead to garbage conclusions.

The Democrats Face the Bayonets.  So Nancy Pelosi has apparently decided to go all-in with her call for an impeachment vote. [...] There's something about the timing of Pelosi's announcement relative to next Monday's release of IG Horowitz's report that makes it seem very possible she's going for a grand bargain with President Trump. [...] But to save the country from the risk of hot war, we'll drop our impeachment attack on you, and you'll drop the Barr/Durham attack on our coup.

Nancy Pelosi Announces Democrats Will Begin Drafting Articles of Impeachment.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday that the House Judiciary Committee will begin drafting articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.  "The president's actions have seriously violated the Constitution," Pelosi said in a press conference on Capitol Hill.  "Our Democracy is at stake.  The president leaves us no choice but to act."

Top House Democrat wants Mueller findings in impeachment articles against Trump.  The third most senior House Democrat wants a vote on articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump — and the charges against him to include obstruction of justice related to the findings of former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.  That controversial strategic position, laid out by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., in a brief interview with McClatchy on Tuesday evening, is the strongest and most decisive statement yet by a member of the House Democratic leadership team.  It also comes amid a hushed internal debate over how best to proceed.

Democrats Will Vote on Impeachment Before Schiff's Report Even Goes Public.  On Wednesday [12/4/2019] Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Democrats, after years of promises, will vote to impeach President Trump using the ham sandwich option.  Democrats are impeaching President Trump over a ham sandwich.  They got nothing.  They know they've got nothing.  But they are going to impeach President Trump anyway.

Democrats Are Watering Down Impeachment into a Mere Recall Effort.  [Scroll down]  But this impeachment sham is serious, deadly serious.  Democrats' creeping tyranny is how elected dictators take control of their country.  They get elected, take control of media, warp, rewrite, then dispense with the country's constitution.  Then they're free to arrest and incarcerate political enemies without cause, without representation, without an actual crime.  We're at least halfway there, probably three quarters.  Our would-be rulers got elected to Congress, appropriated media, and are attempting to rewrite our Constitution.  As for jailing political enemies without cause, representation, or an actual crime, I bring you the "impeachment inquiry."  Is it so easy to undo our Republic, to abrogate the Constitution that's kept us free and prosperous for over 200 years?  Or will we fight back?

Democrat Report Opens the Door to Expansion Beyond Trump-Zelensky Call for Impeachment Probe.  The House Democrats' impeachment inquiry amounts to an "orchestrated campaign" to undermine America's democratic system by removing President Donald Trump, mainly based on "accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats," the GOP's report on the quest to push the U.S. commander-in-chief out declared this week.  Republican lawmakers failed to find any "misconduct" by Trump that raises to the level of an impeachable offense, according to the report released on Monday [12/2/2019].

Adam Schiff's Report Cites No 'Bribery' or 'High Crimes'; Only Tweets.  The House Intelligence Committee report released by chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Tuesday cites no constitutionally permissible grounds for impeachment against President Donald Trump — other than tweets.  Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that impeachment shall be for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  Notably, the Framers of the Constitution ruled out "maladministration" as a reason.

Adam Schiff Releases Democrats' Intelligence Committee Impeachment Report.  House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) released the Democrats' report Tuesday [12/3/2019] on the impeachment inquiry, concluding that President Donald Trump "solicit[ed] foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election."  The report presents itself as the core fact-finding effort, though that function has traditionally been handled by the House Judiciary Committee, which will begin its own hearings on Wednesday.

In 2008, Democrats Argued Against Impeaching A Republican Near An Election Year.  Should the Democrats impeach the president?  It's hard to see a considered strategy in the approach.  The president stands accused of using the official functions of his office to create an advantage against his possible 2020 rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.  To punish him, Democrats have launched an impeachment crusade that has no chance of succeeding in the Republian-controlled Senate.  In fact, there appears to be no possible explanation for this course of action except to gain a 2020 electoral advantage against Trump.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler will step into the spotlight in a few days to hold hearings featuring lectures from liberal academics "Dem-splaining" the constitutional meaning of "high crimes" to the American people.

Impeachment Power Can Be Abused, Too.  Having denied this opportunity to the president in Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff's faux grand-jury phase of the proceedings, Democrats are now inviting the president to participate in the Judiciary Committee phase, where articles of impeachment are soon to be drafted and voted on.  The president's complaints are apt to ring hollow if he carps about the witnesses from the Twitter sidelines while forfeiting the right to question them at the formal hearings.  Abstaining now could also be problematic down the road.

House Democrat Impeachment Rules Are Made For A Lynch Mob, Not A Legitimate Proceeding.  The impeachment proceedings against President Trump have moved on from the House Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee (which happens to be the only House committee with formal jurisdiction over impeachment).  It is chaired by New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who has served on the committee for 27 years.  Notwithstanding the change in venue, the proceedings are still a farce.  They bear only surface resemblance to those in which I (and Nadler) participated 21 years ago.  The latest move in this game of impeachment took place on Sunday, when White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent Nadler a letter telling him that his client — the president of the United States — would not be participating in the committee's inaugural impeachment hearing later this week.  The lawyer's letter was blunt; but if anything, it was too polite.

White House:  Trump will not take part in Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearing.  The White House on Sunday said President Trump will not participate in the next phase of House attempts to impeach him, saying directions from Democrats only "exacerbate the complete lack of due process and fundamental fairness" afforded to the president.  The decision to spurn House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler was announced as the top Republican on the committee, Rep. Doug Collins, said he will demand testimony from House intelligence committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff as the impeachment inquiry heads toward its next phase.  Taken together, Republicans are clearly indicating they will focus squarely on a process they dismiss as a partisan attack on Mr. Trump.

Watergate line speaks volumes about weak impeachment case.  "This is beyond anything Nixon did."  Those words declared by Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff capture the vast constitutional challenge for the House Judiciary Committee as it heads toward its announced hearing on the impeachment of President Trump.  There is still disagreement, to use a Clintonian twist, of what "this" is.  Yet whatever "this" is, it is not Nixonian, at least not yet.  Schiff seems to struggle to reduce the harsh allegations against Richard Nixon in order to elevate those against Donald Trump.

Impeachment Hearings [are] a Nasty Farce.  Leading Democrats insist that the recently concluded round of impeachment hearings by the House Intelligence Committee were totally necessary.  They claim that President Trump may have committed a crime worthy of being driven from office.  So the nation was subjected to two weeks worth of bombastic scrutiny.  The Constitution states that "bribery" is a crime worthy of removal from office.  Definitions of bribery consistently point to someone receiving or providing monetary payments for some stated purpose.  No one, not even the Democrats who conducted the hearings, has accused President Trump of using his office for monetary gain.  There was no bribery crime committed by Trump, and they know it.

Impeachment Farce Part One is Over.  So the first phase of this impeachment farce is over.  Step one included such high points as pencil neck Schiff lying to Congress, knowing the citizens of this country we being fed a lie in his "parody."  This was needed because the media covered the lie all day until Schiff finally admitted that everything he said was in the transcript was a lie. [...] The selective leaks from these basement testimonies are what Adam Schiff hopes will change the minds of the American people.  They are selectively leaked to picture President Trump as evil.  These leaks are much the same lies and innuendo that they have pushed since the day President Trump took the oath of office.

Schiff gives committee 24 hours to read his impeachment report and sign off.  Rep. Adam Schiff is a man in a hurry.  After taking his time to cherry-pick just the best witnesses from his basement hearings, he held a swift set of public hearings, which drove public support down for impeachment, and now he's slapped together a report for the House Intelligence Committee to vote on, giving it all of 24 hours to vote.  Sound like a fair process?  Actually, sounds like a desperate Democrat with a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, whose priority now is an oncoming election train headed in his direction.

White House Refuses to Participate in Jerry Nadler's Impeachment Inquiry.  White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote a five-page letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on Sunday [12/1/2019], rejecting participation in what Cipollone called a "baseless and highly partisan" impeachment inquiry.  Nadler had given the president and his lawyers until 6:00 p.m. EST to respond to a request to participate in the opening hearing of the Judiciary Committee' inquiry on Wednesday, focusing on constitutional and legal issues.  Democrats had prepared four witnesses, unnamed as of Sunday: three were reportedly in favor of impeachment.  Separately, Nadler gave the White House a deadline of Friday, Dec. 6, to participate in the broader inquiry.

White House, in fiery letter, declares Trump won't participate in House Judiciary impeachment hearing.  The White House announced in a fiery letter Sunday night that President Trump and his lawyers won't participate in the House Judiciary Committee's first impeachment hearing scheduled for Wednesday — even accusing the panel's Democratic chairman, Jerry Nadler, of "purposely" scheduling the proceedings when Trump would be attending the NATO Leaders' Meeting in London.  The five-page letter came as the Democratic majority on the House Intelligence Committee was preparing to approve a report on Tuesday that will outline possible charges of bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," the constitutional standard for impeachment.  After receiving the report, the Judiciary Committee would prepare actual charges.

Democratic congresswoman claims it doesn't matter that Trump quid pro quo didn't actually happen.  Florida Rep. Val Demings maintained that President Trump should be impeached even if the alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine never took place.  Demings, a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, was asked during an interview on This Week whether it was relevant to the impeachment proceedings that Trump's request for an investigation into Joe Biden never came to fruition.  Host Martha Raddatz noted that no investigation into the Bidens ever happened and Ukraine received its military aid anyway, but Demings maintained that it was irrelevant.

Why the Democrats Can't Settle for Censure.  Their rhetoric notwithstanding, congressional Democrats understand that their chances of ousting President Trump from office are infinitesimal.  There are a few, like AOC and "the Squad," who still cling to the pipe dream that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and perp-walked out of the White House for multifarious yet oddly ill-defined crimes.  More realistic Democrats understand that this is never going to happen, but they also know that mere censorship of the president is not an option if they wish to avoid a revolt by the left wing of their congressional caucus and voter apathy that could manifest itself in low turnout next November.  Even to suggest such a course is to incur the wrath of the Democratic leadership, as evidenced by the double backflip executed by Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) last week.

Why the rush toward impeachment?  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, leader of the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump, told colleagues Monday that impeachment is "an urgent matter that cannot wait."  Why?  Why is it so urgent that Trump, who has been in office for nearly three years and will stand for reelection in 11 months — why is it so urgent that he be impeached and removed this very moment?  The reasons probably have more to do with Democratic political priorities than with anything Trump has done or will do.  Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deny any political motive in impeaching the president.  Perish the thought!  Pelosi says Democrats are acting "sadly, prayerfully, [and] with a heavy heart."  But they are racing to get the job done by Christmas.

Adam Schiff Gives Democrats Only 24 Hours to Sign Impeachment Report.  House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is giving members of his committee just 24 hours to read and sign off on his report recommending articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.  As Breitbart News reported Friday, House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler has previewed the report, and suggested it will include claims of "collusion" with Russia — as well as Ukraine, Russia's enemy.

Democrats' ugly Christmas present to the nation.  House Democrats' impeachment show moves to Jerry Nadler's Judiciary Committee this week — but don't expect the proceedings to get any more serious.  Sometime before Nadler starts things off at 10 a.m.  Wednesday, Intelligence Committee chief Adam Schiff is supposed to send along his final report — which is apparently to be all the evidence the House will consider on the Ukraine matter, despite the near-complete lack of first-hand testimony.  Judiciary is simply going to "consider" whether the wrongdoings that Schiff alleges actually constitute "constitutional grounds for impeachment," with experts brought in to opine on whether President Trump's actions warrant such a grave step.

How the toxic impeachment process is hurting long-term national security.  Cable news shows spent countless hours in November wondering how the public testimony of national security officials will affect the impeachment proceedings against President Trump.  But few are asking how these proceedings will affect national security in the long term.  One potential answer should worry everyone, regardless of your position on Trump:  Efforts to turn these officials into political weapons in Congress will put our national security in grave danger.  The president trusts the National Security Council and the broader intelligence community to provide him with the best possible information and analysis for decision making that is essential to national security.  But now, after the whistleblower complaint from within the intelligence community and the NSC being paraded on capitol hill as a character witness for the purpose of impeachment, that trust has been shattered.

How the Great Impeachment Debacle of 2020 Can Be Avoided.  [Scroll down]  As civil discourse and bipartisan compromise seem increasingly things of the past, Russians must be gloating in the Kremlin as they watch the American political class tear itself apart.  The Russians have been using disinformation since the 1950s to try to turn us one against another.  Fiona Hill, the national security expert on Russia who recently testified in the House impeachment inquiry, is undoubtedly right that Russia's goal in all of this was to turn us against one another, not to elect one presidential candidate as opposed to the other.  Whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton became our president in 2016 didn't affect the Russians that much, but they reasoned that if they could sow the seeds of civil division, as they appear to have done, that could paralyze us as a country and prevent us from addressing our many pressing problems.  Alas, they appear to be well on the way to succeeding.

Judiciary Republican calls for panel to expand list of impeachment witnesses.  Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are calling for the panel to expand its list of witnesses ahead of the Dec. 4 hearing it will hold in the House's impeachment investigation into President Trump.  Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) demanding that he expand the panel beyond the four constitutional law scholars from whom the committee plans to hear.

Trump Should Absolutely Not Cooperate With The Judiciary Hearings.  Democrats, having run byzantine hearings in basement bunkers and on live television in the House Intelligence Committee, are set to move on to Judiciary Committee hearings.  The purpose of this set of hearings is to craft Articles of Impeachment to be voted on by the entire House.  One difference from the previous hearings that Democrats are touting is that in the Judiciary the White House can participate.  It absolutely should not.  According to the resolution that launched the impeachment inquiry, passing without one GOP vote, the White House may have lawyers present and able to ask questions in the Judiciary hearings.  Democrats point to this as fairness in the process, citing the fact that many Republicans complained that the White House had no representation in the Intelligence committee hearings.  Now they will claim the White House is being inconsistent if it does not participate with the new hearings.

Dems extend deadline for Trump's lawyers on impeachment hearings.  President Trump will have until early December to decide whether his lawyers will take part in the ongoing impeachment proceedings.  House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said in a Friday letter to the president that he will have until Dec. 6 to determine if his lawyers plan to call witnesses or testify as part of proceedings, reports CNN.  Trump and Congressional Republicans have repeatedly blasted the inquiry as unfair.  Two unnamed officials who spoke to CNN said it's likely the White House won't send a lawyer to the first judiciary hearing, while another source told the outlet Trump was still mulling whether or not it was "worth it" to participate.

Jerry Nadler Gives Trump Friday Deadline; Impeachment to Include Russia Collusion.  House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) wrote to President Donald Trump Friday, giving him until Friday, Dec. 6., to answer whether he and his lawyers would participate in the "impeachment inquiry."  Nadler's letter quotes the forthcoming report from the House Intelligence Committee, which will be written entirely by Democrats and which will recommend drafting articles of impeachment against the president.

Democrats Ponder Impeachment Pivot.  The Democrats have twisted themselves into a Schiffian Knot, a modern-day unsolvable puzzle.  When they plunged forward on their ill-fated impeachment voyage, they were destined to land on this surreal shore, even if their parade of bureaucratic interagency cheerleaders was even weaker than presumed.  So they are in the bad place that can't be washed away with a few margaritas.  They desperately want to impeach President Donald Trump, but they don't want to send this partisan presumption pile over to the Senate, where they can no longer control the list of witnesses, where hearsay will be inadmissible, and where narrative control swings to the Republicans.

Impeachment Shows the Limit of Media Power.  The Russia investigation looked good in the media frame until the Mueller report came out and then Mueller was dragged in to testify about it.  The impeachment bid looked good in the media lens until people actually watched committee hearings and didn't see any of what the media had been touting.  Live by the lie, die by the lie.  The paradox of impeachment is that the media's con artists invented it, but stories alone, the commanding heights of communications, can't actually close the deal.  Like every con job, at some point the mark actually wants to see the million dollars that Nigerian prince is offering, the brand-new Tesla for only five grand, and the papers for the Brooklyn Bridge.  Individual marks can be strung along indefinitely, but there are limits to how much an entire nation can be conned.  Even by the media.

Trump White House eyes political win in stonewalling House impeachment hearing.  Officially, the Trump White House is still deciding whether or not to send a lawyer to the House judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings next week.  Unofficially, party insiders and observers say the decision has been all but made to continue stonewalling.  Instead, they will follow the playbook of recent House Intelligence Committee hearings, when the White House refused to cooperate and instead used Trump loyalists on the committee to mount its defense.  It is a strategy designed to maintain a status quo that would ensure a vote in the Senate against removing the president.  And the strategy has so far kept the American public from shifting decisively in favor of impeachment.

Rep. Cohen:  We Can Impeach Trump Again.  On Wednesday's [11/27/2019] broadcast of CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) said House Democrats could impeach President Donald Trump again.  John Berman asked, "Given the fact each day it seems we learn more about what the president knew and when he knew it, are you concerned that this impeachment process is being rushed through before all the facts are known, more stuff may still come out?"  Cohen said, "Well, I think things will come out.  Things will come out for as long as he's president and after he's president. [...]"

The Editor says...
Can President Trump still be impeached after he's no longer president (beginning in January 2025)?  If so, let's have another look at the grounds for Obama's impeachment.

Embattled CNN Fails to Attract One Million Viewers During Impeachment Month.  Jeff Zucker's fake news outlet is such a discredited failure that even during impeachment far-left CNN could not attract a million average viewers.  The cable television ratings for November are in, and CNN is in far-last place in the cable news wars... again.

Democrat Brenda Lawrence Suggests Impeachment Exit Strategy — but Quickly Recants.  Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) has withdrawn her suggestion of "censure" instead of impeaching President Donald Trump — a trial balloon for an exit strategy in response to dismal polling for Rep. Adam Schiff's impeachment hearings.  After her radio remarks blew up overnight, Lawrence issued a statement declaring "I still support impeachment[.]"

A Shameful Abuse of Congressional Power.  [Scroll down]  [T]he sleazy Schiffite proceedings at the House Intelligence Committee were so lopsided, arbitrary, and contemptuous of the rights of the Republican minority on the committee and those of the president as the investigated party, no American court could possibly accept a requested prosecution that emerged from such a vitiated and tainted proceeding.  Given all of the foregoing facts — which are indisputable — the country, despite the wall-to-wall disinformation effort of the non-Fox media, seems already to be asking why this unmitigated foolishness is distracting the attention of the country and the world at all.

Why Trump's Ukraine demands weren't remotely illegal.  The entire legislative premise of logrolling, a practice as old as Congress itself, is premised on quid-pro-quo arrangements.  In more modern times, before issuing his executive amnesty in 2014, President Barack Obama consistently threatened to use his "pen and phone" if Congress didn't pass the laws he desired when it came to immigration policy.  Similarly, committee chairmen routinely threaten to take away unruly lawmakers' committee assignments if they fail to vote in accordance with congressional leadership's desires.  To treat such cajoling as a high crime — and impeachable if the US president does it — would render governing impossible.  How can the duly elected president of the United States be removed from office for engaging in constitutionally protected speech aimed at getting a foreign leader to investigate corruption and past election meddling?

The obsessive, intolerant, despicable do-nothing-but-obstruct Democrats.  The Left's obsession with impeachment is the worst travesty of American justice in our history.  From the surveillance campaign waged against candidate Trump in 2015 to their attempt to sabotage him, to frame him for colluding with Russia to win the election when in fact it was the DNC and the Clintons, bigwigs at the FBI, DOJ and CIA who had colluded with more than a few unsavory characters to bring down the President.  As intolerant as Ana Navarro is of black support of Trump, those arrogant and corrupt agents of the deep state were and are equally as intolerant of President Trump simply because his is not one of them; he's not a member of their oh-so- exclusive club of like-minded power brokers like Joe Biden.  We know for certain that Obama's VP threatened the Ukrainians with a quid pro quo.  Trump did nothing of the kind.  He gave Ukraine aid when Obama did not.

HJC Chairman Nadler Attempts to Reframe "Impeachment Inquiry" With "Groundwork Hearing" — Before Receiving Impeachment Inquiry Report — Violating Their Own Resolution Process.  Chairman Nadler has announced a December 4th hearing with a panel of democrat selected constitutional lawyers and legal 'experts', to discuss the procedural framework of an impeachment process.  As Nadler states:  "Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct".  So the HJC initial objective to build their narrative is to explain what the impeachment process is about.  This is transparently an attempt by Nadler/Lawfare to give legitimacy to an illegitimate political exercise.  The hearing purpose is framed as a trap to pull the White House in, and thereby create the optics of constitutional legitimacy.  Strong caution is advised and I would not be surprised to see the White House refuse to participate.

There Is No Good Case for Impeachment.  President Trump ran on a platform of draining the swamp, and if this matter ever gets to trial in the Senate, there is a chance that the disgraceful use of foreign aid funds to line the pockets of American "consultants," "board members," or lawyers, or some other forms of facilitator, could be exposed.  Trump has quite properly suggested this system, a mainstay of the deep state, and the revolving doors of government positions, lobbyists, and law offices needs to be changed, and if this impeachment proceeding goes forward this is a fine opportunity to reveal to the public just what is done with foreign aid funds, and who profits from them.  The Bidens are likely to be collateral damage in any such inquiry — as are many other Democrats, and perhaps some Republicans.

Levin: Impeachment Not Whatever the House of Representatives Says — 'That's a Lie'.  During the Sunday broadcast of his "Life, Liberty & Levin" program on the Fox News Channel, host Mark Levin, author of "Unfreedom of the Press," argued against the notion that impeachment can be "whatever the House of Representatives says it is."  Levin called that claim a "lie," and pointed to the impeachment clause in the Constitution, which defines the term.  "No president, in fact, nobody facing impeachment has ever in American history been treated this way," Levin said.

Impeachment Democrats Really Don't Understand What They Are Doing.  [N]obody on the Democratic side has been telling the "woke" kiddies that the way to get rid of Trump is to appeal to the American people and beat him fair and square at the ballot box.  Instead they prefer the shortcut:  impeachment.  There was the Nixon effort; the Reagan Iran-Contra effort; the Trump collusion-Ukraine effort.  Then there were the elections that the Democratic candidate failed to concede:  Gore in 2000, and Clinton in 2016.

Is John Roberts Up To a Senate Impeachment Trial?  When the Democrats pass their impeachment resolution, the sordid spectacle will move to the Senate, where Chief Justice John Roberts must preside over a trial that will determine if the president has actually committed an offense that would justify his removal.  This should worry the president and his supporters.  Historically, the role of the chief justice in these proceedings has been somewhat symbolic.  Yet it will be necessary for him to rule on a number of important motions.  The weak Democratic case against President Trump, combined with the Democrats' penchant for manipulating procedural rules, all but guarantees that they will inundate Roberts with a tsunami of parliamentary maneuvers that he may be ill-equipped to manage.  During the Clinton impeachment trial, Chief Justice William Rehnquist was forced to spend entire days refereeing disputes over frivolous Democratic motions.

Ted Cruz:  Senate Should Subpoena Hunter Biden And The Whistleblower.  As impeachment for Christmas heats up in Washington, GOP senators are sending a not so subtle messages to House Democrats about what Pandora's present they are about to unwrap.  Early Friday, Sen. Lindsey Graham sent official requests to the State Department for documents pertaining to Burisma and its board member Hunter Biden.  Later, Sen. Ted Cruz sent out a release promising things are going to go a lot farther than documents.  "I think any proceeding in the Senate should be fair, should be open, and should respect due process.  What does that mean?  That means allowing both sides to present their case and if the White House chooses to call as a witness Hunter Biden, if the White House chooses to call as a witness the whistleblower, I think they should be allowed to call them.  I think — both of those witnesses in particular may well be integral to the White House's defense," Cruz said.

House Calendar Doesn't Align with Speaker Pelosi Talking Points, and House Resolution on Impeachment.  Within the only impeachment resolution put forth by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to open an "impeachment inquiry" the resolution outlined a process.  With only eight legislative days left in 2019; and considering the resolution as adopted; the calendar doesn't match the democrat talking points.

White House's Pam Bondi on Impeachment 'Sham': 'We Have the Truth on Our Side'.  Special Adviser to the President Pam Bondi told Breitbart News that as Americans head home for Thanksgiving dinners with their families, the country needs to know how Democrats have abandoned helping solve Americans' problems in favor of pursuing an increasingly unpopular impeachment agenda.  In fact, all year, Democrats have failed to help Americans on healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, and security.  They have zero legislative accomplishments since taking the House majority but are instead obsessed with impeachment.

Impeachment trial is the ace up President Trump's sleeve.  Here's my slam-dunk choice for the Quote of the Year:  "I want a trial."  The President of the United States said that Friday morning [11/22/2019], and his title alone would be reason enough to make it the most significant thing said in 2019.  But there's much more to it because Donald Trump's demand highlights the historically unique set of circumstances he and the nation face in 2020.  As of now, the new year will feature an impeachment trial in the Senate followed by the presidential election.  If Trump survives Democrats' effort to remove him, he would be the first impeached president to face voters again.

Grassley, Johnson Demand Materials From FBI On Ukrainian DNC Contractor In 2016.  Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin are demanding information from the FBI related to former Democratic National Committee (DNC) contractor Alexandra Chalupa and her efforts to seek dirt on the Trump campaign from Ukraine.  Politico reported that in 2016, Chalupa met with an official from the Ukrainian embassy for information that could undermine the Trump campaign.  According to Yahoo News, Chalupa was also the target of a cyberattack during her time at the DNC, prompting FBI investigators to interview her and take digital forensic images of her laptop and smartphone.

Coming attractions in the Senate trial.  [Senator] Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and [Senator] Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, asked Archivist David Ferraro to produce records so as to "better understand the nature of these meetings, including who attended and what was discussed," in a letter sent on Thursday [11/21/2019]. [...] The senators are now requesting records about the five White House meetings listed in the letter and all records related to meetings between and among White House officials, Andrii Telizhenko, Nazar Kholodnytskyy, Oksana Shulyar, and Valeriy Chaly.

Hearsay and the Trump impeachment hearings.  Any accused has the inalienable right to confront his accuser.  Cross-examination provides the trier of fact in court proceedings, by jury or a judge, the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the accuser and to uncover his interest, motives, and anticipation or lack thereof of gain in exchange for testimony.  Cross-examination, or questioning an accuser's testimony, is the most reliable method of obtaining the truth of the accusations.  The Sixth Amendment right to "confront" one's accuser also cuts across the entire inane "whistleblower" status of President Trump's accuser.  Schiff surely knows that the identity of the "whistleblower" will be exposed, just as the curtain is pulled open on the wizard of Oz, if a trial in the Senate is held.  At that point, Schiff's sanctimony and his faux whistleblower's political ties will be shredded.

The Impeachment Pseudo-Event.  "The Image:  A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America" is the title of a 1960s book by historian and librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin.  Pseudo-events, he wrote, are staged solely to generate news media coverage.  Real events involve independent actors and have unpredictable outcomes.  Pseudo-events are shows.  It's not difficult to say which category the House Democrats' impeachment hearings belong in.  It's a classic pseudo-event stage-managed to prod sympathetic media into running predictable stories.  Inconvenient questions from Republican members are blocked, and the name of the original "whistleblower" is concealed, though the stage managers know who he is.  Yet on the front pages and cable news breaking-news bulletins, this pseudo-event is crowding out two genuine events of potentially world-shaking importance and uncertain outcome.

How Republicans Won Phase One Of Impeachment.  Democrats ideally would have started their inquiry with credible bipartisan support and run things in such a way that public opinion developed in their favor.  Public opinion would build pressure on Republican members toward an impeachment vote that had even stronger bipartisan credibility.  That did not come even close to happening.  To begin with, not only was the vote to begin proceedings not bipartisan, there was bipartisan opposition to it.  Polling initially looked promising for impeachment, with media outlets attempting to claim significant bipartisan support for inquiry and removal, but then the polling moved in the wrong direction for Democrats.

Impeachment: 3 Crucial Questions, 3 Answers, So Far.  Assessing the Democrats' impeachment drive depends on answers to three crucial questions:  [1] What did President Trump really want from Ukraine?  [#2] Can Democrats prove he wanted something so improper, so lawless that it meets the high bar for "high crimes and misdemeanors," bribery, or treason?  [#3] What's the rush?  Do voters think the charges are so serious, the proof so convincing, and the need to remove the president so urgent that it cannot wait until the election next November?

The Rorschach Impeachment:  Sometimes an Inkblot Is Just an Inkblot.  [Scroll down]  And then came the afternoon.  Sondland still at the table, still kibbitzing.  And now Republicans asking him some questions.  Like, uh, did you ever directly hear the president say there would be a "quid pro quo"?  Nope.  He just assumed there was a quid pro quo.  In fact, he made a phone call to President Trump on September 9 to find out what exactly the president wanted from Ukraine.  Indeed, answering the Grand Inquisitor Schiff directly, Sondland testified, ["]But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman.  "What do you want from Ukraine?  I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that.  What do you want?" And it was a very short and abrupt conversation.  He was not in a good mood.  And he just said, "I want nothing.  I want nothing.  I want no quid pro quo.  Tell Zelensky to do the right thing." ... This is the final word that I heard from the president of the United States.["] [...] So Sondland assumed there was a quid pro quo.  He said that everyone knew about the quid pro quo.  But when Sondland actually asked the man in the Oval Office directly what exactly his marching orders were, Trump told him, "I want no quid pro quo."  That would seem to end the "impeachment" hearings.

Democrats Trying to Impeach Trump Would Make Terrible Hedge Fund Managers.  [Scroll down]  We can answer this by looking at the radical left Democrats in America, whose desire to end Donald Trump's presidency is all-consuming.  These Dems, along with a complaisant media, lit a bonfire to consume and destroy Trump before he even took office.  Their intensely felt differences with Trump are not based on simple logic or stark policy differences, but instead seem to stem largely from antipathy.  How many countless times has Trump tried to do or say exactly what Obama or some other prominent Dem did or said just a few years ago, only to be met with a barrage of derisive hate and anger?  There appears to be little if any self-awareness among the Dems of how often and how loudly they are denouncing Trump for the very same positions they endorsed not so long ago.  Indeed, it appears that the Dems are acting without the benefit of any sort of self-correcting feedback system.

Elise Stefanik:  Dems Case for Impeachment 'Crumbling,' Schiff an 'Abject Failure'.  Thursday [11/21/2019], during an appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity," Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, criticized how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the chair of that committee, conducting the so-called impeachment inquiry proceedings against President Donald Trump.  Stefanik described the impeachment case as "crumbling" and accused Schiff of operating a "regime of secrecy" presiding over the hearings.

Why does this bad joke of an impeachment continue?  U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testifies in  kangaroo court  Congress's impeachment hearing that he "presumed" a quid pro quo of American aid in return for an investigation of the Bidens' activities in Ukraine.  No one told him there was such a quid pro quo, and President Trump specifically told him there was none.  Sondland's testimony tidily sums up the entire case and all the animus against Donald Trump, going back to before his election:  it's all based on presumption.  Schiff presumes that he could find the needle of quid in the haystack of pro quo.

Impeachment Evidence Not Even Close to Bribery, Heritage Legal Expert Says.  As impeachment hearings draw to a close, witnesses have failed to produce hard evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Donald Trump.  Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky will join the podcast to unpack what we learned this week — and what to expect going forward.

Impeachment is surgery with a butterknife.  [Scroll down]  "The Democrats promised the whistleblower's testimony — in fact, they told us we need to speak with the whistleblower."  Now they will not present him.  The Democrat excuse is the whistleblower has to be kept secret because he is getting death threats, which is odd since no one knows who he is.  Not even Schiff or Vindman.  Or so they say.  Impeachment is a prosecution and it should be handled with the utmost care and research.  Before making their case to the public, Democrats needed to convince at least one of their Republican colleagues to join them.

Jordan: Impeachment Is About Establishment, Dems Rejecting the Will of 63 Million Americans.  Thursday [11/21/2019] on Fox News Channel's "Special Report," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) offered his speculation on what was next for the so-called impeachment inquiry, which he said was an effort where they made up the rules as they go along, and sometimes do not follows those rules.  The Ohio Republican argued the basis for impeachment was flawed, given what was allegedly expected by President Donald Trump from the Ukrainians was never delivered and dismissed the notion the impeachment push was about a "quid pro quo."

Dems plot next move as impeachment hearings fail to sway GOP, public.  After two weeks of impeachment hearings, House Democratic leaders were poised to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump, but their rank-and-file members were stumped about what should be the next move.  Lawmakers headed home for Thanksgiving break unsure whether there would be more hearings or when they would cast a seemingly inevitable vote on impeachment, with just eight legislative days remaining before the end of the year.

W.H. Spox Gidley:  If House Impeaches, Trump 'Wants a Trial in the Senate' and to Call Schiff, Whistleblower, and Bidens.  On Thursday's [11/21/2019] broadcast of the Fox News Channel's "The Story," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley stated that if the House moves forward on impeachment, President Trump "wants a trial in the Senate" and to bring up witnesses like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), the whistleblower, and Hunter and Joe Biden.

Democrats Throw Impeachment Party at Capitol Hill Bar After Last Hearing.  Democrat staffers threw an impeachment party at a Capitol Hill bar after the last public hearing concluded on Thursday evening [11/21/2019].  The party was held at the Capitol Hill establishment Hawk 'n' Dove, just a stone's throw from where the impeachment hearings were held this week.

Biden Family Corruption Allegations Metastasize.  It's obvious Joe Biden — who is only running for the presidency — cannot be impeached, but were he to win that exalted office, the case for his immediate impeachment would dwarf Donald Trump's if we are to believe Interfax-Ukraine. [...] Whatever one thinks of Interfax, this is a report of a press conference by members of the Ukrainian parliament whose accusations merit investigation — by our Justice Department and, yes, theirs.  That Joe Biden at this point seems unlikely to be the Democratic Party nominee is beside the point.  This speaks to the very nature of the impeachment inquiry currently before us.  Did Donald Trump have good reason to be suspicious of Ukraine's treatment of him before and during the election?  Our Republican friends keep telling us all these theories have been "debunked."  By whom?  Mostly by them and their media allies, I suspect.

Chief Justice Roberts now dragged into Democrat impeachment process.  The target of Democrat zealots in the House of Representatives led by Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff is to impeach and remove President Donald Trump.  Sadly for him the person they have a much higher probability of removing from his lofty perch is Chief Justice John Roberts.  The famous cliché; the law of unintended consequences is fast approaching. [...] He and he alone "owns" the FISC court so he must be held accountable for any court actions.  However, even if he has acted to clear up the egregious frauds, so far only a few publically reported with probably more to come, he has a significant problem if the Democrat Leaders of the House vote out Articles of Impeachment for a senate trial of our President.

'Coup' Concerns Suddenly Don't Seem So Far-Fetched.  For most of the last three years, Donald Trump's critics have scoffed at supposed "conspiracy theories" that claimed a "deep state" of bureaucrats were aborting the Trump presidency.  We have been told the word "coup" is hyperbole that reveals the paranoid minds of Trump supporters.  Yet oddly, many people brag that they are proud members of a deep state and occasionally boast about the idea of a coup.  Recently, former acting CIA chief John McLaughlin proclaimed in a public forum, "Thank God for the deep state." Former CIA director John Brennan agreed and praised the "deep state people" for their opposition to Trump.  Far from denying the danger of an unelected careerist bureaucracy that seeks to overturn presidential policies, New York Times columnists have praised its efforts to nullify the Trump agenda.

President Trump Never Impounded Even One Dollar from Ukraine Aid.  The president needs better legal counsel, as do the American people.  The current impeachment illusion is based on a pandemic mirage.  The nation has been hypnotized to believe that $391.5 million for Ukraine was held back, frozen, slow-walked, canceled, or subject to a nefarious threat by Trump.  Wake up, America.  Every penny of Ukraine monetary aid, the alleged carrot dangled before Zelensky, was spent on time, according to law, before, during, and after the July 25 call.  The Department of Defense certified Ukraine reforms in a May 23, 2019 letter from John C. Rood to Congress, but this certification was only necessary to release the second $125-million tranche.  Read the letter.  The tables therein refer to that $125 million as "Tranche 2."  So what happened to the first $125 million?  It was already spent on Ukraine before the July 25 phone call with Zelensky.

This partisan impeachment inquiry is more than a waste of time.  It imperils democracy.  These impeachment hearings are a total waste of time.  Even as a show trial.  Not because President Donald Trump did nothing wrong.  Actually, these days that doesn't really matter anymore, does it?  People know they know everything they want to know.  This so-called "impeachment inquiry" is a waste of time because most Americans — especially House Democrats — have already made up their minds.  Who needs evidence now when the real verdict on Trump won't come down until Nov. 3, 2020?

Dems mull Mueller impeachment count.  House Democrats reportedly are considering whether to pursue in their impeachment inquiry matters arising from the Mueller investigation.  Specifically, they are looking at whether President Trump lied to Robert Mueller.  The Washington Post's report on this development is based on representations made by House Democrats to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.  The Dems told the court that they need secret grand jury evidence from the Mueller probe to be released in order to consider, as part of their impeachment inquiry, whether Trump lied to Mueller.  Are the Democrats telling the truth to the court or are they just using the existence of the impeachment inquiry to pry loose secret testimony they have long wanted?

What if Trump was right about Ukraine?  One of the most important issues in President Trump's impeachment defense is also one of the least explored:  To what degree were Trump's concerns about Ukraine valid?  It's well documented that the president fixated on Ukrainian activity in the 2016 election and on the Bidens' actions in the Burisma matter.  Democrats and many in the media dismiss his concerns as "conspiracy theories."  But to what extent were those concerns, in fact, legitimate?  If they were even mostly legitimate, then Trump defenders could say:  "Look, he had a point.  Even if one thinks he handled the issue inappropriately, the fact is, what was going on in Ukraine was worrisome enough for a United States president to take notice."  That would not change minds among those dead set on impeachment, but among others, it would make the case for impeachment and removal much harder to make.

Correcting Voters' Mistakes.  Sad to say, but the recall is not available for federal officeholders.  Some Americans might resent that unavailability, given the performance this year of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The new Democrat-controlled House is so intent on impeaching the president that it can't do the business of the People.  If the possibility of recall and removal were hanging over House members' heads, maybe the chamber wouldn't be so dysfunctional.

Nancy Pelosi Is Already Attacking the Legitimacy of the 2020 Election.  In her Dear Colleague letter pushing back against Republican anti-impeachment talking points, Nancy Pelosi wrote this:  "The weak response to these hearings has been, 'Let the election decide.'  That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections."  Is he?  If a Republican had suggested that a presidential election was a "dangerous" notion, he would have triggered around-the-clock panic-stricken coverage on CNN and a series of deep dives in The Atlantic lamenting the conservative turn against our sacred democratic ideals.  What Pelosi has done is even more cynical.  She's arguing that if Democrats fail in their efforts to impeach Trump — and, I assume, remove him from office — then the very legitimacy of the 2020 election will be in question before any votes are cast.

Could it be that Trump has been setting up the Left all along?  Trump is guilty of exactly nothing impeachable and they all know it, but he is an outsider in their DC club of self-appointed privileged insiders and that is what they cannot, will not, tolerate. [...] First Nadler and then Schiff have conducted this so-called inquiry for weeks now.  Nadler's hearings were an embarrassment, so Pelosi turned the gavel over to Schiff.  Big mistake unless she is in on the con.  His ridiculous secret depositions are a joke — meant to frighten Trump and his supporters — which is absolutely not working.  Now we have been privy to open testimony of three of his chosen not-witnesses who contributed exactly nothing to Schiff's tale of corruption.

Impeachment Lesson:  Cut Government.  [Scroll down]  It's as if everyone not named Chris Wallace knows this is a complete sham.  The stock market yawned as it rocketed upwards.  What we have is a parade of bureaucratic power players preening before friendly Democrats to complain that nobody listens to their sage counsel and that the president has the audacity to think he decides foreign policy.  The biggest villain in this ill-begotten administrative coup sequel is Joe Biden, whose corruption is so obscene that even ruthlessly friendly media can't keep it from sneaking through.  Hunter Biden sucked in dirty Ukrainian cash like he was hooked up to a beer bong, getting drunk on his father's political influence.

The real reason for the Russia Hoax (and Ukraine, and impeachment, and the next thing).  [Scroll down]  The process works in three easy steps:  (1) accuse Trump of any wrongdoing, no matter how baseless (e.g., Russia collusion);  (2) turn the accusation over to a politically allied Department of Justice (DOJ) official (i.e., Robert Mueller); and (3) the politically loyal DOJ official (who understands the real purpose of the initial accusation) will look for (and create) any crime committed at any time in history on anybody associated with Trump. [...] This legal strategy, even if it hasn't yet resulted in criminal charges against Trump, has proven an enormous success in terms of inflicting massive political damage.

How Would You Feel if You Were Treated Like Trump?  Imagine a person with great political authority who is known to have a grudge against you began an investigation looking for reasons to indict you.  That person interviewed only people who were hostile to you.  Imagine further that you were not allowed to see the evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, to bring your own evidence and witnesses involved in the matter, to have an impartial judge and jury, or to appeal the decision.  How would you feel?  Would this seem fair?

Democrats Omit Exculpatory Information from Summary of Tim Morrison Transcript.  Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released the long-awaited transcript from senior National Security Council official Tim Morrison on Saturday, and immediately distorted it for the benefit of the anti-Trump media.  It was a typical example of how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and his staff have tried to skew the fact-finding process in an effort to inflate public support for impeachment, believing few will read the lengthy transcripts for themselves.

Impeachment by Focus Group.  Anyone following the increasingly desperate Democratic impeachment effort will by now be aware that they have exchanged the term "quid pro quo" for "bribery" and "extortion."  They rebranded President Trump's alleged offenses, according to a Washington Post report, after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted a number of focus groups to test their messaging.  The use of a marketing tool for something so serious confirms that, for the Democrats, impeachment is just another election strategy they hope will get traction if they dumb down the narrative.  This betrays breathtaking contempt for the nation's institutions as well as the voters.

Impeachment shows shouting a lie does not make it true.  Rasmussen reported, "Most voters don't expect fair play from the media when it comes to news coverage of the Democrats' impeachment attempt.  "53% of Likely U.S. Voters think most reporters are trying to help impeach President Trump when they write or talk about the impeachment effort.  The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 32% believe most reporters are simply interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner.  8% say most are trying to block Trump's impeachment."  The story also said, "90% of voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing think most reporters are trying to help impeach the president."

Democrats Concede Their Impeachment Argument Is Failing.  The Democrats think that they have the goods on Trump, but that millions of voters are too thick-headed to understand what "abuse of power," the latest strand of spaghetti to be thrown against the wall after "quid pro quo," "extortion," and "bribery," means.  But impeachment charges are kind of like jokes, the more you have to explain them, the less effective they are. To make matter worse for Democrats, not only are they failing to move the needle among Americans, they are struggling to make them care at all.  TV ratings for the impeachment hearings on Wednesday were sharply down from those during the James Comey, and Christine Blasey Ford testimonies.

If the Resistance Wins.  [Scroll down]  Various other Democrats — Elizabeth Warren, Ben Cardin, Dick Durbin, Maxine Waters, and others — began talking (December 2016), and haven't stopped since, about undoing the results of the election, actually using the word "impeachment," before the inauguration.  Vanity Fair asked shortly after the election, "Will Trump Be Impeached?," and Politico in April asked how soon impeachment could take place.  This unprecedented resistance-impeachment movement gained full-bore momentum when House speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that Democrats would impeach Trump because we "can't let him 'win' reelection."  It became obvious that the fear of Trump's re-election was driving the 79-year-old speaker's risky and questionable strategy.

Nancy Pelosi goes for slam dunk — and crashes to court.  It's no coincidence that the very word Pelosi chose to characterize Trump's behavior during his call with Ukraine's president is specifically named in the Constitution as an impeachable offense.  Article II, Section 4 provides that 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."  Quid pro quo wasn't getting it.  So the left had to slap on a label that's impeachable.

Rep. Ilhan Omar: 'We're Going to Impeach This Corrupt President'.  Rep. Ilhan Omar (D.-Minn.) sent out a tweet after Wednesday's hearings in the House impeachment inquiry expressing her confidence that the House was going to impeach President Donald Trump.  "Every report, every testimony, comes down to this:  Donald Trump thinks he's above the law.  "It's up to Congress to show him that he's not:  We're going to impeach this corrupt president."

The Editor says...
Hey Ilhan, please tell me how you know what President Trump's thoughts are, and then tell me what crime has been committed.  Thanks.

There's This Thing Called Due Process That We Ought to Try.  I get a little picky about this whole due process thing, not just because I'm a lawyer and not just because I helped defend our Constitution overseas in uniform a couple times, but because I'm an American citizen.  Let's understand clearly the nature of the due process argument over impeachment.  This is not about Donald Trump getting due process.  This is about the American people getting due process.

10 reasons why this impeachment 'inquiry' is really a coup.  [#6] No high crimes or misdemeanors.  There is no proof of any actual crime.  Asking a foreign head of state to look into past corruption is pro forma.  That Joe Biden is now Trump's potential rival doesn't exculpate possible wrongdoing in his past as vice president, when his son used the Biden name for lucrative gain.  In other words, it is certainly not a crime for a president to adapt his own foreign policy to fit particular countries nor to request of a foreign government with a history of corruption seeking US aid to ensure that it has not in the past colluded with prior US officials in suspicious activity.

Senator Burr:  "Senate Impeachment Trial Will Last 6 to 8 weeks".  It looks like the House impeachment is now a foregone conclusion.  To wit the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Chairman Richard Burr has announced the schedule outline for the upcoming Senate Impeachment Trial.  The trial of President Trump will run from 12:30 pm to 6:30 pm Monday through Saturday and will last approximately six to eight weeks.

Real collusion.  If you are paying attention to the Washington circus that is the impeachment inquiry into President Trump's handling of the much maligned Ukraine call, this is what real collusion looks like:  a media largely committed to advancing the goal of Democrats to severely damage or remove him from office, a series of at first private testimonies by people who appear to have similar motives and connections to Democrats and/or anti-Trump forces, and now a new book by "Anonymous," which claims the president has a bad attitude and is difficult to work with.  Where to start?  "Anonymous" is a self-admitted coward.  He, or she, apparently still works within the administration.  A true patriot would resign and go public so their accusations could be tested.  Writing a book like this while still on the public payroll is more than cowardly, it is also an attempt to disregard, disrespect and dishonor the people who voted for Donald Trump.

Invitation to an Impeachment.  [Scroll down]  With each passing week, though, it has become ever more clear that what begins today is a hearing of the witnesses only the Democrats deem pertinent.  The House majority is eager to protect the whistleblower, who refuses to face his or her accuser — or the American people.  But only the whistleblower.  Protestations by other officers of the executive branch, it discounts.  It may be within the powers of the House majority to restrict the witnesses to those who will help the prosecution.  It may also, though, explain why the opening of this supposedly historic hearing failed to make Page A1 of the Times.  It has become a foregone conclusion that the House is going to impeach.

Gaetz: Bribery Charge Against Trump Won't Stick — 'It Fails to Meet an Essential Element'.  Monday [11/11/2019], during an appearance on Fox News Channel's "The Story," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) dismissed a claim of bribery put forth against President Donald Trump in response to Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano.  Gaetz argued such a case would lack what he deemed an "essential element" to meet the standard of bribery.  "I would disagree that bribery would be applicable for this reason:  For bribery to have been committed, you have to be asking someone to do something that they would not otherwise do with President Zelinsky, who ran an entire campaign on rooting out corruption," Gaetz said.

Trump impeachment is not about bombshell revelations.  It's about telling a highly partisan story.  [Scroll down]  You can't expect Joe to remember; it was years ago.  But it's not just Joe Biden who is conveniently forgetting.  It's all the Democrats and all the bureaucrats, too — all on their high horse about President Trump damaging our national security by not sending proper military aid to Ukraine, even though he did actually send it, and Obama didn't.  This has nothing to do with national security.  It's all just an illusion.  The bombshell revelations, so "shocking," so "disturbing" that the Democrats and ruling class state TV got so excited about last week.  But they told us nothing we didn't already know.  The truth about this impeachment is that it's not about finding out things we didn't know.  It's about telling a story, a highly partisan political story, and they've settled on their cast of characters.

The Coup, Klutz, Klan Witch Hunt Versus Trump.  This really is an attempt to frame and railroad a president Democrats can't beat at the ballot box.  First, can you imagine Republicans having framed Obama over a phone call that someone heard about from someone else?  Think about the reaction from the media and other organizations.  How about if Republicans had moved to impeach Obama and held the inquiry in a secret room, with no Democrats allowed in and no way to cross-examine accusers?  Can you even imagine the cries of "racism"?  How about if Obama's opponent Mitt Romney had been allowed to vote on Obama's removal from office?  Are you kidding?  That would never have happened in a million years.  The guy who wants your job can't possibly serve on your jury, right?  So how can Democratic senators running against Trump be allowed to vote on his impeachment?

"Impeachment" Hearings:  Republicans Plan To Put Biden and Democrats on Trial, and Schiff Is Not Happy.  [Scroll down]  Let's really read between the lines here.  The fact that they want to "accelerate" public impeachment proceedings goes against everything House leaders including Schiff, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler have been saying for months regarding the Ukraine call controversy and the Russia collusion investigation: that there is no rush to judgment and no rush to impeach.  Of course, that was an obvious lie, but the sources telling Axios their goal is to speed up the process just confirms it.

Dershowitz Likens Dem Impeachment Obsession to Stalin's KGB — 'Show the Man, and I'll Find You the Crime'.  Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz during an appearance on Sunday's "The Cats Roundtable" on New York AM 970 radio equated the Democrats' obsession with impeaching President Donald Trump to the KGB under former Soviet Union dictator Joseph Stalin.  Dershowitz argued that the Democrats are "making up crimes" and weaponizing impeachment against Trump.

The 'impeachment resolution,' and Dems' fight over its meaning.  "It's not an impeachment resolution," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.  Pelosi had just announced the House would, in fact, hold a vote to formalize the impeachment probe and establish parameters for the investigation late last month.  The House speaker had argued for weeks such a step wasn't necessary.  Congressional Republicans and members of the administration countered that the White House shouldn't cooperate because the House never codified the inquiry.

The "Coup" Against a Sitting U.S. President Became Official on October 29th, 2019.  The word "coup" shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.  Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.  In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.

Lindsey Graham:  If They Don't Call the Whistleblower in the House, This Thing is Dead on Arrival in the Senate.  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) joined Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday morning [11/10/2019].  He often appears on the show, but today's conversation was especially interesting.  To give you some background, last week investigative journalist John Solomon reported a story which received little attention from the rest of the media, but was actually quite significant.

Impeachment Mashup.  Democrats have tried to impeach every elected Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.  They've never succeeded and there's no reason to believe this time is different. [...] Why this practice persists is that they are continually reluctant to accept political outcomes they don't like.

Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment [and] Try to Get [the] 'Best Socialist' Nominated for President.  During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio's WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.  Gohmert told WVNN's "The Jeff Poor Show" impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party's presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate "the best socialist" they can.

Dems Pull Subpoena for Ex-Trump Adviser Who Took It to Court:  Lawsuit Would Delay Impeachment.  Former U.S. President Donald Trump adviser Charles Kupperman's lawsuit asking the courts whether he should testify in the House impeachment probe forced Democrats to rescind their subpoena.  "The subpoena at issue in this matter has been withdrawn, and there is no current intention to reissue it," Democrats wrote in court filings, the Hill reported.

Democrats' new moves show House could wrap up impeachment by Christmas.  House Democrats are signaling they are now on a fast-track in their impeachment proceedings, avoiding court battles that could delay their inquiry and limiting the number of witnesses at public hearings — all signs that President Donald Trump could be impeached as soon as next month.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not shared her thinking on the final timeline with her colleagues, and Democratic sources say the timing is still fluid and could continue to evolve.  But in a series of moves this week, Democrats have shown they are rapidly moving to complete the proceedings by Christmas, something that could result in Trump being just the third president to be impeached in history.

Jim Jordan Appointed to House Intel Panel to Fight Impeachment.  House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced Friday [11/8/2019] that he has appointed Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to the House Intelligence Committee as the House Democrats continue their partisan impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump.  Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR) will temporarily step down from House intelligence panel and be replaced by Jordan for Wednesday — the same day that public impeachment hearings are scheduled to begin.

Impeachment Witness Undercut Steele Dossier In Bombshell Testimony.  A former White House official who Democrats consider a key witness in their impeachment inquiry told lawmakers in October that she believed Russians likely planted disinformation about President Donald Trump with dossier author Christopher Steele.  Fiona Hill, who served as the White House's top adviser on Russia affairs until July, told lawmakers she was "shocked" to find out that Steele, a former MI6 officer, was the author of the dossier.  That's in large part because when she had met with Steele in the years leading up to his dossier work, he was "constantly try to drum up business."

The Anonymous Coup.  Democratic lawmakers, the news media, and NeverTrump Republicans — unable to make a compelling case for Trump's removal aside from Orange Man Bad — wield the incognito heroes' charges as incontestable fact.  It is, for the most part, an anonymous coup.

Vindman, Zaid, Schiff:  Foul birds of an ugly feather.  Retired lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman was reportedly reprimanded by a superior when it became known that he repeatedly made fun of Americans; American culture; and, as he said, "Americans not being educated or worldly."  He did this in front of foreign diplomats, constantly.  No wonder he remained an Obama loyalist and has tried to undercut President Trump.  After all, Obama considered himself first and foremost "a citizen of the world" and did not find anything exceptional in America in and of itself.  President Trump loves America and is representative of a patriotic heartland mindset.  After all, Trump believes in America first.  Vindman is a trans-nationalist, a globalist, someone who feels superior to most Americans.  I've run into many people who think like Vindman.  Perhaps Vindman is an acquaintance of Mark Zaid, the Long Island lawyer who boasted to friends about how he would help create a coup to bring down President Trump.  Zaid, like Vindman, has no respect for the American people.  He would negate the will of the American people, the majority of electoral votes that were cast for Donald J. Trump, and, through a coup, remove the president elected by the people.  Perhaps Zaid knows Adam Schiff, who is trying to do the same thing.

Impeachment in The Courts — HJC vs DOJ Appellate Arguments Scheduled for November 12th.  There is an important granular aspect to the validity of the House impeachment process that few are paying attention to.  If the HJC loses this case in the DC Appellate Court, it means there is no constitutional foundation recognized to the "impeachment inquiry."  Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch then:  (a) Pelosi/Lawfare have to restart the process with a genuine House vote; or (b) the ongoing impeachment process will have no recognized constitutional standing; and (c) the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote, cast without recognized constitutional standing.

Eric Ciaramella Attorney, January 2017: "Coup Has Started" — July 2017: "We Will Remove Him".  A few people have started looking at the connections behind Mark Zaid, the attorney for CIA "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella.  What is starting to emerge is evidence of what CTH outlined yesterday; the current impeachment process is part of a coup continuum, and everything around the whistleblower is part of a long-ago planned and pre-constructed operation. [...] The use of a 'whistle-blower' was pre-planned long ago.  The agreements between Schiff, Lawfare and the CIA 'whistle-blower' were pre-planned.  The changing of whistle-blower rules to assist the plan was designed long ago.  Adam Schiff and Daniel Goldman are executing a plan concocted long ago.  None of the testimony is organic; all of it was planned a long time ago, long before anyone knew the names Marie Yovanovitch, Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland or Bill Taylor.  All of this is the coordinated execution of a plan.

Gaetz Says Trump Coup Plotters Need Prison Time.  Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said on the Todd Starnes Show that the people who weaponized the federal government and tried to overthrow President Trump should face jail time.  "If we do not slap some handcuffs on people for what happened to President Trump it will happen again," Gaetz said.  "We have got to get to the bottom of this.  We've got to uproot the people who believe they can substitute their judgment for the judgment of the American electorate."  [Audio clip]

Donald Trump Reads Aloud 2017 Tweets from Whistleblower's Lawyer Declaring a 'Coup'.  President Donald Trump kicked off his political rally in Lousiana on Wednesday by reading off tweets declaring a "coup" against the president in January 2017.  The president pulled a printed copy of the Fox News story out of his jacket and read it to the cheering crowd.  "I don't know if you saw, I'm coming off the plane and they hand me — look at this character — they just hand me this story," he said, referring to Mark S. Zaid, the attorney representing the so-called "whistleblower" in the impeachment inquiry against the president.

A Crimeless Impeachment Is An Innovation We Don't Want And Don't Need.  Democrats have been thirsty for an impeachment ever since Donald Trump took office.  Unwilling to accept the results of the 2016 presidential election, Democrats have tried everything in their power to delegitimize Trump's triumphant victory.  They've advocated to overturn the constitutionally created Electoral College.  They've drummed up conspiracy theories alleging Trump colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton.  They've claimed that Russia "hacked" the election.  And they've claimed Trump's victory was a consequence of "fake news," all before Trump's inauguration.  Once Trump took office, Democrats and a compliant media ramped up their efforts.  On the day Trump took the presidential oath, the Washington Post declared that the "campaign to impeach President Trump has begun."

The gang that couldn't impeach straight.  The highlight of President Donald John Trump's rally last night in Monroe, Louisiana, was the president reading the tweets of Mark Zaid, who claims to be the lawyer for the alleged whistle blower.  Zaid tweeted 10 days after the inauguration, the "coup has started." [...] I read some of his tweets and thought no one could be so stupid as to leave a paper trail.  And yet, here we are.

'The Coup Has Started': Whistleblower Attorney Was Already Tweeting About Impeaching Trump in Jan. of 2017.  One of the deep state attorneys representing the so-called "whistleblower" behind the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquisition, has been working toward the impeachment of President Trump since the early days of his administration, recently unearthed tweets reveal.  Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer in Washington, tweeted in January of 2017 that the "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately," a Fox News analysis of his tweets revealed.

'Whistleblower' Attorney Mark S. Zaid Tweeted: 'Coup Has Started'.  Mark S. Zaid, the attorney representing the so-called "whistleblower" in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, tweeted in 2017 that the "coup has started," adding that "impeachment will follow ultimately." [...] Zaid was referring to the firing of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who refused to defend President Trump's executive order barring travel to the U.S. from terror-prone countries that had been identified as such under the Obama administration.

Who Can Stop Trump Now?  [Scroll down]  The rules of the impeachment process legalized by the House of Representatives turned out to be even worse than all assumptions.  Firstly, this is the first investigation of the current president in U.S. history, sanctioned by members of only one party:  the opposition.  Secondly, the new rules of impeachment legalize the de facto dictatorship of one person:  chairman of the Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff.  Schiff gained almost unlimited power.  Now it is Schiff alone who decides who will be called in as a witness, what questions can be asked to the witness, and who exactly will get the right to ask questions.  Schiff obtained the right to terminate the hearing if his version of the events is disputed by some intractable witness.  Republicans were [...] given the right to be able to ask Schiff to call a defense witness, and then only Schiff would be able to decide to admit such a witness.  Only Schiff decides whether the hearing will be open or closed and whether a transcript of the committee's meetings will be made public.

Impeachment cheat sheet
Handy "Impeachment" Cheat Sheet.  Oh, yeah, there's that other little matter.  We can't quite name the crime Trump has committed either.

Impeachment Lawyer:  Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi are On 'Path to Disaster' With Current Impeachment Process.  Whether we're talking about the President Trump/Russia "collusion" hoax or the current impeachment drama involving allegations of "quid pro quo" against Trump regarding his July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Republicans have long argued that the process Democrats were using to go about getting Trump thrown out of office was deeply flawed and partisan in the extreme.  They've also banged the drum about how Democratic "clown show" tactics to date have gone against the precedent set during the impeachment probes involving Presidents Richard Nixon (R) and Bill Clinton (D) respectively.  As it turns out, a man who the New York Times described in 2018 as "arguably... the nation's leading impeachment lawyer" largely agrees with them.

How Did Democrats Get Here?  There is nothing in what Trump has done as president that explains the unconstitutional attacks against him.  It is the reverse — the attempt to frame and entrap President Trump and his team as traitors with Russia, was begun by the Obama DOJ, FBI, CIA and White House before his inauguration.  It was the Obama Administration's actions that necessitated the all-out attempt to delegitimize President Trump before he could expose them.  President Trump did nothing to provoke the Obama intelligence community framing him as a Russian traitor.  You have to look at President Obama to understand this unprecedented attempt to overturn a presidential election.  Our press, including most of the conservative press, has always been unwilling to focus on Obama, and the Marxist forces he unleashed in American politics.  We can't even use the word Marxist without the taint of supposed "McCarthyism."

Suppose they gave an impeachment and nobody cared?  Official Washington is obsessed with impeaching President Donald John Trump and has been for three years.  But in covering the presidential race in Iowa, Edward-Isaac Dovere of The Atlantic found even hardcore Democrats in America could not care less.  He wrote, "The impeachment fight is all-consuming.  It's the biggest story in politics.  No one is talking about anything else — except pretty much everywhere outside of Washington."  The politicians act accordingly.  He wrote, "Yet of the 13 candidates there, just one mentioned impeachment:  Tom Steyer, the billionaire activist whose political group and TV ads over the past two years have helped mainstream the idea of removing the president.  Steyer argues that his long record of being outspoken in favor of impeachment is a key part of why people should support his candidacy, yet his mention of impeachment Friday night got a warm but not overwhelming response. [...]"

Impeachers Searching for New Crimes.  All civil libertarians should be concerned about an Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that such a crime has actually been committed.  Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders.  Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators.  It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands.

House Democrat admits Trump impeachment could backfire on his party in 2020.  Rep. Jim Clyburn believes that the House Democrats' impeachment investigation into President Trump could hurt his party at the ballot box in 2020.  Clyburn, 79, was elected to Congress in 1993 and is serving his party in the House as majority whip.  The South Carolina Democrat appeared on CNN on Sunday and asserted that while impeachment could backfire on the Democrats, the party's political concerns should not drive the process.

Restraining an out-of-control House.  [Scroll down]  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should hold a press conference, ASAP, to explain to the American people that the impeachment inquiry resolution adopted by the House majority amounts to a rebuff of the Senate's call for due process and equality of treatment for the House minority.  McConnell should explain that if the president accepted the unfair procedures adopted by the House Democrats, he would be approving an assault on the Constitution's provision of separation of powers for the three branches of government, thus reducing the presidency to an arm of the House majority.  Senator McConnell should tell the American people that the Senate cannot stand by and accept a sham impeachment that undermines the Constitution and replaces the will of a House majority for the will of the people in choosing a president.  McConnell should go further. [...]

Trump impeachment vote is Democratic declaration of war — Republicans must declare war on Dems.  With House passage Thursday of a resolution formalizing their blatantly partisan impeachment witch hunt against President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow crazed radical Democrats have declared war on the duly elected president of the United States.  Now it's time for Republicans to draw up their own declaration of war against Democrats.  The Democrats — who didn't pick up a single Republican vote for their baseless resolution to move forward with a kangaroo court masquerading as public impeachment hearings — are choosing to tear apart the country we all love because they are consumed by their burning hatred for President Trump.

Dem who wrote unfair impeachment rules has [his] girlfriend working on staff, in violation of House rules.  One of the cocky Democrats responsible for writing the party's widely-criticized, "unfair" impeachment rules that were voted on this week is reportedly a habitual rule breaker who's been caught employing his own girlfriend in his congressional office.  That Democrat is House Rules Committee vice-chair Alcee Hastings of Florida, who this week joined his fellow equally cocky Democrats in stonewalling efforts by Republicans to install just a modicum of fairness in their otherwise unfair and unjust impeachment rules.

Court ruling could throw impeachment timeline into disarray.  Even as House Democrats on Thursday ratified an impeachment resolution against President Trump, a federal judge has potentially slowed the brisk pace of the inquiry by declining to rule on whether a key witness needed to testify before the House of Representatives.  Instead, he gave all relevant parties several more weeks to prepare their arguments.  That raised the prospect that public hearings on the president's conduct could drag on into the Christmas holiday season, a scenario many in the Democratic leadership had once hoped to avoid.

The Impeachment Schiff Show.  The House of Representatives voted Thursday largely along party lines, with only two Democratic defectors, to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump.  Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, will manage the initial stage of the sham inquiry; hearings are expected to begin in a few weeks.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), departing from tradition, handed off the impeachment grunt work to her most dependable grunt rather than to the House Judiciary Committee.  Pelosi pleaded the Democrats' case on the morning of Hallowe'en, titillating her caucus of ghouls, witches, tramps, and thieves with tales about the scary monster in the White House.  "Sadly, this is not any cause for any glee or comfort," Pelosi assured her gleeful Democratic colleagues.  "This is something very solemn, something prayerful."

The Editor says...
Solemn, indeed.  Except the Democrats had to restrain each other to keep from cheering!

Republican Rep:  At the End of the Vote, Democratic Members Had to Coach Other Members 'Not to Cheer'.  If only House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were a better liar, she would be formidable.  She often spouts the most ridiculous lies and it's obvious to even the least perceptive among us, yet no one ever questions her.  The most recent example of this came during a discussion last month with ABC's George Stephanopoulos about Rep. Adam Schiff's parody reading of the Trump/Zelensky phone call.  Pelosi told Stephanopoulos, "I want the American people to know what that phone call was about.  I want them to hear it.  So yeah [the parody's] fair.  It's sad, but it's using the president's own words."  To his credit, Stephanopoulos pushed back, saying, "Those weren't the president's words, it was an interpretation of the president's words.  They're saying he made this up."

Matt Schlapp battles CNN's Camerota over 'standard' for impeachment in testy exchange.  Democrats and their media allies, not to mention "Never Trump" Republicans like Ana Navarro, are beside themselves after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi failed to get a single Republican lawmaker to back her play, which would have allowed her to call their maneuver to unseat President Trump a "bipartisan" effort.  In passing an official impeachment inquiry resolution on Thursday, the Democrat Party may have outsmarted themselves as they effectively confirmed that this effort is a partisan maneuver.  Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, appeared CNN Friday [11/1/2019] to say he felt good about the day's turn of events, only to have anchor Alisyn Camerota push back on the definition of "high crimes."

Democrats are wasting America's time on impeachment.  [Scroll down]  The Democrats were always going to do this.  From the minute we realized on election night that Donald Trump had won, they began fantasizing about nullifying the election results.  Indeed, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the Democrats' biggest concern was that Trump would not accept the outcome — a Hillary Clinton win, of course! — of which they were quite certain.  And as it turns out, it was the Democrats who had no intention of accepting it.  How odd that they have again become what they claim to detest about Trump.  Over the last three years, the desire to impeach Trump among rank-and-file Democrats has only grown with each outrage, real or manufactured.  Even as weak as political parties are these days, one thing remains true — politicians nearly always do what their parties want them to do.

Pelosi's Halloween impeachment vote was an enormous strategic defeat.  The Halloween vote for impeachment was an enormous strategic defeat for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  She admitted seven months ago, in a March 6 interview with The Washington Post, that a purely partisan impeachment vote was wrong and dangerous.  She was right.  Here are her own words:  "I'm not for impeachment.  This is news.  I haven't said this to any press person before.  But since you asked, and I've been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country.  And he's just not worth it."

So much for a quickie impeachment:  Now Nancy Pelosi wants to expand hearings beyond Ukraine.  Up until now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had the goods on President Trump and impeachment would move expeditiously.  Until she didn't.  Just the partisan lineup of her impeachment inquiry vote on Halloween signaled trouble, according to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  With that her hand of cards now, now she says she wants to expand the impeachment inquiry beyond Ukraine, raising the specter of mission creep as well as long, drawn out, impeachment hearings on every topic the Democrats can scare up.

GOP Rep. Aderholt on Impeachment: 'We're Seeing the Concerns the Founding Fathers Had over 200 Years Ago'.  During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio WVNN's "The Jeff Poor Show" this week, Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) acknowledged that Thursday's vote by congressional Democrats to proceed with the impeachment of President Donald Trump was a "short-term win" for Democrats.  However, he said it might be different for Democrats in the long run.  According to the Alabama Republican, what is unfolding in Congress regarding impeachment was a concern of the Founding Father when they were laying out the provisions for removing a sitting U.S. president from office.

Impeachment Is Unpredictable.  [Scroll down]  See, nobody knows for sure how impeachment proceedings will go.  Of course, we have heard again and again over the last five weeks (or is it three years?) that it is inconceivable Donald Trump could ever be ousted from the presidency.  His firewall against being stripped of power (and, his supporters hoped, against the House's even bothering to impeach him in the first place) has always been Republican control of the Senate, where a two-thirds supermajority is required to remove a president.  Assuming all Democrats voted to convict on any article of impeachment, Trump would be assured of acquittal if he lost no more than 20 Republicans.  Notice, though, that there's always been a caveat to such confident predictions:  As long as there is nothing other than what we already know about.

McCarthy: This Is an Attempt to Undo the Last Election and Influence the Next One.  Speaking on the House floor, [House Minority Leader Kevin] McCarthy said [...] "So I ask you all a simple question especially to my colleagues, is that what is happening here today?  Are we gathered these final moments before we depart for a week to fund our government, to pay our troops?  Are we gathered today to prove a new trade deal?  Or are we gathered to debate the critical national security issues regarding China, or Iran?  Well, that answer would be unanimously no, we are not working for the American people," he said. [...] "Those items would resemble the achievements of a productive Congress, a Congress that truly works for the people, but you know what this Congress counts?  This Congress records is more subpoenas than laws.  That's the legacy.  It is not just devoid of solutions for the American people, it is now abusing its power to discredit democracy by using secret interviews and selective leaks to portray the president's legitimate actions as an impeachable offense," he said.

House GOP Fed Up With Crooked Impeachment Inquiry: 'It's A Sham'.  Following a unipartisan House vote to approve a resolution "formalizing" the procedures of Democrats' impeachment inquiry, House Republicans held a blistering press conference Thursday afternoon where they detailed the manipulation, dishonesty, and selfishness that continue to drive Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Cal.) grand "impeachment inquiry."  The Democrats lost the 2016 presidential election, and as evidenced by their rather pompous vote yesterday, they have not yet recovered.  The House GOP responded with the sort of righteous indignation that would be expected from a party that has witnessed two charade-like investigations unfold in three years — one based on a laughably far-fetched "dossier," the other premised upon an event that never took place, as is clear from publicly released transcripts.

Pelosi Uncorks Impeachment Probe With Few Answers and High Risks.  Nancy Pelosi has launched a new phase of the impeachment inquiry with no explicit timetable, no defined scope of what to investigate, no guarantee the White House will cooperate and not a single Republican vote — in many ways taking Congress and the country into the exact politically perilous place she long sought to avoid.  The vote puts pressure on President Donald Trump, who now is all but certain to face a vote on articles of impeachment in the coming months.  But the onus also falls on Pelosi to finish what she started, with only the slimmest majority of public support in polls and many nervous Democrats who know voters will hold them to account for what happens.

'There's no model for this': Impeachment timeline crashes into Democratic primary.  On its current path, the impeachment case against President Donald Trump is on a collision course with perhaps the most pivotal period in the Democratic primary, threatening to unravel the campaign plans of some of the top 2020 contenders.  The House is unlikely to vote on impeachment until the end of the year, meaning the Senate trial against Trump figures to begin in January — just weeks before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses.  It's an event that could require the six Democratic presidential prospects to remain in Washington every workday for at least a month.

Steve Schmidt:  If Trump Is Not Impeached the American Republic Will No Longer Exist.  On Thursday's broadcast of MSNBC's "Deadline," Steve Schmidt, John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign manager, said President Donald Trump must be removed from office by impeachment or "we don't live in the American republic that existed from 1787 until 2017."

Impeachment Resolution 'Loophole' Allows Democrats to Reject White House Witnesses.  The impeachment inquiry resolution put forth by House Democrats includes a "loophole" that would give the majority party, or Democrats, on the Judiciary Committee the power to reject witnesses requested by the White House, Roll Call reports.  Democrats released the text of the inquiry resolution on Tuesday [10/29/2019], which Republicans say does little to nothing to address their concerns moving forward.

On 'Sham Impeachment': 'Why Do You Not Trust the People?' Kevin McCarthy Says to Democrats.  "What do you believe the definition of due process is?"  "What do you think the First Amendment is?"  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), ahead of the impeachment inquiry vote in Congress, gave a powerful speech on Thursday morning and posed a number of direction questions to the Democrats.  He called them out for their one-sided, biased and politically partisan efforts to try to remove President Donald Trump from the office to which he was elected by the American people in November 2016.

John Bolton dashes Dem's high hopes of testimony for impeachment inquiry.  After being "invited" by congressional Democrats to testify before them about President Donald Trump, former National Security Adviser John Bolton basically told Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the rest of the gang to pound sand.  In an email sent late Wednesday [10/30/2019] to The Hill, the former FNC personality's attorney Chuck Cooper confirmed that his client won't appear before Democrats voluntarily — and that he'd have to be subpoenaed, for starters.

GOP Rep methodically shreds Dem's impeachment 'sham'.  Republicans have accused the Democrats' so-called "impeachment resolution" of being a sham that would do nothing more than formally grant House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff the powers of an independent counsel, when in reality he's no such thing.  Speaking during a House Rules Committee meeting on Wednesday afternoon [10/30/2019], House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Debbie Lesko, a Republican, listed the unprecedented powers that'd be granted to Schiff were the "sham" resolution to pass the House during Thursday's expected vote.

Collin Peterson, Jeff Van Drew, the only two Democrats who voted against a Trump impeachment inquiry.  The two Democrats who broke from their party Thursday to vote against an impeachment inquiry are political conservatives representing congressional districts President Donald Trump won in 2016.  Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey joined every Republican in opposing a resolution that lays out a road map for an inquiry that will decide whether articles of impeachment should be filed against Trump over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate 2020 political rival Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.  The resolution passed 232-196 along almost entirely partisan lines.

The Left's Billionaires Have Been Pushing Impeachment All Along.  Leftist activists, the Democratic National Committee, their billionaire benefactors, and representatives of some of the world's largest charitable foundations came together in the days following Donald Trump's election.  At a meeting deliberately planned for Inauguration Day 2017, they finalized the resistance. [...] This plan, first reported by the Washington Free Beacon in 2017, included working directly with social media giants to access and manipulate their data, planting news stories in the mainstream media critical of President Trump, mounting campaigns against his policies, framing everything he does through a racial lens, and normalizing violence in the streets as a form of resistance.  Their goal?  To box Donald Trump in and ensure that he would never be "normalized" in American culture.  The amount of money dedicated to these efforts is staggering.  Tracing the sources of that dark money has proven elusive.

Nunes: Dems on Intel Committee Are Like a Cult, And the Media Are Cult Followers.  Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee said Thursday [10/31/2019] that Democrats on the Intelligence Committee running the impeachment inquiry are like a cult, and the media are cult followers.  "We are not here to run a show trial in an effort to impeach the president of the United States.  It's clear that since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives they have always intended to transform the Intelligence Committee into the Impeachment Committee," Nunes said in a speech on the House floor.

House approves impeachment inquiry rules after fiery floor debate.  A sharply divided House voted Thursday to approve a resolution setting "ground rules" for the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, putting lawmakers on record over the contentious process while setting the stage for proceedings to move into the public eye after weeks of closed-door depositions.  The measure passed largely along party lines, 232-196.  Two Democrats defected on the vote.  The first formal floor vote in relation to the impeachment probe announced a month ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi followed a fierce debate in the chamber, where Republicans accused Democrats of launching a de facto "coup" against the president in a "pre-ordained" bid to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

Tom Brokaw Admits Democrats Lack 'the Goods' to Impeach Trump.  NBC legend Tom Brokaw told an obviously disappointed Andrea Mitchell that Democrats do not have "the goods" to impeach President Trump. [...] Speaking to Mitchell on the far-left MSNBC Tuesday, Brokaw said, "The big difference" between Trump and Nixon is that today, Democrats "still don't have what you call 'the goods' on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them."

House Impeachment Resolution Authorizes Fishing Expedition Probes that Go Far Beyond Ukraine.  The House Democrats' impeachment inquiry resolution would officially authorize probes into U.S. President Donald Trump that are unrelated to the Ukraine-linked allegations that triggered the investigation to impeach him, including efforts to obtain the commander in chief's tax returns.  Unveiled on Tuesday [10/29/2019], the text of the resolution states that the measure orders "certain committees" to continue investigating whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump and "for other purposes," without explaining what those purposes are.

Democrat Alcee Hastings, Who Was Impeached and Removed, Makes Impeachment Rules.  Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) is the second-ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, which is setting the rules for the "impeachment inquiry" into President Donald Trump.  Hastings himself was impeached and removed from office in 1989 — one of only eight federal officials, all of whom have been judges, so be so relieved of their duties. [...] Hastings was removed for bribery, one of the causes enumerated in the Constitution's Impeachment Clause (Article II, Section 4).

Vindman: Another impeachment witness who's not exactly unimpeachable.  The Democrats have trotted out for the cameras another supposedly unimpeachable impeachment hearing witness, building him up as the Ultimate Trump Slayer, the trump-Trump trump card, the reason it's now all over for President Trump.  We've seen this show before, first, during the Mueller special counsel affair.  Then with NSC aide Fiona Hill.  Then with U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor.  The cold hard facts show something different.

New Lee Smith Book Should Stop 'Impeachment Inquiry' in Its Tracks.  Lee Smith's book, The Plot Against the President:  The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History, does more than recount the story of how Hillary Clinton was able to recruit federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to smear her rival — an effort that became an attempt to remove the president from office.  It suggests the present "impeachment inquiry" is the fruit of that poisoned tree.  Smith follows the efforts of former House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) as he discovered the truth about the outgoing Obama administration's efforts to "unmask" the names of Americans caught up in the government's foreign surveillance and leak them, illegally, to the media.

Examining the House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.  [T]he Constitution commits the impeachment power to the House, not to the Speaker or the majority party in the House.  The House acts as institution only by voting.  It will finally have done so once this resolution is approved.  The president and Republicans will no longer have a valid argument that the inquiry is constitutionally infirm.  That has been the White House's main justification for refusing to cooperate. [...] Not surprisingly, Democrats are posturing that the passage of the resolution means the president must produce any information directed by the House.  This is an overstatement.

The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act.  House Democrats plan to pass their Trump impeachment inquiry resolution Thursday.  Its full description is "Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes."  A better, and much shorter, title would be The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act.  The resolution gives Rep. Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, far-reaching power over the Trump impeachment.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains the ultimate authority, of course, but, like a chairman of the board choosing a chief executive officer, she has picked Schiff to run the show.  And in the resolution, Democrats will give him near-total control.

A House divided:  Dems find no GOP defectors for Trump impeachment vote.  House Democrats are bracing for a stark party-line vote Thursday [10/31/2019] on the impeachment inquiry against President Trump that will highlight the partisan nature of the probe and give him fresh ammunition to argue that he is being railroaded.

Lindsey Graham: 'Not One Vote' Among Senate Republicans To Remove Trump 'Because He Did Nothing Wrong'.  South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said there is "not one vote" among Senate Republicans to remove President Donald Trump from office "because he did nothing wrong."  During a Tuesday night [10/29/2019] interview on Fox News' "Hannity" about the ongoing House impeachment inquiry, Graham criticized House Democrats as "sore losers" engaged in an "unfair process" before giving Fox News host Sean Hannity his opinion about how far things would go in the Senate.

The 'Lynching' Hypocrisy.  President Donald Trump ignited yet another controversy when, on Twitter, he compared the Democrats' pursuit of his impeachment to a "lynching." [...] Here's the problem:  Where were the voices of indignation during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton when his defenders used the very same word?

Pelosi's Halloween Impeachment Plan Vote Scares Democrats, Splinters House Majority.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) proposal to vote on formalizing procedures for the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump has splintered members of her own caucus.  Earlier this week, Pelosi and the rest of the House leadership announced they would hold a vote on Thursday — Halloween — to establish procedures governing the ongoing impeachment probe.  The Speaker, who for weeks had argued the House had no constitutional requirement to vote on authorizing an impeachment inquiry, relented after coming under fire for keeping the process in the shadows.

McConnell: Impeachment 'Is Whatever a Majority of the House Decides It Is...'.  "Do you view the House impeachment inquiry as illegitimate?" a reporters asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at his news conference on Tuesday [10/29/2019].  McConnell did not directly answer the legitimacy question, except to say that an impeachable offense is whatever the House wants it to be: [...]

5 Problems with the Democrats' Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.  Democrats released the text Tuesday [10/29/2019] of their resolution to authorize an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, with the vote to be held on Thursday.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who argued for weeks that the House had no constitutional obligation to vote to authorize a inquiry, finally relented, which Republicans cited as an admission that the process has been a sham.  There are additional problems with the resolution — which Democrats never opened to negotiation with Republicans: [...]

Key Republicans [are] Unaware of [the] Intent Behind Pelosi's Thursday Impeachment Vote.  Very worrisome.  As we feared representative Doug Collins and representative Jim Jordan have no idea what Nancy Pelosi is doing on Thursday or why she is doing it.  This level of naiveté is why republicans always lose.  The House GOP and the Executive branch do not have skilled lawyers insightful enough to see behind the moves that Speaker Pelosi is making.

The 'Demedia's' Impeachment Beat Goes On.  [T]he Democratic allegations we have seen are preposterous legal nonsense:  that the president's legitimate curiosity to know if former Vice President Joe Biden's son was influence-peddling in Ukraine was a misuse of U.S. government assistance to buy an advantage in the upcoming election.  This will not move the Republican senators very far.  Republicans would commit mass electoral suicide to desert the president in the face of what we have seen up to now.  The Demedia are scurrying about like roaches with NeverTrump whisperings of mutiny in the Senate cloakroom, but it isn't happening.

Pelosi's deceptive 'impeachment vote'.  Speaker Pelosi is playing word games, trying to pull a fast one on the Republicans, the American people, and the Constitution by appearing to "authorize" a formal impeachment inquiry, while not actually passing an impeachment resolution that would trigger rights for Republican House members to call witnesses and issue subpoenas.  That is why, when ambushed by NBC News, she was careful to make a distinction and say "It is not an impeachment resolution."

Democratic leaders walk back Thursday impeachment vote.  House Democratic leaders are walking back a planned vote Thursday [10/31/2019] that would officially endorse impeachment proceedings and say that the resolution would merely address the process of holding public hearings on the matter.  "This is not an impeachment resolution," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Tuesday morning.  "I don't know what an impeachment resolution is."  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday that the planned vote was "not an impeachment resolution."

Pelosi announces Trump impeachment inquiry vote — Here's what I am on the lookout for now.  Senator Lindsey Graham has created a new reality for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Graham has written a powerful resolution which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell joined in co-sponsoring.  Together they have attracted 50 co-sponsors — which means with Vice President Pence supporting them they would win a vote to dismiss any phony impeachment from the House that failed to meet a key standard of fairness. [...] As a practical matter, the House Democrats had no choice but to bring the impeachment process to a vote.  They were faced with a Trump administration that refused to cooperate with a secret investigation which lacked rules and authorization by the full House.  They were also faced with a Senate that was prepared to reject a kangaroo court-style secret approach.  However, the next test for Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats will concern the kind of resolution they bring to the floor.

This Impeachment Subverts the Constitution.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to "proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry," but the House has never authorized such an inquiry.  Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn't clear for what offense.  Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense.  The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder — a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person.  The Senate should treat it accordingly.  The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress's legislative authority.  The Constitution assigns "the sole power of impeachment" to the House — the full chamber, which acts by majority vote, not by a press conference called by the Speaker.  Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas.  Such a process ensures the House's political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.

Whistleblower Exposes Key Player in FBI Russia Probe:  "It was all a Set-up".  Adam Lovinger, a former Defense Department analyst, never expected that what he stumbled on during his final months at the Pentagon would expose an integral player in the FBI's handling of President Donald Trump's campaign and alleged Russia collusion.  Lovinger, a whistleblower, is now battling to save his career.  The Pentagon suspended his top-secret security clearance May 1, 2017, when he exposed through an internal review that Stefan Halper, who was then an emeritus Cambridge professor, had received roughly $1 million in tax-payer funded money to write Defense Department foreign policy reports, his attorney Sean Bigley said.  Before Lovinger's clearance was suspended he had taken a detail to the National Security Council as senior director for strategy.  He was only there for five months before he was recalled to the Pentagon, stripped of his prestigious White House detail, and ordered to perform bureaucratic make-work in a Pentagon annex Bigley calls "the land of misfit toys."

New 'Impeachment Inquiry' Star Witness Admits Protecting the 'Interagency'.  The New York Times has obtained the opening statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, the top White House expert on Ukraine, who will testify to the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday about his concerns about President Donald Trump's telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July.  The statement, leaked to the Times — though committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has likened impeachment to a "grand jury" proceeding, which is typically conducted in secrecy — is described by the Times as the first account of someone who actually listened in on the telephone call, as opposed to hearing about it second- or third-hand.

On Trump impeachment Democrats thought they found their 'smoking gun' — he fires blanks.  Last week, the Democrats could barely contain themselves as they thought they'd found their smoking gun on Trump's impeachment: [...] What got them so excited?  The testimony of Bill Taylor, our ambassador to Ukraine, who apparently claimed the president wanted to withhold military aid and the White House meeting, unless Ukraine's new president publicly said he would investigate not just 2016 election meddling, but the Bidens, too.  Taylor's claim is also in his published witness statements.  So what's the truth?  Well, we don't know all of it because this whole thing is still being run in secret.

Pelosi Calls House Vote to Affirm Speaker Impeachment Inquiry The House Never Authorized.  Very nice trick here by the Lawfare advisory and rules committee that is handling the construct of the "Official House Inquiry" on impeachment.  It is such a good trick it has everyone crossed-up and confused.  Likely, that is by design.  On Thursday of this week [10/31/2019] Speaker Pelosi is bringing to the floor a resolution to affirm her previous declaration of an "Official House Inquiry". Mrs. Pelosi is very purposefully and carefully telling reporters this is not a "House resolution on impeachment".

House GOP to move from the criticizing process to fighting impeachment on the facts.  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy previewed a shift in the party's impeachment strategy during a private meeting with senior Republican aides, saying a sharper focus on defending President Trump against allegations behind the inquiry would begin when Democrats open the process.  House Democrats have run the impeachment process through the secretive Intelligence Committee with Republicans for the past month, concentrating the lion's share of their criticism on claims the process is unconstitutional and unfair.

History will judge Democrats harshly for impeachment of Trump, Ken Starr says.  History will judge congressional Democrats harshly for their handling of President Trump's impeachment inquiry due to their lack of public debate and failure to be transparent with the American people, former special prosecutor Ken Starr said on "America's Newsroom" Monday [10/28/2019].  "The text of the Constitution just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it's being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives," Starr said.  "But history will, I think, judge this not well.  It should judge it not well.  [You] didn't have a full debate on the floor of the House — and that just lends itself to, 'then to let's go to court and have this litigated.'  And of course, the chairman then says, 'you go to court, you're in contempt.'"

Rep. Jordan says House impeachment vote won't change anything:  Dems 'putting lipstick on the pig'.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's next step in formalizing the impeachment process is not going to change anything, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday [10/29/2019].  "I think the speaker is going to try to dress it up a little bit, put a little lipstick on the pig as they say and have this vote on Thursday, but it's not going to change anything," the ranking Republican on the House Oversight Committee told "Fox & Friends."  Pelosi said Monday the House will vote this week on a resolution to formalize — and establish the parameters — of the Trump impeachment inquiry.

Judiciary Committee and Nadler to regain control of impeachment.  The Judiciary Committee had been criticized by both parties for conducting an impeachment proceeding that had devolved into theatrics, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Monday [10/28/2019] she'll move the inquiry back to the panel some time after the House votes Thursday on a resolution to formalize the proceedings.

Impeachment Probe:  Ex-Trump Adviser Won't Testify Until Judge Rules.  U.S. President Donald Trump's former Deputy National Security Advisor Charles Kupperman defied a subpoena issued by House Democrats compelling him to testify Monday [10/28/2019] in the ongoing impeachment probe.  Kupperman's decision has dismayed House Democrat investigators, who have threatened to hold him in contempt of Congress.  In a letter to Kupperman's lawyer issued Saturday, the House Democrat leaders cautioned that his absence may prompt them to "draw adverse inference" that his testimony would have fueled their impeachment agenda.

McCarthy Says Planned Impeachment Vote Proves Inquiry Was 'Botched From the Start'.  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Monday [10/28/2019] that a decision by Democrats to hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry against President Trump later this week shows the process was "botched from the start."  "It's been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry," the California Republican wrote in a tweet.  "Today's backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start."  Earlier Monday, House Rules Committee chairman Jim McGovern announced the House will vote Thursday to formalize the impeachment process in order to "ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward."

Calling Pelosi and Schiff's bluff.  President Trump has repeatedly slammed the secret impeachment hearings in the Capitol basement as a "kangaroo court."  Speaker Nancy Pelosi got the message.  On Monday, she announced the full House will vote to formally launch impeachment proceedings that will be out in the open, instead of in the dark.  Democrats have been trying to suggest they have the goods on Trump.  But fact is, none of the witnesses they have called so far have any firsthand knowledge of presidential wrongdoing.  Behind closed doors and with no media allowed, House Democrats have tried to put on the appearance of a legal proceeding.  At the end of each session, they leak what they claim happened.  The media are all too willing to play along, printing the Democratic pols' claims as if they were fact.

Bat crazy Democrats losing it as Russia Hoax moves to a criminal inquiry.  They're insane.  They're fruit bats.  They've stayed at the party too long.  They're making us nuts just watching them.  Many of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) impeachment elves are expecting the worst now that Attorney General Barr has announced that the ongoing investigation into the origins of the Mueller investigation has been stepped up to a criminal investigation.  Could it be that those who perpetrated scurrilous lies, spying, and set-ups, including the use of international players since Trump's inauguration and before, will finally be vulnerable to American justice?  Are they aware of the impending danger as the light of day reveals what they've been up to?  [Certainly], they're aware.

Care About Impeachment When They Have 67 Senators.  [Scroll down]  My money is on Donald Trump, the warrior.  Not just because he knows the enemy better than anyone else, and because for nearly five years he has beaten the enemy every single time, but because I can count.  And what I count to is a number that is less than 67.  That's the number of traitors to the Constitution you would need in the Senate to convict.  67.  But right now, the count is about 50, maybe 49, or even 47 or 48.  That's the number of unAmerican creeps in the Senate who would vote to convict when the garbage Democrats in the house pass their garbage articles of garbage impeachment.

Federal Judge Beryl Howell Grants House Judiciary Committee Access to Mueller Grand Jury Material.  There's a clear set of battle lines now evident amid the ongoing political and legal dynamic:  Nadler, Pelosi, Lawfare and the Deep State media [versus] Durham, Barr, Trump and the MAGA movement.  Playing directly into this dynamic today [10/25/2019] Obama appointed Judge Beryl Howell has ruled an impeachment by unilateral decree is constitutionally valid; and as an outcome House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler can have access to some of the Mueller grand jury material that was used as evidence in the "Mueller-Weissmann Report".  It's important to note Judge Howell granted access to only that grand jury material that was used in the Mueller Report, not a blanket authority to gain all witness testimony or grand jury material writ large.

Impeachers Searching for New Crimes.  The goal of the impeach-at-any-cost cadre has always been the same: impeach and remove Trump, regardless of whether or not he did anything warranting removal.  The means — the alleged impeachable offenses — have changed, as earlier ones have proved meritless.  The search for the perfect impeachable offense against Trump is reminiscent of overzealous prosecutors who target the defendant first and then search for the crime with which to charge him.  Or to paraphrase the former head of the Soviet secret police to Stalin:  show me the man and I will find you the crime.  Although this is not Stalin's Soviet Union, all civil libertarians should be concerned about an Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that such a crime has actually been committed.

Schiff, Clinton, Biden:  The Dems lynching of President Trump and America.  In a recent tweet, Donald Trump uses the word lynching to describe the Democrat's latest push to destroy his very life.  Lest you forget, first a bit of history.  Liberals tried the Russia hoax.  And it did not work.  The insistent nagging regarding the emoluments clauses are not working.  And it started even before his election, much less his inauguration. [...] As defined, lynching is the finding of guilt, leading to punishment, without the benefit of due process.  Which is exactly what Adam Schiff and the liberal lunatics are doing to our President and those that voted for him.

Senator Grassley Tweets Warning About FISA Investigation.  U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley sent a forboding tweet a few days ago outlining the possibility of the FISA investigation would result in a "deep six" cover-up.  Grassley has a unique perspective on a very specific element to the construct of the FISA application, and the political use therein, that most have forgotten.  Back in 2018 when Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley was hot on the trail of a very specific individual that has had almost no attention since.  The election clock ran out on Grassley; the mid-terms took place; and Grassley was never able to get to his target.

Of Course President Trump Is Being Lynched.  Impeachment is being pushed without authorization from the full House, as in, "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."  The Constitution gives this power not to the speaker or the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, but to "The House," meaning the entire House. [...] How is the House pushing impeachment?  Through a "secret" process rather than through a "due" process.  Hearings are conveniently being held clandestinely, since, if the oxymoronic "House Intelligence" Committee holds hearings, everything can be covered under a blanket of "national security."  The accusers call witnesses while the defense can only watch, unable to take notes or call their own witnesses, subpoena documents, receive transcripts of the proceedings, or anything else normally afforded the defense under the due process of American jurisprudence.

10 Politicians Who Used 'Lynching' the Way Trump Did, and the Left Didn't Care.  [#1] Joe Biden:  In 1998, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) suggested the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton was a "political lynching." [...] [#2] Jerry Nadler:  Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), now chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which would lead an impeachment against Trump, himself compared Clinton's impeachment to a lynching no less than three times.  Specifically, he called House Republicans a "lynch mob."

Game-Changer in Impeachment?  Changed to What?  After a marathon session in the House where former US diplomat to Ukraine William Taylor testified, Democrats called the event a "game-changer" in the impeachment inquiry.  But what exactly did it change?  House Democrats had claimed they already had the goods, so are they suggesting the investigation has changed from a wild bluff to something substantial?

House Republicans storm closed-door Trump impeachment hearing in SCIF.  Some 30 House Republicans on Wednesday [10/23/2019] stormed their way into a closed-door hearing in a secure House Intelligence Committee meeting room to rip the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Trump.  The pro-Trump lawmakers, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, barged into the sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) where Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Laura Cooper was giving a deposition.

Matt Gaetz Leads Republican Charge Into Secret Schiff Impeachment Meeting.  A group of House Republicans stormed a closed-door meeting on Wednesday to demand more transparency in the Democratic-lead impeachment inquiry into President Trump.  Led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), the room the Republicans entered was a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) inside the Capitol building, where House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff was about to give his opening statement for Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Laura Cooper's testimony.  Rep. Fred Keller (R-PA) said when the members, who do not sit on one of the three committees leading the inquiry, entered, Schiff left the room.  The hearing was halted as Republicans tried to hash out a deal before some were made to leave the area.

House Republicans Storm Adam Schiff's Secret Impeachment Room.  About two dozen frustrated House Republicans on Wednesday stormed the secret room where House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has been running the closed-door impeachment inquiry.  Led by House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), the Republican lawmakers attempted to enter the room where Schiff has been bringing in current and former State Department officials to testify on whether President Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine in exchange for alleged help with the 2020 election.

GOP lawmakers storm closed-door impeachment session, as Schiff walks out.  House Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Wednesday essentially stormed a closed-door session connected to the impeachment investigation of President Trump, prompting House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to suspend the proceedings in a remarkable scene.  The standoff happened Wednesday morning after lawmakers held a press conference in which they accused House Democrats of lack of transparency.

Thirty House Republicans Demand Transparency and End To Impeachment "Star-Chamber" Secrecy.  Earlier today thirty republican members of the House of Representatives stood up and said they've had enough of the ridiculous schemes behind the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare plan to conduct an impeachment inquiry without transparency and sunlight.  With House democrats shredding the rules, procedures and historic norms in a transparent political scheme, apparently the GOP is finally starting to fight back.  Some righteous indignation was expressed during a press conference.

Democrats in 1998 Repeatedly Liken Clinton Impeachment to 'Lynching'.  No sooner had President Trump likening the impeachment inquiry embroiling his White House to a "lynching" were Democrats accusing him of racism, and worse. [...] In a 1998 appearance on CNN, Joe Biden said of Clinton's impeachment:  "Even if the president should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that, in fact, met the standard, the very high bar that was set by the Founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense."  Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in a 1998 floor speech:  "What we are doing, what we're doing here is not a prosecution, it's a persecution.  And indeed, it is a political lynching."  A week before Christmas in 1998, Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) also likened the impeachment proceedings to a lynching. [...] And that's just a sampling.  [Video clip]

Orange man bad?  In a proverbial nutshell, they — the established 'somebodies' and their media allies — are desperate.  They are desperate because Trump is succeeding.  He is actually doing not just what he promised to do (itself a rare and threatening thing to the establishment), but he is taking down what their own personal futures and fortunes depend on:  that We the People continue to believe that certain things could no longer be done.  That our future is destined to be small — something that the establishment has been diligently drumming into the American psyche for at least a full generation.

Dems' hysteria over 'lynching' offers an opportunity for Trump to discredit them.  I suspect that President Trump deliberately used the word "lynching" in a tweet to describe the efforts to impeach him knowing that it would evoke hysteria from Democrats accusing him of racism.  Lest I be accused of attributing to him mastery of 3-dimensional chess, it doesn't take a mastermind to understand that the media and other Democrats will take any bait at hand to accuse Trump of nefariousness.  The word "lynch" has roots far predating the Reconstruction period during which the KKK, the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party, summarily executed by hanging many freed slaves, as well as many white Republicans who supported Reconstruction measures, as even the NAACP acknowledges.  Lynching continued into the 20th century.

The Real Reason Dems Are Slowing Down Impeachment.  And you know what the reason given is?  Because Schiff and his team are learning of so many abuses they didn't even know about.  Why, these witnesses are coming in and they're telling stories about Trump that the Democrats had no idea of.  And it's expanding the scope.  That is not what is going on.  It's the exact opposite!  They aren't finding any impeachable evidence.  That's the problem! [...] [Adam Schiff] is the guy who promised everybody he had evidence of Trump and Russia colluding, and he has yet to produce it.  So they're claiming their secret witnesses are providing them so much dirt on Trump, they need more time to investigate all these new leads.  But we know that is a lie.  You know how we know that's a lie?  Because if there was any new dirt on Trump, Schiff would have immediately leaked it to the New York Times or the Washington Post.  There haven't been any new crimes reported by either of those stellar fake news sites.

The real 'constitutional crisis' is all on Democrats.  The Constitution requires "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."  This means that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be on the same level as treason or bribery.  If the Democrats had any real, credible evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors," they would not be requesting that President Trump assist the House Democrats, nor would they be holding secret hearings.  They would be having open, televised hearings.  There is no reason for President Trump to cooperate with Pelosi's kangaroo court, especially since the supposed basis for the impeachment is President Trump's phone call to Ukraine's President Zelensky.  President Trump released the transcript of the call.  If the call is the basis, then Pelosi and Schiff have the transcript.  The transcript speaks for itself.  If this is an impeachable offense, then Pelosi should hold the vote now to send it to the Senate.  The Dems and media have focused on President Trump, and they are obsessed with finding a crime, which means they have to manufacture a crime because no crime exists.

We Asked Every GOP Senator About Impeachment.  Seven Ruled It Out.  Most Republican senators refused to rule out voting to remove President Donald Trump from office in an impeachment trial over the Ukraine scandal when contacted by the Daily Caller this week.  The Caller contacted all 53 Republican Senate offices Monday and Tuesday [10/22/2019] to ask if senators would rule out voting to remove Trump from office, and received a variety of responses — seven senators explicitly rejected impeachment in their statement.

Democrats Claim Impeachment 'Game Changer'.  It really doesn't matter what any of these witnesses tell the Impeachment Folly ringleaders, the story is already written.  The ringleaders will tell this story to the public via their media conduits even if their "witnesses" do not cooperate and affirm their fairy tale.  Because this process is taking place in secret, we can only assume the Democrats have something to hide.  There would be no reason to conceal the process if things are as they are portrayed in their media leaks.

Trump calls House Democrats' impeachment inquiry a 'lynching'.  President Trump on Tuesday [10/22/2019] characterized the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry as a "lynching."  "So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights," the president wrote on Twitter.  "All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching.  But we will WIN!"  In another tweet, he commended the Republicans who voted to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, although Democrats blocked the resolution in a 218-185 party-line vote Monday evening.

Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term "Lynching" To Defend The Clintons.  While it's hard to keep up with all the freak-outs constantly percolating within our media establishment, one of the latest involves Donald Trump using the term "lynch" to describe the secret impeachment investigation they are carrying out. [...] Of course, a little digging has turned up the reality that Democrats have used the term "lynch" in its various forms (lynch mob, lynching, etc.) many times.  It's pretty laughable just how prevalent their use of the word has been throughout the years.  Worse, they did so specifically decrying impeachment, the very thing Trump is decrying.

Joe Biden apologizes after footage of him blasting the 1998 Clinton impeachment probe as a 'partisan lynching' is unearthed.  Joe Biden has apologized for using the word 'lynching' when describing the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998.  His apology comes after the former Vice President lambasted President Donald Trump for also using the exact same word as he described his current impeachment process.  'This wasn't the right word to use and I'm sorry about that,' Biden wrote in a tweet late on Tuesday night [10/22/2019].  Biden used the word during a 1998 CNN interview as he defended then President Clinton on-air.

Joe Biden is called out after he slams Trump for calling the impeachment inquiry 'a lynching'.  Joe Biden has apologized for using the word 'lynching' when describing the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998.  His apology comes after the former Vice President lambasted President Donald Trump for also using the exact same word as he described his current impeachment process.  'This wasn't the right word to use and I'm sorry about that,' Biden wrote in a tweet late on Tuesday night [10/22/2019].  Biden used the word during a 1998 CNN interview as he defended then President Clinton on-air.

Lindsey Graham condemns impeachment coverage, says press is out to 'get' Trump.  Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham questioned the press while defending President Trump's use of the word "lynching" to describe the impeachment inquiry.  Trump faced backlash for comparing his impeachment to "a lynching" on Twitter.  Graham was one of the only prominent Republicans to defend the president, saying, "This is a lynching in every sense.  This is un-American."  He also criticized the media's handling of Trump's comments and the impeachment inquiry as a whole.  "I'm going to let the whole world know that if we were doing this to a Democratic president, you would be all over me right now," Graham said Tuesday [10/22/2019].  "Not one person is asking a question."

Impeachment Will Fail.  Since all polls show Republican opinion in the country is rock solid behind the president and by any normal criteria — the economy, declining illegal immigration, and his delivery on election promises — he will be reelected easily.  This, as the egregious U.S. Representative Al Green (D-Texas) says, is the problem:  if Trump isn't impeached, he will be reelected.  But impeachment will be a complete failure, and he will be reelected anyway.

The Clock Is Running Out For Impeachment.  According to multiple news outlets on Monday [10/21/2019], House Democrats have conceded that they are very unlikely to conclude their impeachment inquiry and vote on articles by Thanksgiving, their original preferred timeline.  They cited scheduling difficulties and new evidence of potential wrong doing by the White House as main reasons for the delay.  Democrats now say that they hope to be ready for a vote by Christmas, but waiting that long to resolve the matter in the House and send it over to the Senate is rife with problems, which was why Democrats wanted it to be wrapped up by Thanksgiving in the first place.  If articles of impeachment were passed near Christmas, the Senate would be unable to begin a trial until inside of one month before the Iowa caucus on Feb. 3rd.

Speaker Pelosi Justifies Effort:  Investigating Political Corruption is Grounds for Impeachment.  Nancy Pelosi released a "fact sheet" outlining her justification for the impeachment process.  Within the justification Speaker Pelosi/Lawfare intentionally conflates investigating past political corruption/interference (2016) with the current 2020 election.  Speaker Pelosi's self-serving position boils down to:  any effort by the executive branch to investigate prior political corruption is grounds for presidential impeachment.

Trump Will Win in 2020 Because of Impeachment.  [President] Trump will win reelection in 2020 for three reasons:  First, the voters are always reluctant to replace a president in a time of peace and prosperity, regardless of his perceived flaws.  Second, a transparently partisan impeachment vote in the House followed by a fair trial and acquittal in the Senate, will seriously damage the Democratic brand while sparking an internal civil war between its moderate and leftwing factions.  Finally, this ideological conflict within the opposition party will result in the nomination of a weak compromise candidate to face a vindicated and politically stronger incumbent President awash in cash and supported by highly motivated voters.

Pelosi Gaslighting Continues — False Claims:  Administration "defying lawful subpoenas & document requests".  Nancy Pelosi continues to mislead her 'impeachment' constituents.  Unfortunately the compliant media is refusing to hold her accountable.  House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote.  As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.  "Lawful subpoenas", literally require an enforcement mechanism; that's the "poena" part of the word.  The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry.

Pelosi's 'fact sheet' on Trump impeachment.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) office on Monday released a "fact sheet" detailing allegations against President Trump amid House Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry.  "President Trump has betrayed his oath of office, betrayed our national security and betrayed the integrity of our elections for his own personal political gain," the document argues.

America, You're Getting an Impeachment Trial for Christmas.  Merry Christmas America, you are getting a big fat impeachment trial from the Democrats' Santa Claus this year.  Ho, ho, ho.  Democrats have re-calibrated their impeachment timeline in order to make their case the to public. [...] Yes, well this is what the Democrats have been doing since they took the House majority, isn't it?  What major legislative issue have the Democrats taken up with a credible view it will become law?  None.  They pass ridiculous fantasy bills that no Republican in the senate or the president will ever sign.  They don't care about the issues, they care about power and then jamming through their bad policies with no resistance.

Adam Schiff's 'Gossip Girl' Probe.  Despite the fact that support for impeachment is slowly dropping, and 60 percent of voters say they'd rather Congress focus on actual problems facing Americans, Democrats are still hell-bent on making a mockery of the impeachment process.  They are led by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  In ordinary impeachment probes, the inquiry would be led by the House Judiciary Committee.  But the Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) has bungled key elements and fallen out of favor with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

The Left's childishness has gone stale.  Actually, as has been explained in a number of places, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats don't want a real "impeachment process" because then the Republicans could subpoena documents and call witnesses, during which the farce would become apparent.  The Idiot Left would have egg all over its face, as it did when Robert Mueller testified before Congress about his shabby investigation.  So the true motive behind the Left's insistence on an impeachment process is simply to keep that train moving in hopes of never actually arriving at the purported destination.

The Trivialization of Impeachment.  [Scroll down]  The mere existence of misconduct that the House might judge impeachable does not mean the Senate — by a two-thirds supermajority — would remove a president over it.  That fact, coupled with the inherent societal discord impeachment is bound to cause, has historically discouraged the House from commencing impeachment inquiries, even for arguably impeachable offenses.  The upshot is that impeachment can never be successfully invoked — in the sense of both filing articles of impeachment and ousting the president from power — absent a public consensus, cutting across partisan lines, that a president needs to be removed.  Only such a consensus would move members of the House and Senate, who must face voters.

All Nine GOP Members of House Intel Committee Blast Schiff for Withholding Docs.  All nine GOP members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) wrote a scathing letter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Friday accusing him of concealing documents related to Democrats' "highly irregular" impeachment inquisition and demanding that they rectify their behavior. [...] Republican HPSCI members identified 21 specific documents that have yet to be shared with the Minority and called the secrecy unprecedented.

Scalise Introduces 'Open and Transparent Impeachment Investigation Resolution': 'Stakes Are Too High' for Secrecy.  On Friday [10/18/2019], House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), introduced a rule change (H. Res. 639) to allow all members of Congress access to ongoing impeachment proceedings, including depositions and transcribed interviews.  "The stakes are too high for Chairman Schiff and Speaker Pelosi's impeachment proceedings to continue in secret," Rep. Scalise declared, announcing introduction of his "Open and Transparent Impeachment Investigation Resolution."  House Intel Committee Chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) "has no intention of conduction a fair and open process" and wants to impeach the president of the United States through a secret, closed-door effort, Scalise charged[.]

Guerrilla Politics.  [Scroll down]  This strategy has polarized the electorate, with the Democrats favoring the move and the Republicans solidly against it, both already knowing which lever they will pull next November.  Speaker Pelosi doesn't want a formal impeachment vote taken in the House for several reasons.  She may not have the votes needed to move the proceedings forward and she knows a formal vote gives the Republicans options that might prove embarrassing to the Democrats, since much of what's being charged against President Trump has been dismissed as an unfounded witch-hunt.  She also is an excellent tactician who knows that she can bend the rules without a formal vote and continue the endless charade against Trump, all of which keeps the lies streaming and the media churning.

Impeachment Becomes A Psychodrama Of the Press.  In reality, the whole episode is nonsense, a farce.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't hold a vote on a formal impeachment inquiry because she couldn't win the vote.  If there were such an inquiry, where the Republicans called and examined witnesses and subpoenaed documents, it would collapse as quickly as the Russian collusion fraud did when former special counsel Robert Mueller stumbled through his congressional inquiry.  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff — who is usually lying when his lips aren't moving and always is when they are — says we will not be hearing from a non-whistleblowing leaker, to give his hearsay evidence of a conversation that any person in the world can read and see has no legal implications whatever.  But the investigation indomitably continues.

Don't Be Surprised If Trump Is Never Impeached.  In the giddy early days of the "impeachment investigation" over Ukraine, Democrats saw the polls move in their direction.  But those polls have now stabilized and in some cases crept back against impeachment.  Even at the peak, impeaching and removing the president was only popular among those who already opposed the president.  So as the groundswell subsides, could Democrats really reverse course and abandon an impeachment that just last week seemed imminent?  Surprisingly, yes, they could.  The central thing to consider here is that impeachment is a political, not a legal, process.  Despite their insistence that there are plenty of reasons to impeach Trump, Democrats have yet to do so.

Latest Pelosi-Schiff impeachment 'witch hunt' is venomous affront to constitutional principles.  The quixotic quest to impeach President Trump is not only anathema to the fundamental principles of due process, but constitutes a full-frontal assault on the procedural protections inherent in the "due process" clause of the Constitution.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her chosen marionette, Rep. Adam Schiff, are operating in the shadows of secrecy.  Their authority does not derive from the House of Representatives itself upon a full majority vote.  Instead, they have commandeered impeachment power by anointing themselves as the sole determinants.  They alone have chosen a "star chamber" approach to removing the president.  The remaining members of the House are left in the dark without access to facts, documents and testimony.  So, too, are President Trump and American voters who placed him in office.  What is the purpose of an electoral choice by the many if it can be reversed by the furtive maneuvers of the few?  Or two?

Republicans in Congress:  Time To Walk Away.  Today the big question in Washington is, will Democrats actually impeach a president of the United States without cause, without a crime?  Scary, right?  But we're told not to worry, because even if House Dems impeach, the GOP will stop it cold in the Senate.  So desensitization worked.  Just say "impeachment" over and over for three years until the threat that used to set off alarm bells now barely moves the needle. [...] OK, but if Democrats want to keep their "majority," why impeach with no evidence?  Why forge ahead despite the people's opposition to impeachment and the risk to their political careers?  Well, there are far bigger stakes with this political persecution than just one election.  Our Republic is the real prize.

Impeachment gets real:  Mitch McConnell gives Senate Republicans private tutorial on how to put Trump on trial.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell briefed Republicans in a closed-door session about how they would conduct a Senate trial if the House sends over articles of impeachment.  Senate Republicans believe it is becoming increasingly likely, if not inevitable, that House Democrats will pass articles of impeachment against President Trump in the coming weeks.  McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, on Wednesday gave fellow GOP lawmakers a tutorial on how to conduct a trial based on how the process proceeded in the past.  "Every indication is that articles will be coming our way, eventually," Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, said after the meeting.

Nancy Pelosi Promises House Impeachment Subpoenas Will Not Have Legal Penalties — House Will Not Authorize Impeachment Inquiry.  According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote.  As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.  A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry.  Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-constitutional "impeachment inquiry" process.

Nancy Pelosi being politically smart by delaying impeachment vote, Brit Hume says.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being politically smart by holding off on a formal Trump impeachment vote on the chamber floor, according to Brit Hume.  However, the investigation she is engineering is "peculiar" and unlike past proceedings against ex-presidents like Richard Nixon, Hume claimed Tuesday [10/15/2019] on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."  "I frankly can't think of a good reason, from her point of view, why she would hold a vote," he said.

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Docs Released to Media — Claim 'Inconsistencies Are Versions of Fraud'.  President Trump's tax documents were released to ProPublica using New York's FOIA law and 'experts' are already claiming there is evidence of potential fraud.  This is precisely why the Democrats are fighting to get Trump's tax returns — more fodder for the media.  ProPublica reviewed tax documents on 4 of Trump's properties in New York and allege there are discrepancies involving 40 Wall Street and the Trump International Hotel and Tower.

Pelosi Refuses to Hold Full House Vote On an Impeachment Inquiry.  Ahead of the Democratic debate on Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she would hold off on having a full House vote to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.  Republicans have pushed Pelosi to hold a formal vote in the House.  Doing so would give the White House the ability to subpoena their own witnesses.  The Speaker, however, said a formal vote isn't required for Democrats to continue with their probe.  According to Pelosi, Trump violated the Emoluments Clause by allowing foreign governments to interfere in the American government and elections.

The Editor says...
The charges are broad and vague.  Where's the evidence?  The American people (excluding the baby-killing socialist Democrats) aren't going to stand for this claptrap.  Public school graduates have never heard of "emoluments," but even they can see this is just wrong.

Pelosi: No House vote on impeachment inquiry.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday she will not stage a vote on the House floor to officially launch an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.  The decision came after Democratic leaders, returning to Washington following a two-week recess, had reached out to members of their diverse caucus to gauge the party's support for such a vote. [...] "There's no requirement that we have a vote, and so at this time we will not be having a vote," Pelosi told reporters during a last-minute press briefing in the Capitol.

Nothing Constitutional About An Impeachment Process With Secret Evidence And Secret Witnesses.  The forceful and thorough rebuke that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone delivered to the "impeachment inquiry" will go down in history as the definitive document defeating an attempted coup.  Over the course of eight scathing pages in a letter last week, Cipollone thoroughly deconstructed the absurd "Ukrainegate" narrative that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (Calif.) has tried to construct.

Democrats using impeachment to consolidate power.  Rudy Giuliani told House Democrats via a letter from his lawyer that he will not be complying with their subpoenas related to their impeachment inquiry. [...] [But] they're not really subpoenas anyway.  They are nothing more than sternly worded letters with a request calling themselves "subpoenas." The House must vote first to authorize a committee investigation if its members want the judicial authority to enforce these letters.  The kangaroo court that Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi are running has yet to do so.  And so, because they're not really subpoenas in any legal sense, there is zero penalty for not complying with them.  Giuliani having his lawyer send a response is already beyond what he had to do.  The Democrats are clearly planning something with the illegitimate and ever changing impeachment operation.

Booker: We Have to Conduct Impeachment in a Way 'That Brings Our Country Together'.  Impeachment as a way to bring the country together?  That's what Sen. Cory Booker said at Tuesday night's debate:  "So first of all, we must be fair," Booker said. [...] Booker's call for a "fair" process will get a rousing endorsement from House Republicans, who say the secretive and closed-door proceedings being run by House intelligence committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are anything but fair.  South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg said Trump "has left the Congress with no choice" but to impeach him.

The Editor says...
The Democrat platform includes open borders, Obamacare, windmills and solar panels everywhere, high taxes, gun confiscation, homosexuality, atheism, activist judges, racial discrimination in the form of "affirmative action," one-part socialist government, and above all, abortion.  No part of the Democrat platform "brings our country together."

Why Pelosi should heed the Rodino precedent on impeachment.  In Joe Biden's statement on the Clinton impeachment released to the Congressional Record on Feb. 12, 1999, he cautioned his fellow senators, calling impeachment "the most obviously anti-democratic act the Senate can engage in — overturning an election by convicting the president."  He also said that impeachment had "no place in our system of constitutional democracy except as an extreme measure ... reserved for breaches of the public trust by a president who so violates his official duties, misuses his official powers or places our system of government at such risk that our constitutional government is put in immediate danger by his continuing to serve out the term to which the people of the United States elected him."  And finally, "Only a president is chosen by the people in a national election. ... To remove a duly elected president clashes with democratic principles in a way that simply has no constitutional parallel."

At Democratic debate, notes of caution on impeachment.  Sen. Bernie Sanders said the president deserves to be impeached not only for the Ukraine affair but also for the Trump-Russia matter and even for alleged violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause.  Sen. Kamala Harris said Trump is so guilty that impeachment should be a quick affair.

The Editor says...
What law has Mr. Trump broken?  One would think the Democrats should have had courtroom-quality evidence before impeachment proceedings began.

Ukraine: The Poorly Written Hoax Sequel.  "By any metric," Megan McArdle contends in her Washington Post column, "Trump is in trouble."  The headline of McArdle's piece warns:  "Poll by sinking poll, Trump inches toward impeachment.  How much longer, she asks, can a president survive a "53.4 percent disapproval rating"?  As she notes, "In January 1974, well into the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon's poll numbers on impeachment were better than Trump's." [...] McCardle made those predictions on August 31... in 2018.  Spoiler alert!  Thirteen months later, President Trump remains in office, not impeached.

Taibbi: Impeaching Trump Would Establish 'Intelligence Community Veto over Elections'Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi reframes the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry — and its latest development in the arrest of two associates of Rudy Giuliani — as a "permanent coup" against President Trump playing out more slowly than coups he has experienced firsthand in other nations.  Taibbi's article comes after he criticized corporate media's framing of the Deep Stater as a non-partisan "whistleblower," despite being a registered Democrat who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden in the White House.

The Strategies of Targeting Trump.  After failing with the voting machine gambit, the Logan Act, the 25th Amendment, the emoluments clause, the McCabe-Rosenstein faux-coup, the Comey memos farce, the "resistance" efforts outlined by the New York Times anonymous op-ed writer, the campaign finance violations accusations, Stormy, tax returns, whistleblowers, leakers, the Mueller 22 months charade, and now impeachment 2.0, what exactly is the point of impeaching Trump just 13 months before the election? [...] There doesn't have to be a point to impeachment.  Democrats loathe Trump.  That is enough.  They would have impeached him on day one of his presidency before he set foot in the White House but they did not have control of the House.  Now they do, so they can.

Rep. Eliot Engel:  Not sure House needs 'another step' in impeachment inquiry by holding vote.  The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Sunday [10/13/2019] said it wouldn't bother him if the full House took a vote on Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Trump but suggested that it wasn't necessary at this point.  "Doesn't bother me to vote," Rep. Eliot Engel, New York Democrat, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."  "But, you know, the Republicans would rather talk about anything else than about what's really happened.  So, they throw this out that there should be a vote."  "If we had a vote on that, they'd come up with six other things, there needs to be a vote," Mr. Engel said.  "I think there needs to be an impeachment inquiry and we should stop the delaying tactics of the Republicans."

Is China Orchestrating the Democrats' Faux Impeachment Scheme?  China has not only compromised Biden, it is extremely likely that they are actively colluding with Democrats and the media to take down Trump.  Consider Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), whose financial ties to the Red Chinese are well-known through her husband, who somehow (like Hunter Biden) landed tens of millions of dollars in "investments" as she chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Worse yet, China was able to implant a spy into her staff for about 20 years.  But, of course, she knew nothing.  We all know that President Trump is costing China a lot of money.  The media's unprecedented and insane attacks against Trump raise my Spidey-sense.

Rashida and the law.  It seems that the charming and attractive Rashida Talib is still running off at the mouth about arresting people, specifically administration officials who refuse to respond to the House's "impeachment" subpoenas. [...] There's only one problem, as I see it.  To arrest somebody, you have to be able to appeal to authority, and there's no authority involved here.  An impeachment process has not be formally begun, therefore, the House has absolutely no grounds for subpoenaing anybody.  It's quite similar to all the jabber about "obstruction of justice" surrounding the Mueller Report.  If there's no crime, there's no obstruction.  You'd figure an institution packed full of lawyers would have some grasp of actual law.  Interestingly enough, though, there is an individual accused of criminal behavior in the House itself. [...] That particular member is Rashida Tlaib.

An Impeachment In Search Of A Crime.  [Scroll down]  It's not like the House has taken a vote on anything, they haven't impeached the president.  They haven't taken a vote to impeach the president. [It's] just Nancy Pelosi came out one day and said, Yes we're going to start an impeachment inquiry, and we're going to give it to some committees.  But that's not how impeachment really works.  And so for right now, it's all just bluster.  It's all just a way to drag people from the White House, in front of Congress, on television, during an election year.  Because, the impeachment inquiry such as it is, is fundamentally political.  Not legal, but political.

The Democrat Impeachment Circus.  [Scroll down]  Even the New York Times has admitted that "Democrats are deviating in key ways from the way the House launched the two presidential impeachment inquiries of the modern era."  It starts with the fact of the impeachment inquiry itself.  In both the Clinton and Nixon administrations, the House Judiciary Committee's investigation into potential impeachable offenses was given credibility by full votes in the House.  House Democrats have had no such vote.  Probably because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) knows it would fail.

Democrats' Treatment of Trump During "Impeachment" Is How They'd Like to Treat Each of Us in Court.  I want you to think about how the Pelosi-Schiff impeachment process is being conducted.  Imagine a criminal trial or civil action during which the "Democrat Prosecution" — the prosecutors — conduct themselves as follows:
  •   Prosecutors issue repeated, baldfaced lies to the public
  •   Prosecutors secretly solicit accusers
  •   Prosecutors collaborate with accusers to assist with the creation of a "complaint"
  •   All testimony occurs in secret
  •   No transcripts are made public
  •   No defense counsel are permitted
  •   The defense is prevented from calling witnesses or issuing subpoenas
  •   The accused is assumed guilty and must prove him- or herself innocent
  •   The accused is afforded no due process [...]
If they had their way, Democrats would treat each of you like this.

Jim Jordan:  Why Is Pelosi 'Scared to Have a Vote to Open an Official Impeachment Inquiry?'.  Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Saturday [10/12/2019] posed a series of questions to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) regarding the partisan-fueled impeachment inquiry, asking why she is "scared to have a vote to open an official impeachment inquiry."  Pelosi told impeachment-hungry Democrats over the summer that they needed to wait and "follow the facts" before pursuing impeachment.

Report: Democrats Privately Urging Pelosi to Hold Impeachment Inquiry Vote.  Some House Democrats are privately calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to hold a vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry to undermine Republican criticism that the process is illegitimate, Politico reported this week.  So far, Pelosi has refused to schedule a vote, arguing that the Constitution and House rules do not require the lawmakers to do so.  Meanwhile, the White House and its Republican congressional allies contend that such a vote is necessary to legitimize the inquiry per the recognized standards of previous impeachment efforts.

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump.  What is an impeachable offense?  Rep. Maxine Waters, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, says the definition is purely political: "whatever Congress says it is — there is no law."  She's wrong. [...] The Framers wanted an independent president who could be removed only for genuine wrongdoing.  So they agreed to the criteria that became part of the Constitution:  "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."  In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton elaborated on the meaning of "high" crimes: "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Nancy Pelosi's Faithless Impeachment.  Democrats like the latest polls on impeaching President Donald Trump, some of which show rising support.  But in the long term, it is a losing issue.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made it so when she launched an "impeachment inquiry" without waiting for the evidence.  By the time Pelosi convened a fateful meeting with House Democrats on Sep. 24, Trump had already announced he would release the transcript the next day.  Pelosi went ahead, anyway.

There's no substance behind the accusation Democrats claim is impeachable.  Democrats and the media for three years used a fog of facts and speculation to lull America into forgetting there was never a shred of evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.  They flooded the zone with another flurry of scattershot claims in their campaign against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  Republicans might bear these tactics in mind as they confront the left's new impeachment push.  In the two weeks since the White House released the transcript of President Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the debate has descended into the weeds of process and people.  This is unsurprising given House Democrats' decision to keep hidden the central doings of their impeachment inquiry, and the media's need to fill a void.

Levin: Democrats 'are eviscerating our system of law' to impeach President Trump.  Wednesday night [10/9/2019] on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin discussed the letter the White House sent to House Democrats criticizing their impeachment efforts.  In the letter, White House counsel Pat Cipollone calls House Democrats' impeachment probe "illegitimate" for multiple reasons, chief among them the fact that the House has yet to hold a vote of the full chamber.  "The House of Representatives is supposed to be involved," rather than just the leaders of a single party, Levin explained.  "[The Framers] didn't want one party as a mob, using the Impeachment Clause as a way to reverse a past election and to affect a future election so close the general election."  The White House's letter also cites a "a separate, fatal defect" in the Democrats' probe:  Lack of due process stemming from the lack of procedures to afford the president "even the most basic protections."

Pelosi [is] allowing [a] sham process to undermine impeachment.  Let me see if I understand the Democratic position on impeachment:  They have begun an impeachment inquiry because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says so.  The House of Representatives has not authorized it.  Hearings are being held in secret and transcripts of interviews are not being released.  The minority party cannot ask questions, request evidence or subpoena witnesses, and witnesses have no due process.  Trump administration officials cannot have department attorneys with them.  And if the Trump administration does not surrender to their demands, they will consider the president guilty of obstruction.  Are they serious?  An impeachment inquiry, in terms of House precedent, requires a full House vote.  For the body to act as one-half of one-third of the government, it must vote.  Mrs. Pelosi may be the speaker, but she does not individually speak for the entire House.

Impeachment: The Democrats' chosen recourse to overturn the 2016 election.  The prospect of President Trump being impeached by the House of Representatives should not be surprising to people.  Counter to conventional wisdom, this impeachment does not expose a corrupt president.  Instead, it reveals the rot at the core of an establishment willing to abuse the system to overturn an election.  Ergo, impeachment was inevitable if we were correct in our support for Donald Trump in 2016.  If the system was as corrupt and malevolent as we had intuited through the decline of the country under Democratic rule, then of course their reaction would be to implement corrupt and malevolent mechanisms to reverse Trump's election.  The phony Russian dossier, the actions of federal law-enforcement agencies to implement the attempted framing of a president, and the double-dipping in that toxic stew now known as the "Ukraine scandal" are efforts that were meant to lead to impeachment.  Mr. Trump's election was more than a poke in the eye at the ruling, patronizing and malevolent establishment; it was a declaration of war against embedded politicians who think being in power is their birthright.

Flashback to DEC 2017: 58 Dems Vote to Impeach Trump for Criticizing NFL Anthem Protesters.  While the Democrats continue their latest push to remove President Trump from office over his 33-minute phone call with the leader of the Ukraine, it's easy to forget liberal lawmakers' first attempt back in December 2017.  On December 6, 2017, 58 House Democrats voted to invoke articles of impeachment against President Trump for his fierce criticism of NFL players "who took a knee" during the performance of the US national anthem.

Rep. Meadows on impeachment process: 'Hardened criminals have better protections' than Trump.  Average criminals have more legal protections than President Trump does in his impeachment fight against congressional Democrats, said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., on "America's Newsroom" Thursday [10/10/2019].  "Listen, hardened criminals have better protections than the president of the United States right now on the way that this investigation is being conducted," he said.  Meadows also called for the removal of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as the head of the impeachment probe and said Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisanship prevents her from acting as a fair arbiter over the process.

We Now Have a Genuine Constitutional Crisis.  The term "constitutional crisis" has been tossed around so often since President Trump took office that it now has little meaning in our public discourse.  But regardless of what we call the current impasse between the executive branch and the House of Representatives pursuant to the "impeachment inquiry" launched by the latter, our government now faces a genuine crisis whose magnitude the nation hasn't seen for more than 150 years.  Americans have long celebrated the orderly transfer of power that is unique to our form of government.  The Democrats, however, have abandoned that tradition by refusing to accept the outcome of the 2016 election.

Democrats face consequences of skipping floor impeachment vote.  House Democrats gave themselves political wiggle room when they launched their impeachment inquiry without holding a floor vote, but that procedural strategy also left room for the White House and a federal judge to question the legitimacy of the push.  The White House, in a letter Tuesday [10/8/2019] criticized as advancing a legally flimsy argument, told the House it would not participate in an impeachment inquiry that hasn't been authorized by the full House — which they argue means it isn't "a valid impeachment proceeding."

The Bluffpeachment.  The current situation in Washington is, in the language of poker, a bluff.  The Democrats are bluffing; they have only weak cards in their hand.  They actually have nothing against Trump.  That's all they have ever had. [...] he current hysteria of the Democrats regarding impeachment is unusual.  Firstly, it is based on rumors.  That is why, secondly, the Democrats still have not decided which law Trump has violated.  Thirdly, there was no vote in the House of Representatives to initiate the impeachment procedure (more precisely, the House of Representatives, in which the majority belongs to the Democrats, in a 332-95 decision, chose not to bother with impeachment).

GOP Rep. Ralph Abraham introduces resolution to expel Nancy Pelosi from House.  A Louisiana Republican congressman introduced a resolution Tuesday [10/8/2019] to expel Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., from the House of Representatives, the latest sign that frustration in the GOP is building as Democrats continue their impeachment inquiry against President Trump.  Rep. Ralph Abraham's resolution stands no realistic chance of passing in the Democratic-controlled House.  Likewise, Republicans have argued that Democrats' potential articles of impeachment are all but certain to stall if they ever reach the Senate.

Trump refuses to participate in impeachment farce.  Today [10/8/2019], President Trump's White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone, directed an eight-page letter to Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, et al., declining on behalf of President Trump to participate in the Democrats' sham impeachment proceeding.  The letter, embedded below, is excellent.  Some would say, brilliant.  It attacks the Democrats' constitutionally defective and politically motivated proceeding at its root.

Pat Cipollone, Trump's lawyer, to Dems:  Drop Dead!  No wonder many Capitol Hill Republicans hate President Donald Trump.  He's not your typical Republican.  That's to say, he doesn't roll over and play dead when Democrats and their hip-pocket pals in the fake-news media come after him.  In fact, he relishes a good fight.  One where he gives better than he gets.  And so does his legal team.  In fact, Trump's lawyer, White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, has essentially told the Democrats' Impeachment Partygoers to drop dead.  Meanwhile, heedless Congressional Democrats continue to gear up for pointless impeachment inquiries.  They plan to center these primarily closed-door sessions on Trump's legitimate conversation with Ukraine's head of state.  But the country seems more interested in the subject of that conversation.

White House letter to Pelosi rejecting cooperation in impeachment inquiry.  The White House on Tuesday [10/8/2019] sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats saying it would not cooperate with their impeachment inquiry into President Trump over his dealings with Ukraine.  Accusing Pelosi and her colleagues of "seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 election," White House counsel Pat Cipollone in his letter said Trump and members of his administration "cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances" but stopped short of calling for the House to hold a vote on impeachment.

McConnell Defends President Trump, Slams House Dems Amid War on Impeachment.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) defended President Trump and slammed House Dems on Tuesday evening [10/8/2019] in a pair of tweets.  The war on impeachment escalated Tuesday after White House Counsel Pat Cipollone formally told Pelosi and House Dems to pound sand and refused to cooperate with their Soviet-style show trials.  "Overturning the results of an American election requires the highest level of fairness and due process, as it strikes at the core of our democratic process," McConnell said.

White House Defies Impeachment Process in Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  The White House on Tuesday [10/8/2019] sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denouncing the impeachment inquiry begun in the House of Representatives as "illegitimate."  "President Trump and his administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process," the letter read.

Kangaroo Court:  Democrat Impeachment Inquiry Becomes 'Clown Show'.  The impeachment inquiry process so far is akin to a "kangaroo court" led by Democrats already convinced President Donald Trump is guilty of wrongdoing, Republicans said Tuesday [10/8/2019].  House Democrat leaders pursuing the investigation are intent on pushing Trump out of office by any means necessary, Republican lawmakers and the White House argued.  House Democrats have carried out the entire process behind closed doors since the beginning of the impeachment inquiry last month.

Why can't Dems treat Trump as fairly as Republicans did Bill Clinton?  Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a clear duty to call an immediate House vote to authorize an official impeachment inquiry — if she dares.  The White House informed her today that the Executive Branch won't play along with the lawless "inquiry" that House Democrats have been engaged in — which President Trump has quite fairly termed "a totally compromised kangaroo court."  White House counsel Pat Cipollone's letter to Pelosi spells out the problems.  While the Constitution clearly gives the House the power to begin impeachment proceedings, it does not give the speaker the privilege of declaring them all by herself.

American Democracy dies in the Democrat's Deep State darkness.  Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's very public two-year investigation into Russia collusion failed to produce evidence that any American cooperated in so-called Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. [...] Secret impeachment inquiries?  A CIA witness disguised to hide his or her identity as a ploy.  A plot to deny President Trump, a face-to-face with his accuser?  And that reminds me of something Special Counsel Robert Mueller said in testimony before Congress in late July.  Mueller testifies that he finds no evidence Trump or his campaign team colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election.  However, the lack of collusion cannot be seen as an exoneration.  Huh?  Trump has to prove what he did not do?

Patriot Trump vs. the Leninist Impeachment Pushers.  If the current impeachment fever materializes into reality, virtually any executive action with which the opposition party disagrees can be made an impeachable offense.  The Trump impeachment inquiry seeks to besmirch President Trump, fundraise for Democrat House and Senate candidates, destabilize the markets, knock Joe Biden out of the race, and mock presiding Chief Justice Roberts at the Senate trial.  These are nothing but crude partisan appeals and clearly not constitutional purposes.  Demagoguery is too gentle a word.  Whatever else these political aims are, they are not affirmations of constitutional government.

End impeachment secrecy.  There have so far been two hearings in the House Democrats' effort to impeach President Trump over the Ukraine matter.  Both have been held in secret.  One was Thursday, the other Friday, and the public does not know what was said in either.  Two more are scheduled for this week and will be held behind closed doors, too.  The hearings are part of an effort to remove the president from office.  There could not be a matter of more pressing public concern.  There could not be a matter in which the American people have a greater stake.  And yet the public has no idea what is being discovered.

The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama.  The progressive socialist left is mad that they lost the 2016 presidential election.  They realize that, as Rep. Al Green said, they will probably not be able to defeat President Trump at the ballot box, unless they use tricks like ballot harvesting.  So, what it their only recourse, the Banana Republic, kangaroo court tactics of using impeachment as a political weapon...this is nothing more than an unsophisticated coup.  The case for impeaching Barack Obama was easy, yet the left and their propagandized media dismissed it.

The Curious Case of the Incurious Press.  We were assured that Trump had used the powers of the presidency to "gather dirt" on his political opponent (Joe Biden) and threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine until prosecutors there had manufactured evidence of wrongdoing by Biden and his son Hunter, who for no doubt entirely innocent reasons was drawing hefty paychecks from a Ukrainian energy company.  The mad cry of "Impeachment!" was shouted in celebratory tones throughout the hallowed halls of D.C.  The narrative came together seamlessly within hours, as suddenly the Democrats in Congress and the information gatekeepers in the news media informed us with one voice that this was bad for President Trump.  Very bad.  It was almost as though the facts didn't matter.  They certainly didn't matter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who announced an "impeachment inquiry" before having read either the whistleblower complaint or the actual transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky.

House Sends More Carefully Worded Impeachment Demand Letters (Not Subpoenas).  Chairman Adam Schiff, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Chairman Elijah E. Cummings, Committee on White House Oversight; Chairman Eliot L. Engel, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of 'subpoenas' today [10/7/2019].

Democrats set up a kangaroo court for impeachment.  The impeachment inquiry is for show.  It's also to keep Republicans from being allowed to ask any questions, or subpeona the Democrats for evidence of their own pre-plotting and double dealings.  In doing it fake, what the Democrats really want is to force President Trump to empty the White House of every last document and secret, as if conducting a marauder's raid, and then charge the president with obstruction if he doesn't hand them over every last drop of White House correspondence and documentation that they demand.  Pay no attention to that small detail that Trump doesn't legally need to comply with a congressionally issued 'subpoena' only a court-issued one.  Courts are for the birds, as Democrats see it, and in any case, Republicans can use courts too, which can't happen.

McConnell Vows to Kill Democrat Impeachment Effort in the Senate.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has launched an ad on social media with a message that he will end the impeachment effort against President Donald Trump should the House pass Articles of Impeachment and send them to the upper chamber.

'Groundhog' Dems again 'left' behind.  [Scroll down]  None of this would matter if two elite publications were shouting in the wilderness.  In fact, the Times and The New Yorker very much reflect — and help shape — the mindset of the Democratic Party.  As such, they illustrate how far anti-Trumpers have strayed into the impeachment wilderness.  After Robert Mueller failed to deliver the promised goods, the left and their media handmaidens foolishly seized on the Ukraine issue in the hope it could be spun into impeachment gold.  To judge by the look of things so far, they're getting more dross than gold.  The bid to take down the president is off to a rocky start.

The Pre-Impeachment of Donald Trump Never Stopped.  We all know why impeachment is really happening — and when I say all, I include especially the Democrats and their devoted media allies/leaders.  They know because they live in fear of what they wrought and desperately want to hide it or bury it (under impeachment) before it is laid out before the public.  I refer, of course, to the imminent exposure — at least we hope it is coming — of the predicates of the Russia probe, easily the most despicable and seditious attempt to unseat a president in American history.  This attempt to impeach or, at that point, to interdict began on or not long after June 16, 2015, the day Donald Trump announced his candidacy.  What is happening now is merely a continuation of a process that started then.  Trump was the first president to be "impeached" before he was elected — a neat trick if there ever was one.  In a manner of speaking, the group or groups behind the Russia probe wanted to pre-impeach him.  And they never gave up, not even for a minute, even after the Mueller collusion investigation came up empty after two years and multiple millions spent.

If the House Won't Vote, Impeachment Inquiry Is Just a Democratic Stunt.  "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."  It's right there in black-and-white:  In article I, section 2, clause 5, our Constitution vests the entirety of the power to call for removal of the president of the United States in a single body — the House.  Not in the Speaker of the House.  In the House of Representatives.  The institution, not one of its members.  To be sure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a very powerful government official:  second in the line of succession to the presidency; arguably, the most powerful member of Congress. [...] But she does not have the power to impeach on her own.

Pelosi's Impeachment Bank Shot .  Because she has resigned herself to the argument that impeaching Trump is the way for Democrats to win the presidency and Senate 13 months from now.  Pelosi's bank shot isn't aimed at Trump's conviction on the Hill.  It's aimed at his loss at the polls.

Nancy Pelosi is "Grubering" The American Electorate on Impeachment.  Several years ago the architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, admitted on camera the Democrats who were assembling healthcare legislation were "relying upon the stupidity of the American voter."  Fast forward to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019 and her "official impeachment inquiry" by decree; she's doing the exact same thing.  Speaker Pelosi, working through a carefully constructed political dynamic assembled by the hired staff from the Lawfare alliance, has sold her constituency on an impeachment process that structurally doesn't exist.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi could never succeed in the scheme were she not assisted by a compliant media.

Also posted under Liberals think you're stupid.

Impeachment lite is a farce.  Not all the Dems have been drinking the virtue Kool-Aid, however.  Take Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives.  A savvy politician, Pelosi knows that impeachment is a loser for the Dems, virtue [notwithstanding].  Because Pelosi can count.  Impeachment by the House requires only a majority, and the Dems hold that majority.  But it would go nowhere in the Senate where the Dems are 19 seats short of the necessary 67.  So the president won't be removed and everyone who can count knows it.  What, then, does impeachment accomplish?

John Ratcliffe Explains Why Pelosi's "Impeachment Inquiry" is Being Run From House Intel Instead of House Judiciary.  Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process.  It's the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out "Impeachment-based Subpoenas"; they have no impeachment jurisdiction. [...] The "impeachment" subpoenas are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment, is not within the jurisdiction of either committee.  So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.

Attorney for Impeachment 'Whistleblowers' Actively Sought Trump Admin Informants.  Mark Zaid, the activist attorney representing the so-called whistleblower at the center of the impeachment movement targeting President Donald Trump, says he is representing a second so-called whistleblower who spoke to the Intelligence Community's inspector general about Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president.  Missing from the avalanche of news media coverage about Zaid's two anonymous clients rocking the nation's capital is that at the beginning of Trump's presidency Zaid co-founded Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit that blasted advertisements around D.C. actively seeking whistleblowers during the Trump administration.

Impeachment is Getting Boring.  If you watch cable or network news, all you hear about is impeachment.  To the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC, it's as if it already happened.  Reps Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler speak as if it's a foregone conclusion, and shed crocodile tears about being "heartbroken and prayerful" over the process.  The fact is, an impeachment inquiry has yet to begin.  Opening such an inquiry would require a full House vote, making vulnerable representatives in districts President Trump won handily in 2016 go on record in favor of removing a duly elected president for the high crime of doing his job.

Nancy Pelosi's Prayers.  An ardent, prayerful, and moral Nancy Pelosi has been called from sitting for her holy-card portrait to lend her aid in getting the president impeached — and the nation torn apart in the process.  She's been on TV constantly, lecturing America that it's the moral burden of Democrats to undo the 2016 election by any means necessary.  The Constitution, she keeps saying, demands it.  She just never mentions where.

Dems' impeachment gambit is a revenge scheme orchestrated by a fallen political party.  Another day, another scandal that's sure to trigger the Trump administration's downfall — if only the American people would be less picky about what the definition of the word "evidence" is.  The Ukraine Call Transcript.  The Whistleblower Complaint.  The Impeachment Inquiry.  The pieces of this latest impeachment jigsaw have reached mythic status, bolstered by frenzied reporting, and insistence on the part of Democrats and advocates that this time, they've got the president right where they want him.  In reality, the documents offer very little in the form of an obvious smoking gun.  Both the transcript and the complaint have become a cultural Rorschach test:  no matter the evidence (or lack thereof) the reader will see exactly what they want to see.

Mounting pressure on Pelosi to hold vote on impeachment inquiry.  House Democrats are under increasing pressure to hold a politically risky vote to sanction their impeachment inquiry into President Trump.  The White House is expected as early as Monday to tell Speaker Nancy Pelosi it will not cooperate with an impeachment-related subpoena drafted by Democrats until the House votes officially to open an impeachment investigation.  "We'll be issuing a letter," Trump told reporters Friday on the South Lawn.  "As everybody knows, we've been treated very unfairly, very different from anybody else."

Rush Limbaugh:  Mitt Romney Assured Pelosi There Was Republican Support to Impeach President Trump.  About ten days ago Rush Limbaugh told his massive radio audience that Mitt Romney assured Nancy Pelosi that there was Republican support in the US Senator for President Trump's impeachment for asking Ukraine and China to look into Joe Biden's billion dollar pay-for-play scams.  Mitt hates President Trump — so much so that he is willing to sell out his country to get back at President Trump.  On Friday [10/4/2019] Mitt Romney downloaded on President Trump again — this time siding with Democrats in their sham impeachment quest.

Impeachment Is About Putting Down the Peasants' Revolt.  [Scroll down]  Impeachment is, in other words, an attempt to restore the old order that the voters overturned in 2016.  It seeks to annul that election and return us to the nascent totalitarianism of the Obama era, an incipient autocracy the Democrats expected to be nurtured during the presidency of Hillary Clinton.  Thus, when the hoi polloi got above themselves and put Donald Trump in the White House, his removal from office became the primary objective of Washington's self-appointed Optimates.  They began planning Trump's impeachment before he was inaugurated because he is the leader of the insurrection, and they know full well that it can't be put down until he is gone.  House Democrats must impeach the president despite the near impossibility of securing a conviction in the Senate.  Indeed, their need to do so is more urgent now than ever because of the booming Trump economy and the weakness of their Democratic presidential candidates.

House Democrats Ramp Up Impeachment (Coup) — Subpoena White House.  The White House is expected on Monday [10/7/2019] to send Pelosi a letter telling the Speaker the White House will not cooperate with Democrats' demands until the House of Representatives votes on impeachment.  Speaker Pelosi launched an impeachment inquiry into President Trump based on hearsay and gossip from a Deep State CIA snitch about President Trump's phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — she still has not held a full impeachment vote in the House.  Even worse, House Democrats haven't even named a specific crime committed by President Trump.

Moral Equivalence in the 'Unilateral' Impeachment Inquiry.  In his incisive legal analysis, Andrew McCarthy notes how the absence of a formal vote to commence the impeachment inquiry and the failure (at present) to issue subpoenas would invoke due process safeguards for the president, his administration, and other potential witnesses and/or custodians of sought after materials.  He is correct, but if one doubts him, there is a more elementary political rule of thumb to follow:  if Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) thought taking a vote to commence a formal impeachment inquiry was good for her Democratic caucus, there would have been a vote.  No matter how the Speaker publicly rationalizes the absence of a vote (and accompanying subpoenas), her caucus' inaction speaks louder than her words.

Attack, Always Attack.  The Dems spent over two years pushing the Russian collusion ruse.  They turned over every rock.  They squeezed Trump associates like General Flynn.  With help from Ukrainians, they got a conviction of Paul Manafort.  They counted on Robert Mueller and his team of partisans to deliver the final knockout punch.  They counted wrong.  That was just a bump in the road, not the end of it.  Too many Republicans seem surprised and befuddled by this nonstop assault.  They are unwilling or incapable of launching anything resembling a counterattack.  Even as Democrats cling to the slender reed of a second-hand whistleblower account of a fairly innocuous phone call, Republicans seem unable to muster much indignation.

Kurt Volker Statement Supports Giuliani — Contradicts Adam Schiff and Impeachment Narrative.  The Federalist was able to gain a copy of the opening statement delivered to congress by Ambassador Kurt Volker.  The statements made by Volker support the outline put forth by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani surrounding the initial contact and purposes.  The statement by Volker directly undercuts the narrative spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and his attempt to create an impeachment narrative.

Leader McCarthy and Representative Michael McCaul Call-Out Democrat Manipulation of Committee Inquiry.  Today both Minority House Leader Kevin McCarthy and Representative Michael McCaul draw attention to Speaker Pelosi's manipulation of House rules specifically intended to achieve articles of impeachment without Republican representation.  In a blatant display of committee manipulation, today [10/3/2019] the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Adam Schiff, worked around committee jurisdiction rules and took a deposition from Kurt Volker, the former State Department Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.

Rep. Doug Collins Explains Why He Filed an Amicus Brief Against House Judiciary.  House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief yesterday [10/3/2019] highlighting why the Judiciary Committee should be blocked from receiving grand jury material against the backdrop of an impeachment effort without support from the House of Representatives.

White House to Send Pelosi Letter Rejecting Compliance with Impeachment Probe Unless Formal Vote.  The White House plans to send House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) a letter as soon as Friday daring her to hold an impeachment vote and informing her that President Trump will not comply with any requests from the impeachment probe unless a formal vote is held, according to an Axios report confirmed by Fox News.  Pelosi announced last week that the House would launch a formal impeachment inquiry, but so far has not held a vote.  House Democrats' handling of the probe prompted a letter from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) on Thursday [10/3/2019], in which McCarthy challenged Pelosi to come up with "transparent and equitable rules and procedures ... to govern the inquiry, as is customary," or else halt the proceedings.  McCarthy explicitly mentioned a formal House vote in a series of questions stipulated in the letter.

Trump puts Dems in hot seat with impeachment-condemning flashback video.  As the presidential campaign season ramps up to full-gear, so does the Democrat Party's attacks against President Trump.  Never being one to take an attack lying down, Trump has been on the counter-warpath, punching back at Democrats and their media minions every step of the way.  One of the President's most effective recent messages highlighted rank hypocrisy by Democrats with a video showing top Dems condemning the act of impeachment.

Impeachment Comments Democrats Would Rather You Forget.  More than 20 years ago, when President Bill Clinton was being impeached for lying to a grand jury — then as now a documented fact that no one can credibly dispute — some Democrats who today want to impeach and have the Senate remove President Donald Trump from office ASAP, were whistling a very different tune.  Back then they strongly argued:
  [#1]   There was no bipartisan consensus.
  [#2]   An impeachment would be traumatic for the country and distract Congress from solving major domestic and foreign policy problems.

Ignore the hype — this is not an impeachment inquiry.  There is no impeachment inquiry.  There are no subpoenas.  You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued.  The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.  The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen.  Remember your elementary math, though:  Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.  What is portrayed as an "impeachment inquiry" is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera.  The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry.  To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.

Trump and Republicans Insist on House Vote to Launch Formal Impeachment Inquiry.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) repeatedly has said she wants to be "fair" as House Democrats undertake their "impeachment inquiry," but Democrats are falling short of fairness, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Pelosi in an Oct. 3 letter.  "I am writing to request you suspend all efforts surrounding your 'impeachment inquiry' until transparent and equitable rules and procedures are established to govern the inquiry," McCarthy wrote.  McCarthy and other Republicans say Democrats are so hell-bent on impeaching Trump that they have charged ahead without a full House vote, which would set rules and procedures for a formal impeachment proceeding.  Republicans are particularly upset that Democrats have attempted to limit Republican questioning of witnesses.

McCarthy calls for Pelosi to suspend impeachment inquiry.  The speaker has "given no clear indication as to how your impeachment inquiry will proceed — including whether key historical precedents or basic standards of due process will be observed," he wrote.

Instead of advancing trade deal [or anything else], Congress focuses on partisan impeachment process.  American workers, farmers and ranchers need a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada.  Thankfully, President Donald Trump and his team have negotiated a much better deal than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  So why have the members of the U.S. House of Representatives not taken a vote on this new trade agreement called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)?  The answer is simple:  Politics.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats do not want to give a political win to President Trump.

Stonewalling alone could be grounds for impeachment, top Democrats say.  If the Trump administration continues to not cooperate with Congressional investigations, the president could be impeached on that alone, top Democrats threatened on Wednesday [10/2/2019].  Speaking at a press conference Wednesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff reaffirmed Democrats' new stance that they'll consider any resistance from the administration as "further evidence of obstruction."  "Of course that was an article of impeachment against President Nixon," the California Democrat said.

The Editor says...
Even if you ignore Fast and Furious and Benghazi, Barack H. Obama was notorious for stonewalling and secrecy.  For example:  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Turf war:
Rep. McCaul:  Schiff is Usurping Foreign Affairs Committee's Jurisdiction in Impeachment Probe.  The ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee accused its Democrat leaders Wednesday night [10/2/2019] of abdicating their responsibility by allowing Rep. Adam Schiff's House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to take the lead in the party's presidential impeachment probe.  The subject matter, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) wrote in a letter to committee chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), deals with the conduct of U.S. relations with Ukraine and U.S. security assistance to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression.  Those issues fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), and not the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee, he wrote.

GOP turns furor on media amid impeachment fight.  President Trump and his allies are embracing a war with the media as part of the growing impeachment fight.  The president, several congressional Republicans and high-profile pundits are turning their fury toward reporters, accusing them of trying to undercut the president and key officials like Attorney General Bill Barr.  The backlash comes amid a steady stream of reports that are broadening the scope of who within the administration has knowledge of President Trump's actions toward Ukraine that are at the center of House Democrats' impeachment inquiry.

Impeachment is the Democrats' entire political agenda.
Nancy Pelosi thinks she can work with Trump on Dems' political agenda while working to impeach him.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., thinks it's possible for her and her Democratic colleagues to work with President Donald Trump on a long list of political agenda items, despite House Democrats' latest impeachment efforts.  At a Capitol Hill press conference alongside House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Tuesday [10/1/2019], Pelosi was asked how she plans to work with the president on Democratic agenda items like prescription drug costs, trade, and gun control while conducting impeachment efforts against the man.

Trump ad: Coup
New Team Trump campaign ad: Coup.  Never let it be said that Donald Trump takes too nuanced an approach to campaign politics — or that his campaign team doesn't follow his lead.  Just hours after Trump tweeted out that Democrats are staging a "coup" rather than an impeachment, Team Trump released a new TV spot doubling down on the accusation.  It's "nothing short of a coup," the 30-second ad released this afternoon declares, "and it must be stopped!"

The Senate Should Change Its Rules on Impeachment.  Now that the House has launched an impeachment probe of President Donald Trump, the Senate should reform its antiquated rules for the looming trial.  Under current procedures, a trial produces the worst of both worlds.  If the House has a flimsy case, the Senate must still put the country through the wrenching, divisive political spectacle without any opportunity to dismiss the case.  But if the House has a strong case, senators must sit silently by without any chance to participate directly in the trial.  Allowing a real trial will improve the decision-making over whether to fire Trump and will make the Congress more responsive and accountable to the American people.

Kevin McCarthy Signs Resolution to Censure 'Lying' Adam Schiff.  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced Wednesday [10/2/2019] that he has signed a resolution to censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) for performing a fabricated conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a recent hearing.

The Purge of Conservatism from America.  At the hospital for my annual physical exam, Adam Schiff was on TV in the waiting room.  Schiff presented himself as alerting the American people to the "mafia boss" outrageous impeachable demands Trump made during his phone call with the president of Ukraine.  Oozing with obnoxious superiority and arrogance, Schiff insidiously deceived viewers to assume he was reciting Trump's actual words from the phone call.  Schiff was lying.  Not a single word of what Schiff told the American people that Trump said was in the transcript.  Proving his innocence, Trump released the transcript of the phone call.  And yet, fake news media is elated that Democrats are outrageously moving forward with impeaching Trump based solely on Schiff's lies about what Trump said.  It was beyond infuriating watching Schiff boldly smear the president, carried live on all three major networks and cable outlets.  Consequently, soccer moms and dads who are busy earning a living will erroneously conclude Trump did something wrong.

Limbaugh: Fox News Ought to Change Its Name to 'the Fox Never Trumper Network'.  [Quoting Rush Limbaugh 10/2/2019]] ["]Well, Schiff is out there as the chairman of a committee, the Intelligence Committee, openly lying about the president's phone call with the president of Ukraine — and he lied about it again today in his joint press conference with Pelosi.  He literally said that the president told the Ukrainian president to "create dirt," to "make it up, as much as you can."  When the Republicans finally called him on it, Schiff said, "Well, I was just engaging parody.  I'm sorry it wasn't seen."  Well, look, you have the sense of humor of a snail.  Nobody thinks anything about you is funny, Pencil Neck.  It wasn't parody, anyway — and if you have to tell somebody that you've just done parody, it was very bad parody.  It was not parody.  It was an attempt to purposely misstate and mischaracterize the words and the actions of the president of the United States.["]

Trump Goes There: 'This is Not Impeachment, It's a COUP Intended to Take Away the Power of the People and Their Vote'.  President Trump is correct.  This is not impeachment, it is a COUP. [...] The Democrats have yet to name a crime that President Trump committed which is further proof that this is indeed a coup.

Don't call it impeachment — Call it a witch hunt.  I want to talk about the importance of words and the context they create.  And I want to urge everybody who's fair to never use the word "impeachment" for the current political process, because it has nothing to do with an impeachment.  This is a legislative coup d'etat.  It is an effort by the hard left, the news media, and the deep state to destroy the president chosen by the American people.  This is a project they've been involved in since election night 2016.

A game of impeachment bingo.  It seems that Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., has been conducting impeachment hearings since Andrew Johnson and supposedly we're supposed to take it seriously even though the Mueller investigation found nothing to have hearings on.  No one took it seriously nor did the Democrats, if truth be told, for practical reasons, specifically not enough votes nor evidence of wrong doing. [...] Now that a "whistleblower" has come forward with second hand information that doesn't jibe with the actual first hand account of a conversation President Trump had with the Ukrainian president, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced to the delight of the incredibly deranged media that Congress really really means it this time which just about renders Nadler's hearings a farce retroactively.

A Politically Motivated Impeachment Is No Laughing Matter.  Why do otherwise smart people say that impeachment has nothing to do with crimes but is rather a brute political calculation? [... The] Constitution does insist that impeachment shall proceed only on the basis of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Another Trump hoax or a real investigation leading to impeachment?  The majority of Americans still do not favor impeachment.  However, more than two-thirds of Democrats do.  There are several reasons, however, to believe that this picture is incomplete and could change.  Impeachment hoax or not, there are three logical defenses for allegations from last weeks first impeachment hearing.

It has already.
Red-state Democrats worry impeachment may spin out of control.  Senate Democrats representing red states are worried the House impeachment process may spin out of control and destroy any chance their party might have of winning back the majority next year.  These Democrats hope the House keeps its impeachment focus on the Ukraine controversy, and that Democrats act relatively quickly.  If they do not, the red-state Democrats warn Trump could turn the tables on them.

Trump and his Supporters are the Real Whistleblowers.  "Whistleblower" is the media's word of the week.  They still working tirelessly to overturn the 2016 election.  Unfortunately, it's the wrong word to describe the deep state operative accusing President Trump of "Collusion — Part Two," namely conspiring with Ukraine to rig the 2020 election.  Instead of whistleblower, the proper term is gossiper, as this person filed a complaint, likely written by others, about something he or she had been told, but had no firsthand knowledge of.  The National Whistleblower Center supports, "Efforts to expose and help prosecute corruption and other wrongdoing."  The Ukraine whistleblower is doing the exact opposite.  In an ongoing, and thus far unsuccessful, effort to overturn the last presidential election, this so-called whistleblower is trying to hide corruption and wrongdoing by attempting to destroy the actual whistleblower, President Trump.

Senate Shouldn't Dignify Impeachment Parody With a Trial.  Mitch McConnell told NPR last Friday that, if the House impeaches President Trump, "the Senate immediately goes into a trial."  This is music to Democratic ears, despite the infinitesimal chance of conviction, because they desperately need the sordid spectacle into which impeachment trials inevitably devolve.  The Senate, however, isn't required to try the President.  That chamber possesses the "sole power to try all impeachments," but is under no constitutional obligation to do so.  The Democrats ignored House precedent and longstanding tradition to launch their "impeachment inquiry."  Why should Senate Republicans consider themselves bound by precedent and procedural rules where the trial is concerned?

In Trump impeachment, 'no one is above the law' could backfire on Democrats.  "No one is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she announced the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump over the Ukraine matter.  The phrase has become a Democratic mantra in the new impeachment push.  But it could, in the end, serve to highlight the weakness of the Democratic strategy. [...] Democrats might better say, "No president is above impeachment," which lacks punch but is more accurate.  Doing so, however, would emphasize the political nature of the battle and could make it more difficult for Democrats to win broad support for removing Trump.  So they say, "No one is above the law."  But what, exactly, does that mean?

Also posted under Emotional outbursts as a substitute for facts and reason.

Impeachment Coup Analytics.  Aside from the emotional issue that Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and celebrities loathe Donald Trump, recently Representative Al Green (D-Texas) reminded us why the Democrats are trying to impeach the president rather than just defeat him in the 2020 general election.  "To defeat him at the polls would do history a disservice, would do our nation a disservice," Green said.  "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach the president, he will get re-elected."  Translated, that means Green accepts either that Trump's record is too formidable or that the agendas of his own party's presidential candidates are too frightening for the American people to elect one of them.  And that possibility is simply not permissible.  Thus, impeachment is the only mechanism left to abort an eight-year Trump presidency — on a purely partisan vote to preclude an election, and thus contrary to the outlines of impeachment as set out by the Constitution.

If The Case For Trump's Impeachment Is So Strong, Why Are Liberals Lying About It?  Almost everything about the allegations that have Democrats moving toward impeachment of the President is a lie, a proven lie.  And they don't care.  The call with Ukrainian President Zelensky did take place, so that part is true.  From there, the lies begin.  "There was a quid pro quo" they said.  The President threatened to withhold aid money from Ukraine unless Zelensky investigated Joe and Hunter Biden, we were told.  The transcript showed that did not happen.  That fact did not stop any Democrat from saying it did.  It did not stop anchors at CNN and MSNBC from saying it did.

Impeachment Depravity: 'Inquiry' Proves Democrats Know They Can't Win.  [Scroll down]  The Democrats know they can't beat Trump.  The premiere of Impeachment Depravity proves it.  One theory is that whistle-gate is a covert Democrat operation aimed at mortally wounding Joe Biden's campaign.  If true, that means they don't think he can win.  More conventionally, even if this is not an orchestrated Dem design, polling data suggests that Biden, the real Ukrainian malefactor, is on the way out.  Because they don't think he can win.  Which sets the stage for Elizabeth Warren, about whom Republican spokesperson Reince Preibus recently opined "has no chance of winning in [blue-collar] Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania."  No other Democrat currently in the race, including Bernie Sanders, has a ghost of a chance.  They can't win, and they know it.

Schiff, Pelosi and lawless Democrats may get the civil war they want.  The Whistleblower hoax and its attendant impeachment hysteria is a distraction to cover up the criminality of numerous high ranking Obama officials.  With a national election coming in 13 months, Democrats seem convinced they cannot win.  So they revert to another two years of the Russia Hoax II.  A fabricated scandal created by deep state elements, coordinated with leading Democrats, and laid out in the left-wing media like a PR campaign. [...] It appears that Adam Schiff knew of and had been sitting on the whistleblower complaint since early August.  It also appears that the complaint may have actually been written by Schiff's staff.  The whistleblower is a long-time CIA employee with a political bias.  His lawyer is a Democrat Party partisan.  When his name is revealed, and it will be, we will find that he has ties to John Brennan.  His complaint was all second-hand and third-hand information.  Suppositions and biased conclusions based on nothing other than his hatred for Trump.

Understanding the Impeachment Charade.  [Scroll down]  Now that the call turns out to be nothing like what the media told us it would be, some on the left have started a conspiracy theory that the transcript can't be real; it must be doctored.  These conspiracies aren't confined to weird corners of the internet.  Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff have already questioned the trustworthiness of the transcript, despite the fact that there's no evidence of wrongdoing.  Numerous career national security officials — many not fans of our president — have access to the original call and would have to be in on any conspiracy.  What's driving all this insanity?  Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, has been more honest about it than most.  Green admitted it straight up:  "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected."

Pelosi's House Rule Changes are Key Part of "Articles of Impeachment", Being Drafted Over Next Two Weeks.  Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment.  With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment.  A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now.  The reason not to have a House vote is simple:  if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it.  Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive.  This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi's changed House rules.

NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Blasts Impeachment Push, Blames Leftists.  On Wednesday evening [9/25/2019] at an event on "political civility" with ex-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo offered a sharp rebuke of the Democrats' latest cries for impeachment, blaming "leftist" Democrats for forcing Congress to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. [...] Cuomo also provided a lengthy catalog of the legislative priorities that would be shoved aside until after the 2020 elections as a result of the futile impeachment process taking front and center.  "It's a long and unproductive road," emphasized Cuomo.  "Where does it go ultimately?  Nowhere."

An impeachment investigation in search of a crime.  More drivel about the impeachment of President Trump spews forth this week.  This is no surprise.  The desire to impeach Trump dates back to November of 2016, the night he won the election.  Reasons for his removal change from the Russia Hoax, to porn star payments, to being generally unfit, all suggesting a willingness on the part of his many enemies to "fill in the blank" with any possible crime.  The goal of the impeachment investigation is to find a crime.  Any crime will do.

Pelosi's Six-Committee Impeachment Investigation.  On the surface, the impeachment investigations of Nixon and Trump are quite similar.  In each case, the president was already under immense pressure, with a partisan media in full pursuit.  When each story broke, there was dominating, explosive coverage — with every talking head predicting imminent disaster — that goaded the Congress into taking immediate, forceful action.  Of course, with Nixon in particular, the stories seemed to pan out.  As things now stand, that does not appear to be the case with Trump. [...] This much seems true:  time and the tide of public opinion are simply not on Pelosi's side, and her six-committee approach will confuse rather than educate.

Elizabeth Warren, unabashed liar.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who's seen a bit of a boom in polls for president lately, came forward with a statement about President Donald Trump's whistleblower affair that if nothing else, serves as a classic textbook example of How Liars Lie.  The unabashed ones, anyway.  "Donald Trump believes he is above the law — and he will continue to commit crimes from the White House until we hold him accountable," she tweeted.  Except, of course, that Donald Trump hasn't been found guilty of committing any crimes.  Yes.  There is that.  But impeach away, she wrote.  "The House needs to vote on articles of impeachment — and when it comes to the Senate," the Massachusetts Democrat tweeted, "I will do what the Constitution requires."  What's the crime?  What's the impeachable offense?

Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Consume the Democratic Party.  The Russian hoax, the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch confirmation hearings, the various other concocted lies, are all beyond reprehensible and yet here we go again with an uncorroborated hearsay accusation about a phone call.  Hate and schizophrenia.  Hate is corrosive.  It seems to have already consumed any constructive thought capability in the Democratic Party.  We are left with the manifest derangement.  There is a very good possibility that complete meltdown and destruction will come if and when the party is crazy enough to actually try to impeach the President.

Kevin McCarthy to Force Democrats on Record Again with Impeachment Inquiry Vote.  House Republican leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) intends to force House Democrats to take another controversial vote by Friday sometime, forcing them on the record on their intent to forcibly impeach President Donald Trump, all as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to refuse to schedule any actual vote formally opening House impeachment proceedings.

Students say impeach Trump, but can't give a reason why.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.  Campus Reform asked college students in Virginia whether they agree Trump should be impeached, and if so, for what.  A number of students, however, had trouble naming any specific offense that warrants impeachment.  [Video clip]

An impeachment inquiry IS meddling in the election.
AOC: Impeachment Inquiry Needed to Prevent 'Potential Meddling' in 2020 Election.  [Rep. Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez said that previous House investigations into Trump have tended to focus on alleged past actions.  "When it comes to Ukraine we are talking about a potential meddling in the 2020 election that has still yet to happen."

The Fastest, Most Premature Impeachment in American History.  The impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump is arguably the flimsiest and most premature impeachment in American history.  It's also the fastest by far.  Before this week, only three presidents in U.S. history had faced an official impeachment inquiry from the U.S. House of Representatives.  Two of them, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, were in their second terms.

The enduring folly of presidential impeachments.  The way that it is discussed in American media these days one could be forgiven for having the impression that the impeachment of presidents — and Supreme Court justices — is an ordinary feature of American public life, comparable to, say, shifting control of the House.  But it is nothing of the kind.  Impeachment is a legal aberration.  It is also a process that has never succeeded.  It is entirely possible that it was never meant to do so, that it appears in the text of 1789 for rhetorical reasons, as a kind of "Hic svnt dracones."  It certainly never occurred to anyone before the end of the 20th century that it was the ordinary legal remedy for a president's political opponents.

Mark Levin:  Impeachment Is 'an Attack on Us' and 'Our Constitutional System'.  [Scroll down]  Levin described how the Framers feared a usurpation of the president's accountability to the public via impeachment from the House, establishing a secondary constitutional check on the process within the Senate.  "The Senate is in place under the impeachment process to keep a check on the House because they were concerned — if you look at Federalist 65 — there was some concern that the House would have too much power," Levin stated.  "The great fear was that a president wouldn't be accountable to the public, but he'd be accountable to the House of Representatives, and that's why they set up this elaborate process."

Dems Worry Rudy Would Send Impeachment Hearing Off the Rails.  If Congress is to get to the bottom of President Trump's efforts to get the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, Rudolph W. Giuliani is an obvious choice for the witness list.  But Democrats are split as to whether he would do more harm than good to their nascent impeachment inquiry and some expressed concern that hauling in a loose cannon like Giuliani in front of a committee would risk a replay of the circus-like atmosphere created by Trump loyalist and former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski — a scene few Democrats are eager to recreate.

Is Impeaching Trump Really About Kneecapping Joe Biden?  Make no mistake:  This is a risky game the Democrats are playing.  On the one hand, their most energetic voters practically demand Trump's immediate removal.  On the other hand, most voters are apathetic at best to the idea of impeachment, and will probably turn against it quite sharply if yet another investigation fails to reveal enough dirt on Trump.

Schumer: 'This Inquiry Was Not Taken Up for Partisan Reasons'.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a floor speech on Wednesday, said the Trump White House and its allies will "rush" to call the Democrat impeachment inquiry a "partisan with hunt no matter how serious the allegations."  "But let me be clear," Schumer continued, "because I know accusations of partisanship are already being written.  This inquiry was not taken up for partisan reasons.  It does not prejudge an outcome."

Also posted under Liberals think you're stupid.

Why Brit Hume Thinks Pelosi's Impeachment Move 'Was Really Quite Clever'.  Fox News' senior political analyst Brit Hume weighed in on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's announcement of a formal impeachment inquiry, arguing the move "was really quite clever."  What Pelosi accomplished, he argued, was to placate the progressive wing of the party while protecting moderates by not actually moving forward with a formal impeachment vote.

Pelosi orders impeachment probe: 'No one is above the law'.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on Tuesday, yielding to mounting pressure from fellow Democrats and plunging a deeply divided nation into an election year clash between Congress and the commander in chief.

The Editor says...
No one is above what law?  What exactly did President Trump do that warrants impeachment?

Pelosi's 'impeach Trump' announcement a bad, bad sign for our republic.  Yesterday [9/24/2019], House speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the first steps are being taken to impeach President Donald Trump.  While few people actually believe that these actions will result in the disclosure of any offense on the part of the president or in a formal impeachment vote, the actions signify that what once made America function so much better than any previous nation is now lost. [...] For the first time in American history, a party and its leadership are refusing to cede the ability to set policy to the president.  Sure, the president was sworn in, sits in the Oval Office, and issues orders to his subordinates.  However, those orders are challenged by the Judicial Branch on baseless grounds.

The Realities of Impeachment.  I won't say that impeachment is back in the news, because the removal of the President never left and has been a headline grabber since before Trump took the oath. [...] The more progressive sort continue to call for impeachment, citing transgressions ranging from mean tweets to an abstruse constitutional clause that nobody heard of between the years of 1830 and 2016.

Maxine Waters:  We Will 'Move Very Quickly' on Impeaching Trump — Might Skip Congressional Recess.  Tuesday [9/24/2019] on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said House Democrats will "move very quickly" to bring articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. [...] Maddow said, "What do you expect the Judiciary Committee might be considering potential articles of impeachment?"  Waters said, "I don't have that information, but I do expect that the judiciary committee is prepared to move very quickly."

The Editor says...
In other words, she's going to move quickly, but doesn't know what for.

Even Before Trump Took Office, Media Began Impeachment Obsession.  The liberal media have begun yet another round of frenzied impeachment speculation, this time in reaction to anonymously-sourced media reports about a supposed whistleblower complaint that has not been released.  But media clucking about impeachment is nothing new — in fact, their obsession with evicting Donald Trump from the White House predates his actual Presidency.  By November 10, 2016 — just two days after the election! — television talking heads were already conjuring up theoretical scenarios in which Donald Trump could be removed from office.  Since then, TV journalists have amassed quite a repertoire of possible causes for a premature end to the Trump White House, including (but not limited to):  his tax returns; his family's business dealings, both home and abroad; his firing of various cabinet officials; and of course, his tweets.

What law has he broken?
Ocasio-Cortez calls out Democrats for refusing to impeach Trump.  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called out Democrats late Saturday for what she called their "refusal" to impeach President Trump.  "At this point, the bigger national scandal isn't the president's lawbreaking behavior - it is the Democratic Party's refusal to impeach him for it," she tweeted.

Meeks: Pelosi Wants Trump 'in Jail,' Jailing Trump Only Way to Show We're Fighting for Rule of Law.  On Friday's [9/20/2019] broadcast of MSNBC's "The Beat," Representative Gregory Meeks (D-NY) stated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants President Trump "in jail," and that putting President Trump in jail is the only way to show that the rule of law is being fought for.  Meeks said, "Speaker Pelosi, she's singularly focused to get this — she wants him in jail, where he really [belongs].  That's what her focus — she wants — Donald Trump, and if you look at all the things that he's done, it's almost if it was any other American, they would be in jail.  And she is focused singularly."

The Editor says...
Ordinarily the "rule of law" includes due process, as in, proof of a crime, trial by jury, etc.

Shane Gillis jokes about Trump assassination in first comedy show since 'SNL' rejection.  Shane Gillis, the comic who was recently rejected as a "Saturday Night Live" cast member after offensive material of his resurfaced, reportedly joked about President Trump being assassinated during his first stand-up show since he lost the job.  "I will say this:  Of all the presidents I've been alive for, Trump would definitely be the funniest one to see get shot," Gillis said during his stand-up set at The Stand comedy club Wednesday night [9/18/2019]in New York, according to USA Today.  "Like, without a doubt, that'd be funny."

Democrats' Impeachment Obsession Is a Danger to Democracy.  [House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Jerrold] Nadler has made it clear that any anti-Trump narrative, no matter how obscure, laughable, or deficient in terms of evidence, is potentially acceptable as a pretext for impeachment.  Again, he doesn't much care why Trump is impeached, just so long as he is.

Pelosi Unloads On Nadler; Tells Him To Drop 'Moby Dick'-Like Impeachment Obsession.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler last week over his 'Moby Dick'-like obsession with impeaching President Trump, days before Trump's 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski wiped the floor with Congressional Democrats during a contentious five-hour hearing on Tuesday [9/17/2019] in front of Nadler's panel.

Thought crime:
Rep. Speier Wants Lewandowski to Be Fined for 'Inherent Contempt'.  Because former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski did not indulge the Democrats' "get Trump" efforts at Tuesday's House Judiciary hearing, some say he should be punished, even though Lewandowski complied with the committee's subpoena and did answer some, but not all of their questions about facts that already are known.  "I think you have to look at Mr. Lewandowski as an adverse witness," Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House intelligence and Oversight Committees, told CNN on Tuesday [9/17/2019].

Democrats, stuck in Watergate mode, bungle Lewandowski testimony.  Have Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee figured out what President Trump did to them?  By the looks of their questioning of Corey Lewandowski on Tuesday, the answer is no.  Democrats chose the former Trump campaign manager for their first hearing after declaring the committee is considering impeaching the president.  They apparently thought Lewandowski would elaborate on his extensive testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller and also on his testimony from earlier investigations by other House and Senate committees.  Instead, Lewandowski jerked Democrats around — and around and around.  He delayed.  He asked for specific citations when anyone referred to the Mueller report.  He repeated, over and over, his instructions from the Trump White House not to discuss his conversations with the president.

Lewandowski's messy hearing leaves some Dems questioning their tactics.  In the aftermath of Corey Lewandowski's testimony this week, some Democrats are openly questioning the wisdom of bringing forward the bombastic former Trump campaign manager, whose contentious exchanges with Democrats and stonewalling of their questions may have overshadowed a key aspect of his testimony: that President Donald Trump enlisted Lewandowski to tell the then-attorney general to limit the investigation into his 2016 campaign.

Democrats' Impeachment Obsession Is a Danger to Democracy.  Sad to say, but Tom Steyer, out-of-touch and unlikable billionaire though he may be, is probably the most representative face of the Democratic Party right now. [...] Steyer and his "Need to Impeach" movement offer a laundry list of reasons why Trump should be impeached and removed from office, from alleged obstruction of justice to violations of the Emoluments Clause, Russian collusion, racism and bigotry, recklessness, "persecution" of political opponents and the free press, mistreatment of "immigrants," and paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels.  Or, to put it another way, Steyer's rationale for impeachment is so diffuse that it's utterly incoherent.  Steyer presumably is bargaining that, if he throws everything but the kitchen sink at Trump, one of these charges — it doesn't much matter which one — will stick, and Trump will go down like a ton of bricks.

Trump sues Manhattan DA seeking to block tax return subpoena.  President Donald Trump is asking a federal judge to block an effort by New York prosecutors to obtain his tax returns.

Judiciary Hearing with Corey Lewandowski Devolves into Bedlam, Democrats Lose Control.  Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski frustrated House Judiciary Committee Democrats during a contentious hearing on Tuesday [9/17/2019] they had hoped would fuel support for President Trump's impeachment but instead devolved into chaos.  Democrats repeatedly tried and failed to get Lewandowski, a close ally of the president, to talk about his conversations with the president.  The White House has asserted those conversations should remain private due to executive privilege, and Lewandowski stayed within those limits.

Lewandowski Slapped Around Democrats During Their Trump Impeachment Circus.  Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski took the Democrats to school today [9/17/2019]. [...] Lewandowski was yanked before the House Judiciary Committee via subpoena and gave the Left a run for its money.  He slapped down the nonsense hurled at him regarding the Trump-Russia myth.  He wasn't going to play by their rules because he doesn't need to accept those parameters.  This is a witch hunt.  It's political theater.  So, have fun — and he did.

The American Left Is Completely Insane.  First, we were told that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russia.  Unfortunately, the Mueller investigation that the left so dearly hoped would prove its specious allegations only served to show the American public that within the FBI and the Justice Department were individuals (Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr) whose loathing for Trump was so all-encompassing that they were willing to compromise proper investigative procedures if it meant undoing the 2016 election.  Then we heard accusations of obstruction of justice.  Those accusations didn't pan out either.  Now the same representative who decried the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton for perjury 21 years ago wants to impeach President Trump because — why?  Well, it's not entirely clear.

Conway dismisses Dems' impeachment push as 'complete nonsense,' after Nadler waffles on.  Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, said Democrats need to stop wasting time and taxpayers' money with their push for impeachment, and suggested that leaders on the left brush up on the law before moving forward.  Democrats, led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., have been ramping up their rhetoric and activity, passing a resolution on the rules for an impeachment investigation, even as he and other Democrats have wavered on what to call their current probe.

Manhattan DA Seeks to Obtain Trump's Tax Returns Through Criminal Probe of Hush Payments.  Just days ago, CNN reported that prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney's (DA) Office last month interviewed Michael Cohen — the ex-personal attorney to President Donald Trump — about the Trump Organization possibly falsifying business records.  The New York Times revealed on Monday [9/16/2019] that DA Cy Vance's office also subpoenaed Trump's finance firm, Mazars USA, last month — ostensibly to obtain eight years of Trump's personal state and federal tax returns, as well as returns for the Trump Organization.  If Mazars USA sounds familiar that's because it is the same firm that has already been slapped with congressional subpoenas.  The DA's subpoenas reportedly seek records going back to 2011.

Manhattan district attorney subpoenas 8 years of Trump tax returns.  New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance's office has subpoenaed eight years of President Donald Trump's tax returns from Mazars USA, the longtime accounting firm to Trump and the Trump Organization, as part of its investigation into hush money payments, according to a person familiar with the matter.  The subpoena marks a new escalation in the large-scale effort to obtain the President's tax returns, a battle that has largely played out in courts as the Trump administration has continued to stand its ground against efforts to secure any of Trump's financial information.

8 Years of Trump Tax Returns Are Subpoenaed by Manhattan D.A..  State prosecutors in Manhattan have subpoenaed President Trump's accounting firm to demand eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.  The subpoena opens a new front in a wide-ranging effort to obtain copies of the president's tax returns, which Mr. Trump initially said he would make public during the 2016 campaign but has since refused to disclose.

Moderate Democrats warn Pelosi of impeachment obsession.  A day before the House Judiciary Committee took its biggest step yet toward impeachment last week, moderate Democratic Rep. Anthony Brindisi voiced his frustrations directly to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  The battleground freshman told Pelosi and other leaders at a closed-door meeting that he and other centrists feared that talk of impeaching President Donald Trump was threatening to swamp the Democratic agenda, according to multiple people in the room.

Back Off from the 'Resist' Nonsense.  When Donald Trump was elected president of these United States — or, more properly, president of the federal government of the United States of America, a distinction worth keeping in mind — some of those who were disappointed by his election declared their intention to, in the now-inescapable word, "Resist." [...] The creed of "resistance" was — and is — founded on a lie, that President Trump came to power through illegitimate means, that the election was somehow "stolen" by Republicans in cahoots with Moscow.  But there is no evidence that the Kremlin's screwball, Boris Badenov-worthy campaign of dank memery had any meaningful effect on the 2016 election.  The endless investigations into Trump and his campaign have turned up a great deal of unseemly behavior and bad judgment — these being traditional Trump trademarks — but there's a reason the effort to impeach him is going nowhere.

Cruz on reported Kavanaugh allegations:  There's nobody Democrats don't want to impeach.  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the attention to the recent New York Times report on sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh reflects the "shameful circus" from the Senate hearing last year.  The Texas senator told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" that he thinks the Democratic candidates will call for impeachment to rile their base.  "I bet you, the next Democratic debate, they'll all be saying, 'Impeach Kavanaugh.  Impeach Trump,'" Cruz said.  "There's nobody they don't want to impeach.  And at some point, they just have to let the anger go and recognize that the democratic process actually moves on."

Jackson Lee:  We're Investigating to 'Educate the Public,' and Find Facts.  On Saturday's [9/14/2019] broadcast of MSNBC's "AM Joy," House Judiciary Committee member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) stated that the Judiciary Committee is "investigating so that we can educate the public, but as well, find all the facts that may be relevant to then writing the articles of impeachment."

Nadler: Impeachment inquiry a 'made-up term' but it's essentially 'what we are doing'.  In an appearance [9/13/2019] on CNN, primetime host Chris Cuomo asked Nadler:  "If a head of a committee such as yours believes what you obviously believe, your duty in the Constitution is to start investigating to see if you have the facts for grounds for impeachment, and it is called an 'impeachment inquiry.'  Is that what you are doing right now?"  "It is not necessarily called an impeachment inquiry.  That's a made-up term without legal significance.  It is, however, what we are doing," Nadler said.

DOJ Files A Devastating Brief Exposing Jerry Nadler's Impeachment Inquiry Scam.  Recently, I covered Jerry Nadler's House Judiciary Committee passing rules for an "impeachment inquiry."  As some of us have speculated for months now, this was simply an attempt at stealth impeachment, i.e. getting to use the benefits of impeachment (grand jury access, increased subpoena power, etc.) without having too [sic] actually pass articles of impeachment.  The game in this case is that Nadler wants to pretend he's emperor with no guidelines while not having to pay the political price of having House Democrats actually vote as a majority to impeach.  There's noway [sic] the courts should allow that and it would present an enormously dangerous precedent if allowed to proceed.  Now, the DOJ is striking back, signaling they aren't going to take this nonsense lying down.

Levin: Jerry Nadler just 'perverted the impeachment process'.  Thursday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin ripped the House Democrats, in particular House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., for disregarding the rules of the impeachment process and proceeding to investigate President Trump without the consent of the full chamber.  "Now the way an impeachment proceeding is supposed to work, ladies and gentlemen, and keep this in mind, is that impeachment is so serious that it's supposed to involve the broader body politic.  The House of Representatives in toto, not a committee of the House of Representatives conducting a so-called impeachment inquiry, impeachment investigation, impeachment probe — they've used all these words," Levin said.

Nadler: 'Very Strong' Evidence on 'A Dozen' Impeachable Offenses.  Nadler said, "You may have personal opinions, but you don't start off with an official conclusion.  You examine the evidence and you make a conclusion.  Now, I think, personally, the evidence is very strong on a dozen different impeachable offenses, but that's my personal opinion at the moment.  We are going to have a very aggressive series of hearings starting next Tuesday to bring out the witnesses."

Impeachment is dead and Democrats should thank Pelosi for saving them from themselves.  Liberals desperately need to see impeachment happen, if for nothing more than to soothe their own hurt feelings.  It's hard not to feel bad for them now, as they realize that it's just not going to happen.

[The] House Judiciary [Committee] Passes [a] Resolution on [the] Parameters of [a] Trump Impeachment Inquiry.  [Scroll down]  The vote would, in part, allow Nadler to call impeachment hearings, and allow staff members to question witnesses in those hearings.  A fed up Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) tried to explain what was really going on.  "The Judiciary Committee has become a giant Instagram filter," he said.  "To make it appear that something's happening that is not."  After 32 months of investigations that have produced no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016, still Democrats are pursuing other avenues that could lead to impeachment.

Impeaching Trump:  Democrats are the President's re-election secret.  House Democrats are working hard to assure Donald Trump handily wins a second term as the nation's 45th president.  It appears the House will shortly pass a resolution allowing the body's Democratic majority to form subcommittees in an effort to collect "evidence" of the president's "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Nadler's Fake Impeachment Inquiry.  The impeachment of a president, parliamentary esoterica notwithstanding, involves three straightforward steps.  First, the House authorizes the Judiciary Committee to open a formal impeachment inquiry.  Next, that committee conducts an investigation to determine if the president has committed any offense justifying his removal from office.  Finally, if such evidence is discovered, the full House votes to approve one or more articles of impeachment.  The Democrats, despite their accusations of dark doings at the White House, can't muster enough votes in the House to complete the first step toward removing President Trump.  Consequently, Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler has decided to conduct a fake impeachment inquiry.

Rep. Collins Blasts Dem Plan to Hold Committee Vote on Impeachment Proceedings.  As we move into a new week, Democrats are returning to an old topic — impeachment.  The House Judiciary Committee reportedly plans to vote Wednesday on a resolution that would "formalize procedures for a growing impeachment inquiry," The New York Times reported.  The move would allow Democrats to speed up their investigations, the Times reported.  And it would back up court filings made by Democrats which already state that they are conducting an impeachment inquiry, when no vote has been taken.

The Democratic impeachment investigation keeps expanding.  Democrats are weighing articles of impeachment against President Trump with an extensive list of alleged wrongdoing that grows by the day.  Since taking the majority in January, Democrats have built an all-encompassing search involving more than five dozen investigations into the president's past and present behavior, the actions of his administration, his personal finances, and his family.  Trump earlier this year accused Democrats of "the highest level of presidential harassment" in history.  The party responded by ramping up their scrutiny.

Moderate Democrats Resisting Calls to Support Impeachment.  Moderate Democrats are so far resisting the call to support impeachment, even as House Judiciary Committee Democrats double down on efforts to investigate President Trump for impeachable offenses.  The committee is planning to investigate payments former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made to two women who allege they had affairs with the president more than a decade ago, and whether the investigation into Cohen was obstructed.

Jerry Nadler revives Dem impeachment porn by probing Stormy Daniels.  Democrat Jerry Nadler, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is so desperate to impeach President Donald Trump that he's reviving the old "hush-money payments" narrative concerning porn star Stormy Daniels.  Instead of fixing America's illegal-immigration crisis or addressing the deadly opioid epidemic, Nadler plans to launch another sham investigation — this time into Trump's alleged role in paying "hush money" to silence Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

The zombie movement to impeach Trump.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi presumably likes Trump about as much as the average member of her caucus, but she also understands that impeachment, in addition to not polling well nationally, will not do Democrats elected in seats won by Trump in 2016 any favors.  This is to say nothing of the fact that, even if a suitable pretext could be found and the Democratic membership of the House united, impeachment would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

Democrats' messy impeachment push hits critical phase.  House Democrats return to Capitol Hill next week with an impeachment mess on their hands and just weeks to make a choice that could define the rest of Donald Trump's presidency.  Lawmakers faced frequently contentious town halls during their six-week August recess as activists pressured Democratic holdouts to support impeachment proceedings.  A steady trickle of new endorsements for action followed, and a majority of the House's 235 Democrats now backs an impeachment inquiry.

Why Americans Should Distrust "Mental Health Experts".  A couple of psychiatrists appeared on CNN on Sunday to discuss the president, and their exchange serves as an apt reminder of why Americans, and conservatives in particular, should distrust these so-called mental health experts.  One of them, Bandy Lee, has been trying to undermine the Trump presidency for the past three years.  Her palpably biased and unprofessional efforts were the subject of my Aug. 10, 2018, column.  An assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Yale, Lee is editor of the widely criticized book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (2017), whose circular argument is that Donald Trump's mental health poses a "clear and present danger" to "the nation and individual well being." [...] It goes against medical ethics (the Goldwater Rule) for a psychiatrist to diagnose a person he or she has not examined.  Lee, however, seems to enjoy an unflappable faith in her own expertise and mission, and so continues to do her "duty to warn" us about the dreadful man in the White House.

Nancy Pelosi Just Delivered a Kill Shot to House Democrats' Impeachment Hopes... For Now.  The majority of the House Democratic caucus now supports impeachment proceedings against President Trump because he won the 2016 election.  This was the plan all along.  Of course, the Democrats couldn't admit this after they retook the House in 2018.  They had to look like they were going to push a legislative agenda, not engage in a crusade against the Trump White House until the next election cycle.  It's the tantrum of all tantrums.  And while this is annoying — the impeachment circus — it's also highly entertaining; Trump lives rent-free in the minds of the American Left.  And every time they think about it, the more insane these people get which also increases the chances that Trump secures a second term.

Protesters Demanding Impeachment Crash Nancy Pelosi Award Ceremony in San Francisco.  Progressive activists crashed an award ceremony honoring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a San Francisco hotel on Wednesday night, demanding she support the introduction of articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.  Armed with signs that read "We can't wait," demonstrators stood on chairs while shouting, "Which side are you on, Pelosi?  Impeach!" inside the InterContinental hotel, where the San Francisco Democrat Party members honored the longtime California lawmaker with a lifetime achievement award.

House Democrats appear less likely to get Trump's tax returns before 2020 election.  House Democrats appear increasingly unlikely to secure President Trump's tax returns before the 2020 presidential election, according to interviews with legal experts and several lawmakers, as resistance from the Trump administration has stymied the party's efforts to obtain his personal financial records.  Several Democrats involved in oversight, including Rep. Daniel Kildee (Mich.) of the Ways and Means Committee, see a long path to getting a final court decision, even if they expect to win in the end.  Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump-appointed judge who was assigned the case in July, will hear the case first, and any decision is likely to be appealed to higher courts, up to the Supreme Court.

'Impeachment August' Campaign Falls Short of [its] Goals with [the] Month Halfway Over.  Progressive groups were hoping to make this month "Impeachment August," but with only 12 days to go, they are falling short of their self-stated goals.  Twelve progressive groups joined together to launch a campaign on August 1 with a goal to pressure House Democrats to come out in support of President Trump's impeachment.  While the American public remains deeply divided on impeachment, Democrats overwhelmingly support it.

'Meathead' Rob Reiner:  Impeach Trump for criticizing Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib.  It seems that Hollywood leftist Rob Reiner has impeachment on the brain.  On Thursday, he suggested that Trump be impeached for criticism of far-left "Squad" members Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

MSNBC Host, Analysts Speculate About Removing Trump From Office.  An MSNBC panel speculated Friday afternoon about potentially removing President Donald Trump from office due to his mental state, pointing to reports he is exhibiting "signs that were similar to the early stages of Alzheimer's."  "He attacked a man who turned out to be one of his own supporters," host Nicolle Wallace said.  "I don't know where there are many schools in America you can bully somebody like that and not get suspended."  Wallace referenced a supporter who was removed from a Trump rally after the President made fun of his weight.  Afterward, the supporter said Trump had nothing to apologize for and that "he's the best thing that ever happened to this country."

Jerry Nadler Tries To Mislead A District Court Judge And The DOJ, Gets Clobbered.  Americans have moved on from the Russian collusion hoax, but House Democrats just can't seem to let go.  House Judiciary chairman, Jerry Nadler, has two goals at the moment.  He would like former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before his committee.  Additionally, he is seeking the secret grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.

Nadler plays impressive word games.  House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nalder, D-N.Y., continues to play a game of semantics when it comes to his partisan effort to impeach President Donald Trump.  Having been bumped from the headlines this week by the liberal media's rabid ploy to blame the president for a pair of shootings last weekend, Nadler appeared on CNN to find his way back onto the front page, claiming his committee has begun "formal impeachment proceedings."  CNN anchor Erin Burnett asked Nadler about an impeachment inquiry and he tossed an impressive word salad as recounting his witch hunt, which is effectively a rehash of the two year, $35 million-plus Robert Mueller probe

Jerry Nadler Gets Called Out For Claiming 'Formal Impeachment Proceedings' [are] Underway.  House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said in an interview with CNN Thursday that "formal impeachment proceedings" are underway, prompting GOP Rep. Doug Collins to call him out for being off the mark.  "This is formal impeachment proceedings," Nadler told CNN's Erin Burnett.  "We are investigating all the evidence, gathering the evidence.  And we will [at the] conclusion of this — hopefully by the end of the year — vote articles of impeachment to the House floor.  Or we won't.  That's a decision that we'll have to make.  But that's exactly the process we're in right now."

'Flagrantly illegal.'  Trump sues California over new law targeting his tax returns.  President Donald Trump, the California Republican Party, and the national GOP joined together Tuesday [8/6/2019] to sue California over a new tax-return law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last week.  The law requires Trump and other presidential candidates to release the last five years of their tax returns to get their names on the state's 2020 primary ballot.

The Democrats' Disingenuous Impeachment Plans.  According to Politico, after Robert Mueller's testimony in two televised hearings, 37% of Americans still wanted impeachment proceedings to begin, while 46% still wanted the inquiry to stop and their legislators to refocus on the critical issues of the day:  immigration, crime, health care, drug addiction, cyberterrorism and global trade.  Still, Committee Chairmen Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff were undeterred.  They insisted that Mueller's halting testimony was a triumph of substance over style but assured us that they'll have something even better — a real game-changer — if we can just hold on until after their six-week vacation is over. [...] At this point, the Democrats' duplicitous strategy for impeachment is failing.

Grand Jury Secrecy and Jerry Nadler.  Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC), fresh off his committee's disastrous session with Robert Mueller, has announced his intent to obtain access to the secret grand jury testimony taken during the Mueller investigation.  It matters not that Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against President Trump; he and his entire two-year investigation are now being disowned by ardent Democrats dead set on impeaching the president.  Nadler's hope is to uncover some testimony, however remote, that he can claim as the basis for an impeachment initiative.

Dems' impeachment show badly needs a script doctor — or cancellation.  "Nobody reads the book," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said in a widely repeated line, referring to the Mueller report, "but everybody will watch the movie."  The problem is the Mueller episode was boring, and the same folks who said it was going to be a hit are now furious at those judging it like entertainment.  The show bombed largely because Mueller refused to play his part.  Not only were his halting answers designed to deny newscasters a single sound bite, but he also refused to play the wise elder statesman role Congress so often assigns outsiders in the hope they will do whatever job the representatives themselves are incapable of doing.

The Seven Dumbest Things Democrats Demand You Believe.  The Democrats still aren't finished with the Trump-Russia meme.  They apparently fail to recognize that virtually everything to come as this story goes forward will be unpleasant for them.  There is the Department of Justice's Inspector General report, due out later this summer, which will likely describe the origins of the Trump-Russia meme as being bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and used as a predicate for colossal civil rights abuses, if not election tampering, by the Obama administration, which weaponized Clinton's store-bought Steele Dossier to spy on the Trump campaign.

Dems Rely on Phony Impeachment Polling.  [The Democrats are] denying the reality of the 2016 presidential election, that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton fair and square.  It was not the result Democrats and their media comrades wanted or expected and now they seek to overturn the will of the American people in selecting a president.  So what if Hillary Clinton won the popular vote?  Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 with only 43 percent of the popular vote, far from a majority, but no one considered him an illegitimate president for that reason.  Democrats have been trying for close to three years to overturn the 2016 election.  From Stormy and Avenatti, to Rapinoe and Omarosa, all have tried and failed.

Schiff: Trump Obstructing Congressional Oversight Might Be Grounds for Impeachment.  Sunday [7/28/2019] on NBC's "Meet the Press," House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said President Donald Trump stonewalling Congress in their investigations might become an impeachable offense.  [Video clip]

Yeah, let's talk about obstruction and stonewalling.

NAACP: Impeach 'Occupant' of WH for 'Vile Racist Attack' on Cummings.  The Chairman of the NAACP board of directors on Saturday said President Donald Trump should be impeached for his "vile racist attack" on Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and the "despicable" attacks on Baltimore.  Leon W. Russell, the chairman, also accused Trump of running a "criminal enterprise" and turning the White House into a "racist cesspool."

Nadler (In 1999): Perjury And Obstruction Of Justice Not Impeachable Offenses.  Putting aside that his bloviations about President Trump are totally bogus, in 1999 when Bill Clinton was being impeached Nadler's views about what offenses should lead to impeachment were totally different.  A NY Times article on Feb. 1, 1999, celebrated Nadler as the leading voice in the house fighting against the Clinton charges.

MSNBC Host:  We're Not Going to 'Play Fair' to Put Trump in Jail.  During a Friday [7/26/2019] appearance on Morning Joe, MSNBC host Donny Deutsch promised the world, "We're not going to necessarily play fair" to put President Trump "in jail."  "We may not have won the battle of impeachment," Deutsch squealed, "but we're going to win the war of putting him in jail — whatever we have to do, and we're not going to necessarily play fair."

Pelosi: Next Step on Impeachment Involves Investigating Trump's Finances.  Friday [7/26/2019] at her weekly press briefing on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the House of Representatives is investigating President Donald Trump's "finances, personal business" in their next step toward possible impeachment.

The Editor says...
It's too bad Ms. Pelosi wasn't so obsessed with impeachment four years ago, when there were credible allegations against the (previous) president.  Pelosi and company have got nothing to work with, and they might as well give it up.

Nets Lament Mueller 'Blunted Momentum', Didn't 'Move the Needle' for Impeachment.  The day after the disasters that were the Democratic-led hearings with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the liberal broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) seemed crestfallen that their high hopes for President Trump's impeachment were puttering out.  Their Thursday [7/25/2019] flagship evening newscasts reflected that mood as they talked about the hearings not having the "punch" needed to push certain Democrats to back impeachment, leaving a "divide" in the party.

Democrats just won't give up their impeachment bone.  Take, for example, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who, upon watching Republicans take Mueller apart in cross-examination, asked God for forgiveness for ever having been a Republican.  So Joe, do you mean to say you are ashamed for having associated with Republicans because they asked tough questions of the man who diverted the nation's attention for two years with a partisan hoax of gargantuan proportions?  You are more comfortable lying in bed with mean-spirited Democrats, progressives, liberals and leftists who delight every day in savaging President Trump and his supporters.  We understand that you are sorry you were ever a Republican, and we're sorry, too, but could you please come up with a better reason — one that might convince more than a sliver of credulous people?

Democratic impeachment fever dies down after Mueller hearing.  Without any major bombshells from Mueller, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took Democrats into a six-week summer recess without initiating any proceedings.  Pelosi is opposed to impeachment, in large part because a move to oust the president would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Senate and could be a politically toxic issue for Democrats in swing districts.  Pelosi advised Democrats to talk about impeachment if they need to boost their re-election prospects next year — but not in a way that challenged other members' opposition to launching an impeachment effort.

Pelosi rebuffs Nadler on impeachment after Mueller flop.  House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler pushed to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump during a closed-door meeting Wednesday, only to be rebuffed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to four sources familiar with the discussions.  At a caucus meeting that came after the hotly anticipated testimony of former special counsel Robert Mueller, Nadler suggested that several House committee chiefs begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump.  Pelosi called the idea premature, the sources said.

Schiff: 'I Would Be Delighted If We Had a Prospect of Removing Him Through Impeachment But We Don't'.  Thursday [7/25/2019] on CNN's "New Day," Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, lamented that impeachment was not an option when it came to President Donald Trump.

Maxine Waters: 'Impeachment First, Prison Next'.  Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) on Monday evening [7/22/2019] predicted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appearance before Congress on Wednesday will give Democrats "the ammunition" they need to "start impeachment immediately."

Democrats think they've got a slam-dunk obstruction case against Trump.  They don't.  It could be that the Mueller hearing, rather than showcasing a slam-dunk case against the president on obstruction of justice, will highlight how tenuous, subject to interpretation, and difficult to prove Mueller's allegations really are.  The first thing to notice about the Democrats' choice of evidence is what is not included.

The SDNY Just Crushed One Of The Left's Biggest Dreams.  After the Mueller report failed to deliver the silver bullet against Trump, those obsessed with taking him out (because it's not like we have an election next year or something) needed a new hope.  It couldn't just be over and rationality that perhaps Trump simply didn't break any laws wasn't entertained.  Instead, the dream shifted to the SDNY [Southern District of New York].

Federal Prosecutors Won't Bring Additional Charges in Trump Campaign Finance Probe.  Federal prosecutors in New York City will not bring additional charges as part of their investigation into payments orchestrated by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to pornographic actress Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election, according to the Associated Press.

137 House Democrats Voted Against Impeachment.  This impeachment vote is what all of the most vocal political opponents have been asking for.  This impeachment vote is what CNN, MSNBC and MSM panelists have been advocating for since November 2018.  This is what every democrat presidential candidate has supported.  This was the put-up or shut-up moment the far-left has been diligently working toward.

Democrats reject impeachment in hasty vote to punish Trump.  The House voted Wednesday [7/17/2019] against a resolution to bring articles of impeachment against President Trump, demonstrating that Democrats are not willing to take the ultimate step to try to oust the president.  While dozens of House Democrats want to begin an impeachment inquiry against Trump, the vote showed their numbers remain too few to win a floor vote to start one.  The vote was 332-95 to kill the measure.  Ninety-five Democrats voted against tabling it, demonstrating that about 40% of the House Democratic caucus backs impeachment.

Rep. Al Green Proposes Impeaching Trump for "Bigotry".  The Constitution, that document which no good Dem believes in, states, "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."  There's nothing there about saying mean things.  If there were, then Rep. Al Green might be impeached.

Another dead end:
Feds End Campaign Finance Investigation into Trump 'Hush Money' to Stormy Daniels.  Federal prosecutors have ended their investigation into payments from then-candidate Donald Trump to porn star Stormy Daniels, which Trump's critics had hoped would lead to his arrest or impeachment.

Democrat Congressman Worries An Honest And Fair Election Will Give POTUS Trump A Win In 2020!  Democrats don't believe they can win the White House back in 2020 by allowing the American people to decide.  No, they need to impeach him before the election.  So says longtime Democrat Congressman, Al Green.

Plan B: Impeach Trump For Fighting Illegal Immigration.  What if House Democrats drew up articles of impeachment charging President Trump not with obstruction of justice but with obstruction of those entering America illegally?  The ructions for months now over the continuous unauthorized entry of multitudes across the southern border, their often-dubious appeals for political asylum, and the shameful exploitation of children by those seeking to get into the country any way they can are being used to the full against Trump.

The framers never intended for impeachment to be a political weapon.  On Sunday night's [6/23/2019] episode of Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News, LevinTV host Mark Levin was joined by constitutional expert and former federal Judge Michael McConnell to discuss how the framers constitution really intended for impeachment to work.  During the discussion, McConnell — who is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and director of Stanford University's constitutional law program — explained that impeachment is far more than just a political issue, or at least that's what the framers intended for it to be.  "The phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' was specifically chosen to be a very high bar" for impeachment, McConnell explained.

The Dems' 2020 Election Strategy.  Investigations.  Every single day's news is dominated, day after day, week after week, month after month by investigations of the President, subpoenas to his executive branch, his friends and associates, his family.  Investigations that go from Michael "Cash Cab" Cohen as the very first sworn witness of the Congressional term to Mueller to John Dean, who masterminded Watergate.  It's like swearing-in Harvey Weinstein to testify about Bill Clinton.  And never-ending daily discussions of:  FISA warrants.  Redactions.  Grand jury transcripts.  Hold the Attorney-General in contempt.  Hold the Secretary of the Treasury in contempt.  Hold the Secretary of Commerce in contempt.  Demand the President's taxes.  Subpoenas and litigation for his taxes.

Three reasons Trump-Russia hasn't turned into Watergate.  In Watergate, the underlying crime was a break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters, perpetrated by burglars paid by President Richard Nixon's reelection campaign.  The scandal proceeded from there.  In Trump-Russia, the underlying crime was the hacking of the DNC's and John Podesta's emails — a crime committed by Russians in Russia.  Special counsel Robert Mueller, who indicted a number of Russians and Russian entities for their actions, spent two years trying to find conspiracy or coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign.  He failed.  That single fact has shaped every other aspect of the Trump-Russia affair.

Congress Has No Right to Trump Tax Returns — Justice Department Makes Right Decision.  President Trump won a victory Friday when the Justice Department said Congress does not have the right to see his tax returns.  More importantly, all American taxpayers won a victory, because the Justice Department memo regarding Trump's returns has the effect of upholding the privacy and confidentially of all our tax returns as well.  If Congress is allowed to examine the president's tax returns, the next step will be demands by lawmakers to examine the tax returns of others — political activists and opponents, members of unpopular groups, religious minorities, and who knows who else.

When did Congressional testimony become performance art?  In the last 10 years, the rules of the game have changed.  Politicians, activists and writers are no longer giving testimony to a committee, as [Alexander P.] Butterfield did in 1973.  They are competing for attention and influence on the internet.

Why are House Dems Allowed to Try President Trump For The Same Offense For the Fifth Time?  Last I knew, this was the United States of America.  We lived by a Constitution which guaranteed a set of protections against tyranny for our citizens.  One of those protections is the guarantee that a person accused of a crime cannot be "twice put in jeopardy" for the same crime.  This is called double jeopardy.  The text book definition of double jeopardy is as follows:  "A procedural defense which prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction."

John Dean, House Democrats and the spirit of scandals past.  John Dean?  Really?  If this was a Dickens story, John Dean would be playing the Spirit of Scandals Past, the forlorn and decrepit old spirit carted out to warn others.  But his warnings are no more than craven fodder for the Spirit of Scandals Present, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler.  Why don't the Democrats just admit they were wrong about collusion and move on rather than continuing to embarrass themselves?

A Mafia Hit Man's Assessment of John Dean.  In his testimony before the committee, Dean conceded that he was not appearing as a fact witness and did not have personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of a single fact in Team Mueller's report.  Instead, his role was to provide "historical context" within which Trump's actions could be assessed.  So Dean appeared, in effect, as an expert witness on how to commit obstruction of justice, a crime which involves hiding the truth.  The Republicans on the committee raised all of the obvious points about Dean's admitted criminal conduct in the Watergate conspiracy.  But it was this exchange between Dean and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that particularly caught my interest. [...]

John Dean Blows a Hole in the Democrats' Impeachment Push.  John Dean admitted to opposing Donald Trump before Trump was even elected.  And Dean described his level of disgust as doubling him over with pain in his stomach at the thought of a President Donald Trump.  So Dean let the cat out of the bag.  This has nothing to do with anything that Trump did after becoming President.  Dean was already desperate to stop Trump from becoming President.  This has nothing to do with the law, impeachment, obstruction of justice or anything else that Trump did.  It is all about politics.  Dean wanted Hillary Clinton to win — by his own admission.  John Dean is just one of the many spoiled children of the Left who didn't get his way.

Jordan and Gaetz Expose Pelosi and Nadler's Ridiculous Political Impeachment Stunt.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judicary Chairman Jerry Nadler constructed a political hearing to kick-off their impeachment narrative and fuel their base.  In an effort to create the appearance of hearing credibility the plan was to use testimony from former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean.  The plan failed, miserably.  Dean was showcased for what he is, a political prop for the left-wing base of MSNBC moonbats.

Even Democrats Aren't Sure Whether John Dean Did Them Any Good.  It was supposed to be a made-for-TV moment for House Democrats:  former Richard Nixon counsel and Watergate icon John Dean testifying before lawmakers in the Judiciary Committee's first hearing solely devoted to the substance of Robert Mueller's findings on whether President Trump obstructed the Russia investigation.  After the four-hour hearing wrapped on Monday [6/10/2019], though, not all Democrats were reveling in the testimony of Watergate's star witness.  Some were even wondering if anyone had bothered to watch.

Alan Dershowitz:  House Democrats 'looking to create something that isn't there' with impeachment.  Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz says House Democrats at this point are gasping for air in the never-ending Russia saga.  "They're looking to create something that isn't there," he told me in a brief phone interview Monday morning.  "They're trying to weaponize the criminal justice system for partisan advantage.  It's not there.  There's no obstruction of justice in the [special counsel] report."  Democrats on Monday [6/10/2019] will hear testimony related to their absurd case against President Trump for supposedly obstructing justice.

Nadler's Trump-Bashing Witnesses Are Obama Appointees and MSNBC Hack Contributors.  The Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee chaired by Jerry Nadler dragged out Watergate figure John Dean to testify at Monday's [6/10/2019] hearing about Mueller's report.  Nadler also trotted out two former Obama-appointed US Attorneys who are contributors to MSNBC, and they both came out and trashed President Trump.

Jerry Nadler's Trump-bashing show is a bust.  Chairman Jerry Nadler has to put on a show of pursuing President Trump because the party's left wing demands it.  But Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't let Nadler go to impeachment hearings because she knows the broader public will see it as a partisan outrage.

GOP's Collins blasts Nadler's 'fake impeachment' hearings; reminds him of House rules forbidding 'ridicule of the president'.  In an effort to placate the party's increasingly unhinged Left-wing base, Democrats in the House will hold what critics are calling "fake impeachment hearings" on Monday, though one Republican is reminding a powerful committee chairman of the chamber's rules regarding the treatment of the president.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) will hold a hearing featuring Watergate-era stoolie and convict John Dean, reputed to be the one who brought down President Richard Nixon though in reality, it was a series of tapes in which Nixon discussed obstructing justice and other crimes that actually did him in.

Oh Look, Another Glaring Omission In The Mueller Report.  [Scroll down]  For two years, they dug and found nothing.  Now, after being unable to give Democrats the impeachment ammunition the needed, Mueller, in his exiting presser, all but gave the green light to start such proceedings.  It's that presser that many saw this whole investigation as nothing more than a political hit job and a perversion of a basic tenet of our legal system:  innocent until proven guilty. [...] The liberal media continued to peddle it, however, because Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and the Left is desperate to get rid of the president.

Collins Warns Nadler About Rules Of Conduct In Upcoming 'Mock-Impeachment Inquiry'.  House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins on Friday accused Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of scheduling a "mock impeachment inquiry" of the president for Monday as opposed to a legitimate congressional oversight hearing.  The upcoming hearing titled "Lessons from the Mueller Report:  Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes" is expected to include testimony from Watergate key witness John Dean along with other legal experts to drive the obstruction narrative for Democrats.  However, former special counsel Robert Mueller will not be a witness.

Why Democrats Can't Make Up Their Minds on Impeachment.  Democrats are eager to impeach president Trump, yet at the same time, they are eager to avoid such impeachment.  They cannot make a rational decision on how to proceed, because they have painted themselves into a corner on the issue.  They bombarded the country with various hoaxes for years, telling Americans that Trump is Russia's asset.  If they start the impeachment proceedings against Trump, independents will abandon Democrats (independents will not tolerate the prosecution of innocent men), and they will lose the 2020 elections.  If Democrats put brakes the impeachment plans, their brainwashed base will abandon them; [...]

Anti-Trump Psychiatrists Will Violate Ethics In Bogus Dem 'Mental Health' Town Hall.  Democrats, having failed with their "Russian collusion" and "It's a cover-up!" are now turning to "mental health" in another desperate attempt to unseat the duly-elected POTUS.  The assembled psychiatrists would be better served if they focused on their own obsession with President Trump and their childish, petulant refusal to accept reality:  Donald Trump is the president of the United States.  And they seem unconcerned that they are in clear violation of one of the ethical guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, known as the "Goldwater Rule," which was adopted after the 1964 presidential election, when psychiatrists weighed in with their "diagnosis" of the Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, without having had any contact with him.

A Washington Post argument against impeachment:  Trump is who he is.  The debate over impeachment is growing both deafening and dispiriting.  On one side, liberal pols and pundits argue that the Democrats have an absolute duty to make the move against Donald Trump because he's so obviously broken the law — never mind Bob Mueller's lack of charges — and is so awful that history demands action, regardless of the political drawbacks.  Other pols and pundits on the left say impeachment would be futile and self-destructive, divide the country, obliterate the Democrats' agenda — and then ultimately fail in the Senate.

Senior House Democrat says support [is] lacking for formal Trump impeachment inquiry.  The chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said on Wednesday there did not appear to be support at the moment for a formal impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump following the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia probe.

Watergate's John Dean is a hero to Dems eager to impeach Trump — but here's the ugly truth.  Soon, John Dean will be the Democratic House Judiciary Committee's opening witness in the majority's quest to keep the Mueller report at the forefront of the national consciousness.  As a former member of President Nixon's White House staff, Dean has become a mainstream media darling, who is frequently trotted out to assert that some supposed Republican scandal is "worse than Watergate."  He's hardly on the inside of anything Republican today, but he certainly knows about Watergate, because he played such a central part throughout the scandal's unfolding.

More than two dozen liberal groups voice frustration with Pelosi, urge impeachment proceedings against Trump.  A coalition of more than two dozen liberal groups on Tuesday urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump, writing in a letter that her reticence is "resulting in dangerous inaction that enables this racist and xenophobic president."  The strongly worded letter voicing frustration with Pelosi (D-Calif.) came a day after the Democratic-led House returned from a week-long recess and continued to grapple with how to respond to the report of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

Enough Games — They Want to Destroy Us.  The past few days of news coverage have confirmed that the corporate leftist media and the Democrats are hellbent on uncritically warping every fact and statement to support their effort to forcibly remove a democratically elected president and to demonize anyone who may stand in their way. [...] In a civil society, citizens may be entitled to their opinions but not to their own facts.  But the past few years are evidence enough that we are no longer living in an actual civilized society.  Our opponents are not engaging in good faith.  They are willing and eager to destroy anyone in their way — no matter the cost.

Poll: Majority oppose Trump impeachment, but most Democrats support it.  A majority of polled voters oppose impeaching and removing President Trump but a strong majority of Democrats are in favor of doing so, according to the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey.  The survey found that a plurality of voters, 43 percent, favor no action against the president, including 44 percent of independents.  Thirty-seven percent support impeaching and removing the president.  Sixty percent of polled Democrats say the president should be impeached and removed, but only 36 percent of independents are in favor.  Twenty percent of voters say Trump should be censured by Congress.

The Editor says...
When was there ever a poll conducted to ask if Barack H. Obama should be impeached and removed, or at least censured by Congress?

Far Left Late Night Host Jimmy Kimmel Pleads with Nancy Pelosi to Impeach Trump.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi took time on Thursday on Late Night with far left host Jimmy Kimmel on "Jimmy Kimmel Live."  The late night shows have replaced comedy the last three years with visceral hatred of President Trump and conservative American voters.  During their segment Kimmel pleaded with Nancy Pelosi to impeach President Trump urging her to "get in there" and "take care of this."

Five things that will happen if House Dems move to impeach Trump.  If Democrats want to argue that corrupt intent and an underlying offense are not needed to prove obstruction, then was former President Bill Clinton committing obstruction when he met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix Airport while the FBI was investigating his wife's mishandling of government emails?  Or was former President Barack Obama committing obstruction when he opined that Hillary Clinton had done nothing wrong with her emails while she was his secretary of state?  Both Presidents Obama and Clinton acted before then-FBI Director James Comey announced his recommendation that Hillary Clinton — then running for president against Trump — should not be charged for improperly using a private email server instead of the required secure government email system while heading the State Department.  Knowing what they know today, if House Democrats move forward on the impeachment of President Trump, five things will happen. [...]

Trump becomes the Democrats' great white whale.  One way of envisioning the Democratic obsessions with Donald Trump is as an addiction.  We have seen the initial impeachment efforts; the attempt to get him under the emoluments clause, the Logan Act and the 25th Amendment; the Russian collusion hoax; the Mueller investigation; the demand for his tax returns; and the psychodramas involving Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels.  Relentless progressives have needed a new Get Trump fix about every two months.  More practically, their fixation also substitutes for a collective poverty of ideas.

2020 Democrats Renew Impeachment Frenzy After Robert Mueller Speaks.  Several Democrat presidential candidates on Wednesday [5/29/2019] took to social media to call on Congress to begin impeachment proceeding against President Donald Trump following special counsel Robert Mueller's press conference about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) declared Mueller's statement "makes clear" that his report is an "impeachment referral" for Congress to act upon.  "They should," she declared.

Democrats' impeachment talk impeaches their own credibility.  Democrats talking about impeaching President Trump are so absurdly premature as to convict themselves of extreme political hackery.  Their excuses for impeachment change with the news cycle, but right now, the only ground remotely reasonable for impeachment is the evidence reported by inspector general Robert Mueller that Trump tried on 10 occasions to impede the Russia-related investigation.  The contrary arguments, though, are strong.  The first two are that Trump apparently committed no underlying crime to cover up and that he provided remarkably free access to requested documents and to members of his team without asserting executive privilege.  It's hard to charge obstruction when he destroyed no documents and suborned no perjury.

Impeach or get off the pot, Democrats.  It's difficult to believe anyone really thinks impeachment is a good idea after an independent investigation blew up the Russiagate conspiracy.  But Democrats run the House.  They have the votes to get it done.  According to their own rhetoric, they have a duty to impeach no matter what the Senate does.  An impeachment proceeding that compels Democrats to lay out their case would be far preferable to this show trial — what the Wall Street Journal editorial page dubbed "The Pseudo-Impeachment."  Let's do it already.

Colluders, Obstructionists, Leakers, and Other Projectionists.  Mueller spent more than $34 million and wrote over 440 pages to inform the American people that Trump could not realistically be indicted for obstructing justice, mostly because the underlying crime — "collusion" — never existed in the first place.  Moreover, Mueller and other officials were never actually hampered in their investigations.  No matter:  "obstruction" was supposedly the key to destroying the Trump Administration after collusion imploded.  To this day it remains the battle cry of the impeach-Trump Left.

Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen Questions Nancy Pelosi's Patriotism Over Impeachment And We're Here For It.  Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen appeared on CNN today [5/23/2019] (where else?).  You'll probably remember Cohen from some of his greatest hits, like slobbering on a bucket of KFC during a hearing in an attempt to call Bill Barr a chicken.  Nice work Tennessee.  In the past few days, Nancy Pelosi has been desperately trying to tamp down calls for impeachment because she smartly realizes there's no case for it and that it would backfire.  Rationality isn't a strong suit of Democrat politics though.

Are We on the Ramp to Impeachment Road?  [T]he hostile investigations of Trump by Pelosi's House are becoming too numerous to list.  Subpoenas have been issued to the IRS demanding Trump's tax returns.  New York has enacted a law to gain access to Trump's state tax returns, to pass them on to the comrades on Capitol Hill.  Democrats are not seeking these records for guidance on how to reform the tax code.  House committees want the files of his accountants.  Subpoenas have been issued to lending institutions where Trump borrowed, such as Deutsche Bank, going back to the last century.  The Mueller investigation found that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in 2016. Yet that exoneration is insufficient for the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler.  He wants public hearings with present and past White House aides under oath to put on a show trial for a national TV audience.

Pelosi's Impeachment Dilemma.  The progressives in her party are lining up to demand an impeachment spectacle.  They hail from uber-liberal districts, their constituents want Trump's scalp, and they fear inaction will earn them a primary challenge.  Even Mrs. Pelosi's wingmen — those who've had her fake-impeachment back — are starting to break.  The Washington Post reports that Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is arguing for a formal impeachment inquiry, as are "five members of Pelosi's leadership team."  Mr. Beyer surprised nobody when he became the first member of Virginia's delegation to call publicly for formal proceedings, joining at least two dozen other House Democrats.  Mr. Beyer represents Virginia's Eighth district, the most liberal in the state, encompassing the Washington suburbs of Alexandria and Arlington.

Americans don't want Congress to impeach, but Democrats aren't listening.  The American people are sending a pretty clear message to Washington:  They are sick and tired of the investigations into President Trump and don't want Democrats in Congress to impeach him.  But the Democrats aren't listening.

Sinking Bernie Grasps At Impeachment As Poll Numbers Begin To Crater.  In the latest episode of the incredible shrinking socialist, Bernie Sanders is ready to saddle up to ride with the impeachment mob as he struggles to keep pace with Joe Biden who is rapidly pulling away from the rest of the pack.  According to the most recent polls, the former vice president is running way ahead of Crazy Bernie and putting the revolution in doubt even as younger Americans are drawn to the seductive promises of free stuff and collective punishment of their enemies in increasing numbers.

Democrats Are Painted Into a Corner.  Since the day after the 2016 election they have been threatening this, placing their chips on the Russian-collusion fantasy and then on the phantasmagoric charade of obstruction of justice.  The attorney general accurately gave the ingredients of the offense of obstruction of justice in his four-page summary of the Mueller report: a corrupt act for corrupt purposes in contemplation of a legal proceeding.  The attorney general, William Barr, the then deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, and the Justice Department counsel concurred that none of the elements was present in the conduct of the president as recounted by Mr. Mueller.  The dream died, except in the febrile imagination of the Democrats, who launched an unfounded attack on the attorney general's integrity.

Pelosi Tries To Play Hamlet On Impeachment.  Pelosi would go forward on the trappings of impeachment absent impeachment itself.  It would be a continuation of the never-ending soap opera of the last two years of investigation, and media coverage of it, except re-located to Capitol Hill.  Though all the while teasing that impeachment may be around the corner if we dig hard enough.  "Get the facts to the American people in our investigation" and "it may take us to a place that is unavoidable in terms of impeachment, but we're not at that place," as the Speaker put it.  In other words, months and months of "to impeach or not to impeach."

Ilhan Omar Celebrates Serving as Speaker Pro Tempore of the House and Calls for Impeachment of Trump.  Rep. Ilhan Omar (D.-Minn.) sent out two successive tweets on Wednesday night, the first celebrating the fact that she had served that day as Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives and the second calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.  "Such an honor to preside over the House Floor tonight," Omar said in the first Tweet, which featured a screen capture of her at the speaker's podium.  "Every day I am humbled to serve the people of my community."

The Editor says...
If you want to serve the people of your community, you should run for mayor.  As it is, you're a member of Congress, where it is your obligation to serve the entire country, and not just the Muslims.

Dems Ignore the Voters on Impeachment.  Here's a news flash for the leftwing politicians, pundits, and unbalanced billionaires who continue to push for the impeachment of President Trump:  There is a large group of people living beyond the Beltway, collectively known as "the voters," which doesn't share your obsession with removing him from office.  Countless polls confirm that the percentage of the electorate that supports impeachment is steadily dwindling.  The vast majority of the people who will cast ballots in 2020 want you to stop indulging your nostalgia for Watergate and do something useful.

Keyword:  Bill of attainder.
New York passes law so they can give Trump's taxes to Democrats.  Earlier we told you that the New York State Senate had passed a bill so they could give Trump's tax returns to Congress.  Well now that bill has passed the legislature and is heading to Cuomo's desk to sign.

Schumer, Nadler Once Compared Impeachment to Cannibalizing Children, Assassinating a President.  When President Bill Clinton, over 20 years ago, was probed by a special investigator, and 11 possible grounds for impeachment were found, including perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, Democrats didn't defend their party's President the way Republicans defend Trump today.  No, Democrats were far more extreme.  What makes the rhetorical record so glaringly hypocritical is that in Donald Trump's case, unlike Clinton's, the investigator found no evidence of presidential crimes.  As congressional Democrats' current leaders endure the pressure of their younger, further-to-the-left colleagues, who want Trump's head on a platter ASAP, they're going to find themselves haunted by their own ghosts of impeachment past.

Impeachment Coverage Has Surged as Public Interest Wanes.  The Democratic clamor for presidential impeachment seems to be growing by the day.