- Jerry Nadler: If You Don’t Remove Trump, He Will Be a ‘Dictator’
Breitbart shows us that Jerry Nadler now believes that doing what Obama did has turned President Trump to dictatorial tendencies.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) told the Senate during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial on Friday that if it failed to remove Trump from office, he would become a “dictator.”
Nadler did not argue, as he did on the first day of the trial — before being rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts — that Senators would be voting “against the United States” if they voted not to remove the president.
He did, however, say that a vote to acquit Trump would remove all constraints on his power.
Other members of the team of House impeachment managers similarly argued that voting to acquit Trump would give all future presidents “veto power” over Congress.
(Read more at Breitbart)
Does a dictator do things not allowed by our constitution?
If Nadler’s definition of a dictator would be someone who ignores the constraints of our constitution, why didn’t he complain when Barack Obama 22 times said that he could not change immigration law by fiat and then wrote a memo establishing DACA?
…
- Pelosi gleefully reminds Trump he’s ‘impeached forever’ during appearance on Bill Maher show
As Fox News reported in a 19 January 2020 article, Pelosi gleefully reminded Trump he’s ‘impeached forever’ during appearance on Bill Maher show.
Not much seemed solemn or prayerful about Nancy Pelosi‘s appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday night.
In Maher’s return from a holiday hiatus, the House speaker spoke gleefully about her colleagues impeaching President Trump and doubled down on her Russian-charged attacks against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
After Maher pointed out that Pelosi was initially “rather reluctant” to move forward with impeachment and waited until “it was inevitable,” the California Democrat responded that Trump simply gave his critics in the House “no choice” in the matter.
(Read more at Fox News)
Yes, due to a partisan House, Trump has been impeached
Without a crime (since “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” are not crimes), the Democrats voted to impeach Donald John Trump.
Likewise, since Bill Clinton lied in court and attempted to cover up his lies, but most Democrats circled the wagons around this president (calling it “personal sexual misconduct” rather than lying to court about the multiple indiscretions).
…
- Pelosi, Democrat congresswomen wear dark colors amid ‘somber’ impeachment vote
Fox News reported in an 18 December 2019 article how Pelosi suggested impeachment was a “somber” duty.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democratic female lawmakers wore black and other dark colors on the day that House Democrats planned on exercising what the speaker described as Congress’ “solemn” impeachment power against President Trump.
Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., confirmed to Fox News that some members wore dark colors to mark the tone of impeachment.
“It was informal,” Dingell told Fox News of the coordination. “It’s a somber day.”
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., wore a dark navy pants suit with pinstripes. “I actually was curious whether there was going to be a dress code, but not that I’m aware of,” she told Fox News. She said she chose a dark suit for the significant occasion. “It was not a day for partisan colors or celebration. So I think a lot of us felt like it was a day for sober attire,” she said.
One of Pelosi’s colleagues also told CNN that several female Democrats intentionally wore all black in order to gesture that the day of the impeachment vote was a somber one.
Pelosi, along with Democrat Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, Donna Shalala from Florida, Robin Kelly from Illinois and Suzanne Bonamici from Oregon were all seen Wednesday wearing dark outfits. On top of Pelosi’s black dress was a golden pin of the Mace of the Republic — a symbol of the House of Representatives’ authority.
(Read more at Fox News)
…
- One problem for Democrats: John Bolton praised Trump’s Ukraine call before getting fired
In a 29 January 2020 Breitbart article, we find that John Bolton praised Trump’s Ukraine call before he was fired.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton changed his tune on how he felt about the commander-in-chief’s July 25 call with his Ukrainian counterpart after he was fired from his White House post.
While Bolton claims he resigned in early September 2019, Trump said he fired him.
On August 27, 2019, Bolton described Trump’s July 25 phone conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) as “very warm and cordial calls” and acknowledged that corruption poses a significant problem for Ukraine.
(Read more at Breitbart)
Thankfully, John Bolton was not called by the House or Senate for testimony
In fact, Schiff did not submit a subpoena for Bolton’s testimony while the impeachment still ran in the House. Therefore, if Schiff really wanted the testimony, he should have fought for it while the impeachment was in the House.
…
- Adam Schiff Refuses Whistleblower, IG Transcript — After Demanding Witnesses, Documents
Breitbart reports in a 29 January 2020 article that Adam Schiff has refused a witness and a document after demanding witnesses and documents.
Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) demanded that the Senate subpoena additional witnesses and documents Wednesday — after declaring that he would not reveal the “whistleblower.”
Schiff later said that he would not release the transcript of an interview with the Intelligence Committee Inspector General (ICIG) about the way in which the so-called “whistleblower’s” initial complaint was handled.
Schiff’s contradictory responses came in response to questions from Republican Senators in the question-and-answer portion of the Senate impeachment trial.
Schiff was first pinned down by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) in a question about the standard or “abuse of power.” They asked a hypothetical about President Barack Obama asking for an investigation about one of then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s sons in 2012.
He used a familiar tactic of misquoting the Ukraine call transcript, saying, “Do me a favor.”
Schiff then declared that a president should never ask the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate a political rival.
White House lawyer Jay Sekulow pointed out later that was exactly what President Barack Obama’s DOJ did to then-candidate Donald Trump in Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee with Schiff, noted the contradiction:
(Read more at Breitbart)
When it comes to Democrat accountability, there is none in this case.
Misquote (aka, lie), hide proofs (by not releasing the transcript concerning the creation of the “whistleblower” account), and contradict yourself — this seems to be the Democrat playbook.
…
- How Hunter Biden got his job at Burisma – “Who’s your daddy?”
- Going back to things that seemed to work
- Democrats show their fixation on removing Trump with their 8th scheme
- When you have a case, you whisper and pound the facts. When you have no case, you shout and pound the table.
- Having squandered the fact-finding portion of the Impeachment, Democrats demand the Senate abandon its jury role and take on the role of prosecutors
- Pelosi cartoonishly attempts to seem relevant by ripping the State of the Union address
As reported in The Hill, Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of the State of the Union speech.
https://twitter.com/madmun26/status/1225060950404927488Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday ripped up her copy of President Trump‘s prepared remarks at the conclusion of his State of the Union address.
As Trump finished speaking and most lawmakers stood to applaud, Pelosi stood, took the printed copy of Trump’s speech and tore it in half. She placed the shredded copy in a stack on the dais as Trump made his way to greet members of Congress.
(Read more at The Hill)
To me, the blame does not spread
It seems that (like The Hill above) MSN wants to cover for her by blaming both sides (with a hat-tip to KommonSenseJane).
While MSN says that the president refused to shake her hand; however, from the view afforded by C-Span, it seemed that he only handed her a copy of the speech and may not have seen if she offered her hand. You might remember that last year, Pelosi did not introduce President Trump. Likewise, she also delayed the SOTU during that year. In 2018, Pelosi directed a snit fit display during the SOTU.
Hence, trying to paint both sides with the same brush comes up a little short with me
…
- Democrat leaders signal they won’t accept Trump acquittal as legitimate
Fox News reports the expected: Democrats will not accept President Trump as legitimate after he is acquitted.
Democrats signaled in the runup to the looming conclusion of President Trump‘s impeachment proceedings that they’ll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his “sham” trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.
Signaling how they will message the saga in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.
“The president’s acquittal will be meaningless,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declared Friday, “because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.”
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. said Republicans may get what they want — a speedy end to the trial — but it won’t have any value.
“There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial,” Harris, a former White House hopeful, said Friday.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who for weeks held onto the two articles of impeachment to try to force the Senate to commit to witnesses, said she won’t accept a not guilty verdict in the Senate as vindication.
“He will not be acquitted,” Pelosi said Thursday. “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial, and you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and that.”
Pelosi has already been gloating that her House of Representatives gave Trump a black mark in the history books that can never be erased.
“You’re impeached forever,” Pelosi said with a big grin in an interview with HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “No matter what the Senate does, that can never be erased.”
Democrats have hammered that without witnesses testifying, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, the Senate trial amounts to a cover-up.
(Read more at Fox News)
__
__
…
- Democrats’ 10 biggest lies in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial
Fox News provides a handy-dandy list of 10 fables (obviously greatly truncated) that the Democrats committed during their impeachment escapade.
Americans know the Democrats’ plan to impeach President Trump did not begin in September 2019. Rather, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admitted herself, it has been going on for over two and a half years.
Unable to wrap their head around the idea that 60 million Americans disagreed with the socialist agenda propagated by the Democratic Party, Rep Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rep Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and many others began their plan to impeach President Trump the moment he was elected.
This entire impeachment sham has been a predetermined narrative full of lies and false accusations designed to divide America and harm President Trump.
It’s time to correct the record on Congressional Democrats’ ten most egregious impeachment lies.
Lie: This impeachment process began after an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint through the proper channels within the Office of the Inspector General.
Fact: An article published on Oct 2, 2019, by the New York Times proved Schiff received an early account of the whistleblower’s complaint despite his persistent denial. This gave Democrats time to come up with an impeachment plan before any information was released to the public.
Lie: Democrats began the impeachment hearings out of concern for the country and the Constitution.
Fact: Time and time again Democrats have gone on the record proving their motivations for impeachment to be political.
Rep. Al Green, D-Texas: “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this President, he will get reelected.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, D-N.Y.: “[Impeaching Trump] is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome [in 2020].”
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.: “The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box.”
(Read the other 8 lies and proofs of those lies at Fox News)
…
- House Democrats: Steele Dossier was OK because we ‘purchased’ it
Breitbart reported how the party of genius (of the likes of AOC, Queen Sheila, and Hank Johnson) has expanded to include Hakeem Jeffries.
House impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told the Senate on Thursday that the so-called “Steele dossier” paid for by Democrats against then-candidate Donald Trump was not improper foreign interference in the 2016 election because they “purchased” it.
Jeffries was responding to a question from Republicans about Democrats’ argument that the president had invited improper foreign interference in U.S. elections by seeking, or being willing to accept, information from abroad on a potential political opponent.
The question asked: “Under the House managers’ standard, would the Steele dossier be considered as foreign interference in a U.S. election, a violation of the law, and/or an impeachable offense?”
Jeffries replied: “The analogy is not applicable to the present situation because, first, to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was opposition research that was purchased.”
He also referred to allegations about the dossier as a “conspiracy theory.”
The “dossier” was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, using a variety of foreign sources, including sources allegedly close to the Russian government.
A recent Department of Justice Inspector General report noted the FBI had found that the “Steele dossier” was false — but kept referring to it as legitimate in applications for renewals of surveillance warrants.
Steele had been working for the opposition firm Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS was initially paid by a Republican source who wanted to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination, but the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee later paid the firm, funneling money through the Perkins Coie law firm.
Earlier in the day, the second of two full days of questions and answers with House managers and White House lawyers, Jeffries had falsely accused White House lawyers of condoning foreign interference in U.S. elections, misquoting an answer from Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin from the night before.
All Philbin had done was quote the law, which is that accepting mere information is not a violation of campaign finance law.
White House lawyer Jay Sekulow pounced: “So — I guess you could buy? — this is what it sounds like — you can buy a foreign interference, if you purchase their opposition research, I guess it’s OK.”
(Read more at Breitbart)
From other sources, I understand that buying a false report from a foreign entity makes the deal illegal
From what I hear, the purchase by a presidential campaign (Hillary Clinton’s campaign) of a “dirty tricks” report from a foreign entity (Mr. Steele) constitutes an illegal act.
…
- ‘Profiles in Corruption’ Shows Democrats Are in No Position to Talk About ‘Abuse of Power’
Breitbart outlines the points in Profiles in Corruption that show how Democrats have abused power.
Revelations in the new book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite show that Democrats lack credibility in accusing President Donald Trump of “abuse of power,” the book’s author Peter Schweizer said in an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour.
Schweizer, the president of the Government Accountability Institute and a Breitbart News senior contributor, noted that one of the articles of impeachment in the current impeachment trial accuses President Trump of committing “abuse of power.”
“It’s funny, because the impeachment charges [include] abuse of power, which really is kind of a widely used term,” Schweizer stated. “That is also in the subtitle of the book, and we picked the subtitle eight months ago, before the trial even began, so it’s this happy strange coincidence. If you want to look for public officials who are making decisions and distorting the rules of government for the benefit of themselves — which is what they’re claiming Donald Trump did in this case — you are going to find multiple examples of the nine, I would argue, top progressives in the country doing exactly that.”
Schweizer began by sharing some findings related to former Vice President Joe Biden’s family’s business dealings.
“People are familiar with Biden stories as they relate to Hunter [Biden],” said Schweizer. “The deals in China, the deals in Ukraine, but there are actually five members [of the Biden family] that have engaged in corrupt behavior — that cashed in — while [Joe Biden] was vice president of the United States, and self-enriched.”
Schweizer continued, “I’ve exposed a lot of Republicans, a lot of Democrats, liberals, conservatives, and the most I’ve ever seen before is three family members involved in an enterprise, so the Bidens have busted through that ceiling.”
(Read more at Breitbart)
…
- Schiff’s reaction when Trump’s legal team shredded his case
Townhall comments on the response of Adam Schiff to the counter-arguments on the impeachment case.
On Saturday, President Donald Trump’s defense team had the opportunity to poke holes in the House Democrats’ impeachment case. One of the topics the defense team instantly ran with was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) totally bogus narrative of what took place in Trump’s July 25th call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
According to Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), when the defense team played the video of Schiff “reading” his version of the call transcript, “the blood drained from Adam Schiff’s face.”
“Today we heard a presentation that was strong and that was clear and it completely undermined the case of the Democrats and truly undermined the credibility of Adam Schiff,” Barrasso said following the hearing. “The most effective thing that happened was when they first read – this was when the president’s counsel first read the transcript of the phone call with the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine and then played the video of Adam Schiff with his fictionalized, made-up script.”
“From where I was sitting, and I know the press couldn’t see his face, but the blood drained from Adam Schiff’s face as they played that video and his made-up words,” Barrasso said.
(Read more at Townhall)
…
- Fact Check: Democrats Falsely Claim Philbin Said ‘Foreign Interference’ Is OK
Breitbart provides a fact check to the Democrat claim that Philbin said “foreign interference” was ok.
CLAIM: The White House believes that it’s OK to take information from a foreign country in an election.
VERDICT: FALSE. The White House merely argued that it was not illegal or a campaign finance violation.
Democrats — and journalists — have been misstating Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin’s reply to a question on Wednesday, the first day of questions and answers in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, as if he said that it was all right, and legal, for foreign countries to interfere in our elections.
Philbin had been asked specifically if foreign information would violate campaign finance law. (Note that if mere foreign information were illegal, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee would have violated the law for paying vast sums of money for a foreign spy, Christopher Steele, to compile “information” (later found to be false) from his foreign sources, including official sources in Russia.)
The Deputy White House counsel then noted that Congress had made some kind of foreign involvement in elections illegal, but not all.
(He could have added: how many non-U.S. citizens work on Democrats’ campaigns? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has a senior campaign staffer who is not even here legally.)
Philbin added: “there’s nothing wrong with listening.” He noted that the president had, in interviews, suggested that he might also approach the FBI after hearing the information, hypothetically, from abroad.
House manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) then claimed that the president’s counsel were saying it is “okay” to “seek or welcome foreign interference in our elections.”
Philbin was not asked about “foreign interference” in general, nor even about information from a foreign government. He was asked specifically about foreign information.
Nor did Philbin say say that it was “okay,” or that it wasn’t morally wrong. He was asked whether it was legal, and he said — correctly — that it was.
(Read more at Breitbart)
…
- Sen. Joni Ernst Says White House Impeachment Counsel ‘Entirely Shredded The Case’ Against Trump
The Daily Caller reports on the comments by Senator Ernst after the impeachment councel first presented its case.
Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst on Saturday reacted to the White House counsel’s defense against impeaching President Donald Trump, saying they “shredded” the House managers’ case in just two hours.
“Within two hours I thought that the White House Counsel and their team entirely shredded the case that has been presented by the house managers,” Ernst said to reporters on Capitol Hill after listening to Trump’s lawyers.
The White House’s defense team had its first opportunity to deliver their opening arguments in the impeachment trial against Trump in the Senate. The team has 24 hours over three days to make its arguments, but they might not use all 24 hours of their time.
Pat Cipollone, Michael Purpura, Patrick Philbin, and Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow all were in charge of laying out their defense during Saturday’s impeachment trial.
(Read more at the Daily Caller)
…
- The Supreme Court justice who saved Obamacare by redefining it as a tax now blocks questions by Senator Rand Paul
Townhall reports on the question posed by Senator Paul.
During President Trump’s impeachment trial Wednesday night, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul submitted a question for Democrat impeachment managers. More specifically, for Congressman Adam Schiff. Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read it. From The Hill:
A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.
The question from Paul is expected to name the individual. Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.
Paul indicated to reporters after a closed-door Republican dinner that he was not backing down from trying to ask his question.
“It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” the libertarian-leaning senator told reporters as he headed back to the Senate chamber.
This morning Paul sent the question again, which Roberts again refused to read.
This prompted Senator Paul to post the question he planned to ask on his twitter page.
(Read more at Townhall)
…
- Rand Paul reads out his question naming alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
The Washington Examiner details the question that Supreme Court Justice Roberts rejected to be posed in the Senate several times.
Chief Justice John Roberts rejected an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul to name alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella in a written question during President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.
Paul, a Kentucky Republican, minutes later Thursday spoke to reporters and read the question Roberts refused to read aloud. “I can tell you that my question made no reference to any whistleblower or any kind of person or a complaint from a whistleblower. I will read you the question so it can be made part of the public record,” said Paul, 57.
“Manager Schiff and counselors for the president. Are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together?” Paul said. “Are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”
Paul justified his question, saying that it made no reference to the whistleblower.
(Read more at the Washington Examiner)
If we cannot face our accusers or even talk about them, do we still have an American justice system?
I don’t see what part Justice Roberts has in limiting the free speech of a senator. I don’t see how the rights of a whistleblower in this case require that the President cannot face his accuser (unlike when Johnny Franzese, Jr. testified against his mobster father, Sonny Franzese, he had to do it in open court).
…
- Rand Paul educates reporter on whistleblower protection
Townhall outlines how Senator Rand Paul educated a reporter on whistleblower protection.
On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to ask a question about two partisan Democrats who reportedly conspired to impeach the president before formal impeachment proceedings even began in the House. During a phase in the impeachment trial designed to allow senators to ask questions, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read Rand’s question because it contained the name of the partisan Democrat who has reportedly been identified as the whistleblower responsible for this entire impeachment sham. Robert’s refusal to read Rand’s question over concern of outing the alleged whistleblower only bolsters evidence that the partisan Democrat named in Rand’s question is indeed the actual whistleblower.
People who don’t know anything about the Whistleblower Protection Act immediately began calling for Senator Rand Paul to be arrested. Even members of the media act as if a person conspiring to bring down a duly elected president by plotting with the president’s political enemies, and reportedly lying about it under oath, is entitled to complete anonymity and must answer no more than zero follow-up questions about their cockamamie scheme. Sen. Paul was forced to educate such a reporter after she falsely claimed that it was illegal for anyone ever to out a whistleblower.
“Actually,” the senator began, “you got that wrong, too. You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation. The other point, and you need to be very careful if you are really interested in the news, is the whistleblower is actually a material witness completely separate from being the whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden … at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 a month, so the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time. Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There’s a lot of questions the whistleblower needs to answer.”
(Read more at Townhall)
Thanks to Senator Paul for defining the details of the Whistleblower Protection Act
Sadly for the Democrats, except when we are standing before the House of Representatives, we have the right to face our accuser. Furthermore, outside of the House, when there are answers that must be answered regarding an accusation, we need to hear from the accuser (or we need to abandon the accusations).
…
- Adam Schiff: Trump could sell Alaska to Russia in exchange for election help if ‘abuse of power is not impeachable’
The Washington Examiner reported the words of Adam Schiff in his last-ditch attempt to derail justice.
Rep. Adam Schiff insinuated that President Trump could sell Alaska to the Russians in exchange for electoral support if acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial for abuse of power.
While delivering his concluding remarks in the trial on Monday, Schiff, 59, lambasted the president’s legal team for asserting that abuse of power does not fall under “high crimes or misdemeanors.” Schiff argued that if such a defense holds, then Trump could commit a variety of corrupt acts without consequence.
“If abuse of power is not impeachable … Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war,” the California Democrat said on the Senate floor.
“Because those things are not necessarily criminal, this argument would allow that he could not be impeached for such abuses of power. Of course, this would be absurd. More than absurd, it would be dangerous,” he affirmed.
Alan Derschowitz, a Harvard law professor on Trump’s impeachment defense team, argued that the articles of impeachment levied against the president do not fall under the Constitution’s criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors. Derschowitz claimed that the House’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress articles are so broad that they would have led to the impeachment of many presidents, including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
(Read more at the Washington Examiner)
Oddly, Mr. Schiff did not bring this up when Obama was caught on a live microphone
When Obama told Russian president Medvedev, “I’ll be more flexible after the election.” In that action, Obama pulled back the missile protection from Poland and left them vulnerable to Russia. Schiff never called Obama on that.
…
- Schiff alienates the Senate
Townhall provided a commentary through a 24 Janary 2020 article describing how Adam Schiff guaranteed the failure of the impeachment effort.
Despite a warning from the Senate sergeant-at-arms for senators to remain silent as the Democratic impeachment managers laid out their case against the president, a so-called quote read by lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) elicited several responses from Republican senators Friday evening.
Rep. Schiff was referencing a CBS news report claiming a Trump ally had warned GOP senators, “vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” But many senators responded to Rep. Schiff, saying aloud, “That’s not true.”
The lead impeachment manager seems to have alienated some of the very senators the Democrats were hoping to peel away from the Republican majority on important votes like calling forward new witnesses and subpoenaing documents.
(Read more at Townhall)
So does this make Schiff an effective impeachment derailer or an idiot?
Does this make Schiff an genius in his efforts to derail the impeachment or an idiot in his bumbling attempts to advance an impeachment he in fact sabotageed?
…
Mark 1:1 
One thought on “23 stories that summarize the Democrat impeachment effort”