October 14-16, 2019
Oct 14 02:58 Schiff should be expelled Oct 14 15:02 Hunter Biden's I-did-nothing-illegal defense Oct 14 16:13 Is Schiff intentionally tipping the impeachment scales? Oct 14 22:18 The anti-Schiff onslaught starts Oct 15 14:22 Pelosi, Schiff trample President Trump's due process rights Oct 15 18:20 Lebron, the NBA's biggest loser Oct 15 23:52 Fischbach's strong Q3 fundraising Oct 16 01:07 Bernie's post-debate moment? Oct 16 17:05 Pelosi's fatal flaw
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Schiff should be expelled
It's time to expel Adam Schiff from Congress. Appearing on CBS's Face The Nation, Schiff said "We want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests."
I went to the transcript of Margaret Brennan's interview of Chairman Schiff. Stating that Schiff is paranoid is understatement. Here's what Schiff said:
REP. SCHIFF: the Republicans would like nothing better because they view their role as defending the president being the president's lawyers. If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can't give away. There's a reason why investigations and grand jury proceedings for example, and I think this is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, are done out of the public view initially. Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.
Actually, what's upsetting is that this is the first impeachment inquiry in modern history where the president's lawyers weren't in the room during questioning. In fact, in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment hearings, the testimony was given in public . Further, the vote of the whole House stipulated that the President's attorneys were allowed to cross-examine the House's witnesses . Before anyone whines about how that that's the Senate's responsibility, it's worth noting that the House allowed the President's attorneys to cross-examine witnesses before the House voted on articles of impeachment.
This means that, for the first time in US history, the majority party states that part of their impeachment strategy is to violate the president's due process rights. I can't think of anything that's more disgusting. This is a legitimate constitutional crisis. When a member of Congress states emphatically that his goal is to violate the President's due process rights, that's a huge problem. This is the oath that Chairman Schiff took less than a year ago:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
It's impossible to support and defend the Constitution when you've stated that you want to deny people their constitutional rights. Further, in previous impeachment inquiries, the presidents' attorneys were free to disseminate that day's testimony to their client and the witnesses that they planned on calling, exposing Chairman Schiff's statement as flimsy at best.
What Schiff didn't mention is that Democrats don't have the right to pick which constitutional rights they'll enforce. Here's the interview:
[Video no longer available]
Equating a criminal grand jury with the impeachment of a president is ill-informed. A criminal grand jury investigation is an inquiry into whether a crime has been committed. In addition to investigating whether a crime has been committed, the impeachment of a president is the House's step of negating an election. Later in the interview, Schiff states that he doesn't want to give witnesses the opportunity "to fabricate testimony to suit their interests."
That's a highly provocative statement to make without something to substantiate that worry. Chairman Schiff's statements, including the opening statement to the Maguire hearing that he fabricated, are disgusting.
Posted Monday, October 14, 2019 2:58 AM
Comment 1 by Sharon L Haberfield at 10-Dec-19 05:59 PM
I agree that Schiff should be expelled and I am a democrat, have been for over 40 years. I think there are a few who have been a disgrace to the democrat party, including Waters and her love for violence.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Dec-19 12:06 AM
Sharon, thanks for that honesty. If I may, I'd like to say that today's Democratic Party isn't the Democratic Party of 40 years ago. In 1974, the first year I could vote, I voted a straight DFL ticket. In 1976, I voted for Jimmy Carter & Hubert Humphrey. Those Democrats were patriots. Hubert had a major libertarian streak in him. He proudly stated more than once that America was the only nation who listed happiness as a national goal.
A significant portion of today's Democrats have a fascist streak. The Resist Movement is built with a fascist streak. Think about this: thanks to President Trump's policies, income inequality has shrunk to its lowest point since the Clinton administration. Minority unemployment & blue collar unemployment is the lowest in history. Isn't that what the Democrat Party of the 1970s, 80s & 90s was about?
Comment 2 by Henri Quereau at 18-Dec-19 09:30 AM
I believe Schiff and Nadler should be expelled and sued by every Representative for the many rule violations committed by them. And if Nancy Pelosie does not start the process, she too should be investigated for the duration of her career. Shame on them for their poor leadership
Hunter Biden's I-did-nothing-illegal defense
George Mesires, Hunter Biden's attorney, issued this statement regarding Hunter's work for Burisma:
Despite extensive scrutiny, at no time has any law enforcement agency, either domestic or foreign, alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term.
That's classic Swampspeak. Hunter's dad was a Democrat senator before becoming a Democrat vice president. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would've had significant influence into ethics and conflict-of-influence laws. It wouldn't have been difficult for anyone in that position to put in place provisions that would've made it difficult to do something illegal.
That's like asking an arsonist to write laws regarding criminal arson. The principle is the same. Asking corrupt people to write laws that govern themselves is stupid. The chances of corrupt people writing legislation that's friendly to corrupt people is 100%.
Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are birds of corrupt feathering. That they didn't do anything illegal is just proof that the Swamp protects its own. It isn't proof that Swamp people are honest. Hunter isn't too stable, either:
[Video no longer available]
It's one thing for a corrupt Ukrainian business to shovel $200,000 a month into Hunter's bank account. It's another when the Chinese government pays Hunter $450,000 a year for a high-profile person who's been in-and-out of substance abuse rehabilitation centers more times than I've been to a grocery store in the last year. Why should I think that the Chinese would pay him $450,000 a year if not for influence-peddling?
Remember this oldie-but-goodie?
[Video no longer available]
Biden insists that China is a nothing compared to the US. Right. Then we find out that his son is getting rich working for the Chinese. But, hey, everything's on the up-and-up, Creepy Joe insists. R-I-I-I-G-H-T! What could possibly go wrong?
Posted Monday, October 14, 2019 3:02 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 14-Oct-19 06:09 PM
You can't trust a crack addict with telling the truth.
Comment 2 by eric z at 16-Oct-19 10:41 AM
It is interesting, Gary, you easily make a circumstantial inference about the Bidens without all the evidence in yet, but reject one on quid pro quo between Trump, Ukraine, actions of State Department underlings, withholding of allocated funds, etc., where, also, not all the evidence is in yet but a conscientious effort toward building a record bothers you. That intrigues me.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Oct-19 03:55 PM
There's nothing circumstantial about the Bidens' corruption. Each of Hunter's jobs ties directly to Joe Biden's political assignments. That's as swampy as it gets. The Trump kids (Eric, Don Jr. & Ivanka) have been successful independent of Dad or they've been hired by Dad & required to perform at a high level. Hunter got paid $50,000-$200,000 a month & didn't have to show up, didn't have to perform. That's swampy.
Michael Moore recently said that Biden is this year's Hillary. I disagree. For all her faults, Hillary was a better candidate.
Is Schiff intentionally tipping the impeachment scales?
This morning, Matt Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to listen to Fiona Hill, allegedly a Schiff-coached witness. Schiff didn't permit his entry . The Democrats aren't letting Republicans in even though Gaetz has the proper security clearance. Yesterday, Chairman Schiff told CBS's Margaret Brennan that "If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can't give away."
Does Chairman Schiff, one of the nastiest, most dishonest partisan Democrats on Capitol Hill, have proof that any witnesses have provided false testimony? Do Democrats have any proof that any witnesses have thought about providing false testimony? Later, Schiff continued, saying "Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests."
Schiff has already let one liar into that secure facility. That person's name is Adam Schiff. Remember this?
[Video no longer available]
He called that a parody. I call it a bald-faced lie. Then there's this:
[Video no longer available]
That's when Schiff insisted that he hadn't talked with the whistleblower. Today, Schiff's insisting that he "misspoke." That's BS. Schiff didn't misspeak. Schiff lied intentionally.
In other words, the problem restricting liars isn't keeping Republicans out. Democrats are secretive liars on the inside. Not just that but Democrats are prolific leakers, with Shiffty Schiff being the worst of the worst.
Posted Monday, October 14, 2019 4:13 PM
No comments.
The anti-Schiff onslaught starts
This afternoon, I wrote this post , which I titled "Is Schiff intentionally tipping the impeachment scales?" Hint: The answer is yes, Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment. That's the good news for Schiff and Pelosi. The bad news for Schiff and Pelosi is that Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment.
This tactic is starting to cause an anti-Democrat backlash, thanks in large part to House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lee Zeldin, (R-NY). This past Sunday, Rep. Zeldin appeared on 'The Cats Roundtable' on AM 970 New York" with John Catsimatidis. During the interview, Rep. Zeldin said this:
Something that I find outrageous is the cherry-picked leaks, the withholding of key facts and the lying about other claims that's misleading the American public. Why are we sitting inside of Adam Schiff's bunker turning in our cell phones before we come in and being told that nothing here can be told to the American public?
Tonight, Zeldin appeared on Martha McCallum's show. Here's that interview:
[Video no longer available]
During tonight's interview, Rep. Zeldin raised a great question after mentioning that Adam Schiff threw Matt Gaetz out of the hearing. Rep. Zeldin asked "what rule is governing any of this process? What rule of the House is governing this impeachment inquiry?" That's a pair of rhetorical questions. A 4th-grader would understand that this is a Schiff-for-brains, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants Special rule. Whatever rule helps Democrats the most at the moment will be deployed. Whether it's been used before or whether it's precedent-setting isn't relevant. Whatever the Democrats need in the situation is what the rules appear to be.
For now, the process doesn't matter from a legal standpoint. That won't last forever. Even Democrats are bright enough to know that these procedures will be challenged in the courts. While Ms. Pelosi is right that there isn't a set way to impeach a president, she's foolish if she thinks that several constitutional principles aren't essential.
For instance, if Ms. Pelosi thinks that having agreed upon a set of rules isn't important, then she doesn't understand the importance of due process. Without due process, the Democrats' witch hunt is a highly-publicized kangaroo court. That won't fly in court. Further, ignoring the past precedent of letting the president's counsel sit in on witness testimony can't be ignored. The impeachment and conviction of a president is a somber event that shouldn't be acted upon capriciously. It's wonderfully ironic that Pelosi's words would get thrown back in her face would be delightful to Republicans.
Watching the entire Zeldin interview is well worth it. Pay special attention to the crosstalk about the 4 Pinocchios part of the interview. I found it quite enjoyable.
Posted Monday, October 14, 2019 10:18 PM
No comments.
Pelosi, Schiff trample President Trump's due process rights
What's becoming increasingly clear is that Speaker Pelosi delegated a responsibility to Adam Schiff that will leave him in a difficult position. While Ms. Pelosi puts Schiff 'in charge' of the Democrats' anti-transparent impeachment inquiry, what she's actually done is dumped all the grief that's heading his direction into Schiff's lap. When Ms. Pelosi declared the start of impeachment, she thrust on Schiff the day-to-day details of the impeachment inquiry. Forever the attention-seeker, Schiff gobbled up the attention.
Ms. Pelosi left it up to Schiff how the investigation would be run. Would they hold public hearings? Would President Trump's attorneys be permitted to cross-examine the Democrats' witnesses? Would the Democrats allow Republicans to call witnesses? Those are just some of the day-to-day details that Ms. Pelosi dropped into Schiff's lap. That way, when the shit hits the fan, Pelosi is a mile away while Schiff is holding a ticking time bomb.
This isn't a matter of if it happens. It's a matter of when. Anyone that thinks that this isn't finishing with a lawsuit is kidding themselves. President Trump's due process rights weren't merely violated. President Trump's rights have gotten trampled.
Republicans who haven't gotten kicked out of the room by Schiff have noted that there aren't any rules that govern these interviews and depositions. In fact, different rules govern interviews and depositions. Rep. Lee Zeldin notes that minority members of the committee are allowed to talk about the content of witness interviews, albeit in a limited fashion, whereas minority members of the committee aren't allowed to speak publicly about depositions.
This is the definition of making the rules up as you go along. You can't have due process where process doesn't exist. Jim Trusty and Ken Starr explain what's at stake in this video:
This isn't complicated. If Adam Schiff wanted to run a fair process, he could. He doesn't want that. That's why this process isn't happening in public. Trusty is right that there isn't a set procedure codified into the Constitution on conducting impeachment investigations. That doesn't mean there aren't safeguards that are built into the process.
Schiff says that he doesn't want witnesses to fabricate their testimony. What proof does Schiff have that anyone's done that? Is that proof like the proof he had that was "more than circumstantial" that Schiff didn't show, that Rep. Zeldin didn't see and that Robert Mueller didn't find?
At the end of the day, the American people will reject this process because it's built upon deception, inconsistencies and the process keeps shifting. That isn't the definition of fair. Further, Democrats haven't identified anything approaching treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking a foreign country for help with an investigation into a corrupt US politician isn't a high crime. It's common sense.
President Nixon and President Clinton were allowed to defend themselves during the House impeachment investigations. Queen Pelosi ruled by fiat that wasn't acceptable. Queen Pelosi understood that the case was flimsy. That's why Queen Pelosi won't permit a vote of the full House to authorize a legitimate impeachment investigation.
Posted Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:22 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Oct-19 10:34 AM
Gary, you do not like Schiff, do you? Somehow that impression comes across, right or wrong.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Oct-19 03:48 PM
I don't tolerate politicians that try overturning elections based on outright lies so, no, I don't like Mr. Schiff. He's more disgusting than Ms. Pelosi, which I didn't think was possible.
Lebron, the NBA's biggest loser
Lebron James is a financially wealthy person. He's also morally bankrupt. Yesterday, 'King James' criticized Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey, saying "Yes, we do have freedom of speech. But at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you're not thinking about others, when you only think about yourself. So many people could have been harmed, not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful what we tweet and what we say and what we do. Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech, it can be a lot of negative that comes with it."
During last night's protests in Hong Kong, protesters expressed their disgust with King James. For instance, "James Lo, a web designer who runs a Hong Kong basketball fan page on Facebook," said that "he's already received a video from a protester that showed him burning a No. 23 jersey bearing James' name."
He expects more, given the backlash from protesters who've been regularly hitting the streets of Hong Kong and battling police because of concerns that the international business hub is slowly losing its freedoms, which are unique in China.
"Students, they come out like every weekend. They've got tear gassed and then they got gun-shot, like every weekend. Police beating students and then innocent people, like every day. And then he (James) just comes up with something (like) that. We just can't accept that."
Lebron James is a portrait in corporate cowardice. It isn't a surprise that he left Cleveland, his hometown, twice. He doesn't fit in there. That's why he's spent most of his NBA career in Miami and Los Angeles. Check out this interview:
[Video no longer available]
Actually, Daryl Morey got it right with his tweet. James got it terribly wrong with his interview. What a spineless America-hater James is. Whatever he is, Daryl Morey has played the role of American hero in this incident. Whatever his talent is on the court, Lebron James is the opposite of a patriot. In my estimation, Lebron's a punk.
Finally, the NBA deserves nothing except empty arenas and choruses of boos this entire season. If NBA luminaries like Lebron James, Steve Kerr and Greg Popovich can't defend the nation that's made them spectacularly wealthy, then they're worthless.
Posted Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:20 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 15-Oct-19 07:51 PM
Look up self important douche nozzle in the dictionary and it's a pictures of this a-hole. He's all for Colin K kneeling during the national anthem to protest the fake "hands up don't shoot" and other so called police brutality but say something in support of residents of another country that are being repressed and he's got a problem with free speech and demonstrations because it's going to affect his bank account.
Fischbach's strong Q3 fundraising
At 4:00 pm this afternoon, I received an email from the Fischbach for Congress campaign committee. The email's opening paragraph said "Michelle Fischbach, the former Lt. Governor of Minnesota and candidate for Minnesota's 7th Congressional District, today reported raising an impressive $100,000 in her first quarterly filing with the Federal Election Commission."
Then it continued, saying "Fischbach's federal committee, Fischbach for Congress, will show receipts of over $100,000, with nearly $85,000 cash-on-hand for the filing period ending September 30, 2019. Making the numbers even more impressive is the fact that the committee wasn't filed with the Federal Election Commission until September 3, 2019, which gave Fischbach only 27 days to fundraise before the quarterly reporting deadline. Minnesotans accounted for 95% of all donations, with almost half coming from residents of western Minnesota's 7th District, including over 500 donors who gave $200 or less."
That's the definition of a strong fundraising first month. What's most impressive to me is that 95% of her first month's contributions came from Minnesotans. The next most impressive thing in this report is the amount of small donors. The reason why that's important is because a high percentage of those contributions are likely voters.
What's depressing, though not surprising, is the fact that Google is suppressing good news for Republicans. Here's what I found in searching for articles on Lt. Gov. Fischbach's fundraising report:
After reading this part of the Fischbach for Congress email, it has to be asked if Collin Peterson will run for re-election:
Fischbach's strong first quarterly report demonstrates that her campaign is setting the foundation for a robust and aggressive operation and confirms the highly competitive nature of the 7th District race. In fact, immediately after she announced her campaign in September and pointing to her entrance into the race, Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball both moved Minnesota's 7th District from Leans Democrat to Toss Up .
I can't imagine Peterson likes the fact that AOC and Ilhan Omar have taken over his party. Still, it's difficult picturing Peterson giving up without a fight. If he runs, which I think is likely, then I think it's likely that he'll lose.
These fundraising numbers, plus the shifting of the race from leans Democrat to straight toss-up, are indicators that this race has shifted. That shift didn't favor Cranky Collin, either. Finally, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Fischbach's support came from Minnesota can't be read as anything except as a positive.
Posted Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:52 PM
No comments.
Bernie's post-debate moment?
After tonight's debate, the pundits' consensus was that, thanks to impeachment, the race would essentially remain a 2-way race between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. After the debate, though, that conventional wisdom appears to have gotten shattered . The oldest candidate in the race suddenly became the most appealing choice to young people:
At least three members of the 'Squad' of far-left freshman members of Congress will reportedly endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders for president. Fox News has learned that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., will appear with Sanders on Saturday in Queens, N.Y., at a 'Bernie's Back' rally designed to generate excitement for the senator's campaign following his recent heart procedure. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., will also endorse the candidate, Fox News confirmed.
In addition, CNN reported that Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., will endorse Sanders as well. It was not immediately clear if Omar and Tlaib will appear at the same Sanders event.
This will be fascinating to watch. First, will this change the trajectory for Elizabeth Warren, who has been climbing since late summer? Next, will this stop Bernie's recent slide and reposition him firmly amongst the frontrunners? Third, does this essentially end the race for the second-tier candidates?
[Video no longer available]
The endorsements would be a significant blow to the campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who like Sanders has been representing the party's progressive wing. Word of the endorsements also followed Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Ohio, where Warren was under attack from multiple candidates after rising in the polls in recent weeks.
This is a potentially big moment from the standpoint of attracting young voters. It also denies Sen. Warren a big victory. Bernie can now point to this as proof that the heart attack didn't stop him from being a force. How many points this will be worth in the next round of polling is unknowable but there's little doubt that his post-heart attack slide just stopped.
Whether that'll catapult him in Iowa or New Hampshire remains to be seen, too. What isn't disputable is whether Saturday's official endorsement will breathe new life into Bernie's campaign. It certainly will.
The other thing that this sets up is a situation that tests whether the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is big enough to defeat the not-quite-as-crazy wing of the Democrat Party.
Posted Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:07 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Oct-19 08:13 AM
Fortunately for Bernie, a candidate, like an idea, should not be judged by those who support him/it. But he will be, and any sane voter should now run screaming from his campaign. Not that he attracts any sane voters to begin with, so...
Comment 2 by eric z at 16-Oct-19 10:23 AM
They need to declutter the f**king stage. That's point one. Being from Minnesota, I was embarassed by Klobuchar, so cut it to five if not being honest and to three.
Second, Dick Cheney is still sucking air and he has more stents than a dog has fleas. As a chain smoker with multiple procedures, Cheney is proof there is life after stents.
Third, it was tedious with all those single-digit honchos at each end of the row, and they need to declutter the stage. But I said that already.
Fourth, htf did Harris ever get elected AG of a large state? Really? She was ill-mannered in attacking Warren and then constantly interrupting Warren's responding. Interrupting with nothing real to say. Too ill-mannered to be President is worse than "too old." And her point, closing Trump's Twitter access - is there much dumber than that being said by anyone??? If so, name it.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 16-Oct-19 06:18 PM
"Is there much dumber than that being said by anyone??? If so, name it" Pretty much anything coming out of any of the progressive socialist candidates mouths is ridiculous and dumb. Medicare for all, a wealth tax, free health care for illegals, free sex changes for prisoners, and I could go on and on. Dumb and dumber is all they are.
Pelosi's fatal flaw
With her actions, Nancy Pelosi admitted that she's violated President Trump's due process rights . While she's right that there isn't a checklist to follow for impeachment, she's stupid if she thinks that there aren't some constitutional principles that must be adhered to. She's stupid if she thinks that past impeachment investigations haven't set a path that subsequent impeachment investigations must meet.
When the House initiated their impeachment investigation of President Nixon, there was a defined set of rules that guaranteed the House's ability to investigate and President Nixon's right to cross-examine witnesses. The rules adopted by Peter Rodino's Judiciary Committee permitted President Nixon's attorneys the right to subpoena witnesses. When Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee adopted the Rodino-Nixon rules.
This sham investigation doesn't have a clear set of rules and procedures. It doesn't have any consistent rules or procedures other than to thwart President Trump's legal team. That's a violation of President Trump's due process rights. Then there's this:
Executive privilege was one of the protections mentioned by Counsel to the Vice President Matthew Morgan in a Tuesday letter to the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees, who are overseeing the ongoing inquiry. Morgan's letter claimed that the committees' request for documents was overbroad because it included some documents that were "clearly not vice-presidential records," and that the request was not within the realm of "legitimate legislative oversight."
Morgan continued, saying this:
"Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an 'impeachment inquiry' against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process," Morgan wrote, noting that " House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution."
Ms. Pelosi can't speak rules into existence. They have to be written, then approved of by a majority of the "Committee of the Whole". Without that vote, no committee has authorization to start impeachment. As with other points in her career, Ms. Pelosi is acting like the autocrat she's always wanted to be.
[Video no longer available]
The goal of due process is to guarantee fairness, consistency and predictability. You can't have due process if there isn't a process. When this lawsuit gets filed, Pelosi's Democrats will have problems:
"Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun," George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Wednesday morning blog post. "Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment."
Doug Collins nails it with this tweet:
. @SpeakerPelosi's press conference further reveals that she intends to keep her partisan 'impeachment' push in the shadows, where she and @RepAdamSchiff can keep the truth and their unfair tactics hidden from public scrutiny.
- Rep. Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) October 15, 2019
Pelosi's fatal flaw is that she thinks she can run the House like a tyrant. Frequently, she gets away with that. This is a totally different situation. It's like the difference between a sandlot football game and the Super Bowl. The scrutiny is through the roof and the stakes don't get higher.
Posted Wednesday, October 16, 2019 5:05 PM
No comments.
