Democrats Drop Bribery and Other Crimes In Favor Of A Two-Article Impeachment

The Democratic leadership announced today that it has decided that President Donald Trump will be accused of just two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I commend the Committee in dropping the previous claims of bribery, extortion, campaign finance and obstruction of justice. While my fellow witnesses made good-faith arguments for those articles, my testimony primarily focused on the legal and constitutional flaws in claiming those criminal acts. I also commend the Committee in not following the suggested course of many in ignoring the legal definitions of those crimes to claim an impeachable offense. Finally, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is correct as he stated yesterday that I repeatedly stated that President Donald Trump could be impeached for a non-criminal act like abuse of power if it could be proven. I also said that he could be impeached for obstruction of Congress, if proven. However, this record falls considerably short of the record needed to support such claims for a submission to the Senate.

I also testified against adding claims from the Mueller investigation. I have long been critical of claims that obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and other claimed “proven” offenses by members. The Committee wisely is not going forward with such articles, though it might reference obstruction history.

That leaves the problem that was the focus of my testimony: speed. I do not believe that Chairman Nadler is the one pushing for this rocket docket of impeachment. The problem with these two claims is not their constitutional basis but their evidentiary record. This is the thinnest record created in the shortest time of any modern presidential impeachment. Rather than wait and build a viable case, the Democrats are moving to submit an incomplete and undeveloped record to the Senate. The committees have burned three months where they could have secured judicial review and at least one decision on the missing witnesses. It took two months between the ruling of Judge Sirica in the Nixon case and the final ruling of the Supreme Court that led to Nixon’s resignation.

Nevertheless, while I believe this impeachment is premature and half-formed, I am relieved that the House Judiciary Committee did not toss out the legal definitions of crimes for acts like bribery, extortion, campaign finance, and other crimes declared established by some experts.

There is a reason by President Donald Trump encouraged Democrats to stick to its “impeach by Christmas” pledge. This is the case that Trump would want: one-sided and undeveloped. It is a case that will not withstand Senate scrutiny.

Here is my testimony that includes sections on Obstruction and Abuse of Power.

166 thoughts on “Democrats Drop Bribery and Other Crimes In Favor Of A Two-Article Impeachment”

  1. Are you okay with this Professor?

    Giuliani says Trump has asked him to brief Justice Department and GOP senators on his Ukraine findings
    The Washington Post – Josh Dawsey – Dec 10, 1:34 PM
    Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, said Tuesday that the president has asked him to brief the Justice Department and Republican senators on his findings from a recent trip to Ukraine ahead of a likely Senate impeachment trial.

  2. You will know that Attorney General William Barr is serious when he orders a vast array of guillotines.

  3. Super fun – now we can impeach any President who loses the House! Dems are sound and fury signifying NOTHING!

  4. Dear Prof Turley

    I am sorry to read the threats yo and your family have been receiving based on your testimony before the House Judicial Committee. Whether one agrees with your opinion of the process one of the great things about democracy is that people can freely express opinions even if someone else disagrees with them.
    I enjoy reading your blogs even though I do not always agree with you and especially enjoy your vacation pictures you post.

  5. It was good to see we managed to shame Pelosi into getting some real work down … ref USMCA. After she cost the citizens some billions. But true to form she is taking credit . Now if the leader of the stupid party could only get the budget done. It was due last March. I wonder how much her slothful ways that is going to cost the working class and taxpayers? But I see the polls also shot her down as did some of the, how about that, former MSM not including CNN and NBC who remain stalwart supporters of the Socialist systems. Now lets see if the new tariffs Mexico will pay will indeed go to build the rest of border protection system. Or if they will continue to deny DACA wihat was promised by their former … sit tee… in the Oval Office.

    The real credit though was reflected in the polls in the battle ground states.

    1. She took credit for the changes that the Dems got incorporated into the agreement. Don’t be afraid to read/listen to info other than Trump/FOX.

      1. Did Pelosi credit Trump and the Republicans for this USMCA? Did she acknowledge that it was one of Trump’s accomplishments in office? Did she apologize for claiming Trump’s remarks about MS13 were directed at all Mexicans? Why, no.


        I will say that I heard one Democrat grudgingly admit, when pressed, that it was bipartisan. She did not mention Trump nor its origin. It’s better than nothing.


        Trump’s an anti Semite and Jewish people will die if he’s elected! Dog whistle to Nazis! Oops. Trump has a Jewish family, is the strongest supporter of Israel in recent history, and kept our agreement, long deferred, to move the embassy to Jerusalem. On to the next false allegation!

        Trump’s racist against Mexicans! When he called rapists and murderers in MS13 animals, he really meant all Mexicans! Oops. Trump negotiated a trade agreement that will bring jobs and a better relationship with Mexico.

        And on and on and on. Even the impeachment has already cycled through a few allegations, promptly discarded and forgotten.

    2. She is taking credit, because she deserves credit. Democrats mostly got what they wanted, including accountability, and what Trump proposed was not very different from NAFTA, but he will lie and say it is the greatest thing ever. BTW: Canada’s government has not approved it yet, either, so the Democrats haven’t cost anyone anything. Didn’t Fox report that? The import provisions on things like dairy and cheese are only slightly higher than with NAFTA, and the exemptions are only slightly larger. In the overall scheme of things, it’s really not much.

      Michael: The House has sent over 275 bills that are lying on McConnell’s desk, including a bill addressing and funding election security. He refuses to call them for a vote, so that Trump can call Democrats “do-nothing”.

      1. Huh. Pelosi deserves credit for Trump’s trade agreement.

        Why didn’t you GOOGLE the differences between NAFTA and USMCA before you posted false information and claimed Trump would be lying if he said they were different? Even CNN acknowledged differences.

        Have you ever posted anything true? Flat out guessing would give you a 50/50 ratio, but you’re at 100%. That has to be deliberate.

        1. Pelosi can certainly claim credit for delaying Trump’s trade agreement and delaying hundreds of thousands of jobs for many months…



    December 25, 2019


    Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
    Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


    Donald John Trump willfully and deliberately won the election of 2016 for President of the United States.

    Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

    Speaker of the United States House of Representatives,

    Nancy Pelosi



  7. So essentially the House tossed out articles having the requirements of specifically defined elements and instead left ones that are vague and subject to definition or constructions.

    Members of Congress, of all people, accusing someone of Abuse of Power: they should change the name of their organization to House of Glass. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    1. you and Mespo exchanged comments a week ago regarding censure over impeachment

      Since politics and law are not my field, I kept quiet and figured you and Mespo were probably right and I was too removed from how these animals think. My training is to observe, assess, abide by “behavior is everything” as a diagnostic tool and diagnose accordingly. It is my belief that Americans today will not be rational, will be emotive, and will not self-regulate (appetites > intellect)

      Are you still of the belief now censure is more likely and impeachment is not?

      As an immigrant incredibly grateful to America for taking me, there was once a time that I thought almost all Members of Congress came to Congress with duty, honor, country as their guides. Now I see them worse than the majority of my patients who are not as educated as MC nor have the 6 figure income plus many perks and plush health benefits

      1. I am still unsure which way this will go. Essentially I agree with Mespo’s interpretation of the facts before us and analysis that leads him to conclude, at least then, that the more likely outcome will be the censure. Yet, I have a strong inclination toward seeing a situation where logic and reason will be cast aside by the House collectively and they will vote toward impeachment. This is based solely upon speculation on my part, unfortunately.

        The recent two articles of impeachment decided on are vague and subject to interpretation as to degree. The openendedness of these charges I believe is designed by leading democrats to allay any reluctance on behalf of some democrats to vote to impeach on unprovable criminal elements. That is, these democrats might not want to be seen as voting on easily disproven crimes but if presented with something vague they have a “defense” to impeach the president because “orange man bad” is now the dominant paradigm, not that the president is guilty of bribery or some other statutory crime.

        So now they are permitted to try the president on “orange man bad” and not bribery or corruption. That way the democrats can rally behind that mantra because it is unsubstantial. In other words, never trust politicians with the administration of justice, because they will put someone they don’t like on trial for being unlikeable to them, not based on actual rule of law.

        1. I suspect they limited it to these BS resolutions because removing references to the Ukraine will induce Richard Burr and the other yellow-bellies in the Senate Republican caucus to prevent a subpoena of Ciaramella and Hunter Biden (among others).

        2. I suppose also one outcome would be if the result was a tie and the vice-president voted down the impeachment. That would throw the democrats into a fury and spark all the liberal conspiracy theorists to believe the president was actually impeached in the same form of belief that President Trump lost the election because the popular vote went to Hillary Clinton.

          1. Vice President only votes in the Senate in case of a tie. Conviction for impeachment requires a 2 3rds vote in the Senate.

            I hope that I have that right.

            1. I got it wrong. I should have said Conviction in the Senate instead of Impeachment.

        3. You probably saw the Politico article:

          Small group of Democrats floats censure instead of impeachment
          It’s an unlikely outcome, but it underscores lingering angst among some moderates.

          I am not the political connoisseur many of you are, and my opinion on anything legal or political is irrelevant. As to pathology and the “health of Americans”, though, either way the damage to the country has been done. Censure or impeachment, the US House leaders have done Americans a tremendous amount of deep and lasting harm. This is on Pelosi who gave up the shark. Every week we talk at the clinics how anxiety, depression, alienation, hopelessness and various chronic medical maladies continue to grow. I have never seen so many “sick” Americans particularly in the young. It is baffling considering how good Americans have got it compared to Venezuela, Bolivia, etc. Forget opiates as an epidemic. Despair and lack of self-control are our new normal.

        1. I hear you and truly I have no dog in this fight. I just think Pelosi has been so unhinged recently that I see no evidence of rational engagement with her caucus. She is charged, as the leader, to broker consensus in her caucus. Yet, her recent attacks on James Rosen, the Sinclair news reporter, where she threatened him, while pulling her Catholic “bona fides” speak of someone erratic. A leader of her stature does not come unglued because of one media guy. Yet she did….this was her 2nd erratic blowout against the same guy. Then there was her recent explosion at Trump in front of Trump’s Cabinet and her “all roads lead to Putin”

          I don’t see a rational, thoughtful, articulate leader. Pure amygdala

          1. I see the results of the stress of being forced into a corner. Rational but stressed.

          2. A leader of her stature does not come unglued because of one media guy. Yet she did….this was her 2nd erratic blowout against the same guy.

            She hasn’t ever, in 32 years in Congress, run in a competitive contest. It’s a safe Democratic seat and she landed it in a special election in 1987 without facing a Democratic primary. She was the anointed candidate of her predecessor, who died of cancer in February of 1987.

            Note Brent Bozell’s assessment of the media ca. 1998: print media retained some detachment from the Democratic Party, while broadcast media were extensions of the Clinton press office. That’s been the reality for 2/3 of her career and for her entire time in the House leadership. The New York Times was a propaganda organ by 2001. The Associated Press was the source of scandals by 2004. The only hostile media she’s faced in Washington has consisted of Fox and talk radio, which she could avoid, for the most part. Back home, the San Francisco Chronicle</i< has favored the Democratic Party for about 25 years.

            She's really rusty to the extent she's ever faced a truly skeptical and aggressive media at all.

    1. The Reichstag Fire

      “On February 27, 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down. The Nazi leadership and its coalition partners used the fire to claim that Communists were planning a violent uprising. They claimed that emergency legislation was needed to prevent this. The resulting act, commonly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, abolished a number of constitutional protections and paved the way for Nazi dictatorship.”

      – The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

  8. Turley says: “The committees have burned three months where they could have secured judicial review and at least one decision on the missing witnesses.” They’ve already gotten a judicial review as to Don McGhan, but Trump refuses to comply and appeals. No matter what “judicial review” would be sought, and there can be no doubt that Trump would lose, he still wouldn’t comply. He wants to force Congress to go all the way to the SCOTUS where he believes that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will exonerate him as payback for their nominations. In any event, he buys time, so that the Russians can put into play whatever election surprises they have cooked up for 2020. We’ve been told by the Intelligence community that they’ve been working on 2020. Moscow Mitch McConnell refuses to even call the elections security bill for a vote, What does that tell you? How could any member of Congress be against securing our elections? How could any member of Congress be against requiring back up paper ballots in states where voters only vote via computers, which can easily be hacked and data manipulated? Answer: Republicans, because they know that most Americans will vote them and Trump out of office.

    Turley says: “This is the case that Trump would want: one-sided and undeveloped. It is a case that will not withstand Senate scrutiny” Literally NOTHING would sway the Republicans in the Senate to impeach this clown. Republicans know that they are out of step with Americans, that they are losing ground, which is why they desperately gerrymander districts to try to keep power. They’ve got the White House, and no matter what Trump does, they’ll defend him and fight to keep him in office. The Constitution means nothing to Republicans. American values are meaningless. Take Barr for example. Despite his own Inspector General’s report that the Trump campaign was not spied on, and that the Steele Dossier was NOT the impetus for the Mueller investigation, Barr’s going to keep fighting to keep the Trump narrative of spying and Steele Dossier going. He’s actually going to investigate the investigator who investigated the 2016 election and grounds for the Mueller investigation.

    Most analysts disagree that the case is undeveloped. Since Trump won’t cooperate because he thinks he’s a king, it would take forever to force release of documents and get witnesses deposed, and even if the SCOTUS rules against him, he would probably still not comply. He has intimated that he might not voluntarily leave the White House once he’s voted out. I wouldn’t put it past Trump or his minions to destroy documents, either. There is more than enough here to impeach, according to most legal scholars.

    1. She says:

      “…, he buys time, so that the Russians can put into play whatever election surprises they have cooked up for 2020. We’ve been told by the Intelligence community that they’ve been working on 2020. Moscow Mitch McConnell…”

      AT THIS POINT NATCH IS ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK OF RUSSIANS BY DEFAMING THE 2016 ELECTION– which was free and fair in spite of the Russian meddling against trump, via the “Steele dossier” compiled from Russian disinformation which we now KNOW was the basis for the phony fisa warrants– and also their forked attack against hillary in the form of a small sum spent on fb ads.


      1. Read the Mueller Report. It is based on actual evidence, not blind devotion to Trump, like the pundits on Fox News. Read Horowitz’s report. The Steele Dossier was not the impetus for the Mueller investigation. In any event, you Trumpsters still cannot come up with any defense to the substance of Mueller’s findings, or with Horowitz’s findings that destroy the “spied on my campaign”, “Mueller’s investigation was politically-motivated” and the “Steele Dossier” arguments, so you attack the process and greatly magnify the findings adverse to the FBI. You still cannot come up with any provision in the Constitution or statutes that sanctions Trump’s refusal to cooperate with either Mueller’s or the Congressional investigation. That is obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress, and is grounds for impeachment.

        The fact that Trump’s campaign fed sensitive polling information to the Russians to target Hillary Clinton with lies in key districts proves that he cheated, and with the help of a hostile foreign power. The amount spent is irrelevant. The content of the information was false, and calculated to help Trump win the Electoral College, since even he knew he couldn’t win the popular vote. Russia is a hostile foreign government, and Trump solicited their help to “win the victory”, just like he solicited Ukraine to announce a phony investigation to smear the Bidens when polls showed Biden beating him. He openly asked China for help, too. Foreign governments meddling in our elections was one of the biggest fears of the founders of this country. Don the Con has always been a cheater his entire life. Russia is actively working to rig the 2020 elections, but Republicans refuse to do anything to try to stop it because there is only so much gerrymandering they can get away with. They are desperately trying to hang onto the White House. You can smell the desperation.

        1. You can smell the desperation.

          That’s a hilarious ending to yet another of your rabid ramblings.

          The fact you are posting online and not in person, it’s reasonable to conclude that smell is of your own making.

          1. Typical ad hominem attack that does not address the merits. Why not respond to the facts? Is it because you can’t?

            1. When you merit something better, then I’ll consider it. I respond to facts all the time. When you have some, then I’ll consider responding to them.

  9. congratulations to Professor Turley for stating the case against bribery article so clearly that even the angry Dem leadership got the picture.

    But they’re committed to the rest of it, in spite of his other wise commentary.

    1. I wonder how many of the folks who wrote the Schiff Report and the articles of impeachment were co-authors of the Affordable Care Act? Despite how evil and dishonest they are, it is disheartening to think that none of them, on their own, could even assemble a coherent document that would pass as a Master’s Thesis. Duh.

  10. As you said it, “There is a reason by President Donald Trump encouraged Democrats to stick to its ‘impeach by Christmas’ pledge. This is the case that Trump would want: one-sided and undeveloped. It is a case that will not withstand Senate scrutiny.”

    This proves your point about passion ruling this process rather than facts. Trump seems to be a master at goading his opponents into overreacting–you would think that Trumps statements in favor of that timing would give at least some Democrats pause and make them think a bit more about whether their strategy is a good one.

  11. They didn’t get DACA finished. They didn’t get USMEXCAN finished. Late on the budget as usual, Come to think of it did they get anything done except ‘looking stupid’ or going on vacation?

    So just what is The Collective get for all their political tax contributions? Nothing but ridicule.

    1. They did get set up for one thing and one thing only. Making sure the Senate votes against the charade so they can go out and point fingers at the others. All except for Schiff, and iyou don’t see Schumer running his mouth in support. All except for Negler the niggler. All except Piglosi aka Benita Pelosillyni. in other words it’s just a big propagandized make the party Collective look more stupid than usual for supporting them publicity stunt

      1. one correction and comment from todays news. USMCA is the correct abbreviated form for the new Nafta.

        However ‘There is no question USMCA is better than NAFTA’ from Pelosi begs the question…. then why have you been sitting on it for six months? Hoping to take credit for the work of others while you sat on your fat keister and did nothing?

  12. These Articles of impeachment are the DNC’s magnum opus of using Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals since Jan 2017. Nothing less

    The Rules for Radicals

    “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
    “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
    “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
    “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
    “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
    “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
    “Keep the pressure on.”
    “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
    “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
    “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
    “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    – Wiki

    1. But then they have been socialists of one kind or another since 1909 What a legacy. Went from Party of Slavery to Party of Dupes

    2. It fits so perfectly it even got book named after using the Comrade Alinsky methods. Power Grab get it from Amazon and other vendors.

      1. Hillary and Saul Alinsky corresponded, and her comments to him were gushing

        A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.

        On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”

        “Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

        “I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

        Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.

        However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

        “The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

        According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.

        “If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.

        She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.

        “I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

  13. The President has blown it badly since the whistleblower revelation. If he had not doubled-down, but instead showed some contrition over the sloppy, casual, unprepared and snarky dialog he engaged in during the Zelinsky phone call, this likely could have been avoided. His habitual use of the term “perfect” indicates someone who is so far beyond self-examination and self-improvement on the job, the danger he faces in the Senate is the practical alternative of elevating Mike Pence as President. Senate Republicans now hold Trump’s and Pence’s fates in their hands. This impeachment battle is Trump’s to lose, and lose he might with impulsive misbehavior during the Senate Trial. Trump, in my estimation, is suffering the “paranoia complex” that has tended to isolate and weaken every modern President, which was Nixon’s downfall.

    1. The President won’t take your advice because your advice stinks and your reading of the situation is stupid.

    2. pbinca: Trump can literally do nothing that would cause Republicans to remove him from office because they are so desperate to hold onto the White House. He is correct in saying he could murder someone in cold blood at high noon on 5th Avenue and get away with it. Surmising that Republicans care about this country and its values is wrong-headed. They don’t. It’s power they want and that they’ll fight to keep.

    1. Yeah . . . Prof. Turley’s “good-faith” assertion made me pause too. I thought: “Say what? Good faith? Really???”

  14. There’s going to be a neck tie party. This lynching scene has all fixings….Any last words?

  15. The republicans failed to use the power they had to prevent this anarchy and take back the American republic.

    In 2000 and 2016, the republicans could have repealed the entire American welfare state all the way back to Preamble, Constitution and

    Bill of Rights but they turned their heads and allowed communism (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) to persist.

    1. you forgot one small but important detail. the distinct difference between Republicans as in Constitutional Republicans and Republicans in Name Only who are the right wing of the and working for the left. Do try to be more exact and honest in future. Getting caught these days is just too easy.

      1. I stand corrected. Thank you. I very much appreciate your attention to detail. Most don’t care or read. I should have said conservative or strict constitutionalists. Perhaps I should create a “Manifest Tenor” party.

    2. Exactly! Didn’t the Repubs have a majority in two houses for two years? They could have repealed Obamacare entirely. We could be out of the UN. We could have had a secure border long since.

  16. Prof Turley is a subtle Trumpster. Oh so lightly and slightly, he is a consistent defender of the indefensible. How sad. The downfall of the United States is virtually assured under this president. How so many fail to see that mystifies the majority, and me. The impeachment will fail, and the Electoral College will, once again, overrule the will of that majority, and me. I do not wish to be a witness to it all, and likely will not be, but my grandchildren will have to figure out how to live under authoritarian rule. I am deeply and humbly sorry.

    1. Do you think the cognizant citizens of the country are going to fall for such ill written tripe. fallacy one. you don’t speak for the majority. Fallacy two the electoral college system does just the opposite of what you slyly suggest and protects the will of the majority. Fallacy three. Independent self governing Citizens don’t care and probably would prefer about your insincere humbling in the face of the existing authoritarian rule we’ve suffered under since 1909.

      1. The Return of the USA to being a Constitutional Republic is virtually assured since among othe cr assets we have the US Military available to live up to their oath of office which virtually assures the death of the DNC/socialists etc.

        What it doesn’t assure is the exit of those responsible for the last 111 years. That’s up to the self governing independent citizens.

    2. I strongly support your right to your opinions, and I understand your sense of despair and frustration.

      We have something in common! I felt the same way about a few of the things that happened during President Obama’s terms. For example, I despaired and was frustrated by Obama:

      1) Stonewalling the Fast and Furious congressional investigation by withholding documents and testimony from congress.

      2) Lying about Obamacare on multiple occasions (you can keep your healthcare if you like it, you can keep your doctor and the average family will save $2,500 a year). (Jonathan Gruber is on YouTube bragging about having to make the wording opaque in order for the plan to be accepted by the public.)

      3) Weaponizing the IRS against conservative groups and lying about it (“not a smidgen of corruption . . .”). The IRS paid out millions of dollars in settlements.

      4) Making a quid quo pro deal with Putin which was caught by a hot mic and is on video in which Obama asked for “space” until the election, after which he could be more “flexible” wrt missile defense in Europe. (Post election, Obama withdrew the AD missiles that had been placed there).

      5) Lying about who attacked our mission in Benghazi, and scape-goating a guy who made a video . . . claiming, over the course of weeks, that the attack was a direct response to the video.

      6) Secretary Clinton committing 20% of the US’s uranium to Russia, after which the Clinton Foundation benefitted from a huge contribution from a Russian interest and former President Clinton received a handsome stipend ($50K if memory serves) for a lecture in Moscow).

      7) Obama’s administration wire-tapped reporters.

      I could go on, but my frustration and despair centers not just on these examples, but also on the double standard I now see in which the Dems, who were silent about these transgressions throughout President Obama’s presidency, are now on their moral and ethical high-horse to crucify President Trump.

      It is the double standard and the hate towards the man that, I believe, I find most annoying.

      As I said, I strongly support your right to disagree with me.

    3. Thanks Chuck for being so sorry and sad and so forth. You are right, this stunt is a failure. But, I hope you have
      a better day.



  17. Of course the impeachment process has been slap-dash and rushed and the Big Announcement came today!

    The dems are trying to suck all the oxygen away from the Horowitz report!

    Good luck with that!

    1. here we go again with the claim of knowing what is in the NEXT big announcement. how many of those have we laughed at so far? About as many as Pelosi claiming to be a Constitutionalist. wonder what it feels like to be be in a joke organization run by a joke and paid for by jokes.

    2. The dems are trying to suck all the oxygen away from the Horowitz report!

      They grabbed the honey-wagon hose instead.

    3. and as someone pointed out comments were for actions before he took office and not applicable plus neither of the two applies as their is no such crime as collusion.

      If so then we should arrest Schumer and Pelosi for being leaders of the stupid party.

Comments are closed.