A Brief History Of Time: A Response To Chairman Schiff On The Need To Impeach By Christmas

The House Judiciary Committee is about to approve two articles of impeachment as member after member last night declared that time is of the essence. The House is now set to fulfill its pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. For some us, the mad rush toward impeachment by the Democrats has been utterly incomprehensible.  It is difficult enough to go to the Senate in a presidential impeachment without an accepted crime and on the narrowest basis in history.  However, the Democrats know that they have combined those liabilities with the thinnest record of any modern impeachment – a record filled with gaps and conflicts.  The Democrats know that this record is guaranteed to fail and could easily justify the Senate holding a trial as cursory as its hearings.  Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal.  Why? The reasons put forward by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these claims, it is worth closer scrutiny.

So, to use Stephen Hawkings’ famous construct, here is a brief history of time for impeachment.

So why? The answer to that question will likely occupy historians for decades after this slipshod impeachment is summarily rejected.  In the impeachment hearing, I testified that President Donald Trump could be impeached for abuse of power but that the record was facially inadequate and incomplete. I encouraged the Committee to just take a few more months to subpoena roughly ten witnesses with direct evidence and secure judicial orders that I believe would support the Committee on its obstruction article.  While I was relieved to see the Committee drop the allegations of bribery, extortion, and other crimes that I testified against, it refused to simply take a little more time to develop a more complete case.

None of the excuses for the pledge to impeach by Christmas are even remotely plausible.  They can be divided into two basic groupings: court challenges would take too much time and there is a crime in progress that must be stopped.

No Time To Wait

First, there is the argument by Chairman Schiff in response to the criticism over the short investigation (which even the New York Times has challenged). Schiff insisted that waiting will mean a guarantee of that there will be no impeachment while also guaranteeing that there will be foreign meddling in the 2020 election:  “People should understand what that argument really means. It has taken us eight months to get a lower court ruling that Don McGahn has no absolute right to defy Congress. Eight months for one court decision.” As has consistently been the case, no major media outfit seemed interested to fact check that statement.  It happens to be untrue.

The House waited until August 7th to go to court to compel McGahn’s appearance.  That was roughly four months ago, not eight.  It was also filed before the House voted to start the impeachment inquiry on October 31st.  Back in January, I testified in the House Judiciary Committee and pushed the Committee to hold such a vote to allow for expedited cases over testimony like McGahn’s.  At the time, I warned that the House was running out of runway to get an impeachment off the ground.  With such a vote, these cases could have moved at the accelerated pace of an impeachment.

So not only has the House gone two years without opening an impeachment inquiry, it burned over three months without going to court to enforce a subpoena in the Ukrainian controversy.  Indeed, a court was close to ruling on such a subpoena in the case of Charles Kupperman, a former deputy national security adviser. Kupperman was ready to testify but simply wanted judicial guidance. The House withdrew the subpoena before the court could rule and this week Kupperman is still trying to keep the case in court to get a ruling against the determined efforts of the House.

In the Nixon case, the White House moved to quash a subpoena for the Watergate tapes on May 1st. Judge John Sirica denied St. Clair’s motion on 19 days later.  On May 24th, an appeal was taken to the D.C. Circuit but the case was taken directly to the Supreme Court.  Oral arguments were heard on July 8th and a ruling issued only three weeks later.  That is three months. That is what can happen when you expedite a matter as an impeachment matter.

The question is why would the House not only refuse to try to secure these witnesses but actually withdraw a subpoena before a ruling in the Kupperman.  The December deadline is more logically tied to the Iowa caucuses than any litigation schedule. It is not the judicial but political calendar that appears the pressing concern in this schedule.

This Is An Ongoing Crime Spree

The second argument is that there must be action now because President Trump is actively seeking to undermine the 2020 elections. Chairman Schiff declared “The argument, ‘why don’t you just wait’ amounts to this: ‘why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time?'”

Rep. Eric Swalwell further declared that the House must act because this is a “crime spree in progress.”  Rep. David Cicilline similarly declared that time was of the essence because this is a “crime in progress.” Likewise, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D, La) explained that they cannot wait because “this is a crime in process” and this is a 911 moment.  It makes for riveting rhetoric but it is detached from any objective view of the facts, even if you object to to the call and request for an investigation. What is the ongoing crime in Ukraine?  The aid has been paid. Moreover, how does rushing an incomplete impeachment case to certain failure stop an ongoing crime?  These members are pushing forward a half-formed case that will be easily to dismiss – and calling it “tough on crime.” Finally, the Johnson, Clinton, and Nixon cases all had recognized crimes, not metaphorical crimes.  Yet, those cases were based on long investigative periods that produced massive and comprehensive records.  

What is equally concerning is that this claim of a “crime spree” is based not just on the request for investigations in Ukraine, but earlier public statements made by President Trump, including during the campaign. Chairman Jerry Nadler last night said the pattern includes then candidate Donald Trump calling for the Russians to hand over the Clinton emails. That was before Trump took office and it is now being somehow used as part of an impeachment. It is also a comment that Trump and his supporters maintained was a joke. It did seem like a public statement on a campaign trail that was mockery. Now it has been cited as part of this pattern of a conspiracy to invite foreign interference with our elections — a conspiracy that was expressly rejected by the FBI, the Inspector General, and the Special Counsel. This is an example of how this incomplete record quickly breaks down under scrutiny and why the House needs to build an actual not aspirational case for impeachment.

Let’s be clear.  Many of us have criticized the references to the Bidens. However, there was no invitation to intervene in the election.  It certainly was not akin to the Russian hacking operation in 2016. Many presidents ask for actions that would benefit them politically in an election year.  Any request that might benefit a president is not an invitation for intervention or rigging of an election. To portray that as rigging the 2020 election (and to suggest that it is an ongoing crime) is not just hyperbolic but highly misleading. Moreover, this line of argument does not address why a delay of two months would somehow magnify this danger.  As noted, the Democrats allowed months to pass without seeking subpoenas for witnesses like John Bolton and withdrew other subpoenas.  How would sending an impeachment guaranteed to fail help in any way to stop such intervention? Indeed, what the Democrats are doing would seem to encourage such alleged misconduct by all but forcing an acquittal in the Senate. If you really want to combat such misconduct, you would build this case and seek a vote in the early Spring with a full record.

There is no question that impeachment by Christmas is the ultimate stocking stuffer for many voters. However, this is marketing a known defective product that will not last long outside of the box.

134 thoughts on “A Brief History Of Time: A Response To Chairman Schiff On The Need To Impeach By Christmas”

    1. 😉 The campaign to impeach began in January 2017; the formal process to impeach however began late in 2019.

      1. I don’t see much point in separating the two. The decision to impeach was made, and then the search for “facts” began.

  1. “Impeachment is about what standard to use in deciding whether or not to remove a President duly elected by the people.
    These are two very different questions and we must not, we cannot, get them confused. You and I and the American people can apply any standard we want our President to meet when we go to the polls on election day.
    Only the Constitution can supply the standards to use in deciding whether or not to remove the President–and–in my view, this case does not meet that standard, for two reasons.
    First, the facts do not sustain the House Managers’ case. According to the House’s own theory, we must find that the President has violated federal criminal statutes–not just that he did bad things. In all good conscience, I just cannot believe that any jury would convict the President of any of the criminal charges on these facts. I also believe that it is our constitutional duty to give the President the benefit of the doubt on the facts. To me, the allegations that the President violated Title 18 were left in a shambles on this floor.
    But I do not have time to dwell on the facts. So let me turn to the second reason: the President’s actions do not rise to the level required by the Constitution for the removal of a sitting President.”
    Sen. Biden’s closed-door impeachment statement
    Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999

    1. An alternate roadmap to current events

      Quotes From ‘Mad Dog Mattis’

      “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assoles in the world that just need to be shot.”

      “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you ph*ck with me, I’ll kill you all.”

      “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”

      “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

      “There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”

      “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

      “Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit”


  2. ” A President’s refusal to comply with a congressional oversight committee subpoena is a impeachable offense” Lindsey Graham …1998.

  3. Sometime the signal cutting out gives time for reflection and a bit of research

    How did the universe begin—and what made its start possible? Does time always flow forward? Is the universe unending—or are there boundaries? Are there other dimensions in space? What will happen when it all ends?

    is something akin to discussing what happens or what remains when every thing is removed from a space and then the space itself is removed. The obvious philosophical answer is a democrat. Since that describes the party that isn’t what it’s name or names implies it begs a further theory akin to Einstein and Schrodingers efforts on the universal field theory.

    This one however is the universally empty field theory which begains with and as nothing, continues and then as with what’s ‘in the space’ when nothing is left. finishes as nothing. No problems with what is left because nothing ever existed.

    Therein lies the solution to what will happen when there are no more socialists at least in the space of the USA a Constitutional Republic since in that space no such thing as a Democracy ever existed.

    Thus the universal empty field theory is proven and the postulate becomes an objective fact or set of facts

    There are valid concerns to sort of polish the formula such as what about those empty spaces currently occupied by such as media, snowflake campus or the empty building on South Capitol?

    Not to worry like Schrodingers Cat it never existed and thus is of no consequence.

    At least in the space time specified.

    Thus physics and philosophy combined provide and objectivist answer and a new start or restart point which in Plato’s Time proved the validity or need of Philosopher Scientists

    More readily stated. Not to worry the portions that do exist are safely within the confines of Our Constitutional Republic system … unless ……Marx, Engels, and Schiff Pelosi are exhumed.

    1. Michael Aarethun — The Wikipedia page on Einstein-Cartan theory provides answers to your questions.

      1. Added the following resource as well and at the top was an explanation of why the theory is not well known in USA. Of course the
        What is the present status of the Einstein-Cartan theory of …
        https://www.researchgate.net › post › What_is_the_present_status_of_the_…

        and checked for my made up empty field theory checked for it and found this


        with the theory that would mean a unified empty field theory was something that could no exist suggesting it’s existence would automatically negate complete emptiness.

        Not bad for someone who after high school skipped anything mathematical or scientific until the Army sent me to a school which required the knowledge is a practical way.

        Probably in it’s current jesting form it’s in the right blog as the educational levels are much higher than most.

        Thanks for the assistance.


    1. The SW Texas oil fields along with their neighbors in Chihuahua hold more than Alaska and Saudi Arabia combined. So why are we importing? Something about not enough refinery space but note all of Mexicos production is refined in USA refineries and the Canadian Oil if it ever flows has a reserve of refinery space as well. Next how much of the 15 Trillion Dollar fashion industry include fueling return ships to asia for another load?

      Speculation but nowhere near enough factual information.

  4. I wish I knew the reason the Democratic leadership does not call the Republicans’ bluff and offer to take the testimony of the Trump witnesses (that JT insists need to testify to complete the impeachment record) PROVIDED that the Republicans agree to expedite the executive privilege court appeals so that they cannot be drawn out in bad faith in order to delay the court rulings beyond the election.

    1. Jeffery S.,
      Nancy, Schiff, Nadler and others can probably tell you the reason.
      At least it’s worth a shot; contact them and demand an explanation.

      1. Go for it. Let us know when you get a response. And please post their explanations.

    2. How about this: how about Trump lets the Democrats call whatever witnesses THEY want, and how about he agrees to release ALL documents they are seeking? I’ll ask once again: where does Trump get the authority to ignore Congressional subpoenas? Congress controls its own investigations, not Trump, and when he defies the authority of Congress, he is guilty of an impeachable offense.

      1. Natacha, if you read Professor Turley’s blog posts, you would understand that going through the court process is the proper, lawful, process for dealing with this kind of dispute.

        How about this? Democrats let Trump call any witness he wants, question any witness he wants, allow his council to be present in committee hearings, and allow Republican members to ask their questions?

        It has explained to you over and over again that going to the court as remedy is not an impeachable offense. That is a totally ignorant claim. If that were true, then every president in history would have been removed.

        You said you were a nurse and a lawyer. Why would you think that going through the court process was impeachable?

          1. Wrong about what? That Trump should be afforded due process, or that going through the courts is obstruction?

            Make an argument.

    3. So you want the Republicans to play by different rules than the Democrats? If I were a Republican, after this crap show, I’d drag this out until after the election…

  5. “None of the excuses for the pledge to impeach by Christmas are even remotely plausible.”

    Well Turley, Democrats see this as the most politically convenient time to do it. That’s the plausible excuse.

    Incidentally, there are some familiar people among others continuing the same sorts of failed political strategies in Britain that have been pursued here. Did you know Boris Johnson is a Russian agent? His first name is Boris after all……..


  6. No, Turley, history will not view this impeachment as hurried or slipshod. History will view this impeachment as emblematic of the rancor and division in this country stoked by the most-unpopular and least-qualified POTUS in U.S. History, a failed businessman with a serious narcissistic personality disorder whose fragile ego needs affirmation and attention, fighting to keep power he cheated to get, aided and abetted by a Republican party that knows it is losing ground and will fight to keep power no matter the cost. Argue all you want over whether there was “quid pro quo” (there was), or even whether “quid pro quo” is required under the circumstances (which it isn’t–mere solicitation is enough, and we have that), Trump has consistently refused to cooperate with investigations: Mueller’s and that of Congress. Argue all you want about privilege, but he won’t even let witnesses show up to assert privilege on an item-by-item basis. He won’t allow documents to be released or bother to assert privilege on a document-by-document basis. There is absolutely NO authority whatsoever allowing a POTUS to flaunt the law. Trump has actually stated that he is above the law. He has pure disdain for the Constitution he swore to uphold and protect, and on that basis alone, he needs to go. The record on this is far from “thin”. What is “thin”–actually nonexistent, is any authority supporting the blanket refusal to cooperate. Where is Republicans’ defense of this conduct? It is indefensible, so they try to turn this process into a circus. No other POTUS in U.S. history has ever behaved in this manner. No other POTUS in U.S. history was as seriously mentally ill as Trump is, either. That’s his excuse. What is the excuse of the Republicans?

    The dangerous precedent he is setting is an existential threat to the fabric of this country, especially the separation of powers and the right of Congressional oversight. The conduct of the Republicans is a pure disgrace: Gaetz attacking Hunter Biden, when he himself was arrested for DUI. What does Hunter Biden have to do with this investigation, anyway? So a crack pipe was found in a rental car, but Gaetz drove drunk, which threatened peoples’ lives. Gaetz’s well-connected Daddy got him out of this jam. And then there’s McConnell, meeting with WH lawyers to help coordinate the kangaroo court proceedings to come. McConnell is supposed to be one of the jurors, and is bragging about how he blocked everything Obama did. The Republicans have assumed the petty, vindictive tactics of Trump: attack and accuse anyone who does not support you. They are a disgrace to the offices they hold and the institutions they are part of.

    No, Turley, history will not look kindly on this time of historical division in this country. Democrats would be violating their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution if they let Trump get away with soliciting political campaign assistance from a foreign government and flaunting Congressional oversight, and they will be vindicated by history.

    1. History will view petty sycophants of this episode as….. insignificant bacteria on the dustbin of history

      1. Mr. Kurtz,
        I read Natacha’s comment and yours, and I disagree with you.
        Natacha, and others equally bonkers like her, will have a place in the loony bin, not the dustbin, of history.
        You were far too generous in your assessment.

        1. Saying it, thinking it, believing it doesn’t make it so. Some might say that you and Kurtz are “bonkers.”

      2. I’m not sure if my earlier comment will post, Mr. Kurtz.
        I read Natacha’s comment and yours; did you mean to write “the loony bin of history”?.

        1. OK, what about the things I have written is “loony”? Explain, or admit that you, too, buy into the ad hominem attack mode when you have no defense to facts.

          I, and most Americans, view it as “loony” to support a POTUS who has no respect for Congress, who thinks he is above the law and who thinks he can do whatever he wants. The rest of the world literally laughs out loud at him. Are we all “loony’?

          1. OK, Natacha, since you asked.
            I’ll just touch on some of the high points of your obsessions and lunacy; your filibuster/ shotgun/ stream of consciousness posts, and a very long history of those posts, make it I’m practical to do a point- by- point example.
            I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone ( not just on this thread, but ANYWHERE) mention Fox, Hannity, etc. as often as you.
            It is extreme and obseesive. It is also extremely stupid, as well as unbalanced, to assume that any political opinion counter to yours MUST BE a result of watching Fox or Hannity.
            That alone is nuts.
            You claim to be a lawyer, but I guess they did not tell you about things like Executive Privilege in Nursing? School
            You ignore previous challenges to subpeonas ( e.g., Fast and Furious) and act as though those challenges are obstruction of Justice, and grounds for impeachment.
            You don’t seem to understand the importance of the Electoral College as a part of the Constitution, constantly whining that Trump is president but did not win the popular vote.
            I’ve pointed out these things, and others, in the past.
            More often than not, in more of a ribbing way.
            But given your repeated determination to prove what a whacko you are, and that you asked for reasons why you are, I hope this answers your question.

    2. We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin, 1787

      The Nutchacha States of America.

      We gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”

      – Ben Franklin, 2019

    3. Natacha. 60+ million voters see it differently and are represented by all social, economic, ethnic, gender identities. 60+ million voters are still looking for justice on the crimes against humanity committed by actors starring in the previous administration. To be fair we are watching the Hegelian Dialectic that controls our national political arena which keeps Americans in an artificial binary lockdown.

    4. I’ve read most of this before but I can’t remember if it was one source or more than one but they were all as i recall socialist in nature. So much for the programmer using the russian name.

      It wasn’t Patrick Henry that is for sure. Ah well were it important it would come to me or there is google…ahh yes. oct 1953 Castro’s four hour speech history will absolve me with a word change for the current use.

      What a troll piece of historic humor.

    5. Natacha

      Thanks for your intelligent, astute, perceptive comment. It serves as a timely reminder of just how fragile our democracy is. I doubt that very many people here had even a clue about how far Trump would go in pursuit of power and money – and just how easy he gets away with it due to compliant courts packed with
      judges that value authority more than justice.

      1. Bill McW.,
        I appreciate your sense of humor. Your first sentence was probably the funniest one in a some time.

    6. Natacha – when the train is hurling down the tracks, only an idiot throws himself in front of it. Those committees were going to vote to impeach regardless of what the President did. Now they have gone on record for impeaching with no cause at all. This means they have set a precedent for the next impeachment, which will be the next Democratic President with a Republican majority house.

      1. You’ve been listening to Fox, Levin and Limbaugh again, haven’t you? Answer me this: without calling me names or accusing me of having mental illness, cite for me the law that supports Trump refusing to cooperate with Mueller and Congress and procuring the absence of witnesses and refusal to produce documents. There isn’t one, and the SCOTUS ruled, in the case of Richard Nixon, that the POTUS must cooperate. If a Democratic President even came close to committing the offenses that Trump has, they’d also be impeached, and it would be the right thing to do.

        Trump’s “presidency” was fake and illegitimate from the start: the product of cheating with the help of Russia. He flaunted Mueller’s subpoenas, hamstringing him from fully investigating the facts, and then, when Mueller couldn’t get sufficient evidence, he claimed “victory”. He’s doing the same thing with the Congressional investigation. He has never released the actual transcript of the call with the Ukrainian President, and we are learning that transcripts of multiple other calls with other world leaders are kept in the secure vault, and now, Trump is limiting who can listen in on calls with world leaders. What does that tell you? And, contrary to the lies spouted by Republicans, this impeachment investigation began with a whistleblower. Everything the whistleblower said has proven true. Moscow McConnell is openly admitting that he and WH counsel are colluding on how to turn the Senate trial into a circus, results guaranteed. What about their duty to preserve and protect the Constitution and the provisions for Congressional oversight? Everything about the Republicans is about power: how to cheat to get it (gerrymandering, voter suppression), and how to cheat to keep it (prolong, disrupt, pivot, create a carnival atmosphere during the House hearing). The American people see what’s happening, and they are repulsed.

        1. The most dedicated viewer of Fox seems to be Natacha.
          I don’t think she can stop watching it or mentioning it.
          I don’t think McConnell desires or plans on a “circus” in the Senate trial.
          Both he and Lindsey Graham have actually resisted calls from GOP House members and the White House to dish out some payback for the way Schiff and Nadler conducted the impeachment hearings.
          Even if they intended to turn the Senate trial into a circus, it would just be a sequel to what we’re seeing in the House.

    7. “Many presidents ask for actions that would benefit them politically in an election year. Any request that might benefit a president is not an invitation for intervention or rigging of an election.”

      “Finally, the Johnson, Clinton, and Nixon cases all had recognized crimes, not metaphorical crimes.”

      These statements indicate that at its root, Turley’s critique really isn’t about time. In essence, he sees no abuses worthy of impeachment (too bad they can’t impeach Trump for lying about about a blowjob! Now that is something Turley loses sleep over!)

      These statements of Turley’s (and so many others like it strewn throughout his writings) plays perfectly to the tune Trump, Fox & Friends so desperately want to hear, and which they need to feel validated. I know we’re supposed to think Turley isn’t joining the chorus of specious mediocrity and stinking vacuous rubbish trucked by the demagogues of the Republican party and its sycophants, and we are expected to buy into the image of the high-minded legal professor who “independently” sees through the common charade, but it reeks far too much of the question we keep hearing in defense of all things Trump, summed up as, “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

      My sense of this, looking at the details as well as stepping back to see the big picture, and noticing these numerous telling clues and give-away statements laced into Turley’s thinking, is he has become corrupted. This isn’t really about “time” or other grave errors of process that Turley raises, but about Turley not seeing any of Trump’s acts as anything to lose sleep over.

      When has he ever raised the quite justifiable alarm about Trump’s dangerous tendencies sufficiently for Turley to earn a crass tweet from Trump, or knuckles rapped by Fox news or even muted by the other conventional media networks (all of which tend to flatten political news to a yawn using false equivalency and “both side-ism”). Turley’s overall message fits within the range of conventional narrative perfectly, as if tailored for that market. And he is the darling of that media.

      Meanwhile, sixteen year old Greta cuts through the media nonsense with the clarity of the autistic perspective, outshining us all in stark brilliance, earning for her the badge of honor of an attack by the King. Where is another Greta to tell us what we all see: The King has no clothes.

    8. If you’ve been reading Turley, you’d know President Obama did this with the Fast and Furious issue…stonewalled SO MUCH that Holder was found in contempt of Congress. Pay Attention.


    America’s attorney said there is no abuse of power, no bribery, no obstruction of justice and no obstruction of Congress.

    America’s attorney revealed that the communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) have descended into hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    God save Professor Turley.

    God save the Republic.

  8. “To say you won’t respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.”

    “The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.”

    “Look, some people are just sore losers”

    – Hillary Clinton

  9. The Democrats have done this to America.
    Civil war is healthy to get rid of the dead weight


    “Democrats Agree on One Thing: They’re Very, Very Nervous”

    “Some people are suffering from general political angst. Others have specific qualms: a concern that their favorite candidate lacks that essential quality, electability; a worry that fellow Democrats will become disillusioned if their chosen candidate fails to get the nomination and will vote for a third-party candidate, or for Mr. Trump, or for no one at all — the “Bernie or Nobody” scenario.

    A sampling of interviews with Democrats in different parts of the country reveals that worry comes in many forms.

    From Jobetta Hedelman-Beaver, 39, of Kennewick, Wash.: “I’m anxious about Trump. I’m super-anxious about him. I blame him for my high blood pressure.”

    From Katie Matlin, 40, in Northbrook, Ill.: “My husband has major anxiety around the election. We actually cannot watch news coverage in our house because any news about Donald Trump triggers his anxiety.”

    From the actor Robert De Niro, appearing on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert”: “It’s like living in an abusive household. You don’t know what’s going to happen next, what crazy thing is going to happen next, what’s going to make you say, ‘What the hell is going on?’”

    From David Kaye, 37, in Milwaukee: “During previous elections, I’d have a giant spread sheet and follow every candidate. But it’s not fun anymore. It’s still just as important, but it triggers my anxiety, and sometimes it triggers panic attacks. I’m not following out of interest or a sense of fun, but out of a sense of not wanting our civilization to fall.”

    — NYT

    1. It gets better….far better.They brag about decapitating the heads of newborn infants and now they beat the snot out of little kids.

      “Shocking moment school bus bullies pummel 14-year-old boy leaving him hospitalized with head injuries ‘because he’d worn a Trump 2020 hat’

      Shocking incident occurred on November 21 in Hamilton County, Florida
      Boy named only as Tyler, 14, was hospitalized after the brutal 5-on-1 attack
      Mother says he had been relentlessly bullied after wearing Trump hat previously
      Calls for the attackers to be prosecuted for hate crime and attempted murder

      Shocking video has emerged showing a 14-year-old boy being attacked on a school bus, allegedly because he’d previously worn a hat supporting President Donald Trump.

      The incident occurred on November 21 in Hamilton County, Florida, and the video first emerged on Thursday after the boy’s family retained attorney Foye B. Walker for possible legal action.

      The incident left the boy, identified only as Tyler, hospitalized with head contusions, according to his mother, a Trump supporter who tweets under the handle @AmericanDiaries.

      The attorney, Walker, verified in a tweet that the incident occurred on a school bus in Hamilton County, and that he was representing the family. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment from DailyMail.com.


      1. if the disorganized violence against Trump supporters continues, expect it to be met with organized violence in defense., if not the police then reprisals. it will be slow like the wrath of the awakened Saxon, but, if it keeps up, it’s coming.

  10. This time inour hsitory might later be referred to as The Schiff artFay Era. It stinks worse than it looks. So chose between artFay and itShay.

  11. In years down the road historians will not refer to this as The Trump Era. They will impose some pig latin for the little pig and call it the Schiff itShay Era.

  12. A couple of things’ first, the impeachment is about one thing – for Democratic candidates to be able to proclaim that Donald Trump was impeached. Second, the claim that Russia “hacked” the 2016 election is an allegation, not an established fact. Yes, John Brennan and Comey put out a statement of allegations and Mueller issued meaningless indictments against Russian intelligence offices but the allegations have never been proven. Democrats are trying to gain a political advantage, that’s all. They may be digging their hole deeper. I’ve not looked at the polls yet today but it appears that Trump’s popularity is actually increasing and support for impeachment is decreasing.

    1. While I was pontificating and presenting the Universal Empty Field Theory it occurred and couldn’t have made postulate, theory, formulated definition more concrete in using today’s example.

      “‘the committee adopted both articles, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, on a party-line vote”

      Note they only alleged offering no proofs of the existence of the two articles much less any real existence – but did not charge as a ‘crime or misdemeanor.’ Just alledged and as we all know alledged, as with purportedly or reportedly has a main definition starting with ‘unproven.’

      Living proof of the Universal Empty Field Theory.” Something like Clintons balanced budget with a surplus. (after the transfer of debt to the next administration via very high interest for a very short terms was offered along with some other items in the budget the successor inherited.

      Or perhaps the Obamanonomics trick of borrow inflate DEVALUE and repudiate the debt used recently which effectively cut the buying power of the dollar by 30% with no offer to adjust the COLA.

      But today we have an impeachment attempt where one is guilty until proven innocent with no charges and nothing to stubstantiate there was ever anything in the space occupied by …. pooof pooof pssssssst . .

Comments are closed.