Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law

The Impulse Buy Impeachment: How The Democrats Yielded To The Holiday Frenzy Over Facts

Below is my column in the Los Angeles Times on the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The failure to take a little more time to secure additional witnesses (or court orders against the Administration) has already come back to haunt the House. If the Senate now decides to try the President on the thin record of the House, the House will have given the White House an easy avenue to acquittal. If the House was not willing to seek to compel the testimony of these witnesses, it will be in a poor position to demand that the Senate now complete the record that it prematurely closed with its vote. Had they waited just a couple months, they might have been able to secure some of these witnesses, particularly if they had not burned four months without seeking to compel witnesses like Bolton or, bizarrely, withdrew its subpoena for Kupperman before a court could rule.

Here is the column:

Wednesday’s impeachment of President Trump exemplifies the danger of impulse buying during the holiday rush. Despite a record of evidence that is both incomplete and conflicted, the House leadership stuck to its promise to Democratic voters that it would impeach Trump by Christmas.

There is a reason people make impulse purchases — and bring impulse impeachments. A few years ago, professors Juliet Zhu and Grace Chae completed a study of impulse buying and concluded that it increases when shoppers are “surrounded by chaos,” which “ultimately impairs [the] ability to perform other tasks requiring ‘brain’ power.” In other words, holiday crowds in combination with yet another chorus of “White Christmas” could mean you’re at high risk for making bad purchasing decisions.

As one of the four witnesses called before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss the legal issues in the Trump impeachment, I’d say the study explains a lot about Congress’ vote on Wednesday. The crescendo of impeachment noise and the chaos of partisan bickering created a perfect atmosphere for Congress to make a hasty decision.

In my testimony, I criticized four of the possible articles of impeachment for lacking critical elements under the criminal code and case law. I said I thought two articles could legitimately be brought: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the two articles the House ultimately decided on. But I strongly encouraged the committee to take more time to develop a record to support the claims. Instead, the committee forged ahead.

I suppose the rush should have been expected. We saw a similar move 21 years ago, almost to the day, with Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Politicians just love to check off their to-do lists at year’s end.

What’s most disturbing is that the Democrats know the current record of evidence falls well short of a viable case for conviction in the Senate. Nevertheless, they opted to move the impeachment by Christmas rather than build a stronger case for a vote in early 2020.

Why? The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that finding by Zhu and Chae: A chaotic atmosphere makes for bad decision-making.

Among the worst decisions made by House Democrats is this: They burned through three months of investigating without even attempting to compel the testimony of key witnesses like national security advisor John Bolton. Instead, they based impeachment charges on a record largely based on the inferences of third-party witnesses.

As a result, they’re left with a record that requires a senator to decide every contested fact in the way least favorable to the president in order to establish an impeachable act. However, there are three direct conversations that directly contradict such a conclusion.

For one thing, the language of Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not state a clear quid pro quo. You have to infer that his request for a favor implied a penalty if it wasn’t fulfilled.

And then there’s the testimony about Trump’s phone calls with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Both contain express denials of any quid pro quo. One can reasonably question the veracity of such an assertion during the calls, and that’s why the testimony of first-hand witnesses would have been so important. Yet the House made no real effort to hear from key administration figures, including Bolton, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Trump counsel Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Not only has the House been curiously passive in seeking to force such testimony; it actually withdrew one of the few subpoenas facing a court ruling in the case of Charles Kupperman, Trump’s former deputy national security advisor. Kupperman was willing to testify and simply wanted court review, but the House strangely withdrew its request that he testify.

House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam B. Schiff has said that requesting courts to compel testimony would take too long. But courts can sometimes work quickly. In a critical case involving Richard Nixon’s impeachment, it took just three months to go from a ruling by the District Court to a final ruling of the Supreme Court. Nixon lost and then resigned.

Given the momentousness of impeachment, taking time to build a strong case is worth some delays. Moreover, courts have already agreed to decide other cases involving the president, including the challenge over whether Trump can be compelled to turn over tax and financial records. That puts the House in the awkward position of impeaching a president for obstruction before the Supreme Court rules on key issues.

I vehemently disagree with the sweeping privilege and immunity claims made by the Trump White House. However, presidents including Barack Obama have stood behind the shield of executive privilege and have gone to court rather than turn over evidence. Both Nixon and Clinton were able to challenge such questions and receive final decisions from the Supreme Court (which ruled against them).

In racing to meet its artificial deadline of impeaching by Christmas, the house submitted a case guaranteed to fail. Rather than wait a couple months to move forward with a greatly enhanced case, the House prefers to grab what it’s got on the shelf and run with it. It is the very profile of the impulse shopper — and the impulse impeacher.

Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. He has testified as a constitutional expert in both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment hearings.

297 thoughts on “The Impulse Buy Impeachment: How The Democrats Yielded To The Holiday Frenzy Over Facts”

  2. White House Put Hold On Ukraine Aid..

    Within 2 Hours Of July 25 Phone Call

    An official from the White House budget office directed the Defense Department to “hold off” on sending military aid to Ukraine less than two hours after President Trump’s controversial phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to internal emails.

    Michael Duffey, a senior budget official, told Pentagon officials that Trump had become personally interested in the Ukraine aid and had ordered the hold, according to the heavily redacted emails, obtained by the Center for Public Integrity on Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. He also asked the Pentagon not to discuss the hold widely.

    “Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction,” Duffey wrote in a July 25 email to Pentagon Comptroller Elaine McCusker and others.

    The new emails shed light on the opaque and unorthodox process by which the Trump administration withheld almost $400 million in aid from Ukraine at the same time the president and some of his political allies were pushing Zelensky to investigate Democrats. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, charging the president with leveraging U.S. military aid to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and blocking congressional attempts to conduct oversight.

    Edited From: “White House Official Directed Hold On Ukraine Aid Shortly After July 25 Call With Zelensky”

    The Washington Post, 12/21/19

    1. Regarding Above: This story, broken by The Post, is playing wide this weekend.

      1. I don’t see the point as to when the decision was made as material. Maybe Trump didn’t get the feelz he wanted from Zelensky?

  4. As I recall, the so-called Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to pass the Patriot Act, N.D.A.A., Federal Budget (with more a trillion dollars of deficit spending with a debt in excess of 23 trillion … let’s be honest, Federal Reserve Notes ), defense budget more 180 billion F.R.N.s more than President Trump requested, funded the so-called “Wall”, etc., all the time crowing how President Trump is a threat our freedoms, is emotionally unstable ( and my Favorite!, a Russian Agent, a Traitor ).

    Impeachment, at most or at best, amounts to political language.

    In action, I contend, Bread and Circuses!

    Grounds for my contention are:

    Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

    “Politics and the English Language” (1946) is an essay by George Orwell

    Does Machiavelli’s claim that the moral vice of hypocrisy is inescapable in politics and, thus, constitutes a real issue for democratic politics?

    Are democratic societies implicated in creating the impetus to hypocritical behavior?

    Is the popular, prevalent conviction that a liberal democratic polity should be premised on transparency and candour, not on hypocritical manipulation – a conviction which is paradoxically shared by the dirty hands thesis which purportedly takes Machiavelli’s insights on the moral messiness of politics seriously?

    Do attempts to deny the necessity of political hypocrisy misconstrue the realities of democratic politics – the messy context in which politicians operate and what is distinctive of political friendships?

    D[d] emocratic politicians operate in a context ridden with conflict and dependence which renders hypocrisy a necessary political virtue and one of the strings that hold together a virtuous political life.

    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims … but accomplices.
    George Orwell
    ( Eric Arthur Blair )

    A people who elect corrupt politicians, liars, initiators of Wars Of Aggression, ethnic cleansers and genocidal mass murders are not “innocent” victims …
    but accomplices.
    [ my updating and paraphrasing George Orwell ]
    ( Eric Arthur Blair )

    Niccolò Machiavelli did not say, “The ends justify the means.”

    The closest his ethical statement to that claim is:

    Men judge more from appearances than from reality.
    All men have eyes, but few have the gift of penetration.
    Everyone sees your exterior, but few can discern what you have in your heart.
    Niccolò Machiavelli

    Impeachment and, indeed any trial, will be, I claim, Bread and Circuses. No more; no less.

    Why am I wrong?
    dennis hanna

    p.s.: Political order exists, and can only exist, through use, or threatened use, of lethal force.

  5. Are you in the camp which claims Zelensky lies about not feeling Trump was demanding anything from him. He said several times publicly he did not feel any pressure from Trump.

    1. Phyllis Rogers, Zelensky barely speaks English and in any case will say anything to advance the Ukraine cause.

      1. It fits your narrative. I’m sure you have an excuse for Biden’s public bragging as VP he was able to bribe the then Ukraine leader. Look, it doesn’t matter. The Witch Hunt started before he was sworn in and it won’t stop after this impeachment.

        1. Zelensky isnt out of the woods with Trump. He might have to rely on Trump 4 more years. So of course he’s not going to bad-mouth Trump in the court of world opinion.

          2. that’s why the person who should be your star witness actually has repudiated the core contention?

      2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Benson, you can’t even operate your phone.

      3. Then he and President Trump should continue to have a mutually respectable relationship. Trump too has his own country’s best interests in mind.

          1. Then we are truly blessed to have him as President. He’s certainly a refreshing change from previous presidents that believed what’s good for them is the only thing that mattered. Good for you to finally admit that.

      4. Benson should know that Zelensky could be provided with a translator, if that is the problem.
        If the problem is that Zelensky will not support the narrative that Trump pressured Zelensky, and says that in any language, then Benson is SOL.

      5. they have translators. he knows full well what he said. you guys just dont like it because the victim has already exonerated the supposed perp. this is a pathetic exercise in tomfoolery by the Dem leadership. they really choked on their own ambition with this one.

  6. TRUMP ADVISER ADMITS VOTER SUPPRESSION IS CRUCIAL

    One of Donald Trump’s top re-election advisers told influential Republicans in swing state Wisconsin that the party has “traditionally” relied on voter suppression to compete in battleground states, according to an audio recording of a private event. The adviser said later that his remarks referred to frequent and false accusations that Republicans employ such tactics.

    But the report emerged just days after news that a conservative group is forcing Wisconsin to purge upwards of 230,000 people from state voter rolls more than a year earlier than planned, a move that would disproportionately affect Democrats before the 2020 election.

    And it came as the latest fund-raising totals showed that the Republican National Committee, spurred by aggressive anti-impeachment fundraising, heads into 2020 with more than seven times as much cash on hand as the Democratic National Committee – $63m for the RNC against $8.3m for the DNC, according to FEC filings, Axios reported.

    Justin Clark, a senior political adviser and senior counsel to Trump’s re-election campaign, made the remarks about voter suppression on November 21 as part of a wide-ranging discussion about strategies in the 2020 campaign, including more aggressive use of monitoring of polling places on election day in November 2020.

    “Traditionally it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places,” Clark said at the event. “Let’s start protecting our voters. We know where they are. … Let’s start playing offense a little bit. That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program, a much better-funded program.”

    Asked about the remarks, by the Associated Press, which obtained the audio recording, Clark said he was referring to false accusations that the Republican party engages in voter suppression.

    “As should be clear from the context of my remarks, my point was that Republicans historically have been falsely accused of voter suppression and that it is time we stood up to defend our own voters,” Clark said. “Neither I nor anyone I know or work with would condone anyone’s vote being threatened or diluted and our efforts will be focused on preventing just that.”

    Edited from: “Top Trump Adviser: Republicans Have Always Relied On Voter Suppression”

    The Guardian, 12/21/19

      1. P. Rogers,
        You would deny the right of the dead to vote?
        Voter suppression! Voter suppression!!

        1. Anonymous – I don’t have a problem with the dead voting, however I do object to their voting alphabetically.

      2. Phyllis, name the last documented case when Democrats were linked to that. It might be at least 50 years ago. And how would that justify Voter Suppression by today’s Republicans?

          1. Anonymous: this is from your article: “There’s little evidence that this has led to widespread voter fraud, but it has raised concerns that the system is vulnerable”.

            The article doesnt come close to saying these names were linked to votes cast for either party in any election. It only says that nationwide that many defunct voters remained on Voter registration rolls.

            This article raises a question: ‘How many of us have forwarded copies of death certificates to the local voter registry when a parent or grandparent died?’

            Anonymous, your post here is what’s known as ‘A red herring of a What About’.

            1. @Philip- NPR raises a good point, it is a bipartisan problem. We should all get behind laws requiring executors and administrators to cancel the decedent’s voter registrations before closing out their estate.

              1. No, that will never happen, what should happen is that the county officials who DO issue death certificates, ie, typically “health department” or something like that, should be obliged to send notice. Or, those who supposedly have the “legal responsibility” for verifying voter rolls, should be required to do annual death record cross checks and database purges.

                Are there any such officials at all?

                IF there are, their duties are defined by democratically formed state laws, and executed by democratically elected officials– who of course would never think of how to advantage their own parites….. would they?

          1. We hate tRump and voted accordingly, get over it. And we didn’t need undocumented immigrants to pad the tally, all home grown tRump haters. It is a nice place you should visit

        3. https://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Butch-Morgan-gets-prison-time-for-election-fraud-211893851.html

          in 2008 the local Dem leadership (4 county level Democrat paid staff including the boss) from Mayor Pete’s hometown faked hundreds of names on primary petitions. perhaps thousands. it’s not clear how many were faked.

          perhaps you can dissect and analysis or do your own data-mining, Peter and tell us if there were any dead folks among those names which were faked.

          https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/election-fraud-the-2008-indiana-presidential-campaign-case-study

          the analysis concludes that it probably would have thrown the 2008 primary over to Hillary had the fraud been discovered in time

          Why did this happen in the first place? Well, maybe somebody really smart among the hidden hands that controls the Dem party, ordered that it happen, that’s why! :Think about it….

          Given how popular Obama was in contrast to Hillary, as was proven by his two victories in the general elections, the fraud might have helped win the White house for 8 years, say, if Hillary had won the 2008 primary and then lost the general. This perhaps answers the “Why” of why Dems continue to be suspected by the Dem rank and file of “fixing” the primary process.

          I’m not a Democrat, just reporting what I read, guys!

    2. We need to curtail voting by social parasites and people with a lack of critical and intellectual faculties to make good choices. I Have zero problem with admitting that.

      This is not really a difficult proposition. the difficulties come in questions like “how” and “where’s the cutoff point”… those questions are not easy, even if the underlying premise is granted

      and yet in this befuddled nation, every common sense issue is bedazzled by the socalled “legacy of slavery” which perpetually stops us from moving forward

  7. There is another rational explanation for the rush to impeach: Democrats always knew the impeachment would fail in the Senate. Their objective is not to remove Trump, but to taint him before the 2020 election in an effort to improve their chances of flipping the White House.

    That over-arching goal now accomplished there is no need to rush toward a quick Trump victory in the Senate. Democrats get to scream “he was impeached” without Trump being able to crow about his quick exoneration in the Senate.

    It was a cynical abuse of the impeachment process, but such is the level of frustration in California and New York (districts represented by the key Democratic impeachment players) that anything goes.

    Stated another way, the impeachment of President Trump was never in good faith from the outset. As readily inferred by the intent to impeach Trump before his inauguration and again after the contrived ‘whistleblower’ complaint but before even reading the actual transcript of the call.

    This whole thing is going to come back to haunt them when they have a Democrat in the WH with a Republican House.

    1. @Stephen- Yep.

      The taint is also extremely valuable as an insurance policy. For example, if Trump has the opportunity for a Supreme Court nomination that would likely be approved by the Senate (Amy Coney Barrett?). The Dems could forever attack the legitimacy of the appointment and the Court without having to attack her directly.

      There is another reason to leave the impeachment dangling. It leaves open the possibility of introducing a “bombshell” to create a “crisis” at an opportune moment. From the same playbook used against Trump with the Access America tape or against Brett Kavanaugh with the last minute Ford allegation. The allegation will probably not be sexual in nature because that has failed twice.

    2. There isn’t going to be a Democrat Party just as there isn’t an Our Democracy. It’s a socialist regressive liberal party and has been ever since 1909. Add to that they all rejected their oaths of office and citizenship by taking allegiance to a foreign ideology.

  8. Jonathan Turley appears to be naive about the Manhattan Mafia. They are usually more subtle than Tony Soprano.

    1. Indeed, recently disclosed emails appear to show that the military aid to Ukraine was “held up” after the infamous phone call to the Ukraine Prez.

    2. I think that someone who really, really knows about the Manhattan Mob, like Benson, should educate Jonathan Turley’s and the rest of us.
      Pick a subject– any subject– and Benson knows more about it than anyone else.
      That’s why he’s such a valuable 😁 contributor here.

  9. So the assumption is there at least four witnesses yet to testify to what? I suspect Democrats believe they are better off asserting what those witnesses would testify to rather than removing all doubt.

  10. Q: What do two of the three Presidents who have been impeached have in common?

    A: They were impeached for humiliating Hillary Clinton.

    1. Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself – good point. You don’t suppose Hillary is the puppeteer behind Nancy?

        1. Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself – Well, Hillary might know the “whistleblower.”

          1. @PCS- Seems likely. He did spend time at the Ukrainian embassy and then in White House working for Rice and Biden, and he’s apparently pretty tight with Schiff and his staff. They should ask him when he testifies in front of the Senate.

      2. Seriously, you never know:

        “I, as I say, never, never, never say never, and I will certainly tell you I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about” a 2020 Presidential bid.

        –Hillary Clinton, November 11, 2019

  11. Agreed. Refusal by Mueller to add essential context did a lot to create chaos. Dems reacting to it.

  12. So when are the Democrats going to indict themselves for doing exactly the same thing they charge others for infracting? NEVER they don’t follow the Constitution and have openly stated that on many occasions.

  13. In April 1974 the Watergate Special Prosecutor subpeonaed the Nixon White House tapes.
    Nixon claimed Executive Privilege , and the Supreme Court ruled in July against Nixon, and he was forced to comply with the subpeona.
    It is not true that the Democrats have “done all the steps” to get compliance with subpeonas; a Dec. 2 article in The Atlantic points out their “milktoast” approach to obtaining testimony from what they claim are key witness.
    The quest for Trump’s tax records does is not related to the Articles of Impeachment, so the need for a speedy court decision is not as great.
    The Atlantic article points out that the courts can act fast, but they have to be asked.

    2. Getting his tax records just means going after the IRS who had onsite teams at his businesses every step of the way. Unlike Puck’n’haunt Us who released only her santized government employee records… except there was that charge of taking money under false pretenses or at best.. she never got around to giving back the money she stole.

    3. They are more interested in unredacted Mueller Grand Jury transcripts. Pure, unadulterated opposition research in the hands of the DNC for 2020 election. Hearing is tomorrow.

    4. and why didn’t they ask?

      they thought it would be good enough just to impeach

      they thought they might lose if they asked the article III judges or it would slow them down too much

      they thought they would look like fools either way and with the thin and fast impeachment they would at least shore up their base

      observe that their diversity is not their greatest strength. moderate Democrats knew this would be a debacle and the radicals drove them to it.

  14. Mr. Turley, I have great respect for you, however, giving the democrats advise on what President Trump could be impeached on, was wrong. You should have stayed neutral. The whole impeachment was part of a coup to over throw our duly elected president that the American people voted for. You should not have taken the democrats side and added fuel to their all ready lop-sided sham. The American people where already put through a 3 years of wasted tax payer funded investigation by Robert Mueller. What our president talks about over the phone with foreign leaders is his business, no one else’s! He is entitled to executive privileges’ and when he took office he should have fired all of the Obama holdovers. Why didn’t any one speak up when Obama, told the Russian ambassador, (and it’s on video,)” to wait until after the election, he would have more flexibility”, where was the outrage by everyone? Or when Joe Bidan bragged on t.v ( also on video) that “Ukraine was not getting the money unless the Prosecutor looking into his son’s holdings involving Burisma was fired”, which is the QUID PRO QUO that the dems were accusing our president of. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE BY THE DEMOCRATES? Why is everyone refusing to talk about this or open an investigation into Bidans financial holdings with Ukraine? Why is everything one side against our President, his family, and members of his cabinet? and everybody else who have committed crimes is ignored, or not being investigated.

    1. Why should Turley stay neutral?? It’s his blog and he has full rights of freedom of speech.

      Good thing I’m a Constitutional Centrist. your statement seems on it’s face to be just a tad bit too far to the ieft in it’s finished product. At least I took it that way from the beginning statement.

      It weakened the rest which I generally support but the answer is to When is…. never their system of government is not of The Constitution so When translates to when are The Citizens going to dump those who are not.

      1. I assume she is speaking of Turley’s testimony before Congress, not the blog.

  15. The Turley assumption that in a “couple months” they could have compelled the additional witnesses to appear is ridiculous on its face. They have taken all the steps to compel McGahn to comply, has that happened yet over well over a couple months. How long have attempts to secure Trump’s financial data thru the courts been going on? The Supreme Court will finally rule on one of the cases maybe in July?

    Those that say there are no facts should rephrase to say there are no facts that I accept. That would be more accurate. You know who and what he is, you’re just getting enough of what you want, you’re willing to live with your Faustian bargain.

    1. “You know who and what he is, you’re just getting enough of what you want, you’re willing to live with your Faustian bargain.”

      ***************

      More of the “that’s obvious” or “false tautology” argument. We don’t “know” and you need to prove it.

      Seemingly this Dim canard never gets old — you know. LOL

        1. tick tock you told me a year ago we were waiting for something I Guess I just don’t know what that was and if it came already or not. what was supposed to be a big explosion ended up sounding like a fake fart from whopee cushion

    3. You can’t accept ‘no’ facts and pretend ‘no’ facts imply ‘some’ facts. Especiallyi when your kind have a spotless record of never presenting any facts.

    4. Hearings tomorrow for tax/finance records, Mueller Grand Jury info, and uhhh, forgot the other thing. But all being fast-tracked. Turley told the Dems this. They just wanted it done before Christmas. Had they followed his advice, they’d probably have ALL of it by Mar, 2020.

    5. not ridiculous at all. it’s your own perspective that makes you feel like it’s ridiculous.

      seems to me like prof turley knows more about the subject of how long it would have taken to press these claims than any of us. actually it’s ridiculous to pretend we know better on a basic analytical point like that. i can’t agree with turley on all his conclusions but i would not try and gainsay him on a point of process like that

      that you feel it’s ridiculous, does reveal a high level of frustration however . So, I hope you feel better soon.

      1. I’ve only been observing that it’s taken far longer than that for any of the cases to go thru the courts. Especially since Trump appeals everything to SCOTUS (after he loses on every level and waits to the last possible date to appeal to buy more time). So SCOTUS has agreed to hear one of his tax return cases, When will that ruling come down… July?

        1. LOL! So are you saying President Trump should not appeal to the Judiciary branch, which is a constitutional right to do so? Or are you saying he should direct SCOTUS’s calendar? Or are you saying the Legislative branch should direct SCOTUS’s calendar? Or are you saying only opponents of President Trump have the right to appeal to the courts? Maybe some combination of all the above?

          1. I’m saying he isn’t appealing in order to get an answer to a question, he’s dragging everything out as long as possible so he can continue his criminal conduct.

                1. His motives are clear to me as well. He’s doing such a great job of covering up alleged crimes that no one can find evidence of them.

              2. Olly, it took Trump to defeat Hillary to figure out that he was a criminal.
                All those years of tax fraud, money laundering, littering, etc. would have stayed under the radar.
                There was a movie named “They Made Me a Criminal”.
                I guess getting elected made Trump a criminal.

                2. https://www.teepublic.com/baseball-tee/4685281-classic-movie-poster-they-made-me-a-criminal?utm_source=paid_search&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_content=baseball-tee-unisex&feed_sku=4685281D8V&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&gclsrc=aw.ds&&ar_clx=yes&ar_channel=google&ar_campaign=959377862&ar_adgroup=56762606543&ar_ad=383964090637&ar_strategy=search&gclid=Cj0KCQiA6IHwBRCJARIsALNjViWGYFMmiVX1Cf7LXcofeM63DkNEuQvvwkA1A3w_7iRo2EwOudmA3ZAaAqQiEALw_wcB
                  Trump is considering wearing this in his State of the Union address.

  16. We are operating using Quigley on Hearsay. Facts are not the vocabulary of the Democrats.

    1. Yeah hearsay is certainly better than direct evidence. Humans are great at getting stories straight when retold 3-4 times.

      Telephone anyone?

  17. “Below is my column in the Los Angeles Times on the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The failure to take a little more time to secure additional witnesses (or court orders against the Administration) has already come back to haunt the House.”
    **************
    You can wait until Hell freezes over, pigs fly and Democrats love the country again but if there is no “there,” there aging won’t help you, unless of course you don’t really want the “there” in the first place, just the appearance of “there” for your own odious electoral purposes.

    Quit giving this scam by people of bad faith any credibility at all. It makes you look credulous.

  19. Agreed, and I can’t help but smell a rat, Pelosi is many things, but she is not stupid. Whatever it may be, I expect it will end up reflecting more poorly on dems than their target, as with all of their other nonsense since 2016.

  20. You imply in this article that if they would have waited to compel witnesses their case would have been stronger to proceed. Far be it for me with just a BS and 27 years of naval service to provide an alternative to your argument. House Dems knew waiting for courts to decide could inversely disprove their case

Comments are closed.