“How Did It Get So Late So Soon?”: The Democratic Impeachment Erodes With Opinions and Time

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the recent decision on the appearance of a key witness, Charles Kupperman, in the House investigation. The abandonment of the subpoena on Kupperman highlights what will be a major question in the Senate of why the Senate should demand witnesses who the House failed to seek to compel. By rushing the impeachment and forcing a vote before Christmas, the House gave up control over an incomplete and insufficient case for removal. It gave up that control to a chamber controlled by the opposing party. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to game the system has not achieved any concession from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Few of us believed it would. Now the House will proceed on the thinnest record ever presented in a modern presidential impeachment trial.

Here is the column:

As the House and Senate continue their bitter struggle over the coming impeachment trial of President Trump, a judge in the District of Columbia issued an opinion that was largely lost in the crush of New Years stories. The opinion could loom large in the Senate trial, however, and one line in particular, which states “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness, may be repeated like a mantra by the Trump defense team.

The witness was Charles Kupperman, a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton. Other than Bolton himself, Kupperman is one of the officials most likely to have direct knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo on aid to Ukraine. After subpoenaing him last fall, the House withdrew its request before the court could rule on compelling his testimony for the record. The House also decided not to subpoena Bolton or any other key witnesses in the administration. Judge Richard Leon dismissed the case before New Years Eve with a hint of frustration, if not bewilderment, that the House did not seem interested in hearing from a possible eyewitness. Historically, that lack of attention in not only witnesses but also a triable case will remain one of the most baffling blunders of this impeachment.

When I testified in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, I cited this case in my criticism of the pledge by Democrats to impeach Trump by Christmas despite a very incomplete record. While I opposed some of the proposed articles of impeachment that were subsequently dropped by the panel, I said Trump could be legitimately impeached on abuse of power and obstruction of justice if the House could establish such violations. But the House refused to wait just a couple months to build a much stronger case to remove Trump. In the mad rush to push impeachment, Democrats could not have made it easier for his team.

Securing an impeachment so fast does not earn you a historic prize. It simply earns you a historic failure. By not seeking to compel numerous key witnesses, the House now relies on the Senate to complete its case. Since the House has maintained that the record overwhelmingly proves that Trump is guilty, the Senate could simply try the case on the record supplied by the House. Indeed, in the 1999 impeachment of President Clinton, Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Charles Schumer, fought against any witnesses and sought a summary vote without a trial.

I was particularly concerned about moving forward by Christmas on the second article of alleged obstruction of Congress. The House elected to push through impeachment with an abbreviated period of roughly three months and declared any delay by Trump, even to seek judicial reviews, to be a high crime and misdemeanor. The administration is currently in court challenging demands for witnesses and documents. Just a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court accepted one such case for review then stayed the lower court decisions ordering the production of the tax and finance records of Trump. The House impeached Trump before that court or other federal courts could rule on the merits of claims of presidential privileges and immunities. Both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon had been able to take such challenges to the Supreme Court before they faced impeachment.

The House refused to seek to compel several witnesses in court, burning months in which it could have secured not just decisions in its favor but also testimony. Indeed, a year ago, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee and encouraged it not only to hold a vote on impeachment but to go to court to force testimony of figures like former White House counsel Donald McGahn. While refusing to use its impeachment powers with such a vote, it did take him to court. It won that case shortly before its impeachment vote. The case will be heard by the appellate court this week, even without being expedited for the impeachment investigation.

When faced with the embarrassing timing of that ruling after the hurried impeachment vote, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff insisted there was no time to waste in getting the case to the Senate and that “it has taken us eight months to get a lower court ruling” to compel McGahn to testify. But after members claimed there was a “crime spree in progress” and no time to waste, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked any submission to the Senate to demand witnesses that the House unwisely omitted in its investigation. So it seems time is no longer of the essence.

Schiff also was wrong on McGahn. The House waited until August to go to court to compel him to appear. That was roughly four months to secure a ruling and without proceedings under an impeachment inquiry ordered by the House, which historically places cases on a fast track to the Supreme Court. In the Nixon case, it took three months from the ruling of the trial court to the final decision by the Supreme Court that ultimately led to his resignation. Even if the House had waited until October to seek to compel witnesses, it could have had ample time to secure rulings or testimony by a springtime impeachment. We will never know because Democrats chose to do nothing due to the need to get to a trial that they have now delayed.

Schiff is not the only Democrat undermining the case for the obstruction article. Representative Eric Swalwell, who seeks to be a House manager at the Senate trial, recently declared that not only should a sitting president be impeached if he goes to the courts rather than submit to Congress, but that contesting demands for evidence is actually evidence of guilt on all of the charged offenses. In a complete denial of the critical concepts of the rule of law and due process, Swalwell claimed “we can only conclude that you are guilty” if someone refuses to give testimony or documents.

It is unclear if his concept of due process would be extended to President Obama, who refused both critical witnesses and documents to Congress on the basis of claims that were eventually dismissed by federal courts as untenable. Likewise, former Vice President Joe Biden has made headlines by declaring that, if subpoenaed, he would defy the Senate. But someone must have explained to Biden that the man he seeks to replace was just impeached for defying the House, even without a subpoena, because he clarified his earlier remarks by stating the opposite in a later interview.

None of this bodes well for the Senate trial. Developments are unfolding from a former aide to Rudy Giuliani, who seeks to give new evidence that is relevant to impeachment. Giuliani himself was never subpoenaed and recently said he would be willing to testify. It is like pushing for a murder trial before an autopsy is completed because everyone has holiday plans. There are also new documents showing that Trump may have moved to freeze the military aid after speaking with the Ukrainian president. Those documents were produced after a trial court ordered their release under the Freedom of Information Act, and the administration did not appeal.

However, none of that is part of the impeachment record because it was more important to vote on it before Christmas than to build a full record before a trial. The nation will likely witness the collapse of a Senate trial on an incomplete record, as the witnesses and documents are still coming forward. Those Democratic voters who supported this premature act will be left to wonder, as did Doctor Seuss, “How did it get so late so soon?”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

69 thoughts on ““How Did It Get So Late So Soon?”: The Democratic Impeachment Erodes With Opinions and Time”

  1. Maybe the republicans should hold the impeachment proceedings now and not wait for sweet Nancy.

  2. Desperate Moves from the Pelosites. Benita says she’ll demand War Powers Act for Trump. Says he didn’t ask permission. So let’s review that bit of idiotic nonsense.

    1. Democrats put forth and passed a War Powers Act because of Reagans use of the military.
    2. Carter didn’t comply
    3. Bush I complied
    4. Clinton didn’t comply
    5. Bush II complied for Iraq only
    6. Obama didn’t comply
    7. Obama went along with a change in the name and scope of the war area and it became the War On Terror not 18 years old.
    8 Trump inherited an ongoing war which had spread to several as in four to seven countries
    9. Trump moved, as promised in the election, to bring and end and has followed that faithfully including new problems such as NK.
    10 The Democrats did nothing
    11 Now Pelosi decides to change the requirements without getting the required vote of congress and presidential signature.
    12. Pelosi it seems has outed herself in the usual socialist fashion as a friend of the enemy and an an enemy of the state.

    Question. Is it enough to invoke the Patriot Act and it’s terrorist provisions and disappear Pelosi? Or will laughter at this clown do the trick? After all it was President Obama who broadened, lengthened and extended the provisions of the Patriot act, didn’t exclude Congress and took advantage of the name change as he dodged the War Powers ACT.

    Why should a freak like Pelosi get away with a high crime?

    Answer: She shouldn’t.

  3. What is Pelosi’s born last name? Is Pelosi her married name? She is an Ital. But what part of Italy did her family come from? Roma? Sicily? WOP land?

    1. That’s one vote for illiteracy …. counting the others. YOU LOSE!

  4. Now compare this fiasco with the recent one death war conducted by our President. Had that been a leftist it would be 18 more years and a 36 trillion dollar with each worth about 30 cents and who knows how many dead American soldiers.

    Enough reason to dump the Socialist Party under whatever name.

  5. So far at whatever cost the whole thing can be summed up in three letters. BFD

  6. And in other news, HOMELAND SECURITY BREAKS UP alleged SEX TRAFFICKING RING, & “TASTES THE GOODS” JUST TO MAKE SURE

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/department-of-homeland-security-agents-paid-to-have-sex-with-alleged-sex-trafficking-victims-they-rescued

    I can almost guarnatee that just like the Florida “investigation” that got Patriots owner Kraft in trouble– and did not see ONE SINGLE CHARGE filed for human trafficking, just sex work, that this investigation was equally bogus as well

    very pathetic, “homeland security” picking on middle aged and old asian women who work in massage, help relieve pain in the customers, and aren’t bothering anyone!

    PS the seven days a week thing…. a lot of us do that too… if we can…. and 12 hours a day.,… yeah ask a lawyer and see how common that actually is for contractors who get paid by the hour! I bet you can find some lawyers that have broken code violations by sleeping in their offices, too!

  7. Someone should start a counter running. Something like:

    “It has now been 20 days since Speaker Pelosi has not delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

    Add a clock underneath. But it on a few billboards.

    Newscasters can start ending their broadcasts with something similar, kind of like Cronkite did with the hostages.

    “And that’s the way it is, this the 20th day since the articles of impeachment have not been delivered to the Senate. I’m Walter Cronkite. For all of us here at C.B.S. new. Good night.”

  8. NEWSFLASH –

    Nancy and Chuck, last night’s revolutionary Golden Globes’ “Ricky Gervais Truth Commission Show” was addressing not only A-List Hollywood but you communists in Congress.
    ___________________________________

    “The Ricky Gervais Truth Commission Show” directly in front of A-List Hollywood:

    – “I came here in a limo tonight and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman.”

    – “Spoiler alert, there’s a season two, so in the end, he didn’t kill himself. Just like Jeffrey Epstein. Sorry, I know he’s your friend.”

    – “Leonardo DiCaprio attended the premiere and by the end, his date was nearly too old for him. Even Prince Andrew was like, ‘C’mon, mate.’”

    – The #MeToo-themed “The Morning Show” is being made by Apple TV, “a company who runs sweatshops in China.”

    – “You say you’re woke, but … if ISIS started a streaming service you’d call your agent.”

    – “So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything, you know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So, if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your God and f**k off. OK?”
    __________________________________________________________________

    To “The Nancy and Chuck Communist Party Show,” get a professional to actually read the Constitution to you and discover that the principles of the Communist Manifesto you impose on Americans are not only absent by deliberate omission but manifestly prohibited, unlawful, criminal and unconstitutional.

    Nancy and Chuck, “…you know nothing about the real world.”

    You cannot tax for individual welfare or redistribution and you cannot regulate beyond the “value” of “money” and the flow of “…Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…”

    You know nothing about the maximal rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of individuals, in stark contrast to the severe limitations and restrictions on Congress and government in the U.S. Constitution.
    _______________________________________________________

    Nancy and Chuck, please read the following constitutional excerpt for your edification:

    Article 1, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    1. Didn’t watch it but it seems like it was a fun one to watch!

      Gervais saved his best for the wrapup of his opening monologue, telling Hollywood exactly what you would tell it if you ever got the chance. “You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything,” he said. “You know nothing about the real world. Most of you’ve spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg … So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your God and f–k off. Okay?”

      https://nypost.com/2020/01/05/golden-globes-2020-ricky-gervais-hits-hollywood-stars-exactly-where-it-hurts/

      1. I did not intend to tarnish my reputation. I would not watch a communist Hollywood celebration to save my life. I didn’t watch, I read a shocking article on the subject which included the excerpts above. Gervais was lucky to make it out alive. He dispatched far too much truth.

  9. BOLTON AGREES TO TESTIFY IF SUBPOENAED

    Bolton’s announcement on Monday put Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), not to mention other persuadable Republican senators, in a box. Facts subsequent to the House impeachment have become known that directly pertain to Trump’s conduct and, to boot, a critical witness is now suddenly available. Do Senate Republicans try to sweep all that under the rug, risking that Bolton will later tell his story publicly and incriminate a president whose misdeeds the Senate helped cover up? That would seem intensely unwise.

    “This means that only McConnell and his GOP caucus stand between what Bolton says he’s ready to testify under oath in a Senate trial and the American people,” tweeted constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. “Your move, Mitch.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is in the driver’s seat because she wisely held up the articles of impeachment. She can now turn to the Senate and say: Agree upon rules for the trial that guarantee Bolton’s and other key witnesses’ appearance or we will hold on to the articles and subpoena Bolton ourselves.

    Edited from: “Pelosi’s Strategy Pays Off: Bring On John Bolton”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Today’s Washington Post

      You would have more standing in this and other discussions if you were a Shia Muslim, selectively quoted from the Quran, and threatened us with a Fatwa, than quote the Washington “Truth dies 24/7” Compost.

      C’mon, Peter Shill / Enoch Poor / Angelo Carusso / John Burgoyne / Betty Crocker, you can do better. We believe in you!

      yes you can!

      1. C’mon, Peter Shill / Enoch Poor / Angelo Carusso / John Burgoyne / Betty Crocker, you can do better.
        _________________________________________
        HA HA You think Trump is guilty…
        Don’t you want Bolton to step forward and testify and clear Trump?

      2. Estovir, Professor Turley is more than happy to have his columns published in The Post. Not all of us need to hide in the rightwing bubble.

        1. Notice how the histrionic comments written by Peter Shill, Nutcha and Anon / burnthebook / Rintintin Jinn all mirror the hysteria found on Media Matter website

          e.g. “right-wing bubble”

          Throughout 2012, Limbaugh was an architect of the right-wing bubble that pushed conspiracy theories and denied reality, notably helping to create a false narrative that Mitt Romney was on the verge of winning a landslide election. As that right-wing bubble collapsed, so, too, did Limbaugh’s four-year campaign of hoping – and trying to ensure – that President Obama would fail.

          https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/misinformer-year-rush-limbaugh

          Peter, someone recently stated you were the president of Media Matters, Angelo Carusone. They were paying you a gratuitous compliment. More likely you and your Millennial friends playing on this blog are writers for Media Matters using multiple aliases

          Tell us, is your exit strategy, once Trump wins in 2020, to flee to Iran or is that unlikely because homosexuals are killed there by Shia Muslims, hmmmm?

          Timothy Johnson, come out, come out, where ever you are
          https://www.mediamatters.org/author/timothy-johnson

          1. Estovir, your hallucinations regarding Media Matters reflects the rightwing bubble. Inside the bubble you can’t believe that anyone would have liberal views. So you imagine the only liberals in America are paid by Media Matters. That hardly explains, of course, why Trump’s approval has rarely risen above the low 40’s. But in the rightwing bubble nothing has to make sense. That’s why you’re there.

            1. Before executing your exit strategy and fleeing to Iran, you might consider exploring gay conversion therapy for your Media Madders gay coworkers, though I am not saying you are

              😉

              G’nite Timothy

              1. Estovir, that’s all you can think of: ‘sliming me with gay smears’. It confirms, as we all know, your intellectual bankruptcy.

                1. Estovir is a “good” Catholic (and doctor?), dontcha know.

                  Some people see him for what he is.

    2. Mr. Shill, you should tread lightly on this bait. Bolton has absolutely no need whatsoever for a dumbocrap communist in the Oval Office. It is dubious that he would ally himself with the enemy.

      1. Bolton has absolutely no need whatsoever for a dumbocrap communist in the Oval Office. It is dubious that he would ally himself with the enemy.
        _____________________________________________
        Are you suggesting Bolton will lie?

          1. Did Bill “Slick Willy” Clinton lie?
            _____________________________

            It was simple question. Do you expect Bolton to lie?

            It sounds like you do. That suggests you believe Trump is guilty.

            I don’t think Trump is guilty or thatb Bolton has any reason to lie.

            1. I’m not privy to Bolton’s strategy but I do know that no conservative agenda, including that of the Neocons, will be served by the removal of a currently de facto conservative from the presidency. Perhaps you think removing Trump and ensconcing Moochhell Obongo, or another comparable communist, would serve the Right. I don’t know but I cannot believe that Bolton will be the “whistle-blower” on President Trump. If Bolton has anything, I’ll buy you a beer if he ultimately reveals it. I can’t envision Bolton joining the democrat party.

        1. Did Barack Obama lie?

          “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

          “I am a ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible for the presidency.”

          “Obamacare is constitutional.”

        2. Did James Comey and his many multiple fellow co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America lie?

          1. The charge is misprision of office and there both Comey and Strzok clearly were guity by their own admission

        3. Did Kamala Harris lie about her love life with Willy Brown, renting a nice white family for the election and being eligible for the presidency as a “natural born citizen.”

    3. Do Senate Republicans try to sweep all that under the rug, risking that Bolton will later tell his story publicly and incriminate a president whose misdeeds the Senate helped cover up? That would seem intensely unwise.
      _____________________________________________

      What makes you think Bolton’s testimony will be incriminating?

      1. I expect that a disgruntled ex-employee who’s been fired would give only exculpatory testimony.
        So there’s no problem with having Bolton testify.

        1. I expect that a disgruntled ex-employee who’s been fired would give only exculpatory testimony.
          __________________________________________

          Are you saying that Bolton will commit perjury to get back at trump?

    4. bull. Pelosi can say or do as she likes. It’s a big fat fraud and most people are forgetting it even happened

      1. Anonymous @ 6:21PM,
        Most people are forgetting that what ever happened?😄

    5. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/john-bolton-no-subpoena-court-battle/index.html
      This is from CNN two months ago, although it was widely reported.
      So there was a threat to take the House to court if they subpeonaed Bolton, but two months later Bolton says he will not challenge a Senate subpeona.
      The Senate should not take a chance of Bolton changing his mind again. That is, he might do another flip-flop and sue the Senate if they subpeona him.
      Best to follow the House’s example and not subpeona Bolton.

      1. If the House already has “overwhelming evidence” of Trump’s guilt,
        _____________________________________________
        The evidence that the House has is based on the assumption that the witnesses that did not testify were not permitted to testify because their testimony would incriminate Trump.

        That is a stupid assumption.

        1. A statement that they have “overwhelming evidence” is not based on assumptions. That’s a pretty definite statement.

        2. Then why did they have them testify? Perhaps because the evidence vilified the left in their locked basement dealings?

  10. I do not understand why people go on about obstruction of justice. The supreme court blocked the houses house’s subpoena because they do not have the authority to do what they did. There is literally 0 impeachable things on Trump other than people dont like him.

    1. The supreme court blocked the houses house’s subpoena because they do not have the authority to do what they did.
      ________________________________________

      HA HA HA ya gotta love those “alternate facts”

      1. jinn:

        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates-latest-news-n1065706/ncrd1091366#liveBlogHeader

        “The U.S. Supreme Court late Monday blocked a House subpoena directing President Donald Trump’s accounting firm to turn over several years’ worth of financial documents, giving the president at least a temporary legal victory.”

        The House is abusing their authority to try to get opposition research, and weaken Trump for 2020.

        This is not a case where Trump committed a high crime, such as murder, and they are not fact finding for any such crime. Rather, this is a free for all where they are abusing their access to try to get dirt on their political rival.

        Disgusting.

        If they want to require tax returns to run for President, then, as the legislative branch, they have a process for that. However, if they do so, then they should require tax returns for all members of Congress, as well. After all, they serve on committees that award contracts, and have a great deal of scope for backdoor deals and conflicts of interest.

        1. The U.S. Supreme Court late Monday blocked a House subpoena directing President Donald Trump’s accounting firm to turn over several years’ worth of financial documents
          _____________________________________________

          What does that have to do with not understanding why “people go on about obstruction of justice”?

          Has anybody claimed that temporary order was obstruction of justice?

          1. Now let’s go after Pelosi’s taxed to see what happened to all those seats on committees she sold?

        2. This was nothing other than a temporary stay, pending briefing. This is no victory at all. All the order did was maintain the status quo until the appeal is decided, something that is routine.

          BTW: what does Agent Orange have to hide, anyway? If nothing, then what’s the harm? But, because we all know that Trump is a cheat and liar, the records will show: 1. he’s nowhere near as wealthy as he has claimed; Michael Cohen testified he keeps 2 sets of books: one for Forbes, wherein he inflates his net worth, and one for the IRS, in which he lies about his net worth. Both are works of fiction. Both were submitted under oath, so both could support a conviction for perjury. 2. there are major discrepancies in his reported income, assets, equity and wealth for purposes of inducing lenders to make loans, and for other purposes, like tax abatements, grants, etc.. Public filings already obtained have proven this to be the case. 3. his foreign and domestic entanglements and business dealings. This is why all candidates for presidency in the last 40 years have disclosed their tax returns: so that if elected, decisions they make and actions they take can’t affect their personal wealth or the wealth of their family, nor benefit some foreign company to the detriment of the US government.

          BTW: your post assumes that disclosing the information would be detrimental to Trump. Interesting, because this shows you know he’s a crook, too.

          1. Does anyone ever read the entirety of the rantings of this machine part of the collective? Then the real question is ….. Why?

    1. That brain dead Demwit Congressman Al Green and another Demwit female pollster started “impeaching” Trump during the campaign.

      If you divide the effort to impeach by 10000 and the Dems put that much effort to solve problems facing Americans there wouldn’t be any American problems.

      There are good losers (Tom Brady) and really awful losers like Cam Newton. Faced with continual screaming Hillary had 98% chance of winning, then losing, they could not stomach looking in the mirror and saying, “We suck! We nominated the all time worst candidate!” Instead, “THE DOG AND PUTIN ATE MY POLITICAL HOMEWORK! IT’S NOT MY FAULT!” CONTNIUALLY FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND INFINITELY MORE LYING TO COME.

  11. “By rushing the impeachment and forcing a vote before Christmas, the House gave up control over an incomplete and insufficient case for removal. It gave up that control to a chamber controlled by the opposing party. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to game the system has not achieved any concession from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Few of us believed it would. Now the House will proceed on the thinnest record ever presented in a modern presidential impeachment trial.”
    ********************
    Retreat is what you do when you’ve lost the battle. That or never have the battle in the first place. I said the Dims would never have a vote on impeachment. I was wrong. They did and then promptly dropped the ball. I should have said the charges will never reach the Senate. Serves me right for not having the venial, slithery, reptilian mind they possess in such abundance. I’ll work at it. I have such good mentors around here in the comments section.

  12. The House didn’t bother to press the issue with witnesses, because the transcript already proved the “whistleblower” misrepresented the phone call. Hearsay testimony has already been disproven, with Sondland even admitting that he “presumed”, or made the entire thing up.

    By not pursuing these witnesses, Democrats have given themselves the planned excuse that, when the Senate doesn’t call them, either, they will claim they did not engage in a proper trial. That is how they will try to hide their actions. They made yet another false accusation, that crumbled, but they will claim that if the Senate does not call the witnesses that they did not, either, then they will claim Republicans in the Senate protected a “lawless” President.

    It’s absurd, obviously, but there are naive people who will believe, and parrot, this line.

    1. they can claim all they want but with nothing to back them up whose going to believe those who gave up their citizenship and violated their oaths of office to take allegiance to a dead foreign ideology?

  13. A human charged with driving without a driver’s license could not be convicted absent proof. Proof would have to be either his admission that he had no license or sworn testimony by a human who held the records in his hand that no license had been issued or one ha expired. No hearsay. None of the apCray that Joe blow told another person and was overheard by a janitor.

  14. If Swalwell considers going to the courts as evidence of guilt, then it is logical to consider the House’s refusal to go to the courts as evidence of innocence.

  15. One can ascribe all kinds of nuance and intrigue to this affair, but at the most basic level it is nothing more than a farce…and no amount of window dressing is going to make it anything other than what it is.

Comments are closed.