New Book Reveals Democratic Decision to Abandon Due Process and Historical Precedent to Impeach Trump

Below is today’s column in on the new disclosures in a new book on the Trump impeachment. The authors allege that House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and his staff raised virtually the same procedural objections that I made in my testimony about the House abandoning both historical precedent and due process guarantees. The book directly contradicts public statements made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff.

Here is the column:

“They’re going to argue we don’t have due process for Trump. Why make that argument real?” Those words from House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.,  stand out in the shocking disclosures in the recently released book, “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump,” Politico Playbook co-author Rachael Bade and Washington Post reporter Karoun Demirjian recount how House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi overrode objections from Nadler that the lack of witness testimony was a denial of due process for then President Donald Trump. Nadler reportedly put it plainly and correctly: “It’s unfair, and it’s unprecedented, and it’s unconstitutional.”

It was a strikingly familiar objection.  I testified at the first Trump impeachment before Nadler and criticized the lack of any factual witnesses or Judiciary Committee hearings supporting the articles of impeachment. The book details a position of the House Judiciary that is strikingly similar to my own testimony.

The book, however, has not brought a sense of vindication as much as frustration. Nadler publicly toed the line with Pelosi to support a process that he reportedly viewed as abusive and “unconstitutional” even as some of us were set upon by a legion of irate pundits. Worse yet, the book indicates that the bar on witnesses was not compelled by the schedule, as claimed by Pelosi and Schiff, but raw politics.  It was, I wrote, a decision to follow the rule of Franz Kafka’s character that “my guiding principle is this: Guilt is never to be doubted.”

On the second impeachment, they went one better. They jettisoned any witnesses (including legal experts) in what I called a “snap impeachment.”

During the impeachments, I suggested that the reason was not any limitation of time but tactical advantage. In both rushed impeachments, Pelosi then held back the articles of impeachment before sending them to the Senate – destroying even the pretense of exigency as the reason for abandoning due process.

The book appears to confirm the Kafkaesque logic. It states that neither Pelosi nor Schiff wanted to risk a witness or member going off script by allowing true due process. When Nadler raised historical and constitutional objections, Schiff reportedly barked back that he needed to change “his tone” and complained “you’re putting us in a box.”  That box is an effort to guarantee fairness and Nadler reportedly and correctly observed that “if we’re going to impeach, we need to show the country that we gave the president ample opportunity to defend himself.”

In my testimony in the only hearing held by the Judiciary Committee (over the two impeachments), I objected that “this is wrong. It is not wrong because President Trump is right…No, it is wrong because this is not how an American president should be impeached.”

I relied primarily on the Nixon and Clinton cases to show how far the House was outside any historical navigational beacons. It turns out Nadler and his staff reached the same conclusion and cautioned Schiff and Pelosi to “stick close to the Nixon and Clinton cases.” They refused.

Dan Goldman, Schiff’s lead counsel and the Democratic nominee to represent New York’s 10th District in the House, scoffed and mocked Nadler: “Jerry Nadler? With him, everything is negotiable.” When Nadler’s team argued for an approach (as I did) “more like Nixon,” Schiff’s team reportedly dismissed due process and said, “F— Donald Trump.”

People can disagree on the merits of the impeachments, but both impeachments were an abusive use of the Article I authority in the denial of any substantive hearings before the Judiciary Committee. While it was constitutional in the sense that there is no required process, it was wrong from both a historical and procedural perspective.  Of course, the public was not allowed to either hear from witnesses or know that even Democrats like the Judiciary Chair objected on these same grounds.

Indeed, when the House elected to pursue the January 6th investigation, they followed the same playbook with Schiff as a member.  Traditionally, each party is allowed to pick its own members on such committees. However, Pelosi rejected two of the Republican members and the rest of the party (except for outgoing Reps. Lynne Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) boycotted the hearings. The result was a one-sided production without a hint of fairness or balance in exploring possible defenses or counterarguments.

What is most sad about this account is that, for a critical moment, Nadler rose to the occasion. He defended not just the historical authority of his committee but the constitutional norm, even for a president despised by Democrats. That twilight moment of clarity was soon lost. The book recounts how Nadler made an “effort to get back into Pelosi’s good graces.” When I testified, there was not a hint of concern or dissent. Nadler and the Democrats scoffed at the notion that the impeachment departed from core historical precedent or legal protections.

They had, as Nadler predicted, made the due process arguments “real,” but no one cared. To paraphrase Goodman’s reported observation, in Washington, “everything is negotiable.”


120 thoughts on “New Book Reveals Democratic Decision to Abandon Due Process and Historical Precedent to Impeach Trump”

  1. There’s nothing democratic about the democrat party.
    The world’s largest hate group by necessity embraces authoritarian tenents.

    1. I remember your testimony in the first impeachment trial. I thought you were cogent and a voice of reason that fell on deaf ears.

    1. “[T]he House can do what it pleases.”

      So, then: Hogtie him. Throw him into the middle of a lake. If he sinks, he’s not a witch. If he floats, he is. And we burn him at the stake.

  2. This book should make Pelosi and Schiff among the worst in legislative history and Nadler a coward among cowards who became complicit through his cowardice.

    Pelosi’s point was never to impeach. They knew they didn’t have what it took. Same with J6. That’s why there is no due process in that TV series. The point was to damage, distract, embarrass, disempower the sitting President. Doing this to a president for an entire term, if the Mueller/Russian “collusion” fiasco is considered, is as close to traitorous as I’ve seen in my lifetime. It is the unconstitutional enemy within. A political insurrection by legislators…. but I’m just a civilian. Turley can provide the legal terms

    For 6 years I asked my Democrat friends why they keep these people, Pelosi/Nadler/Schiff/Schumer in leadership. I still do…

  3. The only reason Nadler raised these issues was to make an argument that would put his committee back in the driver’s seat, so he could get more media attention. That his was not a principled objection is shown by his unwillingness to air the issues publicly.

    1. I don’t think Nadler has been a particularly effective judiciary chairman or spokesman so I think for both impeachments and other issues Pelosi has tried to limit his role.

  4. Due process??? Google Mark Houck. When was the last time the FBI investigated an alleged assault and the DOJ took the FBI’s investigative results to a grand jury without even talking to the alleged perp?

  5. The rule of law doesn’t mean anything to modern Dems, particularly the young, because they don’t understand it, and they will do everything in their power to ensure that they are the ones making the laws, into infinity. I am finding the intricacies of this blog superfluous at this point; yes, the Professor is a scholar, and that is vital – but he and the rest of us are up against a force that simply doesn’t care, and has the money to usurp common sense or the rule of law. Parse the details all you like. It wouldn’t take much at this point to push that right over the edge and for everything we say here to be utterly meaningless, and this is real. Doesn’t matter when there is a regime intent on literally eliminating our laws to serve them. Pontificate to the skies. If you don’t stop voting for this, there will eventually be quite literally nothing you can do. The rhetoric from the left is disgusting and dehumanizing, likely beyond anything we have ever seen in modern times. There are no other words for it. Whistle in the dark all you like, hoping that things will just magically correct themselves. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that so many people in this country actively support a fascist party, even when I understand the variables. I am out of words, and previous words and votes didn’t do diddly, even in my tiny district. Washington itself has become a force we used to oppose, even the hippies. Tell me with a straight face that you think Kamala Harris is doing a good job.

    1. RE:”I cannot wrap my head around the fact that so many people in this country actively support a fascist party,” Remarkable, isn’t it. Harris, whose campaign collapsed even before the primary vote and was obliged to withdrawn for lack of funding and popular support. She was deemed the appropriate complexion and genitals candidate on the off-chance that providence would give us a Democrat woman of color as POTUS, entering through the back door. How fittingly ‘Jim Crowe 2020’.

      1. Oh, I remember, largely because it was practically yesterday. I do not know who they think they are fooling but the MSNBC addicts, and they will vote dem do or die, so it’s irrelevant. Half the time I think the dem establishment knows all of this perfectly well and it matters not, because they are very nearly exclusively focused on brainwashing our young people, just like Hitler did. How long before our children are *actually* conscripted by ‘The Party’, by ‘rule of law’?

      1. If Democrats hold true to form, then understand when they describe who is a threat and how we should recognize them, they are telling everyone exactly how they will be a threat to this country. Works every time.

        1. Estovir: Thanks for the good post. I never would have known about this without your post. And I agree with your comment about political scoring, as I did see a news clip of Biden bragging about how he would help FL with hurricane.
          Funny how MSM did not mention the reduced allocation of monoclonal antibody supply–I would think that the post-hurricane stresses upon residents will exacerbate weakened immune systems that are not properly boosted.

  6. It was an abuse of power, and it illustrated how weakened the position of the White House is, in comparison to the network of Democrat activists that hold positions in 3 letter agencies and other places in government.

    What does it matter if a Republican wins the presidency, if the FBI will conspire to destabilize them by pushing a knowingly false narrative?

    Americans have become so jaded. Watergate rolls off everyone’s tongue, like an original sin, and yet Watergate was a bunch of guys tossing a campaign headquarters to spy on the campaign. That is is tame compared to what we accept as normal today. Moles in campaign offices that provide leaks to the press or opposing camps. The NSA spying on campaigns and lying about it to Congress. FBI coordinating with the Democrat nominee to push a knowingly false Russia Hoax, even briefing President Obama that Hillary was going to push the narrative to distract the public from her email scandal. The media lying about what Trump said and did, even editing his remarks to falsely portray him as admiring white supremacists. Major actors and pundits calling for Trump’s assassination. The IRS, EPA, NSA, FBI, and DOJ explicitly targeting conservatives.

    There is a Democrat hegemony in government, the public education system, media, and Hollywood. You have to go through a Democrat filtered search algorithm every time you Google, which is why you’d better bookmark any article injurious to the Democrats, because it will be buried tomorrow.

    1. Karen S.
      Well said.
      I fear voting in the mid-terms and 2024 may not be enough to stop corruption in the three letter agencies.
      Watching what happened to Mark Houck if frightening.

    2. Or better yet, print to pdf. Then you have digital, time-stamped copies showing their origin. Save them offline.

  7. Jonathan: Impeachment is the quintessential exercise of political power. Whatever party controls the House controls the process. When the GOP controlled the House it impeached Bill Clinton over a consensual sex act because he lied about. That was not about about any abuse of presidential authority. But when Donald Trump tried to extort the president of Ukraine to get political dirt on the Bidens that was an abuse of presidential authority. There was ample evidence to support the articles of impeachment. The GOP will use that same power if they regain control of the House. They say one of their first acts will be to impeach Biden. Over what? Who knows, but they will come up with something. Will you be there to testify opposing a GOP “snap impeachment”?

    That said, let’s move on to what is on everyone’s mind–the massive devastation in FL caused by Hurricane Ian. Gov. DeSantis calls Ian a “500 year flood event”. He is demanding federal FEMA aid. Strange coming from a guy who fought the Biden administration over almost everything–claiming the feds were violating “states rights”. Too bad DeSantis didn’t keep that $12 million he used to dump the Venezuelan migrants in Martha’s Vineland as a “rainy day” fund to help some of the residents of FL who are now suffering. DeSantis will probably have to use what’s left in that fund to pay for recovery. Hopefully, no more political stunts by the Gov. Probably the only positive thing from Ian.

    If you watched the TV coverage of Ian’s path across Florida it is clear we are witnessing an unprecedented weather event. Climate scientists have told us for years what to expect from global warming–more intense and destructive hurricanes. But at Fox News they have politicized the issue. Tucker Carlson calls TV coverage a “kind of scam”. He said on his show: “So, you hate to hype hurricanes because it’s just a staple of TV and everyone’s kind of out to scam”. One resident of FL asked Carlson: “I hope he tells us which hurricanes that have hit us were real and which were scams. I have trouble telling them apart”. Right-wing pundits, like Carlson, are really into conspiracy theories. But Carlson has predecessors.

    Back in 2016 Rush Limbaugh bizarrely claimed hurricanes were “in the interest of the left”. Donald Trump has always been a climate change denier — it is a “hoax”, he said many times. In 2012 he declared ” the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”. After becoming president in 2017 Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord and increased fossil fuel extraction. He was determined to prove the climate scientists wrong. But the science proved Trump wrong. You simply can’t fool mother nature! So it looks like we are instore for more hurricanes like Ian–and no one yet has been able to establish Chinese complicity in the devastation in Fl. Maybe the proof is still somewhere in the thousands of docs Trump took back to Mar-a-Lago!

    1. Let’s wait and see if any documents are flying around in Florida that came from mar-a-lago.
      Maybe there’s a message in a bottle, floating in the Atlantic, that reads: “Efforts by Democrats to ‘get us’ have reached new heights, roughly 12 feet. But when the winds die down, then we will see all that is left is impenetrable and re-circulated mud and muck.”

      1. lin: The last sentences of my post were my attempt at humor. But if your unintelligible comment implies the docs discovered by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago were just “recirculated mud and muck” you are wrong. Trump took top secret confidential material–in violation of 3 federal criminal statutes. And the FBI found many empty folders marked “Top Secret”. Where are the contents of those folders? Maybe, indeed, they are “floating in the Atlantic”. Destroying evidence is also a crime. But are you one who believes the FBI “planted” all the docs? If you are you need to reassess your acceptance of Trump’s delusional claims!

        1. Dennis: Gee, regret that you were unable to see that MY post was also an attempt at humor. Did I touch a sensitive nerve?
          (1) No, I do not believe the FBI planted documents at mar-a-lago.
          (2) As noted by everyone else, the classification of the documents appears irrelevant to the listed infractions, so, indeed,
          (3) Why are you then continuing to focus on classification,? and
          (4) Maybe several loose [classified] documents that were collected from mar-a-lago just need to be married up with their respective [classified] folders and in fact are not missing at all….

    2. Dennis – Sanity is beginning to reassert itself. In June, 2022, Germany back-tracked on its pledge to stop funding fossil-fuels. [ com/news/articles/ 2022-06-25/germany-pushes-for-g-7-reversal-on-fossil-fuels-in-climate-blow] In August 2022, Germany re-started operations of hard coal-fired power stations. [ ] Other countries will follow.

    3. “[W]e are witnessing an unprecedented weather event.”

      Which, of course, is a lie. See the well-documented history of hurricane frequency and intensity since 1900. What has *decreased* is the destruction and deaths from those weather disasters — thanks to industrialization and fossil fuels.

      The climate chicken littles are pathologically dishonest. Every time you make an argument like this: Meteorologists cannot even predict accurately next week’s weather — they reply: Learn the difference between weather and climate. Then when there’s a *weather* event (drought, hurricane, flooding, heat, et al.), they wail: “See, climate change.”

      Finally, the climate nihilists have been spectacularly wrong for some 40 years. Whatever happened to global cooling? Warming? Acid rain? Ozone hole? The destroyers of productivity and comfort dropped those absurd claims — because they are *measurable,” and thus refutable.

      Then they concocted a scheme that is *not* measurable, and thus *not* refutable — climate “change.”

      1. The “experts” climate change predictions all require the use of computer models to ‘prove’ their claims. Computer models are only as reliable as the data fed into them and every one of them has a predetermined outcome as written by the programmer. It’s not any different than how algorithms are written to exclude undesirable so-called “misinformation” out of web search results. The programmer allows only preferred data into the calculation. Results: “proof” now of a future climate that can’t and will not be measured for decades to come. That’s not science. It’s at best, misdirection and hoping gullible people will continue to believe the steady diet of political misinformation being fed to them and not notice their rights to choose their own destiny being eroded little by little with each ‘prediction’.

  8. “We Don’t Have Due Process”

    Of course, you don’t. Remember no due process or free speech for ‘fascists’, right? And anything is justified when fighting ‘fascism’.

    And a ‘fascist’ is defined as anyone who opposes mass immigration, globohomo, forced vaccination (and with a ‘vaccine’ that didn’t work as promoted), abortion at 9 months, voted for Trump, etc. (not meant as an exhaustive list).

    And s@@libs openly admit this now.

    Just waiting for some s@@tlib to explain why due process (or free speech) is absolutely necessary for BLM or other leftists but not for those who disagree.

    And remember it only counts as ‘democracy’ (trademark applied for), if the ‘correct’ result is obtained.

    So Orban and Hungary is not ‘democracy’!

    Italy and Meloni is not ‘democracy’!

    The election of Trump was the result of Russian interference and certainly not ‘democracy’!

    The plebiscite reuniting the Donbas and Lugansk with the Russian Federation is not ‘democracy’.

    Brexit was not ‘democracy’ and should have been re-voted until the ‘correct’ result occurred.


    I do not want to dialog, understand or reconcile with these people. I WANT A DIVORCE.


    1. RE:”And a ‘fascist’ is defined as..” The word ‘fascist’ has now joined the word ‘racist’ as a tool to be employed by the fear-mongering bourgeoisie against an uneducated and uninformed proletariat. A dumbed down electorate that would rather Schiff than switch.

  9. > “The book appears to confirm the Katkaesque logic. It states that neither Pelosi nor Schiff wanted to risk a witness or member going off script by allowing true due process. When Nadler raised historical and constitutional objections, Schiff reported barked back that he needed to what “his tone” and complained “you’re putting us in a box.” That box is an effort to guarantee fairness and Nadler reportedly and correctly observed that “if we’re going to impeach, we need to show the country that we gave the president ample opportunity to defend himself.”

    Due process, in this case, is classified far above your level, Mr. Turley. As Senate majority leader Schumer pointed out to president Trump at the time ‘you don’t want to mess with the intelligence community (IC). They have six ways from Sunday at getting you.’ Which I thought was a remarkable statement for the senate majority leader.

    *only later it was reveled Hunter Biden was pulling down $77K/mo (not counting retainer) on the board of Burisma and that his father, VP Biden (now president Biden), famously gave Ukraine’s president ‘six hours’ to fire it’s AG investigating Burisma for corruption. .. which may, or may not, have anything to do with the conflict in Ukraine today.

  10. “Pointing out the destructiveness of the communist’s policies does absolutely nothing to dissuade the communist. Destruction is the point. Democrats are not failing. This is going exactly the way they want it to go.” -Jesse Kelly

  11. “I relied primarily on the Nixon and Clinton cases to show how far the House was far outside any historical navigational beacons. It turns out Nadler and his staff reached the same conclusion and cautioned Schiff and Pelosi to “Stick close to the Nixon and Clinton cases.” They refused.”

    Turley seems to think that the Nixon and Clinton cases are equivalent to what Trump’s transgressions. They were not. The fact that Trump was impeached twice and he’s currently embroiled in scandal after scandal involving crimes and breaking the law speaks volumes as to why Trump’s impeachment’s were unique.

    Turley wants to apply standards that applied to Nixon and Clinton that were in themselves unique. Clinton’s impeachment involved an affair which nobody really cared about. Nixon was involved in an actual crime. Trump twice was involved in endangering the institution of the presidency by seeking to blackmail a foreign government and incited a riot to interfere with a lawful electoral count by congress. Trump is more of a dictator than a president lo, an incompetent one at least.

    1. Thanks for showing that modern lefties don’t give a damn about anything other than their own power…pure sophistry and nihilism. Evil is a better word.

      1. The proof of your pudding is that we no longer have many if any Senators or Congresspeople in the shape of Senator Howard Baker, a Republican. He listened to many witnesses during the Nixon Impeachment process and finally put forth the question that determined the outcome. He simply asked this: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” A hush came over the room and anyone watching knew that a man of the same party as Nixon, had put forth the question that would determine the President’s fate.

        Integrity used to matter but has been dangerously put aside.

  12. As for the Jan 6 committee, the Republicans were going to sabotage it. Pelosi was right to reject members who were going to sabotage it. At least one of the proposed members was someone who the committee was going to investigate.

    Also impeachment is a political process, not criminal or civil. Thus there is not duty for due process at all.

    1. RE:”the Republicans were going to sabotage it..” This was a voir dire in every sense of the legal term. Fair and balanced was not going to suit her purpose. here. Only those Pelosi knew were committed No-Trumpers, had already made known so publicly and would dance to her piping, did she choose for that well prepared and rehearsed dog and pony show.

  13. Trump did an attempted coup, the first one in US history. He needed to be impeached quickly. The process they did use ended up being too slow.

    1. RE:”The process they did use ended up being too slow.” Have confidence that we are moving to a ‘from the courtroom to the hanging tree’ judicial system. Just remember that when a DOJ/FBI Swat Team comes for you on a false charge by a neighbor who’s pissed off at you because you park your pickup truck in your driveway.

      1. Johann, my mother always taught me not to argue with ignorance. Stop bringing facts into the equation. 🙂

      1. RE:”I think you meant to write that the Dems attempted a coup from the first days of President Trumps presidency.” No. They did not mean to write that, just as they will deny all the allegations from that vote that Trump stole the 2016 election, or that his opposition spent the next four years doing everything possible to sabotage that Presidency, notwithstanding the fact that the state of the nation was far more improved on Dec 31 2020, than we were on Jan 20 and thereafter.

      2. From before that – they attempted to keep him out of office in the first place by colluding with the opposing nominee to disseminate what they knew were lies. To deceive and hoodwink the electorate.

    2. Was this a coup by FJB supporters?

      The decision to physically move the President came as protesters confronted Secret Service officers outside the White House for hours on Friday – shouting, throwing water bottles and other objects at the line of officers, and attempting to break through the metal barriers.

      Why do you support this coup?

  14. Turley seems to have faulty memory. First of all it’s still an allegation that supposedly happened. Until it is confirmed it will remain just an allegation.

    Second. The issue of witnesses ignores the fact that republicans were not cooperating with the impeachment process and when they did offer to cooperate it was so they could obstruct an obfuscate. Republicans were focused on protecting Trumpy bear from his own stupidity and big mouth which got him in trouble in the first place. Even Governor DeSantis has called him a moron who had no business being in office. That supports former Trump administration officials echoing that exact same sentiment.

    Turley forgets that any witness would have been intimidated or would have fought a subpoena to delay and obfuscate and drag out the proceeding as it is Trump’s M.O. when it comes to dealing with those trying to hold him accountable for his malfeasance just as he is doing now with his own handpicked special master. Trump is no longer president and no longer enjoys the privilege of immunity from prosecution. He has painted himself into a very tight corner with no way out. Turley is doing his best to distract from the debacle that is of Trump’s doing.

    At present Trump’s lawyers are complaining that the DOJ is publicly exposing their objections in court because they wanted to hide their objections from public scrutiny. What happened to that whole transparency schtick? Why is Trump trying to hide from his own lying? He shot his mouth off now he is trying to avoid the consequences. Typical.

  15. RE:” Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi overrode objections from Nadler”… I don’t recall a course in Moral and Ethical Turpitude having been offered by the Department of Political Science at my college nor did my wife have one offered by her law school. It must be an elective offered by the House and Senate and attractive to individuals of a certain deviant bent.

  16. Hurley comes in firmly with the camp. “By what ever means necessary”. The exact opposite of rule of law, due proccess, innocent until proven guilty, secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    I hope he experiences exactly what he advocates for.

  17. You may notice that Trump files more frivolous lawsuits than just about everyone in the country. He is investigated a lot. His strategy in every case is to delay and delay and appeal those delays and never testify. Ultimately, he almost never ends up testifying about anything – because really he is a pathological liar and his lawyers do everything to avoid him saying anything under oath. You will note he was never asked to give any sort of testimony or interview in the Mueller investigation.

    Trump has plenty of assistance in this strategy with various conservative commentators and law professors screaming on all kinds of TV and social media to slow things down and give Trump more process. Even Trump-appointed Judges like Judge Cannon get in the act and give him a Special Master to slow things down when no other person under investigation would get one.

    Turley knows that if the Democrats in Congress ever gave Trump all the “due process” they claim then it will never be enough, everything will be appealed in court and appealed again, and the whole thing will become moot before it ever comes to a vote.

    1. Hurley: Right on man! But beware. Those of us who try to point out all of Trump’s illegalities are considered nut cases. But don’t be so pessimistic. I think Trump’s tactic of delay, obstruct and stall will come to an end. The lawsuits are piling up and one of them is going to bring him down. But I have one correction. Remember that back in April Trump was forced to sit down for a deposition in the case the NY AG just filed against the Trump organization. Trump took the 5th hundreds of times. And this is a civil case so a jury can draw adverse inferences from Trump’s refusal to answer questions. So keep up the fight!

      1. Interested in reading the book certainly. I’m under no false illusions about either impeachment though as there were R senators who said the reasons for not convicting had nothing to do with lack of witness due process. Everyone knew getting Bolton for example to testify was tied to Mcghan’s case not yet being settled…

        Instead, the reasons given by R senators for not convicting the first time that there was an election coming within a year, and the second time that Trump had already lost so why convict him when he was leaving and his coup attempt had failed.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: