GOP Senators Vote to Conceal Evidence and a Republic Dies

GOP Senators Vote to Conceal Evidence and a Republic Dies February 1, 2020

Hey, Senate Republicans – What are you afraid of?

I think I know.

If you’ve been following the Trump impeachment saga, you know by now that the GOP has laid aside any feigned allegiance to the Constitution or the rule of law, in order to protect their king, Donald Trump.

This week saw Senate Republicans – with the exception of Utah Senator Mitt Romney and Maine Senator Susan Collins – vote to suppress witness testimony or the introduction of evidentiary documents into the impeachment trial of President Trump.

Is it then, a trial, or a mockery of our system?

Just as he walked away from the Russia investigation, due to a complicit Attorney General Bill Barr, Trump will walk away from this latest act of corruption, as well. The sniveling cowards of the GOP-majority Senate will acquit. There was never a question about that.

The question is: WHY??

I suspect the fear of Trump’s rabid, mindless cult. They lack anything resembling reason, rational thought, patriotism, or morality.

They see the corruptness of Trump, his abusiveness and lies, and as it is with any dangerous cult, if the central figure of their adoration says it’s ok, then it is the gospel.

The danger is that a desperately corrupt Trump will only be emboldened by this move of cowardice from Senate Republicans, as will the puppet masters pulling Trump’s strings.

We have leadership in Washington that are more afraid of getting voted out of office than they are loyal to our nation’s foundational principles.

And yes, that goes for both sides of the political aisle. They’re all scoundrels.

But for now, we should all be curious as to how this can even be called a trial, when there are witnesses willing to come forward, but Republicans don’t want to hear from them.

Take for instance, Lev Parnas. He has some stories to tell, along with audio and images, that could add a bit of weight to the decision making process.

On Friday, as Republicans took their blood oath to Trump over the Constitution, Parnas’ attorney reached out to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in an attempt to offer his client’s testimony.

In the letter, Joseph Bondy tells McConnell that Parnas, an indicted associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, would be able to tell the Senate information that is “directly relevant to the President’s impeachment inquiry,” specifically regarding Parnas’s relationship with Trump and Giuliani as well as his “actions in Ukraine on behalf of the President, as directed by Mr. Giuliani.”

This is an uncomfortable connection that the GOP does not want to be made publicly, nor do they want the responsibility of hearing something that might prove their leader every bit as dirty as multiple reports have made him out to be.

The contents are similar to what Parnas said in his sit-down interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow two weeks ago. Both the letter and interview indicate that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry and several other officials within the Trump administration were aware of the pressure campaign in Ukraine that is at the center of Trump’s impeachment.

They knew.

For those who have read my work for any amount of time, you know I’ve been an avid supporter of Rick Perry in the past, supporting him in both his failed presidential bids. What a disappointment it is to see him succumb to the cancer of Trumpism he once denounced with such fervency.

Bondy tweeted out the letter he sent to McConnell on Friday, detailing what his client could offer, by way of testimony and evidence.

Sadly, it was all for naught. Republicans had made up their minds before proceedings ever began.

Trump defense lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, declared openly that as long as Trump feels it benefits him, anything goes. There is no law. There is no order. There is no God. There is only Trump.

We’re living in a desperately perilous time in our nation’s history.

We have a lawless, unrestrained would-be dictator at the helm of power, on one side, and on the other side are crazed socialists and anarchists, looking to topple the republic, in favor of a system of government that would put us all in chains.

Republicans could have done better. They could have been heroes, but they chose to be cowards. Their narrow Friday vote of 51-49 was a vote to conceal evidence. They voted to uphold Trump’s corruption.

The last, dying gasp of a free republic rests solely with them.

 

 


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • In the Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu wrote that the virtue required for republics is the love of law and of country. It’s absolutely dumbfounding to watch the people who call themselves Republicans/Conservatives/Constitutionalists/Patriots dance and sing in celebration of the progressive Dershowitz’s bastardization of the Constitution.

    And the Republican Party’s rejection of Originalist arguments to defend Trump hasn’t gone unnoticed either. The Progressives have picked up on it and see it as an opportunity to attack Republicans on their inconsistencies. Ultimately though they plan on using the Republicans infidelity to discredit Originalism. And if anyone has been paying attention to the Democrat primary, I try not to myself, but they have been salivating at the chance to invoke their own “emergency” powers to override the Congress/Constitution, thanks in part to the Republicans overwhelming support of Trump usurping power to do it.

    Those are some of the ramifications of the corrupt Republican Party’s actions. To continue empowering them is to aid in our own detriment.

    Let us read now from the book of republicanism.

    22 Many Republican Party members will say to us on election day, did we not get into spats in then name of republicanism, and in its name cast out Democrats, and in its name perform many Republican Party policies? 23 And as citizens of a republic we should declare to them, “We never knew you, depart from us, you who practice lawlessness.”

  • JASmius

    The fix was always in on the Trump impeachment trial just as it was for Bill Clinton’s twenty one years ago. Sick Willie was never going to be removed, just as Trump was never going to be now. The difference between that impeachment trial and this one is that back in early 1999 the Democrats at least went through the motions of honoring the process with witnesses and documentary evidence. They didn’t turn it into an in-your-face sham because they knew they didn’t have to, because they had the votes to acquit their gang leader. They could make that look at least semi-legitimate, and that’s what they did. Senate Trumplicans aren’t even doing that much now because Trump won’t let them; he wants to make a mockery of the whole process because he considers it (as he does everything else) a personal affront. He recognizes no limitations on his power, and that’s why his so-called “defense” was a blatant declaration of same. And Moscow Mitch’s crew are, depending on the senator, either so corrupted by or terrified of him that they all (except for Romney and Collins) fell into line.

    It’s not that they, or Trump’s team, fear additional evidence; it’s that they’ve all made it clear that they don’t care about evidence, no matter how voluminous it is. They’ve now made it abundantly and publicly clear that they consider Trump to be an absolute monarch the questioning of whose absolute power is not to be tolerated.

    Taking down Trump may no longer be possible “within the system,” as it were. That’ll be determined in November. And if the 2020 election goes off the rails as well, America is headed for territory darker even than the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.

  • Alpha 1

    Impeachment was never going to succeed. Institutions exist to serve power, laws mean nothing if nobody will enforce them, and a Republican senate won’t remove a Republican president. The question was always what would come from the failure of impeachment.

    If I had to guess, Trump’s acquittal alone won’t lead to any sort of mass political mobilization: the trial narrowly focused on the boring and convoluted Ukraine scandal, which has no resonance with most people’s lives. However, I think it could still radicalize and politically activate otherwise passive liberals. From Comey to Mueller to the Ukraine whistleblower, they’ve spent years hoping that America’s institutions could check Trump and hold him accountable. The failure of impeachment is the final proof that they can’t. The only way to get justice is to build a competing base of power outside of the existing system, and hopefully liberals will give up on procedural solutions and start working to build this power.

  • Cousin_Ken

    Hello BTG,
    Good read from a good book “We never knew you, depart from us.”
    Electoral Punishment for the Congress Trumpists.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    In other words, you are advocating violence and civil war as “the only answer”.

    No thank you – I reject your solution and your so-called “logic”.

    You are not even an American — you claim to be a Socialist Canadian, aren’t you — COMRADE ? — you sound like a Russian propagandist / agitator.

  • Bob Marks

    Progressive though he may be, I found Dershowitz’s presentment persuasive. What part of it was bastardization? Facts and witnesses should have been presented in the House. Why were they not? Why the need for more witnesses other than to drag this socialist inspired charade on even longer? Also, even with more witnesses, what facts could be uncovered that would meet the minimum standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors?” To call the process “fake” is just not substantiated by the facts or lack thereof.

  • Complete disconnect!

    #Impeachment was a sham by design! Used to boost the division of #cult45, their support only grew and it helped the Dem’s save the needed level of their reputation fulfilling their own #cult.

    Stop talking & pretending this was a serious effort. It’s a #unibrow system!
    Nothing died, there were no amendments added or removed. What It did was elevated presidential power, yet again, and being a unibrow system it helps BOTH parties!

    Evidence: a #fakeRepublican is signing all bills violating every #fakeCampaignPromise he’s ever made. Before him, the @GOP was selling their souls to large government via the Dems. The ONLY ppl doing #4D is the #talkerCult over-thinking all this.

    Trump is just play simple #Hopscotch as a Dem with an “R” title. UNIBROW!

  • IllinoisPatriot

    So Trump telling his administration to obstruct Congress by not providing subpoena’d documents or witnesses, then claiming that no evidence was produced so no crime could have been committed is OK with you ?

    What do you think the Obstruction of Congress charge was all about if it was not about Trump ordering his administration not to comply with legal and Constitutional oversight and investigations ? What would be YOUR standard of “Obstruction of Congress/Obstruction of Justice if you do not consider Trump’s order to be such ?

    Congress had a choice and made a perfectly valid decision to go with an obstruction charge instead of waiting years for Trump’s objections to be shot down by the courts while Trump’s election manipulation proceeded unchecked and unchallenged.

    By putting the Republicans on trial (and make no mistake — when the GOP decided not to admit evidence or call witnesses, it was the GOP — not Trump — that was on trial, the Dems all but insured the demise of the GOP at the ballot box.

    No amount of damage control will convince voters now that the GOP cares one iota about Rule-of-Law or about the Constitution or about “good leadership”. The GOP is now just as corrupt (if not more so) than the Dems that voted party-line and twisted themselves in to pretzels to acquite Clinton of perjury and abuse of power during Clitnton’s impeachment.

    Furthermore, the GOp no longer has any standing to claim that the Democrats are corrupt or party-over-country after this sham “trial” at which no evidence or witnesses were allowed.

    IF (and it’s a BIG ‘if’) Trump is re-elected, I look for him to be re-impeached in 2021 — likely over the very testimony, documents and other evidence that the courts will force him to release that he is currently trying to withhold from Congress in order to obstruct their investigation and impeachment efforts.

    This time, the Dems will have control of BOTH houses of Congress and McConnell will NOT be able to protect the President or himself if he gets called as a witness…..

  • Alpha 1

    Where did I say America needs a civil war? There’s plenty of power beyond violence. Republican senators protect Trump because they are beholden to two groups: Their primary voters who love Trump and their big money donors who like his tax cuts. A alternative power base would be able to overwhelm those without violence.

    To build it, the Democrats need two things: the first is a dedicated, mobilized voting base organized around a platform that tangibly improves their lives, which is distinct from the Democrats current strategy of taking their voters hostage while they tack right to try (and fail) to appeal to Republican voters. Current political calculus is premised on most people not voting, and changing that would make losing the general election a bigger risk for Republicans than losing their primary. The second thing Democrats need is a labour movement that can shut down the Republican donor’s profits through strikes and other actions. Take a look at France right now: the country is paralyzed by a general strike. Imagine if Americans could strike the same way until Trump was removed from office. If the Democrats had those, the results of this impeachment would be very different.

    By the way, Jagmeet Singh sends his regards.

  • Patricia Silverman

    amazes me that you justify the joke of an investigation in the house, all they had was 2 and 3rd hand reports and options, when the only opinion that counts if that of the president. Jesus would not like the lies coming from the democrats, when he was here he kicked them out of the temple

  • captcrisis

    The first hand people were called but refused to show. That’s not what is supposed to happen under the Constitution.

  • Patricia Silverman

    when they were first called there was no mandate to investigate, they were in such a hurry to get it done they refused to wait for the courts to rule and it was all democrats not one republican. and ifr youy are going to site the constitution when you also have to say the investigation in the house was rigged, go watch for your self

  • Patricia Silverman

    and how about the treasonous conduct of democrats, all made up or are you so blind with trump derangement syndrome that you can not see that democrats at the present time are the ones trashing the constitution?

  • IllinoisPatriot

    It does not matter when “they were called”. The fact they refused to comply with legal Congressional subpoenas at Trump’s direction and under Trump’s “protection” is all we have to know. The fact that Trump ordered them NOT to appear OR to comply with congressional oversight OR to provide subpoena’d documents is obstruction in-and-of itself. There is no requirement ANYWHERE for investigators to have to go to court for years to enforce legally-issued subpoenas in order to get witness testimony in a legal investigation.

    NO ONE is above the law — that INCLUDES Donald “Jenius” Trump — even if he’s the sitting President of the United States.

    Since the threat of Trump’s actions in the Ukraine was very much a threat to the security, integrity and fairness of our elections in 2020, speed was of the essence and there was no time to allow Trump to drag out the court cases for years before finally losing (but in the meantime destroying the integrity of our elections and destroying faith in our elections by over half the voting population of the US)….

    The fact that you think the house investigation was a “joke” because Trump’s game was to delay compliance with what he knew were legal requirements until the elections were over (and his manipulations and abuse of power concerning Ukraine could guarantee that Biden would be discredited, thereby removing the only REAL electoral challenger he faced), is totally and completely irrelevant.

    The fact that the GOP has exposed itself as no longer a serious political party and as no longer caring about rule-of-law in the US has already destroyed any hope they have for re-election in 2020 — much less wins in 2024 — no matter what Trump may blather in his various rantings.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    They WOULD have been compelled to show had not Trump interceded with his phony “Executive Privilege” claim that Trump was counting on to delay proceedings at least until his obstruction paid dividends by allowing him to rig the elections by discrediting his Democrat rivals.

    Trump has done this before — many times — use the courts to delay adverse actions while he takes advantage and walks away with millions — then (if the courts find against him, he keeps appealing the decisions until the people/person he has cheated give up or go bankrupt and can no longer afford the court costs. In this instance, I think the Dems forced his hand by simply adding an obstruction charge and refusing the chase his rabbit down its judiciary hole.

    This force the GOP to expose their hand and produce a party-line vote to try to protect Trump, thinking this would improve their election chances with his “base”. What the GOP mis-calculated (in my opinion) is that the voting public IS paying attention and (as has been the case since 2016) continues to turn against Trump at the polls and in opinion while the noisy alt-right and sycophants in Trump’s orbit keep feeding his ego with lies and flattery rather than the truth.

  • Patricia Silverman

    so you do not care about the law, must be a democrat. befor the whole hoyuse voted for the inquire it was n ot a legal investigation learn to read and learn the law

  • IllinoisPatriot

    What makes you think it was not a legal investigation ? Because Trump said so ? Because Trump is trying to discredit the investigation because he knows he’s guilty ?

    The facts speak for themselves: Trump pulled the assigned ambassador for no reason other than he was told she was “bad-mouthing” him — no proof – just Trump’s ego. Trump admits as much. Guiliani was spreading lies and Trump’s demand for a quid pro quo – Trump finally admitted to the quid pro quo when he could no longer deny it and has presented no proof whatsoever that contradicts any of the testimony or evidence presented by the Democrats.

    So what makes you so sure the investigation was not “legal” ? Trump has no leg to stand on. The Executive branch is only one of 3 EQUAL branches of our government. It is subject to oversight by Congress which is the 1st branch covered in the Constitution – AND the peoples’ representatives. Trump (like Obama before him) is trying to ignore the Constitution which is the very basis of his authority.

    If he continues down this path, he sets the stage for a general uprising and either an armed revolution or civil war and it will be the fault of the power-grabbing executives like Trump/Obama and the cult-followings they have among BOTH the (D) and (R) parties.

    People are getting fed up with Trump’s abuses, his arrogance, and his ignorance of our Constitution and our government. If it were not for people in the current government civil and military service that have more level heads and more rational behavior than Trump, Trump’s rash actions and lack of self-control would have already either resulted in military action to remove him from power or Congressional / Cabinet-level action to remove him.

    As it is, Trump is barely holding onto power, but continuously losing his grip on both his sanity and his hold on that power he so craves.

  • Patricia Silverman

    because the constitution does not allow an investigation in impeachment by any one senator, the whole house has to approve the invention, learn the law and stop being a fool, the world does not work as you say. the law rules in this country and your prime people need to be charged with treason

  • John225

    Treason flows from being in a state of war and supporting the enemy of your country in that conflict. Where there is no international conflict there is no treason. When Russia engages in cyberwarfare on the US democratic system they are engaging in a conflict whether the US has a response to that action or not, so called asymmetric engagement. The Russian divisions that engaged in the cyberwarfare were/are part of the Russian intelligence network. There are indictments against 13 Russian Nationals who were members of the IRA based in Saint Petersburg and 12 Officers of the GRU. How complicit the president was in the actions the Russians took against the US is unprovable. Trump and his minions conducted their business in face to face meetings with no recordings, notes, phone records, or emails. Some of their meetings were even conducted offshore in places like the Seychelles where they knew their activity wouldn’t be monitored. Trump and his organization where very cunning to avoid leaving any paper trail. There has been a lot of Russian and Saudi money flowing into Trumps business since the early 2000’s.

    Russia certainly doesn’t see the US as an ally but a foe, they convicted four FSB officers early last year of treason for passing information to the FBI. Around the time that these men were charged Russia ended cooperation with the US on cyber-criminal activity. Russia engages cybercriminals to conduct state sponsored clandestine operations against foreign entities. In exchange for their cooperation these cybercriminals get to steal abroad with immunity. It seems that the FSB – Center for Information Security inadvertently outed the GRU’s cyberwarfare operations to the FBI. The men are Colonel Sergei Mikhailov, Ruslan Stoyanov, Georgy Forchenkov, Dimitry Dokvenchayev.

  • Alpha 1

    The Democrats are a waste. I’m a socialist, so I can assure you I hate the Democratic party for more and better reasons than conservatives ever could. The reason they had to narrowly focus on the boring Ukraine scandal is because all of Trump’s worst crimes, from Yemen to Epstein, implicate high-level Democrats in some way.

  • John225

    House committees are free to conduct investigations into presidential conduct without whole house aproval. President Clinton was investigated before the mater was brought before the house. Committee chairmen have the same power for impeachment as for any other issue within the jurisdiction of the committee: to investigate, subpoena witnesses, and prepare a preliminary report of findings. The opinion you are leaning on is a current DOJ opinion under the guidence of a Trump apointed Attorney General, is not based on any constitutional wording, and very conveniently aligns with the whitehouse. It is a they didn’t cross the t’s and dot the i’s therefore I get out of jail free type of argument.

  • Patricia Silverman

    guess we both have opinions but since no one challenged it in court we do not know for sure do we?. But all the [people putting out their opinion as fact only makes for liars

  • IllinoisPatriot

    The WH does NOT need to “approve” impeachments – what kind of fool are you to believe such ?

    What criminal would EVER “approve” an investigation against himself ? Are you out of your mind ? (Trump-Cult Derangement Sysndrom does that)….

    As to your belief that “one senator” did all the investigation or started the impeachment, pray tell us all: Which senator did that and how ? You throw around generalities, but you never provide speicfics… If you have a senator in mind (and you clearly do) which senator “started impeachment” and which senator (by constitution) “started” the impeachment investigation ? The Constitution clearly states that all impeachments must be started in the HOR, so clearly it is YOU not paying attention to the law (you and the Trump WH and the rest of the Trump cult).

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Since I have no idea who or what a “Jagmeet Singh” is, I can only assume its some left-leaning idol that you Atheist-types worship — much like the Trump cult worships their orange-painted idol and the Obama-cult worshipped their idol-in-black-face before that.

  • Patricia Silverman

    so sorry your false flag argument will not flyTrump did not tell his administration to obstruct, that is a fantasy made up by the democrats, the democrats showed in the house they do not care about facts. truth or the law, your blue wave is gonna die you all do not know how to act in public so sorry resist has worked to turn off Americans

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Just what “invention” does the “whole house” have to approve ? I believe you MEANT to say “A majority vote in the House has to approve”…. That vote was taken and passed. There is no requirement for a vote to start an investigation — whether into impeachment or into any area for which Congress has oversight and into which the HOR (or Senate) committee chairman has any kind of evidence has become corrupt or out-of-control.

    You keep saying others need to “read and learn the law”, yet you continue to spout extra-legal theories as if they were law and bogus excuses as if they were legally valid.

    It’s clear that the one here that needs to “read and learn” the law is YOU — starting with the US Constitution and the fact that the US Constitution trumps any Congressional law or Executive Order and the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to oversee and even impeach the President for misconduct in office.

    When a 3rd party tells witnesses they don’t have to testify in a criminal trial or tells them what to say / what not to say, that is called “witness tampering”.

    When a 3rd party destroys or hides evidence so the prosecution cannot present a case or otherwise actively interferes in an investigation with the purpose of preventing the discovery of incriminating information, that is called “Obstruction of Justice”.

    When a President exerts “executive privilege”, it must be for specific purpose over specific documents or information. Trump’s attempt to tamper with witnesses by telling them not to testify is not “executive priviledge”, but “witness tampering”. The witnesses STILL need to be responsive to lawfully issued Congressional subpoenas and must STILL show up to testify at which time they may respond to questions by stating “executive privilege”. Same with documents. SOME documents may be subject to executive privilege, but to expect the public to believe that ALL documents are so protected is absurd and a fantasy. Such actions have clearly passed into the realm of “Obstruction of Congress”.

    As to your writing style, a little capitalization and punctuation would go a long way to making you appear more educated than the garden-variety 2nd-grader you currently appear to be.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Not a Democrat — I do believe in the law — I believe the law applies to ALL men – including Donald “Jenius” Trump.

  • Patricia Silverman

    you can not read either, you made a claim, the white house made a claim, now the courts have to judge watch how you argue you do not know me but I am learning about you

  • chemical

    Just for reference, I am a Democrat, and if there is one person who is definitely 100% not in the Democratic party, it’s IllinoisPatriot.

  • chemical

    Nice to see you again, my old frenemy.

    I had to do a spit-take when you got accused of being a Democrat.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Same here.

    You’ll also note that Patricia “knows me” (her words). I got a chuckle out of that claim. … a Trumpist to the core – including the lack of education and the complete absence of any civics education….

    I know we disagree on a lot, but I think we both keep our eyes on what are facts are what are opinions and neither of us confuses the two very often. That is both refreshing and rare and allows for cordial disagreement and the building of mutual trust and respect.

    Unfortunately, reasoned disagreement is all too rare to today’s crop of radicalized cultists on both sides of the aisle…..

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Preach it brother !!!!

    🙂

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Except for the fact that multiple people testified to the fact that Trump put out “executive guidance” (“by order of the President”) to all his senior staff and that was the cited reason why most of the people subpoena’d by Congress refused to show up to testify and refused to comply with the subpoenas.

    You’d know that if you’d been paying any attention to the facts instead of just listening to the twit-in-chief’s fake denials on twitter.

  • Patricia Silverman

    ok you asked for it, i do pay attention, more then you, the entire investigation in the house was run by Schriff, who has claimed for 3 years that there was Russian collusion, where there was none. he conducted a inquiry in secreat and all his witnesses were 2nd and third hand, no one with knowledge, and the democrats made it all up, now unless you have evidence that will hold up in a court of law stop with your opinions as fact your opinion of Trump is flat out wrong, now go away little boy and do some research because you think you know it all and it turns out you only know the lies of the democrats. a patriot you are not.

  • chemical

    We’re not quite that prone to groupthink. I mean, we’re having a hard time narrowing down our list of potential presidential candidates to less than 9000. Not too long ago, I think I was running for president myself.

    Romney did earn a lot of my respect yesterday, though. I’ve never seen a politician willingly commit political suicide before.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Come to think of it, I probably DID get one of your “vote for me for President” ads in my inbox… 🙂

    Romney earned a small amount of respect from me as well. Considering that his political career (such as it is) does not stand up to scrutiny or in any establish a set of principles or standards that he lives by anyway (his history in Mass does NOT measure up against his claims to conservatism in Utah for instance), his vote against Trump (after Trump has repeatedly berated him, his faith, his constituents, and his political history)) means very little other than there is highly likely to be personal animosity between the two.

    Nonetheless, there are reports out today that many in the GOP voted to acquit Trump purely out of fear and mentioned that Trump operatives have threatened GOP Senators that were considered at risk of voting against Trump.. A more blatant case of witness intimidation and tampering I could not imagine — which just goes to show that we need to remove ALL the GOP Senators (AND the DNC ones as well before you get the wrong ideas) and start over with completely new (hopefully more honest and honorable) people in Congress — BOTH houses !

  • IllinoisPatriot

    1. Schiff is NOT a Senator as you insisted above. He is a Representatove from California.

    2. Schiff DID subpoena and call 1st-hand witnesses (Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc), but they cowardly refused to comply with the subpoenas and hid behind Trump’s (illegal) instruction to obstruct Congress by not cooperating with them in any way.

    In order to try to get the impeachment to trial before the election (to force GOP Senators to vote prior to elections), the Dems opted not to wait the 2-3 years Trump could delay compliance by dragging things through the courts.

    Most of the country understands this and since the Dems will likely now go through the courts to get the information, documents and testimony Trump is trying to cover-up and hide, we can expect to see bits and pieces of Trump malfeasance hitting the airwaves during the election process. Bits and pieces of proof of Trump corruption and obstruction and abuse of power….. Expect a Blue Tsunami in November…..

    The claim that there was no Russian collusion is a lie told by Trump. Several Russian agencies and individuals were sent to prison and some of Trump’s campaign management was also sent to prison for their actions in colluding with the Russian KGB cyberwarfare groups during 2016 and after.

    Paul Manafort and Lev Parnas are only two that immediately come to mind….

    The issue with the Mueller investigation was not that there was no evidence, it’s that Trump (again) told his people not to cooperate and did everything in his power to obstruct and shut down the investigation, thereby denying Mueller access to the documents and witnesses that would have proven Trump guilty. Many of the witnesses flat-out lied under oath to Mueller’s investigators and that took time and effort to prove the lies in court which then made the rest of their testimony suspect.

    Mueller did not find Trump innocent by a long shot. Mueller found over 10 instances where Trump obstructed justice and his investigation and documented those in his report. Because of Trump’s obstruction and witness intimidation (as well as Trump dangling pardons for anyone that would lie to Mueller), Mueller was unable to prove Trump’s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even if Mueller HAD the information (and the obstruction of justice charge was a slam dunk), Williarm Barr (Trump’s new AG) was poised to sweep any evidence under the rug and declare Trump innocent (which is exactly what he did) once he got the report.

    Add to that the long-standing DOJ policy (long-standing since at least the Clinton impeachment) that no sitting President can be indicted for any crime and Trump essentially had a get-out-of-jail-free card even if he was unable to totally obstruct and hide/destroy all incriminating information Mueller found.

    I note that Trump now claims Florida as his “official residence” — I’m guessing that NYC is now too hot for him to live there anymore and there are likely several outstanding warrants for his arrest as soon as he is no longer President. Either that or Melania has kicked him out of Trump tower and will be keeping the penthouse for herself & Barron after their divorce.

    My opinion of Trump has not changed since before his campaign. I could tell within a few minutes of hearing him blather about things he knows nothing about that he’s corrupt (he has a lifetime of corruption and bankruptcies, divorces and failed enterprises behind him), that he’s ignorant, arrogant, petty, immature, thin-skinned, bigoted, racist, and corrupt in all his dealings. Trump has yet to disprove my opinion.

    What I don’t understand is how you manage to ignore so much about the man that is on open display for the rest of the world to see. I don’t understand how you can think Trump is other than what he has demonstrated himself to be for the past 3+ years.

    It takes some pretty willful, industrial-grade ignorance to think that Trump is in any way a conservative, a Christian or even a “man” rather than just a spoiled child with delusions of competency.

  • Patricia Silverman

    so sorry I am done with you way to many lies, I never said Schiff was a senator learn how to read, opinions require the courts to resolve unless you want to resort to violence, if you can not tell that Schiff is a liar I can not help you, and if you did not witness the unconstitutional way he ran the investigation for the house , I also can not help you except to say your version of law is Russian or totalitarian and not USA now go away little boy, you have demonstrated you can not read, can not see and can not think so I am done with you say what you want you do anyway

  • cindy blandin~Sound a Warning

    Your ignorance is showing. There is NO law….certainly NOT in the Constitution….. that says the whole house has to approve an investigation (not invention) before an impeachment inquiry may commence.

  • cindy blandin~Sound a Warning

    You might do what you think others should do before you write something so devoid of facts.

  • cindy blandin~Sound a Warning

    1. Yes, Schiff (not Schriff), conducted one leg of the investigation into Trump’s misdeeds.

    2. It was NOT conducted in secret (not secreat). My Republican Representative sat on 2 of the 3 committees investigating Trump. He very well could have sat in on any of those committee proceedings and asked questions. Instead, he chose to protest outside the SCIF with other Republican representative who were not allowed in the meetings because….wait for it…..they were NOT members of the committees. That is how committees work. Only committee members may attend. Eventually what the committees found was presented to the entire House…so again, NOT in secret.

    3. There were first hand witnesses to the disastrous July 20th phone call….Lt Colonel Vindman, Jennifer Williams.There were plenty of other first hand witnesses not to the phone call, but to other circumstances that happened long before the phone call.

    4. The OMB stated very clearly that Trump illegally withheld funds approved by Congress for Ukraine, and that Trump and others in his cabinet were aware the hold was illegal. That is a fact. Not opinion. Trump violated the law at the very least.

    5. Does your device not have spell checker? Do the finer points of capitalization and punctuation evade you? There are programs to help with that. Besides your obvious lack of understanding of the facts and the process, it would make you seem a little less uneducated. Not trying to offend (though I am sure I probably did), but trying to help. In presenting yourself better, others might be less dismissive of your opinion.

    By the way….did you watch any of the House impeachment inquiry or the Senate trial for yourself? I did. The evidence against Trump is quite compelling and convicting. I am not a Democrat. Never have been. I was a lifelong Republican for 40 years before Trump and his supporters made the party unrecognizable.