I agree, Schiff has consistently ignored how ridiculous this process is under his leadership...NO serious person would do to this country what he is doing.
And he is failing even more miserably that Fat Jerry with this Mueller testimony disaster.
SCHIFF SHOW FAILS:
Poll finds sharp swing in opposition to impeachment among independents.
“The new poll found 49 percent oppose impeachment compared to 34 percent who support it. In October, 48 percent of independents polled supported impeachment, against 39 percent who opposed. Since October, Emerson has found Trump’s job approval rating jump by 5 points, from 43 percent to 48 percent.”
And in another
Poll: Trump Approval Rating Hits Net Positive As Support For Impeachment Plummets.
NUNES is wetting his pants
Devin Nunes was directly involved in the push for Biden Ukraine investigations, says Lev Parnas
Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani, says he helped arrange meetings between Nunes and Ukrainians.
Nunes is doing his job regardless, and this is his job to investigate corruption.
That's right. Dems get very uptight about this, because the investigation into the corrupt interference with the 2016 election appears to have been orchestrated by the Obama Administration and the attempts to drive Trump from office, their insurance policy in the unlikely event he was elected, has been carried out by Obama's leftovers.
But, their problem is that the President Electorate selects our President, not Obama/Clinton/Biden and the Deep State and removal of a President require broad bipartisan consensus, and broad bipartisan consensus requires overwhelming courtroom quality evidence of Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes, not this hearsay crap and staff pissed off that the boss doesn't agree with them.
The difficulty of successfully removing a duly elected president makes it absolutely imperative that there must be a broad consensus of politically accountable Senators that agree that the misconduct is outrageous enough to warrant removal.
In order to prevent bitter partisans from removing a duly elected President over policy disagreements or personal dislike, the Framers made removal extraordinarily difficult. Two-thirds of senators must vote to convict. In a self-determining republic, the electoral process should decide who the president is; and our Framers came very close to dispensing with an impeachment remedy entirely and allowing elections alone to decide whether a president should be maintained in office. This notion was abandoned owing to the need to ensure that a traitorous president could be removed before doing mortal damage. But the sentiment remained that, except in cases of indisputable high-level malfeasance, it was for the people, not a legislative process, to remove the chief executive.
The Constitution’s impeachment formula ensures that no president will be ousted from office unless his misconduct is so blatantly condemnable and disqualifying that a public consensus for removal forms — one so strong that it drives a supermajority of senators to convict, regardless of their partisan or ideological ties.
Unless the President engages in misconduct that spurs a consensus that the president is unfit, he will not be removed and should not be impeached.
In this instance the President has not engaged in such conduct and there is nothing even remotely resembling and broad bipartisan consensus that he should be removed from power. Indeed, we are in an election year and if the Presidential Electorate does not want him to continue, they will so state and his presidency will end.
House Democrats allege that the president exploited his foreign-relations power to pressure Ukraine’s government to conduct a corruption investigation of a potential 2020 Democratic opponent, former vice president Joe Biden, largely based on the lavish compensation paid to Biden’s son Hunter by a corrupt energy company while Biden was point-man for Obama-administration Ukraine policy. Despite the palpable conflict of interest, the vice president, during a visit to Ukraine, demanded that then-president Petro Poroshenko either fire a prosecutor who was investigating the energy company or forfeit $1 billion in financial aid. As Biden himself later recounted, in a 2018 panel discussion at an event for
Foreign Affairs:
“I said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of *****, he got fired.”
(Democrats contend that the prosecutor was corrupt and that Biden was carrying out administration policy, not protecting his son.)
President Trump also wanted Zelensky to get to the bottom of Ukraine’s role in the Obama administration’s 2016 investigation of the Trump campaign. Potential abuses of power in that investigation are currently under investigation by the Justice Department. Trump is alleged to have made Ukraine’s investigative help on the Bidens and on 2016 the price tag — the quid pro quo — for the release of nearly $400 million in congressionally authorized military aid that Kyiv needed to defend itself against Russian aggression, and for a White House visit sought by Zelensky. Ultimately, though, the defense aid was transmitted, Trump met with Zelensky and Ukraine was not required to investigate the Bidens.
Most Democrats look at this transaction and discern a blatant impeachable offense: bribery. They also see executive abuse that amounts to high crimes and misdemeanors: the leveraging of presidential power for partisan political advantage (something that, ironically, Democrats were indifferent to when the issue was the Obama administration’s investigation of the Trump campaign).
Most Republicans look at the Ukraine discussions and see much ado about nothing. Ukraine got the defense funding and, for the most part, did not even know its transfer was in doubt. The president did not force Ukraine to investigate the Bidens to get the funds; even if he had done so, the statute authorizing the funding requires the executive branch to ensure that Kyiv is rooting out corruption.
Trump also wanted Ukraine’s assistance in the DOJ probe of the origins of the 2016 Trump–Russia investigation, such requests are routine and consistent with the Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance that has been in place for two decades. The fact that such investigations might have helped Trump politically is beside the point. Trump defenders note that incumbent presidents seeking reelection routinely use foreign policy to their advantage.
Democrats see impeachment as a legalistic matter: They think they can show bribery because, under federal statutory law, a completed bribe is not necessary for the crime to have occurred; a corrupt demand suffices for conviction. The Constitution says that bribery triggers impeachment. Q.E.D.
Republicans recognize that the bribery the Framers contemplated was not technical transgression of a federal penal statute (there was none at the time); it was a president’s traitorous sale of the office, which is not close to what was contemplated here, much less what happened. Further, even if the bribery statute did apply to impeachment, corrupt intent could not be proved, because the president is duty-bound to encourage anti-corruption efforts by foreign governments that receive U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Only Democrats are trying to inflate the Ukraine disagreement into an impeachable offense. It is being framed as an impeachable wrong only by partisans who decided that Donald Trump was unfit before he ever darkened the Oval Office doorstep, and who have spent three years groping for a misconduct hook on which to hang their predetermination that Trump should never have been elected.
That is exactly the factional abuse of impeachment power the Framers rejected and undertook to prevent by requiring broad-based political consensus. On the exhaustively analyzed facts of Trump-administration dealings with Ukraine, there is no such consensus — and there never will be.
Impeachment Requires Consensus | National Review
