Category: Impeachment

Collins’ tepid support for impeachment witnesses isn’t playing well back home

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Sen. Susan Collins, last seen in high manufactured dudgeon over incivility in Donald Trump's impeachment hearing, seems less concerned over the revelation from former national security adviser John Bolton that Trump did indeed try to extort Ukraine to influence the 2020 election. The reports about Bolton’s upcoming book "strengthen the case" for hearing witnesses, she said, which some analysts are taking as support for calling witnesses. It's not, though; it's Collins holding her finger in the wind.

She needs to be seen as open to calling witnesses because her performance thus far is not playing particularly well back home. The Portland Press Herald published an op-ed over the weekend lambasting her stunt during the House managers’ presentation, in which she sent a sternly worded note to Chief Justice John Roberts saying that Democrats were being mean. "Instead of demanding to see every last shred of evidence of the president's conduct before she voted on whether he is guilty of manipulating America’s foreign policy and national security interests to cheat in an election, she chose to get lost in the weeds" of procedure, editorial page editor Greg Kesich wrote.

Collins has chosen her side, and Maine knows it. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these crucial Senate races, but especially the one in Maine!

Those procedural weeds have nothing to do with getting at the truth, something that Amy Fried, professor of political science at the University of Maine, is writing about at the Bangor Daily News. "In one universe, that of televised ads run by her campaign, Susan Collins is a stalwart independent," Fried writes. "In an alternative universe where Collins was independent, initially she would have vigorously backed the efforts to receive witnesses and documents blocked by the White House."

Collins' Kavanaugh vote should have been a lesson to her about just how shaky her image as an "independent" is back home. Her performance in this impeachment, thus far, is eroding it further. It could end up being her total undoing.

Trump’s latest anti-corruption move: PR event alongside world leader charged with corruption

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Donald Trump really cares about fighting corruption, his impeachment defense lawyers keep telling us. He cares so much that he held up nearly $400 in military aid to Ukraine to ensure that it would crack down on corruption (in a way that would just so happen to benefit him personally). And now Trump has showed how strongly opposed he is to corruption by … unveiling a major (deeply problematic) Middle East plan alongside a world leader who was indicted just today for corruption.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. In one of the three cases, he steered hundreds of millions of dollars in regulatory benefits to a media company owned by a friend, and in exchange got favorable news coverage. Netanyahu tried to argue he was immune to prosecution and has called the prosecution an “attempted coup.” So actually, he’s the perfect person for Trump to be standing with on the last day of the defense’s opening arguments in Trump’s impeachment trial.

The plan Trump and Netanyahu are unveiling “is overwhelmingly expected to be skewed in Israel's favor and is largely viewed as dead on arrival in the region,” CNN reports. Former Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman charged that Netanyahu is using the event and the plan to boost his own political strength, saying that “Netanyahu is taking a political plan and turning it into a survival plan for him personally.”

With Israel set for an unprecedented third election in early March after the last two resulted in deadlocks, Lieberman explained, “Everyone understands that, 34 days before an election, it is impossible to start a deep, meaningful, fundamental discussion.” Cynically using sham policy for personal political benefit? Another way the Trump-Netanyahu partnership on this plan, on this day is a perfect meeting of minds.

But an hour after Trump was side by side with Netanyahu, his impeachment defense team will be back to argue that he really, really cares about corruption. Tell us another one, guys.

Impeachment trial opening arguments come to a close: Live coverage #1

Posted on by Laura Clawson

The final day of opening arguments from Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team (which will be closing arguments, too, if they have their way) is expected to be relatively brief. Guess they’ll have to increase their lies-per-minute to make quota.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:08:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And we’re underway.

Pat Cipollone opens by saying that they intend to be done “by dinner time.” Pat Philbin up first, then Jay Sekulow, then Cipollone to bring it to a close.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:10:42 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin “wouldn’t presume to elaborate” on Dershowitz’s presentation on abuse of power … then goes on to elaborate on Dershowitz’s presentation on abuse of power. Which makes it seem that the faith in Dershowitz’s evening ramble through name-checking founders wasn’t viewed as all that effective.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:13:07 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin going through all the concerns of the framers on impeachment and what it meant. While he’s at it, let’s check again:

“The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 65.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:14:24 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin really, really, really stretching here to talk about bills of attainder, which has absolutely nothing to do with impeachment. This isn’t just going back to a dry well, he’s broken out the pick ax in search of a topic.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:20:36 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

How obvious is it that Trump’s team have failed to knock down abuse of power as an impeachable offense? So obvious that they’re trying to invent new reasons on the final day of the defense.

And now Philbin is declaring that intent can’t be considered … which would be a considerable relief to thousands facing trial.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:22:19 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Note that what Philbin just claimed was “not a Constitutionally coherent statement” wasn’t a statement at all. It was pieces and scraps of various statements from the House managers that Philbin pasted together, then claimed was not coherent.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:26:39 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin now going to address things he says are “extraneous” — which apparently includes every stage of the cover-up.

Philbin starts off with two lies: saying that Lt. Col. Vindman was the only person to raise a complaint about the call, and that Vindman agreed his disagreement was only a “policy concern.”

And then Philbin goes to testimony from Tim Morrison saying that there was nothing “nefarious” about moving the transcript to the secure server. Which is super handy, since Morrison is the person who recommended putting it there.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:29:33 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin claiming that the call was “available to everyone who needed it as part of their job” completely contradicts testimony from Sondland, Volker, Taylor and others who claim they were not able to see the call transcript until it became public. 

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:32:40 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin claiming that the House needed to counter the OLC is completely topsy-turvy.  The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community already determined that the complaint WAS an urgent concern. OLC overruled the IG. and then the IG felt strongly enough to make Congess aware anyway.

Philbin’s argument isn’t with the House, it’s with the IG.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:34:31 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin genuinely arguing that if the Inspector General sees a “violation of law” he’s not responsible for reporting a concern.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:37:42 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

And now it’s Jay Sekulow time. Sekulow’s task throughout this affair has been to act a proxy for the worst of the sweaty Jim Jordan / Kevin McCarthy / Matt Gaetz school of screamers. Turn your volume down now.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:38:38 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

“Danger, danger, danger” says Sekulow. But he leaves out the requisite “Will Robinson.”

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:39:41 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow does not miss the opportunity to say “Crossfire Hurricane” again. And he brings up James Comey. And now Sekulow is genuinely ranting about the “Steele dossier.”

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:41:49 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

If you’re wondering, we are still talking about the FISA warrant. What does this have to do with this trial? NOT A DAMN THING.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:43:00 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lisa Page! Peter Strzok!

Please check your BINGO cards. 

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:44:57 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow is now directly attacking Robert Mueller and claiming he destroyed evidence. 

This is a trainwreck. Mixed with an airplane crash. During a 32-car pile-up.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:48:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Nellie Ohr! Bruce Ohr! Sorry, but by this point everyone’s BINGO cards are full. No further prizes.

Sekulow now talking about how Trump was busy winning “peace in the Middle East” while under attack for impeachment. This is so, unbelievably, unfathomably awful.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:50:38 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow's whole speech could be generated by using a random number generator to take phrases from Trump tweets. It's really impossible to overstate just how awful this is in every possible way.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:51:44 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow isn’t going to go through a detailed analysis of the “facts” on Biden. He’s just going to smear him in general terms by repeating the worst lies.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:54:02 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Incoherent would be a generous description of this speech. If you’re not listening … heck, go ahead and listen. It’s kind of a wonder.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 6:58:30 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sekulow is not even doing a good job of reading a comment from Dershowitz—though to give him some credit, it’s not possible to find a quote from Dershowitz that would make sense.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:00:36 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Now Sekulow is complaining about Bolton’s book. Complete with statements from Barr and Trump attacking Bolton.

“An unpublished manuscript, that some reporters, maybe, have some idea what it said. If you want to call that evidence.”

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:02:24 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

At this point, I’m genuinely laughing. I don’t think SNL can lampoon this. Sekulow is making a speech that it pre-pardodied.

Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 · 7:06:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

We’ve wandered back to attacking Bob Mueller. “Bob Mueller had to correct himself ... so that’s what the president’s been living with” 

Now we’re on the battlefield. Now we’re in the Ukraine parliament. Now we’re talking about fiscal year. Now we’re talking about the length of the phone call. Now we’re talking about the whistleblower. Now we’re talking about Ukraine’s anti-corruption court. 

More leaks show Bolton’s book skewers Trump on his fondness for dictators

Posted on by Mark Sumner

Even as Alan Dershowitz was wrapping up a day in which Trump’s legal team operated on the pretense that contents from John Bolton’s upcoming book had not been leaked over the weekend, The New York Times released more material from the manuscript. The primary subject of the new material was not Trump’s efforts to extort Ukraine, but some of his connections to other foreign governments, including those of Turkey and China, where Trump appeared to be placing a personal relationship—or personal benefits—above national concerns.

The most interesting point from the just-reported pages might not be so much what as who. Because it was not only John Bolton who expressed concern about Trump’s willingness to nod along with dictators. Also worried by Trump’s actions was the man who has been Trump’s primary enabler: Attorney General William Barr.

While Bolton was fretting that Trump was weakening national security policies toward Turkey and China to maintain his personal relationships with Tayyip Erdoğan and cake-buddy Xi Jinping, Barr had other concerns. The issues with both Turkey and China were the subjects of independent investigations by the FBI and the Department of Justice. But Trump was directly putting his fingers all over the issues involved in those investigations. That appears to include having had conversations with both Erdoğan and Xi in which he may have passed along information on the status of the investigations.

Even before his election, Trump had a fondness for dictators. Since he has occupied the White House, that unbridled power has become the model for how he does business, and for what he looks for in a “peer.” Erdoğan, Xi, Mohammed bin Salman, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and Rodrigo Duterte come in for almost unlimited praise for their “toughness,” even when that toughness is expressed in mass murder. On the other hand, more democratic leaders of traditional allies—from Canada to European countries—have come in for constant attacks by Trump. Apparently even senior officials in Trump’s White House are less than thrilled with his willingness to embrace dictators and swoon over those whose policies are far from democratic ideals. Trump’s actions have also interfered in investigations targeting financial institutions involved in money laundering and evading international sanctions.

As The Washington Post reports, each release of information from Bolton’s book is turning up the heat in D.C. While this certainly isn’t the first book in which a former member of the Trump White House details the deep dysfunction and struggle to patch over Trump’s latest disasters, Bolton’s long history within the Republican Party is giving this manuscript extra impact. That impact is multiplied a thousandfold by the timing of the leak during Trump’s impeachment.

According to the Post, the connection between Ukraine funds and the desired investigation into a political rival isn’t a quick hit in the manuscript, but part of over a dozen pages devoted to Bolton’s involvement in the Ukraine scheme. The Post also notes a lot of friction that existed between Trump’s staff of personally loyal toadies and Bolton as a representative of old-school Republican conservatives. Bolton was looked on from the beginning not as an agent of the deep state, but as an agent of the traditional right—and there was no love lost between Bolton and Trump, or Bolton and Trump’s closest supporters.

What both the manuscript and White House reports indicate is that Bolton “was regularly appalled” by Trump’s actions and statements. So appalled that he was willing to tell anyone—after he left the administration and signed a seven-figure contract.

Toomey Proposes One Witness Deal in Senate Trial

Posted on by LifeZette

By David Kamioner | January 28, 2020

Pennsylvania GOP Senator Pat Toomey, a Trump supporter but not particularly close to the White House, is reportedly floating a plan that would permit the Democrats and the Trump defense team one witness each during the impeachment trial of President Trump in the Senate.

He bills it as a compromise that would limit the time spent on witnesses and would avoid a potential Trump loss on the question when it comes up soon to a Senate vote.

The vote could be won with a simple majority of 51 and several Senators out of the 53 member GOP caucus, to include Alexander, Collins, Romney, Murkowski, McSally, and Gardner, are said to be thinking about supporting the current Democrat proposal for unlimited witnesses.

RELATED: GOP Brings Out Three Big Guns in Senate Trial of Trump

The Democrats would need four GOP turncoats to win that vote.

Collins, McSally, and Gardner are up for reelection this year in light red to purple states and they may be thinking they need to vote for the Democrat measure to keep swing and moderate support. Toomey believes this gambit will keep them and the other possible rebels on board.

LifeZette has learned that Toomey has spoken directly with Romney and Collins on the issue and they have not shot it down out of hand.

Who would those witnesses be?

According to Capitol Hill staffers on both sides of the aisle the Democrats would go with John Bolton and the GOP defense team is leaning towards informer Eric Ciaramella or Adam Schiff.

If Bolton testified against Trump and said the president directly linked Ukrainian military aid to a political hit on Biden it would mark the greatest case of political betrayal DC has seen in a while. It would also be the Fort Sumter in outright political warfare between the Warhawk and America First wings of the GOP.

RELATED: Bolton Manuscript Leaked, Romney and Collins May Vote Against the President

Putting Ciaramella on the stand could expose his partisan nature and his lack of direct knowledge of everything he alleges, thus undercutting the entire Democrat case.

Watching Schiff squirm under cross examination from Jay Sekulow, Eric Herschmann, or, please God, Alan Dershowitz, would not only be spiritually satisfying on the order of a Bach High Mass but would set forth the firm case that the entire House process was a sham from the beginning.

Witnesses would also add to the drama of the proceeding and the media feeding would only get more frenzied.

The vote on the issue could happen this week.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Rocket Strikes U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
More GOP Senators Could Defect in Impeachment Trial
Bolton Manuscript Leaked, Romney and Collins May Vote Against the President

The post Toomey Proposes One Witness Deal in Senate Trial appeared first on The Political Insider.

Top Republican Leader Sends Stern Message to GOP Senators Thinking About Caving To Democrats On Impeachment

Posted on by Guest Author

During a Monday night interview by CBS News, Congressman Mark Meadows warned Republican Senators that if they side with Democrats and break with President Donald Trump during the impeachment trial, they could face “political repercussions.”

Meadows Says John Bolton Shouldn’t Testify

“Congressman Meadows, would you support a White House effort to block a Bolton testimony if he were called as a witness?” CBS News host Norah O’Donnell asked Meadows.

“You know, I’ve been one of the few that believe that Secretary Pompeo and Secretary Perry could have testified when it was over here in the House,” Meadows replied. “I’m also one that believes that when you get close to the president, whether it be his chief of staff or his national security advisor, you have to allow for that free flow of conversation back and forth, where ideas can be shared. And so I do believe that executive privilege should be invoked on that and that we shouldn’t hear from Ambassador Bolton.”

RELATED: Dem Impeachment Manager Echoes Adam Schiff – This is About the Election

Believes Republicans Who Sided with Democrats Would Face ‘Political Repercussions’

“Do you think Republican senators face political repercussions if they break with the president?” O’Donnell asked.

“Yeah, I do,” Meadows said. “I mean, listen, I don’t wanna speak for my Senate colleagues. But there are always political repercussions for every vote you take. There is no vote that is higher-profile than this.”

Meadows is not wrong. As the impeachment circus becomes more and more absurd, whether or not some moderate Republicans decide to stick with President Trump or side with the Democrats is a decision that will rightly define them.

Trump is a Republican president of particular significance, as Meadows rightly pointed out last week.

RELATED: Video Surfaces of Pelosi Accusing Republicans of Impeaching Clinton Out of Hatred

Desperate Dems

If any Republicans decide to go against Trump, Meadows is right that they will likely pay a political price for it. The Democrats have had it in for Trump since day one, and this Ukraine impeachment angle is only the latest ploy of many. When this doesn’t work, there will be more.

You can expect Democrats to be all in on each of these desperate gambits. Republicans should have sense enough to avoid them.

Or else.

The post Top Republican Leader Sends Stern Message to GOP Senators Thinking About Caving To Democrats On Impeachment appeared first on The Political Insider.

Impeachment witnesses are ‘increasingly likely,’ but top Republicans are still pushing cover-up

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Republican sources are telling reporters that the news about former national security adviser John Bolton’s book makes it more likely that witnesses will be called at Donald Trump’s impeachment trial—but the dam hasn’t exactly broken wide open, and top Senate Republicans are still fighting to keep the cover-up intact.

“I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton,” Sen. Mitt Romney said Monday. Sen. Susan Collins said the revelations that Bolton’s book manuscript recounts Trump saying that yes, he was holding up military aid to Ukraine until the country dug for dirt on his political opponents, “strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.” But no Republican senators previously opposed to calling witnesses has come forward to say they’ve changed their minds.

Campaign Action

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—who reportedly feels blindsided by the Bolton news getting out at this juncture and released a statement saying he “did not have any advance notice” that this was coming—is not any more open to witnesses. Senate Majority Whip John Thune told reporters that “I don’t think that anything that he’s going to say changes the fact...I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is.” Despite all those times Republicans complained that there were no firsthand witnesses who heard directly from Trump that he was holding up the Ukraine aid to get an investigation of a political opponent, the emergence of a witness who could provide exactly that testimony changes nothing.

And in Thune’s telling, calling Bolton would just kind of be a big hassle. “If you start calling him, then the Democrats are going to want to call Mulvaney and want to call Pompeo ... and our guys are going to want to start calling witnesses on the other side to illuminate their case,” he said, continuing “And I think that gets us into this endless cycle and this drags on for weeks and months in the middle of a presidential election where people are already voting. My view is the fact pattern is what it is. I don’t think it’s going to change.” 

Oh. The fact pattern is what it is? So basically, all that talk of how Democrats hadn’t adequately made the case that Donald Trump withheld congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine because he wanted the country to interfere in the 2020 elections was just more Republican lies. It’s hard to draw any other conclusion from the fact that the number two Republican in the Senate says hearing from a firsthand witness who’s a longtime Republican official wouldn’t add any facts.

Some Republicans are operating with a little less bluster and bravado, though they’re still looking to cut a favorable deal. Sen. Pat Toomey wants a trade: one relevant witness to what Trump did for one irrelevant Republican witness with which to attack the very Democrats Trump was trying to attack all along. Sen. Lindsey Graham has a proposal to make it look like Republicans took Bolton seriously without actually allowing the public to hear what he has to say. And so on. 

There may be some cracks in the unified Republican determination for a cover-up, but there are just as many Senate Republicans frantically slapping spackle onto those cracks.

Lindsey Graham supports scheme to review Bolton manuscript in secret, prevent witnesses at trial

Posted on by Mark Sumner

On Monday, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma offered nervous Republicans an exit ramp from the dilemma posed by former national security adviser John Bolton. Rather than have Bolton appear as a witness in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, Republicans would instead have a chance to look at the manuscript of Bolton’s upcoming book, which claims that Bolton has knowledge as a firsthand witness to Trump’s alleged actions, in secret, and then determine how to proceed.

On Tuesday, Lindsey Graham signed on to this scheme, calling for the manuscript to be made available in ”a classified setting.” Not only is this an obvious ploy to prevent Bolton from ever answering questions in front of Mitch McConnell’s personally controlled camera; it also means that Republicans, after a trial in which they have constantly accused Democrats of changing the rules to gather evidence in “secret,” are genuinely looking to change the rules … so they can examine evidence. In secret.

Bolton has already volunteered to appear before the Senate if subpoenaed, and over the weekend The New York Times revealed that Bolton’s upcoming book details a conversation in which Donald Trump explicitly connects military assistance for Ukraine to extorting an investigation by that country into Joe Biden. Keeping that information out of the Senate trial has become a growing challenge, as polls show swelling support for the testimony of Bolton and other potential witnesses.

The idea of a secret review of the manuscript offers Republicans several attractive options. First, they can emerge from the classified setting to declare that there’s no there there, no matter what’s actually contained in the text. Second, they can condemn Bolton’s text as a money grab from someone whom Fox News is now repositioning from a longtime Republican hardliner to a “deep state agent” who is part of a conspiracy featuring former FBI Director James Comey. Finally, Bolton’s manuscript can be cherry-picked for both complimentary statements about Trump and derogatory comments about Democrats.

If this scheme goes forward, expect Graham to simultaneously claim that Bolton’s manuscript is a smear against Trump and that it says bad, bad things about Nancy Pelosi/Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama. But most of all, expect Graham and other Republicans to claim that, after reviewing the manuscript, they find no reason for Bolton to answer any more questions. Especially when Trump is going to fight Bolton’s appearance.

Then Republicans can demand that Joe Biden appear. After all, they’ll say, they heard from Bolton.

Dem Impeachment Manager Echoes Adam Schiff – This is About the Election

Posted on by Rusty Weiss

Rep. Jason Crow, currently serving as a Democrat impeachment manager, admits that his party’s efforts are due to the upcoming presidential election. It is a similar argument to one made by Adam Schiff recently.

Crow’s admission came during an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Rosenberg, in which the host addressed the Democrat party’s alternating sense of urgency regarding the need to remove President Trump from office.

“Did the House move too quickly?” Rosenberg asked, noting that had the House conducted a thorough effort in the first place, they wouldn’t need the Senate to do their job now.

“No, I think the House proceeded in the way that it should have proceeded,” Crow insisted. “There was urgency, but it was also thoughtful and deliberate, it occurred over several months period of time.”

He then – perhaps accidentally – admitted what that urgency entailed.

“There is some urgency here,” Crow explained, before adding, “it does have to do with the elections that are coming up later this year.”

RELATED: Schiff: Impeachment Necessary to Stop Trump In 2020

Stunning!

You mean to tell me the Democrats are using impeachment to try and sway the election in their favor? To change the outcome of not only the 2020 election but the 2016 election as well?

Color me shocked.

Except that A) It’s already pretty obvious to anyone with a working set of eyes and ears and B) They’ve already admitted this before.

Crow’s impeachment manager colleague, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, confessed that he and his colleagues could not wait on impeachment because the threat of President Trump winning re-election is too great.

“The argument, ‘why don’t you just wait?’ comes down to this,” Schiff claimed. “‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in just one more election? Why not let him have foreign help one more time?'”

In one fell swoop, Schiff is suggesting President Trump is cheating to win in 2020 and claiming he already cheated in 2016.

Is anybody here old enough to remember when Schiff and his colleagues were telling everybody who would listen that the notion of a rigged election is ludicrous and not accepting the results is a ‘threat to democracy’?

RELATED: Adam Schiff Wants Trump Removed Because He Won’t Do “What’s Right For This Country”

This is Why They’re Doing It

It isn’t just Schiff and Crow who have flat-out said the Democrat party is trying to interfere and rig the 2020 presidential election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promoted Schiff and Crow to the ranks of impeachment managers, admitted recently that her party is pursuing the unpopular sham because “civilization, as we know it today, is at stake in the next election.”

Rep. Al Green, the Texas Democrat who believes articles of impeachment should address slavery, has said he’s “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York socialist and darling of the Democrat party, got this whole process rolling by warning: “We don’t have the luxury of time. Yes, this is an emergency.”

Senator Ted Cruz explained exactly why they are doing this.

“This is a partisan sham because they’re mad – the House Democrats – are mad at the American people for electing President Trump,” he said.

Now, they’re telling you exactly that, and they’re saying it to your face.

The post Dem Impeachment Manager Echoes Adam Schiff – This is About the Election appeared first on The Political Insider.