‘They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers…’
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) Speaking at the World Economic Forum, former Vice President Al Gore compared climate change to multiple famous battles and one famous terror attack, 9/11.
“The burden to act on the shoulders of the generation of the people alive today is a challenge to our moral imagination,” Gore said Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland, The Hill reported.
“This is Thermopylae. This is Agincourt. This is Dunkirk. This is the Battle of the Bulge,” he said, referencing the watershed moments in several historic European wars.
“This is 9/11,” he added. “We have to rise to this occasion.”
According to widely disputed estimates, the world’s ocean and surface temperature were the hottest on record in 2019.
Intense wildfires that burned in Australia, and Brazil‘s Amazon rain forest also increased global-warming anxiety.
Gore, a perpetual climate doomsdayer, said climate change is “way worse” and advancing “way faster” than the world’s population realizes, CNBC reported.
He praised teenage climate-change activist Greta Thunberg, who spoke at the forum.
Gore tweeted on Wednesday that he was “struck by her potent and sobering call to action.”
Great to see @GretaThunberg at #WEF20 today. Once again, I was struck by her potent and sobering call to action. Nobody speaks truth to power as she does: “Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour.” https://t.co/tbd7mh1P4Ypic.twitter.com/UzbdkMlvJr
Trump responded to the “perennial prophets of doom” on Tuesday, reminding the public not to be fooled.
“They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers,” he said. “We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country or eradicate our liberty.”
Trump has taken a different approach to the climate. He often asserts the need for clean air and water, while rejecting the radical demands to de-industrialize and socialize the American economy.
At the same time, Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, which he saw as both unwise and an attack on American sovereignty.
Thunberg openly called for “panic” in her speech, a tactic of extremists.
“Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour,” she said. “We are still telling you to panic, and to act as if you loved your children above all else.”
‘One thing that I don’t have to do is sit here and open my kimono …’
Hunter Biden / IMAGE: ABC News via Youtube
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Hunter Biden, son of the former Vice President Joe Biden, is still refusing to hand over his financial records to the Arkansas court overseeing his child-support case.
As a result, Circuit Judge Holly Meyer ordered Biden to appear in court next Wednesday or be held in contempt of court, according to CNN.
Lunden Alexis Roberts filed a lawsuit against Biden in May seeking child support for the baby he fathered. A DNA test proved that Biden was, in fact, the father, but he tried to dodge child support payments anyways. Now, he is trying to hide his financial situation from the court, refusing to hand over his personal tax returns or the list of companies he has had an ownership interest in the past five years.
Meanwhile, Biden and his new wife, Melissa Cohen, are renting a $3.8 million designer home in Hollywood for $12,000 a month, according to the Washington Examiner. He was also spotted in Los Angeles driving a new, white Porsche Panamera, according to the New York Post.
Roberts’s attorneys asked Meyer to find Biden in contempt of court, calling his actions “willful and contemptuous.”
“The defendant continues to act as though he has no respect for this Court, its orders, the legal process in this state, or the needs of his child for support,” the motion reads.
Biden has “provided no support for this child for over a year,” according to Roberts, who is also asking the court for full custody.
An independent private investigator has also accused Biden of multiple criminal conspiracies, including tax evasion and identity theft.
The Arkansas court did not allow these findings to be included in Roberts’s lawsuit, but congressional Republicans have suggested subpoenaing Biden to testify during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in order to learn more about Biden’s corrupt business dealings in Ukraine and China.
In an interview with ABC last October—during which the recovering drug and sex addict acknowledged using poor judgment in his five years as a board member and “consultant” for the Burisma energy company—Biden continued to maintain that he was protected from disclosing his finances due to his status as a private citizen.
“One thing that I don’t have to do is sit here and open my kimono as it relates to how much money I make or make or did or didn’t,” he said. “But it’s all been reported.”
‘No one knows what actually happens which is why he is not guilty…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes came under fire for old tweets that resurfaced, some of which appear to have been in support of George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman garnered national headlines in 2012 when he was acquitted of homicide charges in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
At the time, Mahomes was 17 years old. He responded to a tweet that called the Zimmerman case “an absolute tragedy,” and said: “No one knows what actually happens which is why he is not guilty but a crime could have occurred.”
And in an earlier tweet, Mahomes wrote: “Stop resisting or assaulting a cop.”
Patrick Mahomes defending George Zimmerman in a series of tweets from 2011. Black twitter do ya thing. Cancel Patrick Mahomes. pic.twitter.com/YI5BHiLW9x
Additional context, however, reveals that Mahomes and his teammates were engaged in an active discussion about Zimmerman’s trial, in which he refrained from taking a side.
And in another tweet published directly after Zimmerman’s acquittal was announced, Mahomes appeared to be disappointed that Zimmerman had walked free.
It seems #PatrickMahomes was not suprised but still disappointed at the verdict from the wrongful murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. Note the tweet and date at the bottom. Mahomes was 18 years old at the time. pic.twitter.com/cUxc0SU8B8
Martin’s family members “have worked in concert to deprive Zimmerman of his constitutional and other legal rights,” the lawsuit states, citing civil rights attorney Ben Crump’s decision to swap out a reluctant witness, Brittany Diamond Eugene, for her half-sister, Rachel Jeantel.
The suit accuses Trayvon’s parents, prosecutors and state authorities of going along with the alleged ruse, and “are alleged to either have known about or should have known about the witness fraud, obstructed justice, or lied repeatedly under oath in order to cover up their knowledge of the witness fraud.”
‘It’s our hope when the trial concludes—you’ve heard us and you’ve heard the president’s counsel over a series of long days—that you don’t choose imprisonment…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) After Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the lead impeachment manager in the ongoing Senate trial against President Donald Trump, spoke at length on Wednesday rehashing the House’s case for abuse of power, Democrats on Thursday trotted out the B-squad to help defend some of the case’s many holes.
The widespread reports of senators on both sides of the aisle growing restless and bored by Schiff’s speech prompted the House Intelligence Committee chairman to warn the world’s premier deliberative body that its members, too, could face imprisonment for any disruption in the proceedings.
“I’m not sure that chief justice is fully aware of just how rare it is, how extraordinary it is for the House members to be able to command the attention of senators sitting silently for hours—or even four minutes, for that matter,” Schiff said.
“Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the morning starts out every day with the sergeant-of-arms warning you that if you don’t, you will be imprisoned,” Schiff continued. “It’s our hope when the trial concludes—you’ve heard us and you’ve heard the president’s counsel over a series of long days—that you don’t choose imprisonment instead of anything further.”
Among the day’s “highlights”—or blooper reels, as it were—Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, provided a lengthy historical justification for impeachment without any crimes having been committed.
More notably, freshman congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, was dispatched to pre-emptively defuse a core element of Trump’s likely defense—that he was justified in calling for an investigation into allegations of corruption in Ukraine involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Garcia—who at one point made a Freudian slip by referring to the president as “Drumpf”—predictably cherry-picked elements of the claims long propelled by Democrats and their media accomplices to support the Bidens.
However, in suggesting there was no evidence of wrongdoing, Garcia’s claims, once again, omitted several important facts.
Among the fallacies in her arguments:
Asserting the corruption of one Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, while using the statements or recantations of other corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors to attempt to downplay both Bidens’ wrongdoing
Failing to address an intensive pressure campaign from Hunter Biden and other well-connected Burisma “consultants” to force Shokin to drop his investigation into the company prior to his firing
Implying that a lack of evidence from prior Ukrainian investigations into Burisma—despite the obvious flaws in those investigations—equated to an exoneration of the Bidens
Ascribing political motives to Trump by pointing to his prior support for Ukraine, while ignoring the March 2019 publication of a pivotal book that exposed the Bidens’ corruption, along with the mainstream media’s widespread disinterest in covering the story
“The allegations against Vice President Biden were based on the evidence that occurred in late 2015 and early 2016,” Garcia said.
“They are all well publicized … but it wasn’t until 2019—over three years after Vice President Biden called for his [Shokin’s] removal—three years after that, President Trump started pushing Ukraine to investigate that conduct,” she continued. “What changed?”
Sylvia Garcia / IMAGE: CSPAN
Although Garcia claimed it was Biden’s long-anticipated April 25 announcement that he would enter the 2020 presidential race, she forgot to mention the work of the two conservative investigative journalists who had first exposed the scandal a month prior.
The Ukraine scandal first garnered widespread public attention—along with that of Trump and his attorney, Rudy Giuliani—after the March 26, 2019 publication of Peter Schweizer‘s book Secret Empires.
Shortly thereafter, Hill contributor John Solomon dropped another bombshell on the Bidens pointing to the former vice president’s on-tape confession in 2018 to having extorted the Ukrainian administration.
Not coincidentally, the corruption of the pro-Obama Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his administration played a central part in the anti-corruption platform of his successor, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, later that year.
Would only allow membership in leftist American Bar Association…
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A group governing judicial ethics is seeking to strengthen the leftist stranglehold on the legal community by barring judges’ affiliation with a prominent right-leaning group while turning a blind-eye to the radical liberal activism of the American Bar Association.
The new draft advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct regarding “Judges’ Involvement With the American Constitution Society, the Federalist Society, and the American Bar Association” is unprecedented in its attempt to silence the Federalist Society. (1/7)
The Federalist Society espouses conservative philosophies on matters such as individual liberties prescribed by the Bill of Rights and contemporary social issues like abortion.
President Donald Trump prominently lent cachet to the group when he consulted them during his 2016 campaign on a list of prospective nominees for federal judgeships, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
His two top judicial appointments to date—justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—are among those recommended by the society.
In justifying its opposition to the Federalist Society, the conduct committee sought to establish a false parity with a radical leftist organization, the American Constitution Society, which counts former Attorney General Eric Holder among its alumni.
ACS was formed specifically to provide a supposed counterbalance to the Federalist Society—ignoring the fact that the Federalist Society was itself a counterbalance to the left-skewed ABA and groups like it.
It is not unlike the ideological tug-of-war within the news media, in which Fox News was established as a “fair and balanced” alternative to existing media bias, only to have the radical left up the ante with purely propagandist networks like CNN in a bid to tip the scales back in their favor.
Likewise, the Left’s recent promotion of socialist presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is widely seen as an effort to normalize the notion that slightly-less-extreme—but equally unsavory—alternatives like Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg occupy the ideological center.
The conduct committee readily asserted in its advisory opinion that the three organizations it was considering were on equal footing in terms of their political activism.
“[T]he Committee has never suggested, and does not now suggest, that the organizations act improperly or that their goals and missions are inappropriate,” said the opinion.
“All are respected organizations that provide welcome services and benefits to their members,” it continued. “… But membership in these organizations presents a different question.”
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at a meeting of the Federalist Society. / IMAGE: The Federalist Society via Youtube
While it said all were “law-related organizations” it deemed the “extrajudicial” activities of the Federalist Society and the ACS to be in violation of its standards, claiming they interfered with a judge’s “impartiality.”
Of course, given that all three groups espouse political positions, engage in activism and support specific candidates, one might think the same standard would apply.
But instead, the committee sought to engage in its own virtue-signaling by introducing a relativist, non-judicial concept of “public perception” into the mix.
“[J]udges should consider whether a sponsoring organization ‘is generally viewed by the public as having adopted a consistent political or ideological point of view equivalent to the type of partisanship often found in political organizations,'” asserted the committee.
It also has actively sought to smear some of Trump’s high-level judges by falsely rating them as “unqualified” based solely on their political beliefs.
The group has even been involved in highly-charged political advocacy, endorsing controversial gun-confiscation laws in direct violation of the Second Amendment.
It noted that left-wing activist groups have waged a targeted campaign against the Federalist Society, supported by liberal media and politicians with deep ties to the conduct committee’s 15 judges.
Unlike the left-leaning ABA and ACS, which engage in explicit advocacy by filing court briefs in support of their radical agenda, The Federalist Society has a primarily educational function that “serves students on the left and right by exposing them to the legal and constitutional views they’ll have to contend with after they graduate,” said the editorial.
The newspaper called on Chief Justice John Roberts to intervene and “stop this exercise before it becomes a major political headache.”
However, it noted that Roberts—a George W. Bush appointee—did not inspire confidence by naming a leftist judge to oversee recent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
“The judiciary doesn’t need another a political black-eye, this time over rules issued by insiders and clearly aimed at restricting the right of association of students, lawyers and judges with originalist legal views,” it said.
‘Bernie on a bad day would be better than Trump on his best day…’
Hillary Clinton/IMAGE: MSNBC via YouTube
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Democrats are upset with failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for deepening the divide in an already tense primary race, according to The Hill.
This was an unnecessary fissure that could isolate many of the leftist progressives the Democratic Party needs on its side, according to one Democrat.
“You feel like looking Hillary square in the eye and asking, ‘What the hell are you doing?’” the official said. “Donald Trump is president. Bernie on a bad day would be better than Trump on his best day. We need to win.”
Sanders declined to engage with Clinton, but he has ramped up attacks on Joe Biden, who is seen as the establishment moderate in the field.
Sanders has criticized Biden for voting to enter the Iraq War and voting to cut Social Security, framing Biden as an out-of-touch candidate who doesn’t believe progress is realistic.
Let’s be honest, Joe. One of us fought for decades to cut Social Security, and one of us didn’t. But don’t take it from me. Take it from you. pic.twitter.com/qh7qb1Hmcl
But Clinton argued that Sanders is the one who is out-of-touch — with the Democratic Party.
“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done,” Clinton said. “He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
After facing backlash from her Democratic colleagues, Clinton walked back her statement and said she would do “whatever I can to support our nominee.”
I thought everyone wanted my authentic, unvarnished views!
But to be serious, the number one priority for our country and world is retiring Trump, and, as I always have, I will do whatever I can to support our nominee.
‘Schiff had such power in his speech that he almost forced them to look at him and listen…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) After failing to persuade Senate Republicans to support any of their proposed rules changes during Tuesday’s marathon impeachment session, Democrats sought on Thursday to sway GOP hearts and minds by deploying invective and ad hominem attacks on their Senate colleagues and President Donald Trump.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer falsely claimed in a press conference that lead House impeachment manager, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had offered hours worth of riveting testimony on Wednesday, contrary to reports that senators of both side of the political divide found the hours Schiff spent rehashing of the House’s partisan allegations to be stale and—in some instances—unbearable.
“Schiff had such power in his speech that he almost forced them to look at him and listen,” Schumer falsely claimed—ignoring the fact that senators were literally forced to listen, due to the longstanding rules of decorum governing impeachment.
Despite those protocols, many tried to make an early escape for the cloakroom when Schiff indicated that he had 10 minutes remaining in his speech.
But Schumer—who gave a forceful condemnation of partisan impeachments in well-publicized letter during the 1999 Bill Clinton trial—whined that Democrats had been shut down in their efforts to introduce new evidence at the start of the trial.
“If my Republican colleagues are interested in new evidence,” he said, “… there is a very simple answer: Vote with Democrats.”
GOP senators were “afraid of the truth,” Schumer claimed.
“They’re so eager to change conversation … that they’re inventing shiny objects,” he said.
Joining him at the press conference were three other leftist senators, including Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
Like many other Democrats, Hirono was on record endorsing Trump’s impeachment well before the July 25 phone call in which partisan House members accused the president of abusing his power to “shake down” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Ironically, Hirono, herself, unwittingly acknowledged in a CNN interview Wednesday that House managers had done an inadequate job in the discovery phase of the trial.
Rather than address the finer points of the case against Trump, she dove into a string of vicious platitudes, accusing Trump’s defense attorneys of telling lies.
During arguments on Tuesday by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, she said, “I wrote on my notebook ‘What a whopper,’” suggesting that her contribution to the written record was enough to substantiate her claim.
“We all know that the president doesn’t give a rip about the human dimension and the consequences of what he does because he only cares about himself,” she further asserted.
Members of the Senate’s GOP majority have established, following the precedent of the Clinton impeachment, that they will consider introducing new evidence and witnesses after both sides have presented their initial arguments.
Chuck Schumer / IMAGE: SenateDemocrats via Youtube
Schumer noted that in order to pass his amendments, he needed only four centrist GOP senators to support them. Some, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, already have indicated that they will likely vote in favor of new ‘evidence.’
But rather than using rational discussion or engaging in a charm offensive to woo members of the majority, Schumer and other Democrats have simply been offensive, attempting to score cheap political points by preaching to their own radical base.
Many of Schumer’s talking points, indeed, echoed the attacks waged by fellow New York congressman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, another of the House impeachment managers, who drew a rebuke late Tuesday from Chief Justice John Roberts for calling GOP senators “treacherous” and accusing them of a “shameful cover-up.”
‘We have a beautiful ocean called the Pacific Ocean where thousands and thousands of tons of garbage flows toward us, and that’s put there by other countries…’
Greta Thunberg / IMAGE: PBS NewsHour via Youtube
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) President Donald Trump said Tuesday that if 17-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg wants to see results, she should focus on the “other countries” that put “thousands of tons of garbage” in the Pacific Ocean and emit significantly more carbon than the U.S.
“We want to have the cleanest water on Earth, we want to have the cleanest air on Earth,” Trump said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
“Our numbers, as you saw—we had record numbers come out very recently—our numbers are very, very good. Our environmental numbers, our water numbers, our numbers on air are tremendous,” he continued. “We have to do something about other continents, we have to do something about other countries.”
Without directly naming China, Trump went on to suggest that there is “another continent where the fumes are rising at levels that you can’t believe.”
India is often named as another developing country that, like China, has rejected globalist attempts to curb emissions, such as those prescribed by the Paris Climate Accord. Trump withdrew from the Obama-brokered deal early in his presidency but has continued making steady—albeit rational—progress toward reductions in U.S. emissions.
“I think Greta ought to focus on those places,” he added. “But we are doing better right now than we’ve ever done in terms of cleanliness, in terms of numbers. We have a beautiful ocean called the Pacific Ocean where thousands and thousands of tons of garbage flows toward us, and that’s put there by other countries, so I think Greta has to start working on those other countries.”
Trump announced at the forum that the U.S. would sign on to the trillion tree initiative, and dismissed the climate “prophets of doom,” such as Thunberg, who spread unnecessary climate alarmism. But Thunberg continued to spread her “predictions of the apocalypse,” to quote Trump, during her speech at the World Economic Forum.
“I wonder, what will you tell your children was the reason to fail and leave them facing the climate chaos you knowingly brought upon them?” she said, according to the New York Times. “Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour.”
Joe Biden / IMAGE: Late Show with Stephen Colbert
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said Monday that he would not deport illegal aliens who are convicted of drunken driving, prompting a former top immigration official to say that the former vice president has “lost his mind.”
Instead of deporting drunk-driving illegal aliens, Biden said his administration would fire the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who arrest and deport these criminal illegal aliens, Fox News reported.
“They go off to school wondering whether their mom comes and picks them up, is she not going to be there because an ICE agent was there to arrest her,” Biden said in an interview with Vice News.
“[Officers are] going to get fired—you’re fired if, in fact, you do that,” he continued. “You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that’s committed and I don’t count drunk driving as a felony.”
Former Acting ICE Director Tom Homan responded Wednesday in an interview on “Fox & Friends First.”
“He was in Congress for decades. He knows how this works. There is no prerequisite, you commit any crime to be removed from the United States if you’re here illegally. That is the way the law is written in statute,” Homan said.
“If he doesn’t like what ICE is doing then he can change the law, but you cannot fire a law enforcement officer to enforcing the law that he took an oath to enforce, a law that was enacted by Congress,” he continued. “It is a ridiculous statement.”
Homan said that Biden was vice president when the United States routinely removed criminal illegal aliens.
“I oversaw [the] removal of one million illegal aliens, over 100,000 of them were DUI convictions and many didn’t have any convictions at all, they were just here illegally so his tune has totally changed,” Homan said. “We didn’t hear a peep from him back when he was vice president on this issue.
Biden has previously claimed that his own wife and daughter were killed in a 1972 drunken-driving accident involving a tractor–trailer. However, some official sources indicate that the accident was his wife’s fault.
It is unknown whether she was inebriated at the time.
This is awful. Did you know for years @JoeBiden told people his wife and 13-month-old daughter were killed by a drunk driver, when in fact the accident was tragically her fault. The truck driver was haunted by the accident until he died.https://t.co/f41yNvU8RY
‘Mr. Nadler when he applied for that job… told his colleagues that he was really good at impeachment…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) As he did in the House impeachment investigation, smooth-talking Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has once again upstaged his clumsy colleague-turned-sidekick, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, issued a media release mocking the two powerful House committee chairmen after Schiff refused to allow Nadler to answer a question prior to the start of Wednesday’s impeachment proceedings in the Senate.
Although both congressmen are leading the House Democrats’ prosecution efforts against President Donald Trump as impeachment managers, Schiff, who has considerably less seniority, has taken a much more prominent role.
In one of his rare opportunities to take center stage, Nadler engaged in a vicious attack on members of the U.S. Senate as “treacherous” and accusing them of a “shameful cover-up” late Tuesday evening.
Nadler also levied personal attacks on the president’s defense team, which prompted White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to return fire.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a general rebuke “in equal terms” to the counsels for using language “not conducive to civil discourse.”
However, Trump co-counsel Jay Sekulow had even more heated remarks for Nadler, whom he charged with “shredding the Constitution.”
Some questioned whether Nadler’s insults might further alienate centrist Republicans, whom Democrats must woo in order to succeed in making their long-shot case for removing the president.
Wednesday’s interaction between Schiff and Nadler seemed to support speculation that Nadler had once again fallen out of grace with House leadership.
The lanky Schiff—often mocked by Trump for his “pencil neck”—could not stand in greater contrast with the squat, stocky Nadler, who once tipped the scales at 350 pounds prior to having bariatric surgery.
Schiff, who boasts a Harvard Law degree, also has a considerably different rhetorical style from Nadler, who obtained his J.D. taking night classes at Fordham University.
While Schiff tends to be carefully calculated in his remarks—although prone toward dishonesty—Nadler’s blunt, off-the-cuff style has frequently revealed Democrats’ true underlying beliefs and motives.
Democrats including Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have not openly acknowledged as much, but many believe Nadler’s botched handling of his Judiciary Committee investigations into Trump were what prompted Schiff to assume control of the long-sought impeachment effort in the House Intelligence Committee.
In addition to the embarrassment Democrats faced in calling special counsel Robert Mueller to publicly testify in a disastrous set of hearings on July 24, Nadler also was humiliated in a hearing with Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski during what was touted as the first official impeachment hearing in September.
Moreover, only a day after Trump’s fateful July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy triggered what would become a so-called whistleblower complaint that led to the House’s partisan impeachment, Nadler prematurely declared that the House had already entered into impeachment proceedings, perhaps forcing them to rush into the impetuous probe.
The Democrats may now be regretting their haste as they enter into the Senate trial without having charged Trump with any actual crime in its articles of impeachment. Even their own allies in the Senate admit that they cut short the discovery phase, leading them—thus far unsuccessfully—to attempt to subpoena new witnesses and introduce new evidence in order to bolster their Senate case.
Trump’s attorneys savaged Nadler earlier in the day Tuesday for failing to deliver on his promises when he was named chair of the Judiciary Committee in January 2019.
“Mr. Nadler, when he applied for that job… told his colleagues that he was really good at impeachment,” Cipollone said Tuesday while noting the shoddiness of the case against the president.
