Tomorrow's Hearing: No More Schiff, But Same Old Witch Hunt

In Tomorrow's Hearing, We Will Hear More Baseless Allegations Launched By Openly Partisan Democrats Who Have Pushed For Impeachment Since November 2016

The Facts:

TOMORROW MARKS THE BEGINNING OF ANOTHER SHAM SET OF IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS

Rather than have fact witnesses who have knowledge of events concerning the impeachment inquiry, witnesses in tomorrow's hearing will include a group of constitutional scholars who will discuss the impeachment process.

The Resolution guiding impeachment allows Republicans to issue subpoenas for witnesses only with the agreement of the Democrat Chairman .

If the Chairman declines a subpoena requested by the minority Chairman, the minority Chairman can request the full committee to vote on the subpoena, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 24-17

The Ranking Member is not able to force a vote on subpoenas issued by the Chairman, but the Chairman has the ability to do so if subpoenas are issued by the Ranking Member.

The House Judiciary Committee decided to simultaneously invite the Administration's participation in the hearing while scheduling the hearing during the President's meeting with NATO leaders in London and without providing information about any future intended hearings.

DESPITE THEIR SUPPOSED IMPARTIALITY, DEMOCRAT MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR IMPEACHMENT SINCE WELL BEFORE THEIR LATEST WITCH HUNT

Back in 2017 The New York Times stated that Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) had a bold pitch to take over the top Democratic spot on the House Judiciary Committee in an effort to lead impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

Nadler has also called President Trump a "fascist" and "the greatest threat to our democracy" since the Civil War.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) has openly said she has been calling for an impeachment inquiry since early May.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called for an impeachment inquiry back in May 2017.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced articles of impeachment against Trump back in August 2017.

Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) has supported a motion to impeach the President since July 17, 2019.

Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) said the only way to get the facts from the Mueller Report was to impeach the President.

On May 20, 2019 Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) endorsed an impeachment inquiry saying that if the President's General Counsel did not testify the House should continue with an inquiry.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) stated that he has been thinking about impeaching Trump since his election back in November 2016.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) called for the President to be impeached back in August, 2019.

Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) said she has been in favor of an impeachment inquiry since before the summer break of this year.

Rep. Joe Neguse (CO-D) said he supported an impeachment inquiry based off of the Mueller investigation.

Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) called for the House to open an impeachment inquiry based off of the Mueller Report.

Rep. Madeline Dean (D-PA) called for the House to push for an impeachment inquiry based off of the Mueller Report.

Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) put out a statement saying that she supports an impeachment inquiry based off of the Mueller Report.

Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) called for impeachment inquiry based off the Mueller report and not Ukraine.

TOMORROW'S IMPEACHMENT FARCE KICKS OFF WITH ANOTHER SHAM SET OF HEARINGS WHERE REPUBLICANS ONCE AGAIN DO NOT RECEIVE THE SAME PRIVILEGES AS DEMOCRATS

During Tomorrow's Impeachment Hearing, We Will Hear From A Set Of Constitutional Scholars That Have Nothing To Do With The Matter At Hand

On Wednesday, The House Judiciary Committee Will Hold A Hearing With A Panel Of Constitutional Scholars And Lawmakers Discussing The Constitutional Issues Surrounding Impeachment. "Impeachment Hearings Will Be Wednesday's hearing will be largely a discussion of constitutional issues, with lawmakers set to hear from a panel of constitutional scholars and law professors about the impeachment process - and whether an assortment of allegations against Trump meet the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors" outlined in the Constitution." ( Politico , 12/01/19)

The White House Highlighted That By Holding An Academic Discussion With Law Professors The Judiciary Committee Made Clear Their Initial Hearing Is Including No Fact Witnesses At All. "We understand from rumors and press reports (though not from any notice provided in your letter or in the official notice of the hearing) that the hearing will consist of an academic discussion by law professors. We understand this to mean that your initial hearing will include no fact witnesses at all." (​ Politico , 12/01/19)

In The House Judiciary Impeachment Hearings, Once Again, The Ability Of Republicans To Subpoena Witnesses And Evidence Is Strictly Controlled By The Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler And The Democrat Minority

According To The Impeachment Inquiry Resolution Issued By The House, The Subpoenas Issued By The Ranking Minority Member Of Judiciary Committee Are Authorized Only With The Concurrence Of The Democrat Chairman. "The ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed necessary to the investigation- (i) by subpoena or otherwise-"( CNN , 10/30/19)

If The Chairman Declines To Allow A Minority Witness, The Full Committee Then Decides By A Vote. "In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursu14 ant to paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to renders that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule." ( CNN , 10/30/19)

Democrats Outnumber Republicans On The Judiciary Committee 24-17. ( House Judiciary Committee , Accessed 12/02/19)

Hypocritically, The Ranking Member Cannot Force A Vote On Subpoenas Issued By The Chairman But The Chairman May On Subpoenas Issued By The Ranking Member . "Here, by contrast, the ranking member of this Committee cannot force a vote on subpoenas that you choose to issue, but you can force committee votes on the ranking member's subpoenas. 6 All of this is an unprecedented and extremely troubling denial of basic due process that destroys the legitimacy and credibility of your inquiry." ( Politico , 12/01/19)

The White House Has Refused To Participate In The Judiciary Committee's Sham Impeachment Hearings Noting The Highly Unprecedented And Unfair Practices Democrats Have Engaged In

The White House Has Refused To Participate In This Sham Impeachment Inquiry Calling It Baseless And Highly Partisan . "I write in response to your letter of November 26, 2019, to President Trump regarding the purported "impeachment inquiry" currently being conducted by Democrats in the House of Representatives ("House"). As you know, this baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness." ( Politico , 12/01/19)

In Their Response, The White House Noted That They Simultaneously Invited The Administration's Participation While Scheduling The Hearing During The President's Meeting With NATO Leaders In London. "Your letter asked that the President notify the House Committee on the Judiciary ("Judiciary Committee" or "Committee") by December 1, 2019, whether the Administration intends to participate in a hearing scheduled for December 4, 2019. You scheduled this initial hearing-no doubt purposely-during the time that you know the President will be out of the country attending the NATO Leaders Meeting in London." ( Politico , 12/01/19)

The White House Also Attacked The Lack Of Transparency Concerning The Initial Hearing Saying: "Although The Hearing Is Set To Occur In Just Three Days, You Still Have Not Disclosed The Identities Of The Witnesses Who Will Appear." "Although the hearing is set to occur in just three days, you still have not disclosed the identities of the witnesses who will appear. Press reports as late as this afternoon indicate that the identities of these witnesses, apparently all academics, have not even been provided to other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. These reports also indicate that you currently intend to call three academic witnesses, but will allow Republicans to call only one such witness. Worse, while providing no information, you have demanded a response from the President." ( Politico , 12/01/19)

The White House Highlighted That The Judiciary Committee Has Provided No Information On Further Hearings Intended By The Committee, What Dates These Hearings Will Occur, What Witnesses Will Be Called, What The Schedule Will Be, Or What Rights, If Any, The Committee Intends To Afford The President . "You also sent another letter on November 29, 2019, setting a different deadline of December 6 for the President to provide notice as to whether the Administration intends to participate in additional, unspecified hearings that apparently will occur after that date and to specify the rights the President wishes to exercise at these additional hearings. Again, your letter provided no information whatsoever as to the dates these hearings will occur, what witnesses will be called, what the schedule will be, what the procedures will be, or what rights, if any, the Committee intends to afford the President." ( Politico , 12/01/19)

The White House Exposed How Partisan The Committee Is By Noting That Clinton Witnesses Were Allowed Two And Half Weeks' Notice To Prepare For Any Hearings And It Scheduled The Hearing On A Date Suggested By The President's Attorneys . "For example, when the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the President's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the President no scheduling input, no meaningful information, and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the Administration a fair opportunity to participate." ( Politico , 12/01/19)

DESPITE THEIR SUPPOSED IMPARTIALITY, NEARLY ALL OF THE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVE LONG VOICED SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHMENT

Chairman Of The Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler Is An Outspoken Opponent Of The President And Has Called Him A "Fascist" And "The Greatest Threat To Our Democracy" Since The Civil War

Back In 2017 The New York Times Stated: " Representative Jerry Nadler Has A Bold Pitch To Take Over The Top Democratic Spot On The House Judiciary Committee" In An Effort To Lead Impeachment Proceedings Against President Trump. "Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York has a bold pitch to take over the top Democratic spot on the House Judiciary Committee - that he is best positioned to lead impeachment proceedings against President Trump." ( The New York Times , 12/18/17)

On January 16, 2017, Rep. Nadler Stated That Trump Is Not A Legitimate President . "I will not go to the inauguration on Friday. I cannot go because of the president-election's inflammatory comments, his racist campaign, his conflicts of interest, refusal to disclose his taxes, and the last straw was his ad hominem personal attacks on an icon of the Civil Rights movement, someone who suffered beatings and almost gave his life for this country, John Lewis... That the president-elect, although legally elected, is not legitimate, for all the reasons I said." ( RealClear Politics , 01/16/17)

Back In April 2017, Rep. Nadler Called Donald Trump A Fascist At A Town Hall In New York. "Congressman Jerrold Nadler labeled President Donald Trump 'a fascist' at a town hall on the Upper West Side last night-even as he seemed to advise those in attendance to avoid using that freighted term whenever possible." ( Observer , 04/14/17)

On May 17, 2017, Rep. Nadler Stated That The House Judiciary Should Hold An Impeachment Inquiry Into The President . "@HouseJudiciary should hold inquiry into obstruction of justice by Trump -- impeachment a possibility, inquiry must prove reports true." ( Twitter Feed , 05/17/19)

On February 24, 2019, Rep. Nadler Said He Viewed The President As The Greatest Threat To Our Democracy Since The Civil War . "'I view this president and his conduct as the greatest threat to the democratic system and to the constitutional government since the Civil War,' Nadler, who represents New York and serves as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on AM 970 in New York on Sunday" ( Newsweek , 02/24/19)

On May 30, 2019, Rep. Nadler Stated That There Is A Justification For Launching An Impeachment Inquiry. "House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on Friday that there "certainly is" justification for launching impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, but cautioned that the public first must agree that it's warranted." ( Politico , 05/31/19)

On July 28, 2019, Rep. Nadler Stated, "Trump Richly Deserves Impeachment." "'My personal view is that [Trump] richly deserves impeachment,' House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler says. Nadler calls the Mueller hearing an 'inflection point,' saying that 'we now have to get further evidence…as we consider articles of impeachment.'" ( Twitter Feed , 07/28/19)

Despite Their Supposed Impartiality, Democrat Members Of The Judiciary Committee Have Already Voiced Support For Impeachment Or Removing The President For Events Unrelated To The Investigation At Hand

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon Has Openly Said She Has Been Calling For An Impeachment Inquiry Since Early May. "Scanlon, who said she has been calling for an impeachment inquiry since early May, argued that Trump's conduct would merit impeachment according to the framers of the Constitution." ( The Daily Pennsylvanian , 11/27/19)

Relying On The Bogus Russia Investigation, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Called For Setting Up An Impeachment Inquiry In May 2017. "Shocking revelation: Trump son-in-law was to set up secret Russian back channel. Time for House Judiciary to start impeachment inquiry." ( Twitter Feed , 05/26/2017)

Rep. Steve Cohen Introduced Articles Of Impeachment Against President Trump In August 2017. "I'll be joining @MSNBC @AliVelshi & @SRuhle @ 11am/10amCST to discuss my articles of #Impeachment against #Trump. #ImpeachTrump." ( Twitter Feed , 08/17/17)

As Early As July 17, 2019, Rep. Karen Bass Supported A Motion To Impeach The President. "Just voted AGAINST a motion to table the resolution to impeach Donald Trump." ( Twitter Feed , 07/17/19)

In April 2019, Rep. Cedric Richmond Said Impeaching The President Over The Mueller Report Would Be The Best Way To Get The Facts Out. "Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said impeachment proceedings against President Trump could be the 'best way' for Democrats in Congress to 'get all the facts out' about the details outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller's report." ( CBS News , 04/28/19)

Rep. David Cicilline Called To Impeach The President On September 21, 2019. "Trump welcomed foreign interference in 2016 and tried to cover it up. He's using the presidency for financial gain and obstructing Congress. Now he's asking another foreign government to interfere in 2020. Each day we don't impeach him, he grows bolder. We have to act. ( Twitter Feed , 07/17/19)

On May 20, 2019, Rep. Ted Lieu Endorsed An Impeachment Inquiry Into The President If The President's General Counsel Did Not Testify. "This inquiry could lead to impeachment, or it could lead to nothing. But I think if McGahn doesn't show, we have to at least start it." ( The Washington Post , 05/20/19)

On May 2, 2019, Rep. Jamie Raskin Stated That He Had Been Thinking About The Impeachment Of Trump Since His Election In November 2016 . QUESTION: "When did you start thinking about impeachment in terms of Donald Trump?" REPRESENTATIVE JAMIE RASKIN: "After my election in November 2016, when it became clear that Trump was going to be president, I had a sense that my service would call upon all of my constitutional training. There's nothing normal about the times we live in." ( The Nation , 05/02/19)

On August 6, 2019, Rep. Pramila Jayapal Called For The President To Be Impeached. "Congress has the constitutional right to impeach a president for 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' It is clear that Trump has broken the law, and for that he must be held accountable." ( Twitter Feed , 08/06/19)

On September 25, 2019, Rep. Sylvia Garcia Stated That She Has Been In Favor Of An Impeachment Inquiry Since Before The Summer Break. " 'Let's be clear. I've never said I'm not for the inquiry. I've not made a decision whether to impeach or not,' Garcia told CNN on Sept. 25. 'I've been for the impeachment inquiry that we've been doing in Judiciary since before the summer break.'" ( The Hill , 05/21/19)

On May 21, 2019 , Rep. Joe Neguse Stated That He Supported An Impeachment Inquiry Based Off The Mueller Investigation. "The findings detailed in the Special Counsel's report, and the Administration's pattern of wholesale obstruction of Congress since the report's release, make clear that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry." ( Twitter Feed , 05/21/19)

On May 20, 2019, Rep. Greg Stanton Called For The House To Open An Impeachment Inquiry Based Off Of The Mueller Report. "It is time for the House of Representatives to move to the next stages of holding the President accountable, including the extraordinary step of opening an impeachment inquiry. This is a conclusion I reached only recently, and not one I reached lightly." (Rep. Stanton, Press Release , 05/30/19)

On May 22, 2019, Rep. Madeline Dean Called For The House To Push For An Impeachment Inquiry Based Off Of The Mueller Report. "We must open an impeachment inquiry. I don't say this with any sort of joy, but I meet this with an American optimism that this government of and by and for the people will not be thwarted by the most singularly amoral President of our lifetimes." ( Twitter Feed , 05/22/19)

On June 21, 2019, Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Put Out A Statement Saying She Supports Opening An Impeachment Inquiry Based Off Of The Mueller Report And Not Ukraine. " Since the release of Mueller's report, the President has ignored multiple congressional subpoenas and asserted an abusive and illegitimate use of executive privilege. All of this in an attempt to hide information and undermine the checks and balances of our government. This President has engaged in behavior that we have not seen, nor would we have allowed, from the other 44 men who have occupied that office. This is why I support opening an impeachment inquiry into the President." (Rep. Mucarsel-Powell, Press Release , 06/21/19)

On May 21, 2019, Rep. Veronica Escobar Called For An Impeachment Inquiry Based Off The Mueller Report And Not Ukraine. "I personally feel like we cannot tolerate this level of obstruction, that if we do, then we have lowered the bar to the point where any criminal can be president of the United States and that should be unacceptable to all of us. I believe we need to begin an impeachment inquiry." ( Twitter Feed , 05/21/19)

Elections

Democrats

Read more research