Adam Schiff is the master of lying hyperbole. In his opening remarks at the sham Intelligence Committee impeachment hearings, he astonished everyone with a fabricated rendition of President Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian leader.
When Republicans called him out, he claimed that his libelous remarks were simply a parody. Using parody to take down a duly elected President of the United States is what cheap-shot artists like Stephen Colbert do without the fear of consequences. What Schiff did, however, had the consequences of undermining his already nonexistent credibility.
Schiff’s latest post-hearing pronouncement after producing no direct witnesses went something like this, “The evidence of the President’s misconduct is overwhelming.”
Like Schiff’s dopey parody, the statement gets hung on its own petard: There is no evidence, at least if you accept the definition of the term. Evidence is a body of facts or information showing that a belief or proposition is true or valid.
And the only thing “overwhelming” was the level of boredom elicited by the committee’s parade of secondhand, disgruntled State Department cronies. Their disgruntlement arose from their boss’s boss deciding to conduct American foreign policy without consulting them.
The mainstream press, in the meantime, has decided to put lipstick on the Democrats’ rush to get this pig to market before the Democrat Iowa primaries. Media rags like the Los Angeles Times have elevated the process by mostly quoting the findings and the Republican objections to them.
The lipstick part is the Times conjecture that Rudy Giuliani made lots of telephone calls to Trump Administration officials, so he must have been doing some shady diplomacy. Then they added the mascara that Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the committee, “may have had more extensive knowledge about the matters of the committee had under investigation.”
In other words, ignore at the evidence that Schiff recruited, coached, and helped the whistleblower write the complaint.
In any case, that paragon of Democrat partisanship Jerry Nadler is the next railroad conductor on the Democrat’s ill-advised impeachment train. The train has left the station, and the White House has decided to let it depart without them.
The purported purpose of Nadler’s hearings is to determine whether there is a good case to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. Perhaps, Rep. Nadler will recall his own argument that even if a President (e.g., Bill Clinton in 1998) commits a felony like perjury, it doesn’t meet the high standards required to remove him from office.
To refresh Nadler’s memory, the Republicans have called Professor Johnathan Turley, a prominent George Washington University constitutional scholar.
Professor Turley in his 53-page published statement admits that he doesn’t like Trump and didn’t vote for him. However, he argues, you don’t impeach a President simply because you are mad and don’t like the guy. You actually need evidence and the ability to rise above your bias.
“In the current case,” he writes, “the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent.”
Actually, the House “has not bothered,” because those witnesses don’t exist. If they did, they would have been front and center from the outset.