Opening Argument – Patrick Philbin Explains an Unconstitutional Origin to The House Impeachment, And Why It Matters…

Several days ago we anticipated a potentially important point we hoped would start the impeachment defense for President Donald Trump.   Today, attorney Patrick Philbin delivered.  The issue is a critical constitutional component that needed emphasis, and it is good to see pundits finally starting to realize the significance.

White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explains why House subpoenas were illegitimate: the subpoena power was never authorized; the initiating subpoena power was never voted on.


Additionally, and specifically by design, absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no constitutional pathway or process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. Make no mistake, this was a pre-planned purposeful trick within the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare road-map.

The House motive here, the forethought within their design, is very important now because it explains why they are vociferously demanding witnesses in the Senate.  The House plan was to work around the ability of the executive branch to go to court. The managers are now attempting to execute that plan, along with a manufactured political talking point, in the Senate trial.

The House intended for this to unfold exactly as it is happening.

CTH noted the structural issue last August, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings. None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.

The House was not issuing subpoenas, it was issuing letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production. Recently the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion.


BACKSTORY – Last year House Democrat leadership took a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they would not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance.


“Lawful subpoenas”, literally require an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word. The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry, and charged the House Judiciary Committee with the authority therein.

Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempted to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) were only sending out request letters. The compliance was discretionary based on the outlook of the recipient.

Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and their Lawfare staff’s impeachment scheme could only succeed with a compliant media protecting it. The media was entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct.

If the media would have ever asked questions the fraud would have collapsed.

Adam Schiff had to hide his hearings because the foundation of the impeachment fraud was to create a public impression. There was no structural impeachment process or guideline being followed. The committee leadership used the closed door hearings to leak information to the media to create a needed narrative.

A legislative “letter” or demand request needed to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There was no penalty that can be associated with the House demands because the Legislative Branch did not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they worked through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

There is an elevated level of subpoena, a power made possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. However, that level of elevated House authority required a full House authorization vote, and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee as empowered.

In 2019 the Legislative Branch was NOT expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raised the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the constitutional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

There was NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House did not create a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.

The House needed to vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee would have gained judicial enforcement authority. That would have created a penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. This was the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plan was designed for public consumption; she/they were creating the illusion of something that did not exist. The purpose of all their fraudulent impeachment activity was to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intended to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process was destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege.

The Lawfare impeachment road-map was designed to conflict with the constitution. It was a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their sketchy impeachment plan, not a flaw.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies changed House rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi and Lawfare changed House impeachment rules (SEE HERE). Pelosi/Lawfare changed committee rules (SEE HERE); and in doing so they removed House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did. However, what Lawfare and Pelosi could not change was The U.S. Constitution, which they were destined to collide with.

Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ could not supersede the constitutional separation of powers. She was well aware of this. Nancy Pelosi could not decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

Pelosi’s impeachment scheme required a compliant media to support her construct…

They did exactly that.

Mary McCord joined the House effort to impeach President Trump; as noted in this article from Politico:

“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.”

“That’s why you’re seeing lawyers come out and being very willing to put in extraordinary amounts of time and effort to litigate these cases,” she added. (link)

Former DOJ-NSD Head Mary McCord is currently working for the House Committee (Adam Schiff) who created the impeachment scheme.

National Security Council resistance member Alexander Vindman starts a rumor about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, which he shares with CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (a John Brennan resistance associate). Ciaramella then makes contact with resistance ally Mary McCord in her role within the House. McCord then helps Ciaramella create a fraudulent whistle-blower complaint via her former colleague, now ICIG, Michael Atkinson….

…And that’s how this entire Impeachment operation gets started.

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Lawfare, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

245 Responses to Opening Argument – Patrick Philbin Explains an Unconstitutional Origin to The House Impeachment, And Why It Matters…

  1. litlbit2 says:

    Thanks again Sundance for exposing what I call “click bait”. It has been used in all reporting allowing, IMO, the Russian Interference as a coverup of the failed DNC selection for President, Hillary. After which, Uranium One came back into focus with the Russian/Dossier. It became the new game in town. Three years later, 32 million dollars and counting the Biden for President Gang panics. So the Ukraine/impeachment daily soap opera takes on legs. As this latest folly becomes mute Pelosi/McConnell call in the medics or The Senate for a Grand Act

    In all this corrupted fantasy reporting, how many times has there been a mention of Hillary/UraniumOne/Russia connection or Ukraine/Biden/ omitting Romney/Pelosi/Waters each time. That the subpoenas are requests, House Impeachment process not legal or ask why McConnell decides to continue the corrupt process. Certainly not, let’s just pound those not honoring the FAKE subpoenas it is good for click bait and ratings.

    Very seldom has the reporting be anything other than leading, indoctrination, distorted from the truth. IMO without also reporting the possible connections each time one of the above was mentioned adds to a uninformed electorate promoting the corruption they also hide.

    MSM is very corrupt and has exposed themselves as such, but do not understand why the new real news outlets are allowing the continuation of such poor story telling as reporting.

    Maybe Monday some real news outlet will start the show, “now we continue the illegal impeachment trial” a process. Movie starts a 10, “Illegal Business”. Lcatraks43@sbcglobal.netAll funded by the electorate forced to pay for more folly.

    So sad that with the current corrupt Justice System this is currently the only process that will actually bring news to the electorate. FYI, heard the Bagpipe is being tuned!
    No crime, no legal process, but hey let’s have a trial

    Liked by 3 people

  2. TonyE says:

    But of course, we knew this all along. Why it took the public at large to note this baffles me. I figured there are enough “smart” people who knew this but no one had said a thing.

    So, I’d guess the Senate has the reason to dismiss the second article.

    Now, for the first article, they got three options: (1) they dismiss it or (2) they take a vote and find Trump not guilty or (3) call the Bidens as witnesses

    What astonishes me, however, is Chuckie making the claim that the defense made the case to call witnesses. Is Chuckie in the same planet as the rest of us, or is he is Planet DNC?

    Liked by 3 people

    • todayistheday99 says:

      Nothing to be baffled about. A combination of poisonious MSM propaganda and a subsequent epidemic of TDS … blocks out all facts, reason and common sense.

      Liked by 5 people

    • WSB says:

      Even Cruz was on with Judge Jeanine tonight and crazily said he did not believe there would be a dismissal. How could there not be? There is not basis to continue…

      Liked by 1 person

      • icanhasbailout says:

        Exoneration is highly preferable especially when we can totally nuke the Dems in the process. This is the very first time Trump side is represented in the process at all, and if there’s one thing consistent about him is that when he’s ready to fire he’s got enough ammo stockpiled to keep firing until the target stops moving.

        Liked by 2 people

        • WSB says:

          Well, let’s hope. I still shun Canadian Cubans preaching the US Constitution.

          Liked by 3 people

          • icanhasbailout says:

            Yeah Cruz is still way too slick for my taste, and that betrayal at the RNC was too deep for me to not be wary either. Plus the whole Fiorina thing makes me question his judgment in a big way, that was beyond bizarre.

            However… I think he has conceded to the reality that Trumpism is the future and his future depends on being on board with it.

            Liked by 2 people

      • donna kovacevic says:

        WSB I watched that and thought WTF is he yapping about. Don’t trust him either. A Constitutional lawyer he is? Oh Lord Jesus please help.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. mtg50 says:

    There is no importance to this now. It was part of the President’s defense to show the bias of the “impeachment” process and how corrupt it was right from the beginning. What’s to come on Monday will be devastating to the House Democrats and their bogus case. This impeachment and the House democrats who brought it to the Senate will go down in infamy. How many democrat Senators will join them is the only open question?

    Liked by 8 people

  4. gigi says:

    So-again, it sounds as though President Trump was never impeached by the house of (self)Representatives in the first place: “initiating subpoena power was never voted on.” Neither historical precedence nor Constitution have been followed by house of (self)rep, so wtf? After Trump’s defense bitch-slaps and upper cuts the demon-possessed liberals in both houses and both parties, shut down this sh%& show IMMEDIATELY. Talking to you, McConnel. p.s. whether Schmucky Schoomer is taking mescaline (highly likely) or eating Prep H (also highly likely), may I humbly request that Schmuck be spoon fed and forced to eat his own literal and figurative diarrhea? He tries to make the Country eat it every day.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cboldt says:

      The whole house voted on the articles. As a matter of legal formality, they are valid. The contents suck, but that’s for the senate to deal with.
      What are not valid as a matter of legal formaility are impeachment inquiry related subpoeanas issued before Oct 31, 2019, which is pretty much all of them.
      The House mamagers argued that the whole house does not need to authorize such subpoenas. No matter, Trump did not act “unilaterally” or without legal advice or without good reason is stiff-arming the fake subpoeans. He has a DOJ/OLC opinion that says they have no force. He also has executive privilege.
      The House decided it did not want to test either flaw, so it just makes its argument to the Senate instead of to a court. Smart move when you have a weak hand. The public will fall for it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • another face in the crowd says:

        Thank you, that is my current understanding of the issue as well.

        It has always just been a PR stunt to those in charge of the house with hopes of turning public opinion with the help of the media.

        I think it would have been very effective on a normal republican, but luckily President Trump is a not and is a fighter.


      • WSB says:

        The committee that is supposed to initiate impeachment is the Judiciary, no? Was this not started in the Intelligence Committee?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Nowut Ameen says:

        This is a version of the trick used to “deem” Obamacare into existence. The validity of the Articles does not make the subpoenas retroactively valid, however.


  5. trialbytruth says:

    LAWFARE never thought they would take down the President. Their sole intention was to take down the Strong Executive of the Constitution. What we are watching is not an impeachment. It is a vote of confidence / no confidence.
    They have succeeded in Changing our form of government to a parlimentery form.

    How do we bring it back

    Liked by 2 people

    • jeans2nd says:

      How do we bring it back?
      Vote MAGA Republican, get all your family, friends, and neighbors to vote MAGA Republican as well.
      Otherwise, our Republic goes away, we become a democracy ruled by one party with an ineffective parliament, just like Venezuela.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Heika says:

      Its a COUP! And the media is involved up to pussy’s bow. That is what we have been watching.


    • another face in the crowd says:

      Perhaps that was the real purpose, taking down the President could just be a nice side benefit to them.

      They realized it would be easier for them to herd the cats of congress and make it easier to nullify the presidency if one of their chosen ones is not elected again.

      This explains Pelosi’s comment about being the superior branch of government. She probably heard that term from her strategy meetings with lawfare….

      If the senate does not rebuke this impeachment and If the democrats are not vanquished by the voters this fall for it, we will in effect become as you say a parliamentary type of government and loose one of our most important safe guards to our freedoms in the separation of powers between three co-equal branches. If this stands then the congress could become the superior branch in the long run.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kim Hudson says:

      The other strategy in this is to win back the Senate by turning voters against the Senators in Swing States. They hope to hamstring Trump’s second term.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Anthonydog says:

      Spot on —so how do we reverse engineer what the traitors among us have wrought?


  6. As a Due Process Train Wreck and as an illegal Bill of Attainder, along with the failure to meet High Crimes and Misdemeanors and especially due the criminal conspiracy between Schiff, McCord, Vindman, Atkinson and Ciarmarella that launched it, of course these charges deserved to be dismissed out of hand.

    The President, however, deserves an acquittal.

    In the circular irony of Congressional criminality, the impeachment charges are themselves the crimes that they charge; an abuse of office by Democrats to conduct a phony investigation of a political rival to rig an election. And an attempt at Obstruction of the Durham probe and any Biden probe.

    It’s like Saul Alinsky and his star pupil Hillary stuck in a runaway roller coaster at Al Capone’s House of Mirrors. With Hunter Biden as the Carney.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cboldt says:

      The Bill of Attainder argument is silly. All impeachments are literally personal, and in the case of a president, can be “non criminal,” for example, a president who really fails to uphold the law.
      Plus the penalty is limited to being barred from holding office. Legally, that is not “punishment.”


  7. MD says:

    If they would have taken an actual vote on impeachment then house republicans could have called their own witnesses.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Hans says:

    When this farce ends where will the Republicans be….
    They will have video clips of the corrupt shampeachment. The republicans will air how the democrats misled the public with …we are independent,,,,…the republican message democrats do not know how to tell the schiff, Pelosi,the fake subpoena letters, …..WE HAVE THE CONSTITUTION…WHY CANT OR WONT DEMOCRATS FOLLOW IT…

    Liked by 1 person

  9. zorrorides says:

    So the President’s team tells the Senators that the the House made Fake Subpoenas, on purpose. Then they say the Articles do not meet Constitutional ‘high crime’ requirements for valid charges, and request the Senators to dismiss it.

    Why oh why do they leave out the important Stuff !?!?!

    You President’s men, please explain what Constitutional requirements the Articles DO meet.

    Citizen Trump is to be removed from the office he won by lawful election; thereby confiscating the electoral college votes of the States; and thereby confiscating the ballots cast by the citizens of the United States. What must the President’s lawyers proclaim in the Senate? Under the guise of impeachment, the House presented the Senate with a Bill of Attainder.

    The Constitution expressly forbids Congress from making or passing any Bill of Attainder. Explain Bill of Attainder and why it’s forbidden to America, and we the citizens will be very unfriendly toward all who promote it. It will fall; it will not stand.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nowut Ameen says:

      Makes sense, but it will never happen. When people hear “bill of attainder” they flashback on 8th grade history class and think of men in powdered wigs writing with quill pens and saying “thee” and “thou”.


  10. hawkins6 says:

    WH Counsel Patrick Philbin did an excellent job presenting his arguments as did all the others.

    His presentation was very easy to follow especially after reading sundance’s previous articles about how the House didn’t follow the constitutional process via the absence of House Authorization votes, unauthorized subpoenas etc. Mr. Philbin’s unhurried, deliberative delivery is a very effective way to convey his points without boring or overwhelming a listener.

    Liked by 2 people

    • hawkins- so true. The Team is doing a very workmanlike job of plowing through the material, explaining it simply and logically so that even those poor unenlightened souls, who do not have the benefit of the Sundance Tree House School of Technology can understand it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • wendy forward says:

      Legal/procedural stuff like this can be boring but so important. Normally, it’s best to get a case thrown out ASAP and this is how it’s done. But IDK if POTUS wants that.

      Let’s see what happens.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Conservative_302 says:

    This dude was the best. Watched the entire time.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Nessie509 says:

    The problem is the Democrats believe that the Defense must prove Trump must be removed. (When they say “fair trial” they mean removal from office).
    The Senate determines if an act is a High Crime, or High Misdemeanor. (Not Lawrence Tribe).
    A vote to acquit has a valid rationale. Without Witnesses, although I don’t think minds can be changed after the House’s boring and sketchy presentation.
    I think the House failed to sustain the burden of proof an impeachable offense was committed.
    Just as Democrats, like it or not determined Bill Clinton did not commit an impeachable offense warranting removal 21 years ago.
    When you don’t have the votes you can’t stop an acquittal.
    It makes little difference what the Democrats think about anything at all. They don’t have the votes to remove.


  13. Troublemaker10 says:

    Will the Senate Republicans follow the deceitful Dem game plan or the Constitution?


  14. candyman says:

    Roberts – “doing nothing in particular and [doing] it well.”

    Liked by 1 person

  15. islandpalmtrees says:

    Rep. Jordan: Finally Get To Hear Facts, Truth From President Trump’s Defense Team

    Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, with Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., left, and Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Saturday, Jan. 25, 2020. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

    OAN Newsroom
    UPDATED 11:58 AM PT — Saturday, January 25, 2020
    Rep. Jim Jordan is saying the American people will finally get to hear the facts and truth now that the Democrats’ opening statements are over.

    “Two hours of truth beats over 20 hours of presumptions, assumptions and hearsay,” said Jordan.

    On Sunday, the lawmaker took a shot at the Democrats’ case. He said they relied heavily on Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony, which they referred to twice as much as any other witness account.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. MDNA I says:


  17. islandpalmtrees says:

    BULL SCHIFF! Adam Schiff Tells Reporters, “I Don’t Even Know Who the Whistleblower Is” (VIDEO)
    January 25, 2020, 3:11 pm by Cristina Laila

    GOP Senator John Barrasso said Schiff was so freaked out when Trump’s lawyers confronted him about his fake call and transcript that “the blood drained from Schiff’s face.“


  18. Pegon Zellschmidt says:

    We’ll have to wait for the Sunday shows to see if anyone accuses Philbin of racism for attacking Jeffries, “as if an African-American, born into slavery, survived Jim Crow and was lynched himself, could be expected to know the Constitution verbatim like a white Republican lawyer.”

    Liked by 2 people

  19. dallasdan says:

    The vote to allow the “unallowable” witnesses is now the linchpin to the trial outcome.

    Without the Dem witnesses, there is no basis for conviction, and everyone, especially the RINO and NeverTrumper Repubs, knows it. The vote will be the last chance for the President’s Repub enemies to allow enough additional “evidence” to be gathered from the witnesses to enable them to concoct a narrative, albeit it factually baseless, supporting their votes for conviction.

    I anticipate that the RINOs/NeverTrumpers will tally the votes for conviction, assuming testimony from additional witnesses is allowed, and if the number is enough, the usual bad actors (Collins, Murkowski, Romney, + 1) will vote for allowing the witnesses. If the votes to convict are not there, the bad actors will not expose themselves, and they will vote the party line to defeat Schumer’s motion.

    Behind the scenes, this is far from over, regardless of how powerfully the President’s defense team destroys the prosecution’s case. JMO

    Liked by 1 person

  20. paintbrushsage says:

    It’s interesting watching a short clip of Philbin with the sound off. He has a completely reassuring manner. Love the sweeping hand motions. He is a teacher. I really appreciate his taking the time to serve our country.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. JMP says:

    “…could only succeed with a compliant media protecting it”
    Just looked it up, Breitbart and Fox News (to name 2) get a lot more Web Traffic (in the US) than WaPo. Rush, Hannity, Savage and Levin have HUGE audiences.
    You’d think we have no voice.
    WE KNOW.
    It’s the politicians (especially the Senators – except Josh Hawley, and sometimes Rand Paul) “on our side” who don’t fight, and Google who blocks traffic to Conservative sites, that keep the information from the other half of the Country.
    I’m hoping that with PDT’s huge financial advantage, and his uncanny ability to bypass Google et al and go directly to the people, the tide will turn over the coming months.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. MDNA I says:

    Makes my point AND explicitly ties things back to PRECISELY what SD uses the term “Lawfare” to refer to


  23. Vince says:

    “Schumer: If you’re a Republican, and you think that the case was that was made today was strong, then why not have witnesses and documents?”

    Because the case that was made was that the prosecution was composed of shameless liars. Why bring more liars in to it?


  24. Bruce_Dern's_Finger says:

    This certainly is not Pelosi’s first rodeo, while at the reins of the the House of Representatives, on circumventing the U.S. Constitution. With the dumbing-down of 49 States DNCs, sans Hawaii, Pelosi nominated aka Obama as the DNC 2008 presidential candidate minus the U.S. Constitution eligibility.

    From author of below youtube: “The Democratic Party of Hawaii Refused To Certify Obama was legally eligible under the Constitution to be President. It is my understanding that, according to party rules, Nancy Pelosi had a sworn duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY HIM. She took it upon herself, to tell the State of Hawaii that he was eligible, when she knew that he wasn’t. So, it appears he was never legally nominated by the Democratic Party. Hawaii Revised Statue 11-113 requires that the political party certify that their candidates are legally eligible to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution. It also requires “A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.”
    The Hawaii Democratic Party refused to state that Obama was legally eligible, and never stated that he was duly chosen as a candidate of the state party. They were certainly in a better position to know about Obama’s legal status than Nancy Pelosi. So according to Hawaiian Law, and the US Constitution, he should not have been allowed on the ballot.”

    “Correction: I mistakenly said Tim Allen was an election official, I meant to say Tim Adams.”


  25. TwoLaine says:

    Jesse Watters talked about this tonight on Watters’ World.


  26. MDiceman says:

    President’s counsel must frame this issue as a result of incompetence or an intentional plan to paint Republican senators as unreasonable and biased (can’t allow Schiff to get away with, oops, my bad), then go on to point out the huge staff of “constitutional” lawyers hired by the House last year. How could so many experts be so wrong.


  27. Kay123 says:

    I have watched this “impeachment” dog and pony show to exhaustion.
    Repubs twiddle their thumbs while Dems slather on the baseless
    Obama did 160 more impeachable acts than Trump did…..(Dems claim
    all of 2). Obama killed people….Trump did not.
    The “Globalists” (Dem AND Repubs) want Trump to fail !!

    Money under the table, BIG Business MONOPOLIES, FOREIGN
    COUNTRIES, Multiple Billionaires and Trillionaires…. are selling our capitalist
    freedoms into communism. Mostly they are using taxpayer
    money to do it. Money disappears from government coffers
    and those responsible….. have no idea where it went.
    IMO… the drug trade is enriching a lot of these
    same people. They launder the money thru their
    We need to impeach the whole Dem party!!! AND ANY

    Govmt has gotten so big they play games like
    “hot potato ” with our govmt business and money,
    “I didn’t do it” is their favorite game.
    We need ONE guy who is responsible….not 30-40
    to do ONE JOB.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Hebo Sabe says:

    “The House intended for this to unfold exactly as it is happening.”

    Of course they did. This is how we lost so often. They corrupted our side, played these games and our corrupt guys went along with it.

    It’s always been on us. /s

    Look at the march for life.

    Then look at the Republicans who voted for ()bama’s “Health Care.”


  29. Conservative_302 says:

    I thought Philbin was the best speaker yesterday.


  30. pyrthroes says:

    Of course, all this is true: This blind-pig House Impeachment is no such thing, nor do Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff exhibit a grain of integrity or concern for America’s institutional well-being.

    But so what?– neither this K Street Congress, nor indeed Lincoln’s 36th in 1860, need act on anyone’s behalf but their solipsistic own.

    For this, there is no remedy– by very nature, Juvenal’s “quis custodiet” is an infinite regress. Absent so-called guardians’ integrity –in this case, the U.S. Congress– all things devolve to force majeur. Come Bastille Day, ‘Enry Higgins’ tears will be too late.


  31. David Farrar says:

    Quick, someone tell Judge Napolitano @ “Fox News legal analyst says there is ‘ample and uncontradicted’ evidence that Trump should be removed from office”… Judge Andrew Napolitano


  32. Dipchip says:

    What the Democrats failed to realize is that with our constitution, truth ultimately prevails. You can not win with media propaganda, obfuscation, and manufactured evidence. All the smart lawyers and all the smart bureaucrats can not put Shiffty agenda together again.


  33. iRock says:

    Should the Senate agree to subpoenas for documents and witness, Senate business will be tied up for a year, no judicial confirmations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s