Last night, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training who has been a <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/alexander-vindman-condemned-himself-in-his-impeachment-testimony/">frequent</a> <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/26/why-trumps-ukraine-demands-werent-remotely-illegal/">commentator</a> on Democrats’ current partisan <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">impeachment</a> <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">effort</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR6O_a8m-8A">joined</a> “Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler” on One America News Network (OANN) to discuss the Democrats&#8217; increasingly hard push to ensure that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bad-trump-presidents-dismissal-john-bolton-josh-hammer">former</a> National Security Advisor John Bolton is called to testify during the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
&#8220;Democrats may decide to call Bolton to testify about a possible quid pro quo between Trump and Ukrainian officials regarding an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, even though the articles of impeachment are already published.&#8221; The Daily Wire&#8217;s Emily Zanotti <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelosi-threatens-to-call-john-bolton-to-testify-in-house-even-as-dems-vote-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate">reported</a> earlier this month. &#8220;Senior Democrats raised the possibility of subpoenaing Bolton last week, after Bolton himself admitted that, if asked to testify by the Senate, he would comply (though he did not speak on whether he would do the same for a House subpoena, and referenced Republicans specifically).&#8221;
&#8220;The theory seems to be, according to a plan of action outlined by former advisors of President Barack Obama on the left-leaning site, <a href="https://crooked.com/articles/subpoena-john-bolton-democrats/">Crooked</a>, if Bolton is called to testify in the House and provides information critical to the case against the President, that Senate Republicans will have no choice but to allow witnesses at Trump’s Senate impeachment trial,&#8221; Zanotti continued.
Last week, The Federalist&#8217;s David Marcus <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/14/john-boltons-testimony-would-not-be-the-smoking-gun-democrats-need/">argued</a> that even if Bolton testified, his testimony would hardly be the smoking gun that Democrats seem to think it would be. &#8220;[W]hat can John Bolton possibly say that would prove Trump’s intent was malicious, and not genuine concern about taxpayer dollars falling into corrupt hands?&#8221; Marcus asked rhetorically. &#8220;Is he really going to say, &#8216;The president told me he doesn’t care about corruption, he just wanted to get that pesky Joe Biden and get him good?&#8217; Is there anyone on the face of the planet who thinks that such a conversation could have taken place?&#8221;
Hammer joined Wheeler&#8217;s OANN program to discuss the same topic. Hammer agreed with Marcus that there is no plausible scenario in which Bolton&#8217;s Senate testimony would be a smoking gun.
<blockquote>[Bolton] is clearly not going to provide any kind of smoking gun testimony for the reasons that you just outlined. &#8230; [M]y boss at The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, had a good, pretty lengthy <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">column for National Review</a> back in October [on this]. There are two theories as to what happened on the now-infamous July 25th phone call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky. The first theory Ben calls the &#8220;Get Biden Theory&#8221;; the second theory is what Ben calls the &#8220;Miasma of Corruption Theory.&#8221;
So on the first hand, Trump is just trying to politically &#8230; get his opponent, Joe Biden. The second hand, he&#8217;s actually trying to attach corruption-related strings to the doling out of taxpayer aid. My reading of everything that&#8217;s happened so far is that this second theory, the &#8220;Miasma of Corruption Theory,&#8221; is more likely. Possibly, the &#8220;Get Biden Theory&#8221; is right, but as you say, the only reason — or the only way that we would ever be shown that is right — is if John Bolton was literally told by Donald J. Trump, president of the United States, &#8220;I am doing this to get Joe Biden.&#8221; That&#8217;s not going to happen.</blockquote>
Hammer also elaborated on Twitter earlier today.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Schiff is gaslighting us. What “evidence” is being hidden?<a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@benshapiro</a> laid it out well at <a href="https://twitter.com/NRO?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NRO</a> in Oct. There is the “Get Biden Theory” and the “Miasma of Corruption Theory.” There is one thing and one thing only distinguishing the two: Subjective intent. <a href="https://t.co/0wPsbGalBv">https://t.co/0wPsbGalBv</a>
&mdash; Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1219692018668130304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Any purported “evidence” that does not directly speak to that subjective intent — what lawyers call mens rea — is, in actuality, no evidence at all.
&mdash; Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1219692427335950343?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
WATCH:
<iframe title="John Bolton is no Smoking Gun" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fR6O_a8m-8A?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN 1.20.10

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: John Bolton Is No Smoking Gun

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

Impeachment

John Bolton

U.S. Senate

Ukraine

Volodymyr Zelensky

On Tuesday, House Democrats launched a new demand for the Senate&#8217;s nascent impeachment trial of President Donald Trump: White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who is helping to lead the president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-impeachment-team-adds-more-big-names-two-from-bill-clinton-report">prolific legal defense team</a>, must either disclose any pertinent information he has about Democrats&#8217; substantive impeachment claims or otherwise be dismissed as a Trump defense lawyer at trial.
&#8220;President Donald Trump&#8217;s lead impeachment lawyer, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, was a central witness to many of the facts of the case against Trump, House Democrats argued Tuesday, demanding that the Cipollone disclose any firsthand knowledge and warning that his role &#8216;threatens to undermine the integrity of the pending trial,'&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/pat-cipollone-trump-ukraine-scandal-101355">reported</a>.
&#8220;You may be a material witness to the charges against President Trump, even though you are also his advocate,&#8221; House Democrats&#8217; impeachment managers wrote in a letter to Cipollone, the outlet noted. &#8220;[A]t a minimum, you must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with the evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President&#8217;s legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases,&#8221; the impeachment managers continued.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has been a consistent defender of the president&#8217;s throughout the entirety of Democrats&#8217; partisan impeachment push, is having none of it. The junior senator from Texas, a formerly prolific constitutional attorney who clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, blasted the Democratic demand in no uncertain terms. Cruz called the demand an &#8220;absurd request&#8221; on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10157741123607464">Facebook</a>:
<blockquote>Democrats’ opening salvo in impeachment: they demand Trump get rid of his lawyer, Pat Cipollone.
Absurd request.
Unlike the House, the Senate will have a FAIR trial. That means we won’t deny the President his lawyer ON THE DAY the trial starts.
The Sixth Amendment provides the accused the right &#8220;to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.&#8221; Note that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the prosecution; it protects only the accused. Under the standard put forth by the House Democrats today – that any potential fact witness cannot serve as counsel in the impeachment hearing – there is an obvious person who should be disqualified: Adam Schiff.
Schiff, it has been alleged, spoke directly with the so-called &#8220;whistle-blower&#8221; and may even have helped him draft the complaint that launched this entire impeachment.
So, maybe we should disqualify Schiff as a lawyer, and schedule him instead as a witness to explain his role in creating the &#8220;evidence&#8221; in this proceeding?</blockquote>
The Constitution affords no role for the impeachment trial prosecution to impose procedural demands upon the Senate itself. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 2, Clause 5</a>  says that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 3, Clause 6</a> says that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” The <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">obvious textual implication</a> is that House members and Senate members, respectively, possess plenary authority to establish their own internal procedures for conducting the impeachment process.

Ted Cruz being interviewed

Ted Cruz Blasts Democrats’ Opening Impeachment Demand

Adam Schiff

Constitution

Ted Cruz

U.S. House of Representatives

The Democratic Party is doing a heck of a job making it look like the entire party establishment is out to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from clinching the party&#8217;s 2020 presidential nomination. Between <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-even-far-left-samantha-bee-torches-cnn-for-bias-against-bernie-sanders-at-the-debate">CNN&#8217;s bias</a> against him in the debate and now Hillary Clinton publicly scolding him as an unlikable stooge, the game is increasingly beginning to look rather rigged.
In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Hillary Clinton said that she stood by a statement she made severely criticizing Bernie Sanders in the four-part Hulu docuseries &#8220;Hillary.&#8221;
&#8220;He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him,&#8221; she said in the series. &#8220;Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.&#8221;
According to Holly Otterbein of Politico, Bernie Sanders has since responded to Hillary&#8217;s statement with a call to unity.
“My focus today is on a monumental moment in American history: The impeachment trial of Donald Trump,&#8221; said Bernie in a statement. &#8220;Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Bernie Sanders releases a statement on Hillary Clinton’s comments: “My focus today is on a monumental moment in American history: the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history.”
&mdash; Holly Otterbein (@hollyotterbein) <a href="https://twitter.com/hollyotterbein/status/1219659489785405440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In response to Hillary Clinton&#8217;s bashing, the socialist senator&#8217;s supporters and other prominent media figures took to Twitter to blast the failed presidential candidate as an establishment shill who is still bitter about the 2016 election.
&#8220;Hillary Clinton lost to the dumbest and least qualified candidate of all time. Yet she has the audacity to refer to this election&#8217;s frontrunner as &#8216;unlikable.&#8217; Many PEOPLE — not D.C. politicos — love Bernie because of what he represents: U.S.,&#8221; tweeted Ana Kasparian of <a href="https://twitter.com/AnaKasparian/status/1219631675019350025?s=20">The Young Turks</a>. 
&#8220;Bernie Sanders gave Hillary Clinton a complete pass on the emails when he didn’t need to. When he lost the primary, he endorsed and campaigned for her, too. But how quickly we forget,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/1219631712256319490?s=20">tweeted</a> Jon Levine of the New York Post. 
&#8220;If you don&#8217;t condemn Hillary Clinton&#8216;s comments today, I don&#8217;t want to ever hear you talk about unity again,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/johniadarola/status/1219666598992023552?s=20">tweeted</a> John Laderolla of The Young Turks. &#8220;Willing to bet Hillary Clinton doesn&#8217;t receive 1% the condemnation for refusing to say she&#8217;d support Bernie Sanders than Bernie got for working his ass off to try to get her elected.&#8221;
&#8220;This is a damn shame. [Bernie] did 41 events for Clinton in 2016 and pressed his supporters to get behind her campaign. (I know because I was there.) Being divisive at this point is wrong and only plays into the hands of those we need to defeat in November,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/jjz1600/status/1219630564376043520?s=20">tweeted</a> James J. Zogby. 
The Democratic Party establishment&#8217;s bias against Bernie Sanders became readily apparent last week during the presidential debate when CNN moderator Abby Phillip asked him to address a recent report alleging that he told Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) back in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency against Donald Trump.
“So, Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?” Phillip asked the Vermont senator.
“That is correct,” Sanders replied.
Phillip then proceeded to ask Warren how she felt during her conversation with Bernie as if the story were clearly true.
“Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” asked Phillip, tacitly painting Sanders as a liar.

Democratic Nominee for President of the United States former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders Responds To Hillary Clinton’s Attack While His Supporters Trash Her

2016 election

2020 Election

Bernie Sanders

Hillary Clinton

Media Bias

The Hollywood Reporter

As we approach the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, former Vice President Joe Biden continues to hold a sizable lead over the rest of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary field in national polling. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">Biden currently stands 8.0% above second-place Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)</a> in the average of recent national polling. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg round out the top five in most recent national polling. Sanders&#8217; lead over third-place Warren is now substantial: 5.6%.
Buttigieg and Sanders have both been surging in the crucial early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire over the past couple of months, although Buttigieg&#8217;s moment may have finally passed. Sanders can always reliably count on the fact that his supporters are the most enthusiastic and loyal of any candidate&#8217;s in this 2020 Democratic presidential primary field. The septuagenarian socialist Sanders is likely the candidate with the most momentum at the present moment, although Biden himself has slowly crept back up in both the Iowa and New Hampshire statewide polling averages. Alas, never count out Joe Biden.
Warren emerged over the latter parts of the summer as a national frontrunner, but her moment has passed — she will all but assuredly need a surprise victory in Iowa or New Hampshire to resuscitate her campaign&#8217;s fading hopes. Biden&#8217;s consistent polling has remained relatively unaffected by the onset of the Ukraine scandal and subsequent impeachment imbroglio — perhaps to the surprise of many pundits who thought he would ultimately have to be dumped by Democrats as a sacrificial lamb of sorts.
At this point, pundits should be hard-pressed to predict anyone other than Biden as the likely Democratic presidential nominee — at least until we get results from Iowa and New Hampshire. But Bernie Sanders, with his rabid base of Soviet Union-nostalgic radicals, has now positioned himself as a very serious contender. The uniquely wealthy Bloomberg is also a candidate to still keep a close eye upon, despite the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s recurring outside donation debate criterion that portends to box out the self-funding Bloomberg from the debate stage for the foreseeable future.
Electoral prediction market website <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">PredictIt</a> now has Biden as its frontrunner, although Sanders is in second by a wide margin. After that large gap, Bloomberg, Warren, and Buttigieg then all distantly follow. The Warren campaign collapse from its erstwhile frontrunner perch, with now even Bloomberg leading her in the electoral betting market, is truly something to behold.
The <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> polling average for 1/06/20 – 1/16/20 shows Biden with an average national polling lead of 8.0%.
A recent <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b4747822-277e-4d2c-b896-eb4e04672c09">SurveyUSA</a> national poll conducted from 1/14/20 – 1/16/20 showed Biden, at 32%, with an 11-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up seven points on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ueji3eha6i/econTabReport.pdf">Economist/YouGov</a> national poll conducted from 1/11/20 – 1/14/20 showed Biden, at 27%, with a seven-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up one point on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/478208-sanders-hits-highest-support-since-august">Hill/HarrisX</a> national poll conducted from 1/13/20 – 1/14/20 showed Biden, at 29%, with a 10-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up eight points on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3653">Quinnipiac</a> national poll conducted from 1/08/20 – 1/12/20 showed Biden, at 25%, with a six-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up three points on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/">Morning Consult</a> national poll conducted from 1/06/20 – 1/12/20 showed Biden, at 29%, with a six-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up nine points on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
Will Biden remain the frontrunner? Can Sanders sustain his early state surge? Stay tuned.
Latest Aggregate Early State-By-State Polling Data
Iowa: Biden 21.0%, Sanders 17.3%, Warren 16.7%, Buttigieg 16.3%, Klobuchar 8.3%
New Hampshire: Sanders 19.8%, Biden 18.5%, Buttigieg 14.3%, Warren 14.3%, Klobuchar 5.8%
Nevada: Biden 25.0%, Sanders 19.3%, Warren 14.7%, Buttigieg 7.7%, Steyer 7.3%
South Carolina: Biden 32.0%, Sanders 15.0%, Warren 14.0%, Steyer 8.3%, Buttigieg 6.3%
This article has been updated to reflect the most recent survey data.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate In Detroit Over Two Nights

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? The Latest On 2020 Presidential Primary Polling.

Elizabeth Warren

Joe Biden

Pete Buttigieg

Tomorrow will commence the third presidential impeachment trial in the history of the United States Senate. And on the eve of such a rare and solemn institutional undertaking, it is still not entirely clear what exactly President Donald Trump has done to deserve such a fate.
At the outset of this saga, House Democrats spent weeks promoting an oh-so nefarious &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; that transpired during Trump&#8217;s now-infamous July 25 phone call last summer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. It turns out that abstruse Latinate didn&#8217;t poll-test well — and never mind that such a &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; when cabined to a public official&#8217;s lawful exercise of his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-trumps-alleged-impoundment-of-ukraine-money-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-offense">constitutional authority</a>, amounts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-there-is-one-terrific-impeachment-defense-that-the-white-house-is-not-making">constitutionally protected free speech</a>. Democrats next engaged in the hilariously public floating of bribery — which is actually enumerated as a presidential impeachment criterion in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">Article II, Section 4</a> of the Constitution — before deciding that they simply lacked the grist to advance such a claim. Democrats ultimately settled on the mealy-mouthed, amorphous gibberish of &#8220;abuse of power&#8221; and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">utterly nonsensical</a>, constitutionally illiterate &#8220;obstruction of Congress&#8221; as their charges of choice.
As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro and I have each <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-todays-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-is-yet-another-waste-of-time">observed</a> countless times since Democrats first glommed onto the Ukraine phone call as possible grounds for impeachment, it is true that actually committing a black-letter crime is not a constitutional requirement to impeach a sitting president. &#8220;High crimes and misdemeanors,&#8221; the catch-all presidential impeachment criterion enumerated in the Constitution after treason and bribery, was a well-known term of art in the English common law. Alexander Hamilton <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">explained</a> in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">The Federalist No. 65</a> that it encompasses &#8220;offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.&#8221;
True, the Hamiltonian language presents a necessarily political and malleable standard. But it is also true that the Constitution&#8217;s Framers did not view everything as a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stop-calling-everything-impeachable-offense-josh-hammer">potentially impeachable offense</a>. To wit, the Framers <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/">expressly deliberated</a> whether to make the far lesser &#8220;maladministration&#8221; an impeachment criterion before rejecting it out of fear that it could lead to highly partisan impeachment proceedings motivated by either a mere policy disagreement or the raw pursuit of political power. Hamilton certainly understood that, writing in the same Federalist that impeachment would &#8220;seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.&#8221;
Accordingly, even though the actual violation of a law is not constitutionally required, Democrats&#8217; current partisan gambit represents the first time in the history of the republic that an impeachment has nonetheless been attempted without the undergirding of a legally violative act. President Andrew Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act — an unambiguously unconstitutional statute, but technically a statutory violation nonetheless. President Bill Clinton, investigated for years by former independent counsel Ken Starr, committed perjury. President Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace before a formal House vote on impeachment, was knee-deep in the Watergate scandal.
What exactly has President Trump done? He acted in a ham-fisted and sloppy manner on a phone call with a foreign leader when it came to the conducting of his foreign policy — an action squarely within his well-established <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-trumps-alleged-impoundment-of-ukraine-money-doesnt-make-for-an-impeachable-offense">constitutional bailiwick</a>. True, he should not have mentioned Joe Biden by name. But ultimately, Trump tried to attach <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">corruption-related strings</a>, however clumsily, to the doling out of one of the most consistently <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/11/foreign-aid">politically unpopular</a> items in annual federal budgets: Foreign aid.
The conduct upon which Democrats are now attempting to impeach the president is orders of magnitude less destructive than the conduct upon which the Framers would have considered impeachment justified. It reeks of the sort of petty politics and jostling for power that led the Framers to conscientiously reject the far lesser &#8220;maladministration&#8221; as a possible grounds for impeachment. What&#8217;s worse, House Democrats rushed their process due to political timing and, in their rush, have <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats">fundamentally failed to make their case</a> to the American people. They have <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2020/01/20/democrats-have-failed-at-impeachment-trump-will-remain-president/">failed at impeachment</a>, and they have no one to blame but themselves. And in their recklessness, Democrats have also set a deeply pernicious precedent for the future of the Constitution&#8217;s carefully calibrated separation of powers framework.
Alas, let the trial commence.

House Speaker Pelosi And Senator Schumer Hold News Conference On DACA Case

HAMMER: What Exactly Are They Impeaching Him For, Again?

Charles Schumer

Federalist

Jerry Nadler

The massive 2020 Democratic field is altogether outraising President Donald Trump, but Trump is outraising every single candidate individually.
CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/trump-2020-election-democratic-opponents-raise-more-money-than-him.html">reported</a> that neither President George W. Bush nor President Barack Obama was outraised to such an extent during their re-election year, but they also faced far few candidates. Republicans did outraise Obama during the 2012 presidential election campaign, but only slightly (and it obviously didn’t work). Bush outraised Democrats in 2004.
“The president has blown past individual Democratic presidential campaigns in fundraising for his 2020 reelection bid. But the crowded primary field together more than tripled his 2019 cash haul, according to a CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission filings and campaign statements,” the outlet reported.
Bush and Obama, however, faced fewer serious contenders during their re-election bids, and though both were severely disliked by their opponents, there was not as much vitriol around them during re-election as there has been against Trump since the moment he became a candidate. At the time of his re-election, Bush was still benefitting from the moves he made after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. People largely supported the war at that time. For Obama, he still carried the cultural popularity he had with him in 2008, even though the economy was not doing well.
Also, Bush had maybe five serious contenders in 2004, while Obama had four or five in 2012. By contrast, Trump currently has four serious contenders, with two billionaires buying their way toward a nomination, and two withdrawn candidates who had major media support initially. Not to mention the largest total number of candidates vying to take on an incumbent president.
“The cash edge reflects a Democratic voter base energized and motivated since Trump’s 2016 election, [Center for Responsive Politics director of research Sarah] Bryner said. She added that the pace of donations could reflect a dislike of Trump more than a fondness for any particular candidates — though Democratic contender and prolific fundraiser Sen. Bernie Sanders has a famously devoted following,” CNBC reported.
The cash may also be due to the influx of wealthy donors who love the attention they get for being “anti-Trump” like Hollywood megastars.
But none of this may actually make a difference in 2020. Remember, Hillary Clinton far outraised Trump in 2016 and look where that got her.
Individually, Trump has a huge advantage over each candidate.
“Trump still had a fundraising advantage over any of his potential challengers entering 2020. His campaign said it raised $46 million in the fourth quarter, higher than Sanders’ $34.5 million, the biggest haul in the Democratic field,” CNBC reported.
And not all the money each candidate raises will go into a coffer against Trump after they withdraw, as much of that money has to be used to pay off campaign debts.
The totals compiled by CNBC, however, are staggering.
“Trump had $143.8 million in total receipts, versus $515.6 million for his Democratic challengers. That’s 28% of his rivals’ total. In individual contributions, the president’s $76.3 million made up only 16% of the $471.6 million raised by the Democrats,” the outlet reported.
The election is still about 10 months away, so anything could change by then.

CNBC Touts Democrat Contenders Outraising Trump In 2016 &#8211; But No Single Candidate Has Outraised Him

On Friday, <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b4747822-277e-4d2c-b896-eb4e04672c09">SurveyUSA</a> released a new national Democratic primary poll, which was conducted between January 14 &#8211; 16 on 5,000 adults, 4,069 of whom “are registered voters,” with “1,086 likely to vote in a Democratic Primary.”
The survey asked: “Where you live, if there were a Democratic primary today, which Democrat would you vote for to be the Democratic Party&#8217;s nominee for President of the United States?”
In first place is former Vice President Joe Biden with 32%. In a distant second place is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with 21%, and in third place is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) with 14%.
In fourth and fifth place are Mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, each with 9% support.
When broken down by age, Biden still leads in three of four groups. 27% of the 35-49 age group support Biden compared to 25% for Sanders, and 16% for Warren. 45% of the 50-64 age group support Biden compared to just 12% for Sanders and 13% for Warren. Biden’s support dips a bit to 37% among the 65+ group, but Sanders tanks with the elderly voters with just 8%. Warren nabs 13%.
However, among the 18-34 age group, Sanders explodes with 38% support compared to Biden’s 20% and Warren’s 16%.
Biden also dominates among African American voters, where he has 50% support compared to second-place Sanders’ 18%, and Warren’s 9%. Among Hispanic voters, Biden and Sanders are virtually tied with 31% and 30%, respectively. Warren sits in a distant third with 10% Hispanic support.
Another area where Biden triumphs over the rest of the field is among religious individuals who attend regular services.
46% of those who attend religious services “regularly” support Biden compared to 14% who support Sanders and 13% who support Warren.
Among those who “almost never” attend religious services, the field is much more open. 26% of those who “almost never” attend religious services support Biden compared to 22% who support Sanders, and 17% who support Warren.
“Strongly pro-life” respondents also side with Biden in a major way, giving him 44% support over second-place Sanders’ 16% and Warren’s 8%. The “strongly pro-choice” respondents are more spread out, with 27% supporting Biden, 24% supporting Sanders, and 17% supporting Warren.
According to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> average of national polls, Biden remains in the lead with 28.4% to Sanders’ 20.4%, and Warren’s 14.8%.
In Iowa, Biden and Sanders are in a near tie with 20.7% and 20.3%, respectively. In New Hampshire, which votes second, Sanders actually leads Biden 22.5% to 21%. Warren sits in third place in the state with 16.3% support, with Buttigieg nipping at her heels with 14.5% support.
Biden’s largest advantage is still in South Carolina, where he leads Sanders by 17% (32% to 15%).
What this new SurveyUSA poll appears to indicate is that while Sen. Bernie Sanders is on the rise nationally, and Biden remains in a healthy first position, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who was once considered a potential threat to the former vice president, continues on her steep tumble.
With Iowa just 15 days away, the candidates are losing time to change the numbers before the caucus state sets the tone of what’s to come afterward.

Joe Biden.

Biden Flies High In Post-Debate Poll; Warren Continues Months-Long Tumble

I&#8217;m almost as upset that Democratic presidential candidates are squabbling as I am that Prince Harry and the former Meghan Markle apparently don&#8217;t want to live in Los Angeles until President Donald Trump leaves office. Double bummer.
Speaking of doubles, did you know that Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have accused each other of lying? How can this be? Progressives don&#8217;t lie. With that in mind, one of them must be lying.
After Tuesday night&#8217;s Democratic presidential debate, Warren and Sanders were noticed in an apparently heated exchange, and CNN later released the audio of the intra-socialist spat.
Word on the street, and on the ubiquitous mainstream media outlets that regularly present old stories as breaking news, is that in a December 2018 meeting, Sanders told Warren he didn&#8217;t believe a woman could win a presidential election. How can this be? Progressives can&#8217;t be sexist.
CNN&#8217;s nonbiased, objective, fact-hunting, truth-seeking professional journalist Abby Phillip pseudo innocently asked sexist Sanders during the debate: &#8220;So, Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here: You&#8217;re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election.&#8221; Sanders was probably thinking, &#8220;Where did that come from?&#8221; — especially if he never said it, which we have to assume, since progressives cannot lie.
Sanders predictably replied, &#8220;That is correct,&#8221; at which point Warren must have been furious because she knew he was lying — except she also must have been conflicted knowing that progressives don&#8217;t lie.
Then Phillip turned to Warren and asked, &#8220;Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?&#8221;
You might be thinking, &#8220;Wait, how can Phillip assume a fact not in evidence — that Warren&#8217;s version of the 2018 meeting is presumptively true and Sanders&#8217; isn&#8217;t?&#8221; But if you are the least bit enlightened, you would then have to catch yourself and broom such a wicked thought from your mind because you know CNN doesn&#8217;t employ biased and palpably unfair reporters.
Characteristically mild-mannered law professor Jonathan Turley was uncharacteristically outraged by CNN&#8217;s taking sides. He tweeted: &#8220;CNN has long been viewed as anti-Sanders, but this is incredible. After asking Sanders to repeat his denial, Abby Phillips asserted that Sanders was lying: &#8216;Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?'&#8221;
Now fast-forward to the post-debate stage when Warren and Sanders stood before each other like passive progressive warriors, ready to accuse each other of dissembling.
Warren drew first blood, saying to Sanders, &#8220;I think you called me a liar on national TV.&#8221;
The ordinarily garrulous Sanders laconically replied, &#8220;What?&#8221; Warren then repeated the accusation verbatim, which is pretty impressive considering the emotion that must have been coursing through her blue-state veins. The sometimes-truculent Sanders, showed unusual restraint and said, &#8220;You know, let&#8217;s not do it right now&#8221; — which would be disturbing if we didn&#8217;t understand the context.
Admittedly, I&#8217;m a little disappointed in Bernie, who should have said, &#8220;Yes, it was either call you a liar or call myself one, and I&#8217;m going to have to go with me. I hope you understand.&#8221; But he didn&#8217;t, which makes me think I should find myself another favorite socialist.
So, what are we to make of all this? Who do you think might be fibbing?
I&#8217;m going to have to go with Fauxcahontas, because she has built her career on prevarication, and because her allegation doesn&#8217;t ring true. I acknowledge the possibility that Sanders could be slipping, but he surely remembers that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote against Donald Trump — and in the Electoral College-hating progressive world, this means she won the election. Plus, I just think Sanders is more authentic than Warren. After all, he proudly wears his socialism, and Warren denies hers in the same breath she unveils her blatantly socialistic programs.
This car wreck of a Democratic primary campaign just keeps getting messier. The Democratic base desperately wants one of its own, but supposedly centrist (which is laughable, by the way) former Vice President Joe Biden still looks strong, as does supposedly centrist (even more laughable) Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Meanwhile, Democratic congressional newcomers are turning away from the leftist Squad. The Squad leader, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is losing her mojo, and some believe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slow-walked the impeachment articles to ensure that Biden would have an advantage on the campaign trail while some of his main rivals sit as unbiased progressive jurors in the Senate impeachment trial.
I would end this column with a suggestion that we get some popcorn and watch this play out, but since I did that in a previous column, how about some nachos instead?
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is &#8220;Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win.&#8221; Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Warren and Sanders.

LIMBAUGH: Democratic Presidential Disarray

To best understand why this impeachment is so troubling, I share with you what a friend from left-wing circles put out on Twitter: &#8220;I so want to believe that Lev Parnas has handed us the smoking gun, but I fear we are once again being led down the primrose path. As we have been at almost every turn since 11/8/2016.&#8221;
One might have imagined that, with so much of world history behind us, we would have learned better than to search for an excuse to charge or convict another person. You would think that this was obvious. Put “charging political adversaries with imagined crimes” on a Jeopardy! board, and the question is: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/menken-the-new-stalinism">“What were the Stalin Show Trials?”</a>
And that is why the current impeachment is both morally wrong and an abuse of congressional power. Impeachment, like any accusation of criminal or otherwise nefarious activity, was never intended to be a political goal — a way to get rid of someone you don&#8217;t like. It was intentionally reserved for a president who had been caught up in criminal or similarly shocking activity. The accusations against President Trump not only <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">fail to meet the constitutional standard</a> of “high crimes and misdemeanors”; they aren’t crimes or misdemeanors at all.
Yet if you think my friend is atypical of Democrats, you haven&#8217;t been listening. The intent to abuse impeachment as a political tool is why The Washington Post reported that “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun” on his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579370691623000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEOk3eSOoKrdS1G32f9H33vTV2PsA">inauguration day</a>. It is why Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) came into office promising to “impeach the motherf***er” long before the phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ever took place.
This same political partisanship and hostility is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), barely shielding her glee and schadenfreude, appointed the uniquely unfit Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to now lead the prosecution of the president in the Senate.
To start at the beginning, it is why Schiff, as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly lied to us about the president&#8217;s fictional collusion with Russia in the first place. Recall that he spent over two years asserting “ample,” “abundant,” and “damning” evidence of collusion between Russia and President Trump that Robert Mueller concluded simply doesn’t exist. Schiff was not simply asserting that these things were true; due to his position, he claimed access to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-pol-russia-investigation-schiff-trump-20190327-story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-pol-russia-investigation-schiff-trump-20190327-story.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1579370691623000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFq2V3IsB9c4bqIF_Se5cus5iUijg">classified information</a> to which we were not yet privy and which ultimately proved him correct.
If Democrats had the least interest in a serious, measured prosecution of the president for actual crimes, Adam Schiff is literally the last person on earth they would let anywhere near the Senate trial — because there is no one on earth who lied more about inside information to which he or she purportedly had access, but did not, in order to slander the President.
Democrats, who are so quick to condemn the president for exaggerating as he brags about the size of his inauguration, his tax cut, his hands, and whatever else, have now appointed a man to lead them who maliciously lied in an attempt to destroy the president. They have become their own punchline.
America truly is a shining beacon of freedom. It has led the world in advancing civil liberties, mutual respect, and tolerance. Perhaps it is no coincidence that those who claim America is hopelessly racist and broken are leading the way to upend what the Founding Fathers called justice.
And perhaps it is no coincedence that both are so profoundly factually and morally wrong.
&nbsp;
Rabbi Yaakov Menken is the managing director of the <a href="https://coalitionforjewishvalues.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://coalitionforjewishvalues.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1578593164733000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHLN2_sFEnPCsMZZCT1wIePVktmOg">Coalition for Jewish Values</a>, and co-editor of the Orthodox Jewish journal <a href="https://cross-currents.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cross-currents.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1578593164733000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHDWEFT_osCyA6CYu82vPnKoRactA">Cross-Currents.com</a>. Opinions are his own.

Impeachment Trail on the Senate

MENKEN: The Impeachment That Threatens America

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who served last month as one of three House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-todays-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-is-yet-another-waste-of-time">legal academic witnesses</a> on the topic of the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s specified criteria for impeachment, has been very outspoken since his testimony. Shortly after testifying, Turley took to the Los Angeles Times to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats">pen an over-arching message</a> to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Democrats: You have rushed this process and have not sufficiently convinced the American public. &#8220;The problem is that this is the thinnest record of any modern impeachment as well as arguably the shortest impeachment investigation in history,&#8221; he wrote in the Times.
Later last month, as The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-law-prof-turley-not-a-sin-to-testify-for-republicans">reported</a>, Turley — who, despite being House Republicans&#8217; lone witness at the aforementioned House Judiciary Committee hearing last month, is hardly a Republican partisan and is best described as an old-school liberal civil libertarian — took to The Hill to defend his decision to testify as a Republican-called witness. “Journalist Henry Louis Mencken once observed, ‘Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them,&#8217;” Turley <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/476088-testifying-for-republicans-should-not-be-a-sin-for-academics">wrote</a>. “Despite unending respect for Mencken, this is an occasion in which I found him mistaken, after I violated the Eleventh Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not testify for Republicans.&#8217;”
Now, as Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-pelosi-blunder-impeachment">reports</a>, Turley has written a blog post that is simply scathing of Pelosi&#8217;s decision to delay the formal transmission of impeachment articles from the House of Representatives to the Senate in a (failed) attempt to extract procedural concessions from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as to the conduct of a prospective impeachment trial.
&#8220;From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical,&#8221; Turley <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/14/pelosis-blunder-how-the-house-destroyed-its-own-case-for-impeachment/">wrote</a> yesterday in a column entitled, &#8220;Pelosi&#8217;s Blunder: How the House Destroyed its Own Case for Impeachment.&#8221;
&#8220;There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.&#8221;
&#8220;The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles,&#8221; Turley later added.
At the time that Pelosi announced her withholding of the formal transmission of impeachment articles, I pointed out Democrats&#8217; hypocrisy in a <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">New York Post op-ed</a>:
<blockquote>
Thorny legal issues aside, ­Pelosi’s gambit lays bare the brazen hypocrisy of the sanctimonious “norm”-worshippers. Most of Trump’s purportedly grievous sins pale in comparison to the destructive and ­destabilizing nature of Pelosi’s transmission delay — not to mention the unfair and underhanded nature of the proceedings in her own chamber.
The president may not have an explicit constitutional right to a Senate trial. But if Democrats really cared about rule of law and good order, they would have allowed the Framers’ process to unfold as it was supposed to do. Their delay tactics merely expose the frivolity of their Trump-induced mass hysteria.
</blockquote>

Jonathan Turley testifying at House Judiciary Committee

Law Prof Turley: Pelosi ‘Destroyed’ Democrats’ Case For Impeachment

Nancy Pelosi

In 2008, Democrats nominated for president a first-term U.S. senator with no serious legislative experience, Barack Obama. They nominated him over the long-championed, long-celebrated presumptive heir apparent to the Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton. Obama was, of course, the first black Democratic nominee, and he would be the first black president.
In 2020, 12 years later, we have been informed by the media that Democrats are ensconced in racism anew. Why?
First, because Democrats refused to activate in support of awkwardly robotic Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), who is black; second, because Democrats refused to activate in support of wild-eyed former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, who is Latino; and now because Democrats refused to activate in support of scenery-chewing Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who is black.
Democrats have been accused by the media of having ignored their initially diverse field in favor of old, white candidates (amusingly, the media only noticed that Sen. Elizabeth Warren was, indeed, an old white person when actual people of color were booted from the race). It appears that the memory of President Obama — not yet four years old — is not enough to insulate Democrats from charges of discrimination.
Then there&#8217;s Hollywood.
In 2014, African actress Lupita Nyong&#8217;o won an Oscar for her supporting role in &#8220;12 Years a Slave.&#8221; In 2018, director Greta Gerwig was nominated for a best director Oscar for &#8220;Lady Bird.&#8221;
This week, we found out that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had neglected — horror of horrors! — to nominate both Nyong&#8217;o, for her role in the extraordinarily overrated horror flick &#8220;Us,&#8221; and Gerwig, for her direction of &#8220;Little Women.&#8221;
These oversights, we were solemnly informed, evidenced the Academy&#8217;s deep-seated bias in favor of white men. Never mind that Cynthia Erivo was nominated for best actress for her role as Harriet Tubman in &#8220;Harriet.&#8221; Discrimination was alive and well in Hollywood.
It must be difficult to live in an environment in which every day is a perpetual test of one&#8217;s submission to the &#8220;Woke Police.&#8221; It must be difficult to know that no past act stands in favor of the accused — that each day must be lived fresh — and that all past omissions stand against the accused. But the intersectional revolution requires continual struggle and continual sacrifice.
In Arthur Koestler&#8217;s &#8220;Darkness at Noon,&#8221; communist lackey Rubashov is jailed and charged — of what crime, it does not matter. The Soviet Union is purging members of the older generation and Rubashov is told that he must confess in order to uphold the sanctity of his own cause. Eventually, Rubashov does exactly that.
&#8220;There is nothing for which one could die, if one died without having repented and unreconciled with the Party and the Movement,&#8221; Rubashov says in his confession. &#8220;Therefore, on the threshold of my last hour, I bend my knees to the country, to the masses and to the whole people.&#8221; The choice between dying honestly, in repudiation of his own cause, was simply too much.
In the end, all revolutionaries will have to determine whether they, too, will bow before the cause — even if they go unjustly to the guillotine. Because there is one basic rule of radical revolutions: Those who are first to launch them are often just slightly delayed in feeling their wrath.

Democratic Debate

SHAPIRO: For Democrats, Every Day Is A Perpetual Test Of One’s Submission To The ‘Woke Police’

Political Correctness

Racism

On Tuesday, comedian Dave Chappelle announced his support for 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Andrew Yang.
“I’m Yang Gang!” Chappelle said in a press release, according to <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/comedian-dave-chapelle-endorses-andrew-yang-im-yang-gang">The Daily Beast</a>.
“Thank you [Dave Chappelle] and welcome to the #yanggang,” Yang captioned a photo of himself standing alongside Chappelle. “You are the best. Let’s do this for our kids.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thank you <a href="https://twitter.com/DaveChappelle?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DaveChappelle</a> and welcome to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/yanggang?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#yanggang</a>. You are the best. Let’s do this for our kids. 🙏👍 <a href="https://t.co/HGznFG00kr">pic.twitter.com/HGznFG00kr</a>
&mdash; Andrew Yang🧢 (@AndrewYang) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1217163311579639808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Earlier on Tuesday, an excited Yang announced the endorsement to his supporters. &#8220;I&#8217;m going to be endorsed in about two hours by Dave Chappelle!&#8221; he said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AndrewYang</a>: &quot;I’m going to be endorsed in about two hours by Dave Chappelle!&quot; <a href="https://t.co/dBo2RSXYdM">pic.twitter.com/dBo2RSXYdM</a>
&mdash; The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1217153364653486088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
According to The Hill, the comic will headline upcoming shows in support of the Democratic candidate, set for January 29 and 30 in South Carolina.
“Dave’s team reached out to our team, and they were thrilled to put the two of us together,” Yang told <a href="https://www.necn.com/news/politics/primary-source/yang-on-why-hes-not-worried-about-qualifying-for-next-debate/2216729/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New England Cable News</a> last week, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478194-dave-chappelle-endorses-andrew-yang-in-democratic-primary">The Hill</a> noted. “We sat down and talked about his concerns for the country and what we need to do to for the next generation. Dave’s a dad like I am. And then after we met, he said, ‘Look, I want to help, and what can I do to help?’&#8221;
The former &#8220;Chappelle Show&#8221; star has been an unapologetic proponent of free speech.
In October, while accepting the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center, Chappelle offered a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-video-released-of-dave-chappelles-fierce-hilarious-defense-of-first-amendment">fierce and hilarious defense of the First Amendment</a>.
“I like not knowin’ what’s going to happen. I like makin’ memories. Sometime I do all this crazy s*** around my colleagues just so they can tell their friends I did it. Rather than talk about myself, just briefly, I want to just talk about my genre. Stand-up comedy is an incredibly American genre,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I don’t think any other country can produce this many comedians. Unbeknownst to many people in this audience, I don’t think there’s opinion that exists in this country that is not represented in a comedy club by somebody. Each and every one of you has a chance of bein’ in the room.”
“We watch you guys fight, but when we’re together, we talk it out. I know comics that are very racist, and I watch ‘em on stage, and everyone’s laughin’, I’m like, that mother f***** means it,&#8221; Chappelle continued. &#8220;Don’t get mad at ‘em, don’t hate ‘em, we go upstairs and have a beer and sometimes I even appreciate the artistry that they paint their racist opinions with.”
<div>
“Man, it’s not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. The Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn’t work out,&#8221; he added.
The comedian has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leftists-enraged-dave-chappelle-telling-jokes-amanda-prestigiacomo">ruffled feathers</a> in the media for making jokes about media-protected groups. For example, Chappelle has been routinely hit by comedy writers for jokes about the LGBT lobby or transgenderism.
Currently, Yang is struggling in the polls. Providing election coverage for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/who-will-win-democratic-primary-latest-2020-josh-hammer">The Daily Wire</a>, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer said earlier Tuesday that &#8220;it would be a fool’s errand to predict anyone other than Biden as the likely Democratic presidential nominee — at least until we start getting concrete results from Iowa, New Hampshire, and so forth.&#8221;
</div>
Hammer also highlighted wealthy Michael Bloomberg as &#8220;a candidate to keep a close eye upon.&#8221;
&#8220;Electoral prediction market website <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">PredictIt</a> now has Biden as its frontrunner, although Sanders is in second by a substantial margin. After a large gap, Warren, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg then all distantly follow. The Warren campaign collapse from its erstwhile frontrunner perch is truly something to behold,&#8221; noted Hammer.

Dave Chappelle

Dave Chappelle Backs, Announces Upcoming Shows For Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang

First Amendment

Free Speech

Political observers in the year 2020 know that, for the Democratic Party and the broader political Left alike, intersectionality often reigns supreme. For those still wondering what exactly &#8220;intersectionality&#8221; is, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro has produced a helpful explanatory video on the topic:
<iframe title="What Is Intersectionality?" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rc7VUoytoU4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;Intersectionality is a form of identity politics in which the value of your opinion depends on how many victim groups you belong to,&#8221; Shapiro <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-what-intersectionality-jacob-airey">explained</a>. &#8220;At the bottom of the totem pole is the person everybody loves to hate: The straight, white male. And who’s at the top? Well, it’s very hard to say, because new groups claim victim status all the time. No one can keep track.&#8221;
Alas, it should come as no surprise that contemporary Democrats would rally around what is perhaps one of the most readily identifiable sub-identity groups boasting immense &#8220;intersectional&#8221; street credibility: The transgender illegal alien.
&#8220;House Democrats plan to call on a key immigration agency to release all transgender people who are currently being detained, arguing that the U.S. has failed to follow guidelines to protect individuals who face more perilous conditions in detention than other migrants,&#8221; The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/477954-lawmakers-to-call-on-ice-to-release-all-transgender-detainees">reported</a> yesterday.
The outlet then reported on the precise contents of the early copy of the letter it obtained. The letter will be sent to Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Matthew Albence. Per <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/477954-lawmakers-to-call-on-ice-to-release-all-transgender-detainees">The Hill</a>, the letter reads, in relevant part:
<blockquote>We write to demand the release of all transgender people currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Transgender migrants and asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment, solitary confinement, physical assault, and medical neglect. These inhumane conditions and systematic abuses are evidenced in countless reports and accounts by formally detained people.</blockquote>
According to the outlet, the letter cites research from left-wing organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, Amnesty International, and the Center for American Progress in order to argue that &#8220;due to their gender identity, transgender migrants are more likely to face &#8216;the pervasive use of solitary confinement&#8217; and that they are &#8217;97 times more likely to be sexually victimized&#8217; compared to &#8216;their cis-gender and straight counterparts in detention.'&#8221;
The effort is being led by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), who TheBlaze <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/house-democrats-want-ice-to-release-all-transgender-detainees">notes</a> is of the belief that ICE is actually required to release all transgender detainees. In order to advance that claim, the letter cites a 2015 ICE memo and the Department of Homeland Security&#8217;s 2020 appropriations bill.
&#8220;Quigley&#8217;s office is working to get lawmakers&#8217; signatures on the letter and expects to send it to acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and ICE Director Matt Albence later this week,&#8221; the Washington Examiner <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-democrats-to-ask-ice-to-release-all-transgender-immigrants-in-custody">reports</a>.
The year 2019 was a busy year for ICE, especially over the first six months. Record numbers of illegal aliens seemed to flood over America&#8217;s porous southern border on a seemingly monthly basis, although the tide has stemmed over the <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/month-decline-unauthorized-border-crossings-nearing-million/story?id=66134521">past few months</a>. As the 2020 election heats up, President Donald Trump is continuing to emphasize border security and immigration enforcement as key political priorities.

ICE logo

Jailbreak: House Democrats Call To Release All Transgender ICE Detainees

Illegal Immigration

Immigrants

Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Intersectionality

Leftism

LGBT

Progressivism

Sexuality

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is planning to cheat her fellow Democratic candidates out of thousands of campaign dollars over a feud with &#8220;establishment&#8221; Democrats who refuse to allow progressives to dictate the future of the party, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee isn&#8217;t calling her out on it.
DCCC chairwoman Cheri Bustos appeared on CNN over the weekend and flat-out refused to criticize Ocasio-Cortez, even though Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s decision to withhold much-needed funds from the communal campaign fund could put some Democratic candidates at a severe disadvantage.
WATCH:
<iframe title="Interview gets testy: You can&#039;t give me a yes or no answer" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6BAAwHhuXlA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
CNN host Victor Blackwell asked Bustos a number of times to air her feelings on Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s decision, particularly in light of what Blackwell labeled Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s &#8220;record-breaking&#8221; fundraising numbers &#8212; money she should be sharing with the DCCC&#8217;s entire slate of candidates.
“That&#8217;s always up to individual members so I guess I don&#8217;t think about it one way or another,” Bustos said, instead. “We’re raising record amounts of money from our members.”
Ocasio-Cortez, Bustos added, is “good for the Democratic caucus in the House,” and then shared some lukewarm praise for the Democratic socialist from the New York City boroughs. &#8220;She has a lot of followers,&#8221; Bustos continued. &#8220;I have respect for her. She brings a new voice to Congress.”
Blackwell pointed out that Ocasio-Cortez has outraised even Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has been on a record-breaking fundraising binge of her own. That didn&#8217;t seem to bother Bustos one bit.
But perhaps the DCCC should actually be concerned. Ocasio-Cortez isn&#8217;t simply keeping her hard-earned cash for herself, instead of sharing it with the Democratic Congressional candidates&#8217; communal fund, as is required of those candidates who raise more than a certain threshold. She&#8217;s funding her own progressive rival to the organization, in an effort to unseat the moderate Democrats the DCCC typically bankrolls, even in districts where a far-left challenger won&#8217;t do well in the general election against a Republican.
Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s first significant donation, for example, went to Marie Newman, a far-left progressive who waged a primary challenge against the final remaining pro-life Democrat in Congress, Rep. Dan Lipinksi (D-IL). Lipinski&#8217;s district is only nominally Democratic, and Lipinski regularly retains his seat by a wide margin &#8212; and that&#8217;s if he even has a Republican challenger. Past efforts to unseat Lipinski have met with abject failure, and Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s $18,000 was likely wasted.
The point is, it seems, to drive home the idea that the DCCC represents the past, and to punish the DCCC for &#8220;blacklisting&#8221; certain progressive organizations from its lists of preferred vendors, even if progressive candidates aren&#8217;t getting elected.
&#8220;One, I don’t agree with the policy around blacklisting groups that help progressive candidates,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter after meeting with a windfall of criticism. “I think we need to evolve as a party and make room for that.”
“I want to help frontline members by putting that money straight into their pocket,&#8221; she added.
The DCCC blacklist, though, isn&#8217;t about progressives specifically. The organization refuses to bankroll any group working to unseat a Democratic Member of Congress, from the left or from the right.
&#8220;The core mission of the DCCC is electing House Democrats, which includes supporting and protecting incumbents,&#8221; according to the group. &#8220;To that end, the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus.&#8221;

No hate no fear solidarity march in New York, US

WATCH: The DCCC Won&#8217;t Criticize Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez For Failing To Pay Her Dues

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has drawn continued scorn from her own party as she reportedly refuses to pay party dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and is instead redirecting those funds to other far-left candidates like herself.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-riles-dems-by-refusing-to-pay-party-dues-bankrolling-her-colleagues-opponents">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Their gripe is that Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t given any money to the DCCC, the party arm with the sole job of electing Democrats to the House. Records obtained by Fox News show the New York Democrat has failed to pay any of her $250,000 in “dues” to the DCCC.
Her goose egg of a contribution is no accident. Ocasio-Cortez says she has beef with the DCCC and she&#8217;ll withhold her money in protest of how the Democratic Party won&#8217;t back insurgent progressive primary candidates, like herself, in the name of protecting incumbents.</blockquote>
“Sometimes the question comes: &#8216;Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?&#8217;” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) told Fox News, when asked about Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s refusal to pay up. “And do you want to be part of a team?&#8221;
&#8220;DCCC dues are about supporting others because you want to be part of the team,&#8221; Meeks said. &#8220;The goal is to be in the majority. And the goal is, when you are on a team I would think, to respect individuals whose districts are different than yours.&#8221;
Another Democrat source spoke in more candid terms: “Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills. She’s always whining about people paying their fair share, and here she is leaving her friends with the bill.”
“For me personally, I’m not paying [DCCC] dues,” Ocasio-Cortez said, claiming that she was holding out for a “myriad of reasons.”
Ocasio-Cortez, who recently <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/opinions/aoc-biden-democratic-party-harrop/index.html">suggested</a> that she was so extreme that she would not be in the same party as Joe Biden if they were in a foreign country, has long angered many in her own party.
In July, Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) blasted Ocasio-Cortez &#8220;for suggesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was targeting her because Pelosi was racist, saying that it shows &#8216;how weak&#8217; Ocasio-Cortez’s &#8216;argument is,'&#8221; The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/more-democrats-turn-ocasio-cortez-and-her-chief-ryan-saavedra">reported</a>.
“What a weak argument, because you can’t get your way and because you’re getting pushback you resort to using the race card? Unbelievable. That’s unbelievable to me,” Clay <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/452671-democratic-lawmaker-unloads-on-ocasio-cortez-chief-of-staff-for-using-the-race">said</a>. “I could care less. I could really care less. I agree with the Speaker. Four people, four votes out of 240 people, who cares.”
“It shows you how weak their argument is when they have to resort and direct racist accusations toward Speaker Pelosi,&#8221; Clay continued, adding, &#8220;it’s very disappointing to me.&#8221;
Shortly after Clay&#8217;s comments, The House Democrats slammed Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s then-chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, who <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/aocs-chief-of-staff-worships-a-servant-of-nazism-and-imperial-japan">seems to have a soft spot for followers of Adolf Hitler</a>, over bigoted remarks that he made toward fellow Democrats.
&#8220;I think the point still stands. I don’t think people have to be personally racist to enable a racist system,&#8221; Chakrabarti wrote. &#8220;And the same could even be said of the Southern Democrats. I don’t believe Sharice is a racist person, but her votes are showing her to enable a racist system.&#8221;
House Democrats <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-democrats-nuke-aocs-chief-staff-twitter-ryan-saavedra">wrote</a>: “Who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color? Her name is Congresswoman Davids, not Sharice. She is a phenomenal new member who flipped a red seat blue. Keep Her Name Out Of Your Mouth.”

‘DEADBEAT CORTEZ’: Democrats Unload On AOC For Not Paying Her ‘Fair Share’ Of Party Dues

A voter may dislike a black, homosexual, or female candidate, but it&#8217;s not likely that he would openly admit it. However, diversity-crazed leftist/progressive Democrats have openly condemned the physical characteristics of some of their 2020 presidential candidates. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are leading the polls despite the fact that they have been condemned as old white men. While Pete Buttigieg is homosexual, something that pleases diversity crazies, he is also a white man, young and religious. With Kamala Harris&#8217; departure from the race, the Democratic field has lost one of its persons of color. Another, Senator Cory Booker, stands at 2% in the polls; his days are numbered. That means the only Democratic candidates polling high are those condemned as old white people — two men and one woman, Elizabeth Warren.
LaTosha Brown, the co-founder of Black Voters Matter, said she was initially eager for Joe Biden to enter the race but now has second thoughts. Brown said: &#8220;I&#8217;m over white men running the country. I don&#8217;t know if him (sic) getting in changes the field. He has name recognition, but his strength is also his weakness.&#8221; Former presidential candidate Howard Dean lamented, &#8220;If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose.&#8221; The newest entry into the presidential sweepstakes, Michael Bloomberg, had to apologize for what some see as his diversity insensitiveness namely that of calling fellow presidential candidate Cory Booker &#8220;well-spoken&#8221; in a TV interview. The New Jersey senator said he was &#8220;taken aback&#8221; by what he saw as Bloomberg&#8217;s racist &#8220;trope.&#8221;
Michael Moore gave us his racist warning: &#8220;Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump. That means anytime you see three white guys walking at you, down the street toward you, two of them voted for Trump. You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people that are walking toward you. You should be afraid of them.&#8221;
This is the new racism, much of it learned and taught at our nation&#8217;s colleges. George Orwell said, &#8220;Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.&#8221; The stupid ideas about inclusion and diversity originate with academics on college campuses. If their ideas didn&#8217;t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment. But these cancerous ideas have infected society. Statements such as &#8220;I&#8217;m over white men running the country,&#8221; or &#8220;If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose&#8221; are examples of that cancer.
Last year, Philip Carl Salzman wrote &#8220;The War Against White People&#8221; in Minding the Campus. He declared: &#8220;Anti-white hate is now mainstream American culture. Not just by racial extremists such as Black Lives Matter, for whom statements such as &#8220;all lives matter&#8221; or &#8220;blue lives matter&#8221; are racist. Our highest leaders sing the same song.&#8221;
When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency in 2008, he said of working-class white voters, &#8220;They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren&#8217;t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.&#8221; During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that half of Donald Trump&#8217;s supporters were &#8220;a basket of deplorables&#8221; who were &#8220;racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.&#8221; Do you think Clinton was talking about Trump&#8217;s black, Asian and Hispanic supporters? No, she was talking about millions of Trump&#8217;s white supporters.
Then there&#8217;s Sarah Jeong, a member of The New York Times editorial board and graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard Law School. She expressed publicly many anti-white opinions. Among them are: &#8220;The world could get by just fine with zero white people.&#8221; &#8220;Dumbass f—-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.&#8221; It&#8217;s &#8220;kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.&#8221; I guarantee you that The New York Times would have fired any employee making similar statements about black, Hispanic or homosexual people.
The bottom line is that the new racism, born in academia, is just as ugly as the old racism.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Donkey pin.

WILLIAMS: The New Racism

The cosmic goddess that is Marianne Williamson, the former &#8220;Oprah&#8221; staple who pledged to defeat President Donald Trump on the battlefield of love, has now officially dropped her bid for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination after several no-shows at the debates.
In an <a href="https://www.marianne2020.com/">announcement</a> on her website Friday, Williams said that she hoped her candidacy would lead the country in a new direction — a dream that she will have to rest aside due to lack of support.
&#8220;I ran for president to help forge another direction for our country,&#8221; her announcement stated. &#8220;I wanted to discuss things I felt needed to be discussed that otherwise were not. I feel that we have done that.&#8221;
&#8220;I stayed in the race to take advantage of every possible opportunity to share our message,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;With caucuses and primaries now about to begin, however, we will not be able to garner enough votes in the election to elevate our conversation any more than it is now. The primaries might be tightly contested among the top contenders, and I don’t want to get in the way of a progressive candidate winning any of them.&#8221;
Marianne Williamson <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/republicans-donate-money-keep-marianne-williamson-paul-bois">made a huge splash</a> at the first Democratic Party presidential debate, in which she vowed to harness the “power of love” to defeat Trump’s harnessing of the power of hate:
<blockquote>I’m sorry we haven’t talked more tonight about how we’re going to beat Donald Trump. I have an idea about Donald Trump: Donald Trump is not going to be beaten just by insider politics talk. He’s not going to be beaten just by somebody who has plans. He’s going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what the man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes.
So, Mr. President — if you’re listening — I want you to hear me please: You have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out. So I, sir, I have a feeling you know what you’re doing. I’m going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field, and sir, love will win.</blockquote>
Williamson also lit up the internet with scores of memes during the first debate when she promised that her first move as president would be to call the Prime Minister of New Zealand as a challenge.
&#8220;My first call is to the prime minister of New Zealand, who said her goal was to make New Zealand the place where it’s the best place in the world for a child to grow up. And I will tell her, &#8216;Girlfriend, you are so on.&#8217; Because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up,&#8221; she said to thunderous applause.
Though much of the mainstream dismissed her as a fringe candidate, some Democrats argued she may be the perfect embodiment of a left-wing Trump: An ultra-feminine, media-savvy outsider who appeals to the wellness mom voter bloc. Tessa Stuart of <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marianne-williamson-is-the-cosmic-sorceress-we-need-now-853058/">Rolling Stone</a> described her as the &#8220;cosmic sorceress we need now.&#8221;
Williamson&#8217;s charisma became such an entertaining sensation that some <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/republicans-donate-money-keep-marianne-williamson-paul-bois">Republicans even began donating</a> to her campaign just to see her on the debate stage, which unfortunately did not persist. Her political ambitions will now live on only in our memories.

Marianne Williamson

Wellness Queen Marianne Williamson Officially Drops Out Of 2020 Race. She Will Be Sorely Missed.

The overall state of play in the Democrats’ partisan impeachment imbroglio has not changed a whole lot over the past week. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are still working in tandem to seek to extract procedural concessions from Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) before Pelosi formally transmits impeachment articles over to Congress’s upper chamber for a prospective impeachment trial.
But as The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mcconnell-rejects-pelosis-attempt-to-dictate-rules-of-senate-impeachment-trial">reported</a> last Friday, McConnell took to the Senate floor to reject Pelosi’s bid to dictate any rules. “[J]ust before the holidays, this sad spectacle took another unusual turn: As soon as the partisan impeachment votes had finished, the prosecutors began to develop cold feet,” McConnell said, shortly after he excoriated Democrats’ gambit as “short-term partisan rage. Alas, Pelosi hit back earlier this week, as also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelosi-spurns-mcconnell-no-articles-until-mcconnell-publishes-senate-impeachment-trial-details">reported</a> by The Daily Wire. “Tuesday night, Pelosi released a note, sent to McConnell, demanding that McConnell give House Dems an outline of the Senate trial and ‘immediately’ publish a resolution detailing the Senate trial rules, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-latest/index.html">according to CNN</a>,” Daily Wire Senior Editor Emily Zanotti noted.
Pelosi’s adamance here is, in a nutshell, bizarre. As has been incandescently obvious since the outset of this <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">silly exercise in self-beclowning</a>, McConnell and Senate Republicans have no incentive whatsoever to substantively negotiate with House Democrats and concede anything to them. Senate Republicans, in short, would be just fine to see the House Democratic “prosecution” indeed get “cold feet” — to borrow McConnell’s verbiage. In that scenario, the president would be acquitted by procedural default, Republicans could credibly appeal to swing voters turned off by the time-wasting and utterly destructive nature of the Democrats’ folly, and Democrats could still tell their base that they (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html">kind of/sort of</a>) impeached the president.
One new twist in the impeachment drama is the resolution recently introduced by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-senator-josh-hawley-most-important-freshman-josh-hammer">ascendant</a> freshman Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) wherein the Senate would formally drop impeachment articles after 25 days of failure to formally transmit due to the House’s lack of “prosecution,” as The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senator-josh-hawley-introducing-measure-to-dismiss-democrats-articles-of-impeachment">reported</a> last week. As a constitutional attorney by training, <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">I do think</a> the Senate clearly has the legal authority to unilaterally change its own internal rules and proceed along Hawley’s proposed path. Ditto Texas Public Policy Foundation General Counsel Rob Henneke, who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/henneke-josh-hawley-is-right-to-tell-nancy-pelosi-to-fish-or-cut-bait-on-impeachment">wrote this week</a> at The Daily Wire that “Sen. Hawley’s proposal is by no means revolutionary. … This idea of dismissal for want of prosecution, or ‘DWOP,’ is commonplace in both civil and criminal litigation.”
As far as impeachment polling is concerned, <a href="https://email.dailywire.com/e2t/c/*W961dZ78ss0n9W3MHLkg3_dLp20/*W81xXsB7_r95nW2VqHlG5YMh740/5/f18dQhb0S64C2dYTs8LC6h0MtYQsN6MZMtxj8SDGW3_d4Sh6GmRQdN2LGfK7BY2-lN6HgrnQT7ZPFVBCQ6L23yjHyV8bRZz19M9jdW8wzwBj555Pd0W5411QW8jT5bqW4x_rks8JBjh-W92jW6c4mB4DLW2TJLc347znF9W3-DFjr1j6CxjMq4TH1QXGfLW3Z67wb833v6hN1xP3vwNxvl5V4_dy35Pmr07N5CTZ1VfbNk9Ml1YchJYFQ6W7NRNbR8ZCD21W4LBKjx2CrCHCW3xZVyH3HDbHWW124WPF8CjYLmW81LxjT2ZCd5pW7CY2sT9k85xTN1Db_rkp14zNW816bHW51x6BMW3ZFWpV1qhs8zW4Qhlqw6zBp3TW2RXhzn432yWkW3YM4b023y9RWW4VQMKT7mXxpVW1gzBr58dVNX7W5t6qk68n_kftW16_ZDs7g3j2SW2vwsdd4kHn1pW3zMPlr5tdfP5W2Z-YLL7rR904W1FdxDh6SQ30-W7BKmFM8vRVVmW6Dd5m27BycrMW8cWs6g6XFfJSW66Hm-Q6X_k6gW8RqlSv4mMCGQW9jJ93B3ng3fFVjQfxn1sQRJpV2VJrH73W79g103">FiveThirtyEight</a> — which Impeachment Wire has consistently cited — still shows a slim majority in support of impeachment. The <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html">RealClearPolitics average</a> shows opposition to impeachment polling slightly higher than support for it, and I only expect to continue.
Moving ahead, the only relevant question is how long Pelosi and Schumer continue to delay an impeachment trial. At this point, considering Pelosi’s latest riposte to McConnell, it does not seem at all obvious that there will ever be a Senate trial. And it is extraordinarily difficult to see how that could possibly help Democrats, come November.
&nbsp;
This piece will be frequently updated.
RELATED: <a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">Sign up here for Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer&#8217;s weekly newsletter on election news, polling data, and analysis: &#8220;Election Wire.&#8221;</a>

House Democrats Hold Meeting To Discuss Impeachment Inquiry

Impeachment Wire: The Latest On The Effort To Impeach President Trump

President Trump held another one of his jam-packed rallies Thursday night — the first of 2020 — this time in the crucial battleground state of Ohio, making clear how much his campaign values securing the state&#8217;s 18 electoral votes he won by eight points in 2016.
During the raucous rally in Toledo, Trump pointed to his decision to order an airstrike on Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as evidence that he will bring &#8220;<a href="https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/president-trump-ohio-tonight-for-2020-kickoff-campaign/iAPspsmIwCvRhc0eAn80PI/">American justice</a>&#8221; to those who pose a threat to Americans and America&#8217;s interests and taunted Democrats over the standoff with Iran, suggesting he should win the Nobel Peace Prize for his handling of the situation.
In a series of tweets highlighting photos and video from the rally, Trump touted the &#8220;tremendous crowd&#8221; and summed up some of the themes of the night, including his commitment to &#8220;NEVER make excuses for America&#8217;s enemies&#8221; and to &#8220;never hesitate in defending American lives.&#8221; He also offered up a new slogan for the Republicans, along with a withering summary of the Democratic Party&#8217;s platform.
&#8220;Heading to Toledo, Ohio, for first Rally of the year. Tremendous crowd. Here we go for a big 2020 Win!&#8221; Trump wrote in the first of a series of rally-themed tweets Thursday evening (posts below).
&#8220;Under my administration, we will NEVER make excuses for America’s enemies – we will never hesitate in defending American lives – and we will never stop working to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism!&#8221; he wrote in a tweet showing him on stage in the packed-out Huntington Center in Toledo.
&#8220;After years of rebuilding OTHER nations, we are finally rebuilding OUR nation. We are finally putting AMERICA FIRST!&#8221; the president added in another post featuring a shot of the crowd.
Trump then contrasted the radical policies increasingly embraced by the Democrats with the goals of the Republican Party: &#8220;Democrats are now the party of high taxes, high crime, open borders, late-term abortion, socialism, and blatant corruption. The Republican Party is the party of the American Worker, the American Family, and the American Dream!
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Heading to Toledo, Ohio, for first Rally of the year. Tremendous crowd. Here we go for a big 2020 Win!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1215406817297088512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
THANK YOU TOLEDO, OHIO!<a href="https://t.co/PL96KjQWat">https://t.co/PL96KjQWat</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1215452636260061185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Under my administration, we will NEVER make excuses for America’s enemies – we will never hesitate in defending American lives – and we will never stop working to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism! <a href="https://t.co/022PjwhHjs">pic.twitter.com/022PjwhHjs</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1215454244519718912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
After years of rebuilding OTHER nations, we are finally rebuilding OUR nation. We are finally putting AMERICA FIRST! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KAG2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KAG2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/azKL54A6BU">pic.twitter.com/azKL54A6BU</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1215455064183230465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Democrats are now the party of high taxes, high crime, open borders, late-term abortion, socialism, and blatant corruption. The Republican Party is the party of the American Worker, the American Family, and the American Dream! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KAG2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KAG2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/05XRX2odxN">pic.twitter.com/05XRX2odxN</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1215457108327571458?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump&#8217;s rally followed a significant series of events for his presidency. After he ordered an airstrike that took out Iran&#8217;s top military leader and the man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and countless terrorist operations, Iran retaliated Tuesday by firing over a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases at which U.S. and coalition personnel were stationed.
The attack resulted in no American or Iraqi casualties, and Iran quickly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/iran-sent-messages-through-three-back-channels-to-u-s-after-attack-to-say-they-were-done">signaled to the U.S.</a> that it hoped to de-escalate the situation. The next morning, Trump gave a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-addresses-nation-after-attack-no-lives-lost-iran-appears-to-be-standing-down">televised national address</a> announcing that Iran appeared to be &#8220;backing down&#8221; and unveiling new economic sanctions on the terror-sponsoring state.
“Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned, and a very good thing for the world,” said the president. “No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well.”
While Trump was providing Americans the welcome news, the Democrats were preparing to vote on a War Powers Resolution to limit his ability to take military action against Iran, a resolution that passed in the House on Thursday. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists that the resolution is an important check on Trump&#8217;s authority, Republicans have dismissed it as &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-targets-pelosi-ahead-of-vote-on-toothless-war-powers-resolution">toothless.</a>&#8220;

President Donald Trump

Trump Holds Packed-Out Rally In Ohio, Taunts Dems Over Iran, Tests Out New Slogan For GOP

Iran

Qassem Soleimani

Republican Party

Fissures have erupted between the House and Senate Democrats, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) continues to delay sending articles of impeachment to the upper chamber of Congress in an effort to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) into revealing the trial details, such as witnesses called and topics discussed.
According to Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News, none other than Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has called upon Nancy Pelosi to send over the articles, arguing that delay will do no good.
&#8220;If we&#8217;re going to do it, she should send them over,&#8221; Feinstein said, as reported by Litvan. &#8220;I don&#8217;t see what good delay does.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Dianne Feinstein says it’s time for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send the impeachment articles to the Senate.
“If we’re going to do it, she should send them over,” the California Democrat said. “I don’t see what good delay does.”
&mdash; Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) <a href="https://twitter.com/LauraLitvan/status/1214954518900854788?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) also said, “Now that we have John Bolton saying he wants to testify, she’s accomplished something.”
Working in tandem with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Pelosi has been withholding two articles of impeachment from proceeding to a Senate trial in an effort to negotiate more favorable terms with McConnell.
“It is important that he immediately publish this resolution, so that, as I have said before, we can see the arena in which we will be participating, appoint managers and transmit the articles to the Senate,” Pelosi wrote in a note on Wednesday.
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2020/01/07/e0f49d52-313b-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html">The Washington Post</a> also reported that Pelosi &#8220;told Democrats in a closed-door meeting Tuesday that she will not send articles of impeachment to the Senate until she learns more about how the chamber would conduct a potential trial, according to three people present for her remarks who were not authorized to comment publicly.”
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-witnesses-in-senate-impeachment-trial">reported</a> by The Daily Wire&#8217;s Emily Zanotti, Mitch McConnell announced on Tuesday that he has whipped up the votes to call whatever witnesses he likes, effectively blocking any witnesses the Democrats might wish.
<blockquote>The Democrats’ effort to forestall the Senate half of the impeachment process may have backfired, according to reports from outlets in Washington, D.C. With the extra time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has reportedly whipped enough votes to block Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) bid to force witness testimony in the Senate impeachment trial.
<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump">The Hill reports Tuesday</a> that McConnell is confident that he has at least 51 votes — a simple majority — against allowing witnesses to give testimony in front of the Senate, blocking a Democratic effort to plug holes in their case for impeaching President Donald Trump, something Democrats in the House had been pushing for with the help of Senate Democratic leadership.
It seems the House Democrats’ decision to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate until McConnell agreed to a trial that involves witnesses worked against them, giving McConnell time to convince even moderate Republicans that a Senate trial should operate according to the rules crafted by Schumer and others back in 1998, when then-President Bill Clinton was on trial.</blockquote>
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-08/pelosi-still-holding-on-to-trump-charges-impeachment-update?srnd=politics-vp&amp;sref=tmIR2vcd">said</a> the House will continue to wait and see what the terms are in order to &#8220;see the arena&#8221; in which they will be competing.
“We are waiting to see what the terms are,” Pelosi said. “How we choose our managers depends on what the arena is that we are going into. We can’t do it until we see the arena they’re going into.&#8221;
Speaking on the Senate floor, Mitch McConnell blasted House Democrats for “dragging their heels and refusing to proceed to a Senate trial.&#8221;
“There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedures,” McConnell said. “We will not cede our authority. The Senate is not a creature of the House.”

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Tells Pelosi To Send Over Impeachment Articles: ‘I Don’t See What Good Delay Does’

Dianne Feinstein

Menu