The House of Representatives has passed a coronavirus <a href="https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20200309/BILLS-116hr6201-SUS.pdf">funding bill</a> that will provide federal relief to areas across the nation as families are expected to undergo increasing economic strain.
According to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-bill-whats-in-it/">CBS News</a>, the bill includes funding for food security programs and a guaranteed 2-weeks of paid sick leave to employees at companies with fewer than 500 people. It also provides for increased funding for unemployment insurance and Medicaid, in addition to an emergency expansion to existing food service programs.
The bill, which was negotiated between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, also ensures that both public and private medical care providers accommodate for free coronavirus testing.
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/14/us/politics/coronavirus-house-vote.html">The New York Times</a>, 363 members of the House voted in favor of the bill, while 40 members – all Republicans – opposed the bill.
After the bill was passed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) <a href="https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-update-on-combating-the-coronavirus">lauded</a> the quick progress Mnuchin and Pelosi made on the deal, but encouraged Republican Senators to examine the 110-page bill carefully.
“The rough draft that Speaker Pelosi published Wednesday night fell far short of what American families and small businesses deserve,” said McConnell. “I want to commend Secretary Mnuchin for his hard work over the past two days to improve it.”
“Of course, Senators will need to carefully review the version just passed by the House. But I believe the vast majority of Senators in both parties will agree we should act swiftly to secure relief for American workers, families, and small businesses,” said the senator.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate minority leader, has also endorsed the bill, but in a <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1238631299193147399/photo/1">statement</a> publicly argued that Republicans didn’t go far enough with the legislation.
“Make no mistake: This legislation is very necessary but not sufficient,” said Schumer in a statement.
“There are still desperately needed steps that the Trump administration must take to ensure there is enough testing and treatment for everyone who needs it, as well as other broader economic measures that Senate Democrats outlined earlier this week to help states and local communities deal with the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak,” said Schumer.
According to The <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/14/ron-johnson-gop-senator-signals-opposition-coronav/">Washington Times</a>, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has already declared he will oppose the bill, in part, because of the language on the paid sick-leave requirement.
“Although mandating that all employers must pay for sick leave might sound good, we need to consider the unintended consequences of this legislation. I fear that rather than offering a workable solution, the House bill will exacerbate the problem by forcing small businesses to pay wages they cannot afford and ‘helping’ them go further into debt,” said Johnson, reports the news agency.
President Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1238626531510976512">encouraged</a> Republicans on Friday evening to support the measure, emphasizing “that in no way will small business be hurt.”
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/us/politics/congress-coronavirus-bill.html">The New York Times</a>, the department of labor will have the authority to exempt sick-leave requirements for companies with fewer than 50 people that can demonstrate that the measure “would jeopardize the viability of the business as a growing concern.”

Speaker Pelosi Addresses The Media In Weekly Briefing

House Passes Coronavirus Bill With Bipartisan Support

Coronavirus

U.S. House of Representatives

With all the hype over the Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders face-off during Tuesday night’s Democratic primaries, a dirty little secret for the Democrats was revealed in California, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn’t going to like it: nine seats currently held by Democrats in California look vulnerable enough that the GOP might grab them.
As J.D. Rucker notes at <a href="https://noqreport.com/2020/03/04/9-seat-flip-results-of-congressional-races-in-california-are-terrifying-for-democrats/">NOQ Report</a>:
<blockquote>Keep two things in mind. First, these aren’t nine seats that are deemed “in play” through some election miracle. These are nine seats currently held by Democrats where Republicans have the upper hand based on analysis of Tuesday’s primary votes. Second—and this is very important to understand—with only one statewide ballot measure, the main draw was the Democratic presidential primary in which Republicans may not vote. That means that even without the draw of a presidential primary choice, nine seats showed Republicans either within striking distance or outright beating Democrats.</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-GOP-makes-strong-bid-to-flip-back-15106053.php">The San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported, &#8220;Republicans took a strong first step in the primary election toward grabbing back at least some of the seven California congressional districts that Democrats flipped in 2018. With millions of late-arriving mail ballots still uncounted from Tuesday’s election, Republicans have so far combined for a majority of the votes in six of those seven districts. GOP candidates have solid leads in two of them.&#8221;
The Chronicle noted, &#8220;In Orange County, GOP candidates were winning a majority of the votes in three of the four targeted districts.&#8221; Fred Whitaker, chairman of the Orange County GOP, stated, “On Tuesday night, the waters of the blue wave began to recede &#8230; and Republicans showed that we will take back Orange County. The pathway to restoring the House of Representatives is through Orange County.”
Here was the data at the time of Rucker’s post on Wednesday:
District 7: Although incumbent Ami Berra garnered 44.5% of the total votes cast, and his Democratic challenger Jeff Burdick gained 6.6%, their total was not significantly ahead of the total of GOP candidates Buzz Patterson (38.9%) and Jon Ivy (7.8%), and that was with a heavy turnout for the Democratic presidential primary. Rucker noted of Patterson, a former carrier of the “nuclear football” for President Clinton and former Air Force Lt. Colonel, “If he can get some wind on his back, he has a strong chance of flipping the seat and beating the incumbent.”
District 10: With 58% of precincts reporting, Dem Josh Harder had 38.9% of the vote; GOP candidate Ted Howze had 38.2%. GOP candidates had a total of 56.3% of the vote.
District 16:Jim Costa (Dem) 37.5%; the GOP’s Kevin Cookingham 38.5%. Rucker noted, “Costa is clearly in trouble with his own base; this is the first time he’s faced other Democrats for his 16th district seat. It’s also the only time he’s come in second in the primary.”
District 21: David Valadao (GOP) 54.1%; Dems total; 43.1%.
District 24: Salud Carbajal (Dem) 51.8%; Andy Caldwell (GOP) 44.5%. Rucker pointed out, “The last two elections, Democrat Salud Carbajal has easily won CA-24, defeating his opponent by over 17-points in 2018.”
District 25: This is ex-Congresswoman Democrat Katie Hill’s district; the Democrat, Christy Smith, won 30.25% while the two GOP candidates, Mike Garcia and Steve Knight, won 27.4% and 20.4% respectively. (55% of precincts reporting)
District 39: In a rematch of the 2018 election, GOP candidate Young Kim won 52.4% of the cote, incumbent Gil Cisneros won 42.6%
District 45: Democratic incumbent Katie Porter got 48.1% of the vote; GOP candidates got the rest, 51.9%
District 48: Rucker noted that the incumbent, Harley Rouda, got roughly 10% less than the GOP candidates’ total.
District 50: The Democratic candidate, Ammar Campa-Najjar, got 34.4%; the three GOP candidates totaled almost 60%.

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Holds News Conference Day After Midterm Elections

CA Primary Reveals Bad News For Pelosi. GOP Could Win House Back.

Nancy Pelosi

At long last, the most brazenly partisan presidential impeachment in over a century and a half has come to an end. President Trump was formally acquitted on Wednesday by the U.S. Senate on each of the U.S. House’s adopted articles of impeachment: “Abuse of power” and “<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">obstruction of Congress</a>.” The president was acquitted on the “abuse of power” article by a count of 52–48, and he was acquitted on the “obstruction of Congress” article by a count of 53–47. That lone vote discrepancy, of course, is due to the fact maverick Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the Republican Party’s presidential standard-bearer a mere eight years ago, voted to convict on the first article and acquit on the second article.
Romney thus becomes the first senator in the history of the United States to vote to convict an impeached president from his/her own political party. His Senate floor speech explaining his vote made it seem like it was a decision he deeply wrestled with, but the reality is that his vote had — and will have — serious consequences.
First, Romney’s conviction vote — from a senator representing a deep-red state like Utah, no less — will place many moderate Republican senators facing potentially difficult re-election bids later this year (perhaps especially Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Thom Tillis (R-NC)) in a very difficult spot when they are grilled by adversaries as to why they did not join the former Republican presidential nominee in voting to convict Trump. Second, Romney providing nominal Republican cover to vote to convict Trump likely caused at least one — and perhaps more than one — of more moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Doug Jones (D-AL), and Kyrsten Sinema to flip their respective votes from acquittal to conviction. Third, because of the second point, Romney thus likely single-handedly transformed a bipartisan acquittal of the president into a bipartisan conviction of the president.
Nonetheless, this impeachment is officially in the books. The outcome was foreordained, of course, from day one, and all signs still point toward the Democrats having overplayed their hand and the electoral politics redounding to Republicans’ interests in November.
From a historical perspective, The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky has a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-history-hans-von-spakovsky">good piece</a> on the eerie similarities between this impeachment and the post-Civil War impeachment of President Andrew Johnson on similarly frivolous grounds. I offered my own final commentary on the serious harm wrought by this lamentable saga in <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/this-whole-pathetic-impeachment-effort-was-worse-than-a-waste-of-time/">last weekend’s New York Post</a>: “[T]o call it a mere waste of time is likely far too charitable. The Democrats took stock of the decrepit state of our national politics, the bitterly fractious nature of our partisan tribalism, the pathetic regard the American people have for their Congress and took a sledgehammer to it all. The most immediate tangible result of this failed gambit will be to only further coarsen and debase our politics. … Most damaging of all, the Democrats’ pursuit of the draconian remedy of impeachment based on their claims of Trump’s corrupt subjective intentions on a diplomatic phone call has set a truly reckless precedent for the future. … For Democrats to argue that Trump’s purportedly corrupt motive somehow transmogrifies … constitutionally protected conduct into an impeachable offense is nothing short of astonishing.”
History will not judge the Democrats kindly for this stunt. But it’s now time to move on.
&nbsp;
This piece will be frequently updated.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-mitt-romney-is-no-shining-example-of-political-principle">Mitt Romney Is No Shining Example Of Political Principle</a>
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>

Chief Justice John Roberts

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

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

Impeachment

U.S. Senate

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

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

Joe Biden

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

Last night, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRvUG6NTn78&amp;feature=youtu.be">joined</a> “Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler” on One America News Network to discuss the latest twists and turns in Democrats&#8217; ongoing partisan impeachment saga, as well as to recap the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">deeply flawed nature</a> of House Democrats&#8217; two finalized articles of impeachment.
&#8220;House Democrats emerged from a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning to finally announce the much-delayed vote on sending their articles of impeachment against President Trump — passed nearly a month ago without a single Republican vote — to the Senate,&#8221; The Daily Wire&#8217;s James Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/defeated-democrats-announce-vote-on-sending-impeachment-articles-but-not-wholl-be-running-the-show">reported</a> earlier today. &#8220;The big vote will take place Wednesday, though one particularly important detail has yet to be determined: who exactly from the House is going to be presenting the Democrats’ case against the duly elected president during the Senate trial,&#8221; Barrett continued.
In a <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge/">New York Post op-ed</a> last month, Hammer explained why House Democrats&#8217; second article of impeachment, &#8220;obstruction of Congress,&#8221; is &#8220;an utterly ridiculous impeachment charge&#8221;:
<blockquote>
Our tripartite separation-of-powers edifice was hardly devised for the purpose of ensuring amiability between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. On the contrary, the Framers envisioned a national government in which the three branches existed in a state of continuous, unyielding tension with one another.
In particular, the two political branches — Congress and the executive branch — were meant to be jealous guardians of their own ambits and spheres of influence. Ceaseless tussling between them was to be the norm. “Ambition,” James Madison told us in Federalist 51, “must be made to counteract ambition.” &#8230;
That is how our separation of powers is supposed to function — in a state far closer to animosity than to geniality. Which is precisely why House Democrats alleging “obstruction of Congress” as an article of impeachment makes no sense.
</blockquote>
Wheeler began the segment last night by asking about that deeply problematic second article of impeachment. Wheeler noted that the Democrats accused the president of &#8220;obstructi[ng]&#8221; Congress without even waiting for the judiciary to weigh in with respect to congressional subpoenas issued for Trump administration officials. Hammer agreed and also reiterated, in similar fashion to the Post op-ed, that the article of impeachment is also non-sensical from the broader perspective of structural constitutionalism:
<blockquote>[T]his impeachment charge is so risible. &#8230; The entire separation of powers construct is built around tension. The three branches of government — the legislative branch, the executive branch, the judicial branch — are not &#8230; intended to exist in some state of harmony. &#8230; No, that&#8217;s not what the Framers envisioned.
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 51, maybe the most famous Federalist Paper of them all, clearly says &#8220;ambition must be made to counteract ambition.&#8221; They&#8217;re supposed to be zealous guardians of their own idiosyncratic spheres of influence. They&#8217;re supposed to butt heads. They&#8217;re supposed to use all the various tools at their disposal to push back and try to encroach upon each other&#8217;s spheres. They&#8217;re [each] supposed to want to be the most dominant branch. Each one is supposed to not get along with the others. &#8230;</blockquote>
Wheeler agreed, noting that the second impeachment charge is therefore &#8220;both practically and philosophically ridiculous.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Impeachment Proceedings to Begin in the Senate" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yRvUG6NTn78?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN screen grab 1.13.20

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: A Senate Impeachment Trial Looms

Mitch McConnell

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

House Democrats emerged from a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning to finally announce the much-delayed vote on sending their articles of impeachment against President Trump — passed nearly a month ago without a single Republican vote — to the Senate. The announcement, which comes amid mounting pressure from both sides of the aisle, signals, as <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/house-vote-wednesday-to-transmit-trump-impeachment-articles-to-senate.html">CNBC</a> puts it, a &#8220;political defeat&#8221; for the Nancy Pelosi-led Democrats.
The big vote will take place Wednesday, though one particularly important detail has yet to be determined: who exactly from the House is going to be presenting the Democrats&#8217; case against the duly elected president during the Senate trial.
At a press conference held after the Democrats&#8217; meeting Tuesday morning, House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (NY) gave reporters the big news. “[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] indicated that the articles of impeachment &#8230; will be transmitted to the Senate at some point tomorrow,” said Jeffries, as reported by CNBC.
<div class="BoxInline-container ">
<div id="BoxInline-ArticleBody-5" class="BoxInline-container" data-module="mps-slot">
&#8220;Wednesday’s House resolution is expected to have three functions: To transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, name the House members who will serve as managers of the impeachment trial, and fund the trial itself,&#8221; CNBC explains.
&#8220;Absent a last minute change of heart by McConnell, Wednesday’s delivery of the articles by the House to the Senate will represent a political defeat for Pelosi, the de facto architect of the impeachment process so far,&#8221; the outlet notes.
As for those managers, who will &#8220;effectively act as prosecutors in the president’s trial,&#8221; their identities are not yet been revealed, but Jeffries said Pelosi will be providing them before the vote.
Among those expected to be the House Democrats&#8217; &#8220;prosecutors&#8221; are two obvious choices: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who led the House&#8217;s widely criticized impeachment inquiry, and House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who oversaw the crafting of the Democrats&#8217; two articles of impeachment against Trump.
The announcement comes as support for impeachment has <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/">flatlined</a>, with some polls showing a decline in support, and as key Democrats began to turn on Pelosi, publicly criticizing her &#8220;delay&#8221; gambit. Among the critics of the move is high-ranking Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA), who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-dianne-feinstein-tells-pelosi-to-send-over-impeachment-articles-i-dont-see-what-good-delay-does">said</a> last week, “If we’re going to do it, she should send them over. I don’t see what good delay does.”
While the Democrats dragged their heels on sending over the articles, they did accomplish one official act last week: As Trump announced that Iran was &#8220;standing down&#8221; after its attack on two Iraqi bases that resulted in no U.S. or Iraqi casualties and minimal damage, Pelosi led the charge to vote on a War Powers Resolution limiting the president&#8217;s ability to respond to Iranian aggression in the region.
Trump, meanwhile, has been using the Democrats&#8217; focus on trying to censure him against them, repeatedly hammering them online in front of cameras. “The Democrats and the Fake News are trying to make terrorist Soleimani into a wonderful guy, only because I did what should have been done for 20 years,” Trump tweeted Monday morning. “Anything I do, whether it’s the economy, military, or anything else, will be scorned by the [Radical] Left, Do Nothing Democrats!”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-pelosi-asked-would-it-be-a-good-thing-if-iranian-protesters-brought-down-regime-after-showdown-with-trump-gets-ripped-for-response">WATCH: Pelosi Asked ‘Would It Be A Good Thing’ If Iranian Protesters Brought Down Regime After Showdown With Trump; Gets Ripped For Response</a>
This article has been expanded to include more context.
</div>
</div>

‘Defeated’ Democrats Announce Vote On Sending Impeachment Articles, But Not Who’ll Be Running The Show

On Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet to Democrats, as he announced he would introduce a resolution supporting the protestors in Iran who are fighting against the theocratic, despotic Islamic regime. The resolution states that it condemns the actions of the government of Iran and supports the protestors’ desire for the government of Iran to respect freedom and human rights. McCarthy thus put Democrats in the position of either supporting the protestors or refusing to do so and thus tacitly supporting the Iranian regime.
The resolution lists various actions the Iranian government has committed, including November 2019, when “Iranian security forces killed approximately 1,500 demonstrators when they rose up across the country in protest”; January 8, 2020, when “the Government of Iran shot down Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, lied about its responsibility, and then admitted to mistakenly shooting the airliner down, killing all 176 people on board,” and  January 11, 2020, when the “government of Iran arrested the British Ambassador to Iran, in violation of the Vienna Convention.”
The resolution then segues to the protestors, noting on January 11 they “gathered across Iran to denounce what they called lying and incompetence by the country’s leadership”; that at Amirkabir University of technology in Iran, “protestors tore down posters of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani”; that on January 13 “video from inside Iran showed protestors chanting slogans including ‘Clerics get lost,’” and that “video appears to show Iranian security forces firing live ammunition at protestors and a woman being carried away leaving a trail of blood on the ground as people shout that she has been shot.”
The resolution notes President Trump’s support for the protestors before it again condemns the Iranian regime.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The people of the United States support freedom and democracy, and we will always stand beside those who seek it.
Here is the full text of my resolution supporting the protestors in Iran. I expect the full House to vote on it this week. <a href="https://t.co/nFk25Gjj4P">pic.twitter.com/nFk25Gjj4P</a>
&mdash; Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1216908744073891841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Last week McCarthy bluntly criticized the Democrats for their lack of support for the Trump administration as it battles the despotic Iranian regime, tweeting, “Think of the contrast. ↴While Democrats are trying to remove President Trump from office, the President is focused on removing terrorists from the face of the earth.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Think of the contrast. ↴ While Democrats are trying to remove President Trump from office, the President is focused on removing terrorists from the face of the earth.
&mdash; Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1213834480387014656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This week McCarthy doubled down, saying, “Any time I hear a Democrat talk about him (Soleimani) and say he was ‘bad,’ but then use the word ‘but,’ yes, I question it. There is no ‘but’ when it comes to Soleimani; he was bad ‘because,’ not ‘but.’ He was bad because he killed more than 600 American soldiers; he was bad because of the attacks and the American citizens he killed; he was bad because he went after our embassy. He was bad because he was planning to kill more Americans. So, no: I never use the word ‘but’ when I refer to him, and I don’t think any other America should either, and if they do, I’ll question them on it as well.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Any time a Democrat says &quot;Soleimani was bad, BUT&#8230;&quot; they need to be called out.
Soleimani was bad BECAUSE he was a terrorist who targeted and murdered hundreds of Americans. <a href="https://t.co/q6mnDo65aG">pic.twitter.com/q6mnDo65aG</a>
&mdash; Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1216367426843152384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
McCarthy’s reference to Democrats using “but” when describing Soleimani has resonance; last week, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UHrvp-UeyU">said</a>, “We have some questions to ask of our own president. Look, there is no question that Soleimani had American blood on his hands, that he was a bad actor in the region, but if there is anything that we have learned in the last twenty years in the Middle East, it’s that taking out a bad guy is not necessarily a good idea.”
Fellow presidential contender Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1212951889060470788?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1212951889060470788&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fthe-left-criticized-elizabeth-warren-for-calling-soleimani">tweeted</a>, “Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.&#8221;
Then, of course, there’s Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whose legendary history of cozying up to dictators apparently precluded him from even mentioning Soleimani’s brutal history, as Sanders only <a href="https://twitter.com/CaraKorte/status/1212961215707844608/photo/1">condemned</a> Trump’s “dangerous escalation.”

Health And Human Service Department Announces New Division On Conscience And Religious Freedom

Kevin McCarthy Backs House Dems Into Corner, Will Introduce Resolution Supporting Iranian Protestors

Iran

Kevin McCarthy

On Thursday, vocal Trump supporter Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) joined Democrats in voting for the Democrat-sponsored War Powers Resolution, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-the-war-powers-resolution-is-and-always-has-been-unconstitutional">seeks to limit</a> President Donald Trump&#8217;s authority to take prolonged military action against Iran without congressional approval.
As noted by <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-house-send-clear-war-powers-statement-trump-thursday-n1113006">NBC News</a>, the resolution &#8220;directs the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities against Iran unless Congress has declared war or enacted a specific authorization or unless military action is necessary to defend against an imminent attack.&#8221;
The president and many Republicans have voiced their opposition to the measure.
&#8220;The president has the right and duty to protect this nation and our citizens from terrorism. That&#8217;s what he continues to do, and the world is safer for it,&#8221; a statement read from White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley. &#8220;This House resolution tries to undermine the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevent terrorist activity by Iran and its proxies, and attempts to hinder the president&#8217;s authority to protect America and our interests in the region from the continued threats.&#8221;
Speaking on the House floor, Gaetz explained his support for the resolution.
&#8220;This resolution offers no criticism of the president — no critique. It doesn&#8217;t criticize the president&#8217;s attack on Soleimani. Matter of fact, this resolution doesn&#8217;t even say Soleimani&#8217;s name it,&#8221; the Republican said, according to <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/watch-gop-rep-matt-gaetz-explains-why-he-voted-for-war-powers-resolution?utm_content=buffereeb13&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=tw-theblaze">TheBlaze</a>.
&#8220;I represent more troops than any other member of this body. I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;If our servicemembers have the courage to fight and die in these wars, Congress ought to have the courage to vote for or against them.&#8221;
During a Fox News appearance on Thursday, Gaetz said the resolution &#8220;did say that if any president wants to drag our nation into another forever Middle East war, that they require the approval of the United States Congress. That&#8217;s something that I deeply believe, and I think it&#8217;s something the president deeply believes.&#8221;
Before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went after the president for killing terrorist and Iranian terrorist general Qassem Soleimani last week.
&#8220;Last week, in our view, the administration conducted a provocative disproportionate airstrike against Iran which endangered Americans, and did so without consulting Congress,&#8221; Pelosi said.
&#8220;Asked whether the Trump administration misled the public in justifying the airstrike, Pelosi said that while she can&#8217;t share the classified information that she has been briefed on, &#8216;I do not believe in terms of what is in the public domain that they have made the country safer by what they did,'&#8221; <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-house-send-clear-war-powers-statement-trump-thursday-n1113006">NBC News</a> detailed.
Republicans argue that the resolution is non-binding.
&#8220;The bill is what&#8217;s known as a &#8216;concurrent resolution,&#8217; meaning it requires only the approval of both chambers of Congress and does not go to the president for his signature. Republicans argue this makes the bill non-binding and largely symbolic,&#8221; <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-powers-resolution-house-votes-to-limit-trumps-ability-act-against-iran/">CBS News</a> outlined.
Two other Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie (KY) and Francis Rooney (FL), also voted in favor of the resolution.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I represent more troops than any other member of this body. I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington. 
If our servicemembers have the courage to fight and die in these wars, Congress ought to have the courage to vote for or against them. 
I’m voting for this resolution. <a href="https://t.co/cSCBG7CmIm">pic.twitter.com/cSCBG7CmIm</a>
&mdash; Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1215398328944545797?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mike-lee-details-why-he-was-upset-with-intel-briefing-new-resolution-with-democrat">Mike Lee Details Why He Was Upset With Intel Briefing; New Resolution With Democrat</a>

Rep. Matt Gaetz

Pro-Trump Rep. Matt Gaetz Joins Dems On War Powers Resolution. Here’s His Explanation.

Foreign Policy

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Matt Gaetz

Middle East

Congressional Democrats, who seemed <del>willfully naive</del> blissfully unaware of then-President Barack Obama&#8217;s rather expansive interpretation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during his strategically disastrous 2011 operation to oust Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi, suddenly seem to care an awful lot about constitutional norms and separation of powers principles again.
Intellectual inconsistency much?
Specifically, Speaker Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s House of Representatives is <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/politics/war-powers-act-explainer-iran/index.html">debating today</a> whether to congressionally impose War Powers Resolution limitations upon President Donald Trump&#8217;s unilateral ability to ratchet up militancy with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In their crusade to hamstring the president&#8217;s conduct of his foreign policy vis-à-vis the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-iranian-revolution-forty-years-old-stand-josh-hammer">jihadist</a> Iranian regime, House Democrats have even found some libertarian-leaning <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-lee-senator-utah-lambasts-trump-briefing-soleimani-strike-worst-hes-received-on-military-issue/">Republican allies</a>.
But this exercise is misguided, because the War Powers Resolution is, and always has been, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304186404576389474268093278">unconstitutional</a>.
Let&#8217;s start with what the War Powers Resolution, which was passed during the closing stanzas of the Vietnam War, actually does. The <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/93/hjres542/text">statute</a> requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces abroad, and it precludes deployed U.S. forces from remaining engaged in &#8220;hostilities&#8221; abroad for more than 60 days without an affirmative authorization for the use of military force that has passed through Congress. At the time, President Richard Nixon vetoed the bill on constitutional grounds, <a href="https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/president-richard-nixons-letter-house-representatives-regarding-his-veto-war">arguing</a> that the measure would define presidential war powers &#8220;in ways which would strictly limit his constitutional authority.&#8221; Nonetheless, a two-thirds majority in each congressional chamber overrode the veto.
Nixon&#8217;s veto was correct.
The Constitution famously divides foreign affairs powers between the legislative and executive branches. Among other enumerated powers in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8">Article I, Section 8</a>, Congress has the ability to &#8220;declare War,&#8221; &#8220;raise and support Armies,&#8221; &#8220;provide and maintain a Navy,&#8221; &#8220;make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,&#8221; &#8220;provide for calling forth the Militia,&#8221; and &#8220;provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.&#8221;
By contrast, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">Article II</a> of the Constitution provides that &#8220;[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.&#8221; The very first clause of Article II also vests the president with &#8220;[t]he executive Power&#8221; — meaning a &#8220;residual&#8221; foreign affairs power that encompasses all those powers not expressly delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8. As legal scholars Saikrishna B. Prakash and Michael D. Ramsey <a href="https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-executive-power-over-foreign-affairs">persuasively argued</a> in a 2001 Yale Law Journal article, 18th century English common law had an &#8220;ordinary &#8230; meaning of executive power&#8221; that &#8220;included foreign affairs power.&#8221;
A careful, line-by-line overview of Congress&#8217;s enumerated powers does not actually provide a legislative means that could feasibly justify the War Powers Resolution. The most likely candidate is the Declare War Clause, but that provision happens to be woefully misunderstood by many lawyers and politicians across the ideological spectrum. As John Yoo <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=426862">compellingly laid out</a> in a 2003 University of Chicago Law Review article, &#8220;[t]he Declare War Clause simply confers on Congress juridical power to both define the United States&#8217;s legal relations with other countries and trigger domestic constitutional authorities during wartime.&#8221; It is the president of the United States, under Article II&#8217;s Commander in Chief Clause, who is actually responsible for initiating and conducting hostilities. Congress can then intervene to halt a president it views as a reckless warmonger using the manifold tools it does have at its disposal: Decreasing the size of the Pentagon&#8217;s budget, going line item-by-line item and removing various offensive-oriented materiel from the Department of Defense&#8217;s arsenal, or using its more general power of the purse to defund a war effort in its entirety (as eventually happened with Vietnam).
This interpretation of the Declare War Clause should not be nearly as controversial as it is. At the 1787 constitutional convention, the Framers actually conscientiously substituted out &#8220;make War&#8221; with &#8220;declare War.&#8221; In so doing, James Madison <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/qasem-soleimani-strike-president-trump-has-constitution-precedent-on-his-side/">famously explained</a> to Elbridge Gerry that it was imperative to leave to the president the &#8220;<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_11s4.html">power to repel sudden attacks</a>.&#8221; This ought to make a great deal of sense; as Alexander Hamilton would explain only six months after the constitutional convention in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp">The Federalist No. 70</a>, &#8220;[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.&#8221;
Finally, in Article I, Section 10, the Constitution precludes a state from &#8220;engag[ing] in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.&#8221; The Framers were therefore aware of multiple verbs — &#8220;make&#8221; and &#8220;engage&#8221; — that could have clearly conveyed the meaning of an initiation of hostilities. But they didn&#8217;t use those words, and they didn&#8217;t use them for a reason. The Framers understood that there was great merit to leaving decisions such as the commencement of hostilities to one man, and not to a fractious Congress.
To reiterate, Congress already has a number of tools at its disposal to push back against a crusading commander-in-chief. As Andrew McCarthy <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/war-powers-resolution-vote-trump-andrew-mccarthy">wrote</a> this week at Fox News, &#8220;No statute is needed to provide Congress with the power to frustrate unauthorized presidential war-making. The Constitution empowers the legislature to do so by simply refusing to appropriate funds for military action.&#8221; But the Declare War Clause means something fundamentally different than what many believe it does.
The War Powers Resolution may or may not be good policy. But it does not matter, because it runs afoul of the Constitution&#8217;s carefully calibrated separation of powers.

United States Constitution

HAMMER: The War Powers Resolution Is, And Always Has Been, Unconstitutional

Barack Obama

Congress

Libya

Qassem Soleimani

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

For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), it’s time to fish or cut bait.
Most Missouri voters are familiar with this colloquial expression; it means either take action or step back —and do something useful instead. That’s the position Pelosi finds herself in, now that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senator-josh-hawley-introducing-measure-to-dismiss-democrats-articles-of-impeachment">introduced a resolution</a> that would allow the Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment if the House continues to refuse to formally transmit them to the Senate.
The Republican senator’s message is as sensible as it is salient — the Constitution does not abide your half measures, and neither will we.
Sen. Hawley’s proposal is by no means revolutionary. According to his resolution, if the House has failed to send the articles to the Senate after 25 days, a senator could offer a motion to dismiss “with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles” with a simple majority vote. This idea of dismissal for want of prosecution, or &#8220;DWOP,&#8221; is commonplace in both civil and criminal litigation.
To date, House Democrats’ rationalizations for holding impeachment in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold">perpetual state of suspension</a> are marked by rampant hypocrisy and duplicity. A month ago, when the House announced that it would move forward with an impeachment vote, Pelosi claimed there was urgency to do so because “civilization as we know it &#8230; is at stake in the next election.” But once the House, with bipartisan opposition, did vote to impeach, House Democrats acted immediately and urgently — to go home for the holidays.
The Constitution clearly establishes each chamber’s role in the impeachment process. While Article I, Section 2 gives the House the power to impeach, Section 3 unequivocally provides the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This was, by no means, an inconsequential part of the Framers’ constitutional design.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp">The Federalist No. 66</a>, dividing impeachment “between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges.” It is the Senate’s sole prerogative to resolve the impeachment process.
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-dismiss-impeachment-senate-pelosi" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-dismiss-impeachment-senate-pelosi&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1578499082587000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFAtj6CNmkObeLQd_BuqSksdA1JMQ">As Hawley himself has pointed out</a>, perpetual stalemate in the impeachment process could easily result in some sort of October surprise (a last-ditch attempt to sway the November election) or, worse still, an attack on the president’s second term following re-election. If House Democrats truly respected the will of the people, they would act now on impeachment rather than using it to influence or undermine this year’s election. If the House won’t decide whether to cast or cut the line, then Hawley, joined by 10 original co-sponsors, signaled that the Senate will.
Congress already has a long list of unfinished business from 2019 and other urgent matters at hand in 2020 that are vital to the continued safety and prosperity of our country. Iran continues to make threats and escalate tensions. The border remains unsecured. Obamacare is failing, with no legislative fix in sight. And our government’s reckless spending continues to pilfer from future generations.
If House Democrats still think that all these things should be placed on the back burner in order to impeach this president, they should get on with it. And if not, they should move on. But either way, Hawley is right — delaying the process while distracting from the important work that needs to be done on behalf of the American people should no longer be an option.
&nbsp;
The Honorable Robert &#8220;Rob&#8221; Henneke is the general counsel and director of the Center for the American Future at the <a href="https://www.texaspolicy.com">Texas Public Policy Foundation</a>.

Josh Hawley

HENNEKE: Josh Hawley Is Right To Tell Nancy Pelosi To ‘Fish Or Cut Bait’ On Impeachment

Speaking on the U.S. Senate floor on Friday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) emphatically rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s (D-CA) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold">procedural gambit</a> to influence and dictate the rules of a prospective Senate impeachment trial.
&#8220;Their turn is over. They’ve done enough damage. It’s the Senate’s turn now to render sober judgment,&#8221; said McConnell, as <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-impasse-deepens-as-mcconnell-rejects-pelosi-bid-to-shape-trial-their-turn-is-over">reported</a> by Fox News.
Earlier in the speech, McConnell lambasted House Democrats&#8217; &#8220;short-term partisan rage,&#8221; according to a full copy of the majority leader&#8217;s remarks obtained by The Daily Wire:
<blockquote>The Senate will soon have to address some of the deepest institutional questions contemplated by our Constitution. We’ll have to decide whether we are going to safeguard core governing traditions or let short-term partisan rage overcome them. &#8230;</blockquote>
McConnell continued, referring to Pelosi&#8217;s ultimate decision to delay formal transmission of the House&#8217;s articles of impeachment as the fruition a &#8220;sad spectacle.&#8221;
<blockquote>[U]ltimately House Democrats cared more about attacking President Trump than keeping their promises. So they rushed through a slapdash investigation. They decided not to bother with the standard legal processes for pursuing witnesses and evidence. &#8230;
[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. Instead of sending the articles to the Senate, they flinched.
That’s right: The same people who’d just spent weeks screaming that impeachment was so serious and so urgent that it could not even wait for due process now decided it could wait indefinitely while they checked the political winds and looked for new talking points.</blockquote>
McConnell concluded: &#8220;Their turn is over. They have done enough damage. It’s the Senate’s turn now — to render sober judgment as the framers envisioned. But we can’t hold a trial without the articles. The Senate’s own rules don’t provide for that. So, for now, we are content to continue the ordinary business of the Senate while House Democrats continue to flounder. For now.&#8221;
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) responded harshly, as also <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-impasse-deepens-as-mcconnell-rejects-pelosi-bid-to-shape-trial-their-turn-is-over">reported</a> by Fox News: &#8220;Will we fulfill our duty to conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the United States or will we not?&#8221; asked the veteran New York politician. &#8220;That is most pressing question facing this Senate. The country just saw McConnell’s answer to that question. The answer is no.&#8221;
&#8220;Never, never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial in which the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses, yet the Republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent and denying critical evidence to this body and to the American people,&#8221; Schumer eventually added.
As previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold">noted</a> by The Daily Wire, Pelosi has delayed the formal transmission of House Democrats&#8217; partisan articles of impeachment while she attempts to extract procedural concessions from McConnell and Senate Republicans as to how a prospective Senate impeachment trial is conducted. In a New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">op-ed</a> last month, I defended the legality of Pelosi&#8217;s move while nonetheless castigating her:
<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>

McConnell Rejects Pelosi’s Attempt To Dictate Rules Of Senate Impeachment Trial

Earlier this month, in the lead-up to House Democrats&#8217; (<a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1207731722995023872">kind of</a>/<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html">sort of</a>) formal impeachment of President Donald Trump, the Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)-led House Judiciary Committee convened a panel of three law professors: Pamela Karlan of Stanford, Noah Feldman of Harvard, and Jonathan Turley of George Washington. The ostensible reason for Nadler&#8217;s summoning of this troika was to air a public discussion of what the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors&#8221; impeachment criterion actually means — a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-todays-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-is-yet-another-waste-of-time">rather curious use of time and taxpayer resources</a>, alas, considering that Alexander Hamilton told us precisely what it meant in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">The Federalist No. 65</a>.
This triumvirate of ivory tower overlords, moreover, was hardly politically or ideologically diverse. Karlan is an unreconstructed leftist so radical that former President Barack Obama did not even consider her for a U.S. Supreme Court nomination. Feldman is a traditional liberal — hardly one to find compelling the notion that a legal text ought to only be interpreted according to its original public meaning. Turley, the Republican-called witness who was <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats">most favorable toward</a> Trump&#8217;s impeachment defense narrative, is nonetheless best described as a left-leaning civil libertarian. He is <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/politics/turley-democrats-republicans-gop/2019/12/28/id/947594/">hardly a partisan Trump supporter</a>.
Alas, Turley&#8217;s testimony elicited intensive backlash from fellow liberals and fellow members of the cloistered legal academy. As Turley snarkily tweeted, linking to an op-ed he published over the holiday weekend at The Hill: &#8220;The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not testify for Republicans.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not testify for Republicans <a href="https://t.co/AhlGtYMYsC">https://t.co/AhlGtYMYsC</a>
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1210938223444267010?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Journalist Henry Louis Mencken once observed, &#8216;Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them,'&#8221; Turley began. &#8220;Despite unending respect for Mencken, this is an occasion in which I found him mistaken, after I violated the Eleventh Commandment, &#8216;Thou shalt not testify for Republicans.'&#8221;
Turley&#8217;s piece continued with oftentimes dripping sarcasm. The professor clearly harbors no small amount of disdain for the intellectual and political monoculture that the Left oftentimes attempts to forcibly impose from the heights of academe.
&#8220;What is most striking about this commandment is that it does not matter if your testimony is made in good faith,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;For instance, under the Ninth Commandment, you are only guilty if you give false evidence against your neighbor. But under the Eleventh Commandment, it does matter if your testimony is true or false. A law fearing academic must not give any testimony for Republicans. &#8230; It is the act of testifying for Republicans that is deemed a sin against the legal academy.&#8221;
&#8220;[H]eresy demands condemnation, whether or not it is based in reality,&#8221; Turley concluded. &#8220;This is all meant to get people to not seriously consider the flaws in this impeachment, including the articles that ultimately were dropped. For any academic who is tempted to testify for Republicans in an impeachment, I can only caution that the Bible said, &#8216;Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.'&#8221;
Political and ideological diversity is an infamous and pervasive problem throughout much of American academia — with legal academia among the most grievous of all offenders. Recently, conservative law professor Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA wrote a <a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ucla-professor-bainbridge-hero-of-diversity/">widely disseminated</a> <a href="https://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2019/12/i-submit-herewith-my-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-statement-for-my-merit-raise-at-uclaw.html">blog post</a> about how he, as a conservative white Catholic, actively contributes to diversity (properly understood) at UCLA School of Law:
<blockquote>At UCLA, we know that the campus as a whole leans substantially to the left. “A study of various university faculties showed that at Cornell the ratio of liberal to conservative faculty members was 166 to 6, at Stanford it was 151 to 17, at UCLA it was 141 to 9, and at the University of Colorado it was 116 to 5.” Conservative students at UCLA have been “harassed, stalked, and threatened.” I recently searched the opensecrets.org donor database for political contributions made by persons who claimed UCLA School of Law as their employer. Thirty-eight of those persons contributed solely to Democratic candidates, the Democratic Party and various affiliates, and liberal PACs. One person contributed to both Republicans and Democrats. Three persons contributed exclusively to Republican candidates, the Republican Party, and various NRC affiliates. Of the faculty members who contributed exclusively to Republican candidates, the most recently hired of the two was hired in 1997. As a monetary matter, 92.67% of all contributions went to Democrats and affiliated groups.
Because conservative students and students of faith often feel alienated and estranged in an environment that is so relentlessly liberal and secular, I have made particular efforts to reach out to and support such students. I have served as a mentor for leaders of The Federalist Society and Christian Law Students Association. I have given talks to both organizations. I taught a Perspectives on law and Lawyering seminar devoted to Catholic Social Thought and the Law, which gave students — whether Catholic or not — an opportunity to consider how their faith (or lack thereof) related to the law and an opportunity to learn about a coherent body of Christian scholarship that might inform their lives as lawyers. I have also tried to lead by example, such as by serving as a volunteer with the Good Shepherd Catholic Church’s St. Vincent de Paul chapter, which raises funds for distribution to poor persons who are in danger of losing their home due to inability to make rent or mortgage payments.</blockquote>

Jonathan Turley testifying

Liberal Law Prof Turley: Not A ‘Sin’ To Testify For Republicans

academia

Liberalism

Republican Party

President Trump on Tuesday ripped Democrats for delaying a Senate trial on his possible removal from office, saying they are just trying to &#8220;protect Sleepy Joe Biden.&#8221;
On December 18, the House voted along party lines to impeach the president — but Speaker Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold">did not hand over</a> the the two articles of impeachment to the Senate. She said she wasn&#8217;t convinced that the Senate, controlled by Republicans, would conduct a fair trial.
But Trump says there&#8217;s a different motivation. &#8220;The Democrats will do anything to avoid a trial in the Senate in order to protect Sleepy Joe Biden, and expose the millions and millions of dollars that &#8216;Where&#8217;s&#8217; Hunter, &amp; possibly Joe, were paid by companies and countries for doing NOTHING. Joe wants no part of this mess!&#8221; he wrote on Twitter on Tuesday.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Democrats will do anything to avoid a trial in the Senate in order to protect Sleepy Joe Biden, and expose the millions and millions of dollars that “Where’s” Hunter, &amp; possibly Joe, were paid by companies and countries for doing NOTHING. Joe wants no part of this mess!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1211969354499284992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump was targeting the former vice president and his son Hunter, who made hundreds of thousands of dollars serving on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.
In October, Hunter Biden said he did nothing wrong when he served on the Burisma board, but acknowledged that he likely got high-paying positions on such boards because he is “the son of the [former] vice president of the United States.”
In his first public statements since the scandal exploded in Washington, Hunter Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that it was “poor judgment” on his part to hold the job, which reportedly paid him $50,000 per month. Biden made hundreds of thousands of dollars through his employment with Burisma, the largest private gas company in Ukraine — despite having no real qualifications for the job.
“If your last name wasn’t Biden, do you think you would have been asked to be on the board or Burisma?” ABC News’ Amy Robach asked.
“I don’t know, I don’t know, probably not,” Biden said. “It is impossible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I’m the son of the vice president of the United States.”
He went further, saying, “I don’t think that there’s a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn’t Biden.”
The Republican National Committee also hammered Hunter Biden&#8217;s connection to Burisma in a video back in September. The ad opens with ABC’s Tom Llamas asking, “Was Hunter Biden profiting off his dad’s work as vice president, and did Joe Biden allow it?”
The video cuts to The New Yorker’s Adam Entous saying, “I think there’s two separate issues here. The issue of whether it was wise of Hunter Biden to take this position at Burisma when his father was guiding policy in Ukraine — and, you know, the wisdom of Biden and Biden staffers, once they knew that, not to ask Hunter to step down. I think that’s a legitimate subject of scrutiny,” as The Daily Wire and others have pointed out.
After several more quick clips, Rep. Vicente González, a Democrat, says on CNN: “Look, clearly something needs to be cleared up. So yes, of course I would want an explanation on that.”
HBO’s Bill Maher, a hardline liberal, then says about Biden’s son: “This kid was paid $600,000 because his name is Biden by a gas company in Ukraine, this super-corrupt country that just had a revolution to get rid of corruption. It just looks bad.”

World Food Program USA&#8217;s 2016 McGovern-Dole Leadership Award Ceremony

Trump: Democrats Avoiding Senate Trial To Protect Bidens

Hunter Biden

On Thursday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about the impeachment debate and aftermath. Video and partial transcript below: 
Merry Impeachment, as those at The Washington Post say each and every day. Merry Impeachment to you. Merry Impeachmas — I guess is how they&#8217;re putting it.
It is very exciting news, The New York Times splashing across its front page, “Trump Impeached” and then The Washington Post, “Trump impeached” — everybody, very excited about the impeachment. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-is-impeached-by-the-house-creating-an-indelible-mark-on-his-presidency/2019/12/18/501bcab2-2105-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html">The Washington Post</a> reveled in this — Philip Rucker, Felicia Sonmez, and Kobe Itkowitz: 
<blockquote>The House of Representatives voted late Wednesday to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress, with Democrats declaring him a threat to the nation and branding an indelible mark on the most turbulent presidency of modern times.</blockquote>
An indelible mark, is it? So indelible, because when people think of Bill Clinton&#8217;s presidency, the only thing they think about is impeachment. Not the economy, not welfare reform, not the fact that his wife would go on to become a Democratic nominee herself — no, they only think about the impeachment. It&#8217;s an indelible mark. 
<blockquote>After 11 hours of fierce arguments on the House floor between Democrats and Republicans over Trump&#8217;s conduct with Ukraine, lawmakers voted almost entirely along party lines to impeach him.</blockquote>
By the way, the only people who did not vote along party lines were the two, three Democrats who voted not to impeach and Tulsi Gabbard, who abstained from the voting [and] voted “present.”
<blockquote>Trump becomes the third president in U.S. history to face trial in the Senate — a proceeding that will determine whether he is removed from office less than one year before he stands for re-election.</blockquote>
Spoiler alert: Nope, not gonna happen. According to The Washington Post:
<blockquote>On Trump&#8217;s 1062nd day in office, Congress brought a momentous reckoning to an unorthodox president who has tested America&#8217;s institutions with an array of unrestrained actions, including some that a collection of his own appointees and other government witnesses testified were reckless and endangered national security.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ubpo1gkAp0A?start=30" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
It&#8217;s a reckoning — momentous, momentous reckoning. You saw Democrats cheering yesterday very, very excited about all of this. Then there was that awkward moment where they realized he&#8217;s not exiting office &#8230; as they realized that the impeachment doesn&#8217;t mean anything because it&#8217;s an entirely political act, and they do not run the Senate. The Democratic-controlled House passed two articles of impeachment against Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — neither of which is a crime, of course.
<blockquote>The House voted 230 to 197 to approve the article charging abuse of power, with the gavel falling about 8:30 P.M.</blockquote>
Right in the middle of “The Masked Singer.” So you had this bizarre split-screen on Fox, they cut into “The Masked Singer” to show the commentators on Fox News, and everybody was like, “Wait a second, I wanted to know who the fox was, why doesn&#8217;t someone just tell me who the fox was?” No one cares about the impeachment, let&#8217;s be real about this. 
<blockquote>On the &#8220;obstruction of Congress&#8221; vote, which followed soon after, the tally was 229 to 198. All Republicans voted against both articles. Among Democrats, two voted no on the first article and three on the second, with one — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard — voting “present” both times.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi framed the day&#8217;s proceedings &#8230;</blockquote>
So here was Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s opening statement: It was very solemn, very somber, and this was the supposed mood that was being created. Solemness, somberness, solemnity, sadness, and any other “s” words you can think of that makes you feel very sober. 
Here&#8217;s Nancy Pelosi, wearing her Emperor Palpatine costume, and then reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which again, the last time I checked, Democrats wanted to ban from public school classrooms. But here&#8217;s Nancy Pelosi: 
<blockquote>PELOSI: Very sadly now, our Founders’ vision of a republic is under threat from actions from the White House. That is why today, as speaker of the House, I solemnly and sadly open the debate on the impeachment of the president of the United States. If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty. It is tragic that the president&#8217;s reckless actions make impeachment necessary. He gave us no choice.</blockquote>
No, you had a choice, and you just didn&#8217;t do it. Now the best part again, of all of this, was the theatrical stupidity of all this. The Democrats pretending that they’re very solemn and upset about having to do this, despite the fact that, again, they&#8217;ve spent three years openly screaming for lightning to hit Trump, openly praying that the alligator moat opens up beneath Trump, that Jabba the Hutt’s gate opens up and Trump falls down into the &#8230; pit. 
That what they&#8217;ve been praying for for three long years, and finally, they did it yesterday, and [they’re like] “No, we&#8217;re not excited about this. We&#8217;re not excited about this.”
Yeah, you&#8217;re not excited about this. You’re about as not excited about this as a new husband on his wedding night. Sure. Here&#8217;s a montage of all the Democrats proclaiming how sad and solemn, and solemn and sad, and solemn and sad and sober they are. 
<blockquote>PELOSI: We are here today under the dome of this temple of democracy to exercise one of the most solemn powers that this body can take. 
CHU: It&#8217;s with solemn purpose today that I vote to impeach. 
BARRAGAN: Madam Speaker, it is with the solemn sense of duty that I rise —
HUFFMAN: Madam Speaker, as we take this solemn, necessary step of impeaching President Trump — 
BUTTERFIELD: I rise on this solemn occasion —
GARAMENDI: Impeaching the president is one of the most solemn and consequential — 
KELLY: I cast a solemn vote for the many individuals in my district. 
KAPTUR: Members of Congress swear a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and today we fulfill our oath — 
LEWIS: Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to support this resolution. 
MATSUI: I rise today with a heavy heart. 
PRESSLEY: It is with a heavy heart, but a resolved one — 
SEWELL: Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart and a profound sense of the gravity of this moment that I rise today in support of the impeachment — 
COSTA: Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. The two most difficult votes any member of Congress ever asked to cast his vote to go to war or to impeach. 
PELOSI: Today, as speaker of the House, I solemnly and sadly open the debate.
CORREA: This is a very sad day and I do not take impeachment lightly. 
LEE: I am saddened, but I&#8217;m not shocked. 
SCANLON: It&#8217;s with profound sadness that I stand here today — 
BASS: It is a sad day in America.
LANGEVIN: Today, sadly, we are voting to impeach President Donald John Trump. 
LEE: Yes, I am saddened, but I&#8217;m not shocked.</blockquote>
Everybody’s sad, so sad! Now, if you believe this, it&#8217;s because you&#8217;re unbelievably stupid and gullible. So sad. Oh, you can see them weeping! The tears, they’re so upset! And they’re so sober. It&#8217;s like a funeral out there. I mean, it&#8217;s so sober. What a sober moment in America&#8217;s history when we have to impeach this guy that we absolutely wish would just effing die. It’s just so sober, and so sad, and so sober-sad. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

U.S. House Of Representatives Votes On Impeachment Of President Donald Trump

SHAPIRO: Merry Impeachmas From The Very Solemn Democrats

Last night, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aPkR8lrtLU">joined</a> &#8220;Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler&#8221; on One America News Network to discuss the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-pelosi-considers-withholding-articles-of-impeachment-from-senate-heres-the-insane-reason-why">news</a> that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) intends to withhold the formal physical delivery of the House&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-multiple-democrats-vote-against-impeachment-only-democrats-vote-for-it">passed articles of impeachment</a> to the Senate unless and until she and House Democrats can be assured a &#8220;fair process.&#8221; The delay raises a myriad of complex legal issues, and there is also the distinct topic of the political fallout from such a stunt.
Hammer also has an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold">op-ed</a> in today&#8217;s <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">New York Post</a> that breaks down the topic:
<blockquote>
Some prominent lawyers on the right, such as former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree, have ­argued that it is outright unconstitutional for Pelosi to delay transmission. He has suggested that Trump has a constitutional right to see his impeachment proceed to a possible acquittal in the Senate.
I disagree. As a matter of constitutional construction, it is generally inappropriate to read duties and rights that aren’t there in the text. When the Constitutional text is silent, we have to turn to hierarchically lower bodies of law. Here, that means the internal rules governing the House and the Senate. &#8230;
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>
Hammer and Wheeler probed the legal and political issues at length on the &#8220;Tipping Point&#8221; television segment, with Hammer first discussing the legal intricacies and Wheeler then breaking down the politics.
Wheeler began by asking whether the Senate has to wait for the House&#8217;s physical delivery of impeachment articles to begin a trial. Hammer responded that, under the Senate&#8217;s own rules, it currently does have to wait:
<blockquote>&#8230; [W]hen we&#8217;re interpreting the Constitution, I think it&#8217;s inappropriate to read in implied rights and duties that are not there. So, the Constitution is pretty silent on this.
What that means [is] we then look to House and Senate internal rules. There is nothing in the House&#8217;s internal rules that mandates that the speaker of the House pass any kind of resolution or legislation and physically deliver that to the Senate. It&#8217;s totally up to the discretion of the speaker of the House. As far as the Senate is concerned, there&#8217;s a Tulane law professor — who&#8217;s apparently one of the country&#8217;s only &#8220;impeachment law&#8221; experts — who has digged up this Senate Rules provision that, according to the Senate&#8217;s own internal rules, they say that the trial does not start until the articles of impeachment have been physically delivered to the Senate.
So the Senate can always amend its own rules, but unless and until they do so, [Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell has his hands tied right now.</blockquote>
Later in the conversation, Wheeler expressed her opinion that Pelosi&#8217;s stunt will backfire, politically speaking: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know how this is going to help her. It shows that this is partisan, which we all know, but this shows that even to the people who were maybe on the fence. The Democrats who are on the fence, it shows that this is partisan. She&#8217;s essentially &#8230; trying to coerce Mitch McConnell into allowing [Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer and the Democrats to call witnesses that they want.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Can Pelosi Delay the Senate Impeachment Trial?" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-aPkR8lrtLU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN screen grab 12.19.19

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: Can Pelosi Delay The Senate Impeachment Trial?

New York Post

Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who is a constitutional attorney by training, has the following piece today at the <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">New York Post</a>.
Ever since President Trump took office, liberals have ­bewailed his degradations, real and imagined, of various “norms.” Trump needs to stop tweeting, they say. He needs to start acting like a dignified leader of the Free World ought to act. He needs to cut out the gratuitous attacks on the media. And so forth.
Those same “norm”-exalting Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans are now awfully ­silent as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/18/nancy-pelosi-unsure-when-articles-of-impeachment-will-be-sent-to-senate/" data-reader-unique-id="3">makes a mockery of the impeachment process</a> and its centuries-old norms.
Democrats this week fulfilled the longing of their base by making Trump the third president in American history to have formal articles of impeachment against him <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/18/house-votes-along-party-lines-to-impeach-trump/" data-reader-unique-id="5">passed by the House</a>. They knew the process would ultimately go nowhere; a decisive acquittal in the Senate trial was clearly the foregone conclusion.
But then came a bizarre development. Pelosi told reporters after the vote that she intends to delay formal, physical delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate until Democrats can be assured a “fair process” in the upper chamber.
Such a delay would be historically ­unprecedented.
The law doesn’t require Pelosi to deliver the articles of ­impeachment to the Senate. But politically, her latest reckless stunt makes an already unserious partisan effort look even more patently unserious.
The Constitution is silent on how to resolve such an impasse between the House and the Senate. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 says that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment.” And Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 says that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”
In constitutional law, the use of the word “sole,” in each provision, bars any actor other than the specified legislative body from establishing its own ­impeachment-related internal procedures.
But the Constitution makes no reference to the scenario now before us: The House <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/18/with-partisan-impeachment-dems-just-ignored-hamiltons-pelosis-warnings/" data-reader-unique-id="12">passing articles of impeachment</a> but ­refusing to transmit them to the Senate. Simply put, it is a situation that the Constitution’s Framers didn’t envision.
Some prominent lawyers on the right, such as former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree, have ­argued that it is outright unconstitutional for Pelosi to delay transmission. He has suggested that Trump has a constitutional right to see his impeachment proceed to a possible acquittal in the Senate.
I disagree. As a matter of constitutional construction, it is generally inappropriate to read duties and rights that aren’t there in the text. When the Constitutional text is silent, we have to turn to hierarchically lower bodies of law. Here, that means the internal rules governing the House and the Senate.
There is nothing whatsoever in the House’s internal rules that requires the delivery of any particular resolution or bill to the Senate. As for the Senate, Tulane Law School Professor Ross Garber, an expert on the impeachment process, has observed that the Senate process gets triggered only after the formal delivery of the articles and the appointment of impeachment managers.
<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">Read the rest here.</a>

Menu