Posted on

When Is an Officer Impeached? IV

Now that President Donald Trump has gotten wind of the fact that he might not yet have been impeached, we should make some things abundantly clear.

At a Turning Point USA event in Florida, the president noted, “In fact, there’s no impeachment. Their own lawyer said there’s no impeachment. What are we doing here?” The president is taking note of an op-ed by Noah Feldman, one of the Democratic expert witnesses at the House Judiciary impeachment hearings, who argued that the president is not technically impeached until the articles of impeachment are exhibited in the Senate.

The Republican expert witness, Jonathan Turley, has now argued that Feldman is wrong. Laurence Tribe was among those advising the House Democrats to postpone delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but insists that the House has nonetheless already impeached the president.

I’ve weighed in here, here, and here.

As I pointed out early on, this debate has no practical consequence for Donald Trump and the operation of the current federal impeachment process.

The American public believes that the president has already been impeached.

The House of Representatives believes that the president has already been impeached. The current House rules specify that “The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment.” The House resolution adopting the articles of impeachment against the president states that the president “is impeached” and directs that the articles of impeachment “be exhibited to the United States Senate.”

This current House is acting in a manner that is consistent with how the House has impeached officers since the early twentieth century, though it is a departure from how the House impeached officers for more than a century after the founding.

Feldman argued that the exhibition of the articles of impeachment to the Senate is an essential procedural component for realizing the House’s constitutional power to impeach. On this, he is almost certainly wrong.

In its early impeachments, the House authorized a member to go to the Senate and “impeach” an officer and then waited, sometimes for many weeks, before actually drafting and exhibiting the articles of impeachment in the Senate. The House and Senate thought the officer was impeached when the allegation was leveled at the bar of the Senate, not when the details of the charges were exhibited to the Senate. But neither Tribe nor Turley give much reason to think that the “power of impeachment” is best construed as simply passing a resolution of impeachment, nor do they grapple with the ample evidence that that was not how an “impeachment” was generally construed before the early twentieth century.

If you think that the the “power of impeachment” vested in the House is underspecified regarding the forms that the House has to follow in order to execute an impeachment or that it vests in the House a discretionary authority to specify the forms of an impeachment, then the current House rules are decisive. At least one state court has adopted this view of how the impeachment process works in American constitutions. The process of impeachment might be a matter of constitutional construction, and the longstanding federal construction is that an impeachment occurs at the moment the House votes to adopt an impeachment resolution.

If you think that the “power of impeachment” is fixed regarding the process of impeachment by the original public meaning of the term “impeachment,” then the current House rules are probably wrong as a matter of constitutional interpretation. At least one state court has adopted this view of how the impeachment process works in American constitutions and pointed to the evidence that what it means to impeach someone had a fairly determinate meaning under the U.S. Constitution.

Even if the House is behaving inappropriately in regard to the correct constitutional interpretation of the “power of impeachment” vested in the House by the U.S. Constitution, absolutely nothing turns on it.

Under current Senate rules, the Senate will not begin a trial until the articles of impeachment have been exhibited, regardless of whether or not an officer had actually been impeached prior to the House announcing that fact to the Senate. There are no legal or constitutional consequences for the president from having been “impeached,” except that he might eventually be subjected to a Senate trial. The House has not yet done what it needs to do to trigger a Senate impeachment trial.

If the House is doing it wrong, there are no consequences to the error. If the House is doing it wrong, there is no venue with the authority to correct the House. By the time of any Senate trial, the House’s error (if it is an error) will have been “corrected” by the exhibition of the articles of impeachment. If the House never formally communicates the impeachment to the Senate, then there will be no trial and scholars can have epic footnote battles over whether Trump was ever actually impeached.

If this were an impeachment in a state with a constitution that suspended Trump from office until he such a time that is acquitted in a Senate trial and empowered Mike Pence to take on the duties of acting president at the moment of Trump’s impeachment, then this question might matter—and it is quite possible that Trump, and not Pence, should currently be exercising the powers of his office. But Trump is not an officer under such a state constitution. He is an officer under the federal Constitution, and the federal Constitution creates one, and only one, consequence of an impeachment—the authorization of the Senate to conduct a trial to determine whether an officer is to be removed.

I was among those who were skeptical about Feldman’s argument when I first saw it, but it was a serious argument that turns out to have been partly true.

Moreover, I continue to believe that actions of the Speaker Nancy Pelosi in taking no steps to communicate the president’s impeachment to the Senate provides the House and the Democrats with no additional leverage over how exactly the Senate conducts the trial and tends to undermine the Democrats’ claim that the president’s immediate impeachment and removal is essential to the public safety. Given that the articles of impeachment have already been adopted and are ready to transmit, withholding those articles from the Senate tends to the paint the entire impeachment process as a partisan political stunt—which is unfortunate.

Posted on

AOC Slammed Pete Buttigieg for Big Dollar Donors: ‘It’s Called Having Values’

VENICE, Calif. — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez struck out at Pete Buttigieg on Saturday, telling attendees at a beachside rally for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign that the South Bend mayor is beholden to big-dollar donors.

“For anyone who accuses us for instituting purity tests, it’s called having values. It’s called, giving a damn,” the freshman Congresswoman told the crowd. “It’s called having standards for your conduct, to not be funded by billionaires but to be funded by the people, which is different.”

The comments continue a fight that played out on the debate stage just miles from here on Thursday night. Sen. Elizabeth Warren took Buttigieg to task for a fundraiser he held in a Napa Valley wine cave last week, but Buttigieg responded he rejects purity tests and is happy to take money and campaign help from whoever offers.

Ocasio-Cortez told the more than 14,000-strong crowd assembled in a beachfront park, however, that in her short time in Congress, she’s seen firsthand the difference between a candidate funded by wealthy donors and one funded by small dollar donations.

“I go into work all the time and I hear people saying, ‘What will my donors think?’” she said. “I see that billionaires get members of Congress on speed dial and waitresses don’t, okay? There’s a difference.”

A spokesman for the Buttigieg campaign volleyed back: “The stakes are too high for purity tests on fundraising or ideology that turn away resources and risk alienating voters,” said Buttigieg communications director Sean Savett. “We need to do everything we can to defeat Donald Trump and elect Democrats up and down the ballot.”

The back-and-forth between Buttigieg and Warren at the Debate Thursday seems to be damaging both candidates, with Buttigieg fielding accusations that he’s an elitist candidate and Warren having to answer for charges of hypocrisy for having accepted donations from the wealthy during her prior Senate runs.

READ: ‘Wine Cave’ Was the Big Winner of the Debate. And It Says Something About the Democratic Party

The Sanders campaign, on the other hand, sees an advantage to continuing this fight, since it gives him a chance to highlight the fact that he has no billionaire donors at all and that he has raised more than 4 million individual donations so far this cycle.

“We’re happy to have this conversation about whether you have a party and candidates who are funded by a grassroots campaign by getting grassroots donations by working class people or whether you know wealthy people are going to continue to dominate politics by investing in relationships with candidates they support,” Sanders campaign senior advisor Jeff Weaver told VICE News after the rally.

Sanders has also been willing to wider the scope of the attack and take on former Vice President Joe Biden for accepting the help of a Super PAC.

“I am proud to tell you that as of this moment, our campaign has received more contributions from more people than any candidate in the history of the United States,” Sanders told the crowd. “We don’t have a super PAC. We don’t want a super PAC. We don’t go to rich people’s wine caves.”

“This is a campaign of the working class of this country by the working class, and for the working,” he continued.

READ: The Democrats Have a Big Decision to Make About Mike Bloomberg

This progressive purist message is exactly what people in Sanders’ orbit believe will help him win liberal-heavy California, a victory on Super Tuesday that Sanders’ allies think could help build momentum for the campaign and shake any hint that his campaign doesn’t have what it takes to win the primary.

Sanders defended his pie-in-the-sky campaign promises by, as he often does during rallies, quoting Nelson Mandela: “It always seems impossible until it happens.”

“The economic establishment, the political establishment, the media establishment tells us every single day not to try not to have high expectations or not to believe that we can make fundamental changes in our society,” he said. “But we know differently. We know that the history of change in America always, always takes place from the bottom on up.”

Sanders has been spending ample time in California making his case. And he has two weapons he has been deploying in ways no other candidate can: Celebrity star power and grassroots Latino support. Who better to headline this rally, then, than Ocasio-Cortez?

She got a raucous hero’s welcome as she walked down an aisle of palm trees to the stage and has helped him turn out massive crowds from New York to California. But she was far from the only celeb in attendance. Actor Tim Robbins spoke, endorsing Sanders. Danny DeVito milled around backstage. Members of the Russian protest band Pussy Riot attended too.

Onstage, the popular locally-based indie band Local Natives played a set, as did Young the Giant, from Irvine, Calif., and Mexican American brother-sister duo Jesse and Joy. These kinds of headliners have helped draw the massive crowds and energy to the Sanders campaign.

All that, and the campaign’s large staff and experience from having ran and lost before, will amount to a better performance in Southern and Central California, where Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton last primary election, said Los Angeles City Councilman Gil Cedillo, who endorsed Sanders in both elections and spoke at the rally Saturday.

“We’re loaded for bear here,” he told VICE News. “The conditions have changed, with us bringing the same forces, if not stronger, more sophisticated, more experienced, more professional.”

Cover: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., greet the crowd during a rally in Venice, Calif., Saturday, Dec. 21, 2019. (AP Photo/Kelvin Kuo)

Posted on

Did Trump Send a Letter With a Hidden Insult to Pelosi?

In accordance with annual custom, on Dec. 20, 2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to President Donald Trump inviting the chief executive to deliver an address to Congress on the state of the union on Feb. 4, 2020:

As ABC News noted in a tweet about Pelosi’s invitation, it came “just days after the House of Representatives voted to impeach the president”:

Shortly afterwards, a putative letter from Trump to Pelosi accepting the invitation circulated via social media, with highlighting added to document that the first letter of each line formed a vertical acrostic spelling out a rather crude phrase aimed at the House speaker:

Although some precedent for government officials’ engaging in such hijinks exists, this letter was just a humorous fabrication (possibly one which originated on the notorious 4chan website) and not a genuine missive sent by the president. It does not appear on the portion of the White House website where such presidential correspondence with Congress is typically posted, nor has any news outlet reported on such a letter’s being sent by the president (much less with an obscene hidden message encapsulated therein).

What news accounts did note of the subject is that the White House merely “issued a short statement saying the president ‘has accepted the Speaker’s invitation.’”

Posted on

Special Report | The American Spectator

The December 18 House votes (230-197 on abuse of power and 229-198 on obstruction of Congress) to impeach President Trump, one day shy of 21 years since Bill Clinton was impeached, followed one of American history’s most delicious ironies: the…

Under the hackery of the Democrats, impeachment has become the tribute that unproductive partisans pay a productive president whom they can’t beat at the ballot box. Trump’s impeachment on Wednesday was embarrassing to watch, as Democrats faked up outrage over…

When the British diplomat Robert Ker Porter arrived in the Persian city of Ispahan, having ventured there from St. Petersburg in 1817 to explore the vestiges of ancient Babylonia, and then to follow the route of Xenophon’s Katabasis, he could…

President Donald J. Trump has entered into a tentative deal with the ailing People’s Republic of China to ease the tariffs he had imposed in 2017 on a recalcitrant Beijing. The tentative agreement is specifically meant to help American farmers,…

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) instituted its Fairness Doctrine in 1949, requiring that broadcasters, in order to keep their licenses, both present controversial issues of public importance and do so in a manner that — in the FCC’s view —…

Seventy-five years ago today, 200,000 German soldiers launched a surprise attack through the Ardennes Forest and created a bulge in the Allied front lines in Belgium. At the salient’s heart was the town of Bastogne from which roads led to the…

Washington A recent CNN story framed Attorney General Bill Barr’s criticisms of the FBI’s behavior in the Russia probe as “attacks,” which could have a “chilling effect” on law enforcement. The metaphor makes it sound as if an innocent institution…

“Monsignor Walter Rossi has a lot to answer for,” said Keith Green, a former security guard at the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. Referring to Tuesday’s stabbing at the Shrine where Rossi is rector…

When gunfire erupted Tuesday afternoon in Jersey City, cable news networks provided live coverage as police engaged in a standoff with the armed suspects. Liberals on Twitter began emitting their predictable rhetoric in such circumstances, blaming the National Rifle Association…

Dark Waters is the perfect name for the latest anti-corporate film released by the Hollywood Left. Designed by intertwined, agenda-driven interest groups to brainwash an unsuspecting public, truth that should be revealed in this propaganda reel is cloaked in darkness….

Posted on

Pres. Trump Accepts SOTU Invite Following Impeachment Vote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has officially invited President Trump to deliver his annual State of the Union address on Feb. 4.

“In their great wisdom, our Founders crafted a Constitution based on a system of separation of powers: three co-equal branches acting as checks on each other. To ensure that balance of powers, the Constitution calls for the President to ‘from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,’ ” Pelosi writes.

Continue reading the full article at NPR.

Posted on

Schiff’s Subpoenas Reveal New Escalation of Partisan Warfare

When law enforcement officials break the law to get someone they think is bad, politicians and the media rail in high dudgeon—and rightly so. The police, however, aren’t the only ones who occasionally decide to “get the bad guy” no matter what it takes or what laws may stand in the way. 

Consider the recent decisions by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to subpoena the phone records of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and an associate, and then disclose that Giuliani had spoken with people such as Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the Intelligence Committee’s ranking Republican; Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow; and journalist John Solomon.  

Had Trump ordered federal law enforcement to subpoena Schiff’s phone records, you can bet that the congressman and his Democratic colleagues would have said such behavior posed “an existential threat” to the entire Congress, and we would have seen a third article of impeachment making precisely that claim.

Put aside for a minute the question of whether Schiff’s behavior violated the rights of those whose phone calls he revealed, or whether it violated Trump’s attorney-client privilege. Three other aspects of this matter are worth thinking about.

One is that it signals a new escalation in the partisan warfare that grips Congress these days. As Finley Peter Dunne observed more than a century ago, “Politics ain’t beanbag.” Yet, disclosing that Nunes made telephone calls to people of interest to the House Intelligence Committee signaled that nothing is out of bounds in the quest to get Trump.

Members of Congress ordinarily treat each other with respect and deference, in part to avoid being treated differently in return. Not so this in this instance. Only time will tell whether this was a one-off or the first shot in a new war. After all, someday House Republicans will regain the majority, and some may be itching for payback.  

The second important feature is the relative silence about Schiff’s antics from the rest of the Democratic Party and the news media. Silence among the former is less surprising. The Democratic Party has a far stronger sense of solidarity than Republicans do. But the media’s silence is baffling.

As The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted on Dec. 8 (“Schiff’s Snooping Standard”): “The same media that howled when the Bush Administration gathered metadata to hunt for terrorists is silent when Democrats gather and release it against a conservative journalist and Republicans.”  

Like the Democratic Party, it seems that most major media outlets are untroubled by a “whatever it takes” approach to impeaching Trump—or by allowing the public to conclude that they are hypocrites.  

The final point is this: Schiff’s behavior may lead to legal or legislative action. Solomon claims that the congressman’s conduct violated the First Amendment. That’s a bridge too far, in my opinion, but the question remains: Why did Schiff embark down this dangerous road?  

For the moment, he’s not saying much.  What is clear, however, is that the Speech or Debate Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution will play a major role in any future legal dispute over Schiff’s actions.  

The Constitution provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”  It thereby grants members of Congress immunity for anything they say in the lawmaking process on the floor of either chamber. 

Yet, read according to its terms, any conduct other than giving a “Speech” or participating in a “Debate” would not be immune from criminal prosecution or civil action. Nor would giving a speech or debate anywhere other than “in either House.”  

To be sure, the federal courts have read the clause more broadly, giving greater weight to its “purposes” than to its text.  Events like this one, however, reveal the need for the Supreme Court to reconsider the reach of the Speech or Debate Clause. 

The framers of the Constitution did not intend to grant members of Congress immunity for acting like junior G-men and telling the world what they found.  

The text of the Speech or Debate Clause should be controlling in this regard, not the “purposes” that it serves, and certainly not when those purposes are reified to a point that they bear no resemblance to the clause’s text.  

Why? Congress is the classic 900-pound gorilla. If its members think that they need protection for conduct other than speeches or debates, or for speeches and debates that occur outside of chambers, they can pass a law giving themselves that protection. They might even be able to garner enough votes to override a presidential veto, since it’s their own hides they are seeking to protect.  

That would be a debate worth watching: Why members should be immune from laws that govern not only people in the executive branch, but also you and me.  

I don’t know if Schiff’s evidence information gathering and disclosure were lawful.  In part that’s because there’s little publicly available information about precisely what happened, how, and why. 

I sure would like, however, to see Schiff and his 534 colleagues defend in public the proposition that they should be free from any and all legal accountability for what he did and for everything else that they do.  

We have heard members of Congress repeatedly say that “no one is above the law.” Let them make their case that they—and they alone—should have that privilege.

Posted on

Marc Short says State of the Union invite proves impeachment is dead

The chief of staff for Vice President Mike Pence said Sunday that the invitation President Trump received to give the State of the Union address in February is proof Democrats know that the impeachment case is going nowhere.

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Marc Short said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had boxed herself into an “untenable” position on impeachment — trying to appease her party’s base while knowing the Senate isn’t going to convict Mr. Trump.

Host Chris Wallace asked Mr. Short specifically about Friday’s State of the Union invite, for the president to address a joint session of Congress the night after the Iowa caucuses.

“We think her case is going nowhere, yes, and I think the president looks forward to addressing the whole country on Feb. 4 to talk about how well this country is doing,” Mr. Short replied.

He also noted that the timing of the invite itself — two days after the House voted to charge Mr. Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges — as further proof that impeachment is just political theater.

“I think it’s the same thing, Chris. In the midst of the impeachment, we had 15 to 20 House Democrats over in a black-tie event for a Christmas party with the president. It’s like, how serious are they really doing this, or, again, is it really just a political exercise to placate the radical left of their base? That’s what we think this has been all along. It’s why this was the seventh impeachment vote. It wasn’t the first,” he said.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Posted on

MSNBC Guest: Interviewing White Working-Class Voters Is Racist

This week on the Sunday news shows:  an MSNBC guest argued that the media’s focus on interviewing white working class voters is “dangerous” and “racist,” a Democratic senator took aim at both sides of the aisle for prejudging the impeachment trial, and another MSNBC guest said that military cadets need to be taught that the “OK” hand symbol is not okay.

MSNBC Guest: Interviewing White Trump Voters Sends ‘Racist Message’

MSNBC guest Eric Boehlert said the media’s focus on white working class voters is “dangerous” and “racist” during an appearance on AM Joy.

“This obsession, and it goes back to the day after he was inaugurated, this obsession with interviewing white, Midwestern Trump voters and asking them what they think about Trump, it is a dangerous, it is a racist message,” Boehlert said. “Because the message is, white Republicans are who matter in this country. Their opinions are what really matter. The press invented this beat out of whole cloth after Trump was elected.”

David Rutz breaks down the most important news about the enemies of freedom, here and around the world, in this comprehensive morning newsletter.

Sign up here and stay informed!

Boelhert said that the opinions of white working class voters are not news.

“After impeachment, article after article: ‘Trump voters, what did you think of impeachment?’ What’s the point? That’s not news,” he said. “That’s just not news. And again, I think it’s dangerous and I think it’s frankly racist.”

Host Joy Reid also said that the media likes Trump because he can be entertaining for them.

Trump “might also be entertaining” for “a lot of people who aren’t victimized by him” Reid said. Those people “aren’t in danger of him because they’re not an immigrant child who’s going to go in a cage, they’re not a black person who’s going to lose their right to vote, they’re not a woman who’s going to lose their right to sovereignty over their own body,” she said.

“If you’re not at risk, he might also be entertaining.”

Reid has previously compared media coverage of Trump to the media’s coverage of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler in before World War II.

Dem Senator: Fellow Senators Have ‘Gone Too Far’ on Prejudging Impeachment Trial

Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said his fellow senators on both sides of the aisle have “gone too far” in expressing their opinions on impeachment before the trial begins.

“Is it a mistake for your fellow senators on both sides of the aisle frankly to say how they’re going to vote before the trial starts?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked.

“I really think it is,” Durbin said. “I think they’ve gone too far. How could they hold their hands up and say I swear impartial justice and I’d like to sit at the manager’s table with the president’s team? You can’t do that. They shouldn’t have done that.”

Bash said that Democratic senators like Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) have said they will vote to convict Trump before the trial has started.

Durbin said they shouldn’t have. “As far as I’m concerned they could tell which way they are leaning or how they feel in terms of the probability but when it comes to saying I mind up my mind it is all over, for goodness sakes that is not what the Constitution envisioned,” he said.

MSNBC Analyst: Cadets Using “OK” Hand Sign Should Be Taught It’s Not Okay

MSNBC guest Naveed Jamali said a recent controversy involving a group of West Point cadets allegedly displaying a white supremacist hand symbol means the cadets need to be taught why the symbol is not okay.

“I don’t doubt that those midshipmen and that West Point cadet were actually not doing the white power symbol,” Jamali said during an appearance on AM Joy. “But it’s got to be something that we teach. It shouldn’t be something that’s okay.”

An internal investigation found that the cadets were playing the “circle game” after they were accused of flashing a white supremacist hand symbol.

“They should understand why it’s not okay to do that,” Jamali said.

AM Joy host Joy Reid had previously accused the cadets of making the white power symbol on television. Reid said the fact the cadets were making the hand symbols was “concerning.”

Posted on

Pierce Brosnan Praises Trump’s ‘Very Good’ Economy

Pierce Brosnan praised President Donald Trump’s economy in a recent interview—in a rare word of praise from a Hollywood actor.

“I think what he’s done for the economy is very good,” the “Goldeneye” actor told ITK in response to a question about him saying he would leave the United States.”People are working, and that’s a step in the right direction.”

He added: “This country is part of my life. I’m an American citizen. I love America and America’s been very good to me. And I want to see happiness come back into our society.”

In 2018, Brosnan, who portrayed James Bond in several films from 1995 to 2002, expressed disdain for Trump and suggested he would leave the country. “You have to work out how much longer you can stay here,” he said, Yahoo reported.

In the ITK interview, he didn’t say who he would endorse for president.

Brosnan, 66, said he’s “biding his time” in regard to his supporting a 2020 presidential candidate. “We shall see,” he added.

Meanwhile, pro-Trump actor Jon Voight, who has frequently praised the president on social media, said in a video that he believes that “evil is trying to win” after the House voted on two articles of impeachment against Trump.

Voight said in a video: “If the impeachment proceeds, America will fall, for President Trump has built it back and the extreme left are destroying this nation’s glory.” The Academy Award-winning actor added: “This is evil intent to destroy a president who has America in his hands … What do we do?” And then suggested that the best form of action is to “pray and hope that in God we trust.”

Posted on

Ted Cruz: Pelosi Sitting On Impeachment Is ‘An Admission Of Failure’

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Sunday described House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to keep the articles of impeachment from the Senate’s gaze as “a sign of weakness” and “an admission of failure.”

“You can’t make this up,” Cruz told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” “Listen, this is a sign of weakness. This is a sign she understands just how weak these articles are. These articles of impeachment that they actually voted on were really an admission of failure.”

Pelosi began talking about withholding the impeachment articles from the Senate within minutes of the House voting to impeach President Donald Trump.

Cruz noted that Pelosi might have suddenly realized that after promising so much misconduct from the impeachment inquiry, she has little to show for it. (RELATED: House Democratic Whip Willing To Never Send Articles Of Impeachment To Senate)

“For months they had been promising all of this evidence of criminal activity. For months they had been talking about bribery, talking about quid pro quo. But then they heard all the evidence and they got no evidence of it. These articles don’t allege any crime,” Cruz said.

“This is the first time in the history of our country that a president has been impeached without a single article alleging any criminal conduct. They don’t allege any crime. They don’t allege any federal law violated,” Cruz insisted, adding that “this was, at the end of the day, a political response because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats hate the president.”

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz talks to Fox News about the continuing impeachment drama, Dec. 22, 2019. Fox News screenshot

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has called Pelosi’s apparent strategy “incredibly dangerous” and “uncharted waters — Constitutionally.”

Cruz also commented on the recent release of the Department of Justice Inspector General report that details gross incompetence on the part of the FBI in procuring Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application (FISA) warrants — especially in the case of then-Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. (RELATED: Ted Cruz Uses ‘Lobbyist Boondoggle’ Spending Bill As An Ashtray)

“The Inspector General report is a stunning indictment of the politicization of the Obama Department of Justice and the FBI. The Inspector General report details 17 specific misrepresentations that the DOJ and FBI made to the FISA court. Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Barack Obama.”


x3c!--PRE_SCRIPT_TAG_MACRO--x3ex3c!--POST_SCRIPT_TAG_MACRO--x3e'):""},t.getDefinedParams=function(n,e){return e.filter(function(e){return n[e]}).reduce(function(e,t){return g(e,function(e,t,n){t in e?Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):e[t]=n;return e}({},t,n[t]))},{})},t.isValidMediaTypes=function(e){var t=["banner","native","video"];if(!Object.keys(e).every(function(e){return s()(t,e)}))return!1;if( s()(["instream","outstream","adpod"],;return!0},t.getBidderRequest=function(e,t,n){return c()(e,function(e){return 0t[n]?-1:0}};var r=n(3),i=n(88),o=n.n(i),a=n(12),c=n.n(a),u=n(10),s=n.n(u),d=n(9),f=n(89);n.d(t,"deepAccess",function(){return f.a});var l=n(90);function p(e){return function(e){if(Array.isArray(e)){for(var t=0,n=new Array(e.length);t

':"";return"n ".concat("native"===e?'':"",'n n

n n n ").concat(r,"n

n n")}(r,a,n),u={requestId:f[e],cpm:o/100,width:c,height:s,ad:d,ttl:600,creativeId:r,netRevenue:!0,currency:"USD",hb_bidder:"fan",fb_bidid:n,fb_format:a,fb_placementid:r};if(j(a)){var l=S();u.mediaType="video",u.vastUrl="".concat(r,"&pageurl=").concat(l,"&playerwidth=").concat(c,"&playerheight=").concat(s,"&bidid=").concat(n),u.ttl=3600}return u})},transformBidParams:function(t,e){return Object(b.convertTypes)({placementId:"string"},t)}};Object(r.registerBidder)(s)}},[204]);
pbjsChunk([181],{334:function(e,n,o){e.exports=o(335)},335:function(e,n,o){"use strict";function i(e){return(i="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}Object.defineProperty(n,"__esModule",{value:!0});var r=o(8),s=o(0),t=o(4),a=o(7).default,u=t.EVENTS.BID_REQUESTED,d=t.EVENTS.BID_TIMEOUT,c=t.EVENTS.BID_RESPONSE,l=t.EVENTS.BID_WON,f={nonInteraction:!0},b=[],p=null,m=!0,v="Prebid.js Bids",y=0,g=!1,T=null,w=!0,E={};function S(){if(m&&"function"==typeof window[p]){for(var e=0;e