In most cases, the law is not about truth or seeking justice, it is about selling your narrative to a skeptical audience…

When I was considering attending law school, I went to an introductory program that featured a well-known and well-respected attorney. He started out by saying that there is common law, statute, law, but the real truth is that as a  practicing lawyer, the law is whatever you can sell a judge and jury and not be overturned by a higher authority. That justice for the rich and well-connected is quite different from that administered to the poor and minorities. That, many judges are dumb as rocks and simply use the briefing materials as the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to factual decision-making, no critical thinking involved. And, most importantly, as an attorney, you must be prepared to speak from both sides of your mouth as you are an advocate of your client not necessarily a seeker of truth, justice, or some higher purpose. So much for law school.

Therefore, when I read the House Judiciary’s plan to seek the testimony of four constitutional law professors to explain the law to the lawyers who sit on the House Judiciary Committee, it was a BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) moment.

First, as we have been repeatedly told by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) (Stanford, Harvard Law School), impeachment is a constitutional process, not a legal one. Proof positive being the denial of due process for the party being investigated and the denial of committee rights to the minority committee members. Proceedings were held in secret, likened to Grand Jury proceedings, with the exception of continual leaking of cherry-picked testimony by Chairman Schiff and his cadre of staffers.

Second, the use of an anonymous complaint to initiate proceedings, written by a whistleblower who not only did not qualify as a whistleblower, but perjured themselves on the complaint form, and worst of all, conspired with members of Adam Schiff’s staff to craft and file the complaint itself. And, now we are being told that the testimony of the whistleblower is not necessary to the proceedings and it is unlikely that Schiff will call for their testimony in the near future.

Third, almost all of the witnesses before the Committee lacked first-hand knowledge of the events on which they were testifying and were merely substituting their judgment over that of the President of the United States with respect to conducting foreign policy.

And four, the Committee ignored, and refused to consider, what appears to be wrongdoing as evidenced by an on-camera confession of the principal involved, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Enter the nattering wing-nut Nadler…

House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D-NY) (Columbia, Fordham Law School) continues the Schiff show by trying to convince the American public of the constitutionality of the proceedings – even in the face of one-sided ignorance of due process or any of the precedential procedures granted to all modern impeachment targets.

As far as I can tell, the primary articles of Impeachment are “we do not like President Trump” and we will attempt to impeach him on the flimsiest of circumstances that have been practiced and documented by decades of Democrat politicians.


Item 1 – Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States and it is normal and customary for the incoming administration to replace the Ambassadors of the outgoing administration. In this case, the Ambassador to Ukraine was a holdover of the previous administration which was overtly and covertly hostile to Donald J. Trump, both as a presidential candidate and as the President of the United States. It does not matter why the Ambassador was removed, even in caught advancing the interests of individuals hostile to the agenda of the new President.

Item 2 – Presidents have always used individuals as back-channels to seek and convey information; especially under circumstances where members of the State Department or other agencies were prone to adversely interfere or leak details of confidential discussions and documents.

Item 3 – Ukraine was one of the most corrupt nations in the region and it was prudent and proper for the President to withhold substantial U.S. aid pending an examination of a new President and Administration that recently took power. Several individuals testified under oath that the Ukraine was not aware of the freeze and therefore did not act further in regard to the freeze. But, let us not forget that it was former President Obama that denied the Ukraine lethal military aid when they were being actively attacked by the Russians and it was President Trump that supplied lethal weaponry to Ukraine in each of his three years in office. This puts the whole matter in perspective and shows the Democrats for who they really are -- pro-Russia sycophants. The delay was also to determine whether or not France and Germany planned to contribute "their fair share" to the effort.

Item 4 – There is no direct evidence that this was true and the only person to testify about a conversation with the President admitted that it was his presumption and the President did not issue or convey such instructions.

Item 5 – This is a specious argument. We do know, from several corroborated sources, that individuals of the previous corrupt Ukraine administration did interfere with the 2016 U.S. election and did so at the urging of prominent Democrats. The idea that a corruption investigation, mentioned casually in passing, into Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities in the Ukraine constituted interference with the 2020 U.S. election. In fact, this entire impeachment effort on the part of the House Democrats constitutes prima facie evidence of interfering with the 2020 U.S. election as they appear to lack a suitable candidate to challenge President Trump’s re-election bid.

Item 6 – Assumes facts not in evidence and, if indeed conveyed by an unofficial individual, does not necessarily indicate direction by the President of the United States.

Item 7 – The alleged “alarm” was raised by a CIA whistleblower who acted as a covert spy in the White House and who improperly interviewed a number of people to compile a “whistleblower” complaint that was replete with errors and falsehoods.

Item 8 – There was no “scheme” to be exposed. And, any scheme in play was one of the Democrat’s making.

The Constitutional Experts …

Other than Turley, whose appearances on Fox News appear to be supportive of Trump’s position, Karlan and Feldman will probably be pro-impeachment/anti-Trump, while Gerhardt might be the moderating voice of reason. As with all legal arguments, we need to base our decision on the merit of the argument and less the reputation of the attorney.

Bottom line…

Never in the history of the United States has a political party attempted to overthrow a duly elected President using pretextual “evidence” which could never be admitted in a court of competent jurisdiction. The impeachment was scheduled since day one of the Trump presidency. There is no offense against the Constitution or the nation -- except that which was perpetrated by House Democrats.

Unfortunately, I currently believe that few will be held legally responsible for their actions and that history’s judgments will be rendered long after my death.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell