The Democrats are in a rush to impeach President Trump. It represents the culmination of their concerted efforts of the past three years. What a waste.
The curtain has closed on Schiff impeachment theater. On Wednesday Jerry Nadler takes center stage — quite a lot of it, as a matter of fact — when the curtain goes goes up the House Judiciary Committee. Seeking to respond to the procedural unfairness that permeated the Schiff show, Nadler has invited the White House to participate in the production. In the five-page letter below, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone declines. FOX News reports on the letter here.
We know where Nadler is coming from. Like his Democratic colleagues, he has been coming from there since some time well before the Ukraine thing. Mollie Hemingway caught Nadler as he spoke on his cell phone the day after the midterm elections in which the Dems took the House. Hemingway overheard Nadler vowing to go all-out for Trump’s impeachment grounded alleged collusion with Russia.
Russian collusion represented impeachment 1.0. The Ukraine thing represents impeachment 2.0.
On Wednesday the Judiciary Committee will apparently hear from four academic witnesses testifying on impeachment. Laurence Tribe is reportedly batting leadoff.
Whether or not Tribe bats leadoff, his is the ruling spirit of the proceedings; he has advocated impeachment since before Trump was sworn in. It is a good guess that he will be one of the Democrats’ witnesses. Impeachment “Should Begin On Inauguration Day,” Tribe declared on December 5, 2016. By January 28, 2017, Tribe had concluded that Trump “must be impeached for abusing his power and shredding the Constitution more monstrously than any other president in American history” — pretty impressive, Cato’s Gene Healy observed, for a man entering the second week of his presidency.
Quotable quote: “When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks’ notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president’s attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate.”