In a stunning condemnation, Jamie Reed, 42, a former case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said she quit in November after four years “because I could no longer participate in what was happening there.”

“What is happening … is morally and medically appalling,” the whistleblower warned Thursday in a piece for The Free Press.

According to Reed — who describes herself as a queer “progressive” and married to a “trans man” — soon after she started working at the pediatric gender clinic, she was “struck by the lack of formal protocols for treatment,” leaving physician co-directors as the “sole authority.”

Continue reading HERE

Source: https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/whistleblower-lifts-lid-on-st-louis-kids-gender-clinic/

__________________________________________________________________

[Disclaimer]

The post Whistleblower lifts lid on St. Louis kids gender clinic: ‘Morally and medically appalling’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Steve Bannon: Democrats are not going to stop trying to impeach first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The Oval Office photograph, obtained by the Washington Examiner, is circulating among Trump allies who consider it evidence that the alleged whistleblower is biased against Trump and had partisan motivations when he filed an Aug. 12 complaint that sparked impeachment proceedings.

In the photograph, a smiling Ciaramella, then Ukraine director on the National Security Council at the White House, is shown shaking Obama’s hand. They are standing in front of a portrait of Abraham Lincoln by George Henry Story.

(Washington Examiner Screenshot)

The post PHOTO: Alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella shakes hands with Barack Obama in Oval Office first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?” House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday’s afternoon hearing.

Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: “No.”

Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No.”

Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., covered similar ground in asking the witnesses about Trump’s fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: “Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?”

“Correct,” Morrison replied in response to each question.

“And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. … Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?”

“No, there was not,” Volker replied, again and again.

The answers underscored a problem facing House Democrats as their impeachment inquiry continued into its second week of public hearings: With more witnesses testifying, more soundbites have emerged that may help Republicans and the Trump campaign argue that the proceedings were politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.

Morrison, in another key moment, testified Tuesday afternoon that he understood the transcript of Trump’s call with Ukraine’s leader wound up on a highly secured and classified computer system due to an “administrative error” — not, as Democrats have alleged because the president wanted to hide his conversation.

And, Volker testified repeatedly that he never received any indications at all that there was an improper quid pro quo with Ukraine, in which the Trump administration allegedly sought a probe of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for military aid.

As the hearing concluded, President Trump tweeted, “A great day for Republicans, a great day for our Country!”

Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan told Fox News, “This was a very good day for Republicans, for our president.”

“Kind of hard to prove a corrupt quid pro quo theory when the key U.S. policy people, plus the Ukrainians, were never aware of such an arrangement,” Texas GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw added late Tuesday, noting that Ukraine’s president has said he felt no pressure from Trump to open any probes. “Can we go back to governing now, that’d be great thanks.”

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

A great day for Republicans, a great day for our Country!

Morrison and Volker’s testimony was sought by the GOP, and the two undercut Democrats’ poll-tested claims of White House “bribery” and a cover-up. But, they also raised new questions concerning the administration’s use of the little-discussed code-word-level system that ordinarily held sensitive national-security information. Back in September, a senior Trump administration official acknowledged that White House lawyers directed moving the transcript of the call to the secure system, noting that several of Trump’s previous phone calls with foreign leaders had leaked to the media.

FLASHBACK: LEAK OF VERBATIM TRUMP CALL WITH AUSTRALIA LEADER PROMPTS WHITE HOUSE TO INCREASE SECURITY MEASURES

Morrison previously testified behind closed doors that senior NSC lawyer John Eisenberg had relayed to him that his secretary accidentally put the transcript in the classified system. Morrison said Eisenberg wanted to “restrict access” to the transcript, but maintained that the secretary had apparently misinterpreted that instruction.

“It was represented to me that it was a mistake,” Morrison testified Tuesday, saying he tried to “pull up the package in our system” but was prevented from doing so. When he asked why the transcript was unavailable, he testified that he was “informed it had been moved to the higher classification system” at Eisenberg’s direction. Then, Eisenberg told Morrison that he “gave no such direction” and that it was an “administrative error,” according to Morrison.

Ambassador Kurt Volker, left, former special envoy to Ukraine, and Tim Morrison, a former official at the National Security Council are sworn in to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump’s efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

---

Morrison said to the best of his knowledge, there was no “malicious intent” in the decision to move the transcript to the compartmentalized system, and all essential personnel retained access to the transcript even after it was moved.

Later in the day, Volker made clear he had not seen anything to support Democrats’ contention that Trump improperly withheld foreign aid to Ukraine as a means of forcing an investigation into the Bidens’ dealings in the country.

Instead, Volker suggested — in a moment that the Trump campaign reposted on social media — that Trump’s general hesitation to provide foreign aid, especially to corrupt countries, was the prevailing justification for holding up aid to Ukraine temporarily.

Asked again whether he saw any evidence that Trump had committed “bribery” — the term Democrats have taken to using after focus groups indicated that it would help them sell impeachment to voters — Volker was unequivocal that he had not. In fact, Volker said, Trump never linked any probe of Burisma or the Bidens to any military aid. Hunter Biden sat on Burisma’s board while his father spearheaded Ukraine policy as vice president.

“I have only seen an allegation of bribery in the last week,” Volker said. “I was never involved in anything that I considered to be bribery at all or extortion.”

In one remarkable moment, Volker contradicted a media headline; asked about a Daily Mail story claiming he had “walked back” his testimony and had “now learned” there was a link between U.S. aid and Biden probe, Volker refuted the website outright.

Volker also said he didn’t initially realize the connection between a Trump-sought investigation of Burisma and the Bidens, given that Burisma was seen as a symbol of Ukraine’s endemic corruption problem.

EXPLOSIVE DOJ FILING OUTLINES STRZOK’S ‘SECURITY VIOLATIONS’ AMID AFFAIR — AND HOW COMEY CAME TO DISCLOSE THE WEINER EMAILS

Hunter Biden was a board member of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings, which had been under investigation before then-Vice President Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor in charge. In his call with Zelensky, Trump suggested the Ukrainians look into the circumstances of the prosecutor’s termination, including Joe Biden’s boast that he had the prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold $1 billion in critical aid. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me,” Trump said.

In a lengthy opening statement, Volker said he didn’t have any problem with pushing Ukraine to open an investigation into Burisma or corruption.

“It has long been U.S. policy under multiple administrations to urge Ukraine to investigate and fight internal corruption,” Volker said.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent similarly testified behind closed doors last month that he had qualms about Hunter Biden’s lucrative role on the board of Burisma.

However, Volker said he felt a discussion of investigations was “inappropriate” in a July meeting between Ukrainian and U.S. officials at the White House. Volker confirmed others’ testimony that Trump’s European Union ambassador, Gordon Sondland, raised the investigations “in a generic way,” and that then-national security adviser John Bolton immediately ended the meeting.

The meeting happened two weeks before Trump’s momentous summer phone call with Zelensky.

Volker, who resigned in September after becoming embroiled in the scandal, added that he didn’t “understand” at the time that an investigation of Burisma “was tantamount to investigating Vice President Biden.”

“I saw them as very different – the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable,” Volker said. “In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.”

Volker added: “The allegations against Vice President Biden are self-serving and non-credible.”

Volker went on to say that during a September dinner with top Ukrainian official Andriy Yermak, he’d discouraged Ukraine from trying to prosecute the country’s previous president. Volker says he warned it would sow deep societal divisions.

Volker said Yermak quipped in response, “You mean like asking us to investigate Clinton and Biden?” Volker claimed he didn’t “quite understand” the head-turning remark and was “kind of puzzled” by it.

Both Volker and Morrison previously gave closed-door interviews to the inquiry: Volker provided investigators with a package of text messages with Sondland and William Taylor, the U.S. chargé d’affaires for Ukraine, who said he grew alarmed at the possible linkage of the investigations to the aid.

For his part, Morrison, who served as the NSC’s senior director of European and Russian affairs, told lawmakers Trump didn’t want tax dollars funding Ukrainian corruption and remarked that he wasn’t concerned Trump’s calls with Ukraine’s leader were tied to his political interests.

Morrison resigned from the NSC last month. In his testimony Tuesday, he said he left on his “own volition” and made the decision “before I decided to testify.”

The testimony from Volker and Morrison followed five hours of testimony earlier in the day with the NSC’s Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Vice President Pence aide Jennifer Williams, who were each critical of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky.

In a particularly remarkable moment, Vindman testified that he was asked to serve as Ukraine’s defense minister three times — but repeatedly denied the offers — when he traveled to Kiev for the inauguration of Ukraine’s president. Oleksander Danylyuk, the former Chairman of the National Security and Defence Council in Ukraine, reportedly said on Tuesday the offer was “clearly a joke.”

Among the biggest revelations Tuesday morning came when Vindman acknowledged communications with an unnamed intelligence official — during an at-times tense exchange with Republicans, immediately raising apparent questions over whether he could have been a source of information for the anonymous whistleblower who reported the call.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., interjected to express concern that Republicans were trying to out the whistleblower through the questioning. After consulting his attorney, Vindman said, “Per the advice of my counsel, I’ve been advised not to answer the specific questions about members of the intelligence community.”

National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is sworn in to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump’s efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

---

Still, Vindman told lawmakers, “I do not know who the whistleblower is.”

That claim didn’t hold water with Republicans and prompted Donald Trump Jr. to accuse Vindman of perjury. “I’d like them to be treated like I would be if I lied to Congress,” he told Fox News late Tuesday.

On the whole, Vindman was largely critical of Trump’s call with Zelensky, describing the investigation “demand” as “improper.” At one point, Vindman described his reaction to Trump’s call as one of “shock.”

“Frankly, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing,” he testified. “In certain regards, my worst fear of how our Ukraine policy could play out was playing out.”

However,  Vindman was caught in an apparent contradiction late in the day by Republican Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup. Vindman testified earlier in the day that he did not discuss his concerns about Trump’s July phone call with Morrison, his superior because he was unavailable.

But, under questioning from Wenstrup, Morrison confirmed that Vindman had given him edits of the transcript of the call, on the same day that Vindman testified Morrison was unreachable.

“Frankly, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.”

— NSC’s Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, concerning Trump’s July call with Ukraine’s leader

Arizona GOP Rep. Paul Gosar offered a blunt assessment of Vindman’s testimony, tweeting: “I think people need a reminder:  the democrats said they would impeach starting in December 2016–before @realDonaldTrump was even sworn in.  This is a hearing looking for a reason. It’s corrupt and immoral.  The dude in the uniform is a seditionist.”

Morrison, meanwhile, also said he had heard others express concern that Vindman was a leaker, and could not be trusted with key information. Asked about that allegation, Vindman read from a glowing performance review that described him as an exemplary officer.

The other morning witness, Williams, also expressed concern about Trump’s call with Zelensky, saying, “I found the July 25th phone call unusual because, in contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter.”

Until Tuesday, none of the witnesses who have testified at the public hearings had first-hand knowledge of the president’s thinking, which Republicans have used to cast doubt on Democrats’ allegations, but Vindman, Williams, and Morrison all listened in on Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky.

TRUMP SLAMS PELOSI AS ‘GROSSLY INCOMPETENT’ FOR TRADE DEAL HANDLING, CALLS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY A ‘KANGAROO COURT’

Morrison said his understanding was that Trump generally was skeptical of foreign aid, and wanted to make sure that taxpayers were “getting their money’s worth.”

“The president was concerned that the United States seemed to bear the exclusive brunt of security assistance to Ukraine,” Morrison said. “He wanted to see the Europeans step up and contribute more security assistance.”

The impeachment inquiry has focused on a possible link between military aid to Ukraine and investigations sought by Trump pertaining to the Bidens and Democrats. The questions arose after the July 25 phone call led to a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump was trying to pressure Ukraine into helping him.

“As we have heard from other witnesses, when Joe Biden was considering whether to enter the race for the presidency in 2020, the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, began a campaign to weaken Vice President Biden’s candidacy by pushing Ukraine to investigate him and his son,” Schiff said in his opening statement.

Nunes opened his remarks by welcoming people to “Act Two of today’s circus,” dismissing the inquiry as a partisan exercise.

WATCH: VINDMAN CORRECTS CONGRESSMAN WHO DIDN’T USE HIS FORMAL MILITARY TITLE

“It’s an ambitious attack to deprive the American people of their right to elect a president that the Democrats don’t like,” Nunes said. “The chairman of this committee claims that democracy is under threat. If that’s true, it’s not the president who poses the danger.”

Morrison, though, suggested the impeachment brouhaha was predictable partisan politics as usual.

“I feared at the time of the call on July 25th how its disclosure would play in Washington’s political climate,” Morrison said in his opening statement. “My fears have been realized.”

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

---

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-ukraine-envoy-nsc-official-testify-in-second-round-of-impeachment-testimony

[Disclaimer]

The post Morrison, Volker undercut claims of ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘bribery’ and ‘cover-up’ in pivotal day of testimony first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Nunes lists questions for whistleblower in opening statement first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Ex-Trump campaign aide: Whistleblower is part of anti-Trump conspiracy first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

In the 50 days since news consumers were told that a federal whistleblower was expressing his disapproval of a presidential phone call, CBS News has aired or published more than 100 stories on President Donald Trump and Ukraine. Counting stories from local affiliates, the number rises above 200. That’s according to the Dow Jones Factiva news archive.

But CBS hasn’t come close to the wall-to-wall coverage offered by rival ABC News. A Factiva search of ABC stories about Mr. Trump and Ukraine yields 687 results for the last 50 days.

More than 300 of the ABC stories specifically include the term “whistleblower”. And roughly all of the stories are derived from the original allegations formulated by the unnamed government employee in consultation with the office of Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.). Mr. Schiff publicly denied that such consultation had occurred but later acknowledged the fact as his falsehood was exposed.

Usually, news organizations like ABC and CBS at least pretend to spend their days trying to report previously non-public information. But they recently decided not to report the name of the federal “whistleblower.” Ironically, the entire impeachment case hinges on an assumed political motivation by Mr. Trump for comments on a phone call that were not illegal. Yet by maintaining a blackout on the identity of the “whistleblower,” news outlets are impeding the public’s ability to learn about the possible political motivations of Mr. Trump’s accuser.

Not that the public can’t make a pretty good guess, given this January 2017 tweet from the alleged whistleblower’s lawyer, Mark Zaid:

#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers

And then there’s this Zaid instant classic from July of 2017:

It’s very scary. We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.

But it seems that the sudden reverence for the imagined Constitutional right of an alleged whistleblower to remain anonymous doesn’t extend to people releasing information from non-Trump organizations like ABC and CBS. In fact, these organizations have joined together to punish disclosure and forcefully deter any future whistleblowing within their news divisions.

The New York Post’s Sara Nathan reported this morning:

CBS News has fired a female staffer believed to have had access to the tape of Amy Robach raging against ABC News, Page Six understands.

We reported on Wednesday that ABC News chiefs discovered a former employee could be behind the leak of the damning footage of Robach slamming the network for shelving her interview with Jeffrey Epstein’s “sex slave” Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Sources told Page Six that a former staffer had access to the footage of Robach as she aired her frustrations over a hot mike — and that employee was now believed to be working at CBS.

A TV source told us later on Wednesday that the woman was let go from CBS after ABC execs alerted the rival network.

ABC sources confirmed to us that they’d informed counterparts at CBS about the staffer “as a courtesy.”

This afternoon the Associated Press also is reporting that CBS has fired the employee. How lovely that two giant news organizations are willing to set aside their competitive differences and extend to each other the “courtesy” of helping to limit disclosure and dissent. And they say civility is dead!

On Wednesday Jeremy Barr noted in the Hollywood Reporter that ABC was making a serious effort to pull the mask off its internal whistleblower:

ABC News on Wednesday confirmed that it is pursuing the “source” of a leaked video that showed anchor Amy Robach expressing frustration with the network for not broadcasting an interview she conducted in 2015 with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s chief accusers.

“We take violations of company policy very seriously, and we’re pursuing all avenues to determine the source of the leak,” the network said in a statement provided to The Hollywood Reporter.

On Tuesday, the conservative advocacy group Project Veritas published the video… On Wednesday, journalist Yashar Ali reported that ABC has identified the individual who accessed the Robach video.

And now it seems that CBS, which as far as this column can tell hasn’t been harmed at all by the employee, has fired her on the principle that whistleblowing must not be tolerated—unless it damages people like Mr. Trump.

***

How to Enjoy “Medicare for All”: Don’t Get Cancer

What will happen to Democratic support for presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders when voters find out the two senators plan to abolish health plans covering most Americans?

The Journal’s Stephanie Armour reports that polls “show many voters don’t fully understand Medicare for All. Many wrongly believe they would be able to keep their private insurance, according to polling from Kaiser and Navigator Research.”

A Journal graphic shows the remarkable Navigator finding that only 40% of respondents overall and only 27% of Democrats are aware the Warren/Sanders plan will eliminate private health coverage.

Meanwhile, Journal columnist William Galston does a public service in noting just how many patients rely partially or entirely on non-government coverage:

According to the most recent government statistics, more than 218 million Americans now participate in private health-care plans, of which 179 million are employment-based.

Not that patients in government plans wouldn’t also see radical changes in care. Darin Selnick, former senior adviser to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs writes in The Hill:

Although Medicare for All would leave the government-run portion of the VA system intact, it would eliminate the Department of Defense’s TRICARE program, a network of private providers and military hospitals that provide health care for 9.4 million U.S military personnel, retirees, their families and some members of the reserves.

Through TRICARE, service members and retirees have 11 plans to choose from, allowing them to tailor their coverage to their unique needs. The dismantling of TRICARE would almost certainly hurt military morale, retention, and recruitment.

Even Medicare itself will be replaced by the new Warren/Sanders plan, despite the misleading title. Meanwhile, the latest results from Britain’s single-payer health system are not encouraging. The House of Commons Library reports, “Cancer waiting times are the worst on record.” As of August, more than 20% of UK cancer patients were still waiting for their first treatment more than 60 days after an “urgent” referral from a general practitioner.

It could happen here.

Follow James Freeman on Twitter.

Subscribe to the Best of the Web email with one click.

To suggest items, please email best@wsj.com.

(Teresa Vozzo helps compile Best of the Web. Thanks to Charles Davis, Peter Coffey, Tony Lima, Wes Van Fleet and Monty Krieger.)

***

Mr. Freeman is the co-author of “Borrowed Time,” now available from HarperBusiness.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/so-much-for-whistleblower-coverage-at-abc-and-cbs-11573160178

The post So Much for ‘Whistleblower’ Coverage at ABC and CBS first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Criticisms of Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment tactics have begun to bite. Fair-minded people have begun to ask why is it necessary to have secret witnesses, secret hearings, and leaks of distorted, out-of-context excerpts from transcripts,

Why is it necessary to block the president from sending representatives to attend these hearings so he can have equal access to any evidence?  Why was it necessary for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff to “parody” the transcript of the president’s call to the Ukrainian president? Aren’t parodies supposed to be funny? Shouldn’t the chairman be proceeding with sober deliberation and fairness instead of romping about with gleeful shtick?

If Schiff cannot take the proceedings seriously, what of the 218 representatives who voted against the resolution condemning Schiff? The resolution failed despite the undisputed truth of the allegations. Schiff did manufacture “a false retelling of the conversation between President Trump and President Zelensky.” Schiff did tell the American people, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when his staff actually coached the “whistleblower” before he or she approached the inspector general.

And why are Democrats shutting out Republicans from the process?

2020 Democrats Stress the Need for Impeachment Fairness

Listening to the Democratic presidential primary debate last week, I heard something that made my ears prick up. The criticisms of the fairness of the impeachment inquiry have begun to resonate. The evidence: Some of the candidates and their fawning CNN enablers felt compelled at least to pay lip service to the importance of a fair process. I had to review the transcript to confirm that my ears were not playing tricks on me.

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked candidate Cory Booker, “Sen. Booker, you have said that President Trump’s, quote, ‘moral vandalism’ disqualifies him from being president. Can you be fair in an impeachment trial?”

Booker responded, “So, first of all, we must be fair. We are talking about ongoing proceedings to remove a sitting president for office. This has got to be about patriotism and not partisanship. Look, I share the same sense of urgency of everybody on this stage. I understand the outrage that we all feel. But we have to conduct this process in a way that is honorable, that brings our country together, doesn’t rip us apart.”

Another 2020 presidential contender, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, said, “If impeachment is driven by these hyperpartisan interests, it will only further divide an already terribly divided country. Unfortunately, this is what we’re already seen play out as calls for impeachment really began shortly after Trump won his election.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders added, “Mitch McConnell has got to do the right thing and allow a free and fair trial in the Senate.”

Cooper challenged Sen. Kamala Harris’ apparent pre-judgment of any potential trial of Trump, saying, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that members of Congress have to be, in her words, fair to the president and give him a chance to exonerate himself. You’ve already said that based on everything you’ve seen, you would vote to remove him from office. Is that being fair to the president?” Harris must not have received the memo, because her answer dismissed any possibility of voting to acquit the yet-uncharged president.

Schiff’s Tactics Have No Defenders

Indeed, my survey of articles from left-leaning writers revealed no defense of the Schiff process. Nobody and I mean nobody, seems willing to argue in favor of Schiff’s nakedly political process. The best the authors can muster is a half-hearted mumbling about fairness not being required.

Writing for Reuters, Jan Wolfe recently tackled the question, “Does the impeachment probe violate Trump’s civil rights?” Her short answer is “no,” but the way Schiff is running roughshod over the opposition is undermining the process. She notes, “Legal experts say because impeachment is a political, and not legal, process, the House has broad authority to set the ground rules for an inquiry. Allowing Trump’s lawyers to participate anyway could build public support and make it appear more fair, however, they said.”

Wolfe noted that “the House allowed Nixon’s defense lawyers to respond to evidence and testimony during his impeachment inquiry,” and that “Clinton was afforded similar protections.” She further acknowledged that both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries began with a full House vote.

The normally left-leaning Keith E. Whittington posted to the lawfareblog.com a prescient article in 2017 warning that “An Impeachment Should not be a Partisan Affair.” He warned Democrats, “Despite the difficulty, some measure of bipartisanship should be the goal before the impeachment option is taken seriously. In our current circumstances, that means Democrats should be cautious about moving forward with impeachment efforts without winning some support from Republican lawmakers.”

This Impeachment Effort Is Glaringly Partisan

The post Democrats Are Embarrassed By Schiff’s Impeachment Tactics, And They Should Be first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.